Indian Union – a result of treachery, fraud, foolishness and sin

We are back from our vacation. Said vacation was filled more with musings about the state of rAs.t.ra and dharma than with any relaxation. Why should Hindus hold bhArata as a sacred land? What binds them to it? Is it merely being born here? If so, should the second generation Hindus in the Americas and Europe simply not care about bhArata?

Or is it that the biija of dharma was sown in this soil and hence, we revere this country? But then, should we also care about our mahAmada neighbors who have inherited the same sacred geography? To me, the reason behind the love for what we call as ‘India’ today is a result of its being a Hindu majority nation. It is the Hindu-ness of this nation which makes me revere it. Of what use is a sacred place which does not have a living culture? The nr.simha mandira of mUlasthAnapura has been destroyed by the mahAmada-s. Of what use is that place now? It can regain its earlier respect only when it is conquered, cleansed and made sacred once again with a new temple.

Thus, the sacredness of land is based on three aspects – people, culture and history. If even one of them is negative, the land loses its sacred status. By adapting modernism and liberal communist ideals, we are losing our roots. When we lose our roots completely, India will cease to be a sacred land. Bali might remain the only candidate then. For even Nepal is going to doldrums with the Communists gaining in strength.

The current trend in India is not very encouraging. Many of the so-called Hindutva/pro-Hindu organizations are not as much pro-Hindu as they are anti-abrahamist. Many of them are liberals who simply are unable to free themselves completely from their traditions. They try to solve their dilemma by inventing a new system – these misguided people are supported by neo-vedantins and neo-yoga masters. Could this new system replace the robust traditions? I can see only failures in its future. Many of the new brigades have become anti-ritual. They deride several Hindu traditions in the name of ‘modern scientific thoughts’. Some go to the other extreme by trying to find nuclear weapons in mahAbhArata! Neither of these two schools seems to have much sense in their approach. Even more deplorable is the fact that very few among these ‘pro-Hindu’ schools have actually read the vaidika, paurAn.ika and dharmas’Astra literature in any great depth. Most of them depend on a few neo-vedantin writers or even worse, white indologists. And the neo-vedantin self-styled gurus who show themselves off as ‘well read’ prove to be ‘not so well read’ when you read their literature and compare the same with our traditional texts.

Recently, I came to know about one such ‘nugget of wisdom’ given by a popular guru: he had stated “…it is wrong to claim that there is only one God but rather the truth is that there is only God and nothing else”. It was claimed that he is a great exponent of s’an~karAdvaita literature. But this statement is so far away from the advaita of s’an~kara. God can be translated as iis’vara in devabhAs.A. While san~kara accepts the existence of an iis’vara in the vyavahArika world, he certainly does not call the Brahman of pAramArthika satya as iis’vara. As the famous phrase about advaita goes: ‘jiivo brahmaiva nA paraH’. It is the soul which is brahman. To use the word ‘God’ for the jiiva does not show valid scholarship. Rather, it is another example of how neo-vedantins make absurd claims about traditional texts. Their focus seems to be towards trying to prove themselves ‘more monotheistic’ than the abrahamic monotheistic religions. Such attempts are utterly nonsensical. They are as absurd as the claims made by certain Hindus regarding the text of the mahAmada-unmattas: “koran is about peace”, “all religions call for peace”, “jihadis have misinterpreted koran” (as if these brain addled guys know koran better than the mullah-s and jihadi-s!!) etc etc.

