Feeds:
Posts
Comments
Advertisements

Ram Temple In Ayodhya

From: Mohan Natarajan < >

DEAR ALL

           Ram Temple In Ayodhya

———————————————————

First, I quote a brilliant twitter

BABAR INVADED INDIA, DESTROYED THE RAM TEMPLE AND BUILT A WONDERFUL

HOSPITAL, OVER THE TEMPLE AND IT IS CALLED BABRI MASJID

who will oppose the building of Ram temple

  1. Congress – congress created a separate Muslim state. Mathai wrote that Nehru kept India for himself, gave Pakistan to his half-brother Jinnah and gave Kashmir to another of his half-brother – Sheik Abdullah. Dynasty is non-Hindu and it will never allow a RAM TEMPLE TO COME UP. Congress is living on appeasement of Muslims, taking Hindu votes for granted. If a Ram temple comes up, then BJP and Hindus’ stock will increase. SO ITALIAN CONGRESS WILL NEVER ALLOW A RAM TEMPLE.
  2. LEFT LOONIES WILL OPPOSE -WHAT CAN YOU EXPECT FROM THIS ANTI-HINDU, ANTI-INDIA, TRAITORS WHO WANTED THE BRITISH RULE TO CONTINUE, WHO SUPPORTS THE STONE BELTERS, WHO SUPPORTS AZADI FOR KASHMIR, ETC. commies will never allow a temple to come up.
  3. All our English educated seculars who have scorn for Hindus, Hinduism, Indians and the great heritage of our country. ENGLISH EDUCATED SICKULARS WILL NEVER ALLOW THE RAM TEMPLE TO COME UP
  4. MINORITY CONTROLLED, ANTI-HINDU, ANTI-INDIA MEDIA.

THE MEDIA WILL CRY – AYO, AYO, RAM TEMPLE IS COMING UP, BY DESTRUCTION OF MUSLIM MASJID. AYO AYO, SECULARISM IS GIVEN A GO BY. MINORITIES ARE NOT SAFE, HERITAGE IS NOT SAFE. HINDUS SHOULD GO, MODI SHOULD GO, BJP SHOULD GO, RSS SHOULD GO, PAKISTAN SHOULD COME, CHINA SHOULD COME ETC. THE MOST DANGEROUS ORGAN OF OUR COUNTRY.

ALL OF THEM KEPT QUIET WHEN 100 HINDU TEMPLES WERE DESTROYED IN KASHMIR. ALL OF THEM KEPT QUIET WHEN MORE THAN 1000 HINDU TEMPLES WERE DESTROYED IN PAKISTAN AND BANGLADESH. IN PAKISTAN, ONE SIVA TEMPLE IS BEING USED AS LOO BY THE PEACE-LOVING MUSLIMS.

I AM APPENDING BELOW A POSTING AS TO WHAT A MUSLIM ARCHAEOLOGIST SAYS

ABOUT BUILDING OF RAM TEMPLE IN THE BABRI SITE

http://www.dailyo.in/politics/ayodhya-ram-janmabhoomi-babri-masjid-leftists-historians-mathura-kashi-taj-mahal-vhp/story/1/8832.html

Muslims must return Ayodhya, Mathura and Kashi to Hindus

KK Muhammed

04 February 2016

I firmly believe that Muslims of India should voluntarily hand over the three disputed sites at Ayodhya, Mathura and Kashi to the Hindus.

As a token of compromise, the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) and others should not bargain for the 39,997 other sites.

I am not saying anything new.

I have maintained this for the past 40-odd years or so.

The Indian Express had even published my opinion in their “Letters to the editor” section on December 15, 1990, when I was serving as deputy superintendent archaeologist (Madras Circle).

I had written:

“I can reiterate this (the existence of a Hindu temple before it was displaced by the Babri mosque) with greater authority – for I was the only Muslim who had participated in the Ayodhya excavations in 1976-’77 under Prof BB Lal as a trainee. I have visited the excavation near the Babri site and seen the excavated pillar bases. The JNU historians have highlighted only one part of our findings while suppressing the others… Ayodhya is as holy to the Hindus as Mecca is to the Muslims; Muslims should respect the sentiments of their Hindu brethren and voluntarily hand over the structure for constructing the Ram Temple.”

By JNU historians, I meant the Leftist historians such as Irfan Habib, Romila Thapar, DN Jha, Bipin Chandra and RS Sharma who do not want to see a solution to the Ayodhya issue.

