Today, it is Afghanistan; Tomorrow it could be You: Fighting Terrorism

Yesterday 14 innocent people were killed by terrorists in Afghanistan. Day before yesterday, it was 68 in number who were killed. Before that, many more were killed; and before that …. it is endless process. Today it is Afghanistan, tomorrow it could be – would be – you. Today it is iraq, Syria …., tomorrow it could be – and would be you. It is fight against terrorism. It is fight against supporters of terrorism, against those who help them by providing them a country, facilities and resting place; it is against those who finance them.

It is a fight of humanity against a common danger – common enemy – called terrorism. Would you stand aside and look on at the fight? Or, would be the part of a united war against it? Watch this video and learn a lesson.

Attention and Mental Illness

By: Shreepal Singh

   We have to pay attention to be conscious of the presence of a thing, to understand it and to appropriately react to it. Paying attention is a full time job. We have one mind, the instrument with which we pay attention. Paying attention is an application work. It is the application of mental consciousness. And, by the very nature of the evolutionary stage of humans, the majority of humanity play their life around mind. There are a very few people among us who live their life not around mind and we can find them in people exclusively devoted to music and art, and in those who live an underdeveloped life near Nature.

Those who remain absorbed in music and art, and those who live near Nature do not suffer as much an illness of mind as do those who pay attention by the application of their mind. It gives a clue to the cure of this modern life’s menace called mental illness. But can the humanity turn away from their active mental life towards an undisturbed life devoted to music and art. No, humanity cann’t afford this direction diversion of its evolutionary trajectory. It would be resisting of the evolutionary momentum, which humanity has achieved by moving ahead on its evolutionary path.

We are the product – the product called humans – of this path, the evolutionary path, and we ourselves have created this evolutionary momentum by working on our mental plane for millions of years. It is like an angular momentum, which has a slant – a slanted direction. Our drag against the direction – against the working – of this evolutionary  momentum would destroy us as humans, and destroy whatever we have so far achieved. It is no way out; it is not a solution. Then, what is the solution?

The solution is, “Chitta Vritti Nirodh” (Chitta= mind, Vritti= propensity, Nirodh= control or obstruction).  CVN is an imposing of the discipline on the propensity of our mind. It is a conscious effort; it is a devised program for disciplining the tendencies of human mind. It is not simple. It is a science and it can not be trivilized by tinkering it with the western concepts, which are unaware of its foundational principles. The first principle that goes to lay the foundation of this science – the science of CVN – is that in this universe nothing is permanent; that things here are in constant flux of change; and that there is a play of cyclic transformation of everything here. Humans are no exception to this rule. The second rule of this discipline is that – in view of this truth – the most important thing for humans is to know (to know as against to understand) this truth. What is the difference between ‘knowing’ and ‘understanding’? One example of this difference is, “We know we do exist; we do not need to understand that we exist.” Then, how can one know this said truth? Humans, as they are normally made by Nature, cannot – can never – know this truth, unless and until they improve upon their tool of knowledge – their only tool of knowledge – known as mind. This second principle is of the desirability, of the preference for one in one’s life. If you accept and follow this second principle, then there is left nothing in life to do except to devote your entire life to make you a fit instrument to know that truth. It is not a job to play with. It is serious venture – the most, the ultimate, venture. If you feel it is necessary, it is needed for you, then you are ready to embark on CVN. Else, it is safe to stay away.

One who feels the need to know this truth, only needs to know this truth. This truth is mystery to normal human mind. But to one who feels the need to know this truth – the ultimate mystery of universe – this world and all its things become of secondary importance. Even his life – life as one is habituated to know his life – is put on stake. CVN is meant for him. And, once one dedicates oneself to undertake such a vocation for the life, all the mystery of this universe opens up to him; he comes to know it. For people with a normal mind – untrained in CVN – such an accomplished person becomes a mysterious superman, capable to perform supernormal feats; he can die at will and come to life again at will; he can foretell events that are to take place in future; he can avert an incoming death of somebody, and can bring the death to him (though an accomplished person never does it). World has seen many such accomplished persons and for ages. India still abounds with such mysterious persons. This is the power of CVN.

In an ancient Sanskrit book – Yoģa Sutra – a great Rishi Patanjili has used CVN as the definition of Yoga. It is moving forward on the trajectory that mind has put itself on. It is adding to the momentum of mind fuelling its evolutionary journey. It is the cure of mental illness, with which humanity is aflicted today. CVN is a full fledged discipline of knowledge; it is a science, which is more profound in its foundational assumptions and processes than any of science’s branches. It is not the trivilized western version of “meditation”, which is sought to be transformed by mischieviously translating it as “mindfulness”.

Let the humanity open to the knowledge, which ancient Indian Rishis and Yogis had discovered in the gone by ages and India has preserved for us till today. Let us face the reality of danger of mental illness rampant among large section of humanity. Let us eradicate the real danger with the real cure. In this approach there is no nationalism – for, humanity is one and our world is a family. It was wisely said long ago, “Vasudhaiv Kutumbkam” (Our earth is one family).

History of Jihad and “Islamophobia”

It is a review of the book ‘History of Jihad’. The review is penned by Koenraad Elst. This review brings out succintly the psycho-military nitty-gritty of Jihad. This  psycho-military system is synchronously embedded in its sacred books as its body and soul and has been excellently practiced for 1400 years of its history by its military commanders in every place they planted the flag of Islam.

This psycho-military apparatus has an inbuilt mechanism of command and control: No one has the option to doubt the doctrine (blesphamy) and the violater has to pay the price with his life. There is an entry point – with will or against one’s will – for joining the camp but has no exit point to leave the camp. It has an inbuilt superb pool of incentives – sex, wealth and lording over ‘Dhimmi’ slaves – for all those who participate in this venture. The Commander-in-Chief (Caliph), local commaders (Ghazis) and rank soldiers (Muzahids) are to get in this war – and divide among them an equal share of – women and young boys (Gilma) as sex slaves; and they are likewise to equally share the war booty (Mal-e-Ganimat).

These are the material advantages in joining the camp – and continue remaining there – that satisfy ‘this-worldly’ desires of human beings. But this apparatus provides something uniquely more: It promises to make an extraordinary high quality of sex available in the world hereafter to all those who participate in the effort (72 virgins). Even the most ferocious psycho-military doctrines that we have known so far in this world – Nazism, Fascism, Communism – lack this unique incentive in their body.

This apparatus makes available a cultural ambience, which is militarily advantegeous to its campaign: Deceiving and making the enemy camp lull by telling lies (Taqia) of the “Smile on the face and contempt in the heart” fame.

This review also highlights the strange mentality in our own times even of those people around the world who had suffered in the past the pains of this Jihad. They are entrapped in this mentality by inventing terms like ‘Islamophobia’, ”religious hate-mongers’ etc. themselves, which appear magnanimous and well-intentioned but in reality betray their suicidal tendency. It is a new variety of mental illness gripping large part of humanity, who love to see merit in their tormentor. It is something that may be termed Crowed Stockholm Syndrome.

The image of the book reviewed:

About the reviewer:

Koenraad Elst (°Leuven 1959) distinguished himself early on as eager to learn and to dissent. After a few hippie years, he studied at the KU Leuven, obtaining MA degrees in Sinology, Indology and Philosophy. After a research stay at Benares Hindu University, he did original fieldwork for a doctorate on Hindu nationalism, which he obtained magna cum laude in 1998. As an independent researcher, he earned laurels and ostracism with his findings on hot items like Islam, multiculturalism and the secular state, the roots of Indo-European, the Ayodhya temple/mosque dispute and Mahatma Gandhi’s legacy. He also published on the interface of religion and politics, correlative cosmologies, the dark side of Buddhism, the reinvention of Hinduism, technical points of Indian and Chinese philosophies, various language policy issues, Maoism, the renewed relevance of Confucius in conservatism, the increasing Asian stamp on integrating world civilization, direct democracy, the defence of threatened freedoms, and the Belgian question. Regarding religion, he combines human sympathy with substantive skepticism.


Policy-makers faced with a major challenge, one that their successors may still have to deal with if they themselves don’t solve it, will first of all need to know the nature of that challenge. An urgent challenge for the contemporary world leaders is Jihād, literally “effort (in the way of Allah)”, effectively “Islamic war against the Infidels”.  For their use, and for everyone’s, Robert Spencer has written a remarkably complete account of the origins of the Jihad doctrine and the highlights of its applications in history. It is aptly titled History of Jihad: From Muhammad to ISIS (Post Hill Press, Nashville/New York, 2018) and dedicated to “the untold millions of victims of jihad”.

