The British Link to South Asian Terrorism

The British government is still the primary mischief-maker and anarchist in the Indian subcontinent, with its wet dream of Balkanisation of India into tiny independent states. The Western agencies are simply refusing to let go of India even after 60 years of Indian independence. I think the way the Western evangelicals are engineering conversions in south and central India, they will be able to turn a large mass of Indians acutely hostile to India and fight with the rest of Indians for a separate Christian country.

The Western intelligence agencies know that chunks of Hindus will never be persuaded to pick up arms to secede from India (as it is their only homeland in the world and they seek safety in numbers). However, it is easy to convince converted Muslims and Christians (especially new converts)  in India to pick up arms against the dirty non-believers (Hindus).

The Western governments have understood that for the Balkanisation of India to succeed, it is necessary for Indians to remain Hindus no more. This is the only way Indians can be made to agree to break up India into small parts. Hence the conversions funded by Western churches going on at a break-neck speed. The strategy of Western governments, intelligence agencies and evangelicals is: “First convert, then fund and arm the converts and then tell them to rise in revolt against the Hindus and their country to create a separate country of their own.”

South Asian Terrorism: All Roads Lead to the British Empire        
Ramtanu Maitra,  
 

The growing violence throughout Pakistan since the US invasion of Afghanistan in the Winter of 2001, the November 2008 attack on Mumbai, India, and many other smaller terrorist-directed killings in India, and the gruesome killing of at least 70 top Bangladeshi Army officers in a plot to assassinate Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina Wazed last month, were evidence that the terrorists have declared war against the sovereign nation-states in South Asia.

The only bright spot in this context is Sri Lanka, where a powerful terrorist group, the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), better known as the Tamil Tigers, are about to lose their home base. That, however, may not end the LTTE terrorism, particularly since it is headquartered in London, where many South Asian terrorists are maintained in separate cages for future use by British intelligence, with the blessings of Her Majesty’s Service.

Since none of the South Asian countries, where the terrorists are gaining ground, have, so far, shown the ability to evaluate, and thus, eliminate, the growth of this terrorism, it is necessary to know its genesis, and how it has affected the leaders of the South Asian nations to the detriment of their respective security. What is evident is that the South Asian terrorism has little to do with territorial disputes among nations, but everything to do with the past British colonial rule which poisoned the minds of the locals, so they have become disloyal to their own countries.

In this article, we will deal with the terrorism that continues to prosper in India’s northeast; and the terrorism in Sri Lanka, brought about by the British-induced ethnic animosity among its citizens. This history is the narration of a tragedy, since those who fought for independence in these South Asian nations, made enormous sacrifices to bring about their independence; many of those heroic figures turned out to be mental slaves of the British Empire, and pursued relentlessly the policies that the British had implemented to run their degenerate Empire.

India’s North-east

Six decades after India wrested independence from its colonial rulers, its north-east region is a cauldron of trouble. Located in a highly strategic area, with land contiguous to five countries – Nepal, Bhutan, Bangladesh, Myanmar, and China – it is full of militant separatists, who take refuge in the neighbouring countries under pressure from Indian security forces. Since most of these neighbouring countries do not have the reach to control the border areas, the separatist groups have set up armed training camps, which, over the years, have attracted international drug and gun traffickers. As a result of such unrelenting terrorist actions, and violent demonstrations over the last five decades, this part of India remains today a dangerous place.

These secessionist groups were not created by New Delhi, although New Delhi failed to understand that the promotion of ethnic, sub-ethnic, and tribal identities were policies of the British, who had come to India to expand their empire. The British Empire survived, and then thrived, through identification, within the subcontinent, of various ethnic and sub-ethnic groups and their conflict points; and then, exploited those conflict points to keep the groups divided and hostile to each other.

India and the other South Asian nations failed to comprehend that it was suicidal to allow a degenerate colonial power to pursue such policies against their nations. As a result, they were carried out by New Delhi for two ostensible reasons: One, to appease the militants, and the other, to “allow them to keep” what they wanted – their sub-national ethnic identity. The policy deprived the majority of the people of the North-east of the justification for identifying themselves as Indians.

