India, as the object of Islamic conquest, endured, over the centuries of Muslim rule and misrule, tens of millions of Hindu victims. India is a country that, at its Independence, was forced to give up large chunks of its territory on both sides to form West Pakistan (now Pakistan) and East Pakistan (now Bangladesh), in order to accommodate Muslim demands. In Pakistan, at Partition, 15% of the population was Hindu; it is now 1.5%. In Bangladesh, at Partition, 34% of the population was non-Muslim (Hindu and Buddhist); it is now 7%. Meanwhile, in India, the Muslim percentage of the population steadily rises.
In the Pakistan-held parts of Jammu and Kashmir, 400,000 Hindu Pandits have, by Muslim pressure, been driven out. In Indian-held Kashmir, terrorist attacks by Muslims, supported by Pakistani groups unchecked by, and at times supported by, the Pakistani army, have attempted to murder and terrorize the Hindus and drive them out. In India proper (a dangerous phrase, I admit, and I regret it, for it inadvertently concedes that Indian-held Kashmir somehow is different from "India proper" -- the same problem one has in referring to what is called the "West Bank" -- but cannot at the moment think of anything better than "India extra Kashmirem" on the old-map model of "India extra Gangem") there have been attacks, never or seldom reported in the West, for decades, of Muslims on Hindus. But every counter-attack by Hindus pushed to the limits of their endurance is given front-page coverage. We all know about the Hindu attacks on the mosque deliberately erected on the Hindu temple at Ayodha. We all know about the Hindu attacks on Muslims in Gujarat -- why, the State Department banned Narendra Modi, who ran the Gujarat government, from entering the United States.
But the provocations that prompted those attacks, the burning to death of Hindu pilgrims, is quickly glossed over in a sentence And all the other Muslim attacks, steadily, all over India -- those repeated bombs in Mumbai, killing bankers and tea-wallahs alike, set off by the Muslims who run the Bombay underworld (the head gangster sought, and found safe haven, in Pakistan), and even the attack by Muslims on the Parliament building in New Delhi --somehow none of them ever quite make any impression on the non-Indian world. That world remains so deeply uninterested in what is endured by Indians, and unsympathetic (but why?) to Hindus -- not quite to the same remarkable extent as the world has shown itself willing to accept the unendurable position that the Lesser Jihad has forced Israel into, but close.
And now here is Taslima Nasreen, born into Islam in Bangladesh, but whose intellect and moral sense and ability to question and think for herself led, inexorably, to an analysis of Islam, and a subsequent jettisoning of Islam, not unlike that of Ibn Warraq, Wafa Sultan, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, and Ali Sina. The Community of Apostates turns out to be, for those who study their works, the community of the very best people, self-selected, of all those born into Islam. She dares to return to Bangladesh. She is harried. She is hunted. The death threats never stop. So she moves to India, powerful large India, with a population that is 87% non-Muslim. And even there what happens? She is confined to quarters. She meets no one. No one meets her. She is, in effect, a prisoner. She has been condemned to prison, instead of being given the protection of the state that will allow her to move around, to meet, to address gatherings, to publish her views in every sense.
She should be made much of. Instead, a fearful Indian government has condemned her to solitary confinement. How long can she endure such a life in India? How long will it be before she has to flee to the United States, the way Ayaan Hirsi Ali did, driven out by death threats from the country where she had been a member of that country's Parliament?
There is something wrong here. There is something that could be fixed. It requires a different attitude by the Indian government, and by all the Infidel governments. They can run, but they can't hide.
It is stunning that governments, the primary purpose of which is to provide for the defense the governed, whether in India, Europe, or the US refuse to acknowledge the openly stated goals of Islam. From the inception of Islam, Islamic entities, when able, have repeatedly repressed and subjugated non-Islamic peoples.
Why do Europe and US ignore the record? I suggest the basis is guilt for the imperialist past of Europe and its offshoot the USA. In 21st century Western morality, it is a crime even to harbor racist thoughts. Freedom of religious expression (at least non-Judeo/Christian) is sacrosanct, again probably based on guilt and a desire for atonement for our ancestors' criminal, by current conventions, conduct. Islamists are loosely identified, albeit inaccurately, as a race, "Middle Eastern." Islam is almost universally considered to be a religion. So potential enemies receive double protection based on Western 17th Century Enlightenment principals and concepts and their evolution in modern political attitudes.