Till the Allahabad High Court judgment came out on September 30, 2010, these historians maintained that there was no temple beneath the Babri mosque.

I remember speaking to several Muslim groups who were negotiating with the Hindus at the time, and most of them were in favor of an amicable solution.

The matter could have ended if the Leftist historians had not brainwashed the Muslim stakeholders and prevented a breakthrough.

A section of the media today has quoted historians like KN Panikkar who have questioned the timing and intention of my book I, an Indian.

They have also accused me of serving the interests of the Sangh Parivar ahead of assembly elections in some states, including Kerala from where I hail.

I am deeply pained at this.

As I have said earlier, I have held this view for four decades.

I am not new to facing criticism and threats for my beliefs.

At different points in my career, I have not only faced a backlash from Leftist historians but also the radical Right, such as the VHP and Bajrang Dal, and powerful politicians like Madhya Pradesh chief minister Shivraj Singh Chauhan, for speaking the truth.

I have even successfully negotiated with dacoits like Nirbhay Gurjar and the Naxals of Chhattisgarh and Andhra Pradesh for the conservation of monuments.

When I was a superintending archaeologist of the Patna circle between 1997 and 2001, some Hindu fringe elements tried to encroach upon Sher Shah’s tomb in Sasaram.

After the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) failed to get any support from the local administration, we moved the Patna High Court and obtained a stay on the encroachment.

Syed Shahabuddin, the fiery Muslim leader who was associated with the Babri Masjid demolition case, wrote a letter to the then Union culture minister Ananth Kumar in 2000, praising the ASI’s initiative.

Similarly, in Agra, VHP and Bajrang Dal activists started extending a 20th century temple within 500m radius of the Taj Mahal when I was a superintending archaeologist of the Agra Circle between 2001 and 2003.

The ASI raised objections over their attempt.

The VHP activists attacked my office, broke all furniture.

I was fortunate to escape five minutes before the mob came.

In spite of the attack, I demolished the illegal structure.

In fact, I can clearly say that Hindu communalism is on the rise in India today because of Islamic fundamentalism.

Hindus and Muslims can still sit together today and reach a solution provided Leftist historians don’t interfere. They must show maturity now. Whatever has happened has happened.

(As told to Kumar Shakti Shekhar.)

————————————————————

RELATED PLEASE:

Former ASI official cries foul over Akbar’s Ibadat Khana facts

Kumar Chellappan

04 February 2016

An attempt by the Marxists to sabotage India’s history has been brought to light by an eminent archaeologist.

KK Mohammed, former regional director, Archaeological Survey of India has said that Prof Irfan Habib, a widely respected [or is it – reviled?] Marxist historian, tried to scuttle and sabotage the former’s research findings about Ibadat Khana (House of Worship), built in 1575 by Emperor Akbar.

It was a team of archaeologists led by Prof Mohammed who successfully and scientifically excavated the Ibadat Khana, situated between Fatehpur Sikri and Jodhabai Mahal in New Delhi and described it as a symbol of Akbar’s secularism.

Mohammed, who shot into international fame when he led Barack Obama, the US president who visited India in 2011 for a study tour to historical landmarks in New Delhi like Humayun’s Tomb, has come out with startling revelations about how a group of historians led by Prof Habib manipulated the historical research and excavations in the country.

“Prof Habib was bent upon destroying the research findings on Ibadat Khana, an internationally recognized prayer and debating hall built by Akbar,” Mohammed writes in his autobiography Njan Enna Bharatheeyan (Me, the Indian).

Mohammed also stands out in Indian society as the first devote Muslim who scientifically proved that the controversial Babri Masjid at Ayodhya was constructed over the ruins of a Ram temple.

The remnants of Ibadat Khana was excavated by Mohammed and his team under the overall guidance of Prof Khaliq Ahmed Nizami, the then head of the department of history and Prof RC Gaur of AMU.

Mohammed, then an assistant archaeologist in AMU was attracted by the writings on Ibadat Khana by historians from Persia and a 1605 painting by Nar Singh, a painter in the court of Akbar.

Ibadat Khana was built by Akbar to serve as a venue for colloquiums on spirituality and religions by scholars who frequented his court.

Some of the regulars in his court were Rodolfo Acqaviva and Francisco Henriques, two Jewish priests from the Europe.

