The Hindu Art of Self Hate

The Hindu Art of Self Hate



By: Shachi Rairikar January 22, 2005(The author is a Chartered Accountant working in a software company in Indore, MP, India and manage www.indpride.com)The Hindu talent for self-condemnation does not find a parallel anywhere in the world. The art of self-hate is what the Hindus have mastered in during the latter half of the last century. The politicians, media, so-called secularists, intellectuals, human-rights activists who never tire condemning Hindus are themselves Hindus. The greatest enemies of the Hindus today are the Hindus themselves.Understanding the Hindu mind is not difficult. Let us try and analyse our mentality - the Hindu mentality. Whenever there is a problem with some other community, which is harming the Hindus, how do we address the problem? We have two options – we acknowledge the problem and take action for its resolution or we do not acknowledge the problem. What if we acknowledge this problem? – We will have to take steps to resolve it, interact with the other community in question; there might be confrontation and agitation; we will have to “fight”. What if we do not acknowledge the problem at all. Nothing happens – no confrontation, no agitation, no “fight”. The adverse effects of the problem can be tolerated – after all, it is easier to tolerate than to fight. What if grave consequences will have to be faced in the years to come? At the moment we are comfortable with few adjustments and compromises, so why worry about the future? Who cares if to make today more comfortable we make tomorrow bleak?How do we address the problem then? The easier course of actions is to blame our own people for being communal, narrow-minded fundamentalists. After all, it is much easier to confront the Hindus as they are less aggressive and less violent. Fighting the real enemy would require a lot of courage so we choose to make the enemy look saintly and turn against our own people. We find faults with our own people rather than addressing those who are actually at the crux of the problem. So our politicians, media and the so called secularists and intellectuals call the Hindus communal and fundamentalists, responsible for rioting but never have the courage to criticize the Jehadi terrorists; and the human rights activists agitate for the human rights of the terrorists, never caring for the human rights of the victims of terrorism.So we don’t acknowledge that the rising Muslim population is a threat to the integrity of our country and to the very existence of the Hindu civilization. What if we have faced a vivisection of our Motherland when the Muslim population became one third of the country’s population? What if the only Muslim majority state Kashmir saw the driving away of the Hindu minority from their homeland? That is history and we Hindus have an excellent record of not learning anything from history. Even though the current trends and figures clearly reveal that we are heading towards a second partition, our intellectuals and media refuse to acknowledge this. Instead, they are criticizing our people who conducted demographic studies on the basis of religion. They find census figures on the basis of religion completely irrelevant and uncalled for in a “secular” country like India. The larger threat facing the country becomes a non-issue whereas whether religious demographics should be studied as a principle or the technical errors like the publication of wrong data on the first day become the issue. The idea is to take the attention away from the larger issues and focus on the non-issues, so that we don’t have to address the real issues. To address the real issue we will need to talk to our Muslim community, persuade them to go against Islam and practise family planning, persuade them to not shelter but report the illegal Bangladeshi immigrants staying in their colonies, we will need to confront and “fight”. We quietly look for an escape route, don’t acknowledge that the problem exists and condemn those who perceive it, then there is no confrontation and we need not “fight”. Thus, when Uma Bharati gets arrested for hoisting the national flag on “disputed ground”, we do not question how and why a ground became “disputed” for hoisting the national flag, we do not question the loyalty of the community whose “sentiments” get “hurt” by the hoisting of the national flag, instead we blame her for indulging in communal politics and criticize her for using the national flag to play with the sentiments of the people. When the Shankaracharya gets arrested on the charges of murder, we do not see the conspiracy and evil motive behind it, instead we start doubting his innocence and character and start discussing “equality before the law”. When riots break out in the aftermath of Godhra, we condemn the rioters as communal fundamentalists but do not say a word to those who started it all by torching a train full of Hindus. Instead we conduct an enquiry to prove that the Hindus had themselves deliberately started the fire in order to have justified grounds to riot.Thus, we cannot perceive a threat to the country’s integrity from illegal Bangladeshi immigrants, we cannot acknowledge that the terrorism faced in India and throughout the world is Islamic terrorism, we cannot see the merits of teaching the real history of the atrocities of the Muslim invaders, we cannot change the British education system, we cannot regulate the madrasas which breed terrorism, we cannot ban the missionaries who defame our religion and convert our tribals by unethical means and methods, we cannot feel pride in rebuilding our demolished temples, we cannot call India what it truly is – a Hindu Nation.Thus, we condemn our own people who talk of driving away the Bangladeshis staying illegally in our country, we call our people who implement laws against terrorism communal, we call the teaching of the true history of India as “right-wing” history, we call the teaching of Vedic mathematics and astrology as “saffronisation” of education, we believe that the missionaries are doing great services for our tribals, we find the re-building of demolished temples a wasteful effort to dig up the past, we call India what it officially is - a secular country. If we acknowledge all these problems, we will have to work towards their solution. The cowardly, escapist Hindu mentality refuses to acknowledge the problem, so the question of working towards a solution does not arise. We do this under the pretext of Hinduism being secular, peace-loving and non-violent, but we accept and practise only those aspects of Hinduism which suit us. Hindus spend time, money and energy in performing poojas, yagyas, Bhagwat path, visiting swamis and babas but when it comes to practicing the real philosophies of the Vedas and the Bhagwat Geeta, we back out. We have forgotten the teachings of the Bhagwat Geeta which asks us to fight against the wrong – adharma. We are using the tolerant and secular mask to hide our incapacity. We have tampered and moulded the doctrine of ahimsa or non-violence to camouflage our inaction. Not protesting against violence is in fact supporting and encouraging more violence, which is a greater sin. What we are resorting to today is not tolerance, secularism or non-violence but cowardice. Mahatma Gandhi had once said, “My own experiences but confirm the opinion that the Mussalman as a rule is a bully, and the Hindu is a coward; where there are cowards there will always be bullies.” Even this great apostle of peace and ahimsa had said, “I do believe that where there is only a choice between cowardice and violence I would advise violence ... but non-violence is infinitely superior to violence.”The ostrich mentality of the Hindus does not help make Bharat a better place to live in. Rather it endangers the very existence of the Hindu civilization. Turning a blind eye to our problems will not solve the problems, instead it will only aggravate them. Nehruvian secularism has already left us with a legacy of complications and it would be sad if our successors were to inherit more. Playing the blind man’s bluff is leading us to disaster. It is high time we call a spade a spade, “fight” the real enemies or else it will be too late.