The die was cast in the subversion of the sovereignty of an independent India by the British Raj in 1862, when it laid down the law of apartheid, to isolate “the tribal groups.” The British came into the area in the 1820s, following the Burmese conquest of Manipur and parts of Assam. The area had become unstable in the latter part of the 18th Century, following the over-extension of the Burmese-based Ahom kingdom, which reached into Assam. The instability caused by the weakening of the Ahom kingdom prompted the Burmese to move to secure their western flank. But the Burmese action also helped to bring in the British. The British East India Company was lying in wait for the Ahom kingdom to disintegrate.

The Anglo-Burmese War of 1824-26 ended with a British victory. By the terms of the peace treaty signed at Yandaboo on Feb. 24, 1826, the British annexed the whole of lower Assam and parts of upper Assam (now Arunachal Pradesh). The Treaty of Yandaboo provided the British with the foothold they needed to annex North-east India, launch further campaigns to capture Burma’s vital coastal areas, and gain complete control of the territory from the Andaman Sea to the mouth of the Irrawaddy River. What were London’s motives in this venture? The British claimed that their occupation of the north-east region was required to protect the plains of Assam from “tribal outrages and depredations and to maintain law and order in the sub-mountainous region.”

The ‘Apartheid Law’

Following annexation of North-east India, the first strategy of the British East India Company toward the area was to set it up as a separate entity. At the outset, British strategy toward North-east India was:

• to make sure that the tribal people remained separated from the plains people, and the economic interests of the British in the plains were not disturbed;

• to ensure that all tribal aspirations were ruthlessly curbed, by keeping the bogeyman of the plains people dangling in their faces; and,

• to ensure the tribal feudal order remained intact, with the paraphernalia of tribal chiefs and voodoo doctors kept in place. Part of this plan was carried out through the bribing of tribal chiefs with paltry gifts.

Lord Palmerston’s Zoo

The British plan to cordon off the north-east tribal areas was part of its policy of setting up a multicultural human zoo, during the 1850s, under the premiership of Henry Temple, the third Viscount Palmerston. Lord Palmerston, as Henry Temple was called, had three “friends” – the British Foreign Office, the Home Office, and Whitehall.

The apartheid programme eliminated the North-east Frontier Agency from the political map of India, and segregated the tribal population from Assam, as the British had done in southern Africa and would later do in Sudan. By 1875, British intentions became clear, even to those Englishmen who believed that the purpose of Mother England’s intervention in India, and the North-east in particular, was to improve the conditions of the heathens.

In an 1875 intelligence document, one operative wrote: “At this juncture, we find our local officers frankly declaring that our relations with the Nagas could not possibly be on a worse footing than they were then, and that the non-interference policy, which sounds excellent in theory, had utterly failed in practice.”

Apartheid also helped the British to function freely in this closed environment. Soon enough, the British Crown introduced another feature: It allowed Christian missionaries to proselytize among the tribal population and units of the Frontier Constabulary. The Land of the Nagas was identified as “virgin soil” for planting Christianity.

“Among a people so thoroughly primitive, and so independent of religious profession, we might reasonably expect missionary zeal would be most successful,” stated the 1875 document, as quoted in the “Descriptive Account of Assam,” by William Robinson and Angus Hamilton.

Missionaries were also encouraged to open government-aided schools in the Naga Hills. Between 1891 and 1901, the number of native Christians increased 128%. The chief proselytizers were the Welsh Presbyterians, headquartered in Khasi and the Jaintia Hills. British Baptists were given the franchise of the Mizo (Lushai) and Naga Hills, and the Baptist mission was set up in 1836.

British Mindset Controlled New Delhi

Since India’s Independence in 1947, the North-east has been split up into smaller and smaller states and autonomous regions. The divisions were made to accommodate the wishes of tribes and ethnic groups which want to assert their sub-national identity, and obtain an area where the diktat of their little coterie is recognized.

