Religious vs. secular

Pseudo-secularism exposed: Balakrishnan

11 May 2009



1.  I read your Op-Ed , in the form of a letter to Shri L.K. Advani , entitled “ Will Advani apologise for Godhra? ”, in the English daily, The New Indian Express of 08 May 2009. It warranted a response and hence this letter of mine, as an Open Response. It is also being posted in a number of Internet Groups. Hopefully, you won't mind that course of action of mine.

2.  At the outset, and at a personal level, I must confess that it was a tortuous ordeal reading through your letter . So convoluted and meandering was the construction of the sentences , that at quite a few instances I gave up trying to make sense. The beauty of the English language lies in conveying one’s ideas through simple, short and crisp sentences , unlike your effort please. It jars the reader.

3.  Be that as it may , reading through your letter , I was reminded of sage words expressed by another sociologist , Ashis Nandy ( a Christian ), who wrote : “ The policies and actions of the Hindu nationalists may often have not been secular, but a part of their soul has always been. One example would be Nathuram Godse's last testament in court, in which he repeatedly accuses Gandhi of flouting the canons of secular statecraft.The opponents of the Sangh Parivar, not finding any intellectually meaningful response to these anomalies, pretend as if they do not exist or paper them over with the help of trendy, imported theories of fundamentalism and religious extremism”. How true, in your case!!

4.  In this light , do please permit me to put forward my contrarian views to those expressed by you. Essentially on the following : 
( a ) – Secularism ( in the ‘Indian Context’ of the term!!); 
( b ) – Ayodhya; ( c ) – Graham Staines murder and atrocities 
against missionaries; ( d ) – Gujarat 2002; and , ( e ) – The RSS / Sangh Parivar etc and Violence. 

SECULARISM / COMMUNALISM ( In the Indian Context !!)

5.  The words ‘ secular ’ and ' communal ', in the Indian context, are not even remotely related to the meanings which the English dictionary assign to them. In short and in the Indian context, these are the very opposite of those stated in any English dictionary. To amplify. In India, one is NOT ‘secular’, unless one harbours a deep-rooted anti-Hindu animus and expresses it frequently, like a stuck-in-the groove gramophone record of  yesteryears!! 
Besides, in any street riot, the RSS or the extended Sangh  Parivar must be blamed immediately and repeatedly. It is akin to V.I. Lenin telling – “First, lets stick the convicts badge on him, and after that, we’ll examine the evidence”.!!

6.  In a similar vein, is the Indian definition of the term ‘communal’, and is a logical corollary of the above understanding of the term ‘secular’. The dictionaries define the word ‘communal’ as ‘pertaining to a community, owned in common, shared’. But, in India, Hindus have only to say that they belong to a community, and that they share a common culture. Lo and Behold! The ‘secular Heavens come crashing down’ in a ‘secular cacophony’ 
of invectives!!

7.  Your letter follows, the above understanding of mine of these terms, to the proverbial tee, please!!


8.  You wrote, “Does Babri Masjid become an answer to the emptiness or  inauthenticity of secularism?” You then add a rhetorical flourish, “If  so Mr.Advani, could you honestly tell 
me what is the genocidal quotient  of your speeches?”. WOW!!

9.  The entire Ayodhya – Babri Masjid imbroglio is an excellent case study for ‘truthful’ historians, as a classic case of Goebbelsian propaganda of disinformation resorted to by 
the Indian seculars of all hues, inclusive of the Indian ‘secular’ English media. Lies were blatantly purveyed as the truth. No more. No less!! Permit me to put the issue in perspective.

10.  Archaeological Evidence :  From published scholarly treatises , it can be discerned that between 1975- 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 on 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. Now to the comic part of the findings. Dr.Lal was considered as a ‘secular’ archaeologist till then – but from the moment he published his archaeological findings, he became ‘communal’ in ‘secular eyes’!! Says it all, doesn’t it?

11.  Authenticating Prof Lal is this statement of Shri K.K. Muhammad , Deputy SuperintendentArcha eologist ( 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 the Rama Temple.”

12.  And then, there are the excavations of the ASI, on the orders of the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court in 2003. Using modern technology of a ground penetrating radar, it was found that a ‘structure’ existed below the site where the Babri Masjid stood!! This proves the fact that Islamic iconoclasm destroyed not one, but two Hindu Temples at the same spot i.e. the one discovered by Dr. Lal pertained to the Delhi Sultanate Period, and the latter discovery belonged to the Mughal era!! Science has spoken the Truth. The seculars still wallow in purveying falsehood on this issue.

