Struggle for Hindu Existence

*Hindu Rights to Survive with Dignity & Sovereignty *Join Hindu Freedom Movement to make Bharat Hindu Rashtra within 2025 *Jai Shri Ram *Jayatu Jayatu Hindu Rashtram *Editor: Upananda Brahmachari.

Hypocrite Hindu Secularists never mind to rape Hindu Sentiments, promote Islamic Fanaticism.

India’s dubious Secularists.

S Gurumurthy || eXpress buzz.

Maqbool Fida Husain and Salman Rushdie are a telling comparison and contrast to capture the true character of secular India. Both are Muslims by birth. Both were born in colonial India’s Bombay Presidency. Husain, some 32 years when Rushdie was a child, died last year. Husain was an artist. Rushdie is a writer. Both had become famous, globally — Husain through his paintings and Rushdie through his writings. Husain lived all his life in India before he exiled and became a Qatari in 2006. But Rushdie lives in the UK as a British citizen. While Rushdie excited the highly sensitive Muslims to turn against him, Husain managed to irritate the not-so-sensitive Hindus. Take Husain first.

This is how Husain annoyed the soft Hindus. He used his fertile imagination and painting skills to undress all well-dressed Hindu gods, goddesses, depict them naked and used his popularity to market them. He drew a naked Goddess Lakshmi sitting on Lord Ganesha’s head. He painted Durga in sexual union with a tiger. He portrayed a naked Goddess Saraswati holding a veena. He painted a naked Parvati with her son Ganesha. He depicted a naked Hanuman, seeing a naked Sita sitting on the thigh of naked Ravana. He painted a naked Bharatmata twice — once in the shape of India with names of the states of India on her naked body, alongside a naked sadhu in the Bay of Bengal. But his art on Muslims was a telling contrast. He drew a fully clad Muslim king alongside a naked Brahmin. He completely covered, even with purdah, the Muslim women he drew, which of course included his mother and daughter. He fully attired the Muslim poets he painted.

Some Hindus, who saw his perverted art demeaning the Hindu divinities, began protesting at his exhibitions and filing criminal cases. Seeing mounting protests and cases, Husain moved out of India. The government of India, judiciary, political parties and, of course, the media, all rushed to defend Husain’s right to freedom — his right to offend Hindus and demean their gods. There were protests against Husain. But no one issued an order to kill him. No one was injured, no one was hurt and none was killed. Yet, the protests were labelled by ‘seculars’ as ‘saffron terror’.

Now come to Rushdie, a contrast. His life is living hell since he wrote his controversial book The Satanic Verses. Though living, he has, by now, died a million times since February 4, 1989 when Ayatollah Khomeini issued a fiat (fatwa) to Muslims to kill him. But, why should Khomeini order the killing of a fellow Muslim? With almost a generation gone since 1988 when Rushdie wrote the infamous book, it is time to recall some history. Rushdie’s book was about a disputed tradition in Islam. According to it, Mohammed (depicted in Rushdie’s book as Mahound) had first added three verses (Sura) in the Quran, accepting three goddesses that used to be worshipped in Mecca as divine beings, but later revoked the verses saying that Devil (Satan) had tempted him to utter the verses to appease the Meccans — so the title ‘Satanic Verses’ for the disputed verses. The Rushdie book set off violent reaction from Muslims.

Mustafa Mahmoud Mazeh blew himself up in a central London hotel while making a bomb intended to kill Rushdie in 1989. Hitoshi Igarashi, the Japanese translator of Rushdie’s book was stabbed to death in July 1991. Ettore Capriolo, the Italian translator, was stabbed and seriously injured in the same month. And Aziz Nesin, the Turkish language translator, was the target in the events that led to massacre of 37 people in July 1993. William Nygaard, a Norway publisher, was almost killed in Oslo in October 1993. In Belgium, two Muslim leaders who had opposed Khomeini’s ‘Kill Rushdie’ fiat, were killed. Two bookstores in California, and five in England, were fire-bombed. Twelve people died during rioting in Mumbai. This list does not exhaust the violence.