It is time we pay heed to what Lord Krishna told Arjun:“Klaibyam maa sma gamah Paarth naitatvayyupapadyateyKshudram hridaya daurbalyam tyaktovttishta Parantapa”

“O Arjun! Yield not to unmanliness for such an attitude is not worthy of you. Casting aside your weakness of mind, therefore arise, O scorcher of enemies, and get ready for the battle.”

Shachi Rairikar

Source : http://www.indiacause.com

Nehru Dynasty - The dynasty that ruined India

Nehru Dynasty - The dynasty that ruined india

Nehru-Khan-Gandhi Dynasty:

Jawaharlal Nehru was the first prime minister of modern India, and he ruled the country from 1947 to 1964. He was born on 14th November 1889, to Motilal and Swarup Rani Nehru. The family belonged to a Kashmiri Brahmin tribe called ‘Pandit.’

Indira Gandhi, daughter of Jawaharlal Nehru, became prime minister of India in 1966. Mrs. Gandhi was born on November 19, 1917 to Jawaharlal and Kamala Nehru. She was named Indira Priyadarshini Nehru. She fell in love and decided to marry Feroze Khan, a family friend. Feroze Khan’s father, Nawab Khan, was a Muslim, and mother was a Persian Muslim. Jawaharlal Nehru did not approve of the inter-caste marriage for political reasons (see http://www.asiasource.org/society/indiragandhi.cfm). At this juncture,