This well-written and fully referenced book is a mighty thriller, with even more suspense than most. After some turns in the plot, from Islamic expansion to Islamic decline and back to Islamic expansion, and from Unbeliever defeats to Unbeliever resistance and ascendancy on to Unbeliever self-undoing, it stops before the ending. We have yet to see if jihad will ultimately prevail. Even if it won’t, it seems likely to cause us lots more trouble before it goes.

The roots of Jihad are traced to the details of Mohammed’s career, as given in the Islamic source texts. (Spencer cautions beforehand that those chronicles do not live up to modern historiographical standards, and that a contemporary line of scholarship tries to reconstruct what truly happened behind the conserved version; but this “real” history is as yet tentative and without any influence on what Muslims believe or what Islamic law is based on, which still is the traditional account.) The whole array of techniques of conquest and subjugation that we know from jihadi history down to the present was already there: murders at night, executions at dawn, open battles at noon; enslavement, extortion, plunder, deportation, treachery, stratagems, broken promises, terror.

Nonetheless, I want to insist on a fact that might easily get overlooked in this catalogue of violence: Mohammed was no sadist, he just wanted his critics and enemies surrendered or dead, he didn’t bother to make them suffer. In general, Mohammed didn’t care for the pleasure of seeing his enemies in protracted pain, but kept his eye on the ultimate goal: surrender by all his enemies to his pretence of prophethood, i.e. world conquest. An exceptional but prominent case of torture, described in Spencer’s book, is when a man was asked where he had hidden his treasure. To loosen his tongue, the Prophet had him tortured, but when he refused to give in, he was just cleanly beheaded.

All these practices reappeared in ISIS warfare, and have made headlines worldwide as titillatingly shocking, though the media mostly kept their Islamic motive and prophetic precedent out of sight. Even there, torture was not routine: people were just beheaded. (Not that this justifies anything: in Auschwitz too, people were ‘only’ gassed, a swift and bloodless death.) The downed Jordanian pilot was burned to death only because his bombs had inflicted similarly excruciating deaths on civilians; it was not the general rule. Mohammed observed a certain economy of violence: no song need be made about dead unbelievers, but his real goal was not killing them, that only came when the ‘need’ arose. Instead, what he wanted most of all, what he really craved, was people’s acceptance of his personal delusion that he was Allah’s own unique spokesman. He really was a Mohammedan, as are his followers, though they abhor the term.

The prophet’s life-work, achieved through jihad, was the conquest of Arabia and the replacement of its multicultural society with a monolithic Islamic dictatorship. This was completed around the time of his death with the expulsion of the remaining Jews around Medina and the Christians of Yemen. Henceforth we would learn whether Jihad was only Mohammed’s whim or a constant of Islamic history. It only took a few months to take away any doubt: most Arabs returned to their native Paganism, some also started following new prophets like Musaylima, but Mohammed’s successor (Caliph) Abu Bakr swiftly came after them and forced them back into Islam.

The second Caliph, Umar, aided by his personal rival but great strategist Khalid bin al-Walid, then started a spectacular conquest of what is now known as the Near East, at the expense of the powerful Sassanian (Persian) and Byzantine empires. His successors would continue the Caliphate’s expansion by conquering North Africa and the entire Persian empire, until the conquest of Spain in 702 and of Sindh (the westernmost province of India, now southern Pakistan) in 712. In Western Europe, the conquest ended when an incursion into northern France was stopped by Charles the Hammer in 732 near Tours. In Spain, a small leftover Christian territory proved enough to start a Reconquistathat would take almost eight centuries.

Everywhere the formula for dealing with the natives was the same: either convert to Islam or accept the subordinate status of Dhimmi with payment of a special toleration tax (jizya). In the case of India, a debate among Islamic jurisconsults would develop about whether Hindus could be accepted as Dhimmis: this status was meant for “People of the Book”, viz. Jews and Christians, not for outright Pagans. Different schools of jurisprudence developed, with the Hanbali school demanding conversion or death, pure and simple; but as the more lenient Hanafi school was to prevail in India, Hindus could, after a bloody period of subjugation, equally settle into the status of third-class citizen or Dhimmi.


In the Subcontinent, fierce Hindu resistance meant that for almost five centuries, the Muslim-controlled territory would remain confined to the northwest, more or less present-day Pakistan. Yet, while conquest was slow, the concomitant massacres and destruction were already impressive. Spencer bases himself on primary sources to sketch the successive episodes of conquest, e.g.:

‘The thirteenth-century Muslim historian Minhaj al-Siraj Juzjani, author of the Tabaqat-i Nasiri, a history of Islam’s rise, noted that as Mahmud [Ghaznavi] waged jihad in India, “he converted so many thousands of idol temples into masjids [mosques].” Mahmud broke the idols whenever he could, so as to demonstrate the power of Islam and the superiority of Allah to the gods of the people of India. When he defeated the Hindu ruler Raja Jaipal in 1001, he had Jaipal “paraded about in the streets so that his sons and chieftains might see him in that condition of shame, bonds and disgrace; and that the fear of Islam might fly abroad through the country of the infidels.”’ (p.131)

Or quoting from historian Abu Nasr Muhammad al-Utbi: ‘Then at Mathura, al-Utbi added, “the Sultan gave orders that all the temples should be burnt with naptha and fire, and levelled with the ground.” At Kanauj, the Muslim historian continued, “there were nearly ten thousand temples.… Many of the inhabitants of the place fled in consequence of witnessing the fate of their deaf and dumb idols. Those who did not fly were put to death. The Sultan gave his soldiers leave to plunder and take prisoners.”

Then, at Shrawa,

“the Muslims paid no regard to the booty till they had satiated themselves with the slaughter of the infidels and worshippers of sun and fire. The friends of Allah searched the bodies of the slain for three days in order to obtain booty.…The booty amounted in gold and silver, rubies and pearls nearly to three thousand dirhams, and the number of prisoners may be conceived from the fact that each was sold for two to ten dirhams. They were afterwards taken to Ghazni and merchants came from distant cities to purchase them, so that the countries of Mawaraun-Nahr, Iraq and Khurasan were filled with them, and the fair and the dark, the rich and the poor, were commingled in one common slavery.”’ (p.133)

It is only in 1192 that Mohammed Shihabuddin Ghori and his lieutenants broke through the Hindu defences and in two years’ time conquered the entire territory from Delhi to the Bay of Bengal. They destroyed every Pagan institution they could lay their hands on. The Buddhist university of Nalanda burned for weeks on end, and its inmates were levelled as much as its books and buildings.

Here, Spencer makes a slight mistake: ‘In 1191 and 1192, Muhammad Ghori twice defeated a force of Rajputs led by the Hindu commander Prithviraj Chauhan’. (p.175) No, in the first battle, Prithviraj had been victorious, but had magnanimously set his defeated enemy free upon the promise that he wouldn’t do it again. But next year, Ghori came back, won, and was not that generous to Prithviraj, who was blinded and subsequently killed. The sequence illustrates the perfidiousness of those who have taken Mohammed’s jihad doctrine to heart.

The Ghori blitzkrieg would result in the Delhi Sultanate (1206-1526), one of the cruellest oppressive regimes in history, comprising at its height about half of India. But even the succeeding Moghul dynasty, started by Uzbek invaders, never succeeded in conquering all of India. Only in the late 17th century would the pendulum swing back with the rise of the Hindu rebel king Shivaji, whose Peshwa successors would reduce the Moghul empire to a shadow of itself (but then lose out to the British).

Spencer’s diagnosis for almost one thousand years of Muslim advances and Hindu retreat is given during the description of how Muslim warlords formed an alliance in 1565 to defeat the last remaining Hindu power, the Vijayanagar empire: ‘The Hindu resistance was seldom strong or well-organized. The Muslims had superior firepower, better organization, and in most cases, unity. Although there was always considerable internecine jihad between rival Muslim factions, the warring groups could usually unite against the infidels.’ (p.235) Till today, by contrast, Hindus have a hard time uniting.

The narrative repeatedly returns to India until the story of Partition and also that of the Rohingya Muslims. The latter is an almost unbelievable example of how the media story, tearfully commiserating with the poor hapless Muslims, diametrically differs from historical reality, where the Rohingyas have been waging jihad against their Buddhist neighbours since decades.


Ghori’s conquest had been made possible by an inter-Hindu quarrel. Prithviraj Chauhan, king of Delhi, had abducted Samyukta, the daughter of the neighbouring king Jayachandra, with her own cooperation. Romantic songs were composed about Prithviraj’s colourful adventures, but Jayachandra did not see it that way. He invited Ghori, who was glad to oblige this fissure in the Infidel defences. For Jayachandra’s services, Ghori ultimately had him beheaded too.