Starting from then and till now, Rushdie has been hitting headlines for the wrong reasons. Now again Rushdie is in the news. Rushdie had been invited to the Jaipur Literature Festival 2012, Asia’s largest, a week back. Muslims threatened agitations and Rushdie’s presence would have meant violence. So the Indian Intelligence Bureau invented an input saying that four hired assassins were roaming around to kill Rushdie. This was proved fake, calculated to prevent Rushdie from coming to India. The four participants who had read out from The Satanic Verses at the meet ran away from India to escape arrest. William Dalrymple, the festival director, got death threats. Finally, Rushdie’s video address to the Jaipur festival was dropped as, according to organisers, it risked the lives of the participants from the Muslim protesters outside.

The contrast is self-evident. Rushdie, who just wrote about a disputed tradition in Islam, was hounded for decades and is on a death threat even now, and people who had nothing to do with either the book or Rushdie have been butchered. Even today the fear of slaughter in his name haunts the world, as the Jaipur meet shows. But, all that Husain, who, in the name of freedom hurt the Hindus — “considered as the gentlest and most civilised on the earth” according to Mahatma Gandhi — faced were normal protests. The protests by Hindus against Husain were ant-bite compared to the scale of violence against Rushdie’s book, even though the hurt to the Hindu sentiments by the perverted paintings of Husain were explicit and undeniably monumental. But what is distressingly shameful is the politics of contrast. See how the secular media, parties, leaders and state glorified Husain’s right to abuse Hindu gods and goddesses to wound Hindus and how the same secular actors repeatedly decried Rushdie’s similar right to hurt Muslims. Now something even more shameful. The ‘seculars’, including the media, had ceaselessly condemned the normal protests against shows displaying Husain’s painting and pontificated to Hindus about the need for tolerance. But they wouldn’t utter a word against the violence by Muslims nor ask them to be tolerant. The reason is obvious. They are dishonest.

Muslims rightly felt offended by Rushdie’s reckless literary work. And Hindus were justly hurt by Husain’s perverted art. Muslims, highly excitable, however reacted violently. Instead of holding both Rushdie and Husain wrong, the seculars faulted Rushdie and praised Husain. Why? Because, being insensitive to Hindus and pretending to be sensitive to Muslims is enough to make one secular. QED: Such secularism is perversion — and a dangerous one.

 S Gurumurthy is a well-known commentator on political and economic issues.

E-mail: || Courtesy : eXpress buzz.

2 comments on “Hypocrite Hindu Secularists never mind to rape Hindu Sentiments, promote Islamic Fanaticism.

  1. yogeshsaxenash
    February 2, 2012

    MATTER – 1.
    A distinguished historian once said, great civilisations do not die, but they can commit suicide. India, a nation and a civilisation, seems bent on taking this perilous path to ruin. Nothing else can explain the morbid determination with which the ruling Congress-led dispensation has set out to humiliate and destroy the Indian Army, the most vital institution for the country’s defence and security in an increasingly turbulent age.

    Pig-headed acts of omission and commission by a few individuals concerned only with their petty egos and illicit calculations of gain or prestige are playing with the honour of the Army Chief, the nation’s preeminent soldier and an officer of sterling quality.

    The entirely contrived controversy over the date of birth of Gen. Vijay Kumar Singh is little more than a clerical error that a previous Army Chief decided to exploit to create a ‘line of succession’ of his choice – though he had no legal or moral right to create such a chain of succession. The issue should have been sorted out by his successor, but he was upset over the current incumbent’s non-compromising attitude towards corruption in the ranks!

    That is why the issue finally landed in the corridors of the Ministry of Defence, which promptly proceeded to make a hash of it. Babus without accountability or conscience stirred the pot, but Defence Minister A.K. Anthony – who did nothing and passed the buck around to colleagues Pranab Mukherjee, P. Chidambaram and Salman Khurshid among others – took the cake when he told the media that the issue was the creation of the Indian Army itself!

