India should have refused visas to USCIRF

We would like to bring to your attention the recent media reports on the visit of United States Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) to India. The USCIRF is an independent, bipartisan federal commission that advises the U.S President, Secretary of State and the United States Congress on religious matters internationally. Through our friends in the U.S we have been able to confirm that their delegation has applied for visas to India to travel in June/ July.

Cuba refused visas to their delegation and China did not allow them to enter for three long years after committing to them in 2002. They finally allowed a visit under severe restrictions in 2005. However, the Chinese government issued a statement shortly after the USCIRF report on China was made public calling it a "malicious attack". Vietnam labeled USCIRF testimony to Congress as "totally unacceptable." Reportedly, after their visit to Laos the USCIRF put the country on its "countries of particular concern" (CPC) list for five years till the Laos government re-opened most of its closed churches and succumbed to other conditions enforced by USCIRF.

All their previous reports on India are available on their website (http://www.uscirf.gov). The USCIRF is also known to lobby hard against  anti- conversion laws and  feels empowered to judge and list countries they have visited under a. countries of particular concern, b. country watch list, c. additional countries monitored .India is already on their 'additional countries monitored' list along with Bangladesh, Kazakhstan and Sri Lanka.

From our research and assessment of the functioning of the USCIRF, we have come to believe that their visit is a direct assault on our Sovereignty and National Pride. Hence, we would like to request you to use the material enclosed in an appropriate manner to raise public concern against this highly demeaning and uncalled for intervention by a foreign agency in our internal matters. Please further note that the reported time of visit of this delegation is June/July 2009.

Please do not hesitate to contact us for any further assistance.

Regards,

Rami Desai

India Project

Tel: (+9111) 43761136

Delhi allows scrutiny of religious freedom

 

K.P. Nayar

THE TELEGRAPH

Washington, May 2: In its last days in office, the UPA government has broken with a long-standing policy of disallowing intrusive fact-finding visits from America and permitted a religious vigilante state body from the US to sit in judgement on the extent of India's religious freedom.

The US Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF), a statutory body created by the US Congress and funded by the US government, announced yesterday that its members will “travel to India for the first time in June 2009”.

Pending this scrutiny of the extent of religious freedom in the country, the Commission has put off its annual report on conditions in India and promised that it will only “release its report on India during this summer” after its members assess the conditions first hand.

Ever since the US Congress passed an International Religious Freedom Act 1998 and created the USCIRF, it has been trying to visit India, but New Delhi has consistently told the Commission’s members that they will not be given visas for an official visit if they applied for one.

That policy, hitherto followed by the NDA and UPA governments alike, has been in line with the stand taken by governments led by P.V. Narasimha Rao, H.D. Deve Gowda and I.K. Gujral that intrusive inspections by similarly placed US institutions and individuals to sit in judgement on India on issues like human rights would not be permitted.

Government officials, who objected to an USCIRF visit at this time and were overruled, suspect that politics, not diplomacy, is behind the unprecedented permission to allow the Commission into India.

Its members are certain to target Gujarat chief minister Narendra Modi on the continuing fallout from Godhra and its aftermath as well as the BJP and other saffron organisations for communal violence in Orissa.

For whatever it is worth, it will add a dimension of international pressure to the actions resulting from a resurgent judicial activism against Modi and hold back, at least to a limited extent, Orissa chief minister Naveen Patnaik from realigning with the BJP in the crucial month of June, when the USCIRF team is expected to be in Orissa.

Even if the change in New Delhi's policy is overlooked and the USCIRF is given the benefit of the doubt, indications are that its judgement will neither be illuminating or factual.

In its annual report and announcement of the India visit yesterday, the USCIRF referred to Modi as “governor” of Gujarat and not its chief minister. The Commission also got Modi’s first name wrong as “Nahendra”, instead of Narendra.

This is despite the Commission having a 17-member professional staff, including a full-time researcher, specifically for South Asia.There is also a possibility, although unlikely given the character of the USCIRF, that the decision to play politics with the Commission’s visit could boomerang.

In March last year, the UPA government similarly allowed into India, without any prior announcement, a Pakistani, Asma Jahangir, the special rapporteur of freedom of religion or belief of the UN Human Rights Council.

Jahangir went to Gujarat, where, contrary to expectations, Modi laid out a red carpet for her. As a result, she was criticised by some human rights advocates in India and Pakistan, who would have preferred that she wrote her report without meeting Modi.Although some US allies like Pakistan and Saudi Arabia have been targeted for recommended sanctions as “countries of particular concern” by the USCIRF, it is significant that states that are considered unfriendly to Washington figure prominently among those routinely vilified by the Commission.

These include North Korea, Iran, Myanmar, Cuba, Russia and China.

In the last eight years, because of the Bush administration’s friendship with New Delhi, the Commission’s punitive recommendations on India have largely been ignored by the US administration.

"Despite this, religious minorities in India have been the victims of violent attacks by fellow citizens, including killings, in what is commonly called "communal violence." In the late 1990s, there was a marked increase in violent attacks against members of religious minorities, particularly Muslims and Christians, throughout India, including killings, torture, rape, and destruction of property. Those responsible for communal violence were rarely held responsible for their actions, helping to foster a climate in which it was believed that attacks on religious minorities could be carried out with impunity. The increase in such violence in India coincided with the rise in political influence of groups associated with the Sangh Parivar, a collection of organizations that view non-Hindus as foreign to India and aggressively press for governmental policies to promote a Hindu nationalist agenda."

 

In January 2008, the Commission issued a press statement expressing serious concern about the riots between the Hindu and Christian religious communities in Orissa, noting that the violence had had particularly severe consequences on the minority Christian community. In March 2005, the Commission issued a statement encouraging the Department of State to prevent the planned visit to the United States of Gujarat State Minister Narendra Modi, citing evidence presented by India's NHRC and numerous domestic and international human rights investigators of the complicity of Gujarat state officials, led by State Minister Modi, in the February 2002 mob attacks on Muslims.

 

In June 2006, a report by the Indian national government's National Commission for Minorities (NCM) found that Hindu extremists had frequently invoked the state's anti-conversion law as a pretext to incite mobs against Christians. The NCM report also found that police in Madhya Pradesh were frequently complicit in these attacks. Similarly, the NCM report on the December 2007 violence in Orissa concluded that an important factor behind the attacks was the "anti-conversion" campaign carried out by groups associated with the Sangh Parivar. According to the report, the campaign against conversions "created an atmosphere of prejudice and suspicion against the Christian community ... " and that "the role of the Sangh Parivar activists and the anti-conversion campaign in fomenting organized violence against the Christian community deserves close scrutiny."

 

                               USCIRF ANNUAL REPORT INDIA 2008

                     

 

EXCERPTS:

 

"Despite this, religious minorities in India have been the victims of violent attacks by fellow citizens, including killings, in what is commonly called "communal violence." In the late 1990s, there was a marked increase in violent attacks against members of religious minorities, particularly Muslims and Christians, throughout India, including killings, torture, rape, and destruction of property."

