Nehru hatched four conspiracies against the nation

by Hari Om on 04 Aug 2013


It is a well known fact that the nominated Governor-General of India, Louis Mountbatten, and the first Prime Minister of independent India, Jawaharlal Nehru, never wanted the Princely State of Jammu and Kashmir to become part of the Indian Dominion. Hence, I will not focus on this aspect of the anti-India role played by Mountbatten and Nehru. Suffice to say that both subverted the Indian Independence Act of 1947 by holding out a commitment that it will be for the people of the State to endorse (or not endorse) the decision of Maharaja Hari Singh on the accession of Jammu and Kashmir to India.



They committed to a plebiscite in the State completely overlooking the fact that the Indian Independence Act did not directly or indirectly include the right to self-determination, and that the Maharaja of Jammu and Kashmir, like all other 560-odd princely states, alone had the authority to take a final decision on the State’s political future.



The whole approach of Mountbatten and Nehru towards Jammu and Kashmir was communal. Mountbatten wanted the State to become part of Pakistan and Nehru wanted to pander to communal forces in Kashmir as represented by Sheikh Abdullah and his ilk. Since Nehru believed in the concept of two-nations, he hatched four conspiracies against the nation between October 26, 1947 and October 17, 1949.



His objective was to weaken the nationalist constituency in the State and create a situation that would help the separatist and communal leadership in Kashmir to play nefarious games calculated to end the politico-constitutional ties between the State and the Centre and enable them to establish Nizam-e-Mustafa, to the chagrin of the nationalists.



First conspiracy: Nehru hatched the first conspiracy in October 1947 itself. Using foul means and misusing his official position, he manipulated the transfer of political power from Jammu to Kashmir (read Sheikh Abdullah). Jammu had ruled over that state, which came into being in 1846, for full 101 years (March 1846-October 1947). Kashmir became part of the Jammu Kingdom in March 1846, and not vice-versa.



Second conspiracy: Nehru ordered ceasefire at a time when the committed Indian Army was about to evict the Pakistani invaders from Jammu and Kashmir territories. This was done to promote the interests of Sheikh Abdullah, who wanted to establish a “Switzerland-type independent Kashmir”. To become sultan of independent Kashmir was Sheikh Abdullah’s most cherished goal. Nehru accepted his suggestion and enforced ceasefire strictly. The mindboggling ceasefire helped Pakistan strengthen its control over the Jammu and Kashmir territories it occupied illegally after rape, murder, loot and plunder.



Third conspiracy: Nehru tried his level best to change the nomenclature of Jammu & Kashmir, and succeeded to an extent. The purpose was to undermine the significance of Jammu and Ladakh. He did this on May 27, 1949.



Fourth conspiracy: The Indian Constituent Assembly at the behest of Nehru adopted Article 306-A (Article 370) to drive the State away from the country’s mainstream politics and accord a dangerous legitimacy to the politics of separatism, based on religious fanaticism. The purpose was to tell the international community that his Government did not consider Jammu and Kashmir to be an integral part of India, as it was a Muslim-majority state.



I will not reflect on the first, second and fourth conspiracies, as many are aware of their evil consequences, as also their adverse impact on paramount national interests. Besides, much has already been written on these three intrigues. I will deal with the third conspiracy in detail, as most people are not aware of what Nehru did on May 27, 1949 to exclude Jammu and Ladakh from the nomenclature of the state – a dubious move that created a sort of furore in the Constituent Assembly.



What provoked this furore was the motion moved by Gopalaswami Ayangar, then controlling the Ministry of Kashmir Affairs, to the effect that “notwithstanding anything contained in paragraph 4 (of the Schedule to the Constituent Assembly Rules), all the seats in the Assembly allotted to the State of Kashmir may be filled by the ruler of Kashmir (Hari Singh) on the advice of his Prime Minister” (Sheikh Abdullah).



Several objections were raised against this official motion. However, the one which irritated some members the most was the omission of Jammu from the nomenclature of the State. Prominent among those who opposed the motion were Pandit Lakshmi Kanta Maitra (West Bengal) and Prof. K T Shah (Bihar). Prof. Shah possessed first-hand knowledge about the State and its people as well as the kind of political upheavals it had witnessed since 1931. He remained associated with the affairs of this princely State for 15 long years and was its Planning Advisor for a few years before October 1947. He was also aware of the shape things would assume in Jammu & Kashmir in the days to come as he had a 15-day long interaction with National Conference president Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah, who had gone all the way from Srinagar to Mumbai to discuss with him his New Kashmir Plan.



