293 quotes found
"I believe that the word secular is the biggest lie since Independence. Those that have given birth to this lie and those that use it should apologise to the people and this country. No system can be secular. Political system can be sect-neutral. If someone were to say that government has to be run by one way of prayer, that is not possible. In UP, I have to look at 22 crore people and I am answerable for their security and their feelings. But I am not sitting here to ruin one community either. You can be sect-neutral but not secular."
"Secular, as I understand, means that religion should not play any role in governance. If it’s true, then why were you quiet for last 10 years when the ruling party was continuously giving alms to Muslims? Did you and your fellow signatories utter a word when PM M.M. Singh said that minorities have first right over natural resources? ... Secularism was nothing but a ploy to attract Muslim votes and keep a control on Hindus from asserting themselves. ... If your fellow ‘secular’ filmwallas feel so strongly about the ‘secular foundations’ and its preservation thereof, how come they never uttered a word against the Muzzafarnagar riots? Or against Shri Mulayam Singh Yadav? Or Azam Khan? Or Abu Azmi?"
"The secular state assumes that the Semitic religions and the Hindu traditions are instances of the same kind."
"“When Indian intellectuals use existing theories about religion and its history – for example, to analyse ‘Hindu-Muslim’ strife – they reproduce, both directly and indirectly, what the West has been saying so far. (…) the ‘secularist’ discourse about this issue can hardly be distinguished – both in terms of the contents or the vocabulary – from Orientalist writings of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries.”"
"‘Christianity spreads in two ways,’ an Indian historian has written: ‘through conversion and through secularisation.’"
"No matter how much tyranny, how much injustice is heaped on Hindus anywhere in the world, the State of India is not bothered - this is the essence of Secularism in India."
"Since ‘Enlightenment Secularism’, with its core principle of separation, founded on the Protestant conception of religion as essentially a private concern with which states had no legitimate business, was never going to work in a country where rulers and religious publics had been interacting from time immemorial, it was better not to use the term at all, than to use it fraudulently."
"The general enthusiasm for "secularism" in itself should indicate that the meaning of the term has undergone a drastic change in India, and that it is irresponsible to use the term as if it had its established Western meaning (which most India-watchers do). Just as the English word deception has a radically different meaning from its French look-alike déception (= disappointment) the British-English word secularism radically differs in meaning from its Indian-English look-alike secularism. A professional interpreter who translates déception as deception is incompetent, and an India-watcher who translates the Indian-English term secularism into standard English as secularism, has a similar problem."
"Even Muslim activists whose counterparts in Turkey or Egypt denounce secularism as a demonic betrayal of Islam, call themselves “secularists”."
"In the West, secularism implies pinpricking religious fraud and arrogance, but in India, secularists are the most eloquent defenders of myth and theocracy."
"Genuine secular states have equality before the law of all citizens regardless of religion. By contrast, India has different civil codes depending on the citizen's religion. Thus, for Christians it is very hard to get a divorce, Hindus and Muslim women can get one through judicial proceedings, and Muslim men can simply repudiate their wives. The secular alternative, a common civil code, is championed by the Hindu nationalists. It is the so-called secularists who, justifying themselves with specious sophistry, join hands with the most obscurantist religious leaders to insist on maintaining the present unequal system. Likewise, legal inequality in matters of temple management, pilgrimage subsidies, special autonomy for states depending on their populations' religious composition, and the right to found religious schools is defended by the so-called secularists (because it is invariably to the disadvantage of the Hindus) while the Hindu nationalists favour the secular alternative of equality regardless of religion. In India, sharia-wielding Muslim clerics whose Arab counterparts denounce secularism as the ultimate evil, call themselves secularists."
"The fundamental mistake of Indian secularism is that Hinduism is put in the same category as Islam and Christianity. Islam and Christianity's intrinsic irrationality and hostility to independent critical thought warranted secularism as a kind of containment policy. By contrast, Hinduism recognizes freedom of thought and does not need to be contained by secularism."
"The more I learned about this Indian "secularism", the more it became clear to me that it was often the very opposite of what we in the West in genuinely secular states call "secularism". Indeed, over the years I have had many a good laugh at the pompous moralism and blatant dishonesty of India's so-called secularists. Their specialty is to justify double standards, e.g. why mentioning murdered Kashmiri Pandits is “communal hate-mongering” while the endless litany about murdered Gujarati Muslims is “secular consciousness-raising”. Sometimes they merely stonewall inconvenient information, such as when they tried to deny and suppress the historical data about the forcible replacement of a Rama temple in Ayodhya by a mosque: given the strength of the evidence, all they could do was to drown out any serious debate with screams and swearwords. But often they do bring out their specific talents at sophistry, such as when they argue that a Common Civil Code, a defining element of all secular states, is a Hindu communalist notion, while the preservation of the divinely-revealed Shari’a for the Muslims is secular. That’s when they are at their best."
"Indian secularists prefer to keep the rest of the world in ignorance about their own dirty little secret, viz. that “secularism” in India often means the very opposite of its normal meaning. When you question an Indian secularist at close quarters, he will try to save his position by explaining that secularism in India happens to mean something different from what it means in the West. But do they tell this to Western audiences? ... Westerners’ automatic sympathy for Indian secularism (and against the supposed “theocrats” they hear about) is predicated on the assumption that their own familiar secularism is also present in India, that both are the same."
"The word “secular” was not part of India’s political parlance in the days of the Constituent Assembly, and even the Republic (let alone India itself) was not founded as a “secular” state. On the contrary, the Constituent Assembly through its chairman, BR Ambedkar, explicitly rejected the two S words. India became a “secular socialist” republic under the (1975-77) without proper Parliamentary debate. “Secular” is one of the few words in the Constitution that was enacted without democratic basis, and this is only fitting for a “secularism” which has always and unabashedly been despotic and anti-majority. There may be many things wrong with democracy, but it is not anti-majority. Indeed, that is precisely what is wrong with democracy, according to the secularists."
"We make no discrimination against the adherent of any religion. All faiths are entitled to equal protection and equal respect. This we have named "Secularism", which entitles each Indian to pursue his own belief and learn more about his own creed. But it also requires him to extend the same right to persons of other religions."
"Secularism is the bedrock of our nationhood, secularism as defined not in the English dictionaries, where it is defined as ‘non-religious’ or ‘anti-religious’, but secularism the way Panditji defined it as which allows every religion to flourish in our country."
"The word secular is defined in the dictionaries as "the belief that the state, morals, education, etc. should be independent of religion." But in India it means only one thing -- eschewing everything Hindu and espousing everything Islamic."
"In the current political parlance Islamic imperialism masquerades as secularism, while Indian nationalism gets branded as "Hindu communalism"."
"The concept of Secularism as known to the modern West is dreaded, derided and denounced in the strongest terms by the foundational doctrines of Christianity and Islam. Both of these doctrines prescribe Theocracy under which the State serves as the secular arm of the Church or the Ummah, and society is regimented by the Sacred Canon or the Shariat. This fact is more than evident if we survey the history of Christianity till the French Revolution, and the practice which prevails in all Islamic states till today. It is a different matter that Christianity has reconciled itself to Secularism because of its steep decline in its traditional homelands - Europe and the Americas. The doctrine remains unchanged and Christianity will restore Theocracy if it were to acquire power again. Islam has yet to evince any sign of similar reconciliation with Secularism either in doctrine or in practice. In fact, the recent trend in most Islamic countries has been to revert to Theocracy in its pristine form, that is, as it existed under the four "rightly guided caliphs"."
"It is, therefore, intriguing that the most fanatical and fundamentalist adherents of Christianity and Islam in India - Christian missionaries and Muslim mullahs - cry themselves hoarse in defence of Indian Secularism... The puzzle needs unravelling unless one is satisfied with the mere sound of the word 'secularism', and at the same time nails pluralistic Hinduism as a closed monotheism like Islam and Christianity as India-watchers in the West and their lickspittles in this country have been doing for a long time... It can be concluded quite safely that although all 'secularists' may not be scoundrels, all scoundrels in India are 'secularists'. (...) Secularism in the West had risen as a revolt against the closed creed of Christianity and had meant, for more than 150 years, a freeing of the State from the clutches of the Church. In the Indian context it should have meant a revolt against the closed creed of Islam as well, and keeping the state aloof from the influence of mullahs."
"[Nehru's] animus against Hinduism was derived from his love for Communism. He knew next to nothing about Buddhism; the only reason be hailed it as well as its hero, Ashoka, was that in his perception Buddhism was a 'revolt' against 'reactionary' Brahminism. Had he known the truth about Buddhism, he would have dropped it like a hot potato. The same psychology made him fall for Islam. Otherwise he was equally ignorant of, and equally indifferent to all religions. The Secularism which he espoused was not borrowed from the modern West. For him, it was only a smokescreen for Hindu-baiting. The fashion was picked up fast by a servile intelligentsia and became a national cult."
"Secularism per se is a doctrine which arose in the modem West as a revolt against the dosed creed of Christianity. Its battle-cry was that the State should be freed from the stranglehold of the Church, and the citizen should be left to his own individual choice in matters of belief. And it met with great success in every Western democracy. Had India borrowed this doctrine from the modem West, it would have meant a rejection of the dosed creeds of Islam and Christianity, and a promotion of the Sanatana Dharma family of faiths which have been naturally secularist in the modern Western sense. But what happened actually was that Secularism in India became the greatest protector of closed creeds which had come here in the company of foreign invaders, and kept tormenting the national society for several centuries."
"We should not, therefore, confuse India's Secularism with its namesake in the modern West. The Secularism which Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru propounded and which has prospered in post-independence India, is a new concoction and should be recognized as such. We need not bother about its various definitions as put forward by its pandits. We shall do better if we have a close look at its concrete achievements."
"Going by those achievements, one can conclude quite safely that Nehruvian Secularism is a magic formula for transmitting base metals into twenty-four carat gold. How else do we explain the fact of Islam becoming a religion, and that too a religion of tolerance, social equality, and human brotherhood; or the fact of Muslim rule in medieval India becoming an indigenous dispensation; or the fact of Muhammad bin Qasim becoming a liberator of the toiling masses in Sindh; or the fact of Mahmud Ghaznavi becoming the defreezer of productive wealth hoarded in Hindu temples; or the fact of Muhammad Ghuri becoming the harbinger of an urban revolution; or the fact of Muinuddin Chishti becoming the great Indian saint; or the fact of Amir Khusru becoming the pioneer of communal amity; or the fact of Alauddin Khilji becoming the first socialist in the annals of this country; or the fact of Akbar becoming the father of Indian nationalism; or the fact of Aurangzeb becoming the benefactor of Hindu temples; or the fact of Sirajuddaula, Mir Qasim, Hyder Ali, Tipu Sultan, and Bahadur Shah Zafar becoming the heroes of India's freedom struggle against British imperialism or the fact of the Faraizis, the Wahabis, and the Moplahs becoming peasant revolutionaries and foremost freedom fighters? One has only to go to the original sources in order to understand the true character of Islam and its above-mentioned luminaries. And one can see immediately that their true character has nothing to do with that with which they have been invested in our school and college text-books. No deeper probe is needed for unraveling the mysteries of Nehruvian Secularism."
"Thus Hindu society not only presents itself as a prey to these exclusive, intolerant and imperialist ideologies but also acts as a buffer between them. India is secular because India is Hindu. It can be added as a corollary that India is a democracy also because India is Hindu. If Hindu society permits this free for all any further, the days of Secularism and Democracy in this country are numbered. Let the Hindus unite and save themselves, their democratic polity, their secular state, and their Sanatana Dharma for a new cycle of civilization, not only for themselves but also the world."
"Another side of the same strategy has been worked out to neutralise, paralyse and blacken or pamper different sections of Hindu society so that the road is cleared for the forward march of Islamism. Some salient features of this secondary strategy can be outlined as follows: 1. The concept of Secularism which is enshrined in the Constitution of India and which has become the most sacred slogan for all our political parties should be distorted, misinterpreted and misused to the maximum to block out the least little expression of Hindu culture in the state apparatus and public life of India;..."
"That brings us to the second subject where the United Front between Islamism and Communism scored a notable victory-the subject of Secularism. They joined hands to jibe at Secularism till the concept was totally distorted and became a synonym for Islamic imperialism. Secularism as a state policy had been evolved in the modern West which had become sick of the contending theocratic claims of Christian churches. Theocracy had been as alien to Hindu state and society as it had been intrinsic to Christian and Islamic state and society. Secularism was, therefore, nothing new for the Hindus. ...."
"The puzzle gets solved when one contemplates the character of Indian Secularism and finds that is no more than a smokescreen used by the Muslim-Christian-Communist combine in order to keep India's national society and culture at bay. ... They are simply projecting their self-images on to those whom they view as their enemies. ...."
"I have no use for a Secularism which treats Hinduism as just another religion, and puts it on par with Islam and Christianity. For me, this concept of Secularism is a gross perversion of the concept which arose in the modern West as a revolt against Christianity and which should mean, in the Indian context, a revolt against Islam as well."
"I have absolutely no doubt in my mind that Secularism in its present Indian form is no more than an embodiment of anti-Hindu animus, and is supported by all those who want to destroy Hindu society and culture. Secularism is essentially a political concept which originated and took shape in nineteenth century Europe. ....It was in this atmosphere of revolt against Christianity and its closed culture that the concept of Secularism was evolved and employed in country after country in Europe. The secular power of the State was no longer to be the secular arm of the Church. It was to become secular on its own, that is, a power which secured equal rights to all its citizens without bothering about their beliefs. The Church was separated from the State which was no longer supposed to interfere with the religious life of the citizens, or to discriminate against any citizen on the basis of his on her religion or absence of it. Religion was now to be treated as a purely private matter in which the state was not supposed to pry, and which was not to be projected in public affairs."
"The smokescreen for this Stalinist operation was provided by the slogan of Secularism which nobody was supposed to question, or examine as to what it had come to mean. Its meaning had to be accepted ex-cathedra, and as laid down by the Muslim-Marxist combine. In the new political parlance that emerged, Hinduism and the nationalism it inspired, became blackened as “Communalism”. Small wonder that the word “Hindu” started becoming a dirty word in the academia as well as the media. ... Secularism arose in the modern West as a revolt against the closed theology of Christianity which had acquired a stranglehold on the State; in India, unfortunately, Secularism has become the biggest single protector of closed theologies promoted by Christianity and Islam. ... All this was being done by [Nehru] in the name of Secularism, which concept he had picked up from the modern West and perverted to mean the opposite of what it meant there."
"Secularism in the modern West had symbolized a humanist and rationalist revolt against the closed creed of Christianity and stood for pluralism such as has characterized Hinduism down the ages. But Pandit Nehru had perverted the word and turned it into a shield for protecting every closed creed prevailing in India at the dawn of independence in 1947 Islam, Christianity, Communism."
"The fourth phase which commenced with the coming of independence proved a boon for Christianity. The Christian right to convert Hindus was incorporated in the Constitution. Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru who dominated the scene for 17 long years, promoted every anti-Hindu ideology and movement behind the smokescreen of a counterfeit secularism. The regimes that followed continued to raise the spectre of ‘Hindu communalism’ as the most frightening phenomenon."
