Delhi Jihad

sep 13th, 2008

thoughts from a friend; and gandhi's reactions to prior mohammedan barbarity. he believed mohammedans had the right to do whatever they wanted. thus sowing the seeds for the official religion of the kkkangress, ie pseudo-secularism, aka anti-hinduism

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Radha
To:

The most horrifying reactions to the jihadi attack in Delhi came from LK Advani touted as the future Prime Minister of the country and the Home Minister - both cabinet and MoS. Advani as usual waved his hands and narrated to the captive audience assembled in Bengaluru about the 'sad news' he heard as he was leaving for the venue. "Do you all know what has happened in Delhi"? He asked. Mercifully, we were not given to listening more in the same vein from him.

 

But Shivraj Patil more than made up for Advani may or may not have said  -

I am very sad for the tragic event

This has been done to create difficulties for us.

We must all stand together and defeat the nefarious designs of the perpetrators.

The perpetrators (not jihadis, not terrorists) will be punished stringently.

 

Both Advani and Shivraj Patil are in line to compete for the George W Bush award for tripe (remember Bush's immortal, "Al qaeda is bad, al qaeda hates us'?)

 

Arun Jaitley wanted to say something very very nasty it is obvious but held himself back. The saving grace was that his barely repressed anger was perceptible.

 

The most to-the-point remarks, as usual, came from Narendra Modi -

I met the PM, HM and 'shriman narayan' (I wldnt pit it past Modi for the biting pun) and told them we need empowering laws in the states, the government is playing hookey while the terrorists are targetting defenceless citizens.

 

He was getting to how he had warned the Central Government that after the Gujarat police cracked the ahmedabad jihadi attack, they ahd news that delhi was the next target but as usual, the media did not allow Modi to say that. They didnt want us to hear from Modi's mouth that he had warned the government that delhi was next.

 

Now for the media -

 

the first remark was - the gujarat police took credit for cracking the case, but that there are loopholes in the claim is now obvious,. they could not avert the attack in delhi.

 

(Now how is that supposed to reflect on the gujarat police. This was taking downright cheap and petty-minded swipe at Modi, as ususal with no pretence at truth)

 

The idiot who reported on Kashmir jihadis on the street yesterday, i am quite sure it is a kashmiri muslim, declared that the police is resorting to violence at the drop of a hat.

 

The police dragged the child for detention. (Note the words. 'Dragged, detention)

 

If these channels are going to inflict these people on us, they had better equip themselves with a good vocabulary, use the right words.

 

Sonia Gandhi has called it dastardly, cowardly (Third person in line for the George W Bush award)

 

David Mulford has said something. These channels havent told us yet what the janitor in the US State dept has said.

 

One channel actually said in the first few minutes "this is not a terror attack". Of course not, the jihadis are laughing their way to islamic paradise. Who said this was terror? RR

 

We are paying this price because of this legacy -

 

Vivisection of the Hindu bhumi became inevitable because of Gandhi's persistent obduracy in misreading the Muslim psyche and his refusal to organize the nation to resist vivisection by all and every means. Even at the height of jihad in Bengal after August 1946, Gandhi maintained that Islam meant only peace and that all heinous acts perpetrated against the Hindus in the name of jihad was a disgrace to the noble religion of Islam. Like in 1946, in 1922 too, after the Moplah jihad, Gandhi exculpated Islam on the ground that some Muslims had condemned the barbarity of the attacks against Hindus. To add insult to grievous injury, Gandhi with towering arrogance believed that his very gesture of writing about the massacre in Young India, must be as salve for the Malabar Hindu victims. For the rest, Gandhi's exposition has the usual suggestio falsi arguments descending to reductio ad absurdum.

 

Though the letters on the Moplah trouble and the Mussulman attitude by Messrs Keshav Menon and others have already appeared in the Press, contrary to my wont I publish the two communications for the importance that attaches to them. Possibly the fact of their publication in the pages of Young India will be some balm for the wounds that the Moplah madness has inflicted on the Hindu heart. The writers were entitled to give vent to their pent up feelings. Maulana Hasrat Mohani is one of our most courageous men. He is strong and unbending. He is frank to a fault. In his insensate hatred of the English Government and possibly even of Englishmen in general, he has seen nothing wrong in anything that the Moplahs have done. Everything is fair in love and war with the Maulana. He has made up his mind that the Moplahs have fought for their religion. And that fact (in his estimation) practically absolves the Moplahs from all blame. That is no doubt a travesty of religion and morality. But to do irreligion for the sake of religion is the religious creed of Maulana Hasrat Mohani. I know it has no warrant in Islam. I have talked to several learned Mussulmans. They do not defend Hasrat Mohani's attitude. I advise my Malabar friends not to mind the Maulana. In spite of his amazingly crude views about religion, there is no greater nationalist or a greater lover of Hindu-Muslim unity than the Maulana. His heart is sound and superior to his intellect, which, in my humble opinion, has suffered aberration. The Malabar friends are wrong in thinking that the Mussulmans in general have not condemned or have in any way approved of the various crimes committed by the Moplahs. Islam protects, even in war, women, children and old men from molestation. Islam does not justify jehad except under well-defined conditions. So far as I know the law of Islam, the Moplahs could not, on their own initiative, declare jehad. Maulana Abdul Bari has certainly condemned the Moplah excesses.