Is there hope? The Bush Administration failed the test. Nixon went to China. Would a President Barack Obama confront Islam?
Hugh-
The more I read Indian history, the more I wonder how Muslims (Arabs-Persians) are not held accountable for the destruction of the indigenous Hindu culture there. Those Muslim invasions have created a sectarian Ireland with nukes. The whole of greater India would be better off if it were all Hindu. It is true that there are some aspects of Hinduism (caste system, e.g.) that are no great shakes, but it's better than the Dhimmi-bash system of Islam and the mass murder machine the Muslims brought to India.
Further, it is appalling that descendants of people who were victims of the Muslim murder machine should pakistan-up their indigenous culture, use Arab names for their children, and bow to the Gas Station of their oppressors. It would be as if Jewish people became Nazis and bowed to a Swastika. It's amazing.
And while we are on the subject: why aren't Muslims getting out of Kosovo? It is the Serbian peoples' indigenous homeland. The same for Turkey. When are they getting out of Constantinople?
Almost every other culture has become very critical and self-critical of these ideological imperial-isms (usually under the guise of "religion") that are a cover for the destruction of indigenous cultures (Spain in the New World, Japanese "Hakko Ichiu" in Asia, Nazis plundering Russia, etc.) But Muslims (particularly Arabs) accept no responsibility for their crimes in history.
Give me Brit style commercial imperialism any day over this "religious" or ideological based rationalization for empire-imperialism. Commercial imperialism usually(but not always) respects indigenous cultures since commercial imperialism is usually tolerant of anything that does not interfere with commerce.
Or is the State Department belief in democracy restricted to just Islamic hellholes? Or worse, does the State Department only act when congressmen from Dearbornistan lobby for such exclusions?
Not that Modi needs any visa - his would-be, or rather would-not-be hosts here - use video-conferences whenever they need him.
Frank, don't forget the Turks also
What percentage of India's population is Muslim? How much has that increased and how much more will it in the future?
Frank
Silvester is right - the Turks did the greatest damage to India, followed by the Afghans: what the Arabs and Farsis did was squat by comparison. The Turks were the ones who ran the Sultanate of Delhi, as well as the Moghul empire, and the biggest damage the Afghans did was under Mahmoud of Ghazni. The Arabs did briefly conquer Sindh, while the Farsis did provide the intellectual backbone to Muslim rulers. However, nobody did more damage to India than the Turks.
I-pride, Sylvester-
Thanks for the heads-up re Turks. (I'm learning re this.) In any case, Muslims are are as criminal as Pizarro in Peru or the Nazis in Russia in their attack on the indigenous Hindu culture of India. Almost every other culture has become very critical-self-critical re the destruction of indigenous cultures-peoples-except Muslims. What they did in India is comparable to the Nazis in Russia. Where is their apology for this? This whole place would be better off if these Muslim pigs had never shown up in India. They were monsters. These Muslims were Pizarro style pigs in overdrive.
http://www.voiceofdharma.com/books/siii/ch6.htm
Re: THE MAGNITUDE OF MUSLIM ATROCITIES - I
Most other cultures in the world have become very self-critical re this kind kind of pig activity in the name of God. But Muslims remain unapologetic pigs in these matters. Muslims have bad Karma. Pay-back is coming to Muslims for these unpolarized for crimes comitted in the name of Islam.
Re the Muslims (note above) it should read: Pay-back is coming to Muslims for these un-apologized for crimes comitted in the name of Islam. Pay-back is indeed coming to Muslims for these un-apologized for crimes.
The obvious difference between the commercial imperial systems and those based on "religion"-ideology is stark. Nazism, Islam, Spain in the New World, all the imperial-isms based on "religion"-ideology are plunder-murder imperialism-empires. Islam is one of the plunder-murder-exploitation-domination rationalizations for imperialism-empire. The commercial empires (Brits, e.g.-even the Dutch) are generally (but not always) respectful of indigenous cultures. Islam is lethal to indigenous cultures. Muslims should be required to pay reparations to all of India (including the Paks and the people in Bangladesh) for the nightmare they have brought to the region.
Most other cultures have become self-critical re this. But not the Muslim pigs. They remain unapologetic.