 

 

"The increase in such violence in India coincided with the rise in political influence of groups associated with the Sangh Parivar, a collection of organizations that view non-Hindus as foreign to India and aggressively press for governmental policies to promote a Hindu nationalist agenda."

 

"In June 2004, a government-appointed committee of historians was tasked with removing the "distortions and communally-biased portions" of textbooks issued under the BJP government; they were replaced in 2005 with more moderate editions."

 

"In February 2006, a mass rally of Hindu nationalists was held in the Dangs district of Gujarat calling on members of the indigenous "tribal" people to "reconvert" to Hinduism. Extremist groups had issued a number of highly inflammatory statements, particularly against Christians, and violence against local Christian communities was feared, as has happened in the past."

 

ttacks on Christian churches and individuals, largely perpetrated by individuals associated with Hindu nationalist groups, continue to occur, and perpetrators are rarely held to account by the state legal apparatus. Dozens of violent attacks carried out or incited by Hindu extremist groups against Christian institutions and persons continued throughout the past year. Among the most serious attacks occurred on December 24, 2007, in the state of Orissa, where clashes erupted between Hindus and Christians. According to some sources, hundreds of members of a Hindu extremist group, demanding that Christmas celebrations be halted, attacked Christian individuals, churches, offices, and residences, destroying homes, looting shops, and injuring a number of individuals.”

 

"As a result, the Christian community continues to live in fear and feels insecure and unsafe."

 

"Similar attacks occur, sometimes in greater numbers, every month, particularly in states where the BJP heads the state government, including in Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh, Gujarat, Chhatisgarh".

 

"Several of the BJP-led states have laws against "forced" or "induced" religious conversions, which require government officials to assess the legality of conversions and provide for fines and imprisonment for anyone who uses force, fraud, or "inducement" to convert another. Reports of persons having been arrested or prosecuted under these laws are not common. Nevertheless, concerns have been raised that these laws can sometimes result in a hostile atmosphere for religious minorities, as states in which these laws exist tend to be those in which attacks by extremist groups are more common – and often happen with greater impunity – than elsewhere in India.”

 

"In March 2005, the Commission issued a statement encouraging the Department of State to prevent the planned visit to the United States of Gujarat State Minister Narendra Modi, citing evidence presented by India's NHRC and numerous domestic and international human rights investigators of the complicity of Gujarat state officials, led by State Minister Modi, in the February 2002 mob attacks on Muslims."

 

(http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/publisher,USCIRF,,IND,4855697d23,0.html)

                                                    ARTICLES

 

Narendra Modi Faces U.S Test

D.P. Bhattacharya / Ashutosh Mishra

May 8, 2009

http://indiatoday. intoday.in/ index.php? option=com_ content&task= view&id=40851& issueid=104& sectionid= &Itemid=1

A scheduled visit by a team of the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) to Gujarat and Orissa in June has sent the two states in a tizzy.

For Gujarat, particularly, the visit assumes significance as the state would keenly await the commission's stance on chief minister Narendra Modi at a time when the Supreme Court has ordered a probe into his role in the Gujarat riots. Modi has been refused a US visa since 2005 and the commission's strong advisory against him in the wake of the riots has played an important role in that.But now that the CM harbours prime ministerial ambitions, it'simportant for him to have acceptability in the West. And the commission's report may hold the key to his entry to the US. The USCIRF, which released its annual report for 2009 on May 1 inWashington, kept its chapter on India on hold and said the same would bereleased only after its team visits India. The commission announced that a team would visit Gujarat and Orissa to "gain perspective on thegovernment response to communal violence" in these two states.Many in Gujarat believe acceptance by the West, especially the US,is a sine qua non for Modi's national ambitions.

 

"Modi cannot nurture prime ministerial dreams unless he is acceptable to the Western world," said Father Cedric Prakash, an Ahmedabad-based rights activist, who had testified before the USCIRF during a hearing in June 2002 in the wake of the Gujarat riots.Prakash's views are shared even by those in Modi's own party andthe saffron camp. Sources said the chief minister's " friends in the US"are intensely lobbying to secure a visa for him. In view of that, theimpending visit has left the Gujarat BJP, especially Modi's aides,nervous, though party leaders put up a brave front

BJP spokesperson I.K. Jadeja refused to comment while the party'sstate president Purushottam Rupala feigned ignorance on the entireissue. " If they are coming, let them come. When are they coming?"Rupala, a Modi confidante, said. "The Gujarat government, too, refrained from making any comment on the issue. " I have no brief to speak on this," said government  spokesperson Jaynarayan Vyas.The Orissa government, on the other hand, was confident and said it has nothing to hide.

"I don't know what's the status of this commission. But if it isan official one, then it will be routed through the ministry of external affairs and we have no problems about that," said home secretary, A.P. Padhi

Energy minister Surya Narayan Patro, a confidant of chief minister Naveen Patnaik, said the state government had made its stand on the Kandhamal riots - which will be under the USCIRF scrutiny - clear. " It was on the Kandhamal issue that our alliance with the BJP broke," he said. Patro said the government was committed to protecting the

minorities. "We have nothing to hide," he said.

DESIGNATE INDIA AND PAKISTAN AS COUNTRIES OF PARTICULAR CONCERN- BY SRIDHAR KRISHNASWAMI

 “The United States Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) has recommended that the US Secretary of State, Colin Powell, designate India, along with others, as ‘Countries of Particular Concern’ under the International Religious Freedom Act of 1998”.

 According to this news report, the Commission is reacting to ‘periodic violence’ against the religious minorities of the country, violence which has been on the increase because of the “rise in political influence of groups associated with the Sangh Parivar, a collection of Hindu extremist nationalist organizations that views non-Hindus as foreign to India and hence deserving of attack”.

 My first thought was, this description of the RSS must have been given to these busybodies by Arundhati Roy or Shabana Azmi or by Sahmat or Communalism Combat or all of them ‘together separately’; and my first impulse was to consign this report to the ‘Garbage Bin’. And I would have, had this been the ranting of some American Southern Baptist group or some disgruntled Christian or Marxist NGO in one of their periodic diatribes against the RSS and the rising religious and political consciousness of the Hindus of this country; or the ranting of the blatantly biased American and European human rights industry. But this is the ranting of a statutory body of the U.S government, a Commission that has been constituted by law, a Commission (which is however allegedly non-governmental), whose members work closely with the American State Department. The Commission is headed by the Ambassador-at Large and he is the Special Adviser to the U.S President and to the U.S Secretary of State on International Religious Freedom. And so, the very least that a native of a developing third world nation, whose country has been stood in the dock by this “damning indictment” can do, when faced by the impertinence of foreign busybodies, is to respond to this nonsense with a modicum of seriousness.