"What helped the Christian missions a good deal from the outside was the rise of Nehruvian Secularism as India’s state policy as well as a raging fashion among India’s intellectual elite. The knowledgeable among the missionaries were surprised and somewhat amused. They knew that Secularism had risen in the West as the deadliest enemy of Christian dogmas and that it had deprived the churches of their stranglehold on state power. In India, however, Secularism was providing a smokescreen behind which Christianity could steal a march."
"Their [the British Raj] determination not to risk the promotion of Christianity in India was left even more rock-solid. Nevertheless, they had no hesitation in fostering assumptions bred of Christian theology. That there existed a religion called Hinduism, and that it functioned in a dimension distinct from entire spheres of human activity – spheres called ‘secular’ in English – was not a conviction native to the subcontinent. Instead, it was distinctively Protestant. That, though, would not prevent it from proving perhaps the most successful of all British imports to India. In time, indeed – when, after two centuries, Britain’s rule was brought at last to an end, and India emerged to independence – it would do so as a self-proclaimed secular nation. A country did not need to become Christian, it turned out, to start seeing itself through Christian eyes."
"Hindus who used words such as religion, or secular, or Hinduism were not merely displaying their fluency in English. They were also adopting a new and alien perspective on their country, and turning it to their advantage."
"Independence governments implemented secularism mostly by refusing to recognize the religious pasts of Indian nationalism, whether Hindu or Muslim, and at the same time (inconsistently) by retaining Muslim 'personal law'."
"A number of Indians have tried to define secularism as sarva dharma samabhava (equal respect for all religions). I cannot say whether they have been naive or clever in doing so. But the fact remains that secularism cannot admit of such an interpretation. In fact, orthodox Muslims are quite justified in regarding it as irreligious. Moreover, dharma cannot be defined as religion which is a Semitic concept and applies only to Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Hinduism is not a religion in that sense; nor are Jainism and Buddhism, or for that matter, Taoism and Confucianism."
"As far as I know, Nehru never defined secularism in its proper European and historical context."
"The recent import of secularism from the West is based on substituting 'religion' for 'dharma' and adopting Western social and legal structures. This has led to divisive vote-bank politics in the name of secularism and to a counter-reaction by a segment of Hindu politicians wanting to create a Hindu 'religion' that is equally political. The chain reaction set in motion has been disastrous both for Hindus and minorities."
"I offer sapeksha-dharma as an alternative to Western secularism. Secularism is perhaps better expressed as pantha-nirapeksha, which means not favouring one pantha (i.e., sect or denomination) over another. A society based on sapeksha-dharma would be expected to uphold the highest dharma rather than exercising mere tolerance or indifference. By its very nature, dharma would be sensitive to diversity among communities. Civic identity, daily life, politics and the art of government would all be maintained through multiple levels of reciprocal relationships informed and guided by this notion. It would also provide a safe framework for purva paksha since the ethic of mutual respect would trump the differences before they could turn toxic."
"There was such a tag which was in fashion wearing which all sins would get washed. That fake tag was called secularism. Slogans would be raised for the unity of secular people. But you would have witnessed that from 2014 - 2019 that whole bunch stopped speaking. In this election not even a single political party could dare to mislead the country by wearing the mask of secularism."
"Are we really honest when we say that we are seeking to establish a secular state? If your idea is to have a secular state it follows inevitably that we cannot afford to recognise minorities based upon religion."
"The word ‘secularism’ in India has no bearing on the attitude and conduct of individuals nor of religious groups. However, it has been used as a slogan of varying significance. In its name, anti-religious forces, sponsored by secular humanism or Communism, condemn religious piety, particularly in the majority community. In its name, minorities are immune from such attention and have succeeded in getting their demands, however unreasonable, accepted. In its name, again, politicians in power adopt a strange attitude which, while it condones the susceptibilities, religious and social, of the minority communities, is too ready to brand similar susceptibilities in the majority community as communalistic and reactionary. How secularism sometimes become allergic to Hinduism will be apparent from certain episodes relating to the reconstruction of Somanath temple. These unfortunate postures have been creating a sense of frustration in the majority community."
"If ... the misuse of this word 'secularism' continues; ... if every time there is an inter-communal conflict, the majority is blamed regardless of the merits of the questions; if our holy places of pilgrimage like Banaras, Mathura and Rishikesh continue to be converted into industrial slums, ... the springs of traditional tolerance will dry up."
"How secularism sometimes becomes allergic to Hinduism will be apparent from certain episodes relating to the Somnath temple."
"Decades ago, a prominent Congress leader, Kanhaiya Lal Munshi (1887-1971) had warned his party colleague, and the then Prime Minister, Jawahar Lal Nehru (1889-1964) in a letter stating, “If every time there is an inter-communal conflict, the majority is blamed regardless of the merits of the question... the springs of traditional tolerance will dry up.” Far from heeding this warning, under the guise of upholding secularism, the Congress Party has made demonisation of the majority its main political plank. This perversion is unthinkable in any other country of the world."
"We talk about a secular state in India. It is perhaps not very easy even to find a good word in Hindi for "secular". Some people think it means something opposed to religion. That obviously is not correct."
"Secularism is total separation of religion and State. Total. There are half a dozen articles and amendments and directive principles in our Constitution that make it plural, not secular. In fact, the word secular was inserted in our preamble by Indira Gandhi during the Emergency. It was absent from Ambedkar’s Constitution. Our State declares itself to be secular but is shamelessly not so, regulating, governing, and controlling, as it does Hindu places of worship."
"On June 26, 1975, prime minister Indira Gandhi announced on the All India Radio that “the president has proclaimed Emergency.” .... The 42nd amendment came soon after. This 20 pages long detailed document gave unprecedented powers to the Parliament. Almost all parts of the Constitution, including the preamble, was changed with this amendment. Thereafter the description of India in the preamble was changed from “sovereign, democratic republic’ to a ‘sovereign, socialist, secular, democratic republic.”"
"Do we realise how that hastily-ordered ban [on the book The Satanic Verses by Salman Rushdie] has changed India forever? .... When the Government promptly submitted to this illiterate hysteria, it convinced [Hindus] that secularism had become a code phrase for Muslim appeasement."
"Though borrowed from the West, secularism in India served a different end. In the West, it was directed against the clergy, tyrannical rulers, and had therefore a liberating role; in India, it was designed and actually used by Macaulayites to keep down the Hindus, the victims of two successive imperialisms expending over a thousand years. In the West, it opposed the Church which claimed to be the sole custodian of truth, which took upon itself the responsibility of dictating science and ordering thought, which decided when the world was created, whether the earth is flat or round, whether the sun or the earth moves round the other, which gave definitive conclusions on all matters and punished and dissent. But in India, secularism was directed against Hinduism which made no such claims, which laid down no dogmas and punished no dissent, which fully accepted the role of reason and unhampered inquiry in all matters, spiritual and secular; which encouraged viewing things from multiple angles - Syadvada (for which there is no true English word) was only a part of this larger speculative and venturesome approach... There is yet another difference. In the West, the struggle for secularism called for sacrifice and suffering-remember the imprisonments, the stakes, the Index; remember the condemnation of Galileo; remember how Bruno, Lucilio Vanini, Francis Kett, Bartholomew Legate, Wightman and others were burnt at the stake. But in India secularism has been a part of the Establishment, first of the British and then of our own self-alienated rulers. It has been used against Hinduism which has nourished a great spirit and culture of tolerance, free inquiry and intellectual.... Religious harmony is a desirable thing. But it takes two to play the game. Unfortunately such a sentiment holds a low position in Islamic theology... Secularism has become a name for showing one's distance from this great religion and culture. Macaulayites and Marxists also use it for Hindu- baiting... More than the policy of divide and rule, the British followed another favourite policy, the policy of creating privileged enclaves and ruling the masses with the help of those policies were embraced in their fullness by our new rulers-the rules of the game did not change simple because the British left."
"But there is an even more potent cause for the near total erasure of such material from our public discourse and our instruction. And that is the form of “secularism” which we have practised these forty-five years: a “secularism” in which double-standards have been the norm, one in which everything that may remove the dross by which our national identity has been covered has become anathema."
"Some have seen in his approach a reaction to Islam’s assertiveness. In response to the suggestion that Hindus are behaving like Islamists, the one-time journalist and former BJP minister Arun Shourie commented tartly: ‘In a word, three things are teaching the Hindus to become Islamic: the double-standards of the secularists and the State, the demonstrated success of the Muslims in bending both the State and the secularists by intimidation, and the fact that both the State and the secularists pay attention to the sentiments of Hindus only when the Hindus become a little Islamic… [My] forecast: the more the secularists insist on double-standards, the more Islamic will the Hindus become.’"
"Indian secularism consists of branding others communal."
"While our leaders and the Supreme Court keep chanting, ‘All religions are one’; while they keep recalling the Vedic pronouncement, ‘Truth is one, only the sages call it by different names’; while they keep recalling Ashoka’s rock edict, ‘One who reveres one’s own religion and disparages that of another, due to devotion to one’s own religion and to glorify it over all others, does injure one’s own religion certainly’, the ulema proclaim the very opposite set of values, the truly Islamic values to be fair to the ulema."
"Now that the Chief Minister of Bihar has dragged 'succularism' into the political discourse, it is time to deconstruct it so that we can end this pointless debate once and for all. I have deliberately misspelt the word because when said in Hindi that is how it is usually pronounced. It is a hard word to write in devnagri and the Hindi and Urdu equivalents do not quite mean what secularism has come to mean in the Indian political context. It is a foreign word that evolved in a European context when the powers of the church and the state were separated. In India, since none of our religions were led by pontiffs who controlled armies, or had vast temporal powers, we had no need to make this separation. But, the word secularism is used in India more than almost any other country. Why? Well, because when we entered our current era of coalition governments, political parties of leftist disposition found it convenient to keep the BJP out of power by saying they would only ally with 'succular phorces'. The BJP became a pariah after the Babri Masjid came down and so whenever someone like Nitish Kumar wants to hurl abuse at the party he is in alliance with in Bihar, or one of its leaders, the 'secularism' debate gets revived. When I heard Aung San Suu Kyi's address to both houses of Britian's Parliament in Westminster hall last week, what impressed me was the clarity with which she spelt out her vision for her country. But, throughout her speech, something kept bothering me and by the time she finished, I discovered what it was. What bothered me was that I could not think of a single Indian leader who could make such a speech. The Indian political landscape today has become a desert in which only the stunted progeny of stunted political leaders bloom. We need our political parties to throw up real leaders and we need a political discourse in which real political problems are discussed. So can we stop fishing 'secularism' out of the dustbin of history and holding it up as a shining ideal? Its relevance faded a long time ago."
"In the interests of 'secularism', most Indian schools and colleges provide only limited courses for the study of ancient India, and Sanskrit literature. So the vast majority of Indian children grow up with a sense of being Indian that is restricted to a religious identity. When this gets infused with a toxic sort of nationalism, as happens in RSS educational institutions, the result is bigotry of a lethal kind."
"Because Hindus fear the Muslims, they have fallen on the path of secularism. Each time they were conquered by Muslim soldiers, they have learnt to sink and bend like powerless blades of grass. This can be seen several times in our history."
"Indian 'secularism' is basically a linear descendant of Leftist ideology, and derives its inspiration from Leftist terminology and thought categories, so that 'secularism' boils down to anti-Hinduism."
"Hindu India, Secular India."
"We think it cruel that though she was in her seventies, that though she was indigent, that though she had been married to her husband for forty-five years and had borne him five children, the ulema insisted that Shah Bano was not entitled to any maintenance at all once her prosperous lawyer of a husband threw her out by uttering one word—’talaq’. But it is the Prophet who declared in case after case that the divorced woman is entitled to no maintenance."
"But it would be a job done only in half if the ulema stopped at ‘defending’ the shariah. For as we have seen their power rests not only on the shariah, but on the shariah remaining ambiguous and uncodified. The sequel to their victory on the Shah Bano campaign illustrates how resourcefully the ulema guard this source of their power as well. Tahir Mahmood who was much involved in the negotiations over the bill to overturn the Shah Bano verdict, later reported: During the campaign for this Act leaders of the Muslim community had agreed to get prepared by experts a comprehensive draft-code of Muslim law for the country, to be submitted to Parliament for enactment. A committee of theologians and legal practitioners was appointed in 1987 for this purpose by the All India Muslim Personal Law Board. Until now the committee having its headquarters at Phulwari Sharief near Patna in Bihar could, however, do nothing more than producing a few booklets in Urdu detailing the principles of Hanafi law—ignoring the fact that what they have come out with is far from being a draft-Code and that in a country where followers of at least four different schools of Muslim law (Hanafi, Shafi’i, Ja’fari and Isma’ili) live, Hanafi law can never be accepted as the only legal code for the entire community. Theirs has been an exercise in futility—while in the absence of any Code worth the name, the courts and other interpreters and appliers of the law continue to rely on unauthentic, sometimes faulty, textbooks and recorded precedents..."
"The result? Even the most inhumane accretions to what was already the heavily skewed world view of the Prophet’s time cannot be touched, simply because a society accustomed to inequity and the domination of males ensured that such humane possibilities as there might have been in some pronouncements of the Quran or the Prophet were not enforced in the past. And every attempt to enforce them— by the Supreme Court in the Shah Bano case in regard to maintenance, by Justice Tilhari in the matter of the ‘Triple Divorce’—is denounced as an assault on Islam."
"The classic example given is the Shah Bano case of 1985: repudiated by her husband, the Muslim woman Shah Bano went to court to force him to pay alimony, which Islamic law forbids; the Supreme Court upheld her claim on the basis of equality before the law (Hindu women would have the right to alimony in her case), but under Muslim pressure, Rajiv Gandhi's Congress Government voted a law overruling the verdict and reaffirming the Islamic rules on divorce, at least for Muslims."
"To create a negative image, to manufacture stereotypes and biases against the minorities, a large network of trained people, owing allegiance to Hindu nationalism have spread far and wide, deep into the vitals of society. [...] The provocation and justification for the aggression at level of ideas was provided by Shah Bano blunder by a section of Muslim leadership. After this there was no looking back and all the medieval history was used to demonise the Muslims of today. The additions to the list of stereotypes were fast and furious. Love "jihad", and cow protection mobs came in, and each served to undermine the Muslim identity and marginalise the community, while the graph of violence saw a parallel rise. The outcome was ghettoisation or seclusion of the minorities, among whom insecurity grew and threw its members further into the arms of maulanas with their rigid pronouncements about Islam. These maulanas and their teachings is what a section of the media uses to characterise the whole community. The moderate Muslims, the ones trying to articulate humane values, have been pushed to the margin."
"In a landmark judgment, the Supreme Court dismissed Mohd Ahmed Khan’s appeal and directed him to pay maintenance to his ex-wife as laid down by the high court’ Does the Muslim Personal Law’, asked the court, ‘impose no obligation upon the husband to provide for the maintenance of his divorced wife? Undoubtedly, the Muslim husband enjoys the privilege of being able to discard his wife whenever he chooses to do so, for reasons good, bad, or indifferent. Indeed, for no reason at all. It is a matter of deep regret that some of the interveners who supported the husband, took up an extreme position by displaying an unwarranted zeal to defeat the right to maintenance of women who are unable to maintain themselves.’"