A similar scenario, Spencer recounts, played out in the conquest of Spain. The king of a remaining Christian enclave in North Africa was angry with the Visigoth king of Spain for having seduced his young daughter, and therefore encouraged the Muslim governor Tariq ibn Ziyad to invade Spain, helping him with strategic information.

The last Byzantine Prime Minister, Lukas Notaras, who was to live through (but die in) the Ottoman conquest of his remainder-empire, had rejected theological concessions to Latin Christianity in exchange for the urgently needed military help: “Better the turban of the Sultan than the tiara of the Pope.” (p.197) Yes, there were reasons not to trust the Popish camp, and people of principle are attached to their distinctive dogmas; but did that outweigh what was to come through jihad? Given the complete destruction of the Byzantine population through either slaughter or slavery, his view can be reckoned as falsified through reality.

Shortly after, Martin Luther would nonetheless repeat this maxim that the Turk was preferable to the Pope:

‘“The Turk is an avowed enemy of Christ. But the Pope is not. He is a secret enemy and persecutor, a false friend. For this reason, he is all the worse!” Luther’s broadside was one of the earliest examples of what was to become a near-universal tendency in the West: the downplaying of jihad atrocities and their use in arguments between Westerners to make one side look worse.’ (p.220-221)

To Luther’s credit, though, his actions failed to match his words, and he supported the Protestant princes who came to Vienna’s rescue against a Turkish siege in 1525.

When the Ottomans besieged Vienna in 1683, they could count on the collaboration of the Hungarian count Emmerich Tekeli, who had accounts to settle with the Habsburgs. Inter-Infidel quarrels have often been exploited by the Jihadis: war is a stratagem and exploiting disunity in the enemy camp is one of the oldest tactics. At any rate, Jihad was a merciless campaign of conquest, and it has been alive since the earliest days of Islam.

Surrender today:

The next period of Islamic conquest was in the 15th-16th century, when the Balkans, Central India, Southeast Asia and parts of Africa largely fell to Islam. But this expansion was, from the late 17th century onwards, followed by stagnation and decline of the Ottoman and Moghul empires. Then followed loss of control over nominally Islamic countries to rising European colonialism, which even triggered increasing doubt about Islam.

Thus, after the French and British saved the Ottomans from a complete rout against Russia in the Crimea war but then forced them to sign a modernising treaty abolishing slavery and dhimmitude, the Ottoman grand vizier Ali Pasha advised the Caliph that the Islamic institution of dhimmitude was actually harmful to the country: ‘Ali Pasha was presaging the subversive idea that Kemal Ataturk would make the basis of his secular Turkish government after World War I: the reason for Turkish failure was Islam, and the only path to its resuscitation required discarding Islam, at least as a political system.’ (p.264) This ought to be revived as a model for Muslims today: the realisation that Islam is backward and ultimately bad for its followers.

But this long decline would, in turn, be followed by another period of expansion: today. This brings us, skipping over interesting chapters on the Ottoman decline, Napoleon in Egypt, the European-enforced and incomplete abolition of slavery, the end of the Moghul empire, the Mahdi uprising, the Armenian genocide, the Jerusalem mufti’s role in the Nazi genocide of the Jews etc., to the modern age. If we take “modern” to be 1970, the process of Westernisation, of an ever-weakening grip of Islam, of bare-headed Muslimas, seemed to be continuing. At that time, European countries thought nothing of importing massive amounts of guest workers from North Africa and Turkey, thinking that Islam had become a harmless folk custom, on its way out just like Christianity was for Europeans. British trade-unions recruited among Pakistanis on a Leftist platform, never seeing a need to even mention Islam. Even the Palestinian struggle against Israel donned the garb of Marxism and flirted with Cuba.

But when you shift “modern” to today, a completely different picture emerges.

In 1979, US president Jimmy Carter relaxed his support to the Shah of Iran, though the latter was besieged by both the Islamic and the Communist opposition. (It was not the first time that the US would betray its friends, ask Chiang Kai-shek, Batista, Van Thieu, Mobutu.) The void was soon filled by the ayatollahs, who promptly eliminated their Leftist allies. From then on, the message went around the world that Islam is the formula for success. After centuries of decline, an ambitious expansion could start.

In the 1980s, US president Ronald Reagan had in good faith appealed to the jihadis to contain Soviet expansionism in Afghanistan, which obtained its immediate goal. In spite of the revolution in Iran, the impression still prevailed among the Western bourgeoisie that Islam had become harmless. But then this collaboration spiralled into a mushroom growth of jihadi initiatives like al-Qaeda, the Taliban, 9/11 and many more recent terror attacks in the West, and ultimately ISIS. These spin-offs of the collaboration with the jihadis could have been contained if Western policy-makers had been guided by an awareness of the Islam problem, but instead they gave in to sentimental delusions, and reaped the bloody harvest.

Twenty-five years later, collaboration with jihad has become everyday policy. Our politicians, even and especially those who have Muslim countries bombed and invaded (Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, Tony Blair, Nicholas Sarkozy, David Cameron, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, François Hollande), though they all have the blood of Muslim and other civilians in the Near East on their hands, have also praised Islam to the skies. None of them has ever uttered a word of Islam criticism, or ‘Islamophobia’ as they call it, and some of them have even organised repression against Islam critics. (Spencer himself was refused entry into the United Kingdom under Cameron, when Theresa May was home minister; and under Obama he was refused FBI protection for an Islam-critical event that did indeed become the target of an Islamic terror attack.) Their interventions in Iraq, Lybia and Syria destabilised authoritarian but modernist regimes and cleared the way for ayatollahs and ISIS.

Redefining jihad:

In 1998, after bomb attacks on the US embassies in Nairobi and Dar-es-Salam, Bill Clinton declared in a speech at the UN: ‘Some may have the world believe that almighty God himself, the merciful, grants a license to kill. But that is not our understanding of Islam.…’ (p.327-328)

This soon became the orthodoxy. Academics whitewash Islam’s history and theology, top feminists like Germaine Greer whitewash female genital mutilation, Amnesty International advocates the ‘freedom’ to wear the burqa. The media downplay Islamic terror and crime, and after every bomb attack, they hurry to ensure us that “it has nothing to do with Islam”, diametrically in conflict with the vows the terrorists themselves had taken before their deeds, often videotaped, or their leaders’ declarations afterwards. If at all they had to face the fact of terror, they blamed it on ‘troubled’ individuals or on one organisation, which then consisted (in David Cameron’s words) of ‘monsters, not Muslims’. And when Muslims use the word jihad, Westerners hurry to claim that it means the ‘great jihad’, a spiritual struggle, while the physical struggle is only the ‘little jihad’, moreover purely defensive.

Yet, in an interview in 2001, Osama bin Laden explained:

‘This matter isn’t about any specific person, and it is not about the al-Qai’dah Organization. We are the children of an Islamic Nation, with Prophet Muhammad as its leader. Our Lord is one, our Prophet is one, our Qibla [the direction Muslims face during prayer] is one, we are one nation [ummah], and our Book [the Qur’an] is one. And this blessed Book, with the tradition [sunnah] of our generous Prophet, has religiously commanded us [alzamatna] with the brotherhood of faith [ukhuwat al-imaan], and all the true believers [mu’mineen] are brothers. So the situation isn’t like the West portrays it, that there is an “organization” with a specific name (such as “al-Qai’dah”) and so on. (p.322-323)

Bin Laden’s mentor Sheikh Abdullah ‘Azzam’s written exhortation to Muslims to join the jihad in Afghanistan, Join the Caravan, is likewise studded with Qur’anic quotations and references to the life of Muhammad. Azzam denied that Muhammad ever understood jihad solely as a spiritual struggle. “The saying, ‘We have returned from the lesser Jihad [battle] to the greater Jihad,’ which people quote on the basis that it is a hadith, is in fact a false, fabricated hadith which has no basis. It is only a saying of Ibrahim bin Abi Ablah, one of the Successors, and it contradicts textual evidence and reality.” He quotes several authorities charging that ahadithnarrated by Ibrahim bin Abi Ablah are false, including one who reports: “He was accused of forging hadith.” Azzam also invokes the medieval Islamic scholar Ibn Taymiyya, who wrote: “This hadith has no source and nobody whomsoever in the field of Islamic knowledge has narrated it. Jihad against the disbelievers is the most noble of actions and moreover, it is the most important action for the sake of mankind. (…) the Messenger of Allah (SAWS) used to go out on military expeditions or send out an army at least every two months.” He quotes a hadith in which Muhammad says that Islam’s “highest peak” is jihad.’ (p.324)


Indeed, in a matter of decades, Western Europe has lost the will to survive as a non-Muslim entity. It no longer resists Islamisation, so it has allowed millions upon millions of Muslims in without demanding any de-Islamisation from them. In India, this same internal weakening of resolve has been in evidence since Mahatma Gandhi’s rise to the Congress leadership in 1920. Both European and Hindu elites have taken to blathering that all religions are essentially saying the same thing, and they are allergic to any less-than-rosy study about Islam itself. India having started earlier on this delusional course, it reaped the fruits earlier: in 1947 it lost a fifth of its territory to the newly-created Islamic republic of Pakistan. In the concomitant genocide, it lost a million of its people, and again some two million in East Pakistan in 1971.