THE HITLIST

In the first three years of its existence, from 1998 to 2001, the entire focus of the Commission is on China, Vietnam, Laos, Sudan and Burma. And these countries continue to remain on the hit list of this Commission not only because these countries are ruled either by Communist governments or by the military as in the case of Burma, but more interestingly, these countries have a marked antipathy towards Christianity and Christian missionaries. Contrary to the pious statements of this Commission that it is concerned about the lack of freedom of religion in these countries, and that their heart bleeds for the Buddhists and the Falun Gong, it is the refusal to allow Christian missionaries to operate in these countries that has incurred the wrath of this Commission.

The list then expands to include Saudi Arabia, Turkmenistan, and now Pakistan and India. Please note all of you, there is this deafening silence on the Taliban regime in Afghanistan in 1998, despite strong protests from women’s groups in the USA about the Taliban’s treatment of the women in Afghanistan. Of course let us all succumb to a ‘willing suspension of disbelief’ and believe instead that this silence had nothing to do with the fact that major American oil and gas companies were talking to the Taliban for rights to build pipelines across Afghanistan to transport oil and gas from the Central Asian republics. The alternative was Iran but then Iran would have laughed the Americans out of town. So that was ruled out. The U.S needed Afghanistan and the Taliban came as a package deal. Religious freedom? What religious freedom? (Laughter please).

THE USCIRF AND ITS RATIONALE

 Now let us first look at this USCIRF. It was constituted in 1998 because the U.S had no international agenda then to project its super power status. The WTO had become a reality, the Taliban were around but the USA needed pipelines across Afghanistan more than it wanted freedom of religion from the Taliban. And September 11 was still three years down the line. The Soviet Union had disappeared, the people of Iraq were being subjected to slow and unexciting genocide by continuing U.S harassment and the U.S had no excitement that real cloak and dagger stuff can give to its national life. It was spoiling for a fight and so it discovered International Religious Freedom. The U.S passed the International Religious Freedom Act in 1998 and soon thereafter, in 1998 it also constituted the Commission for IRF by law. The rationale for the Act is best expressed by the Act itself –

SEC. 2. FINDINGS; POLICY.

(a) FINDINGS- Congress makes the following findings:

(1) The right to freedom of religion undergirds the very origin and existence of the United States. Many of our Nation's founders fled religious persecution abroad, cherishing in their hearts and minds the ideal of religious freedom. They established in law, as a fundamental right and as a pillar of our Nation, the right to freedom of religion. From its birth to this day, the United States has prized this legacy of religious freedom and honored this heritage by standing for religious freedom and offering refuge to those suffering religious persecution.

 I will come to this hilarious self-description of “pillar of our nation” in just a while but it will be interesting to see what triggered this pious decision to monitor international religious freedom. There are two major causes for the U.S’ sudden love for religious freedom.

First – religion was coming back in a big way in the former Soviet Union and in Russia, Belarus, and the Ukraine, in Georgia and Armenia the Church was once again becoming a force and an influence to contend with. While all these republics were catholic, none of them acknowledged the supremacy of the Vatican. Russia, Belarus, Ukraine, and Serbia, Armenia and Georgia were all components of the Eastern Orthodox Church. They all had their own national churches and the Hierarchy too was national. Most of these republics refused to allow the Vatican or the American and European churches to open shop in their territories. Indeed, the climate was distinctly hostile to the expansionist designs of the Vatican and the American and European churches in the vulnerable soil of these fledgling nation-states. This of course incensed the U.S and the Vatican.

Second – rapidly declining numbers of their flock in the West had the Vatican and the American and European churches looking for new territories to conquer, new peoples to evangelise and convert. They all turned their attention on Asia. On Easter’s eve in 1996, Pope John Paul II led 20,000 Roman Catholics in an Easter vigil at St.Peter’s basilica. “In his homily John Paul II spoke specifically of Asia after having previously denounced discrimination against Catholics in Vietnam and China. He spoke of “the great desire of Christ and the Church to meet the populations and cultures of that immense continent, rich in history and noble traditions. ‘You constitute in a certain way the answer of nations to the new evangelization’, he said”.

THE VATICAN AND ASIA

The Vatican had decided that in the third millenium the Church would plant the cross in Asia and harvest the souls of the non-Christian and non-Muslim peoples of Asia – the Hindus, Buddhists, Sikhs and peoples of other non-proselytizing faiths that originated in India. To this end, a Special Assembly of the Synod of Bishops for Asia was held in April/May of 1998 in the Vatican. The Vietnam government as early as in January 1998 had refused permission to its Bishops to attend the Synod. By April, China too had refused permission to the Bishops in China and Taiwan to attend the Synod. On May 14th, a Mass in Saint Peter’s basilica brought to a close the work of the Special Assembly for Asia of the Synod of Bishops. According to ‘Fides’ the Vatican news agency, “At the end of his homily, the Holy Father voiced his intention to visit Asia in the near future to present the post-synodal exhortation. “This led to excited discussion among the Synod Fathers about possible places for the visit. In the end they suggested a journey with three laps: Bombay, Manila, Hong Kong. Others suggested Jerusalem, Beijing, Calcutta, Ho Chi Minh city, Tokyo or Baghdad”

.The intentions of the Vatican was clear. It intended for the Pope to make a high profile visit to deliver the post-synodal exhortation in one of the Asian countries – China, Vietnam, India or Japan – countries where the majority of the population is non-Christian - Hindus or Buddhists. China of course and Vietnam too promptly refused to allow the Pope to come visiting them. In India too there was growing awareness and unease about the intentions of the churches of the world to aggressively convert the Hindus, Buddhists and Sikhs to the Christian religion and the Hindus were organizing themselves not only to expose the intentions of the Vatican and the American and European churches but also to resist, militantly if need be, any and all attempts at religious conversion.

THE DUPLICITY OF THE VATICAN AND THE U.S

 One must see the U.S’ sudden love for international religious freedom against this background – against the background of Asia’s growing hostility to Western trade war through globalization and Christian missionary activities, both of which historically have always acted in tandem. Pope John Paul II succeeded to the papacy precisely because he was polish and Poland was the weakest link in the Soviet bloc – Roman Catholics like the people of Croatia and not Eastern Orthodox like Serbia or Russia. The polish Pope John Paul II succeeded to the papacy because his mandate was clear – to exert pressure on the weakest link – on Poland and bring about the collapse of communism and consequently the Soviet Union. And the calculation was, when communism fails, the west can step in with its IMF and the World bank and capitalism and free market and when the Soviet Union disappeared it would also signal the end of the already weakened and debilitated Eastern Orthodox Church and the Vatican can step in to open shop. A dream that the West and the Vatican had nurtured and pursued unceasingly for more than five decades. They succeeded only partially. Communism failed, the Soviet Union disintegrated but the Eastern Orthodox Church rose like the phoenix and reacted ferociously to the Vatican and other western churches attempting to open their industry in these territories.