New Delhi has yet to comprehend that its policy of accepting and institutionalizing the superficial identities of these ethnic, linguistic, and tribal groups has ensured more irrational demands for even smaller states. Assam has been cut up into many states since Britain’s exit. The autonomous regions of Karbi Anglong, Bodo Autonomous Region, and Meghalaya were all part of pre-independence Assam. Citing the influx of Bengali Muslims since the 1947 formation of East Pakistan, which became Bangladesh in 1971, the locals demand the ouster of these “foreigners” from their soil.

Two terrorist groups in Assam, the United Liberation Front of Asom (ULFA) and the National Democratic Front of Bodoland (NDFB) (set up originally as the Bodo Security Force), are now practically demanding “ethnic cleansing” in their respective areas. To fund their movements, both the ULFA and the NDFB have been trafficking heroin and other narcotics, and indulging in killing sprees against other ethnic groups and against Delhi’s law-and-order machinery. Both these groups have also developed close links with other major guerrilla-terrorist groups operating in the area, including the National Socialist Council of Nagaland (Muivah) and the People’s Liberation Army in Manipur.

In 1972, Meghalaya was carved out of Assam through a peaceful process. Unfortunately, peace did not last long in this “abode of the clouds.” In 1979, the first violent demonstration against “foreigners” resulted in a number of deaths and arson. The “foreigners” in this case were Bengalis, Marwaris, Biharis, and Nepalis, many of whom had settled in Meghalaya decades ago. By 1990, firebrand groups such as the Federation of Khasi, Jaintia, and Garo People (FKJGP), and the Khasi Students’ Union (KSU) came to the fore, ostensibly to uphold the rights of the “hill people” from Khasi, Jaintia, and the Garo hills. Violence erupted in 1979, 1987, 1989, and 1990. The last violent terrorist acts were in 1992.

Similar “anti-foreigner” movements have sprouted up across the North-east, from Arunachal Pradesh in the East and North, to Sikkim in the West, and Mizoram and Tripura in the South. Along the Myanmar border, the states of Nagaland, Manipur, and Mizoram remain unstable and extremely porous.

While New Delhi was busy maintaining the status quo in this area by telling the tribal and ethnic groups that India is not going to take away what the British Raj had given to them, Britain picked the Nagas as the most efficient warriors (also, a large number of them had been converted to Christianity by the Welsh missionaries), and began arming and funding them.

The British connection to the NSCN existed from the early days of the Naga National Council. Angami Zapu Phizo, the mentor of both factions of the NSCN, had led the charge against the Indian government, spearheading well-organized guerrilla warfare. Phizo left Nagaland hiding in a coffin. He then turned up in 1963 in Britain, holding a Peruvian passport. It is strongly suspected that the British Baptist Church, which is very powerful in Nagaland, is the contact between British intelligence and the NSCN terrorists operating on the ground at the time.

‘Dirty Bertie’ and the Nagas

Once Phizo arrived in Britain, Lord Bertrand (“Dirty Bertie”) Russell, the atheist, courted Phizo, and became his new friend. Russell was deeply impressed with Phizo’s “earnestness” for a peaceful settlement. What, perhaps, impressed Russell the most is that Phizo had control over the militant Nagas, who had launched a movement in the mid-1950s under the Naga National Council (NNC) to secede from the Indian Republic. In a letter dated Feb. 12, 1963, Sir Bertrand told Indian Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru, “I find it hard to understand the difficulty of coming to an agreement which would put an end to the very painful occurrences incidental to the present policy of India.”

It is believed in some circles that New Delhi’s 1964 ceasefire with the Nagas might have been influenced by the letter from Russell that was handed to Nehru by Rev. Michael Scott. Scott later went to Nagaland as part of a peace mission, along with two senior Indian political leaders.