• According to one story, Mahatma Gandhi intervened and adopted Feroze Khan, gave him his last name (family name/caste name) and got the name of Feroz Khan changed to Feroz Gandhi by an affidavit in England. Thus, Feroze Khan became Feroze Gandhi. Though Mahatma belonged to Bania/Gandhi caste (a business tribe) the proposal was acceptable to Nehru for political reasons. Indira Nehru married Feroze (Khan) Gandhi in 1942 and became Indira Gandhi, which helped her politically as daughter of Nehru (the first Prime Minister of the Indian Union) and daughter–in-law of Gandhi (the father of the nation) securing her place in the future Nehru-Gandhi dynasty (based on swordoftruth.com).
• Another story, is that Feroz had a Parsi mother whose surname was "GHANDY" not "GANDHI". That was made clear by an advertisement in a major English newspaper of Allahabad. It was Mahatma Gandhi who suggested to Nehru that Feroze's surname be spelt as "GANDHI" instead of the original "GHANDY".

Rajiv (Khan) Gandhi was born to Indira (Khan) Gandhi and Feroze (Khan) Gandhi. He converted to Christianity to marry Catholic Italian Sonia Miano (according to swordoftruth.com). He became prime minister in 1984 after Indira was assassinated by her own bodyguards. He ruled the country for 5 years from 1984 to 1989. The Nehru- (Khan)-Gandhi dynasty ended as Sonia, declined to accept the power, after Rajiv was assassinated in 1991. (The non-charismatic non-leaders of Congress (I) party handed over the reins of the party to reluctant Sonia, who now leads the Congress party and soon will lead the Indian Union).


The Nehru-Khan-Gandhi dynasty and the veneration and worship of Catholic Italian Sonia Miano (Khan) Gandhi by the Congress party as well as Indian (both Hindus and Muslims) masses throughout India can be considered as great examples of Indian secularism.


The Nehru-Khan-Gandhi dynasty, revived by Sonia Gandhi, swept back to power with vengeance in 2004 elections after a brief vacation of about 15 years. Sonia Gandhi, who was born in Italy and married into the dynasty, begged her husband to stay out of politics and was drawn into it herself only when the party was in dire need of leadership. A new generation of Gandhis arrives to save ailing party from disaster at the polls. Sonia Gandhi (55) inducted her son Rahul (34) and daghter Priyanka (33) into politics and they actively participated and won in the recent elections. A calcified, out-of-touch, visionless and nepotistic dynasty is poised once again to lead and the dynasty rule continues in the world's largest democracy, albeit with fresh and young Indo-Italian genes having Brahmin-Christian-Muslim-Parsi blood with charming faces and charisma which no other Indian can claim. Sonia Gandhi's rise from a small-town in postwar Italy to modern India is a story of love, death and dynasty, culminating in the most sensational victory of an Italian middle class woman ever to become the kingmaker in the Indian Union of a billion people. She will run the country from behind scenes as she installs Manmohan Singh as the Prime Minister of the Indian Union, to avert a brewing foreigner-crisis and save the country.