One must also see the antipathy of the USA and the West and the Vatican to China, Vietnam, and Serbia in this context. While the USA passed the International Religious Freedom Act in 1998, the seeds of the Act were sown cleverly in 1995 itself, to coincide with the creation of the WTO, when Pope John Paul II was invited to address the UN General Assembly on the 5th of October, 1995 to mark the 50th year of the UN. And he devoted his entire talk to the rights of people to freedom, to human rights, to the rights of nations to come into being and to exist (the call for enabling the fructifying of movements for self-determination, the forewarning of the creation of Croatia, E.Timor). It is one of the cleverest, most cunning speeches ever made. Every sentence should be read to mean that he is talking only of Christian interests, Christian political and religious rights. Wherever he appeals for diversity, he is appealing to those nations and peoples who are non-Christian to allow the Christian faith with its missionary agenda, to exist, to grow. And for the first time, the Church and immediately thereafter, American think tanks begin to make a distinction between ‘patriotism’ which is in their view, positive and ‘nationalism’ which in their view is negative because it is synonymous with protectionism and shuts its doors on the face of religious and economic invaders. One of the reasons cited by the U.S for constituting the USCIRF is:

“ Though not confined to a particular region or regime, religious persecution is often particularly widespread, systematic, and heinous under totalitarian governments and in countries with militant, politicized religious majorities”.

This is an accurate paraphrase of the Pope’s UNGA address in 1995 where he invents his own definition of nationalism and patriotism thus:

 “We need to clarify the essential difference between an unhealthy form of nationalism, which teaches contempt for other nations or cultures, and patriotism, which is a proper love of one’s country. True patriotism never seeks to advance the well-being of one’s own nation at the expense of others. For in the end, this would harm one’s own nation as well. Doing wrong damages both aggressor and victim. Nationalism, in its most radical form, is thus the antithesis of true patriotism, and today we must ensure that extreme nationalism does not continue to give rise to new forms of the aberrations of totalitarianism”.

PATRIOTISM, NATIONALISM AND ALL THAT CRAP

 Now let us apply the pope’s yardstick of ‘true patriotism’ and ‘extreme nationalism’ to religion, to Christianity and the Church specifically. If the pope were indeed sincere about his call for allowing diversity to exist, about his devout respect for all cultures and traditions, he will acknowledge that all cultural values and traditions derive from the religion and faith of the people. Then he owes us all an explanation about the basis for religious conversion and the determination of the Vatican to convert all peoples of the world to the Christian faith. Will this allow for diversity, will this express respect for other cultures and traditions? Is this not an agenda for homogenization and does this not violate the principle of the right to existence of other religions and faiths? Has the pope not learnt anything from the destruction and the total annihilation of the religions of the native Americans and the Africans by the Church?

 The west of course is rediscovering ‘nationalism’ and is now beginning to understand the need for protectionism when globalization opened the borders of their countries to immigration. Now they realise how important it is to preserve their culture and their way of life from the onslaught of third world natives. So while the USA and the West want Asians to open their borders to their capital and goods, and throw open the doors of our societies and homes to Christian missionaries, they frown upon religious and economic nationalism a.k.a. protectionism. They however want to clamp down on immigration shut their borders to Asians and Africans and rediscover what it is to be American, British, German and French.

 “Our respect for the culture of others is therefore rooted in our respect for each community’s attempt to answer the question of human life. And here we can see how important it is to safeguard the fundamental right to freedom of religion and freedom of conscience, as the cornerstones of the structure of human rights and the foundation of every truly free society, No one is permitted to suppress those rights by using coercive power to impose an answer to the mystery of man”.

Right, right!! The irony or shall I say, the black humour of it all! The last line can be understood better if we know that the Vatican believes that the catholic faith alone is the repository of all Truth and it alone has the answer to the mystery of man. So when the Pope talks of coercive power and the use of coercive power to impose an answer, he is referring to regimes and governments, which have refused the Vatican and Christianity even a toe-hold in their countries – China, Vietnam, Japan, and Burma and of course the Asian Islamic nations of Malaysia and Indonesia where to proselytize and distribute Christian propaganda material is a crime. What the pope is in fact demanding is the Christian right to propagate, evangelise and carry out individual and mass conversions in Asian countries with very large non-Christian populations.

THE DEEP POCKET OF HUMAN RIGHTS

So, the seeds for an intrusive and aggressive foreign policy eroding national sovereignty are being sown as early as in the late 1980s and in the 1990s with the USA, the West, the Vatican and the European churches acting in tandem. Concrete shape for renewed aggression by the USA against the nations of Asia is given through the inequitable WTO and the designing of the deep pocket called ‘human rights’. It is a pocket deep enough to yield several agendas demanding unilateral or multilateral interference into domestic national affairs. Human rights can accommodate right to freedom of conscience, freedom of religion, women’s rights, children’s rights, rights of labour, right to self-determination, right to….the list can be made as endless as the U.S wants. But the striking absence of right to freedom from racial discrimination, and the right to participatory democracy has not been noticed it would seem. The U.S is yet to begin the process of participatory democracy. The highest offices of this land of the brave and the free is reserved for the white/christian(protestant)/male. As long as women, African-American Christians and Muslims, native Americans and Jews and the minorities do not qualify to be elected to the White House, the USCIRF should deny itself the luxury of pointing fingers at India. By this single act of commission alone, the U.S is guilty of several counts of human rights abuse.

The U.S owes us an explanation now. Is the USCIRF empowered to monitor religious freedom only in the rest of the world or is it empowered to monitor systemic denial of religious rights which includes right to practice of rituals, within the USA too? Because there are enough documents to prove denial of the right to practice the rituals of their faith by native American students in the universities of the USA. The U.S also owes the world an explanation on its silence and its polite looking the other way when the Taliban incarcerated the women and the children of Afghanistan in their homes. Now is the time to deal with the “pillar of our nation” joke. All of you, who are not averse to waging this intellectual war against our adversaries, must read without fail two books – “A Little Matter of Genocide – Holocaust and Denial in the Americas 1492 to the Present” by Ward Churchill and “American Holocaust – The Conquest of the New World” by David E. Stannard. Once you have read these two books, it is difficult to listen to or read anything the Pope or the USA is saying about freedom and human rights and democracy and pluralism without rolling on the ground, clutching your stomachs in laughter.