The muslim percentage in residual India was 13.4% in 1941, reduced to 10.4% by the sikh counter-attack in 1947, it is 13.4% in the 2001 census
In the 0-6 age group which will reflect in the overall population in 30 years, muslims are 16%
Dempographers expect muslims to eventually stabilise in residual India at 18% by 2061 and 38% in south asia by 2061
The fertility of muslim women is 3.1 vs 2.7 for hindus
The islamic womb is more powerful than the islamic sword
Muslim % in south asia ,
1800 = 15%
1900 = 20%
2000 = 30%
2060 = 38%
Westerners - especially those speaking on this forum like to wipe themselves clean or past and current traces of 'bad behaviour'. They will try to excuse their past behaviour of genocidal activites (Australia, New World and sub-Saharan Africa) by focusing exclusively on the maniacs of Jihadism.
True, Jihadism is a major threat to much of Asia, northern Africa and parts of Europe, but not to the scale of the so-called commercial imperialists who have screwed up so many societies and cultures over the centuries. Just because your skin is white(pale) and you write with latin script doesnt give you the right to say what you wish and expect no one to notice your past and current agendas.
You westerners are masters of words, cunning, deceipt, cover-ups and manipulation. That is how you managaed to rule and screw much of the world. I used to value westerners for their development and great achievements. But all this seemed to be a smoke screen for their nefarious designs for world domination and cultural annihilation.
You have made yourselves good to the public by you domination of the media and language. Commerce and technology is also your domain. Therefore leaving no room for other forms of cultural expression.
In India the western language 'English' is the language of elites and those who tend to be hostile to Hindu Dharma. The English press is negative toward Hindus and indegenous expressions. It is the tool of western commercial imperialists. The same tool that has attempted to wipe out all forms of cultural diversity.
I understand this forum is about slandering Islam, Muslims, Arabic and the like, but I thought that if you so-called westerners are tolerant enought at least this post should be read with equal interest.
I used to be quite sympathetic to western causes but as more news and events unfold it is starting to make sense. You guys are all about domination by hook and by crook. The sad thing is you will attempt to eliminate your opposition by under-cover means and present yourselves in the media as the good guys.
There is a Hindi saying about your types -
'Mukh mein Ram Ram, Baghal mein Churi'
-in short trojan horses of goodwill.
Peace'
(something westerners 'like' promoting)
RH C
You're seriously suggesting that 'White Westerners' go around swearing in the name of Rama?
In other words, despite RC de Fidji's claims to the contrary, he is as hostile to Hindu causes as the Mohammedans are. Why else would he try to undermine any potential support that might accrue to Hindus from other non-Muslims, even if they are Christians?
One more thing, RC
True statements about Islam, or Muslims, isn't slander, even if it shows them in negative light. Like stating that Quran 9:5 authorizes the extermination of pagans (such as Hindus), or that Muslims slaughtered millions of Hindus during the time they ruled India, is simply stating uncomfortable facts about the people you like to grovel towards.
Also, if the English press in India is hostile to Hindu causes, that's because they are in bed with dhimmi parties in India, not because of any influence Westerners have over Indian opinion, which has never been much to begin with.
There was a bizarre column on the San Francisco Chronicle's Op-Ed page yesterday. The article was titled, "To stabalize Pakistan, U.S. needs to rethink India policy", by a Kaveh L. Afrasiabi, a professor of International Relations at Bentley College.
Not surprisingly, Mr. Afraiabi never mentions Islam as a motivating factor in Pakistan. He writes as if conflict with India, disputes over Kashmir and Jammu, and uprisings in the tribal area bordering Afghanistan--of hard-line Islamists and Taliban supporters--are nothing more than local political crises.
He also seems somewhat incredulous that the US has been leery over Pakistan's growing ties with Iran--describing it mearly as "regional players weary of the "American agenda"."
He opines that "hectoring Pakistan's civil-military elite about democracy has clearly bacfired"--and even hints that US pressure for democracy may have led to Bhutto's murder, although he stops just short of explicitly saying so.
He notes that Bhutto never criticized US policy that seemed to elevate India in the region".
He says that the US needs to "rethink its policy toward Pakistan". What would this entail? "The United States needs to seriously consider recasting its India policy in favor of a more balanced approach".
In other words, the US should largely abandon India, the world's largest democracy, with its generally improving political and economic landscape, in favor of a crumbling, violent, authoritarian, and increasingly Islamic Pakistan
This sounds a lot like another US policy in the Middle East, where the US endlessy excuses the most horrendous injustices and violence in the Muslim Levant, while focusing its criticisms on Israel.