13.  You had spoken admiringly of Arun Shourie in your opening paragraph. Here then is what Arun Shourie wrote in the English daily – Indian Express – in its edition of 25 Oct 1990. It was entitled : "Arey Bhai, Masjid Hai Hi Kahaan?" . Shourie wrote, and is worth quoting at some length : " But why do you refer to it as a mosque at all? Where is the mosque, my friends, when the namaz is not performed? When for forty years idol worship is going on there, what kind of a mosque is it? That is just the temple of our dear Ram. That is not L K Advani talking to V P Singh. It is V P Singh talking to several RSS leaders." Continuing, " The elections had not yet been announced. V P Singh had traveled to Bombay to meet the RSS leaders. Persons I know intimately were present throughout the meeting, which was held at his request in Mr Ramnath Goenka's penthouse at Express Towers. V P Singh said then that as the structure was valued by the Muslims and the site was sacred to the Hindus, he was for Rajmohan Gandhi's proposal -- i.e., for shifting the mosque bricks to another site and constructing the temple at the site. This is in essence what the VHP and the BJP came to espouse, with the improvement that the Hindus shall raise the funds to bear the 
entire cost of shifting the structure. Later, too, I know from one of the senior most leaders of the BJP, one who measures every word he says, Kidar Nath Sahni, V P Singh used the exact expressions of the BJP leaders. Later still -- and I know this directly from my friend Jaswant Singh, the BJP MP and today the Chairman of the Estimates Committee of Parliament - he used the very expressions to Jaswant Singh. To him V P Singh added that as the structure was a mandir in any case, why "demolish" it? " Where is the need for demolition?"  V P Singh had asked, " One shove and it will crumble. If each of you were to carry just one brick home, there will be nothing left there. Nor was there any change in the ensuing months. I know -- again from persons who were directly involved that V P Singh did not just endorse the three-point formula which was worked out, he actively participated
in devising it. Under it the entire property -- i.e. the structure and the land -- was to be acquired by the government. The structure was termed Part A, and the land around it Parts B and C, for reasons we shall just see. All this was worked out between V P Singh and others between Monday, October 15, and Thursday, October 18 ." And then, Shourie wrote: " Then came a stormy meeting of Muslim leaders with V P Singh. And so around 5 pm V P Singh let it be known that he had changed his mind. What was the "disputed structure became the "disputed land". And all lands, the titles to which were in dispute before the Allahabad High Court were now to be taken to be covered by the expression "disputed land. As nothing was to be done to disturb what was "disputed", this change meant that nothing could be commenced anywhere, not even at the spot where the shilanyas had been done. But once Government acquires the land," the law officer of the Government explained to him, " all disputes about its titles would end. There is thus no reason for going back on what hasbeen agreed -- about commencing construction. " Then I won't acquire the land," said V P Singh. “ And (late) V.P. Singh was an honourable gentleman. Wasn’t Brutus also honourable?

( URL :

14.  The govt. sponsored debates : 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.

15.  After preliminary discussions the meeting was adjourned to 04 Dec 1990. During the second meeting it was AGREED by both sides that (a) both sides will furnish their evidence 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!!

16.  The VHP Evidence : The evidence submitted by the VHP was precise and within the parameters laid 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 

17.  The AIBMAC Evidence : The evidence submitted by the AIBMAC ‘experts’ was no more than a 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’!!

18.  Finding the going getting increasingly tough in the dabate, the AIBMAC unilaterally decided not to turn up for the meeting on 25 Jan 1991. The VHP was present at the appointed place at the appointed hour!!

19.  Any dispassionate observer, on examining the documents presented in the debate and the conduct of both the parties will conclude that the VHP had co-operated with the Govt. all along. It had kept all the dates and provided pertinent evidence all along. The AIBMAC behaviour on the other hand, betrayed from the very start a lack of will for any serious and meaningful dialogue. And yet, the blame must be apportioned on the VHP!! Thats 'secularism' in India!! JAI HO!!