The Nehru Family
At the very beginning of his book, "The Nehru Dynasty", astrologer K. N. Rao mentions the names of Jawahar Lal's father and grandfather.Jawahar Lal's father was believed to be Moti Lal and Moti Lal's father was one Gangadhar Nehru. And we all know that Jawahar Lal's only daughter was Indira Priyadarshini Nehru; Kamala Nehru was her mother, who died in Switzerland of tuberculosis. She was totally against Indira's proposed marriage with Feroze. Why? No one tells us that !Now, who is this Feroze? We are told by many that he was the son of the family grocer. The grocer supplied wines, etc. to Anand Bhavan,previously known as Ishrat Manzil, which once belonged to a Muslim lawyer named Mobarak Ali. Moti Lal was earlier an employee of Mobarak Ali. What was the family grocer's name? One frequently hears that Rajiv Gandhi's grandfather was Pandit Nehru. But then we all know that everyone has two grandfathers, the paternal and the maternal grandfathers. In fact, the paternal grandfather is deemed to be the more important grandfather in most societies. Why is it then no where we find Rajiv Gandhi's paternal grandfather's name? It appears that the reason is simply this. Rajiv Gandhi's paternal grandfather was a Muslim gentleman from the Junagadh area of Gujarat.This Muslim grocer by the name of Nawab Khan, had married a Parsi woman after converting her to Islam. This is the source where from the myth of Rajiv being a Parsi was derived. Rajiv's father Feroze was Feroze Khan before he married Indira, against Kamala Nehru's wishes. Feroze's mother's family name was Ghandy, often associated with Parsis and this was changed to Gandhi, sometime before his wedding with Indira, by an affidavit.The fact of the matter is that (and this fact can be found in many writings) Indira was very lonely. Chased out of the Shantiniketan University by Guru Dev Rabindranath himself for misdeveanor, the lonely girl was all by herself, while father Jawahar was busy with politics, pretty women and illicit sex; the mother was in hospital.Feroze Khan, the grocer's son was then in England and he was quite sympathetic to Indira and soon enough she changed her religion, became a Muslim woman and married Feroze Khan in a London mosque. Nehru was not happy; Kamala was dead already or dying. The news of this marriage eventually reached Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi. Gandhi urgently called Nehru and practically ordered him to ask the young man to change his name from Khan to Gandhi. It had nothing to do with change of religion, from Islam to!Hinduism for instance. It was just a case of a change of name by an affidavit. And so Feroze Khan became Feroze Gandhi.The surprising thing is that the apostle of truth, the old man soon to be declared India's Mahatma and the 'Father of the Nation' didn't mention this game of his in the famous book, 'My Experiments with Truth'. Why? When they returned to India, a mock 'Vedic marriage' was instituted for public consumption.On this subject, writes M. O. Mathai (a longtime private secretary of Nehru) in his renowned (but now suppressed by the GOI) 'Reminiscences of the Nehru Age' on page 94, second paragraph: "For some inexplicable reason, Nehru allowed the marriage to be performed according to Vedic rites in 1942. An inter-religious and inter-caste marriage under Vedic rites at that time was not valid in law. To be legal, it had to be a civil marriage. It's a known fact that after Rajiv's birth Indira and Feroze lived separately, but they were not divorced. Feroze used to harass Nehru frequently for money and also interfere in Nehru's political activities. Nehru got fed up and left instructions not to allow him into the Prime Minister's residence Trimurthi Bhavan. Mathai writes that the death of Feroze came as a relief to Nehru and Indira. The death of Feroze in 1960 before he could consolidate his own political forces, is itself a mystery. Feroze had even planned to remarry. Those who try to keep tabs on our leaders in spite of all the suppressions and deliberate misinformation, are aware of the fact that the second son of Indira (Mrs. Feroze Khan) known as Sanjay Gandhi was not the son of Feroze.Sanjay was the son of another Moslem gentleman, Mohammad Yunus. Here, in passing, we might mention that the second son was originally named Sanjiv. It rhymed with Rajiv, the elder brother's name. It was changed to Sanjay when he was arrested by the British police in England and his passport impounded, for having stolen a car. Krishna Menon was then India's High Commissioner in London. He offered to issue another passport to the felon who changed his name to Sanjay. Incidentally, Sanjay's marriage with the Sikh girl Menaka (for Indira Gandhi found the name of Lord Indra's court dancer rather offensive!) took place quite surprisingly in Mohammad Yunus' house in New Delhi. And the marriage with Menaka who was a model (she had modelled for Bombay Dyeing wearing just a towel) was not so ordinary either.Sanjay was notorious in getting unwed young women pregnant. Menaka too was! rendered pregnant by Sanjay. It was then that her father, Colonel