With the recent, partly self-inflicted terror attacks, in parallel with the rising demands of its ever-growing Muslim community, Europe is now catching up fast. One way the European and Hindu elites try to avoid having to face the challenge of jihad, is interreligious dialogue. They consider themselves very clever and enlightened, but their stratagem is quite old and history teaches how it tends to end:

‘In the early tenth century, the patriarch of Constantinople Nicholas I Mystikos made an early attempt at interfaith outreach, writing to the Abbasid caliph Muqtadir in cordial terms: “The two powers of the whole universe, the power of the Saracens and that of the Romans, stand out and radiate as the two great luminaries in the firmament; for this reason alone we must live in common as brothers although we differ in customs, manners and religion.” Like later attempts at interfaith outreach, this one was for naught. The jihad continued.’ (p.137)

The end of the story was that on 28 May 1453, emperor Constantine XI Paleologus could do no more than exhort his men to a terminal fight against the troops of ‘the mad and false Prophet, Mohammed’ (p.371), and that on 29 May, the Ottoman army conquered Constantinople, turning it into the capital of the Ottoman Caliphate.

But several years before the end came, Byzantine emperor Manuel II Paleologus spoke some grim truths about Islam, that no non-Muslim doubted in his own day, though they became a scandal when repeated in our own. Manuel, ‘little remembered after his death, shot to fame nearly six hundred years later, when on September 12, 2006, in Regensburg, Germany, Pope Benedict XVI dared to enunciate some truths about Islam that proved to be unpopular and unwelcome among Muslims worldwide. Most notoriously, the pope quoted Manuel on Islam: “Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached.” (…) In the twenty-first century, Manuel’s words were denounced as “Islamophobic”.’ (p.196)

Spencer subtly but repeatedly sketches the contrast between the fierce resistance by our ancestors and today’s surrender mentality: “The Battle of Tours in 732 may have stopped the complete conquest and Islamization of Europe. The warriors of jihad would appear again in France, but they would not come close again to gaining control of the whole country until many centuries later, by vastly different means, when there was no longer a Charles Martel to stop them.”’ (p.94)

The absence of a much-needed Charles Martel is obvious among our politician, nowhere more striking than in the Papacy. In the past, there have been Popes who, out of dire necessity, paid tribute to jihadis, but even then they never put Islam on the same footing as Christianity. And when the power equation was a bit better, the Pope acted as a strategic centre for organising Crusades or to motivate kings for the defence of Vienna or the battle of Lepanto. Even the last Pope, Benedict XVI, has famously uttered some criticism of Islam. But the Pope, Francis, has voluntarily knelt before Muslims and kissed the Quran. It is just sickening to hear the inheritor of such a proud tradition now parrot the worst pro-Islamic propaganda lies.

Worse, ‘Pope Francis was not just a defender of Islam and the Qur’an but of the Sharia death penalty for blasphemy: after Islamic jihadists in January 2015 murdered cartoonists from the French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo, Francis obliquely justified the murders by saying that

“it is true that you must not react violently, but although we are good friends if [an aide] says a curse word against my mother, he can expect a punch, it’s normal. You can’t make a toy out of the religions of others. These people provoke and then [something can happen]. In freedom of expression, there are limits.”’ (p.357)

Jihadis who aren’t that well-informed about the reigning mentality in the Unbeliever camp, have shown no gratitude by threatening even Francis. An ISIS poster shows him beheaded. And that may well become the fate of all the other camp-followers on the Islamic jihad. They can only be rescued by Unbelievers: either the Muslims massively abandon Islamic belief, or those who don’t believe in either Islam or Islamophile propaganda somehow get the upper hand quickly.

(This write-up is borrowed with thanks from HERE).

India from 2800 BC to 2016 AD: Republics, Kingdoms and Empires

What did India look like in 2800 BC? What was its geographical area and what were the regions or kingdoms then? And, since then how did India change in its area, regions, kingdoms, empires and republics till now – precisely till 2016 AD?

Here is this video that painstakingly researched all this information and gives a fleeting view of this information:

भारत मे छुपे गद्दारों को कैसे पहचानें?

कुछ लोग और कुछ देश भारत के खुले आम दुश्मन हैं – वे भारत को बरबाद करना चाहते हैं और वे ऐसा कहते भी हैं। उन्हें पहचाना और गिना जा सकता है। उनसे सावधान रहा जा सकता है। लेकिन छुपे हुए गद्दारों को कैसे पहचाने? और वे यदि अच्छी अच्छी बाते करें, नागरिक अधिकारों की रक्षा की बात करें तो उन्हे पहचानना और भी अधिक कठिन काम है।

इस वीडियो को देखें और उन गद्दारो को पहचानें।

Kashmir, Article 370 and Distortion of Truth by Western Media

Speaking the truth: The biased western media – particularly BBC and CNN – against India and distorting the truth of Kashmir.

What is wrong with Congress? Why, After All?

By: Avinash Srivastava

● Congress is against ‘Ram Mand’ir’.
● Congress is against ‘Ram Setu’.
● Congress is against ‘Triple Tal’aq Bill’.
● Congress is against ‘Citizenship (Amend’t) Bill’.
● Congress is against ‘10% EWS Reservation Bill’.
● Congress is against ‘Aaadhar Act, 2016’.
● Congress is against ‘MSME’s Bill’.
● Congress is against ‘Rohin’gya’ deportation.
● Congress is against ‘GST Bill’.
● Congress is against ‘PM KISAN Samman’ nidhi.
● Congress is against ‘NRC Bill’.
● Congress is against ‘Anti Sedition Law’.
● Congress is against ‘Sainik Colony in J&K’.
● Congress is against ‘Naga Accord’.
● Congress is against ‘Aadhar-Votor ID Linking’.
● Congress is against ‘Uniform Civil Code’.
● Congress is against ‘Demonetisation’.
● Congress is against ‘Rafale Deal’.
● Congress is against ‘Urban Nax’als arrest’.
● Congress is against ‘Ayushmaan Bharat’.
● Congress is against ‘Make In India’.
● Congress is against ‘Benami Property Act’.
● Congress is against ‘Universal Basic Income’.
● Congress is against ‘Money Laundering Bill’.
● Congress is against ‘Fugitive Offender Bill’.
● Congress is against ‘Land Acquisition Bill’.
● Congress is against ‘Labor Reform Bill’.
● Congress is against ‘Insolvency Act’.
● Congress is against ‘Code of Criminal Proc’.
● Congress is against ‘Bofors Case re-opening;’.
● Congress is against ‘Sikh Riots Investigation.
● Congress is against ‘NIA (Amend’t) Bill’.
● Congress is against ‘UAPA (Amend’t) Bill’.
● Congress is against ‘POCSO (Amend’t) Bill’.
● Congress is against ‘NMC Bill 2019’.
● Congress is against abrogation of ‘Article 370’.
● Congress is against revoking ‘Article 35A’.
● Congress is against ‘J&K Bifurcation bill’.

What is the problem with ‘Congress’ ?

BBC and CNN – Fake News Factories Churning Out Anti-India Propaganda

CNN & BBC are producing pieces of anti-India fake news – with total falsehood – on daily basis about Kashmir. They are churning out this anti-India propaganda about Kashmir since the last week. For this purpose they are heavily using “Gunga Deen leftist Indian-sounding” journalists.

It is now crystal clear that they are committed anti-India and can go to any length in peddling falsehood, and can produce any nonsense material about Kashmir.

They are cleverly manufecturing subliminal stuff where pro-Pakistan (protani) fascists are masked as “victims”, real victims are never mentioned, imaginary fear mongering is being resorted to. It is one sided mind game full of total lies. The worst part of it is that a regular American or European reader, who doesn’t understand how fake news is peddled, might feel that it’s true simply because the reporter is an Indian.

They make subtle use of defamed words like “majoritarianism” and “genocide” but never mention of the Hindu sufferings of Ladakh or Jammu or Kashmir. There is no mention of the fact that there is no such special status given by Pakistan to its occupied part of Kashmir (POK). There is no mention of the fact that nothing disturbing has happened in last week in Kashmir.