While Russell was pushing Nehru to make the Nagas an independent country through peaceful negotiations, British involvement in direct conflict continued. On Jan. 30, 1992, soldiers of the Assam Rifles arrested two British nationals along the Nagaland-Burma border. David Ward and Stephen Hill posed as members of BBC-TV, and were travelling in jeeps with Naga rebels carrying arms. Subsequent interrogation revealed that both were operatives of Naga Vigil, a UK-based group. Both Ward and Hill claimed that they started the organization while in jail, influenced by Phizo’s niece, Rano Soriza. Both have served six-year prison terms for various crimes in Britain. Naga Vigil petitioned for their release in the Guwahati High Court. Phizo’s niece took up the issue with then-Nagaland Chief Minister Vamuzo.

Sri Lanka’s Violent Ethnic Strife

In Sri Lanka, the Tamil Tiger terrorist group is in its last throes. Ousted by the Sri Lankan Army from almost all of its “claimed” territories, the militants are now holding on to about 19 square kilometers of land, with about 70,000 Sri Lankan citizens, mostly of Tamil ethnic origin, as their hostages. It is evident that they will be totally routed by the end of this month.

While the US Pacific Command personnel in contact with New Delhi are formulating an evacuation plan for the hostages, London and the European Union are trying to protect the last vestiges of Tiger territory by urging Colombo to work out a cease fire with the terrorists.

The emergence of violent conflict between the Tamil Sri Lankans and the Sinhala Sri Lankans, which gave birth to the London-backed Tamil Tigers, was yet another product of the British colonial legacy. This ethnic conflict, which has engulfed this little island, and unleashed unlimited violence in the region for almost three decades, is, as in the case of North-east India, due to the British mindset of the Sri Lankan and Indian leaders involved in “resolving “the crisis.

To begin with, Sri Lanka (then, Ceylon) had the misfortune to be colonized by three brutal European colonial powers – the Portuguese, the Dutch, and the British. Nonetheless, it is to the credit of the locals that they withstood these brutes and prevented the break-up of the country.

After the Dutch ceded Sri Lanka in the 1801 Peace of Amiens, it became Britain’s first crown colony. Immediately, the British colonials started setting up the chess pieces. The ruling Kandyan King, of Tamil ancestry, was ousted with the help of local chieftains of Tamil and Sinhala origin. The coup set up the British crown as the new King.

As part of the “divide and rule” policy, the British colonials promoted the Buddhist religion, resulting in the 1817 Uva rebellion. The Buddhist religion was given protection by the Crown, and the people were told that Christianity would not be imposed on the unwilling masses as had happened during Portuguese and Dutch rule. Following the quelling of the rebellion, the British did what they do best: They carried out one of the worst massacres of the 19th Century, wiping out all able-bodied Sinhalese men from the Hill Country, and 80% of the native population of able-bodied, according to one report. The Kandyan Kingdom was the kingdom of both the Tamils and Sinhalas – both these groups came from India to settle on that island.

One specific impact of the British colonial presence was the emergence of English as the local language, undermining both the Sinhala and Tamil languages. According to one historian, the two most important effects observed during British rule were: one, by the start of 20th Century, the English language became the passport to getting employment; and those who had an English education became dominant in Britain’s handcrafted Sri Lankan society. Due to input of the Christian missionaries, more minority Tamils could read and write English, as opposed to the southern Sinhalese and Kandyan Sinhalese.

The other observed impact on Sri Lankan society of British colonial rule, was the reconstituting of the Legislative Assembly. The Assembly of 1921 had 12 Sinhalese and 10 non-Sinhalese, at a time when the Sinhalese constituted more than 70% of the population. Things changed in 1931, when, out of 61 seats, the Sinhalese won 38. This troubled the Tamils, because they had had special privileges under British, and never wanted to accept the dominance of the Sinhalese majority.