(The NC adopted “New Kashmir” programme in September, 1944 and demanded that “the Treaty of Amritsar dated March 16, 1846, signed between Maharaja Gulab Singh and the then British Government of India, which was in the nature of sale deed and was thus an insult to the people of the State (Kashmir) must go lock, stock and barrel. This became the theme of the ‘Quit Kashmir’ movement, which was launched in early 1946 - April-May” (Report of the State Autonomy Committee, Jammu, April, 1999, P. 11).



While Pandit Maitra put question after question to know “if the word ‘Kashmir’ includes both Jammu and Kashmir”, Prof. Shah moved an amendment to the official motion and made an appeal to the Constituent Assembly to ensure that the words “Jammu and” also figure before the word “Kashmir wherever it occurs”.



Moving the amendment, Prof Shah said: “…There is some significance in this matter, which makes it more than ever necessary that you (Ayyangar) should not omit the other part (Jammu), and, if one may say so, the first part of the title of that ancient State. By calling it the State of Kashmir only you are perpetrating an error… May I ask… if we have made a mistake in the first instance, if we have been carried away by the importance of one sect (Kashmiri-speaking Sunni Muslims) of the State, by the importance of personages (the Sheikh and his colleagues) connected with that part of the State, is that any reason why we should forget the other side and no less important part of the State; and in this formal document continue to perpetuate that mistake and speak only of Kashmir, when we really mean Jammu and Kashmir? It is a fact not denied by the mover that is the correct name of the State”.



Prof. Shah told the Constituent Assembly that the relations between Kashmir and Jammu were not very cordial. He said: “Those at any rate who remember the campaign of the present Prime Minister (Sheikh Abdullah) of the State in connection with (the 1946) Quit Kashmir movement will realize that in the sequence of events that have happened, it is liable, if you describe it in this manner, to be gravely misunderstood wherever such nomenclature is allowed to be used; and our public records will be disfigured to that extent… The State of Jammu and Kashmir is correctly described as Jammu and Kashmir, so to say, there are two States in one kingdom, just as Scotland and England were two States under the first of the Stuarts. The king was the King James the Sixth of Scotland and King James the First of England. There were two crowns worn by one person. In regard to the State of Jammu and Kashmir until about the communal rising in 1931, it was for all practical administrative purposes actually divided into two provinces more or less distinct, though under the same ruler…”



He did not stop there. Prof. Shah cautioned the Constituent Assembly, “the matter of nomenclature is not merely a matter of verbal emendation that it has behind it a significance, a significance, in the sequence of events, not confined only to this House or this country. It has repercussions outside this country… Therefore, we must be careful in every word that we use, so that our expression, our nomenclature, our whole wording is in conformity with the situation and the correct facts”.



In reply to Pandit Maitra, Ayyangar said: “Kashmir means Jammu and Kashmir”. He also justified his motion saying “in the Draft Constitution, the Schedule mentions the State of Kashmir” and “in the list that is attached to the Constituent Assembly Rules, it is already described as Kashmir”. He urged the members not to make this an issue and “let this description of the State of Kashmir stand, because if you change it, we will have to change other things which are already in our Statutes and Rules”. In other words, Ayyangar expressed his unwillingness to insert the words “Jammu and” before Kashmir for reasons better known to him and which failed to carry conviction with Pandit Maitra and Prof. Shah. This is evident from the questions they raised in response to the lengthy statement of Ayyangar on the nomenclature of the State.



Convinced that Ayyangar would not be in a position to convince Pandit Maitra and Prof. Shah, Nehru himself took the stage. He defended Ayyangar and said that his stand was “correct”. He said, “I have been connected with Kashmir in many ways, and, in a sense, I belong to Kashmir more particularly than to any part of India. I have been connected with the fight of freedom in Kashmir… And so, if I venture to say anything in this House, I do so with greater authority than Prof. Shah can presume to have on the subject…”



He then made a lengthy statement to counter the arguments of Prof. Shah and in praise of Sheikh Abdullah, his party and the Quit Kashmir Movement. At the same time, he suggested “a small change in the wording of the motion” with a view to “removing” what he called “a slight confusion in the people’s mind”. What he actually suggested was that the “State be described as Kashmir State, and then putting within brackets, the words otherwise known as the State of Kashmir and Jammu”.



