THE GOOD SIDE OF #ISLAM (VERSUS HINDUISM)

I have spoken so much against ‪#‎Islam‬ boys and girls, that I should say something good about it. I have also defended Hindus so much, that I may be allowed to criticize them too. So, here it is:
1) Contrary to Hindus, Muslims are proud to be Muslims and do no shy from flashing their identities and beliefs.
2) There is a universal brotherhood in Islam. When I came to India, I drove from Paris to Delhi in a a caravan of five cars, my best friend then (he died unfortunately) was Ahmed Mzali,a French Moroccan. In all the Muslim countries we crossed – Turkey, Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan – he would say ‘Salaam Alikum’ and people would smile, open their doors, give us drinks, food, share their hookas.
‪#‎Hindus‬ however, must be some of the most selfish and individualistic people in the world. Rich Hindus never help their poorer brothers and sisters – thats why the Mother Teresa’s and Sonia Gandhis are able to flourish in India. A Hindu abroad never acknowledges another Hindu, but pretends he or she does not exist.
3) There are some boundaries in Islam – such as no alcohol, or smoking, which attracts new converts or even draws back Muslims who have strayed away from the path. Whereas in Hinduism, there are no such rules and drinking’s a huge problem for India – mostly by Hindus, rich and poor alike.
4) Muslims will die for their beliefs – in fact they will kill if they feel their God has been insulted, even in a mild way. You can insult Hindus and their Gods and Goddesses as much as you want and nothing will happen to you.
5) Muslims are very religious and pray five times a day towards the Mecca. Most Hindus don’t give a damn about their religion and will attend temple or pujas, once a year when their dear ones die.
6) Muslims feel for their brothers which they think are persecuted, in Palestine, Chechnya or Kashmir. A billion Hindus dont have not raised a finger about the 360.000 Kashmiri Pandits who became refugees in their own country after they were chased out by terror from the Valley of Kashmir in the 90’s.
7) Muslims make sure their kids learn bout the Koran, whether it is at home or in Madrasas. They also see to it that as soon as they can, they start praying. Hindus today don’t give a damn whether their children know about the Ramayana, the Mahabharata or the Bhagavad Gita, where every truth that needs to be known about life, after life, karma, dharma and soul is taught. Modern Hindu children do not go to temples, pray or know what is a puja.
8) Muslims have also learnt to compete with Christian College education by starting their own Colleges, with high academic standards, such as the Delhi Jamia Millia Islamia university, while making sure they are Islamic in their outlook, and structure.
Hindus do not care to have colleges where Hindu values are imparted. and the only one ever, the Benares Hindu University, should not be called ‘Hindu’ anymore, as nothing Hindu is taught there anymore.
8) Muslims love and cultivate a different language -Urdu for that matter. Sanskrit, the world’s oldest language, the most sophisticated and subtle, that could have a myriad uses such as programming, has totally fallen in disuse, as no Hindus cares to teach it to their children.
9) Muslims respect their historical heroes. Aurangzeb, for instance,whom many historians still consider as a stern but just emperor, though he was cruel even to his own family, is revered by most Muslims. In Pakistan, fathers still name their sons ‘Aurangzeb’. Compare this with the Hindus: Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj, who alone with a few hundred men, stood his ground against the most powerful emperor of his times, has practically no place in Indian History books and is often described as a petty chieftain or even a plunderer. So is Maharana Pratap, the ONLY rajput who fought against the Moguls and actually defeated Akbar in Hadilgathi. Does Maharana Pratap have his rightful place in Indian History books. You tell me.
10) Muslims strive to preserve their identities and communities. they tend to live together in villages and towns, so that some bonding and common practices are kept. This is not true of Hindus who tend to merge and melt wherever they live – and in the process, lose some their identities and togetherness.
11) Mahatma Gandhi called Muslims ‘bullies ‘ and Hindus ‘cowards’. Was he far from the truth? It is true that Muslims will fight for their beliefs – albeit violently – and that Hindus at the least sign of trouble, go underground. (To be followed)
DO YOU AGREE WITH ME, GIRLS AND BOYS.? WE SHOULD ALSO RESPECT OUR ENEMIES, AS THE BHAGAWAD GITA TEACHES US. AFTER ALL, WE HAVE BEEN BORN TENS THOUSANDS OF TIMES AND WE MUST HAVE BEEN MUSLIMS TOO. AT LEAST I FEEL I WAS.

