Jihad Watch Board Vice President Hugh Fitzgerald discusses India’s dhimmitude, how it can be reversed, and how the U.S. should respond:
Disseminating, or even discussing respectfully, the work of K. S. Lal, Francois Gautier, Koenraad Elst, and especially those too-easily dismissed as Hindutva fanatics, such as Sita Ram Goel — that is impermissible in India. Even noting the 60-70 million Hindus killed under Muslim rule is considered bad form. Daring to ask Indian Muslims if they have ever bothered to think about what must have been the conditions that led their ancestors to convert to Islam, or raising the matter of how unique Akbar was, or how common were the cruel Aurangzebs, or wondering why the Hindu population of Afghanistan almost completely disappeared under the Taliban, why the Hindus went from 15% to 1.5% of the population of Pakistan, why non-Muslims went from 34% to 8% of the population of Bangladesh — these are all impermissible questions. No Indian should raise them, for to do so is to be guilty — as Hindus and Sikhs apparently so often are — of “communalism.”
The failure of the Indian Establishment to encourage Indians to study their own history, the treatment that the “intellectual Kshatriya” (Kshatriya being the warrior caste) Sita Ram Goel had to endure, and that any educated Hindu scholar must endure, is to be labeled as some Hindutva or BJP “fanatic” guilty of “communalism” — a crime that is charged only against Hindus and Sikhs; Muslims are apparently never guilty of “communalism” — they’re just being Muslims when they make the most outrageous demands on behalf of Muslims and of Islam.
Some Indians abroad, once they become famous in the West, either forget or never knew and refuse to learn the history of India. V. S. Naipaul was a great exception. He should be honored and heeded. Many departments supposedly devoted to Sanskrit and Indian Studies (and certainly the original nineteenth-century donors who support the professorships in such departments) are now full of Indian Muslims and Pakistanis who push aside, or overwhelm, the Hindu contingent. See, for example, the current makeup of the Department at Harvard — where Professor Asani, and not a successor to Daniel Henry Holmes Ingalls, appears to be ruling the local roost.
Sometimes the Indian “scholar” — like Professor Bakhle (Mrs. Dirks) at Columbia — will for a time parrot the general Middle Eastern views of those colleagues in the departmental or administrative company she has been forced to keep. Who knows what her real views are, or what they would be if she were allowed just to study Indian music and not drag in idiotic phrases and ideas like “post-colonialism.” One wonders also what her work would be like if she had not been forced as well to ignore the only deep and true and long-lasting and disastrous colonialism innocent India ever experienced — which is to say, the Muslim kind.
One would like to see Indian scholars, in India and without, object articulately to this state of affairs. They don’t have to join the BJP. They don’t have to raise their voices at all. But they should not shun the work of K. S. Lal, of Francois Gautier, of Koenraad Elst, and yes, of Sita Ram Goel. They could start with Naipaul’s India: A Wounded Civilization and Among the Believers and Beyond Belief. Then they should work their way backwards — backwards through the Raj, all the way to “Oriental” Jones, that sympathetic student of Hindu law, and see how the English conquest made possible the rediscovery of Hindu India, smothered by the Muslims and their indifference or even hostility to the Hindu (and Buddhist) culture of Mother India. (Biruni was the sole great exception, a thousand years before, during the first Muslim conquest.)
But Muslims are blameless. The Muslim conquerors, the Muslim conquest, the destruction of temples and people — that is not to be discussed. What Ibn Battuta so matter-of-factly recorded is not to be discussed.
The advanced world means more than a rise in GNP. It means more than Infosys, more than Azim Premji talking to Charlie Rose, more than those Bangalore computer-and-tutor companies. It means, for India, no longer letting the attitude of accommodation to Muslim demands to continue. It was forced by Muslim masters in their centuries of rule, and is perpetuated now by an official thought-control policy of “tolerance” (one-way tolerance) and absence of “communalism” (an absence only on one side) that will somehow buy — but for how long? — a semblance of civil peace.
If the United States is to entrust nuclear and other knowhow to India, it has to be sure that the India it entrusts such secrets to, and cooperates with, is not secretly or openly islamizing, or is permanently in thrall to fear of Muslim mob violence.