"During the Emergency period some followers of the Jamaat-e-Islami found themselves in the same jail as the members of the RSS; here they began to discover that the latter were no monsters as described by the 'nationalist' and secularist propaganda. Therefore they began to think better of the Hindus. This alarmed the secularists and the interested Maulvis. Some Maulvis belonging to the Jamiat-ul-Ulema-i-Hind met President.. Fakhruddin Ahmad, and reported to him about the growing rapport between the members of the two communities. This 'stunned' the President and he said that this boded an 'ominous' future for Congress Muslim leaders and he promised that he would speak to Indiraji about this dangerous development and ensure that Muslims remain Muslims."
"Non-violence and the advice given by Mrs. Sucheta Kripalani, Mahatma Gandhi and Dr. Rajendra Prasad, etc., to stay out where they were with a firm trust in God appeared to most of the victims as a counsel of perfection which could only be given from a safe distance. Who else came to the rescue of the people at this stage, but a band of young selfless Hindus- popularly known as the RSS? They organised in every Mohalla of every town of the province the work of evacuation of the Hindu and Sikh women and children from dangerous pockets t comparatively safe centres. They organised for their feeding, medical aid, clothing and care. Parties for the protection of institutions were organised. Even fire engine brigades were formed. in various towns. Arrangements for transport by lorries and uses and provision of escort on the trains carrying the fleeing Hindus and Sikhs were organised. Day and night vigils in various Hindu and Sikh localities were kept up and people were taught how to defend themselves when attacked. When the Situation on the eve of Partition became very serious and law and order utterly broke down-or it would be more correct to say, was now used only to suppress the Hindus and Sikhs,— several members of the RSS showed their proficiency in the use of fire weapons. it almost became a tit for tat. These young men were the first to come to the help of the stricken Hindus and Sikhs and were the last to leave their places for safety in the East Punjab. I could name several Congress leaders of note in the various districts of Punjab who openly solicited the help of the RSS even for their own protection and the protection of their kith and kin. No request for help from any quarter was refused and there are cases which came to our notice where the Muslim women and children were safely escorted out of the Hindu Mohallas and sent to Muslim League refugee centres in Lahore by the RSS men."
"I also found during my tour of the East Punjab a deep: sense of gratitude and gratefulness to the Sikhs and the Sanghies among the masses. They were considered the saviours of the people and it was a universal belief that they had made the rehabilitation of a part of the Hindu and Sikh refugees possible in the East Punjab. A few lakhs of them had at least found a temporary shelter in the vacated house and lands. Judging in the light of subsequent history of rehabilitation of refugees, one shudders to think of what would have happened to these refugees if like the other unfortunate refugees they had also to seek shelter in refugee camps and on road-side..."
"Their (RSS) discipline, their physical fitness and their selflessness in face of dangers came to the rescue of the people in the Punjab when the whole province was burning and when the Congress leaders were helplessly fiddling at New Delhi, not being able to overcome the opposition of the Muslim League and the obstinacy of the Governor-General to their proposal for stronger action for the maintenance of law and order. If now somebody from a place outside the Punjab were to call upon the Hindus and Sikhs of the Punjab to disown the Sikhs and RSS- heroes who defended them gloriously, his advice is sure to fall. on absolutely deaf ears."
"The refugees from the West Pakistan —all of them without exception wherever they are living in India, to a man are grateful to RSS for coming to their help at a time when they felt deserted by all."
"Many workers appear to take a delight in blaming others for all ills. Some may put the blame on the political perversities, others on the aggressive activities of the Christians or Muslims and such other faiths. Let our workers keep their minds free from such tendencies and work for our people and our Dharma in the right spirit, lend a helping hand to all our brethren who need help and strive to relieve distress wherever we see it. In this service no distinction should be made between man and man. We have to serve all, be he a Christian or a Muslim or a human being of any other persuasion; for, calamities, distress and misfortunes make no such distinction but afflict all alike. And in serving to relieve the sufferings of man let it not be in a spirit of condescension or mere compassion but as devoted worship of the Lord abiding in the heart of all beings, in the true spirit of our dharma of surrendering our all in the humble service of Him who is Father, Mother, Brother, Friend and Everything to us all. And may our actions succeed in bringing out the Glory and Effulgence of our Sanatana-Eternal - Dharma."
"A reading of the RSS history tells us that seva has always been at the core of Hindutva praxis. Since its inception, an important aspect of the organization’s work revolved around providing service in the form of relief during natural and political calamities such as the Partition of India in 1947, the Assam earthquake of 1950, the Punjab Floods in 1955, the Tamil Nadu cyclone in 1955, the Anjar earthquake in 1956, the Andhra Cyclone of 1977, the Latur earthquake of 1993, the Odisha Super Cyclone in 1999, the Bhuj earthquake in 2001, Koshi River Floods in 2008 and most recently the Uttarakhand Floods in 2013. Apart from creating a humanitarian and compassionate image for itself, _ relief interventions after these disasters also provided opportunities to the RSS to undertake cadre building and consolidate its organizational network."
"In both India and Pakistan civilian politics have taken on a military tinge, with some political parties sponsoring paramilitary organisations whose members wear uniforms, march in formation with flags and carry sticks to menace their opponents. Or in the case of India’s Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) it looks more as though the paramilitary Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) sponsors it."
"Bhagva Dhwaj represents the tradition and history of the Hindus, the saints and sages from Vedic times and all heroes of Hindu history. It is the undisputable Guru of all those who call themselves Hindus."
"Any Indian who comes with the intention to settle in Kashmir will be treated as an agent of RSS and not as a civilian and will be dealt with appropriately."
"The realms of high culture that in more civilised countries resonate with literature, music and art are occupied in India by Bollywood and trashy TV serials. Inevitable, since mass education is such a mess that most children leave school without learning to read a storybook. Reading is so out of fashion that most small towns in India have no bookshops, most villages have no libraries and, in our bigger cities, bookshops stock mostly books and magazines written in English. So when the RSS leaders turned up in Delhi last week to tell the Minister of Human Resource Development that they wanted changes in school education, they had a point. Unfortunately, because the RSS is led by doddering old bigots and provincial intellectuals, this ‘cultural’ organisation is in no position to give the HRD Minister worthwhile advice. The RSS leaders who met the minister reportedly confined their concerns to history books that they claim portray a ‘Western’ view of history. They demanded that these books be replaced by those written by historians with an Indian view of history. They have a point, but they make it badly. [...] In the interests of 'secularism', most Indian schools and colleges provide only limited courses for the study of ancient India, and Sanskrit literature. So the vast majority of Indian children grow up with a sense of being Indian that is restricted to a religious identity. When this gets infused with a toxic sort of nationalism, as happens in RSS educational institutions, the result is bigotry of a lethal kind."
"“RSS is a revolutionary organisation. No other organisation in the country comes anywhere near it. It alone has the capacity to transform society, end casteism and wipe the tears from the eyes of the poor. I have great expectations from this revolutionary organisation that has taken up the challenge of creating a new India.”"
"It has been found that in several parts of the country individual members of Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh have indulged in acts of violence involving arson, robbery, dacoity and murder and have collected illicit arms and ammunition. They have been found circulating leaflets exhorting people to resort to terrorist methods, to collect fire arms, to create disaffection against the government and suborn the police and the military."
"The idea of Fascism vividly brings out the conception of unity amongst peoples. India and particularly Hindu India need some such Institution for the military regeneration of the Hindus… Our Institution of Rashtriya Svayamsewak Sangh of Nagpur under Dr Hedgewar is of this kind, though quite independently conceived."
"We have a great deal of evidence to show that the R.S.S. is an organization which is in the nature of a private army and which is definitely proceeding on strictest Nazi lines, even following the technique of organization. […] The Nazi party brought Germany to ruin and I have little doubt that if these tendencies are allowed to spread and increase in India, they would do enormous injury to India."
"These people have the blood of Mahatma Gandhi on their hands and pious disclaimers and dissociation now have no meaning."
"Reports from many sources have reached me that the communal atmosphere is again becoming tense, and that particularly the people who belong to the RSS…are becoming vocal and demonstrative again…. Many of the RSS men who had been arrested previously, detained in prison for sometime and then subsequently released, are again taking part in these activities in spite of assurances they might have given."
"As you know, the ban on the RSS has been removed…. This does not mean that we are convinced about the bona fides of the RSS movement…. Our general relaxation in the field of civil liberties will certainly not mean the slightest relaxation in meeting violence against the individual or the state, wherever it occurs and whatever form it might take."
"…RSS is again resuming some of its activities…. The whole mentality of the RSS is a fascist mentality. Therefore, their activities have to be very closely watched."
"The activities of the RSS constituted a clear threat to the existence of Government and the state."
"Organising the Hindus and helping them is one thing but going in for revenge for its sufferings on innocent and helpless men, women and children is quite another thing…apart from this, their opposition to the Congress, that to of such virulence, disregarding all considerations of personality, decay of decorum, created a kind of unrest among the people. All their speeches were fill of communal poison. It was not necessary to spread poison in order to enthuse the Hindus and organise for their protection. As a final result of the poison, the country had to suffer the sacrifice of the invaluable life of Gandhiji. Even an iota of the sympathy of the Government, or of the people, no more remained for the RSS. In face opposition grew. Opposition turned more severe, when the RSS men expressed joy and distributed sweets after Gandhiji’s death. Under these conditions, it became inevitable for the Government to take action against the RSS…Since then over six months have elapsed. We had hoped that after this lapse of time, with full and proper consideration, the RSS persons would come to the right path. But from the reports that come to me, it is evident that attempts to put fresh life into their same old activities are afoot."
"RSS was explicitly influenced by European fascist movements, its leading politicians regularly praised Hitler and Mussolini in the late 1930s and 1940s."
"“When I read today all the subversive, communal propaganda the media attributes to RSS shakhas, I am frankly baffled. My memories of what happened at our shakha between 6 and 7 p.m. each weekday evening are completely different—we marched about in our khaki shorts, did some yoga, worked out in a traditional outdoor gymnasium with no fancy equipment, sang songs and chanted Sanskrit verses that we did not understand the meanings of, played games and had a bunch of fun with our fellows.”.... “The whole thing was overseen by a team of mostly-well-meaning—if not always inspirational—adults, who truly believed they were helping raise good ‘civilian soldiers’— boys respectful of authority, well-behaved in the presence of adults and well-aware of the importance of physical fitness— who would put their efforts into nation-building when they grew up.”"
"It should be obvious to anybody that the most vicious anti-RSS propaganda is at heart anti Hindu propaganda. So long as the RSS is identified with Hinduism in one form or another, it would invite this attack.... But while the enemies of the RSS have worked themselves up to a frenzied point and have whipped up their tirade, the propaganda itself is losing its appeal with the thinking people...."
"Homosexuality is unethical and immoral, it is against the culture of the country and we will fight it."
"I had joined the party in presence of all major Samajwadi Party leaders, including Mulayam Singh Yadav. So this joke is really sad."
"Shahid Siddiqui, the editor of Urdu daily, Nai Duniya, faced severe attack and abuse for simply doing an interview with Modi in which Modi defends himself against various charges leveled against his government. Siddiqui had asked him all the stereotypical questions hurled by anti-Modi groups and was in no way soft towards Modi. Yet, he was vilified for simply allowing Modi newspaper space to state his version, so much so that he was expelled from Samajwadi Party. It is not surprising that Siddiqui fell in line within no time and began mouthing anti-Modi rhetoric. What kind of journalism do the self-appointed defenders of minority rights want to promote in India that does not give a journalist the right to interview a thrice-elected chief minister simply because the Congress and the Left parties feel threatened by him?"
""BJP wants to win elections by creating riots and communal tension in UP and that is why it is itself carrying out such incidents and creating communal tension in the districts, the result of which is today's incident in Badaun," Samajwadi Party said in a post on X. "When BJP has lost on the real issues of the people, then religious dispute, religious fight is the last weapon left for BJP. At the behest of BJP, many goons and miscreants are roaming freely and are committing such incidents due to which fights are increasing in the society," it added."
"Samajwadi Party chief Akhilesh Yadav slammed the Uttar Pradesh government in the state, saying the children’s lives could have been save if the police had done their job. “They (BJP government) can't hide their shortcomings. This encounter is not going to hide their failure, " he said referring to the encounter during which Sajid was shot dead"
"SP leader Shivpal Singh Yadav who is also the party's nominee for the upcoming Lok Sabha poll in Budaun, slammed the government, saying law and order has totally failed in the state. "The incident in Budaun is very saddening," he told reporters. On the encounter, he said, "I congratulate the district and police administration for the action but the truth behind the incident must also come out.""
"What was the difference between Jinnah and the nationalist Muslims? While Jinnah wanted a separate state, the nationalist Muslims wanted the whole of India... The nationalist Muslims ... were generally no less hostile to the Hindus, or at least to Hinduism, than the Pakistan party."
"Some of them, particularly of Ulema class, sounded a warning that Pakistan might impede the establishment of Dinia by arousing unnecessary resistance among the Hindus; therefore, they stayed away from the Pakistan campaign and some of them even opposed it. They came to be known as “nationalist Muslims.”"
"The Qaid-e-Azam had two sets of teeth in his mouth like that of a rogue elephant — one set was for show of beauty, and the other was for the real purpose of mastication. His first declaration from the throne of the Constituent Assembly of Pakistan as its President was that the ‘The Hindus would cease to be Hindus and the Muslims would cease to be Muslims in matters of administration henceforth and thus form into a Pakistan Nation.’ ... This was the set of his outer teeth for show of beauty but the real teeth for mastication lay covered elsewhere within the mouth — nobody could see that; only the victims could feel and appreciate the monstrosity of them. The great leader Mr. Jinnah had the real teeth for mastication in his policy of internal administration which stood for chauvinistic aggressive Muslim nationalism."
