Sharia Law

Modi is India’s greatest prime minister by a distance—here’s why

(This is a reprint from NewsBred).

The very headline demands a comparison. Pt. Jawaharlal Nehru had his own view of India, not the one he shared with his mentor Mahatma Gandhi. Views on science was one thing, Hindus were another. Gandhi’s India was more than just Hindus, often at its cost. Nehru’s India could do without Hindus. For their own reasons, almost a century they shared between them (1869-1964), never made Hindus a political question.  Hindus, “the bloodiest story in human history” as historian Will Durant put it, remained unattended.

Indira Gandhi didn’t burden herself with the weight of ideology. Power was all that mattered. Two notables which she is credited with, probably owed little to her. The liberation of Bangladesh was an Indian army’s gift. Indeed, New Delhi held back the permission to storm Dhaka well beyond the expiry date. The storming of Golden Temple, and clearing of Sant Jarnail Bhindranwale and his proverbial 40 henchmen, was the outcome of her own experiment which went horribly wrong. Between the imposition of the Emergency and her butchering of Constitution–“secular” and all–it’s difficult to say which was worse.

Rajiv Gandhi, the reluctant politician, was terrible on Sri Lanka’s Tamil issue. He paid with his life in the end. He also apparently had a blood-streak in him which his velvety profile hid well. Ask the survivors of 1984 Sikh Progrom, it’s justice in perpetual limbo.  He also carried on the tradition of Muslim appeasement which under Mahatma Gandhi had cost India  its western and eastern arms.  He upturned the Supreme Court verdict on Shah Bano which had granted the divorced woman the right to alimony. Sharia Law had trumped democracy. India was rightly perceived to be a soft state by fundamentalists.  It gave wind to separatists in Kashmir.

Thereafter, terrorism became the headlines. Hindus were shown the chimera of independence as lakhs of them were driven out of Kashmir Valley. Atal Behari Vajpayee favoured peace with Pakistan and got Kargil in return. Vajpayee was no ordinary leader though. He made India nuclear. It was a game changer in India’s security doctrine. Vajpayee also did bold reforms in education and infrastructure.

Manmohan Singh was an economist at the service of politicians. He was a dummy prime minister, an accidental one, who turned a blind eye to scams dancing -under his chair. Pamphleteers give him credit for opening up the Indian economy. In essence, he only carried out the dictates of his prime minister Narasimha Rao who didn’t belong to Nehru-Gandhi clan. His has been a pursuit of power, of communal bias— “Muslims have the first right on India’s resources” – and between visits to hospitals, he is presently panting for a Rajya Sabha seat.

In all these pre-Modi years, India wrestled with hunger, wars and terrorism as its three key moments. In the 60s, India was without food. Wars bloodied its earth virtually every decade. Terrorism brought death to cities after 1990. Mumbai’s 26/11 was as big a psychological scar to India as battles of Panipat from Babur to Ahmed Shah Abdali. Rich made the best of licence raj; poor couldn’t even enter a park. Police and bank accounts were out of bounds. Subsidies were for the middlemen. Entrepreneurship a sin and a road to suicide. Mandal Commission–oh we forgot VP Singh–created regional satraps in Mayawati and Yadavs on the plank of Dalit politics.

Modi now has completed six years in office. His both terms secured with a resounding vote from 1.35 billion Indians. He chose demonetization against black money and Indians became friends with the digital world, an offshoot nobody had foreseen. India took halting steps towards one-tax regime in Goods and Services Tax (GST). India’s unseen people today have electricity, cylinders, health coupons, bank accounts, direct subsidies, Mudra loans and gifts of sanitation etc. These benefits don’t choose Hindus over Muslims.

Yet, this is not what makes Modi India’s greatest prime minister ever. It’s about vision–which is not ideology–where he seems to be up against the world. He dreams of a safe, prosperous and united India but not at the cost of Hindus. It upsets a hell of a lot of people.

Let’s begin with Kashmir. He has restructured the former state which was manipulated by Nehru-Gandhi clan to ensure Kashmir Valley always wins. In due course, it became a personal fiefdom of Abdullahs and Muftis. Now the assembly seats, whenever elections are held, would see a balance in proportion to size and population. There is not an ounce of evidence to suggest it is against Kashmiri Muslims. But there is plenty to suggest it would hurt the entrenched regional dynasties who had turned a blind eye, if not aided and abetted, the terrorism from across the border. Muslims in Kashmir Valley were in pits in all these years. They could only look up.

