Indian Muslim leader says, "Remove police for 15 minutes, we will finish off one billion Hindus"

You wrote: "This guy is the real natural ally of the west".

Good god, man, you're mad.

Because *this* westerner sure as hell doesn't see this evil thug as any kind of an ally.

And I'm sure I am not alone in my views; I think I speak for a great many others; indeed, for any westerner who has woken up to the meaning and menace of Islam. *None* of us see this evil creature as an ally. *None* of us dreams of mass-murder...whether of Hindus or of any other kind of non-Muslim.

To be frank, I wish that 'population exchange' at Partition in 1947 had been complete. I wish that every last Muslim had been driven out of India (including, especially, Kashmir the most beautiful), and that every last non-Muslim - Christian, Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, you-name-it - had had the sense to flee from 'Pakistan' (East *or* West) into India.

I wish it exactly as I wish that, in 1948, not one single Arab Muslim had remained inside what became the state of Israel, and that in 1967, Israel had evicted the waqf and taken down the muslim forts from off the Temple Mount and evicted all the Muslims out of Gaza and out of Judea and Samaria and declared the land taken in self-defence to be...Israeli land, end of.

Hello Sanjay, you may want to remember that what's done is done and that the past is in the past. Keeping old grudges alive and practicing reverse racism is the folly of fools.

And you should know that more and more of the "caucasian races" are others are coming to respect the virtues of hinduism and the other dharmic religions with each passing year as things evolve and knowledge accumulates. Islam is the common enemy of all non-Islamic religions and all non-Muslim peoples. Sharia law, the natural and inevitable outgrowth of Islamic theology holds nothing of good for non-Muslims. It especially holds nothing good for we apostates of Islam....

Peace my freind and best of luck to you in the New Year.

>>>>>

On another note....

20 Rules for Dhimmis

Among other evils, the vile Qur'an calls upon Muslims to "Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued." (009.029)

With zombie-like obedience, the Islamic scholars and khalifas followed murderous little Muhammad's every word and deed and elaborated upon the dictates of the Qur'an which are to be applied in jihad against those who do not accept Islam nor agree to pay the Jizya. The infidel males capable of bearing arms are to be massacred; the infidel women and children are to be enslaved; the movable properties of the infidels are to be plundered; their lands are to be expropriated; their places of worship are to be destroyed; their priests and monks are to be killed and their scriptures burnt.

Those who agree to pay Jizya are to be treated as dhimmis who are allowed to live and work for the Islamic state under the following 20 disabilities: (1) they are not to build any new places of worship; (2) they are not to repair any old places of worship which have been destroyed by the Muslims; (3) they are not to prevent Muslim travellers from staying in their places of worship; (4) they are to entertain for three days any Muslim who wants to stay in their homes, and for a longer period if the Muslim falls ill; (5) they are not to harbour any hostility towards the Islamic state, or give any aid and comfort to hostile elements; (6) they are not to prevent any one of them from getting converted to Islam; (7) they have to show respect towards every Muslim; (8) they have to allow Muslims to participate in their private meetings; (9) they are not to dress like Muslims; (10) they are not to name themselves with Muslim names; (11) they are not to ride on horses with saddle and bridle; (12) they are not to possess arms; (13) they are not to wear signet rings or seals on their fingers; (14) they are not to sell or drink liquor openly; (15) they are to wear a distinctive dress which shows their inferior status, and which separates them from the Muslims; (16) they are not to propagate their customs and usages amongst the Muslims; (17) they are not to build their houses in the neighbourhood of Muslims; (18) they are not to bring their dead near the graveyards of the Muslims; (19) they are not to observe their religious practices publicly, or mourn their dead loudly; and (20) they are not to buy Muslim slaves.

The “law” of Islam also prescribes death penalty for those who (1) question the exclusive claim of Islam as the only true religion, and of Muhammad as the last prophet; (2) try to revert to their ancestral faith after having been forced or lured to embrace Islam; and (3) marry Muslim women without first getting converted to Islam. Non-Muslims are also discriminated against in matters of testimony in law courts, taxation, and appointment to public offices. To sum up, the status of non-Muslims in an Islamic state is that of hewers of wood and drawers of water. They are subjected to every possible indignity and pressure in order to force them into the fold of Islam.

Sanjay said:

''This guy is the real natural ally of the west''

Why would you say such a thing ? I've noticed from your posts you clearly have a rabid hatred of Caucasians. Whether this has a personal basis or is simply racism of the heart, only you know.

I wouldn't dream of denying that Caucasians have done some vile things to non-Caucasians, however, we have apologised, and in many ways bent over backwards to make such reparation as we can. If that isn't enough for you, too bad, how sad.

If these mohammedans were the 'real, natural allies of the West', as you spuriously claim, why does Mr. Spencer draw attention to their vile supremacist statements in this blog ? Why does he consistently champion and defend Hindus, Sikhs, Chinese etc, as well as Western Caucasians, against mohammedans ?

You're way out of order, mate.