"These fatwas ... are the fatwas of the leading light of what would today be called the nationalist ulema: they reflect the premises, the axioms, the objectives of the ulema who supported joint action with the Congress, who endorsed participation in the Khilafat movement, in the Non-Cooperation movement, they reflect the position of the ulema who opposed the demand for Pakistan. The first thing which becomes apparent upon reading the fatwas of these ulema is that they were always on the defensive, that they had to labour endlessly to justify their position. This was so in part because, as I.H. Qureshi stresses in his Ulema in Politics, they were a minority among the ulema, but even more so because the course which they were proposing ran counter to what the Quran and Hadis so manifestly prescribe at so many places. For the latter reason, as will be evident from reading the fatwas, Kifayatullah and others could seek to justify their positions on pragmatic grounds alone. Moreover, they too affirmed that a Muslim is first and foremost a Muslim. They too held that his overriding objective, his ‘supreme’ objective is, and must be the advancement of the interests of Islam and of Muslims. They too saw the interests of Muslims to be distinct and separate from the interests of Indians—or to use the expression they used, of Hindustanis—in general. In their reckoning too, far from a non-Muslim actually furthering and protecting these separate interests, a non-Muslim could not even be acknowledged to be the one doing so. Indeed, even a non-orthodox Muslim, one who was not adhering to the requirements of the shariah could not be acknowledged to be the defender and protector of these distinct and separate interests. Their point was merely that the circumstances in which Muslims were placed at that time necessitated that they work jointly with one set of kafirs— the Hindus—to weaken and oust the other set of kafirs—the British. This necessity, they explained, arose from the conjunction of two factors: both the Hindus and the Ahl-i-Kitab are the enemies of Islam, they declared, but as at that time as the Ahl-i-Kitab, specifically the Christian British, were the more powerful, they constituted the greater danger to the interests of Islam and of Muslims; third, at that time Muslims could not rid the place of the British on their own—a trinity of aims which in today’s circumstance would entail the opposite course. That apart, even while urging joint action with kafirs they incessantly stressed separateness. Indeed on their reckoning joint action was justified precisely because it was the best available way, because in the given circumstances it was the only way for safeguarding that separateness. They repeatedly declared, as we have seen, that had it been possible for Muslims to safeguard their interests by their own efforts, it would indeed have been wrong to associate with kafirs even in joint action against the British. And their opposition to the demand for Pakistan was not that Hindustan is one and should therefore remain one. They opposed the demand on the grounds that Pakistan was not going to be realized, that if attained it would confine the sway and glory of Islam to a corner of the country alone, that Muslims in the rest of India would be weakened, and that, in any case, the aim of the Muslim League was not to create a truly Islamic state. [...]"
"Why do the secularists never comment on such material? Where do the fatwas leave the ecumenical homilies of our Sarva dharma samabhava school? The fatwas of the ‘nationalist’ ulema were surprising enough: they urged joint action with kafirs on strictly pragmatic grounds, on the ground in particular that such joint action was the best, indeed the only available way to maintain separateness. But here we have fatwas which proclaim even that pragmatism to be kufr. Notice that the person in question, the one whose leadership occasioned the fatwas was Mahatma Gandhi—a more saintly person is not likely to be available in our public life for decades and decades. And yet these were the fatwas. The cause too was as noble as a cause can be—the country’s Independence. Often—as during the Khilafat movement—the cause was of direct concern to the Muslims. And yet these were the fatwas. Notice too that while, for urging even that minimal cooperation with the kafir Hindus, an alim even of the eminence of Mufti Kifayatullah had to confine himself to pragmatic reasoning, Maulana Ahmad Riza Khan was able to justify his fatwas by citing chapter and verse from the Quran and Hadis. For the Quran and Hadis ordain the position elaborated by Ahmad Riza Khan, and not the one the ‘nationalist’ ulema strained to justify. That is the fact which our intelligentsia does not want to face."
"The Moslems in general and Indian Moslems in particular have not as yet grown out of the historical stage, of intense religiosity and the theological concept of state. Their theology and theocratical [sic] politics divide the human world into two groups only—The Moslem land and the enemy land. All lands which are either entirely inhabited by the Moslems or are ruled over by the Moslems are Moslem lands. All lands, which are mostly inhabited by non-Moslem power are enemy lands and no faithful Moslem is allowed to bear any loyalty to them and is called upon to do everything in his power by policy or force or fraud to convert the non-Moslem there to Moslem faith, to bring about its political conquest by a Moslem power. It is no good quoting sentences here or there from Moslem theological books to prove the contrary. Read the whole book to know its trend. And again it is not with books that we are concerned here but with the followers of the book and how they translate them in practice. You will then see that the whole Moslem history and their daily actions are framed on the design I have outlined above. Consequently, a territorial patriotism is a word unknown to the Moslem—nay is tabooed, unless in connection with a Moslem territory. Afghans can be patriots for Afghanisthan is a Moslem territory today. But an Indian Moslem if he is a real Moslem—and they are intensely religious as a people—cannot faithfully bear loyalty to India as a country, as a nation, as a State, because it is today ‘an Enemy Land’ and doubly lost; for non-Moslems are in a majority here and to boot it is not ruled by any Moslem power, Moslem sovereign. Add to this that of all non-Moslems the Hindus are looked upon as the most damned by Moslem theologians. For Christians and Jews are after all ‘Kitabis’, having the holy books partially in common. But the Hindus are totally ‘Kafirs’ as a consequence their land ‘Hindusthan’ is pre-eminently an ‘enemy’ and as long as it is not ruled by Moslems or all Hindus do not embrace Islam . . . What wonder then that the Muslim League should openly declare its intention to join hands with non-Indian alien Moslem countries rather than with Indian Hindus in forming a Moslem Federation? They could not be accused from their point of view of being traitors to Hindusthan. Their conscience was clear. They never looked upon our today’s ‘Hindusthan’ as their country, nation. It is to them already an alien land, and enemy land—‘a Dar-ul-Harb’ and not a ‘Dar-ul-Islam!!’"
"The foundation of the Muslim League and Minto’s concessions had the effect of dividing the Hindus and Muslims into almost two hostile political camps. A remarkable example of this is afforded by a letter written about 1908 by Mr. Ziauddin Ahmad, later Vice- Chancellor of the Muslim University, Aligarh, to Mr. Abdulla Shuhrawardy, both of whom were then prosecuting their studies in Europe. Abdulla Shuhrawardy shared the national feelings which then characterized Indian students in Europe, and for this he was rebuked by Ziauddin in a letter from which we quote the following extract; “You know that we have a definite political policy at Aligarh, i.e. the policy of Sir Syed. I understand that Mr. Kirshna Varma has founded a society called ‘Indian Home Rule Society’ and: you are also one of its vice-presidents. Do you really believe that the Mohammedans will be profited if Home Rule be granted to India de lene. There is no doubt that this Home Rule is decidedly against the Aligarh policy...What I call the Aligarh policy is really the policy of all the Mohammedans generally—of the Mohammedans of Upper India particularly.” Mr. Asaf Ali wrote to Pandit Shyamji in September, 1909: “I am staying with some Muslim friends who do not like me to associate with nationalists; and, to save many unpleasant consequences, I do not want to irritate them unnecessarily.” Thus the Muslim antagonism to the Freedom Movement of India dates back to its beginning itself. (151ff)"
"The Jesuits are wiser than the secularists, who are smitten with hubris and drunk on their currently unlimited power. … The secularists’ lies are bound to get exposed one day, and their names will become synonymous with “liar”, but the Jesuits have famously perfected the art of “lying without lying”. Rarely do they get caught in the act of uttering an actual lie, even when their audience comes away with an understanding of matters that is different from the truth. ...The BBC has learned a thing or two from the Jesuits. It is often aggressively partisan but has perfected the art of creating a false semblance of even-handedness. ...Under the present power equation, where the pro-Hindu forces have almost no capable presence in the media and among the influential experts, this kind of libel against a Hindu-minded government is virtually inevitable. It will keep on happening until Hindus get their act together and their message across. On the bright side, though, we should also notice that the Hindu-hating coalition is practically admitting the hollowness of its case if it is reduced to proving “Hindu fascism” with nothing better than the misrepresentation of a provincial school textbook... The uninformed public (which includes quite a few so-called experts) may be fooled by the Hindu-baiters’ bluff, but anyone who scrutinizes the arguments will see through it. The record of BJP governance has utterly disproved the shrill allegations of “Hindu fascism”. (Ch 1)"
"I don't mind discussing this matter, for there is nothing shameful about the day when I saw through the usual hateful misrepresentation of "Hindu chauvinism", meaning Hindu self-defence against the aggression by so-called "secular" religions and ideologies. There is nothing shameful about my outgrowing silly beliefs such as the still-widespread belief in India's mock secularism."
"India was declared a “secular, socialist” republic under the Emergency dictatorship without a proper parliamentary debate. In the mid-1990s, the secularists made attempts to persuade the courts to outlaw the BJP, then India’s largest opposition party. As an elitist and intrinsically despotic movement, Indian secularism implies hate not only of Hinduism but also of democracy."
"India’s secularist academics and journalists form a society of mutual praise, and the cheapest way of getting applause in elite India is to attack the Hindu movement."
"This is just another case of secularist justice: Hindu are damned if they do, damned if they don’t."
"Even Muslim activists whose counterparts in Turkey or Egypt denounce secularism as a demonic betrayal of Islam, call themselves “secularists”. Check the editorials of Syed Shahabuddin's monthly Muslim India, or the Jamaat-i-Islami weekly Radiance: they brandish “secularism” in every issue."
"[Nehru's] animus against Hinduism was derived from his love for Communism. He knew next to nothing about Buddhism; the only reason be hailed it as well as its hero, Ashoka, was that in his perception Buddhism was a 'revolt' against 'reactionary' Brahminism. Had he known the truth about Buddhism, he would have dropped it like a hot potato. The same psychology made him fall for Islam. Otherwise he was equally ignorant of, and equally indifferent to all religions. The Secularism which he espoused was not borrowed from the modem West. For him, it was only a smokescreen for Hindu-baiting. The fashion was picked up fast by a servile intelligentsia and became a national cult."
"The puzzle gets solved when one contemplates the character of Indian Secularism and finds that is no more than a smokescreen used by the Muslim-Christian-Communist combine in order to keep India's national society and culture at bay. ... They are simply projecting their self-images on to those whom they view as their enemies. .... I have documented elsewhere how Pandit Nehru hounded out or silenced everyone... whom he suspected of having some Hindu feeling or sympathy for some Hindu cause... and how he objected to every Hindu symbol in India's public life. The country had been partitioned by the remnants of Islamic imperialism. But he blamed it on "communalism", a word by which he always meant Hinduism."
"One wonders whether the poet of Islam is being honoured or slandered when he is presented in our own times as the pioneer of Secularism. Or, perhaps, Secularism in India has a meaning deeper than that we find in the dictionaries or dissertations on political science. We may not be much mistaken if, seeing its studied exercise in blackening everything Hindu and whitewashing everything Islamic, we suspect that this Secularism is nothing more than the good old doctrine of Islam in disguise."
"If however the misuse of this word 'secularism' continues...if every time there is an inter-communal conflict, the majority is blamed regardless of the merits of the questions; if our holy places of pilgrimage like Banaras, Mathura and Rishikesh continue to be converted into industrial slums... the springs of traditional tolerance will dry up."
"When we consider “secularism” as an intellectual movement rather than as a juridical concept, “secularism” means that religion is treated as a human construct rather than the product of a divine revelation. It implies a frank and critical investigation of the claims of religion. In this respect, the failure and dishonesty of Indian secularism is even more radical. Its discourse on religion is extremely and wilfully superficial. It shields from criticism even the most obscurantist religious beliefs or institutions, provided they are non-Hindu (and even in attacking Hinduism, its criticisms of even legitimate targets tend to be crassly superficial)."
"Likewise, no discussion is opened against the denunciation of the "secular intellectuals" as "alienated pseudo-secularists full of contempt for the true Hindu culture", though the concept "pseudo-secular" is central to the whole controversy, and proves to be entirely valid when you consider that those "secularists" defend all kinds of religious discrimination, e.g. religion-based civil codes, against the genuinely and quintessentially secular system of equality of all citizens before the law regardless of their religion."
"For half a century, all official statements of the BJP and its predecessor Jana Sangh have emphasized that the party does not want to "transform India from the secular democracy its founders envisioned 55 years ago into a Hindu religious state", but that, on the contrary, it wants genuine secularism. Rather than being a hollow slogan, this position is articulated in the form of precise proposals for reform of an impeccably and undeniably secularist nature. Thus, the proposed abolition of the special status of Kashmir (Art. 370 of the Constitution) is nothing but the abolition of a religion-based privilege: no Hindu-majority state enjoys the special privileges accorded to Muslim-majority Kashmir. Likewise, any genuine secularist would abolish the existing anti-Hindu legal discriminations in matters of temple and school management and the subsidizing or taxing of pilgrimages."
"When we want to understand a social problem, we need a language capable of expressing the data and underlying concepts describing the problem. In India, political incidents frequently pit Hindu nationalism, or even just plain Hinduism and plain nationalism, against so-called "secularism". In practice, this term denotes a combine of Islamists, Hindu-born Marxists, Christian missionaries and americanized adepts of consumerism who share a hatred of Hindu culture and Hindu self-respect. What passes for secularism in India is often the diametrical opposite of what goes by the same name in the West."
"Indian secularism is systematically dishonest in its assessment of the religions hostile to Hinduism."
"In India, however, "secularism" has acquired a wholly different meaning. Ever since the term was propagated by Jawaharlal Nehru, being an Indian secularist does not require you to reject theocracy and the intrusion of Religion into politics. On the contrary, every obscurantist in India swears by "secularism". The word's effective Meaning has shifted to a concern quite unknown to its European coiners, viz, the struggle against Hinduism."
"It is a different matter that the hollow and crassly superficial Ideology of Nehruvian secularism is secure in its power position because of the absence of credible challengers. With a political opposition claiming to be "positive secularists" and "genuine secularists", India's official "pseudo-secularism" has no one to fear."
"On the Hindu side then, at least the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS, "National Volunteer Corps") could qualify as "communalist"? Certainly, it is called just that by all its numerous enemies. But then, when you look through any issue of its weekly Organiser, you will find it brandishing the notion of "positive" or "genuine secularism", and denouncing "pseudo-secularism", i.e. minority communalism."
"Anyway, his remark that my writing is “controversial” is a statement of a social fact, but is not an evaluation of my work. There is, for instance, nothing controversial about my perfectly logical and factual observation, repeated on many forums, that Indian “secularism” fails the very first test of secularism, viz. by adhering to separate law systems depending on religion. Of course I know that the Indian establishment and its parrots in Western academe swear by this hypocritical situation: treating citizens differently according to their religion yet calling it “secularism”. But what I say is just logic and would be approved by any candid and unforewarned outsider, while the prevalent claim of Indian “secularism” amounts to a defence of vested political interests."
"Most Western experts start their papers with the assertion: ”India’s secularism is threatened by Hindu nationalism.” That position is not socially controversial, it is the received wisdom, but it is logically controversial and implies the untrue description of the present system as “secular”. It is also logically controversial, in fact untenable, to describe as a “threat to secularism” the BJP, the only party whose manifesto promises the enactment of a Common Civil Code, that definitional cornerstone of secularism, taken for granted in most Western countries."
"India was declared a “secular, socialist republic” under Indira Gandhi’s Emergency dictatorship, which many vocal secularists supported."
"Quite the contrary. Secularists when corred often resort to the argument that the word “secularism” happens to have different meanings in Europe and India. I however maintain that “secularism” has only one real meaning, that this meaning was already firmly established before the word came to be used in India, and that what prevails in India is therefore something else than secularism."
"One of the great surprises which Indian "secularism" offers to people familiar with genuine secularism, is that it totally shuns and even condemns the fundamental questioning of Christian (or Islamic) dogma. For ten years I have closely followed the Indian communalism debate, and not once have I seen a "secularist" mentioning the debunking of Christian beliefs, still the single most revolutionary achievement of the secular study of religions. Even non-essential Christian fairy-tales like the story of apostle Thomas's arrival and martyrdom in South India are repeated ad nauseam in "secularist" pieces on the current missionary crisis."