NEHRU & LADY MOUNTBATTEN, THE TRUE STORY

It’s time the true story of Nehru’s affair with Edwina Mountbatten be known. Being the lover of the wife of the British Viceroy tells us three things: 1) that Nehru’s fatal attraction to the White Skin, famously continued with the Congress’ fatal attraction to Sonia Gandhi today. 2) that Nehru was betraying his country’s interests by sleeping with the enemy. 3) That we need to rewrite the history of the Indian Independence movement, which gives a very sympathetic role to Lord Mountbatten, who actually bears with Nehru, a great responsibility in the tragic partition of India. Revolutionaries like Sri Aurobindo, who thirty tears before Gandhi, advocated the throwing out of the British, by force if necessary, in the true spirit of the Bhagavad Gita, have been sidelined in Indian History books – forget about western ones: such books as Freedom at Midnight, have highly romanticized and distorted the true history of Indian Independence. Please forward this article to at least ten of your friends. The Modi Government should not ban this film. FG

EXPLODING THE MOTHER TERESA MYTH

IT is quite extraordinary that the  icon which is Mother Teresa is being defended by Delhi’s chief minister, Arvind Kejriwal, a Hindu at that.

But Mr Kejirwal missed some relevant points, which could be summarized thus:

1) What did Mother Teresa really stand for?

2) Why do some Indians such as Navin Chawla, Prannoy Roy or Arvind Kejriwal, defend her so ardently?

Foremost one should say in defence of Mother Teresa that she certainly did saintly work. After all, there is no denying that it takes a Westerner to pick up dying people in the streets of Calcutta and raise abandoned orphans, a thankless task if there is one. Indians themselves, and particularly the Hindus, even though their religion has taught them compassion for 4000 years, have become very callous towards their less fortunate brethren.

This said, one may wonder: What did Mother Teresa really stand for? Was caring for the dying and orphaned children her only goal? Well, if you have observed her carefully over the years, you will notice that she did not say much. She did speak against contraception and abortion, in a country of more than one billion, where an ever growing population is spiking whatever little economic progress is made, where the masses make life more and more miserable, invading the cities, crowding their streets and polluting the environment; where for 60 years the Indian government has directed a courageous and democratic birth control programme (this must be said, for China has achieved demographic control through autocratic means).

What else did Mother Teresa say: she spoke of the dying in the streets of Calcutta, of course, of the poor of India left unattended, of the misery of the cities. Fair enough, but then it should have been pointed out to her, that she projected – and still projects though she is dead for many years now – to the whole world an image of India which is entirely negative: of poverty beyond humanity, of a society which abandons its children, of dying without dignity. OK, there is some truth in it. But then it may be asked again: did Mother Teresa ever attempt to counterbalance this negative image of India, of whom she was the vector, by a more positive one? After all she had lived here so long that she knew the country as well as any Indian, having even adopted Indian Nationality. Surely, she could have defended her own country? She could for example spoken about India’s infinite spirituality, her exquisite culture, the amazing gentleness of its people, the brilliance of its children…

Unfortunately, Mother Teresa said nothing. For the truth is that she stood for the most orthodox Christian conservatism. There is no doubt that ultimately Mother Teresa’s goal was utterly simple: to convert India to Christianity, the only true religion in her eyes.

Did you notice that she never once said a good word about Hinduism, which after all is the religion of 750 million people of the country she says she loved, and has been their religion for 6000 years. This is because deep inside her, Mother Teresa considered, as all good Christians do, particularly the conservative ones, Hinduism a pagan religion which adores a multitude of heathen gods and should be eliminated.