Now, many Hindus are hailing the chief minister of gurjara as though he is the savior of the Hindus. But they seem to have forgotten that no one who is trying to work within this system can bring about a true change. The very system is rigged against us. The birth of the Indian Union is mired in treachery, fraud and foolishness. To put it in very simple terms: when any property is split among the siblings, it has to be done properly. One cannot give a portion to a brother and call the rest of the property as common property. That is a farce, an injustice. The secularists love to say that Hindus and the mahAmada-s are brothers. Even if we accept this, the Hindus have been cheated out of their property. While their mahAmada ‘brothers’ got Pakistan, Hindus got nothing which they could call as theirs. Our ancestors proved to be extremely foolish in that they never opposed this move with full force. Even the current composition of Hindu masses seems to point that we are mostly fools – after all, we care more about the various castes than dharma. We care more about money and individual comforts than the state of dharma. The meteoric rise of various jAti based parties show that we have completely lost our vision and are running around like headless chickens. The varn.As’rama dharma has vanished completely. We have a perverted form of jAti system which has severed all relationship with dharma and is nothing but a millstone around our stone now. It leads only to internal squabbles and makes things easier for the abarahamists.

Moreover, the constitution of this Indian Union showers several special considerations on the minorities. Hindus have been living in a semi-dhimmi status in this land – both as a result of their mental conditioning as well as the constitution. Unless the constitution is changed, there can be no real empowerment of Hindus. Any government which comes to power will be shackled by this constitution and will not be useful to us.

The so-called pro-Hindu parties and their leaders are mostly liberals. We cannot expect them to push for a complete change in this constitution. Many of them do not even want a Hindu state but only a state which does not favor minorities. This is not the solution to our problem. This will not set right the injustice meted out to us. What is occurring in India is a great sin. The land of dharma is being subverted into nothing more than a cheap imitator. History shows us that the communities with liberal tendencies die out pretty soon and are replaced with more virile communities (read ‘Sex and Culture’ by J Unwin). By adopting these destructive ideologies, we are moving towards a path of self destruction. If there is no correction in near future, there will come a day when the dharma will cease to be sanAtana and may become extinct much like the pagan religions of Europe. Then, bhArata will also lose its sacred status. ‘Nationalists’ seems to miss this completely. Thus, Hindus need a new brand of politics, a paradigm shift. Otherwise, the current brand of politics will lead to nothing but their extinction.


7 thoughts on “Indian Union – a result of treachery, fraud, foolishness and sin”

  1. I dont think that our ancestors were foolish at all as did the optimal thing given their constraints. If we had become an explicitly Hindu rashtra, the monotheists would have found some pretext to join hands and physically destroy us. This was realized by our much reviled rashtra pita. Science & technology, oil, industry were developed in india largely through foreign goods and expertise, which would have become unavailable otherwise. Though the situation is not ideal we have survived and can now take the next leap even though we have bled a great deal.

  2. Anon, sorry that is just stupid & excuse making for the cowardice of our ancestors.

    Mleccha’s could not destroy the much smaller Vietnam despite dropping more bombs on it than they did during all of WW2 but you think they would have destroyed a Hindu rashtra.

    They could not destroy Maoist China either.

    The reality is that no one would have stopped a population exchange in 1947 if Hindus insisted, it was that treasonous bastard duo of Nehru-Gandhi alone who opposed it & that scumbag is no rashtrapita.

    What next leap when we are steadily going down the toilet.

    1. I would disagree; China was supported by USSR. Vietnam was ethnically homogeneous and their society was not fully understood. Even today we cannot estimate the damage they have endured and are still suffering from due to their defiance. This after noting that they are some of the most disciplined and patriotic societies. Whereas whites had ruled and manipulated events here for many years. Strategically and financially they were hell bent on dominating india even though they had to retreat.
      Shvetas had always used the marus as counterweights to dharmiks, and had favoured them heavily giving them power beyond what they had. They would never have permitted a population exchange even though it was presented as a possibility. If it had taken place, the carnage would have caused Yumrika to permanently station its forces and dominate us minutely. The example of germany and japan was available to our leaders. The extent of german suffering after WW2 is never told, and it is their high iq and ethnic cohesion that has enabled them to rise again. But still politically and militarily they are dominated by yumrika. Germans were the archetypal whites,the source of white culture and significant numbers of them had settled in america which prevented the victors from killing them off. In our case they would have had no hesitation.
      So our ancestors were not cowards, and I think chose the correct route to survival. The misfortune was that Patel died too soon and that boozy, not too bright kashmiri pandit had to be placed(for other unrelated but solid reasons) as PM.