"As a general rule, you can predict what the secularist position on any issue will be once you know what the militant Islamist position is. From justifying terrorism to misrepresenting the Ayodhya evidence, the two are rarely very different."
"Just as the word deception differs in meaning from its French counterpart déception (= disappointment), the word secularism has a sharply different meaning in Indian English as compared to metropolitan English."
"When I arrived [in India], the Indian papers were full of the controversy over the ban on Salman Rushdie's book The Satanic Verses. To my surprise, many so-called "secularists", such as Khushwant Singh and M.J. Akbar, supported the ban, which had been promulgated by the "secularist" Congress government. The more I learned about this Indian "secularism", the more it became clear to me that it was often the very opposite of what we in the West in genuinely secular states call "secularism"."
"In the run-up to the Pope's visit to Delhi in 1999, the secularists fell over each other trying to be the loudest and shrillest in denying the "vicious Hindutva propaganda" that the Catholic Church has as its stated goal to convert the whole of India (and the world) to its own belief system... In Europe, the Pope is the scapegoat par excellence of militant secularists and atheists, but in India he is counted among the "secular" alliance (along with the most obscurantist Mullahs, self-described “secularists” whose like-minded Arab colleagues abhor secularism), for he is anti-Hindu and that's the only qualification you need to earn the label "secularist". To the RSS, the secularists are accomplices of the anti-national forces, of Pakistan and the terrorists. That is not incorrect, but to me, they are first of all a bunch of clowns."
"Indeed, Muslims outside India openly abhor secularism; those in India only swear by “secularism” because they know that there, the word is used improperly and effectively only means “anti-Hindu”. Not that she drew attention to the fact that “secularism” has a very different meaning to Westerners from what it has come to mean in India. Indian secularists prefer to keep the rest of the world in ignorance about their own dirty little secret, viz. that “secularism” in India often means the very opposite of its normal meaning. When you question an Indian secularist at close quarters, he will try to save his position by explaining that secularism in India happens to mean something different from what it means in the West. But do they tell this to Western audiences?... Westerners’ automatic sympathy for Indian secularism (and against the supposed “theocrats” they hear about) is predicated on the assumption that their own familiar secularism is also present in India, that both are the same. Logic teaches that “a = a”, that a term has the same meaning throughout a reasoning process, so Westerners assume that “secularism” means secularism, and this Indian law professor certainly wasn’t going to pin-prick that illusion."
"It is characteristic of practically all texts lauding India’s “secularism” that this inconvenient truth is omitted, and secularism is attributed to the unquestionable authority of the Constitution and its supposed author, BR Ambedkar. ... “secular” was a product of the Emergency... The word “secular” was not part of India’s political parlance in the days of the Constituent Assembly, and even the Republic (let alone India itself) was not founded as a “secular” state. On the contrary, the Constituent Assembly through its chairman, BR Ambedkar, explicitly rejected the two S words. India became a “secular socialist” republic under the Emergency dictatorship (1975-77) without proper Parliamentary debate. “Secular” is one of the few words in the Constitution that was enacted without democratic basis, and this is only fitting for a “secularism” which has always and unabashedly been despotic and anti-majority. There may be many things wrong with democracy, but it is not anti-majority. Indeed, that is precisely what is wrong with democracy, according to the secularists."
"Being naturally despotic, the Nehruvian secularists used precisely this intermezzo [the Emergency dictatorship (1975-77)] to insert “secular, socialist” into the text of the Constitution. The declaration of India as a “secular” republic, without a proper parliamentary debate, is thus the only part of the Constitution that is historically undemocratic. (Ch 30)"
"The iron fist of the attack (the Zarb-e-Mo’min, “strike of the faithful”, as the Pakistani Army once named one of its exercises) is furnished by Christianity and Islam, who mean to expand worldwide and in the process destroy all heathen religions. They have a positive goal, viz. perpetuating and propagating themselves, and their negative goal of digesting or annihilating Hinduism only follows therefrom. This way, they have a very good conscience in doing their work of destruction: it is only meant to clear the way for the true religion. So, they have inner strength, but they also have outer strength: they are huge and very wealthy, being only the Indian arms of two worldwide movements. It is ridiculous that they are called “minorities” at all, yet they carefully cultivate that status, for in the present-day mentality, any majority is deemed overbearing and oppressive. Their foreign roots not only make them very resourceful, they also give them a head-start in developing a coherent strategy with sustainable long-term goals. But this iron fist is clothed in a velvet glove: secularism. Knaves claim and fools believe that this is the Indian instance of the worldwide phenomenon of secularism (separation of religion and politics) originating in the West, but it is not. Thus, Islamic militants who in Arabia would abhor secularism (meaning separation of religion and politics, e.g. democratic law-making separate from what Islam prescribes), emphatically call themselves “secularists” in India. The reason is that in India, the word has a very different meaning: anything that is anti-Hindu. Islamic militants are anti-Hindu, so they indeed qualify as “secularists”. But what animates them is not this profile of secularism but their heartfelt commitment to Islam; and similarly with Christian missionaries, who can rightly call themselves secularists under the Indian definition, though their real commitment is to Christianity. So when we say “secularists”, we don’t usually mean them, we mean the Hindu-born secularists, who genuinely intend to define their uppermost commitment when they call themselves secularists. (Ch 32)"
"Congress-culture politicians and pseudo-secularists should at least inform the minority whose cause they espouse, but to whom they never dare read a lecture, that secularism and fundamentalism are mutually exclusive, and that in the Indian secular state the Muslims cannot practise their fundamentalism. Furthermore, they can also be told that history can no longer be distorted, that it cannot be made the handmaid of politics, and that therefore they need to feel sorry if not actually repentant about the past misdeeds of Muslims."
"While secularism is a European import into India, I just don't recognize the secularism practiced in India."
"In my country, we think that secularism implies the freedom to learn, teach and practice a religion, and also the freedom to reject, abandon and criticize a religion. But in India, those who call themselves secular, combine a Stalinist propensity to ban religious education in (non-minority) schools, or to ban religious TV serials, with a bigoted propensity to ban books that take a critical look at religions. In both cases, they arrogate the right to decide for others what they can see and read, and what not. We think that secularism means : let a hundred flowers bloom, let a hundred ideas compete. But in India, the favourite slogan of secularists is : Ban it ! Listen here, friends : banning for secularism is like f...ing for virginity."
"Their justification is that these books and films might hurt feelings and thus disturb communal harmony. Indian secularists declare that a critical or blasphemous book should be banned, because it may offend someone's feelings. Genuine secularists oppose bans because a ban offends our intelligence. And offended it is, by these inflated book-banners who claim the right to decide for us what we can read and what not."
"Of course, the Hindutva people are right when they call the secularists pseudo-secularists."
"If secularism means what it really means, as in Europe, then the people who make common cause with Muslim fundamentalists and defend a separate status for a state with a Muslim majority, religion-based personal laws, and religion-based discrimination in education or in temple management, cannot count as secularists. They are pseudo-secularists, and their opponents are genuine secularists."
"Secularism should be defended in its genuine European sense, against the Stalinist perversion of secularism that still has quite a following in India."
"You see, the secularists are like the followers of Big Brother in George Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four. When Big Brother has raised the prices, they hold a demonstration to thank him for lowering the prices. And when a Muslim government organizes pogroms against the Hindus, the secularists thank it for keeping communal harmony."
"In Hindu culture, even in its most unsophisticated popular forms, this focus on individual consciousness is always there. No group prayers, one's religious experience is one's personal affair. Therefore, this concept of leaving religion to the care of the individual, with no authority above him empowered to dictate beliefs or religious practices, which in the West constituted a cultural revolution called secularism, is nothing new to Hindu culture. This is not an idealization but a firm reality : no matter what the "evils of Hindu society" may have been, subjecting the individual's freedom of religion to any public authority is not one of them. No wonder that Voltaire, who strongly opposed the Church's totalitarian grip over men's lives, and may count as one of the ideologues of secularism, mentioned the religions of India and China as a model of how religion could be a free exploration by the individual."
"The official Hindi term for secularism is dharmanirpekshata, i.e. dharma-neutrality. Critics of Nehruvian secularism say the correct translation would be panthanirpekshata or sampradayanirpekshata, i.e. sect- neutrality."
"So, the concepts of "dharma" and "religion" overlap only partly. The term dharmanirpekshata becomes a bit absurd or even sinister when it turns out to say "duty- neutrality" or "righteousness-neutrality" (though it applies accurately to the utter corruption in which Nehru's secular socialism has plunged the Indian state). The absurdity really comes out when we translate it as "value-system-neutrality". You just cannot have a polity without a value-system that sustains the unity and integrity of the whole. Even secularism implies something of a value-system."
"When Sadhvi Ritambhara, a pro-Janmabhoomi campaigner (a cassette of a speech of hers was banned), tells an interviewer: "Politicians appease [the Muslims] at every step, while the Hindus are taken for granted. We can't even teach our children our religion in schools", the interviewer replies : "But this is a secular nation". No, in these circumstances it is not a secular nation. Either secular means anti-religious, and then all religion teaching should be banned from schools, also that of the minorities. Or secular means religiously neutral, and then the state should leave all the religions the same right to impart religious education in schools, including the Hindus. Passing off this communal discrimination as secular, is a very crude lie indeed."
"India is the great democratic miracle of the world."
"India has given the world neither community nor communalism. Our saints and sages (Rishis and Munis) and traditions have given the world spiritualism and not communalism."
"The ’s verdict in the case of Indian Social Action Forum or challenging the Foreign Contribution Regulation Act, 2011 on March 6, was one of the most decisive affirmations of civil society's role as a political actor in India. The judgement reaffirmed the legitimate and critical role civil society has to play to ensure that democracy in India thrives, including through political action. With far-reaching consequences, the judgement upholds the right of civil society to undertake political work and action. At the heart of this is the distinction between political action for political power on the one hand; and political action for furthering rights, development, human dignity, constitutional values, and democracy, on the other. The court has clearly pronounced that political work as defined for democracy and rights is legitimate."
"If your vote becomes a cause of your death or property destruction, if it leads to arson, then that signals the end of democracy."
"The physical danger in writing against the temple is imaginary; by contrast, it is dangerous to uphold rather than oppose Hindu activist positions. It is a fact that throughout the 1990s, many office-bearers of the RSS, the BJP and their Tamil affiliate Hindu Munnani have been murdered; but that was more because of the demolition and other political matters than because of any statements on the historical background of the Hindu claims on Ayodhya. At one point, the publishinghouse Voice of India, which has published the Vishva Hindu Parishad’s statement and several other writings on the Ayodhya evidence, has had to seek police protection for a few days, but the threats had to do with “insults to the Prophet” and not with the Ayodhya evidence."
"During the Khalistani separatist struggle in Punjab (1981–93), hundreds of RSS and BJP men were killed by the Khalistanis, yet this did not provoke a single act of retaliation, neither against the actual perpetrators nor against the Sikh community in general. On the contrary, when Congress secularists allegedly killed thousands of Sikhs in 1984, it was the Hindutva activists who went out of their way to save the Sikhs. When in the 1980s, and again from 1996 till the time of this writing, Communist militants started killing RSS men in Kerala, the RSS was very slow to react in kind. The bomb attacks on Hindutva centres in Chennai, the murders of BJP politicians in UP and Mumbai and elsewhere, have not provoked any counter-attacks. Anti-Hindu governments in Bihar and West Bengal have achieved some success in preventing the growth of sizable RSS chapters by means of ruthless intimidation and violence, all without having to fear any RSS retaliation. [...] The creation of Sindh and the NWFP as separate provinces meant that the small Hindu minorities there were left at the mercy of the Muslims. This had been a Muslim demand, and while Gandhi agreed to it, no one can tell what the Hindus got in return for it. Gandhi never claimed to represent the Hindus as such anyway: while the Muslims could press demands as Muslims, both through the Muslim League and through the intra-Congress Muslim lobby, the Hindus were only heard as nationalists. The only expressly Hindu lobby group, the HMS, was treated with indifference or hostility by the Congress leadership, much in contrast with the deferential treatment which the Muslim lobby and the Muslim League received... The grand finale of this trail of concessions was Partition amid bloodshed."
"So let's get back to the more eventful Hindu-Muslim relationship. Having discussed the phenomena of street riots and mass terrorism sufficiently for now, let us focus on a third form of communal violence: targeted killings of specified individuals. Like with terrorism, the vast majority of victims in this category of violence have been Hindus. In the months and years after the Mumbai riots of January 1993, a number of Maharashtrian politicians belonging to the BJP and the Shiv Sena have been murdered, mostly by assailants who were never apprehended. In Kerala in the 1990s, dozens of ordinary Hindutva activists have been murdered by the Communists, the dominant party in that state. When I visited the Hindu Munnani office in Chennai in 1996, the building was really impressive, having just been rebuilt and redesigned after a bomb blast. Shortly after, it was destroyed once more in another bomb blast. In this series of attacks on the Hindu Munnani leadership, several activists were killed. And after the Gujarat carnage, the Gujarat Home Minister, Haren Pandya, was murdered by Muslims."
"Historical powerful forces have attempted to restrict democracy to a set of strictly procedural routines for governance and legislation, but once in motion, democratic procedures have over time tended to remold the very form in which a society represents and imagines itself, its institutions and its history. It is my contention that the history of Indian democracy may be fruitfully interpreted in these terms as a gradual and circumscribed questioning of hierarchies and authority, spreading from the political field to other realms in society. As the political field acquired even more prominence due to the weight of the in all spheres of society in the 1970s, a new marked by "" emerged. This gave rise to a new construction of politics as an "amoral vocation," a construction that reflected a widespread discomfort with the proliferating populist techniques of political mobilization and governance, and a disapproval of the new breed of public figures from modest social backgrounds who used their language, manners, and social background to consolidate mass followings. In the face of this "eianization" of the political field, sections of the educated urban and upper-caste groups began to denounce the political vocation, question the legitimacy of the state and discard the principles of democracy and secularism. For decades democracy and secularism meant protection and extension of to the educated Hindu middle classes, and condescending vis-à-vis lower-caste groups and minorities. However, as it became clear that political democracy was slowly giving birth to this new and unfamiliar form of society, the "softness" of the became the target of the Hindu nationalist critique of a "" that was "pampering minorities." attitudes are today widespread in the same urban middle class in India that for years was regarded as the bedrock of political democracy in the country, and the backbone of the nation. Hindu nationalism emerged successfully in the political field in the 1980s as a kind of "" that mainly attracted more privileged groups who feared encroachment on their dominant positions, but also "plebeian" and impoverished groups seeking recognition around a rhetoric of cultural pride, order, and ."
"The BJP seeks to link up internationally with the democratic, non-racist Right. [...] the invention of a category of Third World mass identiarianism would be more pertinent than the never-ending references to fascism. [...] The communists ... reject 'Congress dictatorship' but would welcome a strong state which would crush the communalists, esp the Hindu ones... In the present configuration, the drift to authoritarianism can only come from the Congress apparatus."