20.  An example of the filibustering indulged in by the AIBMAC provides comic relief !! To quote Arun Shourie from his most readable “ Indian Controversies “ (Rupa & Co) : “ So, 
archaeology itself was denounced. And sophistry was put out. Irfan Habib led the charge. But his own howler showed his arguments to be special pleading: if one went by the dates he ascribed on the basis of Carbon Dating and all, Babar would have expired in 1965 instead of 1530, the reign of Akbar would commence in 2001 instead of having ended in 1605!” (pp- 549).And for his path breaking research and discoveries, the secular UPA Government confers the ‘Padma Bhushan’ to this ‘Eminent Historian’!! Secularism – JAI HO!! That just about sums up Ayodhya.


21.  You wrote : “Yet, when it came to the Staines murder you appeared tone deaf. Is a missionary less of a human being because he is Christian, a foreigner and a missionary?”

22.  The secular English media, as well as the Minorities  Commission projected Staines as a devoted social worker. They had focused on his exemplary work for leprosy patients. In 
its report sent to the Justice Wadhwa Commission of Inquiry, the Minorities Commission had declared that Staines and his family had not been involved in preaching Christianity leading to conversions in Manoharpur , Orissa.

23.  Findings of Justice Wadhwa Commission :
   On the basis of evidence submitted, the Commission concluded : “ Besides his involvement with Leprosy House, Staines was also involved in missionary work. The missionary work of Staines has come to light from the various despatches sent by him to Australia, which are published in the newsletter – TIDINGS. Staines also used to take part in baptism ceremonies although he may not have 
carried out baptism himself. - - - -. However, it is the dispatches sent by Staines to Australia in the newsletter TIDINGS that make it clear that Staines was also involved in active propogation of his religion apart from his social work. It is also clear from the 
said dispatches that conversions were taking place in jungle camps. The missionary work of Staines obviously included organizing and conducting jungle camps, translating the Bible 
in tribal languages, preaching of the Bible to the tribals. - - - -. His missionary activities did lead to conversions of tribals to his faith.”

24.  Here are just two examples of the despatches  filed by Staines for the newsletter 'TIDINGS' .

25.  Graham and Gladys Staines, Mayurbhanj, 23 July, 1997: Praise God for answered prayer in the recent Jagannath car festival at Baripada. A good team of preachers came from the 
village churches and four OM workers helped in the second part of the festival. There were record book sales, so a lot of literature has gone into people’s hand - - -. [ OM is a carefully chosen acronym : the organization it signifies is actually one of the largest 
publishers and distributors of missionary literature, and has its offices in Carlisle, Cumbria, United Kingdom!!]

26.  Graham and Gladys Staines, Mayurbhanj, 20 March 1998: 
  - - - Over the next two months there will be a programme of baptism in nearby villages for those asking for them. These 
are times for witness to non-Christians too - - -".

27.  Law of the Land:  In the Rev. Stainislaus vs Stae of Madhya Pradesh , AIR 1977 SC 908 , a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court, in an unanimous judgment held : “  - - - We 
find no justification for the view that it [ Article 25(1) of the Constitution] grants a fundamental right to convert persons to one’s own religion. It has to be appreciated that the freedom of religion enshrined in the Article is not guaranteed in respect of one religion only, but covers all religions alike, and it can be properly enjoyed by a person if he exercises his right in a manner commensurate with the like freedom of persons following the other religions. What is freedom to one, is freedom for the other, in equal measure, and there can, therefore, be no such thing as fundamental right to convert any person to one’s own religion”.

28.  And, are we all not aware of the modus operandi in the ‘Harvesting of Souls’? There are enough and more of open source publications available to prove this aspect. What Mark Tully , the former BBC station chief in India terms as "Powder Milk Christians", in his book "No Full Stops in India". However, of far greater importance is the fact that Staines, as a foreigner and therefore on a visitor’s visa, was engaged in evangelical work which is expressly forbidden. Thus, to put it bluntly – he was a ‘law-breaker’ of Indian Law!! And you support a law breaker!! Need anything further be said about Indian ‘secularism’?

29.  Atrocities Against Other Missionaries :  Jhabua , Jhajjar , Allahabad , Baripada et al are still fresh in our minds – the manner these incidents were reported by the ‘secular’ English media in 1998-’99!! Collectively , the reportage conveyed to the unsuspecting reader that maniacal Hindu groups were going round raping nuns, attacking missionaries, burning down Churches etc!! But yet ,nothing was further from the truth !!