“RELIGIOUS FREEDOM – THE PILLAR OF OUR NATION”

 What was that again? “The right to freedom of religion undergirds the very origin and existence of the United States. Many of our Nation's founders fled religious persecution abroad, cherishing in their hearts and minds the ideal of religious freedom. They established in law, as a fundamental right and as a pillar of our Nation, the right to freedom of religion”. Yeah right! Now just see what these noble nation’s founders, ‘who fled religious persecution abroad’, did to the native Americans in the name of the Church and Christianity, in the name of religion. There is an encyclical by the Pope in the 15th century severely condemning the genocide of native Americans. The pope says, that as long as these barbaric natives are fit to receive the message of Christ, their lives should be spared and should be elevated into the service of Christ. From then on begins the savage christianising of the native Americans. They are driven like so much cattle into Christian missions and there they are put to hard labour by the priests who think hard labour is good for the soul of the native Americans. They thought the same thing about the Africans whom they transported into North America later. Hard labour is always good for the non-white, non-Christian peoples of the world particularly if the labour is for furthering the trade and economy of the white Christian nations. In the words of Ward Churchill:

“In actuality, the missions were deathmills in which Indians, often delivered en masse by the military, were allotted an average of seven feet by two feet of living space in what one observer described as ‘specially constructed cattle pens’. Although forced to perform arduous agricultural labour by the priests from morning to night, six days a week, the captives were provided no more than 1400 calories per day in low nutrient foods, with missions like San Antonio and San Miguel supplying as little as 715 calories per day.

Probably most remarkable in this regard is Fray Junipero Serra in charge of the northern California mission complex during its peak period and a man whose personal brutality was noteworthy even by those standards (he appears to have delighted in the direct torture of victims, had to be restrained from hanging Indians in lots, a la Columbus, and is quoted as asserting that the entire race of Indians should be out to the knife). Proposed for canonization as a saint by the catholic Church, Serra’s visage, forty feet tall, today peers serenely down upon motorists driving south from San Francisco along Highway 101 from its vantage point on a prominent bluff. Another statue of Serra, a much smaller bronze which has stood for decades before San Francisco’s city hall is being moved to a park. Officials denied requests from local Indians that it be placed in storage, out of public view, however offering the compromise of affixing a new plaque to address native concerns about the incipient saint’s legacy. (Hindus of India and Jews of the world please note, ‘Mother’ Teresa and ‘Hitler’s pope’ are both all set to be canonized as the new saints of the twentieth century in the catholic pantheon, a gesture of gratitude for services rendered in the cause of furthering the catholic Church in difficult times and in difficult climes). Church lobbyists however have undermined even that paltry gesture preventing the inclusion of wording which might have revealed something of the true nature of the mass murder and cultural demolition over which Serra presided. Both man and mission, the Vatican insisted, were devoted to '‘mercy and compassion”.

In passing this Act on International religious Freedom the U.S is basing its case on the noble founders of the nation, on ‘the pillars of our nation’ - a nation that was built on the blood and sweat of genocide and slavery – both of which were practiced in the name of the Christian faith!!

WHAT IS RIGHT FOR YOU, IS RIGHT FOR ME

 The U.S has set several precedents post September 11 – precedents worthy of emulation. The right to revenge, the right to pre-emptive strikes when faced with threats to national security, the right to demonstartive nationalism/protectionism. The U.S must ask itself why other religious minorities in India, the Parsis, the Sikhs, the Buddhists and Jains never face the problems that Christians and Muslims in India face at the hands of ‘Hindu extremists? Why did the normally gentle Hindus take to extremism? Why did the U.S carpet bomb Iraq and Afghanistan? National security is threatened not only when our borders are threatened by foreign invaders in conventional war but when our homes, communities and societies are threatened by religious invaders and terrorists. Christian missionaries and Islamic terrorists threaten Hindus and Hindu society. The right to revenge is as much the prerogative of Hindus as it is of the U.S. So USCIRF or ABCDEF, the U.S cannot preach to India what it has never practiced. Enough of this impertinence USCIRF. Care for your backyard before you venture into other nations.

And one more thing, this constant harping on rising Hindu extremism threatening the secular, democratic fibre of the country and all that crap. The Indian State is democratic and secular. The Indian nation is not. The Indian nation like most nations of the world, is religious. And the rich diversity and pluralism which you keep harping about, it has existed for over two thousand years, when the first Christian and Muslim missionaries/traders/invaders begin to appear in our country, not because of the USCIRF or the U.N or the Indian Constitution or the Human rights industry. It has existed for centuries because the nation was Hindu. The Hindu thought is assimilatory not exclusivist like the Abrahamic faiths. And it is this nation which is being threatened by the missionary activities of the Christian fundamentalists and the secessionist activities of Islamic fundamentalists. The Hindus have survived 600 years of Muslim barbarism, 200 years of savage colonialism. We survived violent partition in 1947, and we are living through the problems in J&K and the North-east. Hindus have the right to exist, the right to protect their faith, the right to territory, the right to protect and defend their women and children, the right to revenge and the right to pre-emptive strikes against their aggressors.

(Written in October 2002)

Analytical response to ex-ips polemics

I am proud to present an outstanding essay in political analysis by H. Balakrishnan. This is in the form of a response to Sreekumar’s article in the New Indian Express written in the context of Godhra train burning by criminals. Sreekumar makes dubious claims about human rights. Balakrishnan’s well-reasoned response should be used as a classic in every political science class.

Advani ji should be thankful to Balakrishnan for responding to Sreekumar, the ex-ips who should remove his false pretences as the defender of human rights.

kalyanaraman  

AN "OPEN RESPONSE" TO MR. R.B. SREEKUMAR, I.P.S. (RETD)

Dear Mr. Sreekumar, 

1.      This epistle stems as a response to a news item I read in The New Indian Express of 28 Apr 2009 entitled “ An open letter to L.K. Advani " , written by you. Since your complete letter was not carried by the daily , but only excerpts , my response perforce will be limited only to (a) Ayodhya , (b) Gujarat 2002 and (c) scriptural justification for ‘violence’. 

2.      At the outset , my apologies in this response getting long winded . However , brevity cannot be at the expense of ‘facts’. I’m sure you’ll understand .

Ayodhya 

3.      You have waxed eloquent by terming the demolition of the Babri Masjid as  “  - - - Satanic acts were the handiwork of miscreants owing allegiance to the BJP ” .  It therefore becomes necessary to highlight the tortuous course the Ayodhya dispute has taken over the past six decades , in the first instance , to put the issue in perspective. 

4.      Caught in the Web of the  Law Courts : What started as a simple ‘ title suit ’ at the turn ofIndependence  in an Indian  Court of Law , got transformed into a Presidential reference of 07 Jan 1993  – “ Whether a Hindu Temple or any religious structure existed prior to the construction of the Ram Janma Bhumi – Babri Masjid ( including the premises of the inner and outer courtyards of such structure ) in the areas on which the structure stood ? ”  In simple terms, for 44 years, our Courts of law ‘ Decided not to decide!! ’ Let me put it to you in chronological sequence!! 