"When I heard Aung San Suu Kyi's address to both houses of Britian's Parliament in Westminster hall last week, what impressed me was the clarity with which she spelt out her vision for her country. But, throughout her speech, something kept bothering me and by the time she finished, I discovered what it was. What bothered me was that I could not think of a single Indian leader who could make such a speech. The Indian political landscape today has become a desert in which only the stunted progeny of stunted political leaders bloom. We need our political parties to throw up real leaders and we need a political discourse in which real political problems are discussed."
"We, the Indians, as Guru of the Nations: yes, I believe in that. We can be—or once more become— the hope of mankind. But that requires efforts and courage to be ourselves culturally. Unfortunately, we live in an age of political dwarfs, political managers without vision or courage. But their time is running out."
"The political atmosphere in Bengal has been vitiated. Every death is unfortunate. But no one talks about the 140 plus BJP workers killed in Bengal. Not a day goes when our workers are not attacked. I am a star in Bengali films. But as a BJP worker, I fear for my life. I overcome that fear every day and step out to meet people as I want to realise Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s vision of Sonar Bangla... They [artists and intellectuals] will not have to live in fear as they do currently under Mamata Banerjee’s reign."
"The Hindus are so divided and so foolishly selfish that their majority does not count in actual politics. The atmosphere can clear only after a thunderstorm— after showers of blood."
"People like him think an election is good if the person they want to see, wins and if the election throws up a different outcome then they will say it is a flawed democracy and the beauty is that all this is done under the pretence of advocacy of open society... Soros is an old, rich opinionated person sitting in New York who still thinks that his views should determine how the entire world works."
"In some states, hundreds of our workers have been killed because of their political views. Political untouchability is gaining ground by the day. In some places, just the name of BJP is enough to create an atmosphere of untouchability.... Why are our workers killed or attacked in Kashmir, Kerala or Bengal? It is shameful and anti-democratic."
"Take the cases of Kerala or Kashmir, Bengal or Tripura, it will not come in the media. Some people have selective sensitivity. Hundreds of workers have been killed only for political ideology. In Tripura, workers were hanged. In Bengal, murders are still on. In Kerala too ... perhaps, in India only one political party has faced such killings. Violence has been given legitimacy. This is a danger before us."
"As the priest seeks the station rich in cattle, like a true king who goes to great assemblies, Soma hath sought the pitchers while they cleansed him, and like a wild buffalo, in the wood hath settled."
"Chitra is King, and only kinglings are the rest."
"By offering the Råjasæya he becomes Råjå and by the Våjapeya he becomes Samrå, and the office of Råjan is lower and that of Samraj the higher. A Råjå might indeed wish to become a Samrå, for the office of Råjan is lower and of Samråj the higher; but the Samrå would not wish to become a Råjå for the office of the Råjan is lower, and that of Samråj the higher."
"If more than 45 nations are using Pegasus, like NSO has said, why is only India being targeted? The NSO, which is the manufacturer of Pegasus, has clearly said that its clients are mostly Western nations. So why is India being targetted in this matter? What is the story behind this? What is the twist in the tale?"
"In what seemed like perfect cue, late last evening we saw a report which has been amplified by a few sections with only one aim — to do whatever is possible and humiliate India at the world stage, peddle the same old narratives about our nation and derail India’s development trajectory."
"Mr Modi, don't mind. I am not attacking you personally. But you and may be the Home Minister -- you are deploying agencies against opposition leaders. You are misusing the agencies."
"Pegasus is a non issue. The common man does not even know what it is. The Opposition has not allowed Parliament to run last week and we hope, they understand now."
"The PM has assaulted democratic institutions by using the weapons grade spyware against them. For me, this is not a matter of privacy, it is an anti-national act, treason. The weapon was used against me, SC, other leaders, journalists, activists. Then why should we not debate the issue in Parliament? What is the reason the discussion is not happening. This is the question."
"I believe in our country, Bengal has been ruined, Kolkata was once leading the economic growth, but is ruined by politics... Women are facing atrocities in the TMC rule. The events of Sandeshkhali have jolted the nation. People have the right to vote, and they will vent their anger in the process. So, the outburst is natural. You have seen the piles of banknotes seized. Have you ever seen such big stashes of money getting caught earlier? In recent years, you have seen stashes of Rs 50 crore, Rs 300 crore, Rs 250 crore, Rs 200 crore. The nation is shocked. No matter how much you try to hide it, the nation now understands that these people are looters."
"This is not merely a political contest. It is a struggle for identity, survival, and existence. Bengali Hindus are facing an existential crisis. The BJP is the only force standing in defence of Bengali Hindus’ existence and Bengal. We won’t allow the state to be turned into an Islamic Republic or West Bangladesh."
"West Bengal is on the brink of becoming West Bangladesh. If we remain silent today, tomorrow’s Bengal may be unrecognizable.”"
"Murshidabad is a ticking time bomb. In Sundarbans, Hindus are now worshipping the Islamic folk deity Bonbibi, and Tablighi Jamaat is camping unchecked in sensitive regions."
"What happened in Bengal in the aftermath of May 2nd is a clear signal as to where things are going in the state. There can be an argument over the scale at which this violence was executed, but the sheer Hindu hatred that we came across in the crimes committed on religious lines, especially rapes of Hindu women, indicates that the situation is more or less similar to pre-partition era."
"From Parganas to Nadia and from there to Malda, Murshidabad and Dinajpur, we witnessed a different kind of 'Muslim minority'. If you get to travel in this area of West Bengal, you will find that what cabinet minister Firhad Hakim said about his Kolkata port constituency is not a local phenomenon, it's all over Bengal."
"The phenomenon of silent persecution of Hindus in these areas has been hidden from the rest of the country. In fact, the strategy of occupying villages, compelling Hindus to move to district headquarters and Murshidabad, is a perfect example of this. The level of fear in the Hindus living in these areas is such that they could hardly gather the courage to make formal complaints and approach the institutions for action. Most of them have silently paid the 'settlement amounts' as a penalty for supporting and voting BJP to regularise their normal life. This is said but that's the truth!"
"District BJP President of Uttar Dinajpur told us something that is frightening. "Muslim voters are increasing in the ratio of 2:3 i.e. every three new Muslim voters get added in place of two Hindu voters. Infiltration is still there in Goalpokher, Karandighi and Chopra Block, and this is a cause for concern... In 95 per cent of the cases of violence, Muslims are directly and indirectly involved.""
"People might question this as this is from a BJP office-bearer. For such people, we bring this on record that this account has been corroborated by independent sources but since everyone else chose to remain anonymous, we have quoted a BJP office-bearer. After all, they have not come from Israel and they are also a part of this democracy as anyone else."
"The manner in which Debabrata Maity was killed in Nandigram by a mob comprising of the son-in-law of Mamata Banerjee's election agent (Sheikh Sufian) speaks volumes about the kind of free hand Islamists enjoy in the state. Revelations about how the CM's loss was avenged by Muslims in Nandigram are indeed horrifying. It was heartrending to hear that in Uttar Dinajpur, cow slaughter on Eid has been permitted by the state government itself. And when Mithun Ghosh opposed the practice, he was killed post-election for being a 'staunch Hindu'."
"When 21-year-old Balram Majhi was killed in Purba Bardhman, Islamist goons had warned the family, "Will end your Hindutva if you go to police." Similar mobs killed Haradhan Roy in Coochbehar and Haran Adhikari in South 24 Pargana because of their Hindu identity. There are hundreds of such stories when the Muslim mobs attacked Hindu villages and localities in the aftermath of May 2nd. They targeted Hindu women and girls and abused Hindus for standing with the BJP. Still there are people who say, "Violence is a part of Bengal politics, don't make it Hindu-Muslim." If it is actually Hindu-Muslim on ground then what should we do, lie?"
"The attempts to emphasize communalism in the nationalist movement were countered by Gandhi and Nehru, each of whom in different ways sought to strengthen a comprehensive cultural policy. Gandhi pursued an inclusive strategy by seeking to incorporate religious symbol- ism relevant to Islam in his public rituals,Islamic linguistic forms in his definition of a national language, and Muslim political interests in his coalitions.Nehru's resolute rationalism and commitment to a "scientific temper"in effect denied the relevance of religion to a national political identity.The secular cultural policy which he fashioned for the Indian National Congress became the dominant political paradigm after independence."
"Nehruism was the meaning of the Russian Revolution to the Indian middle-class. This class was the harbinger of modernity and architect of nationalism. It was proud of its mission, sacrifice and suffering. It agreed with Macaulay in regarding itself as the natural leader to society and the nation. In the early twenties the middle-class nationalist was over-confident of the success of his tactics and strategy of struggle. Under the first flush of the Gandhian spell it thought that nothing of importance would be gained by turning over the pages of other people’s struggles."
"Herein came Nehruism. It brought the knowledge of other lands, especially of the Soviet land, to the door of the nationalist and the common man. The kernel of Nehruism was faith in progress and faith in people. It put forth, despite its liberal language, the central thesis of Marxism and of the Soviet Union that capitalism, imperialism, fascism and militarism were decaying and organically connected phenomena and that the future belonged to the other organically connected phenomena representing the progressive forces of the world. These progressive forces included socialism, colonial nationalism and the Soviet Union. This world picture restored confidence to the nationalist camp."
"Many factors prevented Nehruism from becoming a fully effective doctrine of action in Nehru's lifetime. Policy-making was so personalised that the meaning of policies was not easily radiated and not properly explained."
"India is the one new state where sophisticated political discussion flourishes, though there can of course be much dispute as to whether any original political ideas lie behind the smoke-screen of ideological controversy. The major -isms are undoubtedly Nehruism, Gandhism and Communism. All we pro- pose to do is to say briefly what we think Nehruism is and why we think it has won acceptance as the dominant ideology, not overlooking the fact that there are many, including Nehru himself, who would deny that it amounts to an ideology at all."
"Nehru wants a modernized, secular, democratic state resting on the pillars of parliamentary government, central planning, large-scale industrialization and the ‘socialistic pattern of society’. In essence, Nehruism is an attempt to combine the government by discussion and rule of law of liberal democracy with Communist-style central planning and some aspects of the specifically Indian approach to politics of the Gandhians."
"The fatal practice of Nehruism, which was a cocktail of Hindu hatred, Islamic exaltation, English imitation, Communist infatuation and Socialist evisceration, took away the vitality of the new politically independent India. India never attained mental and cultural independence. The same forces had sapped Indian vitality to such an extent that they swallowed the cowardice preached as ahimsa by the Mahatma, and never once thought of rising to at least ring-fence the new Republic from the pernicious forces of Islamism, Cultural Marxism and Evangelism... Even though the BJP has been in power for more than six years now, it has been unable to shake off the narratives put in place by Nehruism and its cheerleaders."
"Today, I view Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru as a bloated Brown Sahib, and Nehruism as the combined embodiment of all the imperialist ideologies Islam, Christianity, White Man's Burden, and Communism that have flooded this country in the wake of foreign invasions. And I do not have the least doubt in my mind that if India is to live, Nehruism must die. Of course, it is already dying under the weight of its sins against the Indian people, their country, their society, their economy, their environment, and their culture. What I plead is that a conscious rejection of Nehruism in all its forms will hasten its demise, and save us from the mischief which it is bound to create further if it is allowed to linger."
"Nehruism , in outer dress means the so - called Jawahar Bandi and a Chatti ' just as Gandhism meant a Gandhi Cap and the Khadi attire ..."
"Nehruism became too much identified with Western rationalism and thus excluded intuitive forms of thought and consciousness which were the intellectual tools of an illiterate and premodern peasantry ."
"Nehruism represented in politics , economics , and international relations an arithmetic compromise between extremes."
"Some see in this change a triumph of Nehru over Gandhi. They, of course, do not mean Nehru as a person for Nehru was merely a symbol and he represented, in his own way, a typical response, the response of a defeated nation trying to restore its self-respect and self-confidence through self-repudiation and identification with the ways of the victors. The approach was not altogether unjustified at one time. It had its compulsions and it had also a survival value for us. But its increasing influence can mean no good to us."
"As an India still seemingly clad in the trappings of Nehruvianism steps out into the 21st Century, little of Jawaharlal Nehru's legacy appears intact. India has moved away from much of it, and so (in different ways) has the rest of the developing world for which Nehruvianism once spoke. As India nears the completion of the sixth decade of its independence from the British Raj, a transformation - still incomplete - has taken place that, in its essentials, has changed the basic Nehruvian assumptions of post-colonial nationhood."
"[Soon after the Muslim League had passed its resolution demanding Pakistan in 1940, the Dravidian ideologue E.V. Ramasamy Nayakar (popularly known as EVR) passed a similar resolution demanding a sovereign state, to be called Dravidistan. In 1941, at the twenty-eight Annual session of the Muslim League, Jinnah and EVR shared the dais and Jinnah extended full support to splitting off something called Dravidistan:] I have every sympathy and shall do all to help, and you establish Dravidistan, where the seven percent Muslim population will stretch its hand of friendship and live with you on lines of security, justice and fair play."
"[In India’s Nagaland state, there is an insurgency driven by the idea of a Maoist Christian nation-state. The Naga separatist guerillas declared in their manifesto:] The sovereign existence of our country, the salvation of our people in socialism with their spiritual salvation in Christ, are unquestionable. . . . We stand for socialism. . . . We stand for faith in God and the salvation of mankind in Jesus, the Christ, alone, that is, ‘Nagaland for Christ’. . . . We rule out the illusion of saving Nagaland through peaceful means. It is arms and arms alone that will save our nation."
"Do you people consider the word ‘Mulla’ derogatory? Are you getting rid of this word just as you did with the word ‘Jihadi’? You should release your dictionary. Wire madarsa’s dictionary will not be used at Sudarshan."
"Despite the Supreme court’s warning, Sudarshan news is openly using hateful and derogatory slurs against an entire community on national TV."
"These communal riots may be justly regarded as an outward manifestation of that communal spirit which grew in intensity throughout the nineteenth century and at last drove the Hindus- and Muslims into two opposite camps in politics. The ground, was prepared by the frankly communal outlook of the Muslims, typified by the Wahabi Movement and the Aligarh Movement. The situation was rendered worse by the policy of Divide and Rule adopted by the British Government with the definite object’ of playing one community against the other. The spectre of communalism which haunted Indian politics even at the close of the nineteenth century was destined to grow in size and volume as years rolled by. The cloud that was no bigger than a man's, hand in 1900 soon overcast the whole sky and brought rain, thunder and storm which drenched the whole country with blood and tears in less than half a century. (440)"
"How far Gandhi’s fast had any salutary effect on the communal relations may be judged by the fact that four days after Gandhi began his fast there was a serious communal riot at Shahjahanpur in which the military had to intervene and 9 were killed and about 100 injured. On October 8 when Gandhi broke his fast, there were serious communal riots at Allahabad, Kanchrapara near Calcutta and at Sagar and Jubbulpore in C.P."