30.  In a hard hitting Article published in The New Indian Express of  29 June 2004 , entitled – ‘Secular’ hoot and scoot, tell lies and run away' -  S.Gurumurthy wrote : “- - - After the truth was revealed contrary to the lies they purveyed the `secular' media has run away. They even remotely never felt guilty about the damage they have caused to the nation and to the Hindus. Is it just a genuine, isolated error? No. This is their behaviour,
their character. Not isolated error just. See their record to know their character. Does `Jhabua' ring a bell? Immediately after the BJP-led government came to power in 1998 at the Centre, this was a great lie the `secular' media massified on a scale unprecedented. ``At Jhabua, four Christian nuns were raped by 24 Hindu goons' (read the Sangh Parivar) the `secular' media kept on repeating for months on end till the whole world was convinced 
about it. But even as it massified this lie the secular media knew that half of those 24 criminals were Christians, so it was no Hindu rape of Christian nuns. This was later established by `secular' MP Government's investigation and chargesheet. The `secular' media
ran away after telling such a massive lie, when the truth was revealed. `Jhabua repeated in Jhajjar' screamed another respected `secular' daily charging that in Jhajjar in Haryana a 
Christian nun was molested. This was proved false in two days. But here again, after the truth surfaced the `secular' newspaper ran away. `Nun raped in moving car in Orissa' screamed all newspapers and TV channels. The Wadhwa Commission which went into Staines murder case found this report concocted by the nun herself. Here too the `secular' media ran away after Wadhwa found out the truth. By these massive lies not just the average 
Indian, but the whole western world began believing that Hindus in India habitually rape the Christian nuns. Move on. `Two Christians killed and one injured' shouted all newspapers
and channels.Justice Wadhwa found that the killings were the result of family feud and the killer was also a Christian. Here also the `secular' media ran away after Wadhwa revealed the truth. Further.`Hindu fundamentalists are burning down churches in Andhra and Karnataka', screamed the `secular' media. Investigations by `secular' governments in the two States later established something entirely different. That Anjuman-e-Islam, an 
Islamic fundamentalist organisation  linked to SIMI, had carried out those acts to create trouble between Hindus and Christians. Again the `secular' media ran away after this was revealed. Just illustrations, these do not exhaust the lies. See the damage caused to the image of the Hindus and to India.Tell lies, as massively as they can, and then after the truth is revealed, run away, so that the lies masquerade as truth and serve the 'secular' 
cause. This is `secular' hoot and scoot. Why do they not regret telling lies after they come to know the truth? That does not, but lies, serve the cause of secularism. That is why. “ 


31.  And yet , the RSS / VHP / Sangh Parivar are the villains !!


32.    You have purveyed the same ‘bullshit’ about Gujarat 2002 , that secularists of various hues have been repeating in the 
media . However, true to your secular traditions you are silent on the findings of the SIT, and, submitted to the Supreme Court on 13/14 Apr 2009 !! Lets briefly recapitulate!!

33.  The news fresh from the oven is how the mass of concocted turd that Teesta Setalvad threw against Modi came back and landed on her own face after seven years. Teesta has 
understandably vanished from the public glare, given that she has lots of cleaning up to do. Moping up seven years of accumulated excreta takes a long time. Every new finding on the Gujarat riots seems to be doing two things: lessening the culpability of Modi, and exposing the fabrications of charlatans of the Gujarat Riots Milking Federation, which Teesta heads. And so it is with the latest report by the Special Investigation Team’s (SIT). The SIT also found no truth in the following incidents widely publicised by the NGOs:(a) - A pregnant Muslim woman Kausar Banu was gangraped by a mob, who then gouged out the foetus with sharp weapons; (b) - Dumping of dead bodies into a well by rioteers at 
Naroda Patiya; (c) - Police botching up investigation into the killing of British nationals, who were on a visit to Gujarat and unfortunately got caught in the riots. The SIT report clearly shows some of the dubious and outright illegal methods she followed in 
her quest for “justice” (sic) viz : (a) - Tutoring witnesses; (b) - Filing false affidavits (c) - Lying openly; (d) - Manufacturing tales of incidents that didn’t actually occur; (e) - Threatening witnesses and aides who didn’t “obey” her etc etc!!