It needs to be recalled that the State at no point of time during 1846-1949 was styled as the “State of Kashmir and Jammu”. It was always known as the State of Jammu and Kashmir, with Jammu as its permanent capital. It should also be underlined that the practice of moving the State Secretariat from Jammu to Kashmir and back was started during the time of Maharaja Ranbir Singh (1857-1885) for reasons political, the most noteworthy being the British design to cause an anti-Maharaja stir in the Valley and establish their foothold there and in and around Gilgit in order to check Russian activities across the border.



Mercifully, the Nehru’s formula did not click. Nor did it discourage Prof. Shah in his efforts to enlist the support of the Constituent Assembly in favour of his amendment. So the deadlock continued. Ultimately, Ayyangar moved an amendment to his motion and suggested that the name of the State be read as the State of Kashmir (otherwise known as the State of Jammu and Kashmir)”. The Constituent Assembly adopted the amended motion.



Thus, Jammu, which had ruled over Kashmir for 101 years, found space in the nomenclature of the State, though within brackets. This happened primarily because of the efforts put in by the unyielding Prof. Shah, with Pandit Maitra extending him full support. Had they, like other members of the Constituent Assembly, remained mum or toed the official line, Jammu would have totally disappeared from the nomenclature of the State (Constituent Assembly Debates, Book No 3, Vol. VIII, May 16, 1949 to June 16, 1949, Reprinted by Lok Sabha Secretariat, New Delhi, Second Reprint, 1989, pp. 357-373).



It is not difficult to conclude, from what transpired in the Constituent Assembly, that Nehru did his best to muddy Indian waters in Kashmir and help Sheikh Abdullah communalise the polity there. 

SEE THE LINK http://www.vijayvaani.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?aid=2898

Let law be the judge on rapists, 

not power-hungry politicians

My thoughts on Quota Goondas trying to fish in the troubled waters following the aftermath of Delhi gangrape of a 23-year-old girl. 

The gangrape of the Delhi girl has unleashed a clamor to “hang the rapists” from innocent youths who are too shocked and angry that such a brutal and unthinkable incident occurred in a debased Congress-ruled burg which also happens to be the capital of India. Though what happened to the Delhi girl is utterly shocking and no words are enough to condemn it and which can easily be counted as the rarest of rare case the issue is not as simple as it sounds.  We have surfeit of laws to tackle rapists and hang them if need be. What is worrying is that the craven political class, I fear, could see a sinister opportunity to unite among themselves to keep India as its permanent fiefdom in nailing one more nail in India’s divided social fabric coffin to fetch a few additional marginal votes. See the way they did repeatedly in giving quotas for the asking to eradicate backwardness when the Dalit rich are getting fatter. By passing a law “death to a rapist (maybe on suspicion)” politicians can secure their future in further compartmentalizing people of India into irreconcilable groups of men and women who are to be always at loggerheads. This could set the trend of political discourse and blackmail to settle scores in whatever way the dominant ruling rogues deem it fit.  This is Machiavelli at its worst and only Congress has the gumption to resort to such degraded vulgar thinking.

Yes, rape usually occurs when a man imposes himself on a woman without her consent, by force or when she is under aged (statutory rape). Does this mean women cannot turn rapist when they can turn into women dadas as seen from Mayawati incident when she makes her slaves dance to her tune, especially the chief one who has shown an excellent elasticity of spine in kowtowing? India's moral fibre is in a completely weakened state today and it is puerile to think that woman are more honest and decent than men. It depends on the individual character and not on the class. Let us not make the same quota mistake here too as we term the rich Dalits poor and shower them with more benefits !

Certainly it cannot be denied that like degrading the people of India into eternal backwardness as symbolized by quotas there is a move over the past decade or so to bring women domination in all spheres of life by looking down upon men. Women’s rule after eons of men’s domination may not be a bad idea after all provided it has purity of thought and a sense of well-being for the country. But the way Indian politics has hurtled to its divide-and-rule nadir — and the way our male PM is told to behave by a woman without he being allowed to exert his trappings of power — all point to a dangerous, diabolical trend that can have far reaching consequences for all of us, both men and women.