Sanjay, please go to a psychology site and take care of the major chip on your shoulder before posting here. I have no idea which Caucacian treated you badly or which hapless caucasian woman spurned you but let me tell you that you have a major issue. Please only contribute to the discussion and quit with your racist rants.

Honestly, it is really hard for some of us who have close caucasian friends or relatives by marriage etc. to accept this sort of blind bigotry.

I do think that when Sanjay refers to "Western allies" he means the Western leadership, which one has to admit is biased in favor of Islam, nothwithstanding the fact that the majority of Westerners are against it. One has to just look around to see this sad fact - our leaders support Islamic expansion or at least condone it and call Islam a 'religion of peace".

On another note, people of the Indian subcontinent are classified as 'Caucasians' too, especially the higher castes. The so called "White race" has the widest ranges of skin color amongst all the other races.

I bet you the guy was recently rejected by a white woman. I recognize the pattern I remember from my young days when ALL of the many Hindus I knew were absolutely obsessed with dating a white woman, especially English, and ALL who did not succeed believed that the reason for their setback is the racism inherent in the white race. They, very much like Mohammedans, could not face the possibility a woman could simply not find them uninteresting. I especially remember one Indian student deeply hurt by being spurned by a white girl and referring to her as a "racist bitch" - an epithet he had to shorten to "bitch" after the girl went out with a black American. The funny part is that the American had once overheard him remarking about the girl and beat the living crap out of the idiot while calling him racist pig!

About Kashmir. At the time of the partition the decision to join India or Pakistan was not left to the population of a state, but to the ruler. Had it been the other way round Kashmir, which was (and is) predominantly Moslem, would be in Pakistan now (and the conflict would have been considerably reduced)

Actually not.
In one of his recent ravings he in clear terms refers to the "white race" in its totality as a carrier of inborn racism and prejudice against the "darker people". The guy is too stupid to realize that such negative assumption about the morality of an entire race of people makes him a racist par excellence.

"In one of his recent ravings he in clear terms refers to the "white race" in its totality as a carrier of inborn racism and prejudice against the "darker people". The guy is too stupid to realize that such negative assumption about the morality of an entire race of people makes him a racist par excellence."

Sure -- him and like a billion racist Third Worlders, and about a few hundred million self-hating white Westerners.

"And you should know that more and more of the "caucasian races" and others are coming to respect the virtues of hinduism and the other dharmic religions with each passing year as things evolve and knowledge accumulates. "

SaleemSmith's observation has a quaintly anachronistic feel to it; he almost makes it sound like this change in attitude is only like ten years old or something. In fact, the West began in earnest to appreciate with a keen interest non-Western cultures (often by expending much time and money helping indigenous peoples in preserving their languages and arts in danger of falling into desuetude or worse) in the 19th century; and certainly by the mid-20th century -- given another boost with the 60s Counter-Cultural Revolution -- the interest in things Hindu and Buddhist (and Confucian and Taoist) deepened and broadened considerably throughout the West.

Good god, man, ever since the mid-20th century, thousands of bookstores, and thousands of college curriculums and academic studies, not to mention private and public museums of art, have cultivated an interest in the non-West -- Orient or otherwise.

It is, in fact, only the non-West (and, as always, par excellence the Muslims) who have not given much of a shit about their Other (i.e., Us) -- unless we prod them and give them lots of $$$$ and social infrastructure by which to give a shit (usually for reasons of self-interest).

Note: the "self-interest" I mentioned in my final sentence above refers to the Third Worlders narcissistically passive-aggressive inferiority-complex-in-denial.

I would say that PC has become the biggest export the West has managed to send out to the Third World. Naturally, as befits PC, our reward for this noble export is contempt.

"...had it not been for the British, India today would be one gigantic Islamic hellhole..."

Hindus hate to hear it. Or, rather, hate the truth of it. Telling it to an Indian brings out reaction similar to telling an American black that his emancipation was fought for and won by whites.

I dare say you're right, thomas; and to a limited extent (though perhaps a bit too much, it seems sometimes), some Jews who rather conflate German Nazism with a general anti-Western animus that lumps all Westerners -- even the many who spent their lives, money, time and materiel to fight Nazism & Fascism -- together as one big actual, or potential, ball of antisemitism.

I suppose every era of history was as chock-full of complexities, paradoxes, incoherencies and hypocrisies as is ours; so we may take slender cold comfort in that.

The way it's going thomas h, Britain too is on its way to becoming a rather largish Islamic hellhole, imposed by the successive British governments against the will of the people. Even my own dear old neighbourhood of Harrow is getting its own mega mosque, with the objections of the locals being met by the usual violent riots, which I think are on youtube.

I have been in any number of mixed race gatherings myself. I am not making a case that we should start misbehaving or even stop forming cordial relationships with whites.

We need to change, however, our habit of ignoring political behaviors. Whites many times condescend to us. At other times, they are downright racists. Hindus instinctively look the other way in the face of such insults.