Never once they write any article on the Pakistani genocide going on in Balochistan; nothing they write about Pakistan’s active genocide of minorities in Sindh. Nor they mention how demography of POK has been changed by Pakistan by replacing Kashmiris with west Punjabis.

There is no surprise that dubbing of them as “fake news medis” has resonated with many people within India and outside India. Look at the examples of completely sham articles written by them as mentioned below. These media houses basically provide cover fire to Islamic fascist and other totalitarians. See these examples:

Life under Article 370 – Part of History

By: Rajat Mitra

Many people, I believe, would be happy today. Sardar Patel, Shayama Prasad Mukherjee and many others. Many are in heaven. One of those would be my late father in law, M L Tikku, a proud Kashmiri Hindu. He wanted the article 370 to go in his lifetime like millions of Kashmiri Hindus. He wanted it abrogated for his children and grandchildren. He would often tell me a story about that which I think symbolizes the story of Hindus in Kashmir.

The year was 1957. My father in law had gone to check his name in the selected list of candidates admitted in BSc program of the degree college in Srinagar. Being the son of K N Tikku known as the mathematician of Kashmir, his mathematics skills were higher than average and he was confident of making it to the top ten and telling that to his father.

But what he saw on that day changed his life permanently. On the list, his name was not there and below the name of selected candidates it was written, the above is the selected list. A separate list of Hindu candidates may be released if deemed so.

As he told me he had come back crestfallen and told this to his father. He recalled that as he told his father, he showed no reaction and merely said that he will have to try harder. But for my young father in law, a question had already formed that would trouble him for the rest of his life. Can this happen in any part of independent India? As he talked to other students, he found that their reaction was similar to his. They all realized there was no place for them in Kashmir and no future either. As he recalled all of them migrated to other part of India.

They had then gone to the Chief Minister Bakshi Gulam Mohammed and pleaded to be admitted. As he told them, their high marks were not the issue. It was the fact that they were not Muslims but Hindus. He quoted Article 370 to say that the article was to protect the Muslims of the valley. But what he said after that was more shocking. “You have the whole of India to get admission. Why don’t you go away and take admission elsewhere. Kashmir is for Muslims and Muslim boys will be considered.” The implication was clear. Convert to Islam and get admission.

They had managed to get a few minuscule number of seats after much pleading and were given so after some humiliating condition.

When he had asked his father why Kashmiri Pandits faced such discrimination he was told that has been the fate of Kashmiri Pandits for last five hundred years. They have always had to plead for what they needed to have it from Muslims. Then he had mentioned and said that article 370 legalized it. Anything that Kashmiri Muslims did to Hindus couldn’t be challenged in courts of law.

My father in law was to find another reason why they were denied admission on the basis of religion. The reason was simple. Hindu boys were considered more intelligent, more hard working. They were to be sent outside Kashmir for education and employment.

“Had you written to the press?” I had asked. “Yes, they told us it is no news item. No one took any notice of it. Who cared if a group of Hindu boys were discriminated against or denied admission.”

That is the time he learnt Kashmir has a separate constitution and a separate flag and laws of India did not apply there. Every Kashmiri Hindu knew in his heart about article 370 but believed that he will be left untouched. Just a few years earlier Shayama Prasad Mukherjee had mysteriously died while in Kashmir. The message to all Kashmiri Pandits was to remain silent and say nothing if they witnessed any injustice. That was the wise course of action all followed. Kashmiri Hindus were a minuscule minority and were at the mercy of Kashmiri Muslims.

He told me many stories. One of them was about the history of Battmazar, an island in the middle of Dal Lake. He told me how Hindus were taken to be converted there and if they didn’t were buried alive and how the Muslim boatmen would not take them there. “Why don’t you talk about it?” I had asked. “They shouldn’t be lost to history.”

When I thought of writing a novel on Kashmir, he encouraged me by telling me lot of stories from his childhood and early struggles to find a foothold and those similar to him, all ordinary Kashmiris who had lived in silence. The silence was due to article 370. Many of them were anecdotes and always told of a deep divide that existed between Hindus and Muslims, now officially sanctioned because of article 370.

When I finished writing my book, he read it from beginning to end and said it will help people to understand why article 370 should go. He felt it great that I, a non Kashmiri, had written it and felt that Kashmiris were always alienated from the rest of India. He also found it difficult to read certain chapters, those even told by him. One was on how temples were destroyed in Kashmir was the most difficult one for him. He told me how going to the Martand temple ruins was traumatic for every Kashmiri Hindu and it couldn’t be restored because of article 370. It would require specialists and conservationists to come and stay from outside. Why will they come and stay if they can’t buy land or own property here?

Article 370 was about injustice alone. For seventy years it told us that some Indians were more equal than others and it couldn’t be questioned. The article bled our motherland culturally, politically and socially being the very place where Hinduism reached its peak. This article martyred many of our soldiers, put many in prison and led to the destruction of the Hindu way of life in Kashmir. It at the same time showed the spineless politics that dominated the Indian landscape, a continuation of the colonial rule where Indians especially Hindus had to kneel in front of their masters.

When we saw the news of the ending of the Article 370, my wife and my first thought was a wish he was alive today. He would have said if this article had been removed earlier, he would have never left Kashmir to never come back. That very thought would have been uppermost on the minds of millions of Kashmiris today who had to leave their homeland and become refugees over centuries.

When Obama became the president of USA, my friend, a Black, had called me up and said, “I never thought I would see this day in my lifetime.”

Today, I feel like saying the same, “I didn’t expect to see this day in my lifetime.”

A Perfect Creed for an Assured Atomic War

Humans are feeble. Those of them who are wise – scientists and philosophers – know that there is much that they do not know. They know they are helpless in many ways – they are feeble. And those of them who know they know nothing – illetrate and ignorants – are also feeble and helpless. They all – all of them – feel vulnerable.

Humans seek help, hope and solace in some supreme power, almighty, God, Allah, Parmeshwar. They may all differ from one another in their mental image – conception – of that supreme power but they all have one thing in common: they have faith in that power of their personal mental conception.

Humans – almost all of them, with an exception of a very few persons – need God. If   humans seek help for the unknown in God, there is no harm. If persons have different mental conceptions of that God, there is no harm. If persons differ on the very existence of that God, there is no harm. If there is a difference of opinion about the very existance of that supreme power or its / His power, image, quality or kind among different groups of such people, there is no harm.

But if anyone out of all such disputing groups indulges in violence or kills those who do not agree with the mental conception of his God, or do not agree with what his God says, or do not act as his God bids to act, it harms all humans. That one person harms the humanity. If that one person – and the group to which he belongs – kills his fellow human beings only because he thinks he is obeying his God, that person has no right to live in the human society; he deserves to be isolated from the rest of humanity, simply to secure this humanity’s safety. His foolproof isolation from the rest of humanity, by whatever means possible, is the only way left to our race to guarantee its safety and security.

We all – perhaps to the last person of our race – do not know much about the supreme power that may be there; or that may not be there; but we all – without a single exception – know everything about humans, humans who live here on earth. We know each other; we interact with each other. We need our collective peace and security, for securing of which no cost should be too dear for us. It is an imperative necessity on our part in this atomic age to take our collective safety and security seriously and invent effective ways to guarantee this security against such insane and reckless acts of some of the misguided members of our race.

Humans today can no longer afford the luxury of fighting and killing the disagreeing humans in the name of God. Persons who serve their God by killing those who do not agree with their God; and a God that inspires persons to kill those who disagree with what that God says; are not welcome today by humanity. Humanity in this atomic age cannot afford to allow such persons the freedom to do what they want to do – to kill humans in the name of their God. Humanity cannot permit them by their insane acts to destroy our race, the human race. After Atomic War, what would the world be like?

A religion that teaches its followers to kill those who disagree with what it preaches, has no right to exist today in this atomic age – to exist in any part of the world. No amount of logic justifies their stand for killing of those humans who disagree with them; no amount of logic justifies their violent acts in furtherance of an assumed command of their God. It poses a threat to the very survival of humanity. It needs to be discredited and discarded by humanity. The sooner it is done is better. It is better for all of us without any exception, that is, including even those who adhere to such creed.

One can read the writing on the wall that, in view of the rapid advances being made today in the technology of weapons of mass destruction, the vast majority of peace loving humanity is going to impose very soon many humiliating restrictions on the adherents of that dangerous creed. These unfortunate humans need the sympathy and the kind attention. They may feel the necessity of searching an alternative creed that may re-position them in a respectful place among the ranks of their fellow human beings. They may feel the need to preserve their self-respect and esteem, which could be available to them in any of the manifold peaceful religions of our world. It is for them to decide what is better for them. Nobody has any right to say that to them. It is the time that will make them decide what is batter for them.