My fear is that a strong, blanket anti-rape law in a troubled society such as ours will weaken our resolve to see the truth, stop lies from being spread and will allow the traitor politician to secure a hold over the beggared classes of India.

Already there are many horrible true life stories about draconian laws that women have begun using lately against men and as statistics shows innumerable men are already ruined and many have turned destitute. I am referring in particular to pro-women draconian law Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005 (PWDVA 2005) and 498(A) (mental and physical harassment of a married woman). There are still innumerable draconian laws such as IPC 406, 306, 304B, Cr Pc 125, Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act etc that have brought untold miseries to husbands and their close relatives at the hands of law and law enforcing authorities. Anybody can verify the statistics if they take the pain to go through it and see how women easily get away even after it becomes clear that the woman had foisted a false case. The men then have no right to punish the women who had foisted false cases. This is the law as it stands in India today !

The Supreme Court itself has termed the anti-men’s laws as legal terrorism and totally unconstitutional especially the Section 498 (A) of the Indian Penal Code. “The rise in the number of cases registered under Section 498 (A) shows that the act has not been serving its purpose. It’s more used for settling scores than to protect women,” the Supreme Court had observed. The flaw in the Protection of Women Against Domestic Violence Act is that it is not gender neutral and heavily tilted towards women. How can that be with justice being blind in one eye?

The laws as they exist today have many loopholes exploited as they are by unscrupulous women and their families. As per existing data on an average of 22,000 divorce cases are being filed every year in metropolitan cities which is alarming to say the least.

That is not all. What is worrisome is that ignorant are harassed unduly when the PI of a police station registers 498A against the accused whimsically. A PI is supposed to take nod from the DCP before he acts. But that usually doesn't happen when the accused is from lower strata of society. Even if someone dares to question the PI on the law he is browbeaten into submission as experience shows.

But what happens after the present law being mulled over is passed and the men are, say, rounded up on suspicion and sometimes led to their gallows? Certainly nothing can be done about it as even the courts will wash their hands away as they have done in case of invidious and treacherous quotas. Repeal or amending the law too will be out of question as it would require 2/3rd majority in Parliament which will be hard to come by and the damage that it will do will be as permanent as the quotas that has divided India into two permanent vertical halves— the quota class and the non-quota class.

Let us now come to the basic truth. Does rape mean, as is commonly understood, only the woman being the victim? The truth is that women raping men are rarely heard in India, though there are rising cases in foreign countries such as in the USA.

Rape can be used by men against women, and women against men though men on average are stronger than women. However, victimizing others is often not about physical strength but about the will and desire to dominate or manipulate others. This desire is a human trait, not just a male one. In addition, men are penalized with jail or worse if they use physical strength to hurt women while the contrary has not been heard of.  

Interestingly a BBC report last year had said that Zimbabwean police arrested three women after a year of investigation on rape charges. The report said the police believed that there was a nationwide syndicate of women raping men, possibly to use their semen for use in rituals that claim to make people wealthy.

Even the PC American Bar Association admits on its website on domestic violence that 7.6% of men were raped or physically assaulted by a current or former spouse, cohabiting partner, or dating partner/acquaintance. According to the National Clearinghouse on Family Violence in Canada:

In a study of male victims, 60% reported being abused by females (Johnson and Shrier, 1987). The same rate was found in a sample of college students (Fritz et al., l 981). In other studies of male university and college students, rates of female perpetration were found at levels as high as 72% to 82% (Fromuth and Burkhart, 1987, 1989; Seidner and Calhoun, 1984). Bell et al. (1981) found that 27% of males were abused by females. In some of these types of studies, females represent as much as 50% of sexual abusers (Risin and Koss, 1987). Knopp and Lackey (1987) found that 51% of victims of female sexual abusers were male.  

There are one-track minded women activists in India like Flavia Agnes, a Mumbai-based lawyer, who debunks offhand that women can ever rape men. "To presume that women can rape men is rather outrageous," Agnes had told a TOI reporter adding "While women can sexually harass men, they can't sexually assault them. There have been no such cases anywhere."  