34.  Teesta Setalvad is a solid specimen of the vilest form of profiteering: from other people’s misery. She’s so vile that if no misery actually exists, she’ll invent one like : (a) - Zarina Mansuri,a 30-year-old Muslim woman who was believed to have been brutally hacked to death and later burnt to ashes by a mob in the Naroda Patiya massacre of February 28, 2002, was not even alive at that time. She had died of tuberculosis (TB) 
some four months earlier. (b) - About the rape of one of her friends, Shabana (15), which Anisha is said to have witnessed (according to her statement recorded by police on May 15, 
2002), Yunus’s deposition said: “This, again, is wrong. Anisha had witnessed nothing like that that day. We, along with several others, were hiding on the same terrace of a house in Gangotarinagar at that time and none of us had seen anything like that. (c) - The more renowned. It concerns the curious tale of a certain Zahira Shaikh, her carefully-nurtured “eyewitness” who turned around and bit her in unmentionable places. I refer to the 'Best FAKERY Case 'OOPS ! I meant the 'Best Bakery Case'!

35.  But the skeletons didn’t stop falling. In December 2008, her trusted aide, Raees Khan defected, revealing even fouler details.

36.  And now, the SIT report, which directly implicates her.“ It is clear from the report that the horrendous allegations made by the NGO were false. Cyclostyled affidavits were supplied by a social activist and the allegations made in them were untrue…". The SIT 
report clearly shows some of the dubious and outright illegal methods she followed in her quest for “justice” (sic): (a) - Tutoring witnesses; (b) - Filing false affidavits; (c) -Lying openly; (d) - Manufacturing tales of incidents that didn’t actually occur; 
(e) - Threatening witnesses and aides who didn’t “obey” her etc. SATYA MEVA JAYATE !! We are also aware of the caperings of Teesta's fellow -partners-in-crime - Mr.Harsh Mander and the Booker Prize winner - Suzanne Arundhati Roy and her invention of a 'gory rape' when the victim was actually in the U.S.A.!!

37.  If that was not enough , earlier in Oct 2008 , the Justice Nanavati Commission of Inquiry went public with Part -1 of their report . Narendra Modi-absolvement in this hour of the year is perhaps the worst tiding to ever hit  the “secular forces.” The 6-year-long media-political campaign against Modi has turned in Modi’s favour rather dramatically and at the most inopportune moment. Even an engineered petition to stop the Nanavati report 
from becoming public proved futile, thanks to the Supreme Court. The entire secular spectrum is thus hurriedly wiping the eggshells off its face. The aforementioned pieces are festinated exercises in damage control.

38.  The Nanavati panel has not released the entire report– we only have the first part, which clearly absolves Narendra Modi. While it is too much to expect an apology from the political class, let’s turn to what India’s top bloggers and journalists say. We meet silence. Those that were quick to thunder, revile, mock, and in general pour scorn over Modi at every turn are now speechless. Do they have the courage to at least say, we were 
hasty, we got carried away in the general media hysteria? Those that talk about understanding nuances, or those that repeatedly call for justice for “murdered Indians.”

39.  And yet , you wrote : “ Today, the evidence before the Nanvati Commission and the investigations of the SIT team show that your party has been deeply involved in rioting violence and genocide”. Tell me Sir – “Does LYING come naturally to the seculars? I am curious.” The reason I query is because, in a written reply tabled in Parliament in 2005, 
the Minister of State for Home Affairs had stated that “ 790 Muslims and 254 Hindus were killed in the Gujarat riots of 2002”. That apart, the Union Home Ministry's Annual Report of 2002-03 stated that 40,000 Hindus were in riot relief camps. What made those 40,000 Hindus rush to relief camps? To seek protection from whom? Why was it necessary if they were the main aggressors? And, who killed those 254 Hindus? Which invisible monster did it?