(Note: This is an edited part of another article)

Peoples, Creed and Indian Sub-continent

Humans are feeble. Those of them who are wise – scientists and philosophers – know that there is much that they do not know. They know they are helpless in many ways – they are feeble. And those of them who know they know nothing – illetrate and ignorants – are also feeble and helpless. They all – all of them – feel vulnerable.

Humans seek help, hope and solace in some supreme power, almighty, God, Allah, Parmeshwar. They may all differ from one another in their mental image – conception – of that supreme power but they all have one thing in common: they have faith in that power of their personal mental conception.

Humans – almost all of them, with an exception of a very few persons – need God. If   humans seek help for the unknown in God, there is no harm. If persons have different mental conceptions of that God, there is no harm. If persons differ on the very existence of that God, there is no harm. If there is a difference of opinion about the very existance of that supreme power or its / His power, image, quality or kind among different groups of such people, there is no harm.

But if anyone out of all such disputing groups indulges in violence or kills those who do not agree with the mental conception of his God, or do not agree with what his God says, or do not act as his God bids to act, it harms all humans. That one person harms the humanity. If that one person – and the group to which he belongs – kills his fellow human beings only because he thinks he is obeying his God, that person has no right to live in the human society; he deserves to be isolated from the rest of humanity, simply to secure this humanity’s safety. His foolproof isolation from the rest of humanity, by whatever means possible, is the only way left to our race to guarantee its safety and security. We all – perhaps to the last person of our race – do not know much about the supreme power that may be there; or that may not be there; but we all – without a single exception – know everything about humans, humans who live here on earth. We know each other; we interact with each other. We need our collective peace and security, for securing of which no cost is too dear. It is an imperative necessity on our part in this atomic age to take our collective safety and security seriously and invent ways to guarantee it against such insane and reckless acts of some of the members of our race.

Humans today can no longer afford the luxury of fighting and killing the disagreeing humans in the name of God. Persons who serve their God by killing those who do not agree with their God; and a God that inspires persons to kill those who disagree with what that God says; are not welcome today by humanity. Humanity in this atomic age cannot afford to allow such persons the freedom to do what they want to do – to kill humans in the name of their God. Humanity cannot permit them by their such insane acts to destroy our race, the human race.

A religion that teaches its followers to kill those who disagree with what it preaches, has no right to exist today in this atomic age – to exist in any part of the world. No amount of logic justifies their stand for killing of those humans who disagree with them; no amount of logic justifies their violent acts in furtherance of that stand. It poses a threat to the very survival of humanity. It needs to be discredited and discarded by humanity. The sooner it is done is better. It is better for all of us without any exception, that is, including even those who adhere to such creed.

In the Indian sub-continent, there lives a huge number of humanity that follow such a dangerous religious creed. The ancestors of this large part of humanity – ancestors of these peoples – had to embrace this creed under unfortunate historical circumstances and had to embrace mostly against their will. These people even today bear with pride peculiar surnames and tribal identities (known as Gotra) with their personal names. These peculiar surnames and identities have their origin in remote antiquities and were once bore by their ancestors with their names and with pride. Such surnames and identities are still dear to these peoples, notwithstanding the creed that they adhere today.

One would find almost all citizens of Pakistan, Afghanistan, Bangladesh etc. still bearing such surnames and identities with their personal names testifying to their linkage with their Hindu ancestors of the bygone age. It is not a matter of shame for them; it is a matter of pride. Let us all respect their such link and pride. It is the continuity of history. It was well said long ago, “Blood is thicker than the thought”. The blood is their linkage with their ancestors and the thought is their creed. Blood and DNA of humans do not change over time but their thoughts and creeds may go on changing with the passage of time. It is the duty of Hindus of today to remind them, with all the brotherly love and sympathy that they deserve, of their Hindu ancestral roots and of those past unfortunate circumstances of their ancestors. This responsibility has become all the more urgent today in view of the current international isolation and disdain of their dangerous creed by the rest of peace loving humanity.

One can read the writing on the wall that, in view of the rapid advances being made today in the technology of weapons of mass destruction, the vast majority of peace loving humanity is going to impose very soon many humiliating restrictions on the adherents of that dangerous creed. These unfortunate humans need the sympathy and the kind attention. They may feel the necessity of searching their ancestral roots and embracing back the creed of their forefathers – and if they feel so, they should be welcome. It is for them to decide what is better for them. Hindus have no right to say that to them. It is the time that will make them decide what is batter for them. But Hindus have a duty on another count.

This duty is to open their doors to peoples whose ancestors were once Hindus and who were subjected to unfortunate circumstances. Hindus need to embrace them and welcome them back home of their ancestors. They have the responsibility to open their doors, welcome them and welcome them with all the love and mutual rights and obligations. Hindus need to embrace them without any reservations, that is, by giving and taking the children in marriages of these new entrants of ex-Hindus. It is the work of Hindus – and Hindus alone – to create among them the awareness of this necessity. It call for a Hindu social movement.  It is opening up of the Hinduism to the outside world; it is reforming Hinduism. It is the need of the hour. It is a step forward by an ancient India towards the modernity of 21st century world.

J & K Integrates with India and POK Awaits its turn

By: Prakash Katoch

The total area of State of J&K under India, that is excluding Pak Occupied Kashmir (POK), is 101380 sq Km. Out of this total area, the three parts of the State (Kashmir valley, Jammu and Ladakh) in percentage share the areas as under:

Kashmir : 15%
Jammu : 26%
Ladakh : 59%

Out of this total of101380 sq Kilo meters, 85,000 sq Km, which comprises 85% of this area, is not the Muslim majority area. The total population of this entire area is 1.25  Crores.

Out of the total population of 1.25 Crores of the State of Jammu and Kashmir, the area of Kashmir valley has 69 Lakhs people. Out of this 69 Lakhs, only 55 Lakhs speak Kashmiri language, while the rest of the 13 lakhs people speak non Kashmiri languages. In Jammu 53 Lakhs people live and speak Dogri, Punjabi and Hindi languages; and in Ladakh 03 Lakhs live and speak Ladakhi language. This does not include 7.5 lakh people settled who do not have citizenship.

There are 22 districts in J&K. Out of these 22 districts only 5 Districts, where the separatists have the domination, are
Srinagar, Anantnag, Baramullah, Kulgam and Pulwama. The remaining 17 districts are Pro India. Thus separatists’ writ runs in just 15% of the population and this is Sunni Muslim dominated area.

Interestingly these 5 districts are far away from Pakistan Border/LOC.

There are more than fourteen major Religious / ethinic groups, which comprise 85% of the population of J&K and are pro India. These areas have people mostly ethnic groups of Shias ;Dogras: (Rajputs, Brahmins & Mahajans); Kashmiri Pandits; Sikhs; Buddhists ( Ladakhis ); Gujjars; Bakarwals; Paharis; Baltis; Christians & many more.

Majority of the people in J&K do not speak Kashmiri as their mother tongue. It’s Dogri, Gujjari, Punjabi, Ladhaki , Pahari etc. Only 33 % people in Kashmir speak Kashmiri & this group controls narrative from Hurriyat to militants and from NC and PDP. This 33% of the Jammu and Kashmir people controls business, bureaucracy & agriculture. This 33% Sunni population is opposed to India,  although population of all other muslims in JK is 69 %. This 69 % population comprises Shias (12%), Gujjars Muslims (14%), Pahadi Muslims ( 8%), Buddhists , Pandits, Sufis, Christians and Jammu Hindus/ Dogras ( aprox 45%) and they are totally opposed to separatism and Pakistan.

Stone pelting , hoisting of Pakistani flags & anti India demonstrations are held in just 5 districts in Kashmir valley. Other 17 districts have never participated in such activities. Poonch and Kargil have above 90% Muslim population. There has never been an anti India or separatist protest in these districts.

It is only the Anti National Media and other Anti India forces who with their own nefarious designs have created an impression that “WHOLE J&K” is against India.

But the truth is that just 15% of the Population comprising Sunni Muslims inhabiting 5 districts of Kashmir province are fanning the separatist activities.

The bifurcating and constituting the Jammu and Kashmir State into two Union Territories (U.T. of Ladakh without legislative assembly and U.T. of Jammu and Kashmir with legislative assembly) under law (Reorganization of Jammu and Kashmir Bill, 2019) passed by Parliament on August 6, 2019 has struck a mortal blow to the separatism and the religious terrorism in Jammu and Kashmir.  In fact, this separatism and religious terrorism was confined only to the Kashmir valley.

This momentus task has been achieved by the government of India led by Prime Minister Narendra Modi and ably assisted by its Home Minister Amit Shah. In fact, it was correcting the historical mistake committed by Pandit Jawahar Lal Nehru in 1949. It was long overdue.