What will you do, for instance, if a white person in front of you starts praising Churchill, unmindful that it is insulting to you? The same white man will be extra cautious talking about Nazis in front of a jew.

Some day, actually you might need a psychology lesson when whites bring home to you that deep down, they have never believed that you are deserving of equal rights and dignity as them. Perhaps you don't notice racist condescension to avoid the pain it might cause.

Sanjay

You are far more likely to need Chinmayanand's or someone else's teachings the day you finally pull up the courage to start looking realities in the eye.

You have assumed something and gone off on a tangent.

You have assumed that I seek 100% agreement on everything.

No. I don't think I do. I seek 100% agreement on CRITICAL matters.

And racism is a critical matter. It is not one of those human imperfections that should sometimes be ignored. In fact, if you are not willing to be harsh on racism (and racists, such as Churchill or his admirers), then you lose the moral authority to fight jihadism as well.

If you are an admirer of Churchill so much that you are willing to ignore his "flaws", that he considered us beastly people and thought nothing of causing millions of us to die of starvation by taking out our food in time of shortage, then you are no better in my eyes than the followers of Osama bin Laden.

We made this mistake once in history - we assumed those white skinned, red coated men coming to our shores in ships from far away lands were fundamentally decent people who could be our allies against Muslims.

The white skinned did not think so. They made full use of our goodwill to conquer our country and eventually de-humanized us thoroughly to a point where we had to literally crawl on the streets and they were in raptures that we could be degraded so much. To date, we do not see embarrassment but pride in them at what they did.

You only think you are not a supremacist. If you feel the way you expressed about Churchill, then you are no believer in equality of mankind. Sooner or later you will feel a kinship with Muslims too.

Churchill, who you claim was a hater of Islam, did! Muslims of the most violent, supremacist kind were his allies against Gandhi.

Sanjay

True ...

And sanjay was stirring up similar trouble a few days ago with this comment:

"As of now, it is a lone grim battle for India against the jihadi mindset of Muslim world on the one hand and subtle and cynical subversion by racist west on the other."

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2012/12/who-lost-egypt-egypts-sharia-constitution-becomes-law.html

Funny, he accuses others of being racist here, yet he was very liberal with it himself 3 days ago on that other thread. Methinks he has a double standard.

You wrote:

"And racism is a critical matter."

Yes, it is ...then why do you do it yourself? Don't think you do? Think again!

Hey maybe you should start your own blog where you can air your grievances about racism there. We're kinda tired of hearing you whine about how you've been mistreated by the white guy here. This is Jihad Watch, remember? Not a platform for you to boo-hoo about racism. Stick to the real enemy: islam and company.

I for one think that I am glad that the British ruled all of India and not the moguls. to me the muslims were and still are the worst racists of all.

The British came, they ruled and took whatever wealth was left after the muslims had taken most of it. But they left. The British never colonized India. The muslims on the other hand did colonize India, they stole the wealth, drove many Indians into poverty, they killed Buddhists and tore down Buddhist and Hindu temples. they took scores of female slaves to Arab markets. They considered Hindus to be scum and and deserved only to lick their shoes.

finally when it came time for independence from the UK they stole the western and eastern India for exclusive use of muslims. they called their new country "land of the pure" so as not to confuse with India " land of impure Hindus".
Now who are the bigger racists? obviously it's the muslims, also more specifically Arabs, Turks, Iranians, and so on. if you still think the whites are racists than why do millions of Indians flock to the western shores while they avoid the muslim hell holes? even though many are filthy rich. Those few who do end up as servants or laborers there, are lied to, mistreated, and looked upon as non humans.

I for one think that I am glad that the British ruled all of India and not the moguls. to me the muslims were and still are the worst racists of all.

The British came, they ruled and took whatever wealth was left after the muslims had taken most of it. But they left. The British never colonized India. The muslims on the other hand did colonize India, they stole the wealth, drove many Indians into poverty, they killed Buddhists and tore down Buddhist and Hindu temples. they took scores of female slaves to Arab markets. They considered Hindus to be scum and and deserved only to lick their shoes.

finally when it came time for independence from the UK they stole the western and eastern India for exclusive use of muslims. they called their new country "land of the pure" so as not to confuse with India " land of impure Hindus".
Now who are the bigger racists? obviously it's the muslims, also more specifically Arabs, Turks, Iranians, and so on. if you still think the whites are racists than why do millions of Indians flock to the western shores while they avoid the muslim hell holes? even though many are filthy rich. Those few who do end up as servants or laborers there, are lied to, mistreated, and looked upon as non humans.

You are right tiger, the muslims like this soor ka baccha, (pardon my Hindi), has forgotten that
If the Hindus will rise up against the muslims like in Gujrat, many muslims will die, innocent and guilty.

The muslims need to be reminded that the ramblings of Gandhi about pacificism and non violence,is not Hinduism. Hinduism is the god king Ram burning down Lanka,in a very revengeful act after rescuing his wife from the king of Lanka. Hinduism is god born as a man called Krishna who kills scores of evil beings, and makes one brother fight another brother for god.