In addition, the British also brought to the island a million workers of Tamil ethnic background from Tamil Nadu, and made them indentured labourers in the Hill Country. This was in addition to the million Tamils already living in the provinces, and another million Mappilla Muslims, whose mother tongue is Tamil. Thus, the British sowed seeds of ethnic discord. During the colonial rule, the minority Tamils had a disproportionate representation in the bureaucracy.
The Role of British Assets in Independent Sri Lanka

However, when in 1948, the British finally left the island, they left behind their assets, in powerful places, many of whom were educated at Oxford-Cambridge, and some of whom had adopted Christianity, on both sides of the ethnic divide London had so carefully created.

Instead of seizing the opportunity to build the nation and set about undoing the misdeeds they were forced to carry out under British rule, beginning in the 1950s, Sinhalese-dominated governments implemented public policies that would institutionalize the majority community’s dominance. Sinhala was declared to be the country’s sole official language; Buddhism was favoured as the state religion; and the unitary nature of the state ensured Sinhalese political domination. Major Sinhalese-Tamil riots in 1956, 1981, and 1983 further heightened Tamil insecurities.

Meanwhile, the Tamils began to press for autonomy. Political parties, such as the Tamil United Liberation Front (TULF), utilized conventional means, which included participating in coalition governments. Militant Tamils, the LTTE, sought the creation of an independent Tamil state, referred to as Tamil Eelam, which would comprise the North and East of the country.

Throughout the 1980s, various Tamil rebel groups engaged in attacks against the Colombo government and its security apparatus. However, the situation worsened on that island because of the British mindset of New Delhi, which made a number of attempts to intervene in the violent Sri Lankan situation. Besides helping the Tamils to get armed training and intelligence, New Delhi, under late-Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi, deployed around 50,000 Indian peacekeepers (IPKF) in Tamil areas in Sri Lanka to help ensure peace. In return, the Sri Lankan government agreed to devolve power to the North and East through the creation of autonomous provincial councils.

Neither Colombo nor the Tamil militants were sincere about the deal; both were looking at the Indian troops as the barriers against their independent state. The failure of the Indian intervention led to more deaths and the assassination of Sri Lankan President Ranasinghe Premadasa, and India’s Rajiv Gandhi, among many other high-level Sri Lankan officials, by the terrorist Tamil Tigers.

London: Break Up India into 100 Hong Kongs

But, the British were in the middle of all this. Besides the fact that the LTTE was headquartered in London, and raising most of its illegitimate funds from Britain and its former colonies in Australia, South Africa, and Canada, within ten days of Gandhi’s death, Sri Lankan President Ranasinghe Premadasa, who would be assassinated by the LTTE in May 1993, forced the hasty departure from Sri Lanka of British High Commissioner David Gladstone.

The charge was that Gladstone, a descendant of the Victorian-age Prime Minister William Gladstone, was interfering in local election politics. But he had also been criticized earlier for allegedly meeting with known drug traffickers in Sri Lanka. Gladstone, who had previously spent years in the Middle East, was a known British intelligence link to the Israeli intelligence service, the Mossad, which was involved in training both the Sri Lankan Armed Forces and the LTTE.

Britain’s continuing intent to break up India was also expressed openly in this political context. On May 26, 1991, only five days after the British-controlled LTTE-led assassination of Rajiv Gandhi, the Times of London, the premier voice for the British Foreign Office, put forward this view in an editorial entitled “Home Truths”: “There are so many lessons to be learnt from sorrowing India, and most are being muttered too politely. The over-huge federation of almost 900 million people spreads across too many languages, cultures, religions, and castes. It has three times as many often incompatible and thus resentful people as the Soviet Union, which now faces the same bloody strains and ignored solutions as India…

“The way forward for India, as for the Soviet Union, will be to say a great prize can go to any States and sub-States that maintain order without murders and riots. They should be allowed to disregard Delhi’s corrupt licensing restrictions, run their own economic policies, and bring in as much foreign investment and as many free-market principles as they like. Maybe India’s richest course from the beginning would have been to split into 100 Hong Kongs.”
 
The author is South Asian Analyst at Executive Intelligence Review News Services Inc. 