Ibadat Khana was a subject on which Lord Tennyson wrote the poem Akbar’s Dreams.

Mohammed has given an exciting account of the excavation.

By the time the excavation was completed in 1984, Prof Habib was re-appointed as the HoD of history in AMU.

“I was summoned by Prof Habib to his chamber and ordered me to give in writing that what we excavated was not Ibadat Khana. I stood my ground and reminded Prof Habib that he was only a historian while I was an archaeologist,” said Mohammed.

Habib was taken aback by the confidence of Mohammed and gave up his efforts.

Mohammed said Habib’s animosity towards him began even as he applied for the post of a research scholar in AMU while the letter was the HoD.

“Prof Habib and his friends do not want anything which they dislike to happen in their domain. They use all kid of evil techniques to demolish and destroy the careers of students whom they do not like,” said Mohammed.

Prof MGS Narayanan, former chairman, Indian Council of Historical Research, who has written the foreword, said that a cartel of historians control the historical research in the country to further their vested interests.

“They will resort to any extreme measure to finish off people whom they do not like. Prof Habib favours people who sing paeans,” writes Prof Narayanan.

http://www.dailypioneer.com/nation/former-asi-official-cries-foul-over-akbars-ibadat-khana-facts.html

————————————–

‘Left historians misled Muslims’

Kavita Nair-Fondekar

04 February 2016

Many Marxist academics who swear by freedom of speech and tolerance to contrary viewpoints, have been most rigid and contemptuous when it comes to solid archaeological proof of a Ram temple’s existence at the disputed site in Ayodhya

Well-known archaeologist and former Regional Director of the Archaeological Survey of India, KK Muhammed, recently released his autobiography, Njan Enna Bharatiyan (I an Indian) in Kerala.

The initial revelations, which appeared in the media, proved to be controversial and thought-churning.

http://www.dailypioneer.com/columnists/oped/left-historians-misled-muslims.html

————————————–

TAILPIECE:

For their diligent efforts at ‘DISTORTING’ our history, the ‘Eminent Historians’ Irfan Habib and Romila Thapar were awarded the ‘PADMA BHUSHAN’ by the blundering Manmohan Singh Govt. in

2004!! Incredible India!!

 

On Islam to ISIS

From: Ronnie Mendonca < >

On Islam to ISIS

 

Dear ISIS,

 

I have been trying desperately to find ways in which your shocking behavior offends your own ‘religion of peace’ – but given all that you have done, and all that I have read in the Qur’an and the biographies of Muhammad, I cannot.

 

Your appalling actions are in accurate accordance with both your scripture and the exemplary example set by the perfect Muslim, Muhammad.  I’d like to say that severing the hands of thieves is a gross violation of your “peaceful” religious codes of conduct, but it isn’t (Qur’an 5:38-39, Sahih al-Bukhari 8:6789 & Sahih al-Muslim 3:4175-79).

 

I would have loved to have picked up the Qur’an and hadith and found passages therein that expressly forbade the raping of Muslim and non-Muslim women, but alas, I found that here again you were acting in strict concordance with your scripture (Qur’an 2:223, 4:3, 23:5-6 & Sahih al-Bukhari 1:367 & 5:522).

 

It would have made my day to read that no Muslim is allowed to cunningly and greedily extort non-Muslims for protection money in similitude to a criminal syndicate, however, once again, I found the opposite to be true (‘Jizya’: Qur’an 9:29, Sahih al-Muslim 19:4294).

 

To my utter dismay, I scanned the entire corpus of your most reliable Quranic commentaries and compared the teachings expounded upon therein to the atrocities you have committed, from driving out non-Muslims from Muslim lands (Sahih al-Muslim 19:4366 & Sahih al-Bukhari 3:531), the murdering of infidels (Qur’an 2:191), to the violent jihad you have undertaken (Qur’an 4:94 & Sahih al-Bukhari 2:1:35, etc., etc.,) – yet, each and every atrocious act you have enjoyed can be credited to the Quran and your religion’s most admired man, Muhammad.

 

For a brief moment I found relief in the more peaceful Meccan chapters and verses of the Qur’an, but such relief was rudely interrupted by the revelation that those chapters and verses have been abrogated by a tradition you refer to as ‘Na’skh’ (Qur’an 2:106 & 16:101) – and that the majority opinion amongst Islamic scholars on the matter dictates that the violent Medinan verses have nullified the more peaceful Meccan ones.