Let's hope that this columnist's recommendations are soundly ignored.
Wow... note how quickly and angrily RC tries to play up the "just because your skin is pale" angle.
Nice try, RC; but just like the "white versus Asian" mollycoddling of the UK press, intelligent people everywhere will see right through it.
Islam Versus The World has NOTHING to do with race, or skin color. It has to do with the Islamic imperative to conquer the entire earth, and subdue ALL of the people of the earth, just as Mohammed ordered. "The Race Card" is played where it has no import by fools and apologists, as some kind of Straw Man fallacy of Logic. Muslim liars LOVE IT, so keep trying. I know that when the truth isn't on your side, one must resort to lies, distortions, cherry-picking data, ignoring inconvenient facts, and fallacy.
That's why influential sons of Africa like Louis Farrahkan, Desmond Tutu, and Nelson Mandela whine on and on ad nauseum about Israel and "palestine" yet care not one whit about the murder of MILLIONS of black, native Africans in Sudan... and I don't mean hundreds of years ago, I mean since 1983.
And by the way, RC... if you really care for the Hindu Dharma, you'll thank the "Christian Fanatics" that started the Crusades 900 years ago. If they hadn't, Hinduism would have gone the way of the Buddhist and Greco-Buddhist cultures of what are now the Muslim hellholes of Pakistan and Afghanistan. (Ie. the diversion of Muslim troops back east to Jerusalem prevented them from pushing deeper into Asia.)
In fact, even considering that, Hindus are DAMN LUCKY that England showed up when they did, otherwise the Muslims may likely have run them over/out/through anyway.
The more I read your little rant, the more stupid you become. You dared to write Commerce and technology is also your domain. Therefore leaving no room for other forms of cultural expression.
Wow, that's rich. So there's not been much cultural expression from the Evil West? Have you ever heard of Jazz? How about Classical music? Do the names Bach, Vivaldi, Mozart, Wagner, Brahams, Holst, Paginnini, Stravisky, Copeland, and Zappa ring any bells? How about Miles Davis, John McLaughlin, Mahalia Jackson, Jaco Pastorius, Charlie Parker, George Gershwin, Liberace, Lennon-McCartney, Paul Simon, Peter Gabriel, Pink Floyd?
No cultural expression? No cultural expression? Please name for me the "oriental" (as Edward Said would frame it) version of Albert Schweitzer, Abraham Lincoln, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, Robspierre, Martin Luther, Martin Luther King, Rosa Parks, Mother Theresa, Desmond Morris, Sigmund Frued, Dr. Kinsey, Dr. Ruth, Dr. Jarvis, Jonas Salk, Louis Pasteur, Isaac Newton, John Paul Sartre, Des Cartes, Voltaire, Wittgenstein, Boole, Einstein, Hawking, Feynmann.
No cultural expression save for commerce and technology? Where is the "oriental" version of Oxfam, Medicines Sans Frontiers, The Red Cross, The United Way, The Peace Corps, SPCA, Green Peace, SPLC, PeTA, NOW, LAMBDA?
Whither the Muslim counterparts of Salvador Dali, Magritte, Picasso, Hemmingway, McCullers, O'Connor, Mailer, O'Neill, Maplethorpe, Liebowitz, Whitman, Thoreau, Kerouac, Elliot, Shelley, Melville?
Where are they? What has been invented in "The East" by "Non-Pale-Skin People" in the past 5 years, 50 years, 500 years? Which diseases have been cured? What great advances in medicine made? What? Where? By whom?
It is painfully obvious to me and anyone else without an agenda similar to yours that you just say (or type) whatever "sounds good" and let The Truth be damned. Things like "just because you have pale skin..." and "there is no room for cultural expression for you...." Pathetic.
The simple facts, contrary to your little shpeil, show that wherever Islam has gone, technology, expression, and freedom disappear. The opposite is true of wherever "The West" (a.k.a. capitalism, imperialism, Christianity, or what-have-you) has gone. Granted, it hasn't always been that way, BUT IT IS NOW.
Islam has been thoroughly entrenched in Persia (Iran) for 1,000 years now. Would you, or anyone for that matter, REALLY prefer to live there than Australia? Would (even a d-d-d-dark-skinned person like) you prefer to live in Afghanistan or New Zealand? Niger or Canada? Sudan or France? Saudi Arabia or Scotland?