About these ads

21 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

21 responses to “The British Link to South Asian Terrorism

  1. Hindu

    Sanjay,

    I like coming to your blog, and come daily. However, I will not be returning often unless you stop using racial descriptions. When you say “whites are …” it is a racial description. It is also inaccurate, because whiteness is not an ideology. Whites follow numerous ideologies, including Hinduism (pl. read my PS)!

    In this case, the offensive ideology is called Evangelical Christianity, and it has both white and non-white adherents. So why not call it by its accurate description?

    In fact, in most “white” countries, evangelicals are in a minority. Why tag all whites with their crimes? Most of my white friends dislike evangelicals as much as you do and consider them a royal pain the a$$.

    I request you, humbly, to please stop using racial descriptors, because it is unworthy of a blog as fine and insightful as yours. Indeed, if you were to stop using this, I feel certain that your readers would hold you in even higher esteem than they do.

    In future, if you could please refer to these people as “western evangelicals” that would be accurate.

    Sincerely,
    Gary
    (I am white myself – a white Hindu. I adopted the Hindu way of life about 30 years ago – perhaps even before many of your readers were born. I feel Hinduism is the most catholic and open of faiths, and there is absolutely no room for racial epithets in such a universal way of life. Thanks.)

  2. gajanan

    I agree with Gary. There is David Frawley ( Vamadeva Shastri) . http://www.dharmacentral.com. http://www.gurudeva.org. http://www.davidgodman.org
    http://www.advaitaspirit.org . Ramana Maharishi had many followers. Then there is ISKON and there is Amma at Amritapuri who has doen great work with overseas devotees. One cannot compare to the numbers in Abrahamic faiths, but there are many in Sanatan Dharam of different races and colors. One feel the color tag should not be invoked.

  3. gajanan

    Yes , Gary is right. There are many like http://www.dharmacentral.com
    http://www.gurudeva.org
    ISKON and many disciples of Ramana Maharishi.
    So the color tag needs to be done away with.

    • Hindu

      Thank you Gajanan. I would also point out all the wonderful folks at Hinduism Today (mostly white, not that it matters one bit, but since that was the issue we were discussing), who are running a beautiful Shaivite Monastery in Hawaii. Please take a peep:

      http://www.hinduismtoday.com/about_us.shtml

      Their write ups are very well done, and have convinced many Americans of the Hindu way of life. They appeal only to the highest instincts in mankind – the desire to love, be loved, live in Dharma, and to be one with the unifying reality that is Brahman (ie, yoga).

      Incidentally, one place where the organization ISKCON has found a lot of devotees recently is Russia. The temples there are bursting at the seams, and they want to build a new grand temple in Moscow.

      Thanks,
      Gary

  4. sanjaychoudhry

    Gary, sorry to hurt your feelings. By “Whites,” I actually meant White Christian supremacists (mainly Anglo-American evangelicals and the Western government agencies which support their agenda worldwide). These are a very potent threat to all non-Christian civilisations.

    I will in future refer to them as “Western evangelicals” and Western intelligence agencies. I did not realise that the term “whites” would sound derogatory and racial to Westerners who have nothing to do with the evangelicals and their White Christian supremacist agenda and dream of world domination by triggering unrest in pagan societies. Thanks for pointing this out. One lives and learns.

    • Hindu

      Thank you Sanjay.

      If you visit our temple in the US, you will find most of the people to be white. There are many Indians, and some from other races too. We are all Hindus and I have not once (in almost 30 years) heard anyone being described by their race. We are all devotees, and God does not see color or gender. He only sees how true our love for him, and for others is.

      Actually most Indian spiritual gurus have a significant western following. I was at an event by Ma yesterday, and I would guess that roughly 25% of the devotees were caucasian.