 

I read through the Sahih (most reliable) hadiths hoping to find a way in which I could turn your religion against you, but all I found was a wellspring of scriptural justification. Muhammad raped (teenage) female prisoners of war (Sahih al-Bukhari 1:367 & 5:522), he ordered the beheading of non-Muslims and those who criticized him (Ishaq: 675), and his ambitions, as were revealed to me by a careful reading of your sacred scripture, perfectly aligned with your own.

 

Given all I have found, I must regretfully concede that you are practicing your religion correctly.  In light of this concession, I no longer assign all of the blame to your violent and heinous organization – instead, I now reserve a large chunk of that blame for the religion which has provided you with your maniacal manifesto.

 

Sincerely,

 

Michael A. Sherlock

P.S. If you’d like to read more, click the link – ISIS Is Islam – Dawkins Foundation

(Comment: Islam provides no freedom of thought, speech and action. It kills all the human intelligence and characteristics from humans. – Skanda987@gmail.com; https://www.skanda987.wordpress.com )

 

The Dark Side of Sufism

From: Devinder Gulati < >

An essay showing the dark side of Sufism as practiced throughout history and why we must not uncritically swallo…

Contrary to the spiritual mission of Sufism, the cult was primarily introduced in India for spread of Islam with a view to help the Muslim rulers for political domination. By and large the spiritual successors of mystic Islamic saints enjoyed the royal favour of Muslim rulers and gave moral support to the atrocious Muslim invaders and looked other way to ignore the growing social conflict. They also guided the State in political affairs with their experience of regular interaction with common people.

The mission of Shaikh Sirhindi popularly know as Mujaddid was to purify Islam from the influence of Akbar with a view to counter his policy of “the Hindu wielding the sword of Islam” and “Peace with all”. Unhappy with the regime of Emperor Akbar for withdrawal of Jejia tax imposed on the Hindus, Sirhindi made hectic effort to purge Islam of all extraneous influences. He viewed Hindu mystics like Guru Nanak and Sant Kabir contemptible, as they did not follow Sharia.

With contempt against old schools of mysticism for tolerance, Sirhindi condemned the reign of Akbar for his ‘broadmindedness’ and policy of ‘peace with all’. Propagating against the contemporary socio-cultural situation Sirhindi, felt that the attitude of Akbar “sullied the purity of Islam and the political social and cultural life of Muslims” (History of Sufism in India by Saiyied Athar Abbas Rizvi, Volume 2, 1992, Page Page 212). During the closing years of Akbar reign, when his son Salim had revolted against him, Sirhindi spread the virus of communalism with some success “in the beginning of Jehangir’s reign”. He strongly criticised freedom of worship granted to the Hindus.  Hate-Hindu syndrome was so deep in him that “death of Akbar (1605) filled Shaikh Ahmad with hopes that the pristine purity of Islam would be implanted in India” (Sufism in India by Saiyied Athar Abbas Rizvi, Volume 2, 1992, Page 204). “Misguided and greedy Ulama, he (Sirhindi) believed, were responsible for the alleged downfall of Islam in Akbar’s regime” (Ibid. Page 365.)

With his strong contempt against Shia and the Hindus, Sirhind wrote several letters to the nobles in the court of Jehangir for guiding the emperor on the path of Shariat, and for removal of Qafirs (Shias and Hindus) from the administration. He was dead against any honourable status of Hindus in Islamic government. Sirhind wanted the religious freedom enjoyed by the Hindus during Akbar regime to be curbed. Enraged with his too much interference in administration, Jehangir imprisoned him in Gwalier (A History of Sufism in India by Saiyid Athar Abbas Rizvi, Vol. II, 1972, Page 178) but released him after one year. Sirhind not only “injected communal virus into the body politic of the country but also generated hatred, mutual distrust and discord among the various sections of Muslims”(Ibid. page XII). Despite this anti-Hindu tirade of Sirhindi, Maulana Abul Kalam Azad in 1919 eulogiged the role of Mujaddid (Sirhind),”who did not see eye to eye with the policy of state” (Ibid. Page215)
Iqbal was a known follower of Islamic mysticism of Qadiriyya order. He, synthesied the mystic ideology of Wali Ullah and the modern view on Islam of Sir Sayed Ahmad Khan and made his Islamic mystic approach completely subservient to political domination of the Muslims. Applying modern philosophy in his intellectual exploration of Sufism he gradually turned to an anti-Sufi philosopher. He said, “The present day Muslims prefer to roam about aimlessly in the dusty valleys of Hellenic -Persiam mysticism, which teaches us to shut our eyes to the hard reality around, and to fix our gaze on what it describes as ‘Illuminations’ a blue, red and yellow reality springing up from the cells of an overworked brain” (Sufis and anti-Sufis by Elizabeth Syrrieh, 1999). “Sufi shaikhs constituting a spiritual aristocracy, Iqbal appealed to Muslim youth to cast off the Sufi noose from their neck” (Ibid. Page133). For Iqbal Sufism was a formulation of Islamic Persianism. It was contrary to the purity of Arabic faith in its original version. His rejection of Sufism was influenced by Wahhabi movement of Saudi Arabia, which was more concerned with Islamic power following the decline of Muslim power in eighteenth century.
SUFISM IN INDIA: Its origin, history and politics. | South Asia Analysis Group
 