40.  It would be unfair not to mention a few voices that rose from among the journalists themselves, against this enormity of canards and calumny. The most eloquent one was Vir 
Sanghvi’s, usually part of the “secular” establishment, ever ready to portray Muslims as victims and Hindus as aggressors. Vir Sanghvi’s crisis of conscience suddenly gave him intellectual clarity. Some extracts from his article “One-way ticket” in The Hindustan Times of 04 MAR 2002: “ There is something profoundly worrying in the response of what might be called the secular establishment to the massacre in Godhra. …There is no 
suggestion that the karsewaks started the violence … there has been no real provocation at all … And yet, the sub-text to all secular commentary is the same: the karsewaks had it 
coming to them.Basically, they condemn the crime; but blame the victims …Try and take the incident out of the secular construct that we, in India, have perfected and see how bizarre such an attitude sounds in other contexts. Did we say that New York had it coming when the Twin Towers were attacked last year? Then too, there was enormous resentment among fundamentalist Muslims about America's policies, but we didn't even consider whether this resentment was justified or not. But there comes a time when this kind of rigidly 'secularist' construct not only goes too far; it also becomes counter-productive. When everybody can see that a trainload of Hindus was massacred by a Muslim mob, you gain nothing by blaming the murders on the VHP or arguing that the dead men and women had it coming to them. Not only does this insult the dead (What about the children? Did they also 
have it coming?), but it also insults the intelligence of the reader.There is one question we need to ask ourselves: have we become such prisoners of our own rhetoric that even a 
horrific massacre becomes nothing more than occasion for Sangh Parivar-bashing?"
 Unfortunately, you don’t seem to suffer any pangs of conscience as your letter vividly portrays!!


41.  It has become routine for the secular establishment to blame the RSS / Sangh Parivar for any communal riot that takes place in India. Gujarat 2002 was no exception. Yet, Commissions after Commissions of Inquiry have found the RSS / Sangh Parivar ‘NOT GUILTY’. This on the basis of evidence presented before them and after going through the due process of law, unlike the ‘Hoot & Scoot Lies’ of the ‘seculars’. A few examples to prove 
the point.

42.  The Justice P. Jagan Mohan Reddy Commission :  Appointed to inquire into the Ahmedabad riots of 1969 , the Commission, on the basis of evidence presented before it 
held: “  - - - On this evidence it is difficult to hold that the rally of the RSS, which was no doubt the biggest in Ahmedabad, had created any communal tension between the Hindus 
and Muslims”.

43.  The Justice Wadhwa Commission :  Appointed to inquire into the murder of Graham Staines , the Commission, on the basis of evidence presented before it held: “  - - -  There is NO EVIDENCE to suggest that any of the persons involved in the crime was in fact a member of either the Bajrang Dal or BJP or any organization. There is nothing to suggest in the evidence before the Commission, or in the investigation conducted by the Crime Branch and the CBI thus far that there is involvement of any organization, even that of the Bajrang Dal, in the planning and the execution of the crime - -.”

44.  In this connection , it is pertinent to quote Shri RNP Singh , a former IB officer , who in his well researched book “Riots & Wrongs “ wrote: “ - - - Another unfortunate aspect noticed is that the pseudo-secularists fail to maintain impartiality and make it a point to unhesitatingly hold only the RSS and other Hindu organizations responsible for the communal riots. Even by mistake, they do not touch upon Muslim organizations or the 
prevailing communal situation, as they fear that it would tell upon their secular image.” I can already see Shri RNP Singh being dubbed "communal" by the 'secularists'!!Q.E.D.!!

45.  And here is something more adding fuel to the ‘secular fire’!! The name of the research institution is Sorbonne University, Paris, France. The researcher is Dr. (Father) Vincent Kundukulam of St Joseph Pontifical Seminary, Aluva, Kerala. The 
thesis for the doctoral research is:"Le RSS Et L'Eglise En Inde (RSS and Church in India)."  ---. " The conclusion drawn by Fr. Kundukulam is that RSS cannot be considered as a nationalist organisation in the sense in which the term 'nationalism' is generally interpreted in India.- -  -. "  In his view, RSS is a multi-faceted organisation which is political, cultural, religious and voluntary in nature and approach."

46.  Further, Fr. Kundukulam argues against branding the RSS ideology as fascism, Nazism, fundamentalism and communalism. He said the terms fascism, Nazism, and fundamentalism are 
much abused terms in India. They have a distinct connotation in the European context that can hardly apply to the Indian milieu ". - - -. " The ideology of the RSS and the way in which it is interpreted by the Sangh leaders borrowing modern terminology have no camparison to the sense in which the term fundamentalism was used in America. So also, fascism and Nazism do have distinct meanings in the socio-political contexts that prevailed in Italy and Germany which have no bearing in the Indian context."