    What for is he a Minister if he cannot untangle a non-binding error in a form, and reconcile the same with a wealth of legal documentation?

    Certainly Mr. Anthony must take full responsibility for the sudden receipt of an undated letter by Army Headquarters on 23 Jan 2012, from the Ministry of Defence.

    The letter is blatantly illegal, bad in law and intent, and is doubtless ab initio void. It is a hasty and clumsy attempt to ‘fix’ the legal record in favour of the Government, now that the General’s petition is being heard by the Supreme Court on Friday, 3 February 2012.

    Had the Union Law Ministry, or even the unimpressive Attorney General been consulted, they would have warned about the perils of sub-judice. But whom the gods destroy, the first drive mad…

    Thus, a bemused nation witnessed the spectacle of a deputy secretary in the Ministry of Defence, K.L. Nandwani, directing the Adjutant General (AG), the official record-keeper of the Indian Army, to ‘change’ its records and ensure that Gen Singh’s year of birth is recorded as 10 May 1950 [and not 10 May 1951 as recorded by a plethora of official documentation].

    Does this mean that the Adjutant General should make the desired changes in each and every document that records 10 May 1951 as Gen V.K. Singh’s date of birth, viz. – the Pune military hospital where he was born; his father’s military service record; school leaving certificate; NDA and IMA certificates; career records; decorations and awards from the Government of India … Is it a joke?

    But it seems the madmen at the MoD were serious, as the letter directs Army Headquarters to maintain ‘strict compliance’ with this order and send ‘a compliance report to the Ministry at the earliest’. So far, as the media has reported, compliance has been negative. And that is how it should be.

    Given the outrageousness of this order, some points deserve to be mentioned:

    – The concerned bureaucrat was too junior an officer to dare to send such a missive to an officer of the status of Adjutant General

    – Clearly the letter was an attempt to browbeat the AG’s office at the instance of Defence Minister A.K. Anthony

    – Even the Defence Secretary would not have taken the decision to have the letter issued without clearance from the Minister for fear of being exposed via an RTI query and hauled up in the courts

    – The Prime Minister has conducted himself once again as the blind king Dhritrashtra, who brought no glory to the House of Pandu and ultimately caused the demise of each of his hundred sons

    Any intervention by the Prime Minister or Defence Minister in the issue should have been on the side of justice and fair play. Thus, after examining the records maintained by the Adjutant General’s Branch, they should have directed the Military Secretary’s Branch to reconcile the age of Gen V.K. Singh with the Adjutant General Branch.

    For the truth is that there has never been an official discrepancy in Gen. Singh’s records. In an autobiographical essay written as a young cadet in his first term in the National Defence Academy (NDA), he stated, “I was born on 10th May, 1951, in Poona…” This was 1966.

    Simply stated, Gen. Singh was not seeking a change in his date of birth. What he wanted, when it became known that the Military Secretary Branch had maintained incorrect records, was reconciliation of dates and acceptance of 1951 as the correct year. And once he realised that vested interests wanted to maintain an incorrect date for improper reasons, it became a matter of personal honour to fight to establish the record once and for all in favour of 1951.

    One is curious to know how the MoD expects to defeat the formidable record – there is a letter from the commanding officer of the 14th battalion of Rajput Regiment, dated 3 Aug 1965, stating Vijay Singh’s date of birth, “maintained in (his) office is 10 May, 1951.” This is part of the service record of Major Jagat Singh, the General’s father. There is the Rajasthan state government’s Secondary School Board certificate which again records Gen Singh’s date of birth as May 10, 1951.

    When the UPA denies Gen Singh’s claims, it denies the veracity of documents furnished by his Army officer father; Commanding Officer of his father’s unit; Rajasthan Board of Education; all other educational records; and the Army’s official record keeper, the Adjutant General’s (AG) Branch. By law, what the AG’s Branch says about the personal and professional record of an army officer is supposed to be the last word.