Rohingya Refugees – A Real National Security Threat

For Hindustan

By Gb Reddy < >

Rohingya refugee exodus from Myanmar and their illegal immigration into India through Bangladesh is ongoing and real. A Chinese source stated “It’s fair to say that Myanmar is a heaven for saints who rebel and a graveyard for those who govern.” At Monk’s behest, military crackdown is real.

Be that as it may, Rohingya refugee is certainly India’s emerging national security threat concern. De facto, India’s demographic equilibrium already stands upset during the past 70 years due to faulty Congress Party vote bank appeasement politics. From 8.9% Muslims as per 1951 census, officially at over 14% in 2011 and unofficially around 20% as per Owaisi brothers of Hyderabad, Telangana.

The Muslim firebrand leaders like Asaduddin Owaisi and his brother Akbaruddin, Badarruddin Ajmal, Azam Khan, UP, Zakir Nayik, Mumbai, Shahi Imam’s of Tippu Sultan Mosque, Kolkata and Delhi, among many others have been pouring jingoistic rhetoric against the Hindus.

For example, Asaduddin Owaisi as per media stated “Hindus shouldn’t make the mistake of considering Indian-Muslims any different from the Pakistan-Muslims. If India may dare to attack Pakistan, then 25 crore Indian-Muslims will join Pakistan Forces and fight against India. And, he talks of compassion to be shown to Rohingya Muslim refugees.

So also, Maulana Badarruddin Ajmal, AIUDF, Assam stated “Hindus do not have any rights to vote in Arab, Pakistan or anyone of the 56 Islamic Nations. I challenge: has even a single Hindu the strength (guts) to impose restrictions on our voting rights in India?”

Khaleda Zia, Bangladesh National Party stated “I regret the continuing massacre of Hindus and Buddhists in Bangladesh, but Bangladesh is an Islamic Nation and not Secular. Under the circumstances, if Hindus and Buddhists want to live safely, they should either convert to Islam or go to India.”

Let me highlight the growth of Muslim population in West Bengal and Assam. From 19.85% as per 1951 Census, Muslim population in West Bengal has grown to 28% as per 2011 Census with decadal growth continuing above 21%. Mamata Banerjee has earned the dubious “Mamata Begum” distinction.

Ipso facto, the most rapid rise of Muslims is in Assam. Illegal immigration – demographic invasion – from Bangladesh is squarely responsible for the sharp rise in the Muslim population of Assam. From 17.62% as per 1951 Census, Muslim population has surged to 29.59% as per 2011 Census. From NIL Muslim-majority districts in 1951, the number had increased to 6 in 2001 and 9 in 2011.

Disturbing is the transformation in Assam as per 2011 Census: Dhubri 79.67%; Goalpara 57.52%; Nagaon 55.36%; Barpeta 70.74%; Morigaon 52.56%; Karimganj 56.36%; Hailakandi 60.31%; Bongaigaon 50.22%; and Darrang 64.34%. Other districts with a significant share of Muslims are Cachar 37.71%, Kamrup 39.66% and Nalbari 35.96%. Is Assam soon going to be a Muslim majority State by 2050 if rapid demographic transition allowed on natural growth and illegal immigration processes?