5.      1955 :  Their Lordships of the Allahabad High Court had observed then : “ It is very desirable that a suit of this kind is decided as soon as possible , and it is regretted that it remains undecided after four years. The delay appears to be principally due to the fact that the record of the proceedings in the trial court was summoned by this court in 1953 on the application of the present appellants. Had this not been done , the suit would probably by now have been decided . - - -We , however , consider it extremely desirable that the suit should be disposed of at once and we accordingly direct that the record of proceedings is sent back to the lower court. ”

6.      1989 :  In the intervening 34 years , the only contribution of the judicial process was that instead of two suits , there were five. All of them were taken over by the High Court . A Special Bench of three judges was constituted to hear them together.

7.      1990 :  On 12 Jan 1990 , the Supreme Court advised the Allahabad High Court : “ If thedefendants press the contention regarding the maintainability grounded upon limitation to be raised as the preliminary issue , the High Court which is trying the case will do well to entertain the request .” The Allahabad High Court refused to heed the counsel of the Supreme Court , and by its order of 22 Aug 1990 , refused to decide any issue as a preliminary issue. An appeal was filed against that order with the Supreme Court in Sep 1990 , for if the suits were not maintainable at all , the matter would be over . Nothing was done . The appeal remained pending.

8.      1991 :  In Oct 1991 , the U.P. Government took over the land under and around the structure.Writs were filed both in the High Court and the Supreme Court against the acquisition. On 15 Nov 1991 , the Supreme Court transferred all the writs to the High Court . It said that the High Court was taking over the case for final disposal.

9.      1992 :  Even in Jul 1992 , the hearings were going on in the High Court . When Kar Seva beganin Jul 1992, the Supreme Court said that if the U.P. Government could stop the Kar Seva, the Supreme Court would would transfer the acquisition cases to itself and decide them all together. The Kar Seva was stopped. But the Supreme Court eventually decided not to take over the cases on the ground that the hearings before the High Court were in an advanced stage. It however stressed that the High Court should expedite the hearings and decide the case expeditiously. 

10.  Kar Seva was once again set for 06 Dec 1992 . The High Court concluded its hearings on 04 Nov1992. The U.P. Government and others repeatedly requested it to deliver its judgement, one way or the other. Nothing happened. Instead, one of the judges proceeded on leave. The inevitable happened on 06 Dec 1992. The High Court delivered its judgement on 11 Dec 1992 !! 

11.  1993 :  The Presidential Reference quoted above. Nothing happened. As stated earlier , Their Lordships of the Supreme Court ‘decided not to decide’. However , the judgement stated (para 57) : “ - - - -. The Hindu community must, therefore, bear the CROSS on its chest, for the misdeed of the miscreants reasonably suspected to belong to their religious fold.”

12.   I quote the Belgian historian Dr. Koenraad Elst on his take on the foregoing sentence of thejudgement. “This illustrates nicely what we had all suspected for a long time: the English speaking elite in India has preserved the mind-set of the Christian British colonial rulers. The ruling class has borrowed its secularism from the anti-religious reaction in the late-Christian West. India is still under BROWN SAHIB colonial domination, and the legal apparatus which denies Hindus the right to their sacred site can, in circumstances critical to the establishment’s legitimacy, still be used as an instrument of colonial oppression.” A telling comment indeed!!

13.  2003 :   Nothing happened in the intervening period!! However, on 22 Aug 2003 , after morethan half-a-century of ‘judicial pussyfooting’, the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) handed a sensitive report to the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court. The ASI had been mandated by the Court to excavate the foundation level underneath and around the demolished Babri Masjid in Ayodhya. In the winter of 2002-2003 the Court had ordered a search of the site with a ground penetrating radar by the company Tojo Vikas International Ltd., which had been used during the survey for the Delhi Metro Rail. Canadian geophysicist Claude Robillard concluded from the scans that there was ‘some structure beneath the demolished masjid’ (Rediff.com – 19 Mar 2003). It was on this basis that the ASI undertook the excavation work. 

14.   There the matter RsIP todate !! Need anything further be stated on the state of the judicial process in India?  But to our ‘secularists ‘, like you ,  the Sangah Parivar are the villains!! Jai Ho!! 

15.  Archaeological Evidence :From published scholarly treatises , it can be discerned that between1975-1980, the ASI under the directorship of Prof. (Dr) B.B. Lal , a former Director General of the ASI, undertook an extensive programme of excavations at Ayodhya, including the very mound of the Ramjanmabhumi on which the so-called ‘ Janmasthan Masjid’ or Babri Masjid once stood till 06 Dec 1992 . At Ayodhya, Prof. Lal excavated 14 trenches at different locations in order to ascertain the antiquity of the site. According to Prof. Lal, based his findings following the excavations, the history of the township was at least three thousand years old, if not more, and that at the Ramjhanmabhumi there stood a HUGE STRUCTURE on a parallel series of square pillar bases built of several courses of bricks and stones. When seen in the light of 20 black stone pillars, 16 of which were found REUSED AND STANDING IN POSITION AS CORNER STONES OF THE BABRI MASJID DOME STRUCTURE, Prof Lal CONCLUDED THAT THE PILLAR BASES WOULD HAVE BELNGED TO A HINDU TEMPLE THAT PREDATED THE BABRI MASJID. 

16.   Authenticating Prof Lal is this statement of Shri K.K. Muhammad , Deputy SuperintendentArchaeologist ( Madras Circle ) as appeared in the English daily, Indian Express on 15 Dec 1990 : “ I can reiterate this (ie. The existence of the Hindu Temple before it was displaced by the Babri Masjid) with greater authority – for I was the only Muslim who had participated in the Ayodhya excavations in 1976-’77 under Prof. Lal as a trainee. I have visited the excavation near the Babri site and seen the excavated pillar bases. The JNU historians have highlighted ONLY ONE PART OF OUR FINDINGS WHILE SUPPRESSING THE OTHER.” Muhammad went to add: “ Ayodhya is as holy to the Hindus as Mecca is to the Muslims; Muslims should respect the sentiments of their Hindu brethren and voluntarily hand over the structure for constructing theRama Temple.” 

17.   In his treatise “ The Baburi Masjid ”, R.Nath wrote: “ The foregoing study of the architectureand site of the Baburi Masjid has shown, unequivocally and without any doubt, that it stands on the site of a Hindu Temple which originally existed in the Ramkot on the bank of the river Sarayu, and Hindu temple material has also been used in its construction. ” 

18.   As the Belgian scholar, Dr. Koenraad Elst has succinctly summed up this needless controversy:“ Science has made considerable progress, to the point of being able to decide many historical riddles such as whether a given site has a history as a place of worship. With the modern techniques available, it is rather absurd that there should be a controversy over such a simple and easily verifiable yes/no game over the existence of temple remains at the disputed site, when the matter could be scientifically decided in no time. Worse, even when science was called in to decide, the procedure was opposed by, of all people, the most EMINENT ACADEMICS. And when the scientific findings were made public, they were furiously denounced by more academics. - - - -. I for one want to be counted among those who defend the freedom of research and the scientific method, rather than among those who shriek and howl about some evil spirit in whose name EVERY LIE becomes justified, and whom THEY CALL SECULARISM. ” May I add, as your letter does, Mr. Sreekumar , just as ‘THEIR EMINENCES OF THE JNU/AMU STABLES” did at that juncture!!.