You are tired of my posts? lol. Well, then the problem is simple. You can simply ignore them. Whenever you see my name here, just scroll down to next post. Simple thing to do, isn't it?

I will continue to post here. It is a private website and the website owner, if he feels my comments are not suitable is welcome to ban me. In that case, it will be very interesting because I will have been banned by altmuslim as well as jihadwatch.

I have a purpose of posting here. I want anti-jihadi Hindus not to be starry eyed about West because on paper, the west is fighting Islam like us. I want them to know that when it comes to us Hindus, they have a very different attitude.

It may not be immediately apparent. Many think, based on apparent personal decency, that west means well. I used to commit the same mistake till some brought home to me that today too, the lives and dignities of colored people mean little to whites. But sooner or later they too will encounter racist behaviors and then perhaps they will remember what they read here.

As for the likes of you, hate me all you want, call me names all you want. I will continue to preach what I believe to be the truth. I regret it is paining you and at the moment, I can only repeat my advice - try ignoring me.

Dude,

I can only tell you that you need to re-look at history. I too was ready to sort of move on from whatever the British did till I started noticing racist behaviors in them (and Americans, and their other allies) in present times too.

Here is an example - they put articles in their magazines or on websites - "10 most horrendous terror attacks ever". The list would include the most ineffectual thing attempted against the western countries, but not the most horrific terror attack against India like Mumbai. I have seen this behavior not once but many times.

Recently, when Kasab was hanged, most of the western media refused to call him a terrorist or the Mumbai attack a terror attack. Kasab was merely a "gunman" for them. It got noticed in India and got commented on. Here is a link you might see:

http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2012-11-21/india/35257077_1_ajmal-kasab-omar-abdullah-pune-s-yerwada

I repeat, this is not an isolated instant caused by oversight. I have observed it for years. They consistently refuse to acknowledge a horror against us as a horror.

I can only suggest to you to start observing these things. You will see a consistent pattern in them. They will subtly denigrate Indians, they will condone racism (one lady did a little while back on this very page!) and they will come in the way when we try to act against jihadis.

Let us fully confront this reality. It will not be pleasant but I am sure if we all understand the problem, we will figure out solutions too.

Sanjay

I don't know why you think calling this terrorist a gunman indicates racisim. the news articles which mentions gunman also says he was an attacker or a terrorist or one of the ten terrorists.
gunman is often used simply because he was carrying a gun when he committed these terrorist acts, as opposed to a terrorist carrying a bomb, in which case he would be called a suicide bomber or just a bomber. gunman just make it more specific.

I suggest you reconsider your analysis. Most of the articles did not even use the words "terror" or "terrorist". I will send you links where the articles used language much different from that used when attacks were against western countries.

They used the word "gunman" not for purpose that you mentioned but to avoid calling him a terrorist.

Sanjay

"I by no means think that the extirpation of their adherents would be a good thing."

Who said anything about "extirpation" of Hindus? (Other than that fantasy-based ejaculation by Sanjay, which is irrelevant, because it obviously doesn't relate to any Jihad Watch regulars, which Kepha should know by now.)

It's this kind of irrational leap -- from some honestly discomfitting examination of certain problems of xenophobia and racism which non-Westerners cultivate and indulge far more than Westerners -- to some ridiculously putative desire for "extirpation", which is the bane of the modern West as it labors under the massive neurosis of PC MC, which, apparently, even insinuates its pleasant tendrils into the Counter-Jihad.

So, I thought I referenced Sanjay in my first line. And, much as I liked my sojourns in Asia, I'm not blind to things that are wrong in those countries and their cultures. But then again, I belong to a religion that understands how we are all sinners.

Really funny how people like you keep insisting that Hindus would all be Moslems if not for the British. The British did some good and a lot of bad; preventing conversions had nothing to do with them If you mean that India would have remained moghul if not for the British; look, the whole world was colonized, this is what happened due to the warlike nature and advancements of the Anglo Saxons. Remember that even after a few centuries of Moghul rule and torture, we were still Hindu!

India has seen an influx of news faiths from inside and outside over the millenia but 'Hinduism' or really the indigenous beliefs, have persisted. Look at Latin America, and why not, even Europe. The indigenous beliefs are totally estinguished due to the influx of Christianity. So please stop referring to the white man's burden bull; it is patently annoying and as offensive as Sanjay's racism.

You wrote:

"You are tired of my posts?"

No, specifically I am tired of you whining about RACISM especially when it has nothing to do with a particular topic/thread. And I never suggested that you stop posting here, but that you stop airing your grievances about RACISM every chance you get. Of course you can post here so you missed my point completely. Boy, you don't listen (or read) very well, do you?

Starting your own blog would allow a platform for you to air your grievances about racism to your hearts content and not bug us about it here since it has nothing to do with THIS forum. Remember, we are fighting for freedom against islam and company. Yea this is not the-white-guy-who-done-you-wrong watch. Focus on the real enemy: islam & co.