India is thankful to Shri Modi and Shri Amit Shah and shall ever remain greatful to them for this service.

“Life” of a Soldier, “Human Rights” of a Terrorist and a Court of “Law”

By: A N Roy Col.

I firmly believe terrorists are born to be killed and they do not deserve any rights, forget human rights. Serving defence forces personnel at disturbed area should be beyond questioning by supreme court and law to that effect should be enacted in parliament.

An Army veteran, who lost a family member to a militant’s bullet, has raised agonising posers to the Supreme Court:

How much do you know about the brutality of war?

How many of you have sent your progeny to the armed forces?

Have you ever lost a family member in the defence of the country?

Have you ever experienced – or even know – the pain of losing a young son or having a widowed daughter or seeing your grandchildren grow up without their father?

If not, please do not impede our war effort.

Human rights sound very nice when you and your families are safely ensconced in secure air-conditioned homes, but not when you are facing bullets and stone of a unruly religious fanatic mob.

Applying the Court directions to the Pulwama incident, an FIR will be lodged against Gunner Rishi Kumar who risked his life and killed two terrorists despite being hit on his headgear.

Police investigations will carry on for years haunting him even when posted to other places in India. Courts will issue summons and demand his presence. He will be accused of depriving the ‘innocent’ jihadis of their human rights and asked to justify the killings.

He will be queried: “Are you sure they were terrorists? They did not kill you, why did you kill them?”

He will be asked: “Did you give them adequate opportunity to surrender and reform themselves?”

“Did you give them a fair chance to escape?”
“Did you fire warning shots in the air?”

Instead of lauding his bravery, he will be subjected to judicial witch-hunt. What a disgrace for the nation…!

Subjecting active military operations to judicial review is an outlandish idea.

Whereas all nations empower their soldiers to vanquish enemies of the state, India takes pride in shackling them.

While addressing the U.S. Naval Academy in April 2010, Secretary of Defence Robert M Gates of USA had said:

“You have answered the trumpet call. For my part, I consider myself personally responsible for each and every one of you as though you were my own sons and daughters.

“And when I send you in harm’s way, as I will, I will do everything in my power to see that you have what you need to accomplish your mission – and come home safely.”

Apparently, India’s Supreme Court thinks differently.

Human rights of the enemies of the state appear to be far more important than the security of the country. If the human rights of the terrorist are protected, so that he is able to do what he wants to do, then the Indian State (of which security the soldier is mandated to protect) will be destroyed; the court will be destroyed; the law will be destroyed; and, with that everything, including any human right of any person, will be destroyed.

Finally, as a serving officer commented:

“The Supreme Court has given us two options: Get killed and the country will honour your martyrdom or kill the terrorist and face police/judicial investigations for years.”

His apprehensions are genuine and shared by the most of Indians. Wonder which soldier will look forward to serving in such antagonistic environment!

We cannot fight for India on borders but we can fight for our soldiers’ safety and betterment from the safety of our homes.

Science in India: From Great Past to Great Future

By: Shreepal Singh

Sending “Mangalyan” – Mars Orbitor – in the very first attempt from earth to the orbit of planet Mars is the testimony of the prowess of Indian science. And, now “Chandrayan 2” – the rocket carrying Orbitor, Lander, Rover towards Moon demonstrates the coming of age of space science in India.

It is science in the service of humanity and should be welcome to all. But human ego is very petty and brittle – it gets hurt easily. It was not long ago – perhaps two years back – when a US newspaper (if my memory does not fail me, New York Times) published a stinging cartoon. There was a closed-door meeting of the space-faring club of countries (one can identify them) and at that closed door India was knocking (as if trying to make an unwelcome entry) holding in one hand the lash of an ill-some bullock and in another a Mangalyan toy. In fact, it was a subtle satire against India’s uncalled for attempt; and the uncalled thing was slaming that closed door into the face of India by denying her the cryogenic technology.

All are welcome and all should be welcome to science; and all should be proud of their scientific achievements. India is proud of what it is attempting at (Mangalyan, Chandrayan, Aditya (Sun)yan etc.) and what it has achieved. But India should be equally proud of what it had achieved long back – very long back – in the past. Here is one post about what India had achieved long back, and it very interesting one. It is borrowed with thanks and for fair use from “Know You Bharat”. Here it is.

The first quantitative estimate of the speed of light is seen in the commentary on the Rig Veda by the Bhāratīya Vaidik Puṇḍit Śrī Sāyaṇācārya (14th century CE).

It says that sun light travels 2,202 “Yojanas” in the time span of a “Nimiśārdha” (half a “nimiśa”). The “Yojana” is an ancient unit of length. “Arthaśāstṛa” defines it as being equal to 8,000 “dhanus”, which is equivalent to 9.09 miles. A “nimiśa” is an ancient unit of time that is equal to 16/75 seconds. Thus 2,202 “yojanas” in half a “nimiśa” is equal to 189,547 miles per second after conversion. The modern estimate of the speed of light is 186,281.7 miles per second.

This velocity of Light was calculated by James Clerk Maxwell in the 19th century, but it was actually determined accurately thousands of years before in the foundation document of Hindū Dharma – the “Rig Veda”. It was further elaborated by Śrī Sāyaṇācārya in the 14th century CE in his commentaries on the ‘Rig Veda’. Bhāratīya Almanacs (Pañcāṅg) have always calculated accurately the motion of planets, sunset, sunrise, eclipses, etc. without using the modern devices like telescopes or any other machinery [although it cannot be ruled out that they used some unknown alternative devices].

It is to be noted that another Bhāratīya Vaidik Puṇḍit Śrī Bhaṭṭa Bhāskara (probably from the 10th century) made the same statement in his commentary on “Taittirīya Bṛāhmaṇa” [part of “Kṛṣṇa Yajurveda”]. Even he says this to be an old tradition.
The fourth verse of the Rigvedic hymn 1:50 (50th hymn in book 1 of Rigveda) is as follows:

तरणिर्विश्वदर्शतो जयोतिष्क्र्दसि सूर्य |
विश्वमा भासिरोचनम |

“taranirviśvadarśato jyotishkridasi sūrya | viśvamā bhāsirocanam ||”

This means “Swift and all beautiful art thou, O Surya (Sun), maker of the light, illuminating all the radiant realm.”

Explaining this verse in his Rig Veda commentary, Sāyaṇācārya, who was a minister in the court of “Bukka” of the great “Vijayanagar” Empire of Karnataka in South Bhārat (in early 14th century), says:

“tathā ca smaryate yojananam. sahasre dve dve sate dve ca yojana ekena nimiśārdhena kramaman.”

This means “It is remembered here that Sun (light) traverses 2,202 yojanas in half a nimisha.”

Note: Nimiśārdha = half of a nimiśa.

In ancient Bhāratīya measurements, “Yojana” is a unit of distance and “Nimiśa” is a unit of time.

Let’s first understand the unit of Vaidik Time: Nimiśa.

The “Mokṣa Dharma Parva” of “Śānti Parva” in “Mahābhārata” describes “Nimiśa” as follows:

15 Nimiśa = 1 Kāṣṭhā
30 Kāṣṭhā = 1 Kalā
30.3 Kalā = 1 Muhūrta
30 Muhurtas = 1 Divasa-Rātṛi (Day-Night)

We know Day-Night is 24 hours.
So we get 24 hours = 30 x 30.3 x 30 x 15 nimiśa; in other words 409050 nimiśa.
We know 1 hour = 60 x 60 = 3600 seconds
So 24 hours = 24 x 3600 seconds = 409,050 nimiśa.
409,050 nimiśa = 86,400 seconds
1 nimiśa = 0.2112 seconds (This is a recursive decimal. The wink of an eye is equal to 0.2112 seconds.). 1/2 nimiśa = 0.1056 seconds

Now Let’s understand the unit of Vedic Distance: Yojana
“Yojana” is defined in Chapter 6 of Book 1 of the ancient vaidik text “Viṣṇu Purāṇa” as follows:

10 Paramāṇu = 1 Parasūkṣma
10 Parasūkṣma = 1 Tṛasareṇu
10 Tṛasareṇu = 1 Mahírajas (particle of dust)
10 Mahīraja = 1 Bālāgṛa (hair’s point)
10 Bālāgṛa = 1 Likhṣa
10 Likhṣa = 1 Yuka
10 Yuka = 1 Yavodara (heart of barley)
10 Yavodara = 1 Yava (barley grain of middle size)
10 Yava = 1 Angula (finger-breadth) (1.89 cm or approx 3/4 inch)
6 Angula = 1 Pāda (the breadth of a foot)
2 Pādā = 1 Vitasti (span)
2 Vitasti = 1 Hasta (cubit)
4 Hasta = 1 Dhanu, a Danda, or pauruṣa (a man’s height) i.e., 6 feet
2,000 Dhanu = 1 Gavyuti (distance to which a cow’s call or lowing can be heard) = 12,000 feet.
4 Gavyutis = 1 Yojana = 9.09 miles
[In “The Ancient Geography of India”, Alexander Cunningham (the founder of ASI) says that a “Yojana” is traditionally held to be between 8 and 9 miles]

Calculation of the Speed of Light from the Rig Veda:

So now we can calculate what is the value of the speed of light in modern units based on the value given as 2202 yojanas in 1/2 nimisha
= 2,202 x 9.09 miles per 0.1056 seconds
= 20,016.18 miles per 0.1056 seconds
= 189,547 miles per second

As per the Rig Veda, the speed of light is 189,547 miles per second.
As per modern science the speed of light is 186,000 miles per second!