      1. I know about the treatment of the Germans or the Japanese and hardly unqiue either in their targeting of fellow mlecchas because just 40 years earlier they had done the same to the Boers.

        But you are still missing the point & instead coming with up your own hypothetical scenarios which have no evidence and doing it solely to cover for the incompetence and cowardice of Gandhi and Hindus.

        Where is the evidence that Americans would have intervened to stop population exchange?

        There is none & carnage did happen as you already know, particularly in the Punjab.

        The reason the scumbags like Gandhi-Nehru were opposed to population exchange had NOTHING to do with fear of mlecchas/American intervention (nowhere do they even hint that this was the reason). It had everything to do with Hindu inability to be hard nosed and have a realistic understanding of war.

        Population exchange was a serious possibility had it been pursued because Jinnah wanted it, Ambedkar had proposed it, so did Rajaji. It was the collective failure of Hindus that this was not implemented as it was between Turkey & Greece.

        Would mleccha’s have intervened in India if from 1740 to 1761 the Marathas launched a program of massacring all sullas, driving them out, and forcibly reconverting them?

        No they wouldn’t have because they didn’t have the power. The Marathas did have the power but failed to do so unlike the Japanese (with their Xtians) & the Spanish (with their sullas).

        Gandhi comes in the same long tradition of foolishness & he took that foolishness to new extremes emasculating the Hindus.

        Hindus are the kings of excuse making, so Vietnam got USSR support but then they also had a much smaller population & manpower than ourselves which they still managed to overcome.

        Imagine Ieyasu had pursued your policy & done nothing in regards to the Xtians for fear of the Spanish-Portugal mleccha combine (the then mleccha superpowers like US-Britain were to be later) invading Japan?

        A Spanish invasion was a possibility and was one of the reasons why Japan closed the doors to the mleccha’s.

        Indeed when Nobunaga regretted his decision in allowing Xtians into Japan & wanted to stamp out Xtianity, he was told not to by his advisors and given reasons similar to what you are giving as excuses (with far less convincing evidence I might add), see las paragraph:

        Now imagine Ieyasu & Iemitsu followed this line of logic and done nothing being paralyzed by fear of mleccha invasion, Japan would have ceased to exist. Their decisive action saved Japan while the Gandhi-Nehru combine doomed India by opposing population exchange.

      2. Don’t get me wrong, I am with you on the mleccha treachery.

        But they are not some omnipotent entity which can paralyze us with the click of a button.

        In fact you are the first person I know who extended the blame for lack of population exchange to the mleccha’s while excusing Gandhi-Nehru from any blame.

        There is no evidence that America would have invaded if we exchanged populations & an orderly population exchange would have actually prevented the carnage that did happen (which funnily enough did not precipitate any US intervention).

        The end result of partition was that Hindus led by Gandhi-Nehru were exterminated in Pakistan while sullas have continued to squat in India and even make dhimmis out of Hindus again while rapidly advancing in numbers, thank Gandhi the “rashtrapita” for every riot & rape sullas commit now as he didn’t want to send them to Pakistan.

