Fear of defeat drives Congress leaders to speak for terrorist Pakistan


The Hindus in India, ever since the Independence of the country, have by and large been subjected to being fooled mainly by the Congress party, as it has been wielding the power for a long time. Others in alliance with it has also done its due share. What surprises the right thinking people, the nationalists and patriots, is the fact that notwithstanding all these, a section of Hindus still wanted to remain perpetual victims of the Congress betrayal. They still hold the placard of secularism which neither the party, they support, practices nor its allies also adhere to.Therefore, the survival and existence of the Congress and other pseudo-secular parties solely depend on appeasement of the minorities, mainly the Muslims, depending upon their demographical presence in the country.


What is amazing is that they have, of late, gone to the extent of challenging and questioning the credibility of the Indian Armed Forces in order to please the minorities, as if they, the Muslims, are appears to be supporters of India’s enemy Pakistan. It is therefore, high time for the Muslim community in India to come out in open to condemn the Congress leaders’ persistent efforts to defame the country’s armed forces, who day in and day out are guarding the frontiers and protecting its citizens.

It is not a secret that the Congress has been playing the appeasement politics right from the country’s first Prime Minister, Jawaharlal Nehru who after taking over charge to merge Kashmir with the Indian union, alienated Kashmir by giving birth to Article 370. Thus, it has become a perpetual thorn in the flesh of Mother India. But the dynasts having stayed out of power for just five years started loosing patience and embarked upon operating as an Agent of Pakistan, by making statements on the latter’s behalf at a time when the entire world community, including the major global powers were accusing Pakistan as a terror manufacturing factory. For the Congress and its stooges having all through these years functioned almost like supine subservients of the secessionists, extremist groups and terrorists in Jammu Kashmir, the actions of the Central government, showing the guts and courage, giving a free hand to the armed forces to eliminate the terror groups in the country and those based across her borders are seems to have become something unpalatable and rather painful.

Many of the Congress leaders such as Mani Shankar Aiyer who had gone to Pakistan to seek its support to remove Modi. “The first and the foremost thing is to remove Modi. Only then can the talks move forward. We have to wait for four more years, a shameful upper caste Hindu neta said plaintively before a channel in Pakistan.” For the senior Congress leader Digvijay Singh the Pulwama attack on CRPF troopers was an ‘accident’.

Now, the latest in the series is from the “Guru” of Rahul Gandhi and his father’s advisor, Satyanarayan
Gangaram Pitroda, popularly known as Sam Pitroda a 77 year old a telecom engineer, inventor,
entrepreneur and policymaker of the Congress. For him the Pulwama attack by the terrorists was only a routine affair. Besides, he needed evidence for all the actions executed by the Armed Forces.
But, the minorities, unfortunately, do not understand the fact that the majority and under their Hindutva only Secularism and democracy can exist, survive and flourish in this country. Standing in support of the country’s enemy who has been bleeding the state of Jammu and Kashmir for over seven decades at the cost of the nation’s sovereignty and integrity is nothing but an act of treason.

The Congress has a history of appeasement of minorities to remain in power at the cost of the country’s security and integrity. All the rulers of the Congress Dynasty and their psychophants were practicing it.

The Prime Minister said the other day “Party which ruled our country for decades is now questioning
ability of our brave forces, especially a leader from MP. Today he said Pulwama terror attack is an
accident. This is their mentality, he is the same person who gave Pakistan a clean chit during 26/11.”
“It seems that the Congress uses the likes of Digvijay Singh and Mani Shankar Aiyar as some kind of
‘special purpose vehicle’ to make pro-Pakistan statements”. Digvijay Singh, probably under some
Pakiphobia, had earlier alleged that the Mumbai attack was not sponsored by Pakistan but a conspiracy by Rastriya Swayam Sevak Sangh (RSS), now demands the government to release proof for Balakot air strikes. He wrongly claims that the America had released proof after the hunting down of dreaded terrorist Osama Bin Laden in Pakistan’s Abbottabad some years back. It should be noted that, contrary to the claims of senile Neta, America officially never produced any proof of its operation against Osama Bin Laden.