"The situation only worsened in 1925 and 1926. No less than sixteen communal riots occurred in 1925, the most terrible being those at Delhi, Aligarh, Arvi (Central Provinces) and Sholapur. On 2 April 1926, deadly riots erupted again in Calcutta. They went on over three waves leaving hundreds killed and injured. Riots rocked interiors of Bengal, Rawalpindi, Allahabad and about five riots occurred in Delhi alone. ...Between 1922 and 1927, approximately 450 lives were lost and 5000 persons injured in communal clashes. Almost every province seemed to have been affected by the virus. The storm spread easily and widely from one place to another, bringing in its wake enormous loss of life and property."
"As a government-appointed Statutory Committee observed in 1928: Every year since 1923 has witnessed communal rioting on an extensive, and in fact, on an increasing scale which has as yet shown no sign of abating. The attached list, which excludes minor occurrences, records no less than 112 communal riots within the last 5 years, of which 31 have occurred during 1927."
"Any event in any Muslim country gives Indian Muslims the right to take to the streets and start vicious riots, all over the country, in an orgy of loot, arson and vandalism (especially vandalism of Hindu temples, shops and houses situated near Muslim areas). The event may be the arson by an Australian tourist in the Al-Aqsa mosque in far-off Jerusalem, the temporary take-over by a group of Sunni extremists of the mosque in Mecca, the execution of Zulfigar Ali Bhutto by Zia-ul-Haq in Pakistan, or the death of Zia-ul-Haq in an aircrash."
"The Muhammadan mobs attacked all the Hindu Temples in the city, numbering about fifteen, and broke the idols. They also raided the Sharan Vishveshwar Temple and attempted to set fire to the Temple car. The Police were eventually obliged to fire, with the result that three Muhammadans, including the Police Superintendent Mr. Azizullah, were killed and about a dozen persons injured. Next morning the streets were again in the hands of Muhammadan mobs and considerable damage was done to Hindu houses and shops. On the arrival of Police Reinforcement, order was restored. On the 14th August the Muslim mob fury was at its height and almost all the temples within the range of the mob, some fifty in number, were desecrated, their sanctum sanctorum entered into, their idols broken and their buildings damaged."
"There is nothing wrong in imbibing positive aspects of western culture, but VHP and Bajrang Dal are against obscenity in the name of westernisation. Valentine's Day is one such obscene celebration."
"Hindus will be beaten up. The Christians will lock down our temples and we will go to have fun in their churches — I condemn such Hindus. They need to be taught a lesson."
"The young men in the movement do not know anything about the dharma — the Ramayana, Mahabharat, Vedas or Upanishad. We have brought in these men and guided them to a path of fighting and violence."
"Those who don’t like ‘Ek Bharat, Sreshth Bharat’ somewhere encourage anti-social and anti-national organisations such as PFI on the one hand and on the other, they want to ban organisations which are committed to patriotism and social service. Banning Bajrang Dal means Congress is trying to make a mockery of the Hindu faith. Hindu community will not tolerate and accept it."
"If someone opens a 'pakoda' shop in front of your office, does that not count at employment? The person's daily earning of Rs 200 will never come into any books or accounts. The truth is massive people are being employed."
"It is better to be a labourer or sell 'pakodas' than to be unemployed. There is no shame in selling 'pakodas'."
"In the West, the term 'gig economy' is now a fashionable one to discuss self-employed people like web designers, copywriters and software engineers who work independently for several companies or clients at once. I would say pakoda-sellers, plumbers, carpenters and even snake-charmers have been part of India's gig economy long before the term became fashionable."
"My search for a job ended when I watched Prime Minister Narendra Modi's interview on a private television channel wherein he mentioned about opening a 'pakoda' joint. I was extremely delighted over the suggestion and felt that I can not only earn for my family but also give a job to others."
"The Centre and Haryana governments had promised to create large number of jobs for the unemployed. But now they are assuring 'pakoda jobs' to millions of people looking for work. For BJP leaders, even people earning Rs 200 a day selling 'pakodas' can be considered employed, which is a cruel joke."
"Two members of National Statistical Commission (NSC) resigned. They don't want to bring the data forward. In other countries we have heard people being encountered, but in our country data is being encountered. The rate of unemployment in the country has increased. This is a result of Modiji's pakodanomics."
"Two words were missing in this Budget speech - education and jobs. In the 10-point vision document there is nothing about education. Apparently, no one in this government has read the ASER report. Also, there is nothing about jobs because if they say anything about jobs, the young people of this country will dismiss it as 'Pakodanomics'. The only thing this government know about jobs is 'Pakodanomics'."
"Why does our PM want India’s jobless youth to sell pakodas. If crores of jobless youths start frying pakodas (fritters), who will eat them?."
"Modinomics started in 2014 and turned into Pakodanomics. That means if you want low profile jobs, only then you vote for the BJP."
"A commercial LPG cylinder will cost Rs 2,118 with a hike of Rs 350 per cylinder. Now, even frying Pakodas will be difficult for educated unemployed youths."
"The Nehru Report, representing as it did the highest common denominator among a number of heterogeneous Parties was based on the assumption that the new Indian Constitution would be based on Dominion Status. This was regarded as a climb-down by a radical wing in the Congress led by Subhash Bose and Motilal's own son who founded the "Independence for India League". The Calcutta Congress (December 1928) over which Motilal presided was the scene of a head-on clash between those who were prepared to accept Dominion Status and those who would have nothing short of complete independence. A split was averted by a via media proposed by Gandhiji, according to which if Britain did not concede Dominion Status within a year, the Congress was to demand complete independence and to fight for it, if necessary, by launching civil disobedience."
"The Concise History of the Indian National Congress, 1885- 1985 records: Although the Nehru Report was a document which dealt with the crucial issues of contemporary politics with catholicity and vision, its specific proposals failed to win the approval of some significant sections of society in India. Soon after the Report was issued, the leaders of the Congress met in Calcutta in December 1928, to discuss its provisions. The Muslim leaders present at the Calcutta meeting felt that, in view of the plural character of society in India, some of the provisions of the Nehru Report - particularly those recommending a unitary constitution, and the abrogation of communal electorates - would not be acceptable to their constituents. Indeed, in a conference held slightly later, in March 1929, the Muslim leaders presented a radically different prescription for the constitutional future of India. Such leaders envisaged a liberated India as a federal polity, wherein the minorities ,particularly the Muslim community, would protect their interests through the mechanism of separate electorates (Pande 1985: 153-154)."
"During the proceedings of the Second Round Table Conference in the year 1931, Gandhi circulated a memorandum, in the second session of the Conference, which demanded that the new Constitution should include a guarantee to the communities concerned, of protection of their culture, language, script, education, profession, and practice of religion and religious endowments, personal law, political, and other rights of minority communities. His views found their place in the rights relating to religion and in the cultural and educational Rights in the Constitution of Independent India."
"All castes/communities of Muslim religion of Karnataka are being treated as socially and educationally backward classes of citizens and listed as Muslim Caste separately under Category IIB in the State List of Backward Classes for providing them reservation in admission into educational institutions and in appointments to posts and vacancies in the services of the State for the purpose of Articles 15(4) and 16(4) of the Constitution of India."
"The religion-based reservation affects and works against ethics of social justice for categorically downtrodden Muslim castes/communities and identified socially and educationally backward Muslim castes/communities under Category-I (17 Muslim castes) and Category II-A (19 Muslim castes) of State List of Backward Classes. Hence, socially and educationally backward castes/communities cannot be treated at par with an entire religion."
"Media should look at actions and not allegations. Look at what all has happened in Karnataka. Bomb blasts, brutal murder of a daughter, attack on people doing bhajan-kirtan... During bomb blasts, the state govt tried its best to mislead people. In the murder of the daughter, the media is showing how the father is going around asking for justice. He is from the Congress party, but still he is not getting justice. If this is not appeasement, what is it? It is not polarisation to show that Congress has violated the Constitution and enacted laws providing reservation on the basis of religion. Our Constitution clearly prohibits reservations based on religion but the Congress govt in Karnataka reversed the law passed by BJP to provide reservation to OBCs and gave it to Muslims, classifying all Muslims as OBC. Even the National Commission for Backward Classes, a constitutional body, criticised this as against principles of ‘social justice’. The Congress govt in Telangana has recently said that it will replicate this move. This proves that Congress wants to reduce the reservation provided to SCs, STs and OBCs across the country and give it to minorities. What else can one expect from a party whose prime minister said that minorities have the first right on resources of this country?"
"Since the Congress came to power in Karnataka, the law and order situation in the state has been on a free-fall. The incident in Hubballi (the daylight murder of a sitting Congress corporator’s daughter) shook the country’s conscience. When the bereaved family sought action, the ruling Congress, yet again, preferred appeasement over justice. They do not value the lives of our daughters like Neha (Hiremath). All they care about is their vote bank."
"I have made five to six visits to Karnataka and after meeting people I have been able to understand the feeling of Karnataka. The feeling of the people of Karnataka is that he (Siddaramaiah) is not an AHINDA leader, but an Ahindu (anti-Hindu) leader."
"Karnataka Police has arrested @MumbaichaDon from Goa. We are in touch with his family and will ensure he gets all legal support. Congress has unleashed anarchy and is intolerant of dissent. But there won’t be another #Emergency in this country, ever."
"It has now become the culture of West Bengal, that the TMC Party goons will attack the BJP Karyakartas after the declaration of results... In a repeat of the incidents which had transpired after the declaration of the 2021 Assembly Election results, which caused deaths of several BJP karyakartas, similarly now, after the announcement of the Parliamentary General Elections results, BJP workers are being targeted by the goons affiliated to the ruling dispensation in the State."
"Together do vote jihad — with intelligence, without being sentimental and with silence. As we can only do vote jihad to drive away this Sanghi government. It is time to join hands, otherwise this Sanghi government will succeed in wiping out our existence."
"Rahul Gandhi has no right to use the Gandhi surname. He has reached the level of a fourth-class citizen. Can such a person be born in the Nehru family? I have doubts about it. His DNA should be examined."
"If Congress comes to power, as our manifesto states, every woman will get Rs 1 lakh in her bank account. Women from each house will get Rs 1-1 lakh. Those who have two wives will get Rs 2 lakh."
"Narendra Modi wants people to sit on their phone the entire day and chant ‘Jai Shri Ram’. And while you do this, you die of hunger."
"There is a word 'Shakti' in Hinduism. We are fighting against a Shakti."
"It is a matter of shame. On the one hand, the Chief Minister will insult institutions like Ramakrishna Mission, Bharat Sevashram Sangh and ISKCON. Trinamool will beg Congress votes with Bengali imams. And Trinamool miscreants threatening to kill the monks of Ramakrishna Mission by pointing firearms at them cannot go on..."
"Tradition dictates you should first win from Raebareli before challenging for top!"
"I have spent more than 32 years in the Congress and when the Ram Mandir decision came, after getting advice from his wellwisher in America, Rahul Gandhi in a meeting with his close aides said that after the Congress government is formed, they will form a superpower commission and will overturn the Ram Mandir decision just like Rajiv Gandhi overturned the Shah Bano decision."
"I will leave politics if I don't drown you people (was referring to Hindus) in the Bhagirathi River within two hours. You are 30 per cent people, we are also 70 per cent here, if you think that you will demolish the mosque of Kazipada and the rest of the Muslims will sit back and relax. Then, I want to tell the BJP that this will never happen."
"“This is the worst thing Mamata Banerjee could have done to West Bengal,” BJP leader Amit Malviya tweeted. “After she threatened Ramakrishna Mission, Bharat Sevashram Sangh and ISKCON from an open stage, criminals, with firearms and daggers entered Ramakrishna Mission Ashram under Kotwali PS in Jalpaiguri and attacked the monks, broke CCTV, brandished firearms, forcefully detained the Sadhus and threw them on streets,” he added."
"The Congress has [already] declared that Muslims have the first right to the country’s resources,” Mr. Modi said. Can you tolerate the government snatching your hard-earned money and property?” he asked. “That means the property will be distributed among those who have a large number of children… and among the intruders. Is it acceptable to you?” he asked. “Gold jewellery of my mothers and sisters is not just for show. It is a matter of their self-respect. Congress has stooped to such a level. How can you tolerate your hard-earned money going in the hands of intruders?"
"Congress hates Hindus and Hindu festivals so much that it is now being exposed daily. The shehzada's guru even went ahead to say that the Ram Temple should not have been built. He went on to say that the construction of Ram Temple and celebrating Ram Navami is anti-India, it is against the idea of India... If you want to visit Ayodhya and celebrate Ram Navami, are you anti-India? Congress wants to make Hindus second-class citizens in their own country. Is this why they talk about vote-jihad?"
"“Around 15 per cent reservation quota of the OBCs was given to Muslims in Karnataka. Congress is setting a wrong precedent by giving reservations based on religion. Founder-members of our Constitution had opposed the idea of reservations on the basis of religion,” PM Modi said. “The Congress wants to snatch SC/ST and OBC quota. The party wants to give it to Muslims to settle its vote bank. Congress wants to impose an inheritance tax on private properties, and their wrong intention was exposed again,” he said."
"I challenge the Congress and its INDI allies to give a written statement that they will not amend the Constitution based on religion, that they will not take away the reservations of SCs, STs and OBCs and give it to a certain community, that in states where they are in power, they will not take away reservations for SCs, STs and OBCs and give it to people on the basis of faith. It’s been 10 days since I threw these challenges at them and still haven’t responded. They want to punish you but as long as I am alive, I wouldn’t let that happen."
"Congress is fully involved in giving the reservation of SC, ST, and OBC to Muslims on the basis of religion."
"Congress is silent but today, one of its allies confirmed the intentions of INDI Alliance. Their leader, who is in jail in connection with the fodder scam and has been punished by the court…He has just come out on bail…He said that Muslims should get reservations and not just reservations, he says that Muslims should get complete reservations. What does this mean? These people want to snatch away all the reservations that SC, ST, and OBC communities have and give complete reservations to Muslims….” “They can’t see anything beyond appeasement now, he said at the rally, adding “If they come to themselves, they will also take your breath right away."
"The Shehzada of the Congress said recently that our Rajas and Maharajas back in the day were ruthless. They snatched or took away the humble assets of the poor at their whim. The Shehzada insulted the revered Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj and Rani Chennamma, whose good governance and patriotism still fill us with national pride and honour. Does he not have any knowledge of the contribution of the royal family of Mysuru who we all regard very highly and are proud of? ... The Shehzada’s was carefully calibrated, on purpose, to appease a certain vote bank. He did not utter a single word on the atrocities committed by the Nawabs, Nizams, Sultans, and Badhshahs (on their peasants). The Congress seems to have forgotten the grave excesses perpetrated by (Mughal emperor) Aurangzeb, who destroyed thousands of our temples... The Benaras Hindu Unversity (BHU) could not have been established without the help of the king, who ruled the city back in the day. Maharaja Gaekwad of Baroda had helped Baba Saheb Ambedkar pursue his higher studies abroad. The Congress’ Shehzada knows nothing about this and is making public statements that are aimed at advancing the party’s vote bank politics. The Congress is in an alliance with parties that glorify Aurangzeb. They don’t talk about kings who destroyed our pilgrimage sites, looted them, killed our people while also slaughtering livestock... Since the Congress came to power in Karnataka, the law and order situation in the state has been on a free-fall. The incident in Hubballi (the daylight murder of a sitting Congress corporator’s daughter) shook the country’s conscience. When the bereaved family sought action, the ruling Congress, yet again, preferred appeasement over justice. They do not value the lives of our daughters like Neha (Hiremath). All they care about is their vote bank."