47.  Fr. Kundukulam felt that communalism is not at all a part of religion. Communalism is nothing but mobilisation of people on communal lines to serve a specific cause. RSS can, 
therefore, be said to be communal only in a limited sense. BJP, the political arm of the RSS, during its rule at the Centre has not committed any acts that could truly be described as fundamentalist, fascist, or communal " .-  - -.  " In fact, one of the first acts of A B Vajpayee after taking over as Prime Minister last time was to call on Mother Teresa and Delhi Archbishop," he said .- - -. " He admires the RSS for the dedication and discipline of its cadres, the simple life style of its pracharaks, the moral teaching it
imparts to the younger generation in its daily sakhas, and the voluntary labour put in by its cadres at critical times such as natural calamities. "
( URL: http://world. christianpost. com/article/ 20031219/ 1016.htm )

48.  Something more on these ‘ communal organizations’!!  Howsoever the UPA government and its coalition partners oppose the RSS, as also the ' very-secular English media ', the 
government had to laud the service activities being rendered by various RSS associated organisations in different parts of the country. About one third of the 14 voluntary organisations whom the Union Ministry of Tribal Affairs has identified in its annual report for their outstanding services, are the RSS associated organisations. The Ministry of Tribal Affairs implements its welfare schemes for all-round development of Vanvasis with the help of voluntary organisations. The Ministry has identified 14 organisations, which produced remarkable results through the better implementation of its various schemes. The Ministry has kept them in special category to grant relaxations while providing grant for next year ( viz 2008).

49.  Highlighting the role of these organisations, the Ministry in its annual report has said that the organisations had done a good job in implementing the government schemes and they would be encouraged in implementation of developmental schemes in coming years. The Ministry is working on four major schemes with the participation of voluntary organisations. They include grant to the organisations working for the welfare of the Vanvasis, literacy campaigns among Vanvasi women, running of vocational training centres and development of various Vanvasi communities. The report said that the fund granted to voluntary organisations in the first four years of the Tenth Plan was utilised hundred per cent.   

50.  That is not all!! Cardinal Mar Varkey Vithayathil in his book 
“ Straight From  Heart “, wrote that the 'secular'CPI-M as a 'threat' to democracy and warned that India will suffer 
the same fate as China under Mao Zedong.The Marxist party will use all kinds of tactics to strengthen itself in places where it is in power, he added!! Putting his views on BJP, the Cardinal in the book says, 'The commendable thing about the party is that they want to preserve the good aspects of Indian culture like modesty of women and promoting certain moral values, for which they would opt for stricter media censorship. For them religion is 
very important and they support democracy and human rights.'Besides protecting ancient culture and heritage of India, like Vedas, Upanishads and the great philosophical teachings 
to the six systems of Indian philosophy, BJP respects, preserves and promotes knowledge of  Sanskrit and Ayurveda.'  Blasphemy in secular eyes , like yours??


51.  I was quite taken in by your brazen comparison of the Holocaust to Gujarat 2002 !! It was akin to comparing chalk and cheese !! Coming from an academic it is unpardonable!! Be 
that as it may , in the light of my foregoing analysis, I believe ‘ You are lying Mr. Shiv Visvanathan.’  And I am also inclined to believe, you know that you are lying !! That compounds the felony and makes you an inveterate liar.
 It is therefore for the likes of you seculars, to apologise to the Indian public for all the lies you and your ilk have been brazenly purveying. That is if you have something called 

Warm Regards


A muslim will only have respect if you are religious, not if you are secular.
12/24/2008 01:34 PM


'My Dream Is to Create a United Religious Nations'

Yona Metzger, the Ashkenazi Chief Rabbi of Israel, talks to SPIEGEL ONLINE about the Abraham as the father of all three monotheistic religions -- Islam, Christianity and Judaism -- and explains how that connection could be a starting point for a dialogue of peace between them.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: Chief Rabbi, Jews refer to Abraham as "Our Father Abraham." How difficult is it for you to accept the fact that Christians and Muslims also call Abraham their father?

Metzger: This is not difficult at all. It fits very well with the Jewish religion. A close look at the word "Abraham" reveals that it is constructed from the words "father of many nations." So, if Muslims associate themselves with Abraham's son Ismael, or Christians associate themselves with Abraham's grandson Esau, or we associate ourselves with his other grandson Jacob, then three great monotheistic religions were born from him.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: What is Abraham's function in the Bible?