Apparently, these Pak lovers and India haters should at least know “this is how confident nations conduct themselves with regard to terror crackdown”. This man has gone to the extent of describing on social media Kashmir as “India-occupied Kashmir” which no patriotic Indian could ever say. “There is no country that has criticised the surgical strikes or the air strikes conducted by India except for one nation, Pakistan. The fact that senior Congress leaders are speaking the same language is unfortunate.” Sam Pitroda’s comments on Balakot airstrikes very unfortunate, will only help Pakistan: said Arun Jaitley “Opposition insults our forces time and again. I appeal to my fellow Indians- question Opposition leaders on their statements. Tell them- 130 crore Indians will not forgive or forget the Opposition for their antics. India stands firmly with our forces.”, The Prime Minister Modi said.

The Congress leaders should know that “while Jinnah could bring Muslims together on an anti-Hindu
platform and force the country’s partition, he could not lay the foundations of Pakistani nation. It is not
surprising that Pakistan continues to define itself in anti-India and anti-Hindu terms”.
“No political party has succeeded in making Muslims partners in the common enterprise of building a
secular and democratic India. Muslims, as a community do not, and indeed cannot, accept secularism as a legitimate doctrine for the public domain. For them the public domain is not separate from the all-
encompassing religious realm. This problem haunts the entire UMMAH and not only its Indian constituent: it is first and above all a community of believers”, says late Giri Lal Jain, the Illustrious
editor of the Times of India in his book, “The Hindu Phenomenon”, published posthumously.
Even in Nehru’s appeasement politics failed to yield any positive results for the benefit of the nation
except for his vote bank gains. Where as, Sardar Patel said “A minority that could force the Partition of the country is not a minority at all”.

“It is inconceivable that Nehru was not sensitive to Muslim resistance to modernization and
secularization. Indeed, it can safely be assumed that he left them alone in respect of their Personal Law and did not seek to bring them into the orbit of a common civil code precisely because he was aware of the depth of their opposition, through that is clearly an essential part of a modern polity based on the principle of equal citizenship. Perhaps he expected that their attitude would change in course of time under the pressure of forces unleashed by the spread of education, economic development and the democratic political process. If he ever spelt out his views on how the Muslims would come out of their ghetto psychology after independence, it has still not been made public.
Says Mr Jain “ This brings me to the point I made earlier regarding Nehru’s lack of confidence in his
ability to persuade Muslims to get out of the psychological and cultural ghetto of their own making and
join the mainstream brought forth, in his view by the process of modernization. It does not follow that
Nehru’s secularism was phoney; but it does mean that it was lame. To borrow he Chinese phrase, it did not walk on two legs. It wobbled on one, through Muslims provided him a crutch in the shape of electoral support which facilitated his and the Congress party’s stay in power”.

The Hindu ethos never associated state with religion, says Mr Jain. Kings had their religion and their
priests. But there was no coercion to the laity to conform to one or other form of worship. This diversity in the system of worship and philosophic thought was based on the inherent tolerance in the teachings of our saints which for ever precluded the possibility of a state controlled religious regime. Though ancient Indian polity drew its sustenance from Dharma, which meant ethical conduct and virtuous living, it did not press adherence to any ‘panth’ or religious denomination. But, with Islam it was different. The Prophet was also the head of the State and he had to lay the foundations of a wordly state where his writ could run. Thus, the system of King as the religious head persisted in Islamic countries. The Quran later enjoined the faithful to obey the king. It prescribed the rules of government and the Ummah made certain that the state was run on the Quranic ideals. (Gen. Ziz
Ul Haq’s Nizam Mustaffa was the modern version of this primal rule.)