An impartial history would judge Modi as an Indian who saved India’s borders which Prithvirajs, Gandhis and Nehrus couldn’t do in a thousand years. Kashmir was a lost case. In 2047, it would’ve been hundred years to that thorn. It was not a matter of if, but only of when, India would become the rest of Kashmir.  In the age of Islamic State (IS) and its known cahoots in India this was given. My children, and their children, and their children, have been blessed with that one ring of security which is Modi’s offering at Mother India’s feet.

Then, we have Ram Janmabhoomi. This was hanging fire much beyond our independent years. Nothing had been in doubt: That the Babri Masjid had been built over a temple; that it was a mosque in disuse; and that mosques are routinely removed in Saudi Arabia. Yet, Hindus were denied a home for their supreme deity in their own land. Modi has managed it without resorting to unconstitutional norms.

One half of India’s 200 Muslims, their womenfolk, had a constitutional disadvantage due to a practice which isn’t objected to by Sharia Law even though the Holy Book probably doesn’t sanction it. A husband could take away his wife’s investment of her life and career in him by simply pronouncing triple talaq. This was slavery within homes. It hurt Muslim women, their kids, the family, the society and the nation. The Triple Talaq Act 2019, which had been approved by Supreme Court but stuck in Parliament on numbers, was finally enacted within days Modi assumed his second term. This was the first definite step towards Uniform Civil Code (UCC) which is desired by the Constitution.

It’s said Muslims are unsafe in Modi’s India. Lynchings are cited as proof. I remember so clearly the early days of Modi’s first term when this word was repeated ad nauseam. A few scribes and newspapers worked in lockstep on this agenda. You couldn’t pick up a newspaper where “lynching”, real or fake, wasn’t mentioned. Lynchings have always happened in rural India where cows are wealth and people would give life to protect them. It’s no different to how anti-CAA and now migrants have been picked for propaganda though they couldn’t care less for Muslims or poor.

This anti-India lobby of journalists, politicians and their foreign handlers see an existential threat in Modi. He is a Hindu in thought and action but they would rather portray him as anti-Muslim. It’s easy to sway millions of Muslims for most are uneducated and poor; and have a latent fear of Hindu’s rise. This frenzy would again be on us once Corona Virus recedes in the background.

Modi’s position is secure in history. His real test would be coming four years. Anti-India lobby, which includes Jihadis, Communists and imperialist forces, won’t give him a moment’s respite on Muslims. Modi is a nationalist and nationalists are always a threat to these global forces.  I predict an anarchy on streets where police would be immobilized. Any action they take would have screaming headlines and images in next day’s daily. It in turn would bring pressure groups such as the United Nations, European Parliament, George Soros etc. into play. Police would freeze; the anarchy would bring in violent mobs in a bid to overthrow him. This is a script I am reading it out to you in advance. How Modi responds, we would see.

We haven’t touched how painstakingly Modi has invested his time and energy to be a world leader of considerable respect. Or how, if we beat Corona, he would invite books of gratitude. He doesn’t part with national coffers easily which is a leeway we must grant to a Gujarati. But the sum is always greater than the parts and it’s the whole which makes Modi the greatest ever.

 

Modi is an excuse: Real fear is Hindu awakening

(This is a reprint from NewsBred).

I doubt there has been a more significant month in India’s independent history since The Partition.

There have been famines, riots, four brutalizing wars dotting our landscape since 1947 but nothing as calamitous as the present month.

The land we call as India is being wrenched apart from the guts as it was during the Partition. The Muslim Factor is a theme as it was in 1947. Then too Muslims wanted “azaadi”. Now too Muslims want “azaadi.” On both occasions, Hindus’ rise was perceived as inimical to Muslim interests.

So, the problem is rise of Hindus. In 1947, it was perceived Hindus were far too many in numbers. Today, they are viewed as “bigot” under a “fascist” regime. As evidence, “lynchings” are held up as proof. The Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) has provided further fodder to the cannon. That there were far more “lynchings” and “communal riots” under Congress-led UPA is conveniently forgotten. Or the fact that CAA too was set in motion by them.

A Muslim sympathizer would tell us that it’s not against Hindus but Modi’s BJP which is polarizing India and damaging it’s “secular” and “democratic” traditions. How it’s “democratic” to cling on to Sharia Laws? How it’s “secular” to drive out Kashmiri Hindus from the Valley? Who’s getting you more freebies and state benefits?