19.   The Govt. Sponsored VHP / AIBMAC Debates :  Now to an ‘unreported-in-the-media’ fact!!Soon after it took office in Nov. 1990, the Chandra Shekhar government was advised by (late) Shri Rajiv Gandhi to narrow down the Ayodhya dispute to the specific point whether the Babri Masjid had replaced a pre-existing Hindu temple. The First meeting between the VHP and the All India Babri Masjid Action Committee (AIBMAC) took place on 01 Dec 1990 in the presence of Shri Subodh Kant Sahay, Union Minister of State for Home Affairs (MoS), Shri Sharad Pawar, Shri Bhairon Singh Shekhawat and Shri Mulayum Singh Yadav, the CMs of Maharashtra, Rajasthan and U.P. respectively. After preliminary discussions the meeting was adjourned to 04 Dec 1990. 

20.   During the second meeting it was AGREED by both sides that (a) both sides will furnish theirevidence to the MoS by 22 Dec 1990 ; (b) the MoS would make photocopies of the evidences by 25 Dec 1990 ; (c) the two parties would then meet on 10 Jan 1991 for reviewing the evidence. A brief summary of the respective evidence presented by both sides is appended below and makes for interesting reading!! This is available in open source publications!! And yet, went unreported in the media!! 

21.  The VHP Evidence  The evidence submitted by the VHP was precise and within the parameterslaid down by the Government. All its documents were centered on the point that the Babri Masjid had replaced a pre-existing Ramjhanmabhoomi Mandir. Moreover the documents were summarized in a covering note setting out clearly the only conclusions that could be drawn. 

22.  The AIBMAC Evidence :  The evidence submitted by the AIBMAC ‘experts’ was no more thana pile of papers, most of them being newspaper articles written by sundry scribes and prolific in polemics rather than hard facts and rigorous logic. To cite one example from this pile will be useful!! The AIBMAC had submitted as evidence that Ram was born in Nepal, in the Punjab, in Afghanistan, in Egypt, in Varanasi, in Ayodhya at a different site, in some unknown place and finally not at all etc. So,, of each of the 8 ‘evidences’ cited, 7 contradict the other!! Some ‘Eminent Historians’ these, that made the AIBMAC team of ‘experts’!! Rightly has it been termed by many sane scholars as ‘History v/s Causitary’!!

23.  There you have it Mr. Sreekumar. It doesn’t need extraordinary rocket science genius to see who was in the right and who was ‘bluffing and filibustering’. Yet, it is the Sangh Parivar that must be condemned!! Thats Nehruvian Secularism, for you and me!! For me , the Ayodhya imbroglio is a shameful commentary on the judicial process in India. No more. No less please. As Arun Shourie rightly puts it : “ The second lesson is even more specific, and I am sorry to say that the courts are even more directly responsible for it.  - - But the courts have compounded the difficulties for themselves. They have not only gone along and taken these problems on themselves, having taken them on they have prevaricated. They have allowed one legal dodge after another to be used. In the event, people have been compelled to conclude that, like the rulers, the courts are not serious about attending to the matter, that if it is left to the courts it will not get anywhere in decades.” 

Gujarat 2002 

24.   You wrote : “  - - the second was the anti-minority genocide in Gujarat in which OVER 2000innocents were brutally killed ”.  Since you have not specified the community of the “innocents”, I take it you are referring to “over 2000 Muslims”. To set the record straight,  ‘ in 2005, the Minister of State for Home of the UPA coalition (comprising the 'secular' friends of Muslims) made a written statement in Parliament that 254 Hindus and 790 Muslims were killed in those riots.’ So, 790 = ‘OVER 2000’ in ‘secular mathematics’, is that so Mr. Sreekumar? Now I wonder ‘who killed the 254 Hindus’? The Loch Ness Monster?  

25.   I am aware of the fact that you were posted inGujarat in 2002. But ‘truth’ was the ‘firstcasualty’ in Gujarat 2002. May I bring to your attention, an unreported event in the media? An on the spot investigation was conducted under the aegis of the New Delhi-based Council for International Affairs and Human Rights. Its findings were made public as early as April 26th, 2002, through a press conference held in Delhi. Running counter to the politically correct line of an “orchestrated attack,” they were largely ignored by the media. The members of this team were : Justice D.S. Tewatia, Vice-Chairman of the Council and a former Chief Justice of Calcutta and Punjab and Haryana High Courts, wasthe leader. Other memberswere: Dr J C Batra, senior advocate, Supreme Court of India, Dr. Krishan Singh Arya, Academician, Chandigarh, Shri Jawahar Lal Kaul, former Assistant Editor, Jansatta, Delhi, and Prof. B K Kuthiala, Dean, Faculty of Media Studies, G.J. University Hisar. The team left for Gujarat on April 1 and returned on April 7, 2002. 

26.  In its introductory comments , the team stated:“Unfortunately in today’s India the vocal,articulate and dominant sections of thinkers and analysts have become predictable. Even before an exercise of analysis of events and processes begins it is possible to almost correctly forecast the inferences and conclusions that are likely to be drawn by the individuals, groups or organizations. A newspaper would publish editorials and articles supporting and proving only one point of view. The outcome of the discussion is predictable depending upon the television channel that is hosting it. Even in the case of simple journalistic reporting the personal predispositions of the reporter glare prominently in the news stories. The questions asked clearly indicate the ideological inclinations of the interviewer. So much so that even the organizations created under the statutes of the Constitution become partisan and their contentions are blind to a set of data and hyper-responsive to another set of facts. Unipolar thought process of Indian analysts and commentators has become a practice rather than an exception. 

27.  The role of the mainstream English media had come for special strictures from this group ofindependent and politically incorrect thinkers. The concluding part of their report on the ‘media’ stated: “ The Study Team is of the considered opinion that the media in general failed to perform as conscious and socially responsible gatekeepers of information. It followed in the footsteps of an American journalist who said, ‘My job is to report the facts. I give a damn to the consequences’. Telecasting images that spread hatred and instigated violence is unhealthy, but their repeated telecast is lethal. The media acted as an interested party in the confrontation, not a neutral reporter of facts. The team was alarmed at the intensity of hostile attitude among the people of the state for Delhi press and television news channels. This attitude was especially articulated by delegations of intellectuals like lawyers, doctors, and businessmen. Even the tribals complained that the media had no time to hear their tale of their agony and was spreading canards against the Hindus.” And, I regret to state that you are only parroting what the media has already done, Mr. Sreekumar. 