Most important it is also to note transformation of 3 neighboring districts In West Bengal from minority in 1947 to majority status (2011 Census): Mushiradabad with 66.27%; Maldah with 51.27%; Uttar Dinajpur with 49.92%; and South 24 Parganas and Birbhum following behind with over 35%.

If the Rohingya refugees are allowed to enter on humanitarian consideration, there would be dramatic transformation in both West Bengal and Assam paving the way for separation of the North East from the rest of mainland. Let Mani Shankar Iyer, Prashant Bhusan and ilk suffer from no illusions.

Be that as it may, let me provide a perspective of the Rohingya refugee crisis. The provocations as per Myanmar military are the attacks by the Arakan Rohingya Salvation Army (ARSA), Muslim insurgents or terrorist group aided by Islamist radicals, fatal attacks on 30 police outposts on August 25. Even in 2015, ARSA had launched attacks on several border posts along the border with Bangladesh.

Before Aug. 25, 2017, Associated Press, Dhaka-Bangladesh, reported some 500,000 Rohingya’s had arrived after bloody anti-Muslim rioting in 2012 or amid earlier persecution drives in Myanmar. After the crackdown after 25th August 2017, at least 370,000 Rohingya have flooded into Bangladesh. Ethnic cleansing is almost complete – over 870,000 refugees out of total 1,000,000 Rohingya’s.

Most of the refugees are located along the Teknaf-Cox’s Bazar highway that is parallel to the Naf River, which is the border between Bangladesh and Myanmar.

In pre 2012 exodus, illegal Rohingya influx has taken place into West Bengal. And, some of them have been sent to Jammu, whilst unknown numbers have moved into interior locations like Hyderabad and given ration cards and identity papers by Muslim brethren purportedly reflecting compassion. And, the justification given is “if normalcy returns, they would definitely prefer to go back to our homeland.” However, there are very few examples of return of refugee to their native lands.

Two charities, the Zakat Foundation of India (ZFI) and Don Bosco, have been working to help the Rohingya in New Delhi. Zafar Mahmood, the president of ZFI, says 210 Rohingya are living in Madanpur Khadar on land provided by his organization. “We are hosting them because it is our moral and religious duty,” Mahmood explains. Khalsa Aid is providing ‘free lungar” to refugees in Bangladesh.

Now, human rights activists and so called libertarians not only from India and also from all other parts of the world are shouting hoarsely against India for not admitting Rohingya refugees into India and recent plan to deport nearly 40,000 refugees of the past.

Two human rights groups have accused the U.N. Security Council of ignoring the crisis. Louis Charbonneau, the U.N. director for Human Rights Watch, said, “This is an international peace and security crisis” and there is no excuse for the Security Council “sitting on its hands.” Also, the UN’s High Commissioner for Human Rights, Zeid Ra’ad al-Hussein, criticized India: “India cannot carry out collective expulsions, or return people to a place where they risk torture or other serious violations.”

In response, Permanent Representative of India to UN in Geneva Rajiv K Chander said, “We are perplexed at some of the observations made by the High Commissioner in his oral update. “Like many other nations, India is concerned about illegal migrants, in particular, with the possibility that they could pose security challenges. Enforcing the laws should not be mistaken for lack of compassion,” he said.

The Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), the world’s largest Muslim body, is urging Myanmar to allow U.N. monitors so they can investigate what it alleges is systematic brutality against the Rohingya. Instead of crying foul and hoarse, why is it the OIC Muslim community of 57 nations welcome their Muslim brother refugees to their fold until the UN finds a solution to the crisis?

Islamic radical terrorism threat is real particularly in those countries with sizeable Muslim population. None should forget that Saudi Arabia had long been a financial backer of the Taliban and, together with Pakistan and the United Arab Emirates (UAE), officially recognized the group when it assumed control of Afghanistan in 1996. Now, they blame Qatar for supporting the Taliban. And, Iran too is extending support to Islamist fundamentalists. The Saudi break with the Taliban is the increasing support the Taliban have accepted from Iran. The Sunni-Shia conflict is also real.

Over the last decade, there has also been a shift in Saudi funding to Pakistan away from Deobandi groups like the Taliban to the more extreme Ahl-i-Hadith sect, the Pakistani equivalent of Wahhabism. Local sources in Pakistan have reported that Saudi Arabia is providing funding for Jihadi training camps in order to launch attacks on Iran from Baluchistan.