    If such a contention is upheld by the courts, it will create havoc will legal records across the country, in all spheres of life. Indeed, this is why the Ministry of Law & Justice opined on 14 Feb 2011 that Gen. Singh’s “high school certificate has greater evidentiary value.” That this did not clinch matters shows that the rot has gone very deep in the UPA.

    An interesting but sharply divergent case that has come to light in recent times pertains to that of two brothers, both bureaucrats, who went on to head two paramilitary organizations almost at the same time. Raman Srivastava, IPS, Kerala cadre, 1973 batch, held several high profile posts including DGP Kerala, Special Secretary internal security Ministry of Home Affairs, and became Director General BSF on 1 Aug 2009.

    His younger brother Vikram Srivastava, IPS, Uttar Pradesh cadre, 1973 batch, became chief of ITBP and then CRPF. He is presently serving as chief of BPR&D.

    According to official records, the two brothers are born barely five months apart, from the same biological parents. As per records, Raman Srivastava was born on 24 Oct 1951, and Vikram Srivastava was born on 18 March 1952. These birth date records were maintained throughout the service of both brothers; Raman Srivastava retired on 31 Oct 2011 as DG BSF; Vikram Srivastava is set to retire on 31 March 2012.

    Attorney General Ghulam Vahanvati’s plea that the “line of succession” should not be disturbed is bogus because any succession must be decided as a consequence of retirement, and not a retirement date fixed to accommodate a successor.

    Yet this is what the date of birth controversy has boiled down to. Government appears to be looking for pliable officers who can be pressured to do the bidding of the powers that be without question. This bodes ill for the nation.

    The present Chief of Army Staff has on several occasions asserted his independent views and possibly made the Government uncomfortable.

    The nation will watch the unfolding drama in the Supreme Court with bated breath.

    MATTER – 2.