      Thanks for the consideration. I do believe the correct term is “Western evangelical christian” for the group you are referring to. They are a powerful and highly funded group here (in the US). They number about 25% of the population, but run large churches, many of whom are essentially large corporations, with their own TV channels and so on. As I said, they are a royal pain in the a$$ even for non-evangelical Americans and I personally know many devout christians who are staunchly against evangelism because they feel it demeans the message of Jesus. Such churches would be called non-evangelical. I do believe that most churches are this way (I don’t have numbers) but the 25% that are evangelical, almost by dint of having to evangelize and sell their message, are far more vocal, organized, and aggressive.

      It is sad though to see so many Indians fall into their trap. These people are (to my mind) as far away from God as can be. They have reduced spirituality to the status of an efficient and expansionist business, talking of world market share etc.

      You’ll be surprised – some of the most aggressive evangelical churches are the Korean ones. I understand that Korean buddhists are annoyed with them.

      Anyways, compliments on a fine blog.

      Thanks,
      Gary

  5. Nam

    The crooked crooked Brits.

  6. Nam

    Good to see the above positive modification as racial descriptions in the globalized world that we live in, often run the chance of being inaccurate and/or outdated.

    The foundation for the Preservation of Mahayana Tradition (FPMT) Buddhist monastery in the Alpujarra mountains of Granda is an example of a Spanish-run Buddhist establishment, where it is believed the western incarnation of Lama Yeshe was born.

    Here in Spain Ma is very sought after and several hour-long lines are seen at each of her visits by people waiting to hug her.

    Also, there are several ISKON temples run by white Spaniards.

    On a different note, Sanjay will you be doing a piece on the latest development viz a viz Varun Gandhi?

    Regards

    • Hindu

      Thanks Nam. I was talking to an ISKCON devotee and he said that in Russia, there are far too many devotees to fit into the temples, so they are facing a problem of too few temples! ISKCON has found many devotees in Russia.

      Hindu Dharma is a way of life. It is a way of life that can be followed by anyone, anywhere because it does not rely on any article of faith, but is based on self-evident humanistic principles of Dharma.

      Though I was born in the US, I see myself as Hindu, and India as my spiritual motherland. I know many Americans who feel this way. As Gajanan said, we cannot compare to the numbers of Abrahamic faiths, but still we are significant, and bring to the 5000 year old Hindu tradition our own little take on things.

      I must also say though that those who follow the caste system are doing Hindu Dharma great disservice. We have no such system here. We do follow some varna descriptions. For instance, we insist on brahminical behavior, which means we must always be very pure in thought, action, and body. But it is not hereditary. It is a state anyone can acquire.

      At the same time, if one of us is on duty in Iraq, then he must be a Kshatriya. Because then his dharma changes according to the situation he is in. He may need to kill (which a brahmin would not do).

      And daily, we are all Shudra when we clean our temple. Nor should Shudra mean anything but a compliment, because it means someone who is doing real work, getting his hands dirty. It is not a slur. We are proud to be Shudras once every day.

      I am almost certain this is what the Hindu scriptures talk of but it has been distorted.

      • Nam

        Gary, that is heartening to know (about ISKON Russia). Some years ago when I lived in the US as a student, I used to visit my sister in Gainesville, FL and often ate the free vegetarian lunches offered by the large devotee community of ISKON there. What fun days!

  7. sanjaychoudhry

    “On a different note, Sanjay will you be doing a piece on the latest development viz a viz Varun Gandhi?”

    Nam, I am a little tied up so cannot commit anything. However, if someone wants to pen some thoughts, I will surely publish the writeup here.

  8. Raj

    Sanjay,
    I too am an avid reader of your blog but one can only take in so much venom spewing on a daily basis. You must digress a little bit and talk about positive experiences now and then… religious, spiritual et al.

    • Hindu

      Raj,

      One thing I do and recommend is to read the description of a Brahmin in the Bhagavad Gita. I find that just reading it inches me a little closer to that ideal each time.

      Mind you, it is not hereditary – it is a state of mind, and can even be transient. If you are in that state, Lord Krishna describes you as a Brahmin – one who dwells in the eternal Brahman.