Modi is just an excuse. The real fear is the awakening of Hindus. The original people of the land who suffered for over a millennia under the Muslim invaders—from Muhammad bin Qasim to Ghazni to Ghori to Taimur to Nadar Shah to Babar to Aurangzeb to Ahmed Shah Abdali. Who had their temples broken, their universities burnt, their men sold as slaves, their women tossed around as playthings in harems. For whom the freedom came with vivisection of its lands in Pakistan and Bangladesh.

It’s a fear which Islamists share with other monotheist religion, Christianity. Both don’t want Hindus to know of their persecution at the hands of Islamist and Christian forces. Same is the fear of Left which can only survive if Hindus are unmindful of their heritage. Liberals of course are the face of colonialists who eye your land, labour and resources. They have populated school-texts, academia and media of this country in their singular mission to keep Hindus drugged in indifference.

Given its centuries of persecution, it’s natural that people of the land are suspicious if Muslims are happy with the abrogation of Article 370, “triple talaq bill” or judgment on Ram Mandir. Muslim leaders in any case are unhappy. Did they raise their voice when Bengali Hindus in lakhs were being killed and raped in East Pakistan in 1971? How did they react to plight to Kashmiri Hindus?

It’s the majority who rise in support of Modi. They are patriotic and nationalist; keen for India to be strong and wealthy. It’s difficult to feed them a false narrative for very long. More so if you are as discredited as the old political regimes or propagandists serving as media.

This month has again brought Hindu-Muslim fissures to the fore. This is an abiding divide which is impossible to bridge. Gandhi too had failed. What is good for the nation must be done without fear. Media could write what they want. They could have ears of Western press. So-called “secularists” could cry till the cows come home. Violence could happen. Streets may burn. But the government must do its governance without giving it a damn. Citizens must know their limits; as should do the government and judiciary should play the arbiter. It’s a simple, unclouded method. Anything else is mischief. And the nation of 1.3 billion people is a good bulwark against it.

 

 

 

Why Lanka terror holds such an important message for Indian Muslims

You might be aware of details but they bear a recount before I stress that reformation of Islam can no longer be swept under the carpet in the name of “Islamophobia.”

Sri Lanka’s spice king Mohammad Yusuf Ibrahim and his third son are now under detention in Sri Lanka. Two of his sons, Ahmed Ibrahim (33) and Ilham Ahmed Ibrahim (31) were suicide bombers who blew up dozens in two of Colombo’s five-star hotels—Shangri La and Cinnamon on Sunday. In between, Ilham’s wife Fathima set off a bomb which killed her three children and herself as police raided their luxury home in Deamatogoda.

Another member of the family, millionaire’s son Ismail, became a fugitive after Sri Lanka forces discovered stockpiles of explosives at a compound in Wanathawillua where it is now believed Easter Sunday’s terrorists were trained. Police got onto Ismail’s trail after his involvement to destroy Buddhist shrines at Anuradhapura came to light last year.

This is not a poor family. They were the creamy layer of the island’s political deities.  Sri Lanka had been good to them. Yet not one but all of them were sold to the ideology of hate and violence. How can now the Liberals of the world say that Islamic terrorists are the outcome of social and political oppression? Wasn’t Osama bin Laden a billionaire? Or the 9/11 bombers were filthy rich? If oppression makes Jihadi Muslims take to violence, how come other sufferers at the hands of “Satan US” haven’t turned into demons?

The longer free world keeps denying the violent ideology of Islam, farther we would be from rescuing Islam from itself. Just look at Islamist terror attacks around the world in the last dozen years, the Wikipedia entries run into scores of sheets, and you would have idea our denial is leaving behind a bloodied path for our children and grandchildren.

The adherents of Islam today number around 1.6 billion people or a quarter of humanity. Only 3 per cent of them are said to have violent leanings. That’s around 50 million individuals/families. Yet they have left the rest of over a billion peace-loving Muslims completely paralyzed. The moderate Muslims have no leadership. The reformist Muslims—such as Muhammad Taha, Irshad Manji, Maajid Nawaz, Abd al-Hamid Al-Ansari and Zuhdi Jasser among others (follow if not fund them)—are buried into obscurity by the Liberal world.

Yet this minuscule group of 50 million is adding thousands almost every month. The UN estimates in 2014, some 15,000 foreign fighters from at least 80 nations travelled to Syria to join radical jihadists. The Ibrahim family is a case in study. Tens of hundreds of youths of all nationalities and colour are being brainwashed by local networks before they are packed to Iraq, Pakistan and Bangladesh branches of Jihadi Islamists who then return and unleash terror in their home nations. This in turn further sinks peaceful local Muslims into a ghetto mindset, damaging generation upon generation, many of whom are easy pickings for violent ideology.