Fair enough. But what happens if it happens in future? Is Agnes willing to give a guarantee to the contrary?

Instead of being seized by the mob lynch mentality let us stand up for the rights of boys and men just as we are now doing for girls and women who are abused by those of the opposite gender. Can rape be okay just because the victim is male and the woman is the accuser? Let us not walk into the political trap that is being sprung on the lines of eternal quota-divide.

 ***

Quotas & Secularism 2 mortal enemies of Modi

Totally secularised and quotaised Bihar CM Nitish Kumar once got the big end of the stick from Modi. "See what he (Nitish) has done to Bihar by creating more pockets of backwardness like MBCs," Modi said expressing his disgust. But unfortunately the whole secular Indian political lot, including some from the Delhi BJPwallahs, were standing thick and thin with Nitish. This is what happens when a Constitution proviso for temporary quotas is used to degrade the very Constitution in pursuit of bloody votes.

Every Indian is crying for a politician who has the spine and patriotism to make India a super power. A super power that can challenge China by exhibiting its self-respect by unifying the nation through brotherhood and development. The country badly needs leadership and determination to create jobs so that people's welfare become the foremost aspect of running and sustaining the democracy, a democracy that is floundering on the shoals of quotas. Instead the treacherous political lot is more intent on degrading the small yet last vestiges of meritocracy in the higher echelons of Indian bureaucracy through promotional quotas.

For the Indians who wish to see a strong and glorified India - which is still a pipe dream -  an avatar like Narendra Modi is godsend. He is the only man among the India's craven political lot who seems to have risen above invidious caste and religious political discourse. This message is clear to Modi's masters in Delhi who in turn eye him suspiciously without realising that if BJP has to be saved in 2014 it is only Modi who can do that commendable feat.

What if Modi was not there as the CM when Godhra carnage took place? Wouldn't the carnage been swept under the carpet with the Congress' sense of perverted secularism prevailing in this accursed country? Nehru made a grievous blunder for his self-interest to keep the Congress in the saddle of power by bringing in secularism which means Muslims are a separate lot different from Hindus and no religious barricades can be enforced on them by the Constitution that in a way infringes on the very spirit of a modern Constitution. Worse it was made to believe that Muslims will never kill unless in retaliation let alone burn a train carrying innocent men, women and children. This was like the propaganda of Nehruvian socialists that a communist country will never attack any country unless to defend itself. Nehruvian secularism can easily be turned into fraud as his progenies have clearly demonstrated in demonising Modi who has worked hard to bring Gujarat to a level of prosperity without allowing the state from slipping into backwardness at the altar of quota politics.

Nehru's secularism is indeed a curse for India. It has created a fertile ground for Fifth Columnists to plan second dismemberment of India. Worse it has led the Congress to unite non-patriotic forces to help the dynasty to flourish and plunder the exchequer with impunity. Modi has seen to it all but his party chief morons who rule Delhi office are siding with the treacherous Congress which is bent upon setting the Maya cat among the nationalist pigeons by bringing in promotion quotas undermining the very basic structure of the Constitution. Congress is knowingly playing mischief with the Constitution by amending its basic structure through the 117th amendment. And Arun Jaitley is playing second fiddle to the Congress to rope in Dalit votes. Does this moron think Dalit votes will come pouring by shedding crocodile tears for the Dalit poor when it is the Dalit rich who will corner all the benefits? Is there any cure for this madness?

Modi knows it very well the way headless BJP is malfunctioning. There was clear indication that BJP sultans were not happy to give full credit to Modi's for his brilliant victory a third time. Seshadri Chari who is the pseudo spokesperson of the BJP gave sufficient hint that the victory was more of the Gujarat BJP rather than Modi.

Modi is definitely at the crossroads of India's destiny. If Indians can grab him making him the prime minister then there is some ray of hope. But the Congress Machiavellis are too strong to give way given their vast resources in both men and money. Will a decadent India, with its vast swathe of man-made poverty, rise above petty quota consideration in experiencing the joy of Narendra Modi as the PM? Sadly, only time will tell.

How Prophetic Churchill was !!!