"Is vote-bank politics bigger than people and humanity?"
"They only know how to divide the society to protect their vote bank."
"An MLA of TMC gave a statement yesterday that they will throw Hindus in Bhagirathi. What kind of statement is this? What kind of politics is this? Why have Hindus become second-class citizens in Bengal?"
"The TMC government has crossed all limits. ISKCON, Ramakrishna Mission and Bharat Sewa Ashram Sangham are known across the globe for their service. They have taken the name of our country to new heights.” He emphasised, “Mamata Banerjee, the Chief Minister of West Bengal, is openly threatening these organisations. There are millions of followers associated with these missions all over the world, and their sole aim is to serve the people.”"
"“This was done because the West Bengal government inexplicably gave OBC certificates to Muslims, only for the Muslim vote bank. This vote bank politics, this politics of appeasement, is crossing every limit,” the prime minister stated. He further added: “They say that Muslims have the first right on the country’s resources. These people are continuously giving government lands to the Waqf Board and asking for votes in return. These people want to reserve 15% of the country’s budget for minorities. They also want to give loans from banks and government tender based on religion. These people are opposing CAA to please their vote bank.”"
"We build AI models that improve lives and help solve complex challenges, but we know that threat actors will sometimes try to abuse our models to harm others. This includes people who abuse our models in support of covert influence operations (IO). ... This report surveys campaigns by threat actors that have used our products to further covert IO online.... Finally, in May, the network began generating comments that focused on India, criticized the ruling BJP party and praised the opposition Congress party."
"Are we (Muslims) infiltrators and people with many children?... Do you know how many siblings Atal Bihari Vajpayee had... Muslims are the people having many children and Vajpayee and his siblings were 7 in number... Yogi Adityanath and his siblings are 7 in number... Amit Shah and his siblings are also 7 in number. Narendra Modi and his siblings are 6 in number... We are those who have given the Taj Mahal, Qutab Minar, Red Fort, Jama Masjid and Char Minar to this nation. We have decorated this nation. We are not infiltrators. We belong to this nation. This nation is ours and will be ours."
"We have survived 75 years in a very happy environment where people could live together, leaving aside few fights here and there. We could hold a country together as diverse as India, where people on east look like Chinese, people on West look like Arab, people on North look like white and maybe people on South look like Africans."
"As far as the Gandhi family is concerned, it is not just Amethi-Raebareli, the entire country from north to south is the stronghold of the Gandhi family. Rahul Gandhi has been MP thrice from Uttar Pradesh and once from Kerala. Why has the Prime Minister been unable to muster the courage to contest an election from a single seat below the Vindhyas?"
"Lalu Prasad Yadav said that full reservation should be provided to Muslims. This word, 'pura ka pura' (full), used by him in his statement, is very serious. This makes it clear that they (INDIA bloc) want to provide reservation to Muslims from the share of SCs, STs and OBCs."
"The apprehensions expressed by BJP and PM Modi are now proving to be completely true. The genie of Muslim reservation has come out of the lamp of the INDI alliance and is visible in the sky from the South to the plains of Ganga. The thing worth noticing in the statement given by Lalu Prasad is that the most serious word he was asked about the Muslim community, he said yes Muslims should get reservation ‘poora ka poora’. It became clear that they want to give reservation to the Muslim community by snatching the share of SC, ST and OBC…"
"Our Candidate Dr. Pranat Tudu has come under massive stone pelting by goons at Jhargram. Currently even Central Forces are having to retreat to save their life. ECI was repeatedly alerted about this going to be a violent phase yet they never took appropriate measures to address… pic.twitter.com/IoaJkFJv4z"
"Muslims should get reservations in full."
"It’s true that the state has been seeing coalition governments for a considerable period now. There was Vilasrao Deshmukh…Even when Sharad Pawar became the chief minister, he was not able to do so alone with absolute majority. Secondly, it has been Maharashtra’s misfortune that for some time now, no CM has been able to serve the five-year term. Devendra Fadnavis was the first person after a long time who served the entire term. The government then was clean and spotless. It was a government that worked for the welfare of the people."
"I have great respect for Balasaheb Thackeray and we are the ones working to take his legacy forward. He is one of the most important and influential leaders in the history of our country. Throughout his life, Balasaheb stood for politics that furthered national interest and was against appeasement politics. I have also maintained decorum and dignity with every member of Balasaheb's family, irrespective of the political dynamics. But as an admirer of Balasaheb, I am pained by certain things. Today, it pains every admirer of Balasaheb, including me, to see the actions of those who claim to be torchbearers of his legacy. Mumbai and its people were so close to Balasaheb's heart. What would he have felt if he would have seen these people using those convicted in Mumbai bomb blasts for their campaigning? What would he have felt about these people allying with those who openly say they want to destroy Sanatan Dharma? What would Balasaheb have felt looking at these people aligning with those who celebrate Aurangzeb and abuse Savarkar. Can anyone claim to be upholding the legacy of Balasaheb after doing such things? Balasaheb always put principles above power. But now, it seems, power is everything for these people."
"Swami is prime ministerial material because of his integrity and honesty in the manner that he has pursued the 2G Spectrum scam."
"In 2007, the Department of Telecom (DoT) under the ministerial charge of A. Raja of the DMK, a partner in the UPA coalition, determined that there was a case for licensing more 2G operators in each of the twenty-three telecom circles in the country in order to encourage competition in the sector."
"The department consulted TRAI (Telecom Regulatory Authority of India), and TRAI, in turn, endorsed the need to increase the number of operators and recommended that fresh licensees should be given spectrum at the same price at which incumbent operators had gotten it, which was the price set in an auction in 2001. The absence of a level playing field, TRAI argued, would disadvantage fresh entrants and defeat the goal of deepening telecom services."
"The 2001 cabinet decision stipulated that all future pricing of spectrum would be decided jointly by DoT and the Ministry of Finance. When the issue came to the finance ministry for opinion, I took the view that it would be inappropriate to sell spectrum in 2007–08 at a price set in 2001 and that we must rediscover the price through a fresh auction."
"My opinion was informed by the experience in India and around the world during the intervening years that spectrum was a scarcer commodity than originally believed. It was only appropriate that the government should garner a part of that scarcity premium by rediscovering the price through a fresh auction."
"The DoT wrote back to say that they saw no reason to revisit the pricing issue and that they preferred to go along with the TRAI recommendation. For sure, there was some logic to the DoT position. If the objective was to deepen telecom penetration, it made sense to keep the price of spectrum low; competition among operators would then ensure that the lower price was passed on to customers."
"Even as this disagreement on pricing remained unresolved, the DoT went ahead and invited applications for licences in September 2007 and awarded 120 licences to forty-six companies on 10 January 2008. Although these licences were given away at the 2001 price, the licence agreement contained a clause that the price could be increased later to accommodate the possibility of the finance ministry’s view prevailing."
"The whole licencing process turned out to be controversial and contentious. There were allegations of arbitrarily advancing the cut-off date for receipt of applications, abrupt announcement of the successful applicants, tampering with the first come, first served principle and allowing a very narrow window for payment of the licence fee to favour some parties. This licensing part was an issue in which I was neither involved nor had any locus standi."
"In July 2008, some six months after the licences were issued, the two ministers, Finance Minister Chidambaram and Telecom Minister Raja, reached an agreement that this round of 2G spectrum would be given at the 2001 price while all future spectrum, including 3G, which was then on the anvil, would be auctioned. Both ministers presented this agreed package to the prime minister at a meeting where I was present. I recorded that decision in the file."
"In the months after the issue of licences, stray reports began appearing that spectrum had been given away at a throwaway price. These reports gained momentum when two of the licensees were able to sell equity to foreign investors at a huge premium, suggesting that the true value of spectrum was much higher than what was reflected in the 2001 price."
"Very soon the trickle of allegations of corruption turned into a flood. That the government had ignored the advice of its own finance secretary added fuel to the fire. There was a furore in the parliament. The decision was attacked in the Public Accounts Committee (PAC), the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) ordered a CBI investigation, the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) decided to take up a special performance audit and a public interest litigation was filed in the Supreme Court."
"This meant that the 2G issue was simultaneously the subject of a CBI investigation, a PAC inquiry, a CAG special audit and a Supreme Court probe. And subsequently, it would be the subject matter of a Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) inquiry as well."
"The CAG report, signed off by Vinod Rai, incidentally my IAS batchmate, was tabled in the parliament in November 2010. Its most important conclusion was that the government had incurred a ‘presumptive loss’ of Rs 1.76 trillion by selling spectrum at below market price. This huge number, as much as 3.6 per cent of GDP, was explosive and turned the 2G issue into a full-blown scam."
"The locus standi of the CAG to take up a special audit is unquestionable. However, the CAG’s decision to go into the question of a ‘presumptive loss’ to the government and its methodology of quantifying that loss are questionable on several grounds."
"The CAG estimated the ‘presumptive loss’ by calculating the difference between the revenue actually generated and the revenue that would have been generated under four different hypothetical prices for spectrum. The assumptions underlying the estimates of these hypothetical prices are contestable. Moreover, in burrowing deeply into just the pricing issue, the CAG did not reckon with the significant recurring revenue the government would earn via larger spectrum charges consequent on the expansion of telecom."
"Finally, the CAG did not take into account the substantial equity and efficiency gains that would accrue to the economy via deeper telecom penetration."
"The reality is that it’s difficult to quantify the costs and benefits of decisions like this without making heroic assumptions. Arguably, it’s possible to come out with a study that would, in fact, show ‘presumptive gains’ to the government — that the overall benefits to the government far exceed the costs it incurred — by making assumptions that would be no less robust than those underlying the CAG findings."
"More important than the estimate of presumptive loss, questionable as it was, was the CAG’s locus standi in questioning the right of the government to decide to sell spectrum at below market price. If a democratically elected government decided to forgo revenue in order to serve a larger public good of deepening telecom penetration, was it open to the CAG to substitute his own judgement for the government’s?"
"On February 11 Congress Party Chairwoman Sonia Gandhi traveled to the Northeast Indian state of Assam to inaugurate her party's campaign for the May 2006 state assembly elections. Her presence reflected Congress' concern about retaining its hold on Assam, following recent setbacks in Bihar and Karnataka and the prospect of seat-losses in the West Bengal and Kerala May assembly elections. In Assam the main opposition parties, the Asom Gana Parishad (AGP) and Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), are weak and fragmented, but Congress has also lost support from the critical Muslim community. In a brazen appeal to the Muslims, Gandhi offered to amend the Foreigners Act to prevent deportation of illegal Bangladeshi immigrants. The Muslim vote is likely to determine whether Congress can retain its majority. The Muslim community's importance has been magnified by a steady influx of Bangladeshi immigrants and Muslims presently hold 13 Congress seats in the assembly. Traditionally, Congress had been the party of choice for the Muslims as it protected illegal Bangladeshi migrants from deportation. Congress also supported the Illegal Migrants Determination by Tribunals Act (IMDT) of 1983, applicable only in Assam, which made identification, detection and deportation of foreigners in Assam incredibly complex and protected post-1971 illegal Bangladeshi migrants. Congress’ relations with the Muslims suffered a setback in July 2005, when the Supreme Court ruled the IMDT unconstitutional. Assam, like the rest of India, is now subject to the Foreigners’ Act of 1946, which requires the police to deport illegal residents. Muslims in Assam criticized the Congress for failing to support the IMDT in court and in November 2005, formed a Muslim political group the United Democratic Front (UDF). UDF Leader Hafiz Rashid Chowdhury (protect) said that the UDF is running on the slogan of “Anti-Congress, Anti-BJP.” The Congress has tried to appease the Muslims by not enforcing the Foreigners Act and in her recent visit, Gandhi offered to amend the Act. According to Assam Congress Spokesman Abdul Khaleque (protect), the amendment would effectively bring the IMDT provisions under the Foreigners Act and again create special exceptions and a tribunal for Assam. Also on February 11, Gandhi visited Barpeta, which has a large concentration of Bangladeshi Muslims, and laid the foundation stone for a new medical college."
"The Congress government, which passed the IMDT Act in 1983, has been accused of catering to mostly-Muslim Bangladeshi migrants in order to use them as a vote bank, and of allowing “demographic aggression” in Assam. The total lack of political will by the Congress-led government, as well as logistical obstacles to implementation will likely blunt any surge in deportations, but the repeal will nonetheless intensify communal politics in Assam and hurt the Congress party’s electoral prospects ahead of spring 2006 elections there… (U) A Congress Party government passed the IMDT Act in 1983 at the height of an anti-foreigner (read: Bangladeshi) uprising spearheaded by the All Assam Student's Union (AASU) in response to the growing number of Bangladeshi refugees in Assam. The new law supplanted the Foreigner's Act, which still governs the rest of the country, and was intended to assuage the anti-immigrant groups by setting up a judicial mechanism in the form of tribunals to determine the nationality of a suspect. In practice, it made deportations more difficult by moving the burden of proof of nationality from the suspect (as under the Foreigner's Act) to the accuser, i.e., in most cases, the government, but also private citizens and entities. The Congress government used the act to pay lip service to expulsions for electoral gain while allowing illegal immigration to continue unabated. (SBU) As a result, the IMDT Act became widely viewed by ethnic Assamese, their parties, and the national BJP party as a hurdle to identifying and deporting illegal Bangladeshi migrants in Assam. Largely-Hindu opposition parties such as the AGP and the BJP deemed the law "migrant friendly" and accused the Congress of shoring up its vote base by giving Muslim Bangladeshis the right to vote. As the AGP, All-Assam Students' Union (AASU) and BJP began to agitate against the ineffective and duplicitously-named law, Congress defended it on the ground that it helped prevent genuine citizens from being harassed. After former ASSU President and AGP MP Sarbananda Sonowal registered a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) against the bill in 2000 and the NDA government introduced a bill in Parliament to repeal the act in May 2003, the Supreme Court struck it down on July 12, 2005."
"As more migrants gained the right to vote, they quickly became a protected vote bank for Congress and Communist parties. This violent history and the continued efforts to exaggerate the threat of immigration makes the migrants more susceptible to radicalism.... The accusations that the Congress and Communist parties cater to Muslim migrants as a vote bank by giving them illegal voting rights have raised concerns in political circles about the effect of the “demographic invasion.”"
"Those in power, regardless of organisation or ideology, are distorting history. It is well known and no secret. A country or society can only progress when history is viewed in its true context. Unfortunately, in our democratic setup, it is disheartening that those in power are rewriting history with distortions. These people are also destroying the top Indian History Congress. They are not helping the country but only making a loss for it. They can fool a few people in the country, but not all. When history is studied around the world, it is noted that Aurangzeb was a Mughal ruler of India, even though he reigned by the means of the sword. They have also distorted facts related to Babur. Babur was called by Rana Sangha, an Indian ruler. Whether he was cruel or not, people can read for themselves in several history books."