      Gary

    • Nam

      Raj,

      It is indeed sad to see the state in which Hindu Dharma finds itself today, mainly due to the many Hindu traitors (known as secular mediapersons, marxists, communists, etc.) living in India, whose souls have been purchased, either by dogmatic beliefs, or simply by money.

      These developments going on in India today certainly cannot make a lover of India happy. However, Sanjay is not spewing hate, he is merely reporting facts that your cnns, ndtvs and times don’t tell you. If it weren’t for this blog, we wouldn’t know half the stuff thats happening against Hindus disguised so very cleverly, and under our very noses.

      There are several other blogs that are lighter in nature and some that take on in a satirical manner their view of current events. One such blog is Seriously Sandeep (through which I discovered this one).

      The purpose of this blog however (as I understand it), is to spread awareness, and it does an excellent job at it.

      • Hindu

        Raj, and Nam,

        I think what Raj says is important. While we fight evil, the best way to do so is to simply do more good. That balances out our own Dharma.

        Here is a great story of people just doing good and spreading Sanatana Dharma:

        http://www.rickross.com/reference/krishna/krishna85.html

        I honestly believe the time has come for Hindus to shed their aversion to spreading the message. Remember, our message is not full of hate and “them vs. us.” It is a philosophy for everyone. Why not tell others about it. Why not show the Bhagavat Gita to others. Why not talk about it.

        I was simply blown away by the BG when I first read it. It seemed from a different level of civilization than any of the Abrahamic texts. After I had read it through and through, I started an evening class (free) for people who wanted to hear. Many came. Some stayed and made Dharma central to their lives. I never even asked anyone to do this. The Gita simply pulled them into this way of life – of Dharma. Some stayed christian, and also attend their church, which is perfectly fine. Others simply became “Hindu”.

        It is really sad that inheritors of this greatest of spiritual doctrines are leaving this divine inheritance.

        Hari Om,
        Gary

    • sanjaychoudhry

      Raj, your point about more diversity is well taken, but I don’t think I am spewing any venom here. This is a blog for national security and civilisational threats concerning India. If you live in a hospital, it will look as if the whole world is overflowing with patients. It is the same with this blog. Since I collect all issues concerning national security and threats to Hindu civilisaiton here, it would seem that India is bristling with conspiracies of Muslims, Christians and Maoists. This is only because of “pick and choose” method followed here in terms of posts.

      • alwayssaynotoracism

        I agree with sanjay here. Some points I want to add. This blog and others like this including mine ( http://victimofprejudice.blogspot.com/ ) focus on the threats to India. If you dig deeper it’s not about religion at all as Hinduism is not some “ism” and does not fit into western definition in any sense. The “way of life” is being trampled on in India. Abrahamic religions like Islam/Christianity are actually tools of colonizing the natives, history has vindicated it and it’s happening in India. Bharat to Hindus is like their mother, bharatmata. Today our country is seized by six Yamahs (6Ms) – Mullahs, Missionaries, Marxists, Mecaulayists, Media and Maino! Please see http://www.haindavakeralam.com/HKPage.aspx?PageID=7983&SKIN=B

        The number of blogs focusing on this area is probably 10 times less than those talking about cricket, bollywood and such mundane stuff.

        OK, here is one for good news about India

        http://goodnewsindia.com

  9. gajanan

    One thing I find it very paradoxical to understand is about Bertrand Russell. His book ” Why I am not a Christian” was the first in Why I am not a……. series. Then he goes and gives a letter to Rev. Michael Scott ( a friend of Gandhi) to give a letter to Nehru[ reference here. There is an interesting chronology given here http://www.manipuronline.com/Manipur/December2002/nagachronology2002.htm%5D
    This is another reference below here. http://www.telegraphindia.com/1050921/asp/guwahati/story_5264453.asp

    Phizo met BRussel and BRussel heard him and gave a lettter via the Rev for Nehru. Very paradoxical, but has relevance to India now.

  10. Bharat Nair

    There is documented evidence which proves that Bertrand Russel was an agent of Mi5/6. He was extensively used by brits in pys ops.

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s