 

 

1. TATAs took 100 years to become billionaires, Ambanis took 50 years(after utilizing all its resources), whereas Robert Vadra took less than 10 years to become fastest multi billionaire.
2. All newspapers are scared to discuss the story of Robert Vadra because of severe threat from Sonia Gandhi and Congress govt.
3. After Robert Vadra got married with Priyanka Gandhi, Robert's father committed suicide under mysterious circumstances, his brother found dead in his Delhi residence and his sister found dead in mysterious car accident. These reports were not published in any Indian media.
4. He is having stakes in Malls in premier locations of India, he is having stakes in DLF IPL, and DLF itself. He was involved in CWG corruption - DLF was responsible for development of Commonwealth games, and Kalmadi gave favouritism to DLS because of Robert Vadra's direct interest and business partnership with DLF.
5. Robert Vadra owns many Hilton Hotels including Hilton Gardens New Delhi
6. Robert Vadra's association with Kolkata Knight Ryders has never been reported by Indian media
7. He has 20% ownership in Unitech, Biggest beneficiaryownership of 2G Scam. Because of Robert's involvement in this scam, there are concerns that investigation would never reach decisive conclusion 

8. He owns prime property in India specially commercial hubs, and taxi business but for Air Taxi. He owns few private planes as well.
9. He has direct link with Italian businessman Quatrochi.

10. The Bureau of Civil Aviation Security has created a record of sorts by according special privilege to Robert Vadra, which entails him to walk in and out of any Indian airports without being subject to any security check. Only the President of India , Vice-President and a handful of other top dignitaries were accorded this rare distinction.

As a concerned citizen, I would like to know from the Government as to what was the special quality in Mr. Vadra that merited this rare Honor. The government has no right to go in for such largess that concerns with the security of the general public just for pleasing the son-in-law of Sonia Gandhi.

Skewed policies to blame for diesel hike

Monday, 17 September 2012 16:06

The weighted average price of Indian crude imports was approximately US$ 22 a barrel in 2001-02. A decade later in 2011-12 this was well in excess of US$ 110 – a 400% increase! Put differently, the US$ had significantly depreciated against crude oil – a fact that is lost on most debating the diesel price rise. That is not all. The Rupee was approximately Rs 48 to a US$ in 2001-02. Over the decade it has depreciated by close to 12%. Put pithily, the Indian consumer faces a double whammy when it comes to the diesel price increase – a massive depreciation of the US$ against crude oil and on top of it, a depreciation of the Rupee against the Dollar. Hence, in Rupee terms crude has increased close to 500% in the past decade. Nevertheless, the price of diesel to consumers in Chennai has increased from approximately Rs 20 in 2001-02 to a shade lower than Rs 50 now – an increase of a "whopping" 150%. Despite such massive hike in prices, the fact remains that it has mercifully not kept pace with the international prices of crude expressed in Rupee terms. Consequently, diesel has been substantially subsidised in domestic markets. The net effect – the subsidy only on account of diesel works out to Rs 29,000 crores for the first quarter ending June 2012 (well in excess of Rs 100,000 crores for the entire year). Surely, one will agree that this is becoming an unworkable proposition. It may not be out of place to mention that we allowed subsidised diesel to fuel our SUVs for our rich, when in fact we should have used this money for funding education, health and infrastructure. One way out was possibly to cut the excise duty (ED). But there is a catch – the ED on diesel works out to a mere Rs 2.06 per litre leaving very little headroom to manoeuvre. Let us also not forget that the petroleum sector is the largest revenue earner for the central government. Hence, any cut in ED could possibly be counter-productive. The increase in international price of crude is the outcome of the weakness of US$. One way out of the imbroglio is to facilitate Rupee appreciation against US$ to counter the US$ depreciation against crude oil. Inexplicably, Indian policy framers have been wedded to a weak Rupee without exploring any alternatives. And that is the crux of the issue. But a weak Rupee has its upsides. It encourages exports and some of us are beneficiaries of this policy. Secondly, it favours foreign investments into India. Marginal depreciation of the Rupee over the decade was a huge deterrent for foreign investors to exit India. Having entered when the Rupee was 45 to a US$, who would like to exit when the Rupee is 55? That implies a neat loss of Rs 10 for every dollar invested in India, irrespective of the profit or loss made by such investment. That is how, by a planned devaluation of the Rupee, RBI has protected the Indian stock markets. A government that often measures its performance through stock market indices is bound to genuflect in front of foreign investors. Higher diesel price is an outcome of such skewed economic policies where the government exists by the Sensex, for the Sensex and of the Sensex. In the process, if the common man has to pay a higher price for diesel to protect stock markets, the thinking in the government seems to be "so be it." http://www.deccanchronicle.com/editorial/op-ed/skewed-policies-blame-diesel-hike-045