Why do I say Iraq, Pakistan and Bangladesh? Why local networks of Islamic State (IS)? What’s the fallout on local Muslims?

Let’s take the example of Sri Lanka terror attacks itself.  Intelligence points to the role of a Pakistan-based terror group Lashkar-e-Toiba charity, Idara Khidmat e Khalq, in the attacks. It has been radicalizing Sri Lanka Muslim youths since 2004. One of the suicide bombers received training in Pakistan. Jammat-ul-Mujahideen Bangladesh (JMB), a terror group, through its Indian branch, is accused of pushing fake Indian currency and gathering classified information on India. Zakir Naik (yes, the same Naik who has vocal powerful supporters in India’s public space) has often given his virulent lectures in Sri Lanka.

A Pew study of opinions in the Muslim world shows how many in these countries hold extremist views. Three-quarters of Pakistanis and more than two-fifths of the Bangladeshis and Iraqis feel that those who leave Islam should be put to death. More than 80 percent of Pakistanis and two-thirds of Bangladeshis and Iraqis regard Sharia law as the revealed word of God. Only a tiny fraction would allow their daughters to marry Christians. Only a small number regard honour killings of women as unjustified. A quarter of Bangladeshi and one in eight Pakistanis regarded suicide bombings as legitimate.

The fallout on local Muslims is palpable in Sri Lanka. Reports say that Pakistani refugees in Sri Lanka are being subjected to violent attacks and are fleeing. Muslims in rented houses are being evicted by resentful neighbours.

Yet our Liberals are in complete denial. I doubt if you have read the above information in your newspapers. Instead, the apologists are sweet-liming the theory that Sri Lanka happened in retaliation to shootings in Christchurch. There is no admission that it’s violent Islam and its front-runners who are refusing to let a 7th century religion conform to realities of 21st century.

Somalian Muslim reformist, Ayaan Hirsi Ali says that Prophet Muhammad had two distinct phases of his life: (a) when he was wandering from door to door in Mecca and pleading to convert the local populace; (b) when he went to Medina and adopted a political philosophy to his creed.

Hirsi Ali classifies the Muslims of the world into three groupings: (1) Medina Muslims, the violent adherents; (2) Mecca Muslims or the peaceful ones; (3) and Modifying Muslims or the reformists.

Hirsi Ali suggests five essential reforms for Islam:

  • Prophet Muhammad’s semi-divine and infallible status and the literalist reading of the Quran, particular the parts which were revealed in Medina;
  • Investment in life after death instead of life before death;
  • Sharia, the body of legislation derived from the Quran, the hadith and the rest of Islamic jurisprudence;
  • The practice of empowering individuals to enforce Islamic law;
  • The imperative to wage jihad, or holy war

The Islamist attacks in Sri Lanka are first of a kind in the island nation. India has long suffered from such violent attacks. But our Liberals and disgraceful media never allow a truthful discourse.  They are also so much hand in gloves with the Marxists: A perfect example is a Muslim persecution in Xinjiang by China – yet our media, which takes out Mombatti jaloos (candle procession) on one unfortunate lynching, wouldn’t utter a word. You would have justifications for Zakir Naik, Rohingyas or state terror in Kashmir, Bengal and Kerala but never a word for Hindu refugees from Kashmir or those persecuted Hindu minorities who are being driven away in lakhs from Pakistan, Bangladesh and Afghanistan. They would never utter a word against the practice of “Triple Talaq” and “nikah halala.” They would never promote a debate on Quran which is the first step in weeding out its ills. To term 100s of Islamic terrorist attacks as acts of individuals would never allow a hard look at its ideology.

That’s what makes them so dangerous. That’s what makes Indian Muslims believe they are the persecuted lot in India. That’s what makes them resentful against Indians and affect the perception on their commitment to the nation.

From an Indian perspective, I believe the Lanka terror attacks hold a very important message for Indian Muslims. They must enforce a debate on Islam from within. There’s no gain hiding behind a cloak of persecution complex, however hard our disgraceful media tries to weave the deceit. Things are not worse than they ever were for them in independent India. Their one act of support for the majority’s legitimate demands would earn them unaccountable respect from the masses. BJP or Congress, none would be able to leave them by the wayside. No Asaduddin Owaisi would be able to manipulate them. The choice is theirs.