  3. Shri ranvir,
    just came here and saw your posts.Cowardice as you put it might prove to be wisdom in retrospect.The nature of political power and its maintainance is very different in Bharat as compared to ethnically homogeneous nations like Jap,Germany,Turkey.To really gain an understanding,we must draw a political “force diagram” of the entire country,by listing the groups present, know how they are oriented financially,politically and ideologically.The sum of all these components and their interaction will give us an idea of the events to come.
    Given the heterogeneity of Bharat,it is impossible that any sentiment can be whipped up effectively across all peoples and the corresponding upsurge channelled and used.This happens routinely in all nation states.You can see that the marathas could not have done what the japanese did,as sullas played roles in society across Bharat at that time.I agree that Ieyasu,iemitsu did the right thing because they had the balance of power worked out;they calculated accurately that at that point,they could defeat the foreigners with what they had on their own soil.Gandhi & Patel must have also calculated the same and concluded that we were not strong enough. Note that British officers still held commands,and that Hindu officers were carefully moulded into the typical sandhurst officers with no national spirit.
    In these matters,it is imperative that ones calculations be absolutely correct and better to err on the side of caution.Could we have reasonably pulled of an Ieyasu?I think not.Even among the businessmen only the deep thinking G.D.birla was wholly on our side,with others,even big names vacillating on freedom.Clearly,we just had enough “political”(i.e. the sum of financial,military and demography) power to nudge the British out and that too not without ceavats.I still hold that G & P did the best thing possible.If islamophiles like Bose or other revolutionaries had succeded,we should not have been one country,and sanatana dharma would have been picked off step by step in each small country.In addition,there were communists(who were very strong) and all sorts of ideologies competing for flesh from the carcass of India once the British left,and it is indeed a testament to the brilliance of G & P that none of these horrors have come to pass.Then there is the question of ethnicities in Bharat.It is an open secret that there are rivalries among ethnicities in india,which can overcome the shared hindu cultural heritage.Though unpalatable,one must not discount the possibility that the islamic threat might be keeping us as one whole in turn keeping our civilization alive.When one can confidently say that these internal rivalries have been smoothened out,then of course the desired actions can be performed at the national level.
    I do not deny the seriousness of the multiple crises we face;but only pointing out the depth and precision that is required for such analyses and the factors that need to be considered

  4. Continuing:
    My opinion is that even before the second world war,America had become the preeminent world power,and had successfully extended their hegemony worldwide especially in both north and south america(Remember that it was America who ended japan’s isolation,their brazeness,along with britain in the middle east).While bleeding knowledge and talent from Europe,they successfully let the older powers grind it out and kept up the charade that they were the chelas of britain when in fact they were far stronger.By the mid thirties,their geopolitical aims had become one of a world empire and it is not impossible that WW2 was their doing behind the scenes.We see that they supplied both britain and germany with materials.Their calculation was that entire eurasia would be ruined in the war and they could pick up the pieces, and of course china and india would fall like ripe plums after that.The script was followed in most aspects except that russian resilience was underestimated.Shedding rivers of blood,they managed to hold out till 80’s when they were finally done in by the most fanatical and motivated fighters in the form of mujahideen,who were instructed and armed by the americans.
    So during and immediately after the war,the americans were certainly not going to let their interests be compromised.It can be claimed that the muslims constitued one of americas interests for which they would have sent forces.Firstly,arabia had oil, and their tribal warlords(who had been propped up by the anglo saxons) were learning how to use islam for political ends;they would have to be pleased for the oil(whose consumption by americans was humongous) to keep flowing.Being a strategic resource no action would have been too much.Secondly,pakistan had to be appeased as it had access to central asia.Russia had grabbed afghanistan and the americans had to have pakistan,which would have again been displeased if population xchange and the resultant masaccres had taken place.Again the possibility of intervention was almost certain by either of the anglo saxons which we could not have endured by any stretch of the imagination.Thirdly,we were a newly formed polytheistic country which grated against the very core of their beings.Imagine a pagan,idolatorous country deriving and appropriating the “democratic traditions” of which they were so proud and for which they had constructed such an elaborate past!(As time passed,Bharat instead of failing with democracy as they expected,actually got stronger).The elites,many of them islamophilics(like many german nazis) were aghast and held a simmering grudge against the hindus for this basic reason.All these facts strongly suggest that america would have intervened if we had done an ieyasu and that G & P were right in compromising and getting what they could.They even grabbed enough Kashmir to be a “kabab mein haddi” for america,pakistan and china to rule central asia!This is no mean achievement.

Leave a Reply

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

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

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )

Connecting to %s