As to the remainder of your reply to me, blah, blah, blah ...there you go again bitching about the white guy. Shut up already you sound so ridiculous.

You also wrote:

"As for the likes of you, hate me all you want, call me names all you want."

Oh for the love of pete, I don't hate you. And confronting you on your "double standard" is not name calling either. Hey I never called you any "names", so what in the sam hill are you talking about? No, really, what "name" did I call you? Prove it. You can't because I didn't. Hey is calling you a liar name calling or speaking the truth? Good grief man grow a pair. You have a double standard so deal with it ...you think others are racist yet you engage in it liberally. THAT iswhat's known as a double standard.

You wrote:

"I have a purpose of posting here. I want anti-jihadi Hindus not to be starry eyed about West because on paper, the west is fighting Islam like us. I want them to know that when it comes to us Hindus, they have a very different attitude."

Oh, so your purpose is to poison their minds? Hey it's one thing to present your position, but quite another to present your own facts. You are deliberately foisting a false point of view, and frankly, you ought to be ashamed of yourself. And I'm not the only one fed-up with your nonsense and lies. What, are you now going to suggest that several of us simply "ignore" your comments? Probably.

Give LemonLime's above comment directed at you a very careful read. He is spot on and he addresses your misconceptions about racism quite well.

~~~~~~~~~~~~

Bravo, LemonLime!

"Yes, You will find racist ignorants like "thomas h" in the west."

???

Am I a racist?

Because I call a person who rants about whites being a race of racists - racist?
He may be driven to madness by his hatred, but I wonder what excuse do you have for being an imbecile...

"Yes, You will find racist ignorants like "thomas h" in the west."

???

Am I a racist?

Because I call a person who rants about whites being a race of racists - racist?
He may be driven to madness by his hatred, but I wonder what excuse do you have for being an imbecile...

You wrote:

"Yes, You will find racist ignorants like "thomas h" in the west."

No he isn't! That is a bald-faced lie. I would hope that you would have the decency to apologize to him for that remark.

Strange how sanjay is clearly the racist here, and yet you single out thomas_h and lie about him, when you should be confronting sanjay. I find that very odd and telling of your overall character.

”Finally, one Thomas says that but for the British rule, India would have been an Islamic hole. This is the typical racism that I started noticing at some point and posting about it. ”

What exactly makes mentioning facts a “typical racism”?
Islamic hordes went thorough India like a knife through butter despite Indian vast numerical advantage and there was nothing to prevent the process of almost total Islamization until the arrival of the British. They stopped the moslems expansion over the whole subcontinent just as they stopped the hindu practice of sati – the live burning of widowed women.

“He does not know that the British did not take India from Muslims but from Hindus.”

Where in the world did you find in my comment anything about British taking India from moslems (or Hindus)? Again, all I said is agreeing with LemonLime that if not for the British India would be one of the moslems hellholes today.
In fact India as one country never existed before the arrival of the British. Rather the subcontinent was a heap of many constantly warring states inhabited by different peoples speaking multitude of different languages. It was the British Raj that united them for the first time in their history. And it was the British Raj, the British Railroad AND the English language that created the fundamentals on which the modern India (and Pakistan) was later built. Modern India was designed in London. And that fact makes so many Hindus embarrassed, offended and anti-British.

I went through comments you exchanged with Sanjay and nowhere did I see you calling him "names". He either lies, or is delusional. He certainly is hysterical.

"...the greatest problem we as freedom fighters often face revolves around muslims and their apologists twisting the TRUTH! ...don't compound the problem by not being truthful yourself. As freedom fighters we see enough of this BS from muslims and their apologists."

Very well put, Champ

"Stick to the facts jack."

He can't. He knows the "truth" and will not let facts interfere with it.
He would make a perfect muhammedan. Well, the hatred of the West and the "white race" may yet make him convert to Islam. I know of cases like that.

take care, dear friend.

thomas

“@Thomas h -Stop pretending as if you havent said anything hateful. Your remarks - "ALL" your Hindu friends wanting to date white women is totally irrelevant to this form;

I recall facts and fact can never be hateful per se. So how exactly did you detect hatred of Hindus in my recollection? And what would be the reason I would hate them. For being obsessed with dating a white woman?.Would YOU hate them for that? If so, then it is YOU who has a problem. But if not then what makes you sure that I must hate them?
As for my recollection being “totally irrelevant to this forum” please don’t be silly and kindly note that the thread was already derailed by the racist raving of Sanjay before my interjection. In my remark I am only trying to tentatively suggest an explanation for his anti-white nastiness. I of course could be wrong. But ”irrelevant”?
You want to see an example of something “totally irrelevant”? Here it is:
”You think Britishers saved India from turning into an islamic hellhole? so where are the britishers now that England is becoming an islamic hellhole?
It takes a certain level of intelligence to be able to produce such a splendid specimen of a “non sequitur”. Congratulations!

I wrote "non sequitur" in quotation marks. It, of course, should stand without them.

Anasuya,