 

But what though the Mussulmans did not condemn them? Hindu-Muslim friendship is not a bargain. The very word friendship excludes any such idea. If we have acquired the national habit, the Moplah is every whit a countryman as a Hindu. Hindus may not attach greater weight to Moplah fanaticism than to Hindu fanaticism. If instead of the Moplahs, Hindus had violated Hindu homes in Malabar, against whom would the complaint be lodged? Hindus have to find out a remedy against such occurrences, as much as the Mussulmans. When a Hindu or a Mussulman does evil, it is evil done by an Indian to an Indian, and each one of us must personally share the blame and try to remove the evil. There is no other meaning to unity than this. Nationalism is nothing, if it is not at least this. Nationalism is greater than sectarianism. And in that sense we are Indians first and Hindus, Mussulmans, Parsis, Christians after. Whilst, therefore, we may regret Maulana Hasrat Mohani's attitude on the Moplah question, we must not blame the Mussulmans as a whole, nor must we blame the Maulana as a Mussulman. We should deplore the fact that one Indian does not see the obvious wrong that our other brethren have done. There is no unity, if we must continuously look at things communally. Critics may say, "All this is sheer nonsense, because it is so inconsistent with facts. It is visionary." But my contention is that we shall never achieve solidarity unless new facts are made (emphasis as in source) to suit the principle, instead of performing the impossible feat of changing the principle to suit existing facts. I see nothing impossible in Hindus, as Indians, trying to wean the Moplahs, as Indians, from their error. I see nothing impossible in asking the Hindus to develop courage and strength to die before accepting forced conversion. I was delighted to be told that there were Hindus who did prefer the Moplah hatchet to forced conversion. If these have died without anger or malice, they have died as truest Hindus because they were truest among Indians and men. And thus would these men have died even if their persecutors had been Hindus instead of Mussulmans. Hindu-Muslim unity will be a very cheap and tawdry affair, if it has to depend upon mere reciprocation. Is a husband's loyalty dependent upon the wife's, or may a wife be faithless because the husband is a rake? Marriage will be a sordid thing when the partners treat their conduct as a matter of exchange, pure and simple. Unity is like marriage. It is more necessary for a husband to draw closer to his wife when she is about to fall. Then is the time for a double outpouring of love. Even so is it more necessary for a Hindu to love the Moplah and the Mussulman more, when the latter is likely to injure him or has already injured him. Unity to be real must stand the severest strain without breaking. It must be an indissoluble tie. And I hold that what I have put before the country in the foregoing lines is a simple selfish idea. Does a Hindu love his religion and country more than himself? If he does, it follows that he must not quarrel with an ignorant Mussulman who neither knows country nor religion. The process is like that of the world-famed woman who professed to give up her child to her rival instead of dividing it with the latter—a performance that would have suited the latter admirably.

 

Let us assume (which is not the fact) that the Mussulmans really approve of all that the Moplahs have done. Is the compact, then, to be dissolved? And when it is dissolved, will the Hindus be any better off for the dissolution? Will they revenge themselves upon the Moplahs by getting foreign assistance to destroy them and their fellow Mussulmans, and be content to be for ever slaves? Non-co-operation is a universal doctrine, because it is as applicable to family relations as to any other. It is a process of evolving strength and self-reliance. Both the Hindus and Mussulmans must learn to stand alone and against the whole world, before they become really united. This unity is not to be between weak parties, but between men who are conscious of their strength. It will be an evil day for Mussulmans if, where they are in a minority, they have to depend for the observance of their religion upon Hindu goodwill and vice-versa. Non-co-operation is a process of self-realization. But this self-realization is impossible; if the strong become brutes and tread upon the weak. Then, they must be trodden under by the stronger. Hence, if Hindus and Mussulmans really wish to live as men of religion, they must develop strength from within. They must be both strong and humble. Hindus must find out the causes of Moplah fanaticism. They will find that they are not without blame. They have hitherto not cared for the Moplah. They have either treated him as a serf or dreaded him. They have not treated him as a friend and neighbour, to be reformed and respected. It is no use now becoming angry with the Moplahs or the Mussulmans in general. Whilst Hindus have a right to expect Mussulman aid and sympathy, the problem is essentially one of self-help, i.e., development of strength from within. It would be a sad day for Islam if the defence of the Khilafat was to depend upon Hindu help. Hindu help is at the disposal of the Mussulmans, because it is the duty of the Hindus, as neighbours, to give it. And whilst Mussulmans accept help so ungrudgingly given, their final reliance is and must be upon God. He is the never-failing and sole Help of the helpless. And so let it be with the Hindus of Malabar.[1]

 

Congress' anti-Hindu secularism and politics of minority-ism is rooted not in nehru but in gandhi. When will we set this coffin down? R

 

---

[1] Gandhi's exposition in Young India on the Moplah Massacre, Young India, 26-1-1922, CWMG Vol. 26 pp 24-27