For make no mistakes about it, there has been no changes about the Christians or Protestant designs on India since they arrived with the Portuguese and the British.

Listen to what Lord Hastings, Governor General of India, had to say in 1813: “The Hindoo appears a being limited to mere animal functions…. with no higher intellect than a dog or a monkey”! Mother Teresa was much more clever than Lord. Hastings. She knew that on the eve of the 21st century, it would have looked very bad if she would openly state her true opinion about Hinduism: so she bade her time. But ultimately is not charitable work, whatever its dedication, a roundabout manner to convert people? For without any doubt the people she saved from the streets ultimately became Christians – and if you ask those “elite” Indians who knew her well, such as the photographer Raghu Rai, a great admirer of her, she always came out after some years with: “it’s now time for you to embrace the true religion” (Rai politely declined).

The second point then is: why does India’s intelligentsia, the Vir Sanghvis, Kejriwals, Chawlas and Sunita Sens, all of whom are born Hindus, defend her? These are intelligent, educated people, they must surely have had some inkling of Mother Teresa’s true purpose. Or did they? Do Sanghvi and Sen, or Naveen Chawla, Mother Teresa’s ever admiring biographer, understand what Mother Teresa really stood for? That she was someone basically hostile to their culture, their religion, their way of life? Does Sanghvi know that Hindu society has always been the target of Christians since their coming here? Does he understand that he and a thousand of his peers, who belong to the intellectual elite of India and keep praising Mother Teresa, even after her death, are doing harm to their country and opening it to its enemies? The Christian influence is very strong in India today, specially after the ten years in power of Sonia Gandhi: it shapes the minds of its young people, in a subtle way, through its schools, which many of the children of the rich attend. It moulds the thinking of the tribes it has converted, particularly in the North-East, where the missionaries have always covertly encouraged separatism (see the remarkable book “Indigenous Indians” by the Dutch Scholar Konrad Elst).

But ultimately it must be concluded that the Indian intelligentsia who defend Mother Teresa and are constantly attacking Hinduism, as Sanghvi or Kejriwal do, are a product of three centuries of English and Christian colonialism, which successfully created an Indian elite cut off from its roots and hostile to its own culture. Mother Teresa was an incarnation of Western post- colonialism and the Nobel Prize she got is their endorsement of her work,

As for the Indian government’s stand on Mother Teresa, it is like biting one’s own tail and it seems quite stupid. Why make Mother Teresa a national figure when she represented and still represents today the worst publicity for India at a time when the country is trying to shed its image of poverty and backwardness under Mr Modi’s leadership? Surely Mother Teresa deserves praise for her work. But there are hundreds of other selfless, courageous individuals in India, who do not hog the limelight and go on with their service to the nation in true Christian humility. The deeds of Mother Teresa should be reviewed in their proper perspective. But then, when she died, the Indian government declared 7 days of mourning!

For make no mistake about it, the wonder that is India, its great culture, its philosophy, its inner spiritual genius is today under mortal threat. It is attacked both from within by its minorities – of which the Christian lobby, although not the most visible, is essentially hostile – see how they have cleverly raked up bogus attacks on Delhi churches and managed to put Mr Modi on the back foot, to the point that he had to attend the ‘canonisation’ of two Indian saints – in the process they may make allies with the Muslims, the other monotheist religion, with whom they partake of the same hate for Hinduism. And from without, by hostile neighbours. And what will India become if the Mother Teresas’ of this world, helped unwittingly by Sanghvi and his peers have the last word? It will lose what makes Her unique on this earth, different from all others, above most of them and become another Westernised, Christianised, standardised society, having lost its soul along the way. Thank you Vir Sanghvi , Arvind Kejriwal, Prannoy Roy, Shekhar Gupta, Navin Chawla !