I didn't mean to imply that the British were perfect; just that they and their policies were a lot better than the alternative of a protracted and hellish stalemate between Muslims and Hindus which, more or less, India had been reduced to ever since the Islamic invasions. This -- or a concerted Islamic jihad conquest -- would have been India's fate for the 20th and 21st centuries had the British never interfered.

Do you dispute the grave analysis of Richard Grenier, when he wrote (in 1983, in the context of exposing the propaganda of the 1982 film Gandhi):

"As soon as the oppressive British were gone, however, the Indians—gentle, tolerant people that they are—gave themselves over to an orgy of bloodletting. Trained troops did not pick off targets at a distance with Enfield rifles. Blood-crazed Hindus, or Muslims, ran through the streets with knives, beheading babies, stabbing women, old people. Interestingly, our movie shows none of this on camera (the oldest way of stacking the deck in Hollywood). All we see is the aged Gandhi, grieving, and of course fasting, at these terrible reports of riots. And, naturally, the film doesn’t whisper a clue as to the total number of dead, which might spoil the mood somehow. The fact is that we will never know how many Indians were murdered by other Indians during the country’s Independence Massacres, but almost all serious studies place the figure over a million, and some, such as Payne’s sources, go to 4 million..."

(For link, see Another sacred cow down the drain)

The only fault of the British in this regard was to fail to defang Islam in India once and for all, and to rather try to seek some kind of modus vivendi between the two; but a society that would unravel with such massacres at the very least proves that Hindus in fact can't (and never could) really handle their Muslim problem. At least India, with all the problems it may have, is now a modern polity, thanks to the British and the West at large; rather than the ongoing maelstrom (or worse) it would have been -- and was, prior to Colonialism.

"Yea this is not the-white-guy-who-done-you-wrong watch."

COL (Chuckle Out Loud). That title has a ring to it; Sanjay should get on that ASAP.

Happy New Year, Champ!

I somehow missed this part of your posting:

You arguement about Kashmir- that since it was a muslim majority land it should have succeeded to pakistan is foolish.

I never said ANYTHING about "should". But I'll say YOU should make an effort to read a comment before replying to it.

here is what I wrote:

"At the time of the partition the decision to join India or Pakistan was not left to the population of a state, but to the ruler. Had it been the other way round Kashmir, which was (and is) predominantly Moslem, would be in Pakistan now (and the conflict would have been considerably reduced)."

Now where did you detect here endorsement of any kind?
Is observing the obvious that moslems would have voted for living under a moslem rule a recommendation?
Do you doubt that this is what Kashmir moslems want? If not, then what is "foolish" about my observation? Do you have a better one to offer? Please do. And if you can’t that it is you who is being foolish here.

Or perhaps it is my "by-the-way" note that had the Kashmir been legally in Pakistan the whole issue of Kashmir would have never arisen that had triggered your weird response? Please explain.

“Apply the same logic to Israeli-palestinian conflict. Per your logic israel wouldnt exist as the land was inhabited predominantly by muslims prior to the jewish migration.

Now what “logic”are you talking about here? What “logical” action are you able to infer from my observation? And, assuming that you did, how could it possibly be applied to the situation in Palestine in 1947 which was so different from India? You analogy is simply absurd.

From the Guardian, about those very "kind" British murdering about 10 million Indians in 10 years...

[In War of Civilisations: India AD 1857, Amaresh Misra, a writer and historian based in Mumbai, argues that there was an "untold holocaust" which caused the deaths of almost 10 million people over 10 years beginning in 1857. Britain was then the world's superpower but, says Misra, came perilously close to losing its most prized possession: India.

Conventional histories have counted only 100,000 Indian soldiers who were slaughtered in savage reprisals, but none have tallied the number of rebels and civilians killed by British forces desperate to impose order, claims Misra.

The author says he was surprised to find that the "balance book of history" could not say how many Indians were killed in the aftermath of 1857. This is remarkable, he says, given that in an age of empires, nothing less than the fate of the world hung in the balance.

"It was a holocaust, one where millions disappeared. It was a necessary holocaust in the British view because they thought the only way to win was to destroy entire populations in towns and villages. It was simple and brutal. Indians who stood in their way were killed. But its scale has been kept a secret," Misra told the Guardian.

His calculations rest on three principal sources. Two are records pertaining to the number of religious resistance fighters killed - either Islamic mujahideen or Hindu warrior ascetics committed to driving out the British.

The third source involves British labour force records, which show a drop in manpower of between a fifth and a third across vast swaths of India, which as one British official records was "on account of the undisputed display of British power, necessary during those terrible and wretched days - millions of wretches seemed to have died."

There is a macabre undercurrent in much of the correspondence. In one incident Misra recounts how 2m letters lay unopened in government warehouses, which, according to civil servants, showed "the kind of vengeance our boys must have wreaked on the abject Hindoos and Mohammadens, who killed our women and children."]

Indian Muslim leader says, "Remove police for 15 minutes, we will finish off one billion Hindus"