If the OIC nations, particularly the ‘Rich’ ones flush with petro dollars could extend financial aid to Islamist fundamentalist’s world over, but fail to provide relief and rehabilitation to their Muslim brethren, they have no right to criticize other nations refusing to accept Rohingya refugees and bear economic burden despite millions of BPL families. In particular, as a cautionary policy and strategy to pre-empt spread of Islamist radicalism already manifesting in various forms.

Instead, they can surely financially aid the refugees. Moreover, such Muslim countries can allow entry of Rohingya’s into their own land and provide relief. Saudi Arabia and Iran can surely admit over 500,000 Rohingya refugees, besides Indonesia and Malaysia thereby relieve the burden of Bangladesh.

Add to them, even other nations like China, Russia, USA, Canada, Australia and other advanced nations of the world, three times larger geographically than India with very low populations and abundant natural resources must voluntarily opt to admit the Rohingya refugees into their own sparsely populated provinces.

India would allow free air transportation refugees to such benevolent nations at its own cost directly from Bangladesh.

Rights activists, like Delhi based Apoorvanand Jha, have criticized the government over a controversial citizenship law that includes a provision for welcoming refugees facing persecution, specifying “Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains, Parsis and Christians from Afghanistan, Bangladesh and Pakistan”, but notably excludes Muslims.

In a recent blog, Mani Shankar Aiyer, a former cabinet minister and member of the opposition Congress party, accused the Modi government of ending India’s “golden tradition” of opening its doors to refugees. “… if we can assure indefinite refuge to uncounted generations of Tibetans, unnumbered Afghans and hundreds of thousands of Sri Lankan Tamils refugees, why not a few thousand Rohingya?” he wrote.

In retrospect, the Congress Party is squarely responsible and accountable for the rapid demographic transitions sweeping various districts of West Bengal and Assam. They failed dismally to ensure the return of Bangladeshi refugees of 1971 war. And sadly, they used them as ‘vote bank’ tools.

Quite absurd it is that 24-year-old Rohingya Mohammad Shakil has challenged the government’s plan to deport them in the Supreme Court – “We would prefer to die here [in India] than return.”

Prashant Bhusan is appearing in the petition in India’s Supreme Court: the deportation would violate Article 14 (the Right to Equality) and Article 21 (the Right to Life) of the Constitution of India. It adds that India is a signatory to various conventions that recognize the principle of “non-refoulement”, which prohibits forcing refugees to return to places where their lives might be at risk. Bhusan stated that these refugees cannot be sent back to Myanmar till their life and liberty would be assured there.

Kiren Rijiju in 2015 said that all Hindus, Buddhists, Sikhs, Christian refugees are welcome in India. Now for Rohingya’s, he is saying that they will have to be deported. This is in tune with this government’s communal policy and communal actions. India is not a signatory of UN Refugee Convention. Yet, it is binding on India to admit them even at the cost of livelihood to their own people.

Last week Modi visited Myanmar – his second visit in three years – and held talks with Aung San Suu Kyi. There was no reference to Rohingya issue in the joint statement. After all, India has significant geopolitical and security interests that continue to shape its outreach to Myanmar as part of its “Act East” policy. In 2016, India built a port in Sittwe, the capital of Rakhine State. It is currently constructing a highway that will connect Moreh in India with Mae Sot in Thailand via Myanmar. And it has plans to further boost military and economic cooperation with the country, to which it sells a wide range of defense equipment. In July 2017, the commander-in-chief of Myanmar’s armed forces visited India.

In sum, there is no simple solution to the Rohingya crisis. The UN has no effective mechanisms for solving these ethnic crises. There is no love for the Rohingya among the Islamic community of Nations or its neighboring powers: India, China, and Thailand.

India’s national security strategic interests should outweigh all other considerations. Viewed in the framework of conflicts among Muslim ideologies and the spread of ISIS affiliates in Bangladesh and India, admittedly Rohingya refugee influx and illegal migration is India’s key national threat concern. India has its own peculiar historical, ideological and geopolitical considerations to consider and to adopt policies and strategies to enhance and consolidate their national security interests. Wake up – intellectually bankrupt human rights activists groups lest India is all over again plunged into communal mayhem far more badly than experienced during the 1947 partition period. Note Supreme Court please.

Article by skanda987@gmail.com

Proving Universality of Vedic Dharma

 

From: Pramod Agrawal < >

Writ against Azaan