28.  Unfortunately, Truth has a surprising habit of popping up at inconvenient times!! I refer to the findings of the Special Investigation Team (SIT) under the directions of the Supreme Court that came out in the open on 13/14 Apr 2009. Remember the likes of Teesta Setalvad, Harsh Manderet al ? The news still hot from the oven is how the mass of wild accusations accompanied by shrill activism that Ms Teesta Setalvad hurled against Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi came back and hit her after seven years. The biting happened in stages but with the Supreme Court-appointed Special Investigation Team tabling its report, the wound has been ‘officially’ exposed. Over the years, every new finding on the post-Godhra riots seems to be doing two things: Lessening the culpability of Mr Modi, and exposing the fabrications of activists like Ms Setalvad. But this is not all. 

29.  And now, the SIT report, which directly implicates her. Among other findings, former CBIdirector RK Raghavan, who heads the SIT, lists these: (a) The horrendous allegations made (by Citizens for Justice & Peace) were false; (b) Cyclostyled affidavits were supplied by a social activist and the allegations made in them were untrue; (c) witnesses were tutored to present false testimony to the court; (d) Incidents that didn’t actually occur were manufactured — the alleged gang-rape of Kausar Banu and her foetus being ripped out, dead bodies being dumped by rioters in a well in Naroda Patiya, etc. In a word , Teesta Setlvad and her cohorts had no case. 

30.   Which brings me to a question that has been troubling me ever since the news of the‘fabrications’ came out in the open : Will all those who uncritically relied on Ms Stelvad’s words and activism now have the moral decency to apologise, withdraw their statements, and admit they are wrong? But, I believe, I know the answer. The silence of the editorial classes on this aspect bears eloquent testimony!! 

Scriptural Justification 

31.   You had written : “  - - If there is a scriptural justification for the liquidation of the Babri Masjid, kindly convey it to all Hindus - - -“. 

32.   Here is it!! From the Bhagawad Gita - “Ahimsa Paramo Dharmah" – ("Non – violence is the greatest Dharma.").  And the very next line : “Dharma himsaa tathaiva cha. ("So too is all righteous violence.")!!Spoken by Lord Krishna!!

33.  Swami Chinmayananda in his commentary on the first line stated : “This line in its over - emphasis, has sapped both initiative and energy in our millions, and, instead of making us all irresistible moral giants, we have been reduced to poltroons and cowards. And banking on this cowardly resignation of the majority, a handful of fanatics have been perpetrating crimes which even the most barbarous cave dwellers would have avenged. To clothe our weaknesses, we attribute to them glorious names and purposefully persuade ourselves to believe that they are brilliant ideologists! 

34.   Continuing, Swamiji stated : “Indeed, non - violence is the supreme policy to be adopted by man to foster enduring peace in the world; but there are certain dire moments in the life of individuals, as of nations, when we will have to meet force with force in order that justice be done. If only we all learn that dharma - himsa is equally noble as ahimsa. Under the present available scheme of chaos in this country, when under the planned instigation of a few power blind, reckless men, a minority community is rendered into a murderous gang of fanatics, it is the duty of the majority to win back the erring thousands.

35.  In the great work, ‘Gita Rahasya’, that he wrote in the Mandalay prison, the Lokmanya invokes Sriamartha, ‘Meet boldness with boldness; impertinence by impertinence must be met; villainy by villainy must be met.’ Large-heartedness towards those who are grasping? Forgiveness towards those who are cruel? Tilak invokes the advice of Bhisma, and then of Yudhisthira, ‘Religion and morality consist in behaving towards others in the same way as they behave towards us; one must behave deceitfully towards deceitful persons, and in a saintly way towards saintly persons.’ Of course, act in a saintly way in the first instance, the Lokmanya counsels. Try to dissuade the evil-doer through persuasion. ‘But if the evilness of the evil-doers is not circumvented by such saintly actions, or, if the counsel of peacefulness and propriety is not acceptable to such evil-doers, then according to the principle kantakenaiva kantakam (that is, “take out a thorn by a thorn”), it becomes necessary to take out by a needle, that is by an iron thorn, if not by an ordinary thorn, that thorn which will not come out with poultices, because under any circumstances, punishing evil-doers in the interests of general welfare, as was done by the Blessed Lord, is the first duty of saints from the point of view of Ethics.’ And the responsibility for the suffering that is caused thereby does not lie with the person who puts the evil out; it lies with the evil-doers. The Lord Himself says, Tilak recalls, ‘I give to them reward in the same manner and to the same extent that they worship Me. ’ ‘In the same way,’ he says, ‘no one calls the Judge, who directs the execution of a criminal, the enemy of the criminal...’

36.   I could add some more , but, for the moment the foregoing ought to suffice!! 

37.   Your ‘open letter’ disappointed me for the simple reason that it lacked sorely in even an iota of ‘intellectualism’. Your ‘secular’ polemics reminded of the words of wisdom written by that intellectual Kshatriya, (late) Shri Sita Ram Goel in his “Perversion of India’s Political Parlance”, where he wrote : “ The most significant contribution made to India’s politics and public life by the language of Leftism is character assassination. Most of the time, the Leftists are poor in facts and logic but prolific in foul language ”. He wrote it in 1984. It has stood the test of time!! 

38.  In conclusion, a verse from the Katha Upanishad would be in order. In English it would read as follows: “ Living in the midst of ignorance, considering themselves to be wise, the deluded wander confused, like the blind led by the blind.” 

39.  As your open letter is an appeal to the Hindu Voters, and in the light of the foregoing, my family and myself deeply regret our inability to go along with your contentions. Our minds are made up as regards our voting preferences!!

Warm Regards 

H.Balakrishnan 

 P.S.

Dear Mr. Sreekumar I commend the following scholarly treatises for yourreading. It may help 'enlighten' your good self please:

(A)  "Perversion of India's Political Parlance" - Sita Ram Goel - Voice of India, New Delhi

(B)  "The Ayodhya Reference" - Voice of India - New Delhi

(C)  "Hindu Temples: What Happened to Them" Vols 1 & 2 - Sita Ram Goel - Voice of India , New Delhi

(D)  "Ayodhya: The Finale" - Dr.Koenraad Elst - Voice of India, New Delhi

(E)  "Profiles in Deception: Ayodhya and the Dead Sea Scrolls" - Dr.N.S. Rajaram , Voice of India , New Delhi

(F)  "Indian Controversies" - Arun Shourie - Rupa & Co 

(G) "Godhra: The True Story" - Nicole Elfihttp://www.jaia-bharati.org/nicole-elfi/ni-godhra-ang.htm

(H) "A Lie Split Wide Open" - Sandeep. B. http://www.sandeepweb.com/2009/04/22/my-op-ed-a-lie-split-wide-open/