(BTW, you need not answer... the answer can be found at any American embassy in the world. People are clamouring to relocate to "The West" (Australia and New Zealand notwithstanding) at embassies all over the world.)
Islam WORKED as long as there were new people to take over, new temples to pillage, new stocks of slaves to send back to Bagdhad etc. But once they stop expanding, the whole outhouse goes up in flames. ONLY the discovery of oil in the arabian peninsula has bucked this trend.
To kj
Wow, I really admire your strength in rebuttal.
So rich in vocabulary and talent.
Keep it up.
Did I show any support for Jihadism in the post?
BTW Christian fanatics are wrecking havoc in northeast India.
To infidel Pride
You dont even know me and yet you claim I am hostile to Hindu Dharma.
That is classic example of pure genius.
RC
I don't need to know you - one can usually make one out from one's postings, as well as tone. Your usage of a Hindi proverb slamming people who swear by Rama let the cat out of the bag.
I don't condone missionary activity in India, but that's just on the grounds that such activity never targets Muslims. But from your post above, you obviously think that the West (throw in your anti-White racism into it for completion) is a greater threat to, say, countries like India than Islamic supremacy. Yet, containing missionaries is simple - just pass laws making such activities illegal (I believe it's been done in Rajasthan), and you won't see Christian missionaries trying to flout the law. As for Western commercial, technological and media domination, whoever asked Indian intelligencia to follow their lead?
Otoh, no number of laws are going to deter these Mohammedan vermin from continuing their depredations not only in Kashmir, but also places like Lucknow, Varanasi, Ayodhya, et al.
So which is the greater threat?
Hugh:
Hindus-Buddhists in India had experienced tens of thousands of 9/11s, since the Sindh genocides in 712. It's estimated that over 100 million Hindus-Buddhists perished since that fatal date, cumulatively, over the last 13 centuries. This goes on to this day.
Why?
Because India's so-called "freedom" fighers (Gandhi & Nehru and their political party, The CIndsian National Congress) caved into to the Muslim terrorist demands for a separate homeland during the "freedom" struggle. The Muslim leader MA Jinnah colluded with the British and blackmailed the meek Hindu leaders-thus amputating India and stealing nearly 40% of their land. While most Hindus-Buddhists in Pakistan and Bangla Desh were either killed, converted or forced to flee, the Muslim population in India has been growing at twice the Hindu rate since Muslims do not believe in birth control. In fact, Saudi Arabia spends hundreds of millions of dollars, every year, subsidizing big Muslim families in Kashmir and other parts of India.
The "secular" Congress has colluded with the Communists and the Muslims for power and profit for the last 5+ decades. The Congress party is addicted to power and unprecedented corruption since 1947 and is willing to turn India into "The Islamic Republic of India", within a few decades
It may seem ironic or bizarre to some posters, or just plain common sense to others, that the British Empire took a pro-Muslim stance somewhere in the first half of the 20th century. This showed up in India, in favoritism for the Ottoman Empire and then Turkish nationalism in today's Turkey --against Armenians & Greeks, favoritism for Arabs rather than Jews in Israel, favoritism for Muslims/Arabs/Arabized blacks/ in the Sudan against the native tribal, non-Muslim Blacks, and later, in the 1990s, for Bosnian and Kossovo Muslims against Serbs, and for the Chechnyan Muslims against Russia [which is not to necessarily endorse Russia's methods against the Chechnyan rebels].
While the Indian nationalists wanted a united India [ie, including "Pakistan," a country never before existing], the British played up to Jinnah and Liaquat Ali Khan and al-Mashriqi who longed for a separate Muslim state for the Muslim Indians, since in a democratic India, the Muslims would have been outvoted. Yet, in hindsight, the British may have done India a favor --without intending to-- by setting up a separate Muslim "Pakistan." One big India --with a larger Muslim minority, maybe 1/3-- would have been plagued by constant Muslim demands for this and that and all sorts of other privileges, and constant Muslim disruption and terrorism, much worse than what is now going on. If the Muslims are not reeducated --forcefully, if need be-- then their numbers have to be reduced, perhaps by separation into a separate state, as was done in India [which now has two separate Muslim states carved out of it]. In the long run, the Muslims have to be reeducated, and their jihad inclinations have to be suppressed whenever and wherever they appear. The Arabs have to be "de-arabized" by being taught respect for the rights of others, which most of them do not now have.