Metzger: The great Jewish philosopher Maimonides explained this very impressively. God created various objects in heaven. The sun, for example, or the moon and the stars -- they are all high above us. This was understood to mean that God wanted us to respect them more than the things which were created on Earth. Gradually things went wrong. Instead of praying directly to God, the people turned the objects into targets of their prayers.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: They worshipped idols.

Metzger: When Abraham came, he saw the sun rising, setting and the world turning and he thought, who is causing all these to move? There has to be someone above all these. So he essentially was saying: "You have stopped halfway. There is someone above these objects you worship! So why go to the ministers? Let's go directly to the king." And so he commenced a journey which touched many people. Together with his wife Sarah, he traveled from place to place and developed the philosophy of belief in one God. Slowly but surely many people gathered around him and today most of the population of the world is monotheistic: Christianity, Islam, Judaism ...

SPIEGEL ONLINE: ... 3.5 billion people ...

Metzger: Perhaps even more. I met with leaders of the Hindu religion, who I was certain were idol worshippers, but their leaders said they also believe in God -- it's just that they believe He has a way through the idols. And some Buddhists say that Buddha is only a worldview, and not a religious belief. We see that most of the world really follows the path of Abraham.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: But one gets the sense that the Jews think that they are the original and Christians and Muslims are only "copies."

Metzger: Well, from the historical perspective it was so. Jesus was a Jew. Subsequently Christianity came into the world and then Islam. These were the steps, historically -- not the other way round. When Jesus was in Jerusalem, he was not familiar with a church or a mass -- that is certain. He knew only one thing: the Holy Temple. After his time, the rest was developed by his disciples.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: But Christians stress that Abraham believed in God before he became circumsized and actually became Jewish.

Metzger: Abraham had no rabbi, no teacher. He was taught the law by his kishkes as we say in Jiddish, "from his own two kidneys." That is to say, he learned by himself and through himself. It is interesting to note that the Torah calls Abraham an Ivri, "a Hebraic."

SPIEGEL ONLINE: Is it important for you whether Abraham was a real historic person? Historians and archeologists have not found any clear proof that Abraham has ever lived.

Metzger: I believe that the Bible represents fully the true history of the world. If historians or archeologists find proofs, we are delighted, but we don't need them.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: When you look at the historical perspective, much blood was spilled in the name of religion. So how can a dialogue be conducted between religions?

Metzger: Look, Abraham specifically is very helpful regarding dialogue -- and I will give you an example. Once I had a meeting with an Iranian leader. He was one of the heads of the Ayatollahs. Initially he did not want to shake my hand, but eventually I turned to him and asked him: "Do you believe that your forefather was Abraham?"

SPIEGEL ONLINE: Ibrahim, as the Muslims call him in Arabic.

Metzger: Yes. Ibrahim. And he answered, "Yes." I said to him that I also believe that my father was Abraham. So I asked him, "Do you believe that our forefather would be pleased today -- up in heaven -- seeing that one son kills himself in order to kill his other son? Which father would delight in such a thing?" He did not have an answer.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: So Abraham could serve as a vehicle for dialogue?

Metzger: Yes. Even if you have a brother who you believe is not a good person and you think that the world needs to be Muslim -- do not kill! If you want, speak, put it on the table and be cultured. Like every father Abraham would expect that his children sit down at the table instead of killing each other.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: Can you give another example of dialogue?

Metzger: During a recess, in a conference which took place in Europe, one of the heads of the Muslim Courts in Jordan invited me to a cup of coffee in the lobby of the hotel. We sat for about half an hour. I began telling him about some of my problems; I told him about my family, my children, some issues with rabbis and the chief rabbis that are under me and the responsibilities I have. He told me about his problems. At the end he stood up, shook my hand and told me: "Now, after having told me all of your stories, and after I have told you all of my stories, I cannot hate you."

SPIEGEL ONLINE: Do you believe that religious people are better equipped to bring peace to the world?

Metzger: Definitely. My dream is to create a United Religious Nations -- just as there is the United Nations in New York. The diplomats did not succeed in bringing peace to the world. They need help. And this can come through religious language. Because a Muslim does not respect a person who is secular; he will only have respect if you are religious. This Religious United Nations would also include Hindus and Buddists. We religious people speak the same language.

Interview conducted by SPIEGEL Middle East correspondent Christoph Schult in the chief rabbi's Jerusalem office.,1518,598234,00.html