From The Heart Of A Muslim

From The Heart Of A Muslim By Tawfik Hamid"I am a Muslim by faith, a Christian by spirit, a Jew by heart, and above all I am a human being." ~ Dr. Tawfik Hamid.Dr. Hamid is an Egyptian scholar and author of the article. The world needs more people like him---ones who have the courage to face-up to reality. I was born a Muslim and lived all my life as a follower of Islam.  After the barbaric terrorist attacks done by the hands of my fellow Muslims everywhere on this globe, and after the too many violent acts by Islamists in many parts of the world, I feel responsible as a Muslim and as a human being to speak out and tell the truth to protect the world and Muslims as well from a coming catastrophe and war of civilizations. I have to admit that our current Islamic teaching creates violence and hatred toward non-Muslims. We Muslims are the ones who need to change. Until now we have accepted polygamy, the beating of women by men, and killing those who convert from Islam to other religions. We have never had a clear and strong stand against the concept of slavery or wars, to spread our religion and to subjugate others to Islam and force them to pay a humiliating tax called jizia. We ask others to respect our religion while all the time we curse non-Muslims loudly (in Arabic) in our Friday prayers in the mosques. What message do we convey to our children when we call the Jews "descendants of the pigs and monkeys"? [Yet, both Arabs and Jews are descendants of Ibrahim (Abraham)!] Is this a message of love and peace, or a message of hate? I have been into [Christian] churches and [Jewish] synagogues where they were praying for Muslims. While all the time, we curse them, and teach our generations to call them "infidels", and to hate them. We immediately jump in a 'knee jerk reflex' to defend Prophet Mohammad when someone accuses him of being a pedophile while, at the same time, we are proud with the story in our Islamic books that he married a young girl seven years old [Aisha]when he was above 50 years old. I am sad to say that many, if not most of us, rejoiced in happiness after September 11th and after many other terror attacks. Muslims denounce these attacks to look good in front of the media, but we condone the Islamic terrorists and sympathise with their cause. Until now our 'reputable' top religious authorities have never issued a fatwa or religious statement to proclaim Bin Laden as an apostate, while an author, like Rushdie, was declared an apostate who should be killed according to Islamic Shari'a law just for writing a book criticizing Islam. Muslims demonstrated to get more religious rights as we did in France to stop the ban on the hijab (head scarf), while we did not demonstrate with such passion and in such numbers against the terrorist murders. It is our abs olute silence against the terrorists that gives the energy to these terrorists to continue doing their evil acts. We Muslims need to stop blaming our problems on others or on the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. As a matter of honesty, Israel is the only light of democracy, civilization, and human rights in the whole Middle East. We kicked out the Jews with no compensation or mercy from most of the Arab countries to make them "Jews-free countries" while Israel accepted more than a million Arabs to live there, have their own nationality, and enjoy their rights as human beings. In Israel, women cannot be beaten legally by men, and any person can change his/her belief system with no fear of being killed by the Islamic law of 'apostasy,' while in our Islamic world people do not enjoy any of these rights. I agree that the 'Palestinians' suffer, but they suffer because of their corrupt leaders and not because of Israel.  It is not common to see Arabs who live in Israel leaving to live in the Arab world. On the other hand, we used to see thousands of Palestinians going to work with happiness in Israel, its 'enemy.' If Israel treats Arabs badly as some people claim, surely we would have seen the opposite happening. We Muslims need to admit our problems and face them. Only then we can treat them and start a new era to live in harmony with human mankind. Our religious leaders have to show a clear and very strong stand against polygamy, pedophilia, slavery, killing those who convert from Islam to other religions, beating of women by men, and declaring wars on non-Muslims to spread Islam. Then, and only then, do we have the right to ask others to respect our religion. The time has come to stop our hypocrisy and say it openly: 'We Muslims have to change.'