    AyodhyaPrasad: सम्पत्ति व पूँजी तो संविधानकेअनुच्छेद ३९(ग) के अनुसार सोनिया की है|
    दंप्रसंकीधारा१९७ तो जिन्होंने सम्पत्ति सोनिया को न देकर अपने पास रखी है, उसे उससे छीनने के लिए बनी है| राज्यपाल बनवारी, मुख्य मंत्री मायावती और पूर्व मुख्य मंत्री मुलायम का नम्बर भी जल्द आएगा|
    सबकी सम्पत्ति व पूँजी लूटने वाले संविधानकेअनुच्छेद ३९(ग) और संरक्षक दंप्रसंकीधारा१९७ को निरस्त क्यों नहीं करते?
    भेदभाव की जरूरत क्या है? मैकाले भगाइए| आर्यावर्त सरकार की गुरुकुल प्रणाली अपनाइए| सबको शिक्षा मुफ्त|
    मुख्य मंत्री मायावती और मुलायम को दंप्रसंकीधारा१९७ में संरक्षण दिलाने वाली सोनिया ही उप्र के विकास में बाधा है|
    ईसाइयत और इस्लाम पन्थ एवं सद्भावना द्रोही संस्कृतियां हैं| (बाइबल, लूका १९:२७) और (कुरान २:१९१).
    देशद्रोही मात्र हिन्दू है, जो न ईसा को राजा मानता है (बाइबल, लूका १९:२७) और न केवल अल्लाह की पूजा करता है (कुरान २:१९१)
    सम्पत्ति व पूँजी तो संविधानकेअनुच्छेद ३९(ग) के अनुसार सोनिया की है|
    दंप्रसंकीधारा१९७ तो जिन्होंने सम्पत्ति सोनिया को न देकर अपने पास रखी है, उसे उससे छीनने के लिए बनी है| राज्यपाल बनवारी, मुख्य मंत्री मायावती और पूर्व मुख्य मंत्री मुलायम का नम्बर भी जल्द आएगा|
    सबकी सम्पत्ति व पूँजी लूटने वाले संविधानकेअनुच्छेद ३९(ग) और संरक्षक दंप्रसंकीधारा१९७ को निरस्त क्यों नहीं करते?
    भेदभाव की जरूरत क्या है? मैकाले भगाइए| आर्यावर्त सरकार की गुरुकुल प्रणाली अपनाइए| सबको शिक्षा मुफ्त|
    मुख्य मंत्री मायावती और मुलायम को दंप्रसंकीधारा१९७ में संरक्षण दिलाने वाली सोनिया ही उप्र के विकास में बाधा है|
    ईसाइयत और इस्लाम पन्थ एवं सद्भावना द्रोही संस्कृतियां हैं| (बाइबल, लूका १९:२७) और (कुरान २:१९१).
    देशद्रोही मात्र हिन्दू है, जो न ईसा को राजा मानता है (बाइबल, लूका १९:२७) और न केवल अल्लाह की पूजा करता है (कुरान २:१९१)
    Sent at 06:30 on Thursday
    me: Musims Reservation Ki Khilafat Karne wale Parche HINDU JAGO ko Jabta Kar Thana Naka Hindola Me FIR tatha Balrampyur Sadar Thane Me Hindu Citizen Arrested
    Sent at 06:33 on Thursday
    AyodhyaPrasad: अजान लगाने वाले क्यों नहीं बंद होते?
    me: Yes Ab Thana Naka Hindola LUCKNOW me CHIEF Election Commissiner Y.D.QUARASHI tatha Salman Kursheed Law Minister Ke Dwara
    Sent at 06:35 on Thursday
    me: What Happened to Debate of Parliament when the Issue to Muslim Reservation as raised. It Is WorstThan Emergency.
    AyodhyaPrasad: आइये इस्लाम मिटायें
    Sent at 06:37 on Thursday
    me: Yes Asheema Nad Sadhwi, Conl Purohit and Major Upadhya Lingering On from Last 3 Years In MACOPA
    Sent at 06:38 on Thursday
    AyodhyaPrasad: हम ईसाइयत और इस्लाम को नहीं रहने देना चाहते
    me: Male Gao Blast Was carried By Daud Ibrahim Gang Man Just to Provoke Hindus 27 Passport Siezed But Released on Instruction Of CM Mulayam Singh . KASAB AND AFJHAL WERE PLANED BY SANIO MANIO OF TURIN
    AyodhyaPrasad: इसी कारण सोनिया आतंकित है
    Sent at 06:41 on Thursday
    me: Sania Gandhi Has Plundered this Nation What The Britishers have not Looted in 150 Years
    Sent at 06:42 on Thursday
    me: Hindu Will never Indicate Solidaririty Till It Will Be Too Late. What You Have Taken OutFrom D.K.Gupta Characterstics when He Invited toSukumar Guha
    AyodhyaPrasad: मैंने पहले भी लिखा है| फिर लिख रहा हूँ| मुझे सहयोगदे भाजपा. मैमायावतीको दंप्रसंकीधारा१९७ मेंमिला संरक्षणवापसकराऊंगा| मायावती जेल में होगी, संविधानकाअनुच्छेद ३९(ग), दंप्रसंकीधारा१९७ और सोनिया नंगे होंगे व उप्र बीजेपी की जेब में| मुझे तो हुतात्मा बिस्मिल के स्मारक की ३.३ एकड़ और अपनी १.८८ एकड़ भूमि वापस चाहिए|
    Sent at 06:44 on Thursday
    AyodhyaPrasad: गुहा जी को बुला कर तंग किया गया| जब तक सोनिया रहेगी हम खतरे में रहेंगे
    Sent at 06:47 on Thursday

    AyodhyaPrasad is offline. Messages you send will be delivered when AyodhyaPrasad comes online.


  2. Apollodorosh
    February 2, 2012

    It’s is truly appalling to see how the concept of “secularism”, which I fully endorse, is perverted and mutilated in this way by muslims and these “secular” Hindu’s in India. It is just ghastly.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Follow Struggle for Hindu Existence on

Blog Stats

  • 7,842,211 hits

Follow Struggle for Hindu Existence on

February 2012
%d bloggers like this: