Re: [IAC++] Anna Hazare is himself his own biggest enemy

Dear Navnith

I am caused to respond to your email, since you have hung your arguments on a personal attack on me which impugns my own religious beliefs.

Just to correct you.

1) I am proudly from that faith/religion, (Brahmanism) which provably introduced the UNITING word "Hindu" (or Hindoo) into the English language (India was then under English rule).

2) I am proudly from that faith, which completely denounced and exposed the attempts of Westerners (such as Max Muller) to pirate India's ancient religious scriptures and pass off distorted fabrications and outright fakes in the Western media. Institutes such as the Bhandarkar Institute keep up this culture/tradition in the face of intolerance.

3) I am from that faith which proudly declared and defended the superiority of Hinduism over all other existing religions.  That position was well defined by 1874 but  we now also say that what passes for Hinduism in the marketplace of religion is too perverted and corrupted to be called Hinduism any longer.

 
4) I am from that faith which provably defined the word and conception of  "Hindutva" in the first place and into the English language.

BTW all these things are in standard and reputed History books NOT written by the LEFTY Brigade.

5) As originally conceived in 1880s, the  Congress was a radical party. In fact my ancestor was incidentally the Convenor and Chairman of the Reception Committee of the 1893 Congress Session in Lahore when his initiate/protege Lala Lajpat Rai was made the Chairman of the session (and Dadabhai Naoroji the President)  on his motion.  And incidentally founded the National College Lahore from where Bhagat Singh studied.

6) When Lala Lajpat Rai was bludgeoned by police in1928, the Hindustan Republican Army finally took off into radical violence to rid our soil from imperial rule and carry on the religious work of  "Lal/Bal/Pal" to exterminate (ie "HIT") foreign pests. This we say is what got India true independence and not the ahimsa of the later Congress Party quislings.

As an 'upacharya' of my faith I can argue and debate you on any proposition concerning Hindutva and Hinduism and Nationalism and Patriotism till you are blue in the face.

But, as I am merely associated with this movement at invitation of the HRA, I shall keep my personal opinions to myself, so that this INDIAN, SECULAR, NON-SECTARIAN, NON-POLITICAL REVOLUTIONARY PEOPLE'S MOVEMENT - THE "IAC"  can go about ridding India of "corruption" by all means sanctioned by the Constitution of India and the Manifesto of the HRA.

Sarbajit

On Sun, Dec 16, 2012 at 12:29 PM, Navnith Krishnan <navkris@hotmail.com> wrote:

Thanks to Mr.Roy's incoherent and intemperate outbursts we have digressed from our main theme that is fight against corruption.How ever since the 'politically much abused" word secularism has been brought in,I would like to put in two words.

Compared to the principles of 'true path' and other concepts of 'intolerance of other faiths' practiced by semitic religeons,Hinduism is basically secular.So ingrained is this Hindu concept of secularism in our national culture that it did not even occur to the architects of our Constitution that they should specially mention it as one of its preambulary principles. It is only during the anti-democratic Emergency rule (1975–77) imposed by Indira Gandhi that secularism found a place in the Constitution through the route of amendment without any discussion in Parliament.(opposition leaders were in jail). As every one knows Indira Gandhi was not burdened by any priniciple either personally, ideologically or otherwise. Unfortunately those leaders who chartered our destiny after our independence had their owm version of secularism.Nehru's secularism was based on atheism where as her daughter's was based on vote bank and minorityism which her followers are following even today. it is being interpreted and practiced in terms that negate the essential cultural and civilisational personality of India. In the context of the Ayodhya movement, Lord Ram and Babur were sought to be equated in the name of secularism.

Medieval India was an Islamic empire where Muslims were rulers and Hindus the ruled. Never equals. It was the relation between a master and his slave, the predator and the prey. Hindus were disunited and timid to put up any real resistance. Many of them became collaborators for small favors. Yet the Congress appointed Press Council Chairman,Ex Justice Katju says Hindu-Muslim strife started after the arrival of the British. Whatever the so called 'patriotic' historians may write, 1857 rebellion was a revolt of the 'coolie army' of the East India Company against their masters. The rudderless rebels went to Delhi and tried to resurrect the descendents of the Hindu biter Aurangzeb and make a senile Bahdur Shah Zafar as India's Emperor. It was the British who saved Hindus from slavery and gave a level ground for them to develop their natural intellectual genius. If Turks, Afghans or Persians were ruling India, Mahatma Gandhi would not have survived even one day.Our Ex.Lordship's knowledge of Indian history requires brushing up.

If 1857 revolt was successful, India would have been another Middle east with squabbling and corrupt Sheikhs and their duffedars.

History is a sacred relic and any attempt to paint over it, is immoral to say the least. And that is what Nehru and Indira Gandhi were doing stuffing ICHR with characters like Romila Thapar,Irfan Habib,KN Panikkar and others.

navnith