“It would, thus, be clear that while secularism came naturally to the Hindu psyche, to the Muslim it was
against the basic tenets of their religion.” “As for secularism, supposedly the third leg of the Nehruvian tripod, two points have to be made. The first is the usual one, which is the Hinduism is tolerant and, therefore, secular. This is valid and it is sheer dishonesty or naivete’ to suggest, as is being widely suggested these days, that Hinduism can admit of theocracy. That is a Muslim privilege which no one else can appropriate. “It is not being Semitized and it cannot be Semitized as a result of a deliberate design on the part of some individuals or groups. But from being a confederation of ways of life, it has had to move towards being a federation. To put it differently, the small society has had to give way to larger ones as small economies and polities have had to give way to larger ones.. Only a secular and modern intelligentsia could have presided over these changes. The task would have been beyond the reach of traditional elites. That is the true significance of secularism. It may be call the ‘midwife of Hindu nationalism”

Hindus were ‘amazingly tolerant’ , points our Mr Jain, because their dharma (world view) provided for
every possible expression of the human spirit and indeed they so remained in spite of their decline for
centuries for the same reason. “Finally, it is a pity that there does not exist the slightest awareness, either among Hindus or Muslims, that Muslims need the rise of Indian civilization as much as Hindus, if not more. Indeed, such is the grip of the misrepresentation of Hindutva in anti-Muslim terms that its proponents, including some leaders of the BJP, themselves, speak of it defensively. Nehru’s concept that “minority communalism was not very dangerous”, inevitably led to the corollary that majority communalism was.

Therefore, in his scheme of things while one could wink at the minority’s need to stress their identity and resort to aggression and communal posturing, the majority was to be restrained at all costs.
The acquiescence of the Congress government on an unusual event occurred in our secular India on 15th January, 1996 at Aligarh where the Mili Parliament, a Muslim body meant to preserve the pristine purity of Islam is a crystal evidence of the impervious attitude of the Congress towards such anti-national activities. The Mili Parliament passed the resolutions including the following:
“ That the present secular system cannot ensure the protection of the legitimate political rights of the
Muslims; “That Muslim M Ps of all political hues are lackeys of the Hindus; “That secular democracy is a constitutional fraud, while secularism and democracy are both unislamic and ‘Haram’; “That muslims should prevent formation of an unislamic system of governance; “That the Muslim Ummah should strive to destory all systems of falsehood and injustice nd replace these by just order: “That separate electorates for Muslims based on proportionate representation is the need of the hour. (This issue had been rejected even in pre-partition India when Gandhiji threatened to go on fast to forestall British deviousness in dividing India on the basis of communities and castes by a demand for separate electorates for Muslims, Sikhs and Hindus and so on). “That other autonomous states should be formed in the country and that a self-defence based security system be introduced in the country to help only the minorities during riots. (In other words issue arms to the Muslim minorities to protect themselves against the Hindu Majority)”.

All this happened in everyone’s sight and hearing and not a whiff of protest was raised by our so-called secularists who lose no opportunity in castigating Hindu self-assertion as communalist. The policy of minority appeasement, started in Nehru’s time, has reached its local climax today when the minority appetite feeds on what it is offered. The genesis of this trend lies in the Nehru mindset and the JNU thought.Today “Tukde Tukde” gang has become more vocal against the integrity and unity of the country. In spite of Nehru’s treating Muslim minorities more equal than the others this is how the vicious seeds of separatism took roots and today we are hearing the echo of the same sounds that were raised in prepartition days.

Similarly, the Congress governments closed their eyes on Christian conversion activities in the tribal
areas of the country. The influential part of the Church was to carve out states, or areas within states, in which Christians would be in majority as Christians or, at the least, areas in which persons running the governments would be amenable to the influence of the Church. The effort has proceeded farthest in the North-East, and has become a cause for concern among the intelligence and defence services.
Intelligence information received by Government establishes the help and guidance which specific
missionary groups have been giving to secessionist groups in Nagaland and Manipur. Support for
secessionist groups is the greatest in Nagaland, followed by manipur. In Mizoram the role of the Church is overtly political. 85 per cent of the population in Mizoram, 80 per cent of that in Nagaland, 50 pr cent in Meghalaya has already been converted. ”


Scroll down for comments


Post Your Comments

Back to top button