.............................

**Horrifying**. This vile Mohammedan is calling for *genocide*.

Sanjay111 wrote:

This guy is the real natural ally of the west. Winston Churchill would have enlisted him against Gandhi without hesitation and maybe have taken the offer to remove police and army to wipe out a "beastly people with a beastly religion".
.............................

Do you really believe that white Westerners are ravening at the thought of wiping out Hindus? If so, base on what? You are just deep in paranoid territory here.

Meanwhile, Muslims regularly call for the oppression and murder of Hindus.

And more than talk—Muslims *are* kidnapping, forcibly converting, and murdering Hindus—but in your mind, this isn't much more of a problem than the (supposedly) condescending attitude of some white Westerners.

I'm a woman—this would be like my avowing that some men in the West belittling women's aptitude for the hard sciences is every bit as troublesome as FGM, child marriage, "Honor Killings", and stonings.

More:

How many of you are willing to be embarrassed and not proud of men like Churchill?
.............................

I'm proud of his having stood up up against Fascism—I'm not proud of all his views on race.

What about you? Do you believe that history would have been better served with no one to stand up against Nazi aggression and the Holocaust?

More:

Recently, when Kasab was hanged, most of the western media refused to call him a terrorist or the Mumbai attack a terror attack. Kasab was merely a "gunman" for them.
.............................

This *is* a problem—but not for the reasons you claim. The Western press regularly fails to mention Jihad—but not just in cases of Islamic terrorism in India, or other non-white countries. The Western press omits mention of Jihad most of the time, in cases of Jihad terror in the West every bit as much as elsewhere.

Your implication that the West talks openly about Jihad when it comes to the West, but not elsewhere, either means you are being deliberately meretricious or that you see things through such a filter all the time that you simply haven't noticed this glaringly obvious fact, or Robert Spencer's frequent comments on the phenomenon.

More, in reply to Dumbledore's Army:

You only think you are not a supremacist. If you feel the way you expressed about Churchill, then you are no believer in equality of mankind. Sooner or later you will feel a kinship with Muslims too.
.............................

*Grotesque calumny*. And your characterization of DDA as a "racist" could not be more ludicrous. She has long expressed both sympathy and admiration for non-whites threatened by Islam around the world—including Hindus—many, many times.

And she has mixed-race marriages in her own family, and has never evinced anything but admiration and goodwill for these unions.

Your own racist hatred of whites has warped your apprehension of reality.

Thomas, I know you're a good guy.

Despite this crap here I hope you're having a wonderful Christmas week. Happy New Year to you!

@Thomas h,
you wrote;

Islamic hordes went thorough India like a knife through butter despite Indian vast numerical advantage and there was nothing to prevent the process of almost total Islamization until the arrival of the British.

Ever wondered what kept India "Hindu" till Brits came in the 18th century?

when the previously pagan/christian middle-east fell easily to marauding muslim armies,
only Indian Kingdoms resisted.

Sergi Trifcovich has written an excellent article on the continuing jihad against India.
[one can easily get it by googling.]

History of Jihad blog gives true picture of jihad in various kafir lands,including India.

Both the above are from western white people,to whom Hindus owe something.

There is no point in ranting about the past.

Even the yahoo 5R accepts the reality that

' the modern day western society is one of the most tolerant and fair societies. You cannot just generalize and call every westerner/white a racist.'

They should not be faulted for things happened earlier,I believe, strongly at that. So too are millions of Hindus.

Also don't forget that the 9/11 terrorists hijackers are usually referred to as 9/11 hijackers. The western news media doesn't do it to lessen the role these terrorists played but for descriptive purposes.
But to go back to India, how about the fact that the Pandit Hindu refugees from kashmir who were driven from their homes and lands by the threats from muslim terrorists are still referred by the Indian government as "migrants". how is that for racisim or mental blindness or simply PC?
Should not people like Sanjay make an issue like this in India? Why should there not be daily demonstration by all Hindus as to why the government is keeping these people in squalid refugees camps for decades instead of sending them back to Kasmir to live in government protected housing settlements.

I forgot to note the title of the Jones essay:

"British Rule in India" parts I and II (the latter in the April issue of the same journal noted above).

Interesting how the bigotry of LL reveals itself...

His examples of evidence include:
- Grenier - a neocon, who never stepped into India, and was not even a historian

- and a deluded "frog in a well" called Jones, whose opinion is about as effective as asking the neo-nazis to comment on the validity of the holocaust data...

but, Indian historian, has an axe to grind...

Nice try...but, in stead of focusing your attention of Nazi...err British interested parties on why they had to kill those damned Indians, take a look at "Late Victorian Holocausts" (much of his data is documented elsewhere also).

Gravenimage,

"...Despite this crap here I hope you're having a wonderful Christmas week. Happy New Year to you!"

Thank you, my friend!

Dear Graven, I never let crap interfere with Christmas, but keep them strictly separated.
Crap happens, but Christmas is forever. And the current one is as wonderful as always.

Happy New Year to you and yours!