Anand, threatened Sanjay with dire consequences if he did not marry her daughter. And that did the trick. Sanjay married Menaka. It was widely reported in Delhi at the time that Mohammad Yunus was unhappy at the marriage of Sanjay with Menaka; apparently he had wanted to get him married with a Muslim girl of his choice. It was Mohammad Yunus who cried the most when Sanjay died in the plane accident. In Yunus' book, 'Persons, Passions & Politics' one discovers that baby Sanjay had been circumcised following Islamic custom, although the reason stated was phimosis. It was always believed that Sanjay used to blackmail Indira Gandhi and due to this she used to turn a blind eye when Sanjay Gandhi started to run the country as though it were his personal fiefdom. Was he black mailing her with the secret of who his real father was? When the news of Sanjay's death reached Indira Gandhi, the first thing she wanted to know was about the bunch of keys which Sanjay had with him. Nehru was no less a player in producing bastards. At least one case is very graphically described by M. O. Mathai in his "Reminiscences of the Nehru Age", page 206. Mathai writes: "In the autumn of 1948 (India became free in 1947 and a great deal of work needed to be done) a young woman from Benares arrived in New Delhi as a sanyasin named Shraddha Mata (an assumed and not a real name). She was a Sanskrit scholar well versed in the ancient Indian scriptures and mythology. People, including MPs, thronged to her to hear her discourses. One day S. D. Upadhyaya, Nehru's old employee, brought a letter in Hindi from Shraddha Mata. Nehru gave her an interview in the PM's house! .. As she departed, I noticed (Mathai is speaking here) that she was young, shapely and beautiful. Meetings with her became rather frequent, mostly after Nehru finished his work at night. During one of Nehru's visits to Lucknow, Shraddha Mata turned up there, and Upadhyaya brought a letter from her as usual. Nehru sent her the reply; and she visited Nehru at midnight..."Suddenly Shraddha Mata disappeared. In November 1949 a convent in Bangalore sent a decent looking person to Delhi with a bundle of letters. He said that a young woman from northern India arrived at the convent a few months ago and gave birth to a baby boy. She refused to divulge her name or give any particulars about herself. She left the convent as soon as she was well enough to move out but left the child behind. She however forgot to take with her a small cloth bundle in which, among other things, several letters in Hindi were found. The Mother Superior, who was a foreigner, had the letters examined and was told they were from the Prime Minister. The person who brought the letters surrendered them... "I (Mathai) made discreet inquiries repeatedly about the boy but failed to get a clue about his whereabouts. Convents in such matters are extremely tightlipped and secretive. Had I succeeded in locating the boy, I would have adopted him. He must have grown up as a Catholic Christian blissfully ignorant of who his father was."Coming back to Rajiv Gandhi, we all know now that he changed his so called Parsi religion to become a Catholic to marry Sania Maino of Turin, Italy. Rajiv became Roberto. His daughter's name is Bianca and son's name is Raul. Quite cleverly the same names are presented to the people of India as Priyanka and Rahul.! What is amazing is the extent of our people's ignorance in such matters.The press conference that Rajiv Gandhi gave in London after taking over as prime minister of India was very informative. In this press conference, Rajiv boasted that he was NOT a Hindu but a Parsi. Mind you, speaking of the Parsi religion, he had no Parsi ancestor at all. His grandmother (father's mother) had turned Muslim after having abandoned the Parsi religion to marry Nawab Khan. It is the western press that waged a blitz of misinformation on behalf of Rajiv. From the New York Times to the Los Angeles Times and the Washington Post, the big guns raised Rajiv to heaven. The children's encyclopedias recorded that Rajiv was a qualified Mechanical Engineer from the revered University of Cambridge. No doubt US kids are among the most misinformed in the world today! The reality is that in all three years of his tenure at that University Rajiv had not passed a single examination. He had therefore to leave Cambridge without a certificate.Sonia too had the same benevolent treatment. She was stated to be a student in Cambridge. Such a description is calculated to mislead Indians. She was a student in Cambridge all right but not of the University of Cambridge but of one of those fly by night language schools where foreign students come to learn English. Sonia was working as an 'au pair' girl in Cambridge and trying to learn English at the same time. And surprise of surprises, Rajiv was even cremated as per vedic rites in full view of India's public. This is the Nehru dynasty that India worships and now an Italian leads a prestigious national party because of just one qualification being married into the Nehru family. !

source : http://www.nehrufamily.com/nehrudynasty.php