François Gautier

AN OPEN LETTER TO THE PM ABOUT THE DELHI DEFEAT & A UNITED HINDU ELECTORATE

Dear Mr Prime Minister,

First let me tell you that many a times, I felt that some Divine Force was inspiring you – the way Sri Aurobindo said that Churchill was guided by Him to fight the Nazis…

But then, I have to say, as someone who travels extensively in India & has spent a lot of time in Delhi for the last 40 years (I have interviewed 7 Indian PM’s), that nothing much has changed. Your ministers are still as unreachable as the Congress ones, functioning in the same system with four layers of secretaries. Even if you have an important work – there is no way you can meet one of your ministers unless you have some pull. Your MP’s, as the Congress ones before them, once they come to Delhi, with their cars, bungalows, countless aides, and so many sycophants coming for favours, quickly lose sight of why they were elected. You need to send them BACK to their constituencies the way Mao Tse Tung sent back all his cadres to the countryside. Delhi is a microcosm of India and you seem to have lost there some of the Hindu electorate who voted for you UNITEDLY, from the Dalit to the businessmen. Some of us had seen this coming for a few months already.

You need to have around you people who will tell you what the mood of the people is – without ANY FEAR – for I have seen, even with gurus, that their followers always want to please them, flatter them and thus shield them from the truth. It is something inherent to the Hindu psyche. If this had been done, maybe we could have told you that the middle class and lower class Hindus who voted for you, want a change at the grass root level. They are not concerned about Obama and nuclear energy, or the way you are skillfully loosening the Chinese encircling grip, or the remarkable unifying of intelligence and their agencies you are doing with Mr Doval, but about the daily problems and the constant bribes that are asked by petty bureaucrats and policemen. I myself experience this in Maharashtra as I am asked bribes for getting permissions for a Museum, which is free, dedicated to Shivaji Maharaj and a sewa project!

Also they do not understand why you were so fiery and outspoken while campaigning – and now that you are elected, you do not seem any more to be promoting their Hindu causes. They cannot fathom, for instance in their simple minds, why you are being so friendly to Sonia Gandhi, who wanted you in prison or even dead – and why you are keeping away from those who supported you in your darkest hours, when nobody thought that you would become PM. These old friends of yours are still keeping quiet, out of respect for your work, but I know many who are bitter. The common Hindu man does not comprehend either why no one in your Government stands by reconversions of Christians or Muslims to Hinduism. During the last Tsunami, at least 10% of the Tamil Nadu fishermen were converted by Christian missionaries, using financial baits, such as free boats. I was there and SAW it. Or why when one of yours says that Hindus must produce more children, he is booed down. We know that Muslims produce seven to eight children per couple and in some areas of India they are now in majority and will NOT vote for you. It is true that there have been vandalizing of churches in Delhi, whether intentional, or just by some common thieves. But this is an old trick of Indian Christians to evoke sympathy from Obama and C° and bring pressure & discredit upon you. You should know better than that: Christians have been the aggressors in this country & the Pope still thinks that India is a fair target for mass conversions.

We understand that you must be the Prime Minister of all Indians and that you have to rise above sectarism, but there has to be in the public a perception that you are the PRIME MINISTER OF HINDUS BECAUSE IT IS THEY WHO VOTED FOR YOU – not the Muslims – whatever Ram Madhav told you before the Kashmir elections, which is going to be another thorn in your heel (and if you do not remove article 370 soon, most Hindus will lose faith in your government). To cultivate the Muslims, thinking that they will like you in the end, as Mr Vajpayee did, under the influence of the nice but misguided Suddeendhra Kulkarni, is not only a waste of time, but also may ALIENATE YOU HINDU VOTERS, whom you are going to need in four years again and at different state elections.  Let the Muslims of India know that they possess the same rights as any Hindus, Sikhs or Christians, which they actually have, including total freedom of worship, that Hindus have neither in Bangladesh, Pakistan or Saudi Arabia, but do not go out of your way to please them. When the common man of Delhi sees that you received Aamir Khan, whose film PK, is a deliberate insult to all Hindu gurus & Hindus, they think something is not right. Also they do not understand why so many Hindu gurus and activists such as sadhvi Pragya and Colonel Purohit, whose innocence has been proved, are still languishing in jail. Congress had no qualms in favouring their people and flouting all decent rules. This isn’t about ethics, but if your aim is just, dharmic, and I believe it is, it does not matter what means are used.

The Congress got elected and elected again with mostly the Muslims votes, till Kejriwal came, You need to CULTIVATE THE HINDU ELECTORATE Sir, by making gestures, even if you let your people do them and stand back. And that has to be done QUICKLY. If they are convinced that you are working for them, you will have the two or even three terms you need to achieve a real Renaissance of India. Democracy is a beautiful but skewed system, easy to hijack by adharmic forces. To realise all the great things you have undertaken, YOU NEED A UNIFIED HINDU VOTE.

The trap now is to listen to the Media which says that your party lost in Delhi because of ‘communal’ reasons – vandalizing of churches, statements by your people about reconversions, or your so-called ten lakh suit. This will prod you and your government to go more secular, let go of more of the pledges you made for the Hindu cause during your campaign, the same way the Vajpayee Government veered away gradually from its Hindu ideals – and lost the elections to Sonia Gandhi.

But think of it like that: you got elected in May last year with a massive mandate BECAUSE of your dedicated, sincere and fiery HINDU promises. There is no reason why it should not work the same way now that you have the power. You need to stick by what your pledged Sir – whatever the Media, Obama, your bureaucrats or the Foreign Press says

Namaste

Francois Gautier

A propos of #Congress celebrations for #Nehru’s 125th birth anniversary . A look at his legacy.

Nehru, writes French historian Alain Danielou, “was the perfect replica of a certain type of Englishman. He often used the expression ‘continental people’, with an amused and sarcastic manner, to designate French or Italians. He despised non-anglicised Indians and had a very superficial and partial knowledge of India. His ideal was the romantic socialism of 19th century Britain. But this type of socialism was totally unfit to India, where there was no class struggle and where the conditions were totally different from 19th century Europe.” (Histoire de l’Inde p. 349)

It should be added that Nehru was not a fiery leader, maybe because of his innate “gentlemanship” and often succumbed not only to Gandhi’s views, with which he sometimes disagreed, not only to the blackmailing of Jinnah and the fanatical Indian Muslim minority, but also to the British, particularly Lord Mountbatten, whom history has portrayed as the benevolent last Viceroy of India, but who actually was most instrumental in the partition of India, whatever “Freedom at Midnight” a very romanticised book, says. (Remember Churchill’s words on learning about Partition: “At last we had the last word”). It may be added that the British had a habit of leaving a total mess when they had to surrender a colony, witness Palestine, Ireland, or India.

Nehru has also been made into a myth by foreign writers, such as French Catherine Clement, who wrote a ridiculous and pompous novel depicting the loves between Nehru and Lady Mountbatten. The problem is not whether they had sex or not together, the problem rather, is that this “affair” only symbolizes the fatal attraction which Nehru had for the White Skin – for Edwina Mountbatten was certainly not a beauty, but was in fact renowned for her nymphomania and inconsequence – an attraction for the White Skin which the Congress perpetuated faithfully and still incarnated today by Sonia Gandhi, who was, till Mr Narendra Modi came on the scene, able to woo the masses, when she has absolutely no qualifications to lead India. The problem is not whether Mountbatten was made a cuckold or not – but that it was India which was cuckolded, for Nehru was unfaithful to India by letting his weaknesses influence him in accepting partition and the terms dictated by the British.

The Congress has today made an icon out Nehru, and is trying to perpetuate it through its pompous 125th birth anniversary celebrations, which will not evoke much international interest, for Nehru belongs to India’s past: the Soviet model, the denigration of India’s ancient spirituality and anything Hindu, the huge elephants of nationalized industries, the creating of a privileged caste of VIP politicians answerable to nobody, the pampering to the Muslims for selfish electoral motives, the devastating Hindi-Chini bhaibhai policy, the huge bureaucracy and corruption, the mistrust of America, etc.

Thus, Nehru did tremendous harm to India by initiating movements and patterns, which not only did vast damage in their times, but continue to survive and weigh down the Indian nation, long after their uselessness has been realized.