God bless!

LemonLight,

Thanks for mentioning John P. Jones articles. Do you buy them online?
greetings,
Thomas

thomas, those articles are available through the website JSTOR. Though many of the resources there can only be accessed with anademic code ("Ajack" perhaps got in through his contacts at MESA Nostra), they have ways for non-academics to read at least a certain number of the articles. Somewhere on the home page they explain.

Did I just type "anademic code"? I must have been thinking of Ajack again. Of course, I meant "academic code"...

Poor LemonLime - now that his inherent bigotry and dishonesty has been exposed, has to resort to meaningless rhetoric...

[Buckminster Fuller (1895-1893) philosopher and thinker - The British were perhaps the most successful pirates in history. They came to India, pillaged the country in the name of trade and then enslaved it in the name of civilization.]

AJack, are you actually troubled by this horrifying call for genocide, above? One would never know it from your posts.

[AJack, are you actually troubled by this horrifying call for genocide, above? One would never know it from your posts.]

The problem with the Owaisi family, their history of extreme violence and the that of the political party they run needs to be looked at closely to understand, why many people who understand the specifics are actually happy about such news getting published.

The extreme violence and the open-ness with which it has been carried out by Muslims in the Indian subcontinent, has remained hidden due to the dhimmi media and politicians of India.

The more the Indians know about this, the better it is.

Can you imagine non Muslim women being taken out into the village square and being gang raped in public by Muslims, to a cheering audience – but, that is exactly what has happened in the past, by the predecessors of the MIM..

To understand the big picture of this specific news, we have to take a look at:

-The actual family and party that this man belongs to

-The treatment of extreme Muslim violence within the Indian sub continent, by the leftists and media

First a little about the family:

In short, this family and the party they run has been associated with some horrible crimes against humanity over a 60+ year period. They survive on radicalizing Muslims and violence and bigotry against non muslims. Every few months, there’s some incident or the other, including violence, over the top remarks etc.

A few months ago, Akbar’s elder brother issued a threat to violence, in the parliament in India. But, lets get into more details…

“AIMIM was known as MIM in the past and was responsible for raising Razakar Army, to fight Indian Army, so that the then Hyderabad State of Nizam could be merged with Pakistan (1947-48). After integration of Hyderabad with India, MIM was banned till 1957. After 1957, MIM’s charge was taken over by Owaisi Family and MIM was altered to AIMIM…Asaduddin’s (akbaruddin’s elder brother and head of the family) grandfather, Maulana Abdul Wahid Owaisi took charge of MIM to ensure political representation of Hyderabadi Muslims. Later, Asaduddin’s father, Sultan Salahuddin Owaisi, also known as Salar-e-Millat, meaning – Commander of the Community, took charge of MIM”

Today, this political family is worth billions of dollars (all illegal), beats up Hindus, involved in murder cases, takes on the police in public, threatens public violence – and all tolerated or hidden by the media, iun the name of political correctness…

So who were the Razakars, the realization of the MIM, till a few years ago?

['Razakar' force of Ittehadul Musalmin swelled to three lakhs members and there were clashes between them and the Swayamsevaks of 'Janata Fouz' formed in the rural side by the Hindus mostly in the border areas. Even after the lapse of two months, the Nizam dodged signing the accession instrument on one pretext or the other. In the meanwhile he sent his men all over the world seeking military and moral assistance for the independent Hyderabad State .
…This period was used by the hooligans of Ittehedul Musalmin to systematically terrorise the Hindus by arson and looting of their shops, houses, and standing crops, robbing the gold and silver from their women-folk and also their abduction and rape.

In an incident in Errapalem village of Warangal district, under the lead of sub-Inspector Chand Khan, thirty five policemen with eighty Razakars of Ittehadul Musalmin looted each and every household including the huts. They dragged the women folk along the streets to the centre place of the village. They had forcible copulation first with twelve of them and there after shot them dead, despite the pleadings of their kith and kin. The other group of women had the same fate. Total number of women thus killed on that day in the village was seventy. In fact, it had become the order of the day for the lecherous Nizam’s police and the barbaric vagabonds of Ittehedul - Musalmin known as Razakars. ]

So, why don’t Indians take action against such statements and activities

Perhaps in another post.

It would be great if you can re-open your history textbooks to verify these facts.

Obviously we read different history books. Moreover reading Sanjay's, JackA and a few more commentors here I have little interest to switch.

Happy New Year to you.

Did I just type "anademic code"? I must have been thinking of Ajack again. Of course, I meant "academic code"...

LOL!

LemonLime, I may not always agree with you, but your lapsus plumae are for me an incessant source of delight.

Thank you for the referral to the JSTORE.

Happy New Year to you and yours!

..."this doesn't prevent such types from hypocritically accepting and enjoying the infrastructure and technology made available to them by the same West they cynically demonize -- an infrastructure, both technological and social, whose amazing advancement can only have been developed and sustained through a healthy progressive society, unlike theirs and all they can ever imagine.

Very well expressed, LL! Worth quoting.