Isn’t this amazing?

Source: IndiaDivine at

Settling in USA: Is the Dream-Land Worth It?

By Venkat Ankam (living in Fairfax, VA, USA)

Let me portray the typical life cycle of Indians in the USA with their living conditions and then I will let you decide whether settling in the USA is worth it or not.

As an Indian immigrant in the USA, I have been asking myself this question for quite a long time. The reality is 95% of the Indian immigrants are settling in the US and only 5% of the immigrants are going back to India. I wondered if the “Major chunk (95%) of people settling in the US are making a wise decision or the small chunk (5%) of people going back are making a bad decision?” So I asked this question to my friends and colleagues from the 95% category but I could not get any subtle or profound answers. It looked like people are just following the crowd or falling into the trap, and not be able to go back later in life. So I did my own research asking specific set of survey questions to different age-group people. Let me share my findings.

First of all, why do Indians migrate to the US? One single answer for this question is most of Indians wish to migrate because they think that there is scope for higher income, savings, low stress and a happy life without any common issues we experience in India.

Now let’s see how these objectives are met during the life cycle of these Indian immigrants. Let me use the word NRI to describe them better.

My survey was limited to NRIs in the field of science and technology who are mostly in working class and also to a few business class NRIs as well. I took ratings on a scale of 0 to 10 (0 is the lowest and 10 is the highest) for earnings, savings, stress levels, family relationships and happiness from different age categories with their typical activities in their life cycle. I also realized that not every NRI in the US opens up because of ‘private space’ concept. So I chose people I have good relationship with and who are really open and can share feelings of their life. The Survey was conducted with a casual talk/discussion rather than a professional way of conducting surveys.

Based on the survey results and experiences shared by participants, I categorized the life cycle of immigrants into four different generic phases (Transform, Settle, Growth and Suffer) as shown in the graph below. Every person’s life is different so the depicted life cycle or living conditions may not apply to every NRI. It may vary for few people and life events may overlap between phases. This might be totally different for the new NRIs coming to the US because of longer green card wait time and ever changing immigration policies.

Let me describe these phases with typical life events.

Transform Phase (21 to 28 years): This an excitement phase which starts right from India after getting the US visa. One tries to get to know the culture of the US, what to do before and after entering the US and starts living the American Dream. Parents feel proud of this great achievement by their kids and start making big expectations and hopes. Starts sharing this news to neighbors and relatives and throw a big party as if their kid already succeeded in life. Arrives in the US without the awareness that he/she broke generations of living together and unity in their families. Typically nobody think or care about how life will be in the US after 40s, 50s or 60s in this stage. One gets really amazed with the best infrastructure of America and starts loving it. Gets used to American life style with few hiccups. Starts making some money and will have parties, shopping, vacation trips and realizes that life is very comfortable in the US. Transfers money to India to support family and talks to relatives and friends and shares the greatness of America. Parents will start looking for a bride/groom. Starts green card process to continue living in American dream.

NRIs are very happy in this phase with lots of excitement and joy that American life brings in.

Settle Phase (28 to 40 years): After a couple of trips to India, gets married and spouse arrives in the US. Couple is very happy in the beginning with vacation trips and parties. Realizes that expenses are higher than living as a bachelor. First baby arrives and parents and in-laws visit America. Advances in green card process, switches jobs and moves to new locations. Second baby arrives and then visits India with kids. Realizes that their parents are not quite happy staying alone in India. Also realizes that India has changed a lot and quite expensive than ever. Thinks that they may not be able to fit in India and also India is not a right fit for the kids. NRIs usually decides to go on the path of settling down in the US with a backup plan of going back. Buys Town Home/Condo and switches to luxury cars. Realizes that single income is not really sustainable in the US. Wife decides to do a job instead of getting bored at home. So Income doubles, savings doubles but stress levels go up. Green card arrives and they feel relaxed of immigration issues. Vacation trips becomes hard with little kids so no big vacations.

Happiness level comes down due to missing family relationships and not able to take care of aging parents.

Growth Phase (40 to 50 years): Moves on career ladder and starts making big bucks and also start making big bucks from secondary sources of income like stocks. Some might start a startup company or any business. Usually pretty busy with kids school and extra curricular activities. Buys a single family home and moves to a bigger home. Kids are grown up now so vacations are back. Parents are not able to visit because they don’t like to stay in the US. Also parent’s health will become a big concern. Makes few arrangements for parents in India but they are always temporary. Few realize that their friends in India have made more money in India than them. Realizes that they need to focus more on health aspects so starts some physical activities to keep their body fit.

Higher income, higher savings and most successful phase (professionally) for most people but happiness level further comes down because of lack of relationships.

Suffer Phase (Above 50 years): Kids usually finish their high school and go to a college. All savings will vanish in kids college education. Kids finish their education and start their job at a different place in the US. The couple is alone at big home away from parents and away from kids. They cannot think of going back because of kids and setting up everything from scratch in India would be a daunting task. Whenever they visit India they clearly see that family relationships are faded away because of settling in US. Most people thought that early in growth phase would have been an ideal situation to go back to India before kids enters middle school with a mind set of going back in settle phase.

Most people expressed that “We got everything we wanted in life, but we lost all relationships”. Some people expressed concern like “I wish I knew the downsides or effects of immigration later in the life”.

Starts indulging deeply in social and charity activities to keep them busy and also for social recognition. Usually takes up American citizenship in this phase while some takes up in growth phase only.

Works until 65 years of age to pay off mortgage and retires at the age of 65. After 65 years they start getting social security and healthcare benefits from government. But they continue to work in some retirement jobs to keep them busy or to earn some extra income for unknown expenses.

Just to summarize, life is happy in the beginning but happiness tends to fade away and brings suffering to life after 50s. Materialistic culture of America makes you a successful person professionally and materialistically, but deserts your life. One interesting observation during this study — most of the people who immigrated to America had no plans to settle in the US and most of the settled ones said, “We are not sure we might go back”.

Every NRI looks like a happy person from outside but everyone has a dark side story to tell from inside of their heart.

Life in the US rotates around profession, immigration process and kids. NRIs tend to “sacrifice their life for kids of next generation.” Kids seems to be happy with no complaints about life as they are in young age; the second generation, Indian-Americans, will have friends but might not have family relationships too? So they might end up in the same boat after 50 years age? Needs further research…

Thanks to my friends, colleagues and elders from community who humbly shared their deep thoughts from life for this small write-up and also helping me to make a strong decision to go back to India.

Hope this helps. Everybody’s requirements are different. So just a make a firm decision to settle here or to go back based on your own requirements and priorities, not based on what other NRIs are doing.

Update: Thank you Quorans for overwhelming response. I think this post has gone viral — 97K views, 3.7K upvotes and ~700 shares in 1 day. This clearly indicates that most NRIs are in this dilemma. Received 101 comments so far, 80 with positive sentiment, 9 with negative sentiment and 11 with neither positive or negative sentiment. My observations from these comments.

People who expressed negative sentiment are still in transform phase in US or few youngsters in India (Probably with American dream). Interestingly this was found to be true for other immigrants/expats too, not just Indians. Most of them expressed a feeling that this is a problem for the first generation of immigrants. Later generations will not have such problems. Need to research this further. Many people who expressed positive sentiment felt that situation might be similar in India as well.

Here I would like to add that that professionals with equivalent qualifications and intelligence may earn 50 to 60 % less in India compared to USA but are living more comfortable life with their own house and servants and a driver at their disposal. They are also saving enough to take a week or two holiday in a country 50 to 70 times costlier than India. They are definite enjoying a more luxurious life than their counterparts in USA. They are also able to take care of their parents if they want to. Just think.

%d bloggers like this: