Intolerence and India

It needs to be recalled that the original source of religious and cultural intolerance lies in the Old Testament. Due to the spread across all continents of the 3 revealed religions, this semitic intolerance now strikes even a tolerantly benevolent civilisation like India. What is dangerous is, due to the fear of vote banks, the slow, inexorable islamisation of what is left of the classical Indian culture. No one has as yet started to engage a meaningful dialogue about why those who, even after a 1000 years of co-existence with the pacifism of the Jainas, of the Buddhists (which they obliterated), with the tolerance of the Hindus, with a pluri-religious tolerance written in stone on the cave walls of Ajanta, they still pour out only anger, violence and threats of murder over such a minor "offense" as Rushdie's paragraph. Can it be that there is not even a single Indian Muslim who does not still feel as part of their glorious history punctuated the destruction of so many libraries, centres of high learning, on what do they base their easy offense over a word, a caricature, when they do not experience the slightest scruple over so much of the splendour they have subtracted from the culture of India? How long can they continue to plague the Indian democracy with the arrogance of a religious sensitivity founded on the belief of a God who actually does not exist. Is there not at least one single Indian Muslim who benefits from the secular Constitution to agree with French author Stendhal's statement: "The only excuse of God is that he does not exist!"? Without the Muslims, India - it must be said - would be more tolerant, more peaceful, more beautiful. They have added nothing to Indian civilisation, except intolerance and the holy duty of killing as the only response to difference of thought , of belief, of deed. The vote bank acts on Indian polity as the old man riding on the shoulder of Sindbad and clasping his neck with his legs with the desire to suffocate him.

युवक.................बलवंत सिंह(भगत सिंह)

शहीदे आजम भगतसिंह आज भी युवकों के अनंत प्रेरणास्रोत हैं। यह लेख "साप्ताहिक मतवाला" (वर्ष 2, अंक सं.38, 16 मई, 1925) में बलवंत सिंह के नाम से छपा था। केवल 17 वर्ष कुछ महीने की उम्र में हिन्दी में लिखा यह लेख भगतसिंह की भाषा के ओज और लालित्य की एक मिसाल तो है ही, युवाशक्ति के दिशा बोध के लिए भी एक प्रेरक बिन्दु है। यहां हम आज के युवाओं के लिए भगतसिंह की प्रेरक स्मृति के रूप में लेख का संपादित अंश प्रकाशित कर रहे हैं। इस लेख की चर्चा "मतवाला" के सम्पादकीय कर्म से जुड़े आचार्य शिवपूजन सहाय की डायरी में भी मिलती है। लेख से पूर्व यहां "आलोचना" में प्रकाशित डायरी के उस अंश को भी उद्धृत किया जा रहा है। -स.

आचार्य शिवपूजन सहाय की डायरी का अंश (पृष्ठ 28)

भगतसिंह ने "मतवाला" (कलकत्ता) में एक लेख लिखा था, जिसको संवार-सुधारकर मैंने छापा था और उसे पुस्तक भण्डार द्वारा प्रकाशित "युवक साहित्य" में संग्रहीत भी मैंने ही किया था। वह लेख बलवंत सिंह के नाम से लिखा था। क्रांतिकारी लेख प्राय:गुमनाम लिखते थे। यह रहस्य किसी को ज्ञात नहीं। वह लेख युवक-विषयक था। वह लाहौर से उन्होंने भेजा था। असली नाम की जगह "बलवंत सिंह" ही छापने को लिखा था।

-आलोचना-67/वर्ष 32/

अक्तूबर-दिसंबर, 1983

युवावस्था मानव जीवन का वसंतकाल है। उसे पाकर मनुष्य मतवाला हो जाता है। हजारों बोतल का नशा छा जाता है। विधाता की दी हुई सारी शक्तियां सहस्र धारा होकर फूट पड़ती हैं। मदांध मातंग की तरह निरंकुश, वर्षाकालीन शोणभद्र की तरह दुद्र्धर्ष, प्रलयकालीन प्रबल प्रभंजन की तरह प्रचंड, नवागत वसंत की प्रथम मल्लिका कलिका की तरह कोमल, ज्वालामुखी की तरह उच्छृंखल और भैरवी संगीत की तरह मधुर युवावस्था है। जैसे क्रांतिकारी की जेब में बमगोला, रण रस रसिक वीर के हाथ में खड्ग, वैसे ही मनुष्य की देह में युवावस्था। 16 से 25 वर्ष तक हाड़ चाम के संदूक में संसारभर के हाहाकारों को समेटकर विधाता बंद कर देता है। युवावस्था देखने में तो शस्यश्यामला वसुंधरा से भी सुंदर है, पर इसके अंदर भूकंप की सी भयंकरता भरी हुई है। इसीलिए युवावस्था में मनुष्य के लिए केवल दो ही मार्ग हैं- वह चढ़ सकता है उन्नति के सर्वोच्च शिखर पर या वह गिर सकता है अध:पात के अंधेरे खंदक में। चाहे तो त्यागी हो सकता है युवक, चाहे तो विलासी बन सकता है युवक। वह देवता बन सकता है, तो पिशाच भी बन सकता है। वही संसार को त्रस्त कर सकता है, वही संसार को अभयदान दे सकता है। संसार में युवक का ही साम्राज्य है। युवक के कीर्तिमान से संसार का इतिहास भरा पड़ा है। युवक ही रणचंडी के ललाट की रेखा है। युवक स्वदेश की यश दुंदुभि का तुमुल निनाद है। युवक ही स्वदेश की विजय वैजयंती का सुदृढ़ दंड है। अगर किसी विशाल ह्मदय की आवश्यकता हो, तो युवकों के ह्मदय टटोलो। अगर किसी आत्मत्यागी वीर की चाह हो, तो युवकों से मांगो। रसिकता उसी के बांटे पड़ी है। भावुकता पर उसी का सिक्का है। वह छंद:शास्त्र से अनभिज्ञ होने पर भी प्रतिभाशाली कवि है। कवि भी उसी के ह्मदयारविंद का मधुप है। वह रसों की परिभाषा नहीं जानता, पर वह कविता का सच्चा मर्मज्ञ है। सृष्टि की एक विषम समस्या है युवक। ईश्वरीय रचना कौशल का एक उत्कृष्ट नमूना है युवक। विचित्र है उसका जीवन। अद्भुत है उसका साहस। अमोघ है उसका उत्साह।

वह निÏश्चत है, असावधान है। लगन लग गयी है, तो रातभर जागना उसके बाएं हाथ का खेल है, जेठ की दुपहरी चैत की चांदनी है। वह इच्छा करे तो समाज और जाति को उद्बुद्ध कर दे, देश की लाली रख ले, राष्ट्र का मुखोज्ज्वल कर दे, बड़े-बड़े साम्राज्य उलट डाले। पतितों के उत्थान और संसार के उद्धारक सूत्र उसी के हाथ में हैं। वह इस विशाल विश्व रंगस्थल का सिद्धहस्त खिलाड़ी है।

संसार के इतिहास के पन्ने खोलकर देख लो, युवक के रक्त से लिखे हुए अमर संदेश भरे पड़े हैं। संसार की क्रांतियों और परिवर्तनों के वर्णन छांट डालो, उनमें केवल ऐसे ही युवक मिलेंगे, जिन्हें बुद्धिमानों ने पागल छोकरे अथवा पथभ्रष्ट कहा है। पर जो सिड़ी हैं, वे क्या खाक समझेंगे कि स्वदेशाभिमान से उन्मत्त होकर अपनी लोथों से किले की खाइयों को पाट देने वाले जापानी युवक किस फौलाद के टुकड़े थे। सच्चा युवक तो बिना झिझक के मृत्यु का आलिंगन करता है, संगीनों के सामने छाती खोलकर डट जाता है, तोप के मुंह पर बैठकर भी मुस्कुराता ही रहता है, बेड़ियों की झनकार पर राष्ट्रीय गान गाता है और फांसी के तख्ते पर अट्टहासपूर्वक आरूढ़ हो जाता है।

ऐ भारतीय युवक! तू क्यों गफलत की नींद में पड़ा बेखबर सो रहा है। उठ, आंखें खोल, देख, प्राची दिशा का ललाट सिंदूर रंजित हो उठा। अब अधिक मत सो। सोना हो तो अनंत निद्रा की गोद में जाकर सो रह।

तेरी माता, तेरी प्रात:स्मरणीया, तेरी परम वंदनीया, तेरी जगदम्बा, तेरी अन्नपूर्णा, तेरी त्रिशूलधारिणी, तेरी सिंहवाहिनी, तेरी शस्यश्यामलांचला आज फूट-फूटकर रो रही है। क्या उसकी विकलता तुझे तनिक भी चंचल नहीं करती? उठकर माता के दूध की लाज रख, उसके उद्धार का बीड़ा उठा, उसके आंसुओं की एक एक बूंद की सौगंध ले, उसका बेड़ा पार कर और बोल मुक्त कंठ से-वंदेमातरम्।

Communal Violence Bill is vicious, will divide society.......Ram Jethmalani

The Prevention of Communal And Targeted Violence (Access to Justice And Reparations) Bill, consisting of 138 sections and several schedules and running into 66 printed pages, is as without any legitimate social purpose as it is mischievous in its thinly concealed aims and objects. The need for a marathon criminal statute arises only when the prohibited conduct has assumed endemic proportions and the statutes already in force are ineffective to eliminate it. In other words, it has turned into a chronic cancer of the national multitude. Yes, occasionally in some isolated corners of the country such offences occur, but our people are far too civilised to indulge in them with regularity and frequency to cause what the great Bentham in his "Theory of Legislation" called "alarm".

Even on those rare occasions when they erupt it is almost always that some evil gang leaders instigate and plan them for some ignoble political end. It is these criminals who occupy the upper decks of our social and political life who have to be identified and eliminated. The current available laws have never been used against them. Will somebody examine the statistics of prosecutions and convictions for such offences? The Bill is not designed to cure alarm, instead it is intended to create false alarm, which the leaders will translate into crimes, more social tensions and divisions of our nationhood and patriotism.

This Bill has been drafted by the National Advisory Council headed by Mrs Sonia Gandhi, and put as an agenda item for discussion at the National Integration Council meeting chaired by the Prime Minister on 10 September 2011. The eminent government lawyers who had questioned Anna Hazare's audacity in preparing a draft Lokpal Bill remained silent on this. Obviously, a draft from the NAC (a nominated body of activists, social workers and professionals, without any constitutional or parliamentary status), proposing a Central law on a State subject, and without consulting the States, was far higher in the government's pecking order than a draft from humble Anna Hazare. And woe betide any minister or MP who dared to question its legitimacy for being included in the National Integration Council agenda, without following any prescribed procedures.

It was known that a badly shaken government was anxious to divert the enraged public mind from corruption to something else; from Kalmadi's Commonwealth Games and the 2G scam to non-existent atrocities on minorities to perpetuate vote banks.

Even on cursory reading, the Bill is unconstitutional, anti-national and a communal piece of pseudo legislative work. Unconstitutional, because it violates the federal principle and poaches into the powers of the states as prescribed by the Constitution and the Seventh Schedule. It also violates the provisions of Article 14 by its scandalously communal definition of the word "group" as defined in Section 3(e) that can never pass the test of legal scrutiny.

It is anti-national and communal because it seeks to divide a polity through novel manoeuvres: by the repugnant definition of the term "group" in Section 3(e). "Group" means a religious or linguistic minority, in any state in the Union of India, or Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes within the meaning of Clauses (24) and (25) of Article 366 of the Constitution of India. The lack of good faith in the NAC intention becomes abundantly exposed.

Communal violence, regardless of whichever community perpetrates it, is criminal and anti-national. If the NAC was keen on addressing this issue, it should have established its bona fides by viewing it in a secular perspective, and through the prism of a sound analytical framework to identify recurring causative factors and then suggesting the best preventive and punitive measures, after consultation with legal experts and political parties. The draft does not envisage a mere grant in aid or a welfare scheme for minorities; it contains a bill, the provisions of which have a sinister implication on Constitutional provisions and the prevailing laws of the land, namely, the Indian Penal Code and the Criminal Procedure Code. The NAC's objective to provide a symptomatic framework for "good communal violence" and "bad communal violence" — as if communal violence can be equated with cholesterol — comes through clearly by the definition of "group". It is trying to achieve the ultimate by communalising even communal violence, and ensuring that it further destroys community coexistence in our country.

Social scientists, civil society organisations and administrators would broadly agree that communal violence assumes serious proportions only when fanned and encouraged by local political/religious leaders. Sometimes, communal violence is engineered by political leaders to disgrace a government, and effect a leadership change, such as what happened in Karnataka in 1990. But mostly it is stray incidents, for example, desecration of places of worship during religious festivals that become large communal clashes with the encouragement of local political/religious leaders, who then retreat into the background, leaving the innocent, ordinary people to suffer. Police behaviour would differ from person to person. An honest and conscientious police superintendent would act fearlessly and exercise his ample regulatory powers in accordance with law, whereas a corrupt and political policeman would take orders from his political bosses.

The NAC has several eminent members who would be aware of the dynamics of communal violence and also community dynamics at the grassroots. I am informed that following the dynastic model, there is an outstanding tri-generational advisory group consisting of an elderly retired civil servant, his former joint director, and probationer. Have they taken into account the impact of their Bill purely from the sociological point of view on the lives of the minorities who by and large peacefully inhabit the villages and towns of India? Have the religious and linguistic minorities agitated for a Bill as prepared by the NAC? I don't think so. I have neither read anything in the recent past in defence of the Bill by any respected leaders of the religious and minority communities. Chief Ministers of several states, including UPA partner Mamata Banerjee of West Bengal, have criticised the bill as violating the federal structure. Eminent jurists, particularly the former Chief Justice of India, Justice J.S. Verma and Justice B.N. Srikrishna have argued against it. So why impose a bill, which the BJP rightly termed as dangerous for the country, on the minorities?

I would like to make one suggestion to the NAC. Can we stop seeing persons belonging to minority communities as a sheaf of ballot papers with the luckless Hand stamped on them? Can we stop seeing them as a bank of votes, but instead give them the respect due to human beings who wish to live with dignity, peace and security, with religious and cultural freedom that is guaranteed to all citizens by our Constitution, with aspirations for themselves and their children for education, employment and opportunity, and do everything possible in state and society to provide such an enabling environment. Wooing them with such draft laws will only ghettoize and alienate them further, will neither provide them any long-term, sustainable social and economic benefits, nor strengthen national unity.

Minorities of all shades have produced men of magnificent intellectual attainments coupled with ennobling compassion for fellow citizens and a spirit of sacrifice for the greatness of the Indian nation. We can produce many more by a proper system of liberal education that fosters genuine secularism and rule of reason in place of blind superstition and fanatical faith. This is the need of the hour, not this legislative garbage.

A strategy to combat Islamic terrorism in India..........Subramanian Swamy

A rebuttal to the Open Page article ‘Muslims and Hindus are mature, the Sangh Parivar is not.'

This rebuttal is to the piece

in The Hindu titled “Muslims and Hindus are mature, the Sangh Parivar is not” (“Open Page,” August 14, 2011) written by Mr. A. Faizur Rahman, claiming to represent the “moderate” spectrum of thought in the Muslim community.

Although Mr. Rahman's piece was written in reference to an earlier piece (“We Muslims are mature, we can take criticism,” “Open Page,” August 7, 2011), by Mr. Raji Raouf, he engages in disinformation about my op-ed piece in another newspaper. Hence it has become essential for me to rebut what Mr. Rahman has written in your columns.

Mr. Rahman's definition of a moderate Muslim is one who does not react to what he calls provocative articles such as mine. He however fails to define what the so-called moderate Muslim's reaction should be to those “terrorists” who have been killing thousands of innocent Indians in various parts of the country, including driving 5,00,000 Hindus out from the Kashmir Valley.

He states that moderate Muslims are content that the National Commission for Minorities sent a notice to me, rather than respond to the call from Muslim Organisations [his words] to “take up arms and to let all hell loose (sic).” Thank you for the consideration, Mr. Rahman!

However, his concept of moderation clearly seems to be an oxymoron because it means a tacit acquiescence in the atrocities of the Islamic terrorists. He fails to offer any concrete steps for Muslims to disown or counter measures to meet the challenge of the jihadi brand of Islam. At this juncture, I am entitled by the “equal time principle” to state what I had in substance written in my op-ed about combating Islamic terrorism, that is terrorism invoking the tenets of Islam especially jihad.

Terrorism is an act of violence that targets civilians to overawe a legally constituted government and the people in the pursuit of political or ideological aims.

In 2004, the U.N. Security Council, in its Resolution No.1566, referred to “criminal acts, including against civilians, committed with the intent to provoke a state of terror in the general public or in a group of persons or particular persons, intimidate a population or compel a Government or an international organization to do or to abstain from doing any act”.

Hence, every government, separately and collectively, has a duty to take effective counter-terrorism measures, to prevent and deter future terrorist attacks and to prosecute those who are responsible for carrying out such acts. At the same time, countering of terrorism poses grave challenges to the protection and promotion of human rights. Every nation is therefore called upon to resolve the conflicting demands of combating terrorism and protecting human rights. The relationship between the two is not “linear,” but “non-linear.” That is, it is not true that the less we protect human rights, the more we can combat terrorism. The converse is also not true. There is, therefore, an “optimum combination” of measures to combat terrorism and the level of safeguards that ensure human rights. The law of diminishing returns operates in this trade-off. Hence we need a strategy of deterrence with minimal intrusion on human rights. This is what I wrote to stir a debate — and not invite and disinformation abuse as Mr. Rahman has done.

Strategy

The fundamental question here today is that since in India we are the worst affected by jihadi terrorist attacks, how to formulate a strategy to deal with Islamic terrorism.

The strategy we choose for terrorist attacks should not be worse in the long run than the consequences of these attacks as in the Rubaiya Sayeed kidnap case of 1989 and the Kandahar IC-814 plane hijack case. Terrorism in India worsened as a consequence of the deal made by the NF and NDA governments to free the notorious terrorists in custody. More innocent people, for example, have been killed in terrorist attacks since the release of Maulana Azhar, Umar Qureshi and Zargar in exchange for the passengers and crew in the Kandahar case. These three upon reaching Pakistan, continued as heroes in their terrorists acts against India including 26/11 in Mumbai.

Thus we need a clear-cut policy, which means a clear-cut statement of objectives, defining the priorities of these objectives, the strategy to achieve the objective, and the committing of necessary human, financial and infrastructural resources.

We need, most of all, a strategy of deterrence. Secular intellectuals may wax eloquent about “true Islam” being humane and peaceful, on TV programmes, but it is clear that they have not read any authoritative translations of the Koran, the Sira and the Hadith. These three holy books together constitute the theology of Islam. Hence instead of talking about the “correct interpretation” of Islam, those who call themselves “moderates” in the Islamic community, ought instead to urge for a new reformed Islamic theology that is consistent with democratic principles.

In Islam, the word of the Prophet is final. No true Muslim can disown these verses, or say that they would rewrite the offensive verses of the Koran. If they do, then they would have to run for their lives.

We Hindus have a long recognised tradition of being religious liberals by nature. We have already proved it enough by welcoming to our country and nurturing Parsis, Jews, Syrian Christians, and Moplah Muslim Arabs who were persecuted elsewhere, when we were 100 per cent Hindu country. Today, Hindus being targeted by Islamic terrorists, have to stand up for themselves.

What does it mean in the 21st century for Hindus to stand up? I mean by that mental clarity of the Hindus to defend the nation by effective deterrent retaliation.

This also entails an intelligent co-option of other religious groups into the Hindu cultural continuum. That is why I advocated that Muslims accept what has been scientifically established by DNA genetic studies, that we have common ancestors and share the hoary Hindu past.

(Dr. Subramanian Swamy is President, Janata Party.)

NATIONAL SECURITY AND INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS: COURSE STRUCTURE

NATIONAL SECURITY AND INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS: COURSE STRUCTURE: "National Security and International Relations School of International Studies Jawaharlal Nehru University Monsoon Semester 2011 MA O..."

How to wipe out Islamic terror.........Subramanian Swamy

The terrorist blast in Mumbai on July 13, 2011, requires decisive soul-searching by the Hindus of India. Hindus cannot accept to be killed in this halal fashion, continuously bleeding every day till the nation finally collapses. Terrorism I define here as the illegal use of force to overawe the civilian population to make it do or not do an act against its will and well-being.

Islamic terrorism is India’s number one problem of national security. About this there will be no doubt after 2012. By that year, I expect a Taliban takeover in Pakistan and the Americans to flee Afghanistan. Then, Islam will confront Hinduism to “complete unfinished business”. Already the successor to Osama bin Laden as al-Qaeda leader has declared that India is the priority target for that terrorist organisation and not the USA.

Fanatic Muslims consider Hindu-dominated India “an unfinished chapter of Islamic conquests”. All other countries conquered by Islam 100% converted to Islam within two decades of the Islamic invasion. Undivided India in 1947 was 75% Hindu even after 800 years of brutal Islamic rule. That is jarring for the fanatics.

In one sense, I do not blame the Muslim fanatics for targeting Hindus. I blame Hindus who have taken their individuality permitted in Sanatan Dharma to the extreme. Millions of Hindus can assemble without state patronage for the Kumbh Mela, completely self-organised, but they all leave for home oblivious of the targeting of Hindus in Kashmir, Mau, Melvisharam and Malappuram and do not lift their little finger to help organise Hindus. If half the Hindus voted together, rising above caste and language, a genuine Hindu party would have a two-thirds majority in Parliament and the assemblies.

The first lesson to be learnt from the recent history of Islamic terrorism against India and for tackling terrorism in India is that the Hindu is the target and that Muslims of India are being programmed by a slow reactive process to become radical and thus slide into suicide against Hindus. It is to undermine the Hindu psyche and create the fear of civil war that terror attacks are organised.

Hindus must collectively respond as Hindus against the terrorist and not feel individually isolated or, worse, be complacent because he or she is not personally affected. If one Hindu dies merely because he or she was a Hindu, then a bit of every Hindu also dies. This is an essential mental attitude, a necessary part of a virat (committed) Hindu.

We need a collective mindset as Hindus to stand against the Islamic terrorist. The Muslims of India can join us if they genuinely feel for the Hindu. That they do I will not believe unless they acknowledge with pride that though they may be Muslims, their ancestors were Hindus. If any Muslim acknowledges his or her Hindu legacy, then we Hindus can accept him or her as a part of the Brihad Hindu Samaj (greater Hindu society) which is Hindustan. India that is Bharat that is Hindustan is a nation of Hindus and others whose ancestors were Hindus. Others, who refuse to acknowledge this, or those foreigners who become Indian citizens by registration, can remain in India but should not have voting rights (which means they cannot be elected representatives).

Any policy to combat terrorism must begin with requiring each and every Hindu becoming a virat Hindu. For this, one must have a Hindu mindset that recognises that there is vyaktigat charitra (personal character) and rashtriya charitra (national character). For example, Manmohan Singh has high personal character, but by being a rubber stamp of a semi-literate Sonia Gandhi and waffling on all national issues, he has proved that he has no rashtriya charitra.

The second lesson for combating terrorism is that we must never capitulate or concede any demand, as we did in 1989 (freeing five terrorists in exchange for Mufti Mohammed Sayeed’s daughter Rubaiya) and in 1999, freeing three terrorists after the hijack of Indian Airlines flight IC-814.

The third lesson is that whatever and however small the terrorist incident, the nation must retaliate massively. For example, when the Ayodhya temple was sought to be attacked, we should have retaliated by re-building the Ram temple at the site.

According to bleeding heart liberals, terrorists are born or bred because of illiteracy, poverty, oppression, and discrimination. They argue that instead of eliminating them, the root cause of these four disabilities in society should be removed. This is rubbish. Osama bin laden was a billionaire. In the failed Times Square episode, failed terrorist Shahzad was from a highly placed family in Pakistan and had an MBA from a reputed US university.

It is also a ridiculous idea that terrorists cannot be deterred because they are irrational and willing to die. Terrorist masterminds have political goals and a method in their madness. An effective strategy to deter terrorism is to defeat those political goals and to rubbish them by counter-terrorist action.Thus, I advocate the following strategy to negate the political goals of Islamic terrorism in India.

Goal 1: Overawe India on Kashmir.
Strategy: Remove Article 370 and resettle ex-servicemen in the valley. Create Panun Kashmir for the Hindu Pandit community. Look for or create an opportunity to take over PoK. If Pakistan continues to back terrorists, assist the Baluchis and Sindhis to get their independence.

Goal 2: Blast temples, kill Hindu devotees.
Strategy: Remove the masjid in Kashi Vishwanath temple and the 300 masjids at other temple sites.

Goal 3: Turn India into Darul Islam.
Strategy: Implement the uniform civil code, make learning of Sanskrit and singing of Vande Mataram mandatory, and declare India a Hindu Rashtra in which non-Hindus can vote only if they proudly acknowledge that their ancestors were Hindus. Rename India Hindustan as a nation of Hindus and those whose ancestors were Hindus.

Goal 4: Change India’s demography by illegal immigration, conversion, and refusal to adopt family planning.
Strategy: Enact a national law prohibiting conversion from Hinduism to any other religion. Re-conversion will not be banned. Declare that caste is not based on birth but on code or discipline. Welcome non-Hindus to re-convert to the caste of their choice provided they adhere to the code of discipline. Annex land from Bangladesh in proportion to the illegal migrants from that country staying in India. At present, the northern third from Sylhet to Khulna can be annexed to re-settle illegal migrants.

Goal 5: Denigrate Hinduism through vulgar writings and preaching in mosques, madrassas, and churches to create loss of self-respect amongst Hindus and make them fit for capitulation.
Strategy: Propagate the development of a Hindu mindset.

India can solve its terrorist problem within five years by such a deterrent strategy, but for that we have to learn the four lessons outlined above, and have a Hindu mindset to take bold, risky, and hard decisions to defend the nation. If the Jews could be transformed from lambs walking meekly to the gas chambers to fiery lions in just 10 years, it should not be difficult for Hindus in much better circumstances (after all we are 83% of India), to do so in five years.

Guru Gobind Singh showed us how just five fearless persons under spiritual guidance can transform a society. Even if half the Hindu voters are persuaded to collectively vote as Hindus, and for a party sincerely committed to a Hindu agenda, then we can forge an instrument for change. And that is the bottom line in the strategy to deter terrorism in a democratic Hindustan at this moment of truth.

The writer is president of the Janata Party, a former Union minister, and a professor of economics.

Warfare and limits: a losing battle?.......by Richard Falk

Dangerous pressures are pushing international warfare in the direction of the absolute, imperiling the future of mankind. Undoubtedly, the foremost of these pressures is the emergence, use, retention, and proliferation of nuclear weapons, as well as the development of biological and chemical weapons of mass destruction.

Since Hiroshima and Nagasaki there have been several close calls involving heightened dangers of nuclear war, especially during the 45 years of Cold War rivalry. None of these was more frightening than the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962, when it took Soviet willingness to reverse their decision to deploy missiles in Cuba to avert a slide into catastrophic nuclear war.

To entrust such weaponry to the vagaries of political leadership and the whims of governmental institutions seems like a Mount Everest of human folly. Yet there is little outcry against nuclear weapons today, despite the collapse of the deterrence rationale that seemed to make reliance on the weaponry somewhat plausible during the decades of confrontation between the Soviet Union and the United States. Even under Cold War conditions, deterrence was seen by peace activists as a form of geopolitical insanity widely known by the descriptive acronym "MAD", short for "Mutually Assured Destruction".

Underneath the tendency of powerful governments to develop whatever weapons and tactics technology can provide are the fragmented political identities of a world divided into sovereign political actors. The inhabitants of these states of greatly varying size, capabilities, vulnerabilities, cultural and political traditions have long been indoctrinated to approve blindly of the actions of their own state. The idolatrous eyes of nationalism treat the extermination of an enemy as an acceptable goal if necessary for national security, and even desirable, if it is seen as furthering national ambitions.

Beyond this, defending the security of one's own state is viewed as an unconditional prerogative, vindicating even a suicidal reliance on nuclear weaponry. The ideology of nationalism, nurturing the values of unquestioning patriotism and militarism in the modern West, have led to an orientation that can be described as secular fundamentalism, embodying imperial worldviews, however dysfunctional, given the risks and limits associated with continuing to seek desired political ends by relying on military superiority. The crime of treason reinforces these absolutist claims of the secular state by disallowing citizens of democratic states any right to claim conscience, law, and belief in support of their deviant behaviour.

'Militarist frustration' since WWII

Any objective study of international history will show that the militarily superior side has rarely prevailed in an armed conflict since the end of World War II unless it has also been able to command moral and legal legitimacy. The political failure of the colonial powers despite their military dominance provide many bloody illustrations of this recent trend toward militarist frustration, starting in the middle of the 20th century.

Because of entrenched bureaucratic and economic interests (the "military-industrial-media complex"), the evidence of the decline of hard-power geopolitics has been ignored. As a result, dysfunctional military solutions for conflicts continue to be relied upon in the West, especially by the United States, and costly and futile recourses to war are repeated over and over without lessons of restraint being learned. Experience, which might provide a rational limit on militarism, has been neglected; instead, old habits persist. 

Another check on the excesses of warfare is supposedly provided by the inhibiting role of conscience, the ethical component of the human sensibility, that is supposed to be a hallmark of citizenship in liberal democracies. This sentiment was vividly expressed in a Bertolt Brecht poem, "A German War Primer":

General, your bomber is powerful   It smashes down forests and crushes a hundred men   But it has one defect:   It needs a driver.

A driver is both a human cost, and maybe a brake on excess, as Brecht suggests a few lines later:

General, man is very useful   He can fly and he can kill   But he has one defect:   He can think.

Of course, military training and discipline are dedicated to overcoming this defect, especially when complemented with nationalist ideologies. International humanitarian law has vainly been trying to impose limits on combat behaviour in wars, but almost always yields in practice to considerations of "military necessity".

The Nuremberg Trials decided that "superior orders" were no excuse if war crimes were committed, a breakthrough in establishing responsibility for adhering to law in relation to war, but flawed by its character as "victors' justice". Although beset by double standards, this Nuremberg tradition of imposing individual accountability for political and military leaders has persisted, and has recently been revived through the establishment of the International Criminal Court in 2002.

In the nuclear age, this process of dehumanising the military machine went further because the stakes were so high. I recall visiting the headquarters of the Strategic Air Command (SAC) at the height of the Cold War. SAC was responsible for the missile force that then targeted many cities in the Soviet Union. What struck me at the time was the seeming technocratic sensibility exhibited by those entrusted with operating the computers that would fire the missiles.

This amoral posture contrasted with the ideological zeal of the commanding generals who would give the orders to annihilate millions of civilians at distant locations. I was told at the time that the lower-ranked technical personnel had been tested to ensure that moral scruples would not interfere with their readiness to follow orders.

I found this mix of politically and morally driven commanders and amoral subordinates a most disturbing mix at the time, and still do, although I have not been invited back to SAC to see whether similar conditions now prevail. I suspect that they do, considering the differing requirements of the two roles. This view seems confirmed by the enthusiasm expressed for carrying on the "war on terror" in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks. Although my remarks here are confined to the United States, I would suppose they apply to other major governmental bureaucracies dealing with national security and war/peace issues.

Use of drones dehumanises war

Now, new technological innovations in warfare are underlining these concerns. American reliance on drone attacks in Afghanistan (and elsewhere) removes the human altogether from the war theater, except in the geographically remote roles of programmer and strategic planner. And even then, reliance on algorithms for targeting removes any shred of personal responsibility. When mistakes are made, and innocent civilians are killed, it is treated as an unfortunate anomaly.

The tragic event is deprived of its human quality by being labeled "collateral damage", and a formal apology is usually made. But nevertheless, the practice goes on: the US is investing heavily in more and better drones for future wars. Eliminating the presence of human soldiers from the battlefield is a chilling development: historically, the fact that war put soldiers' lives at risk forced citizens to think about whether a war was morally right, or worth fighting. The anti-war sentiments of American soldiers in Vietnam exerted a powerful influence that helped over time finally to bring the war to an end.

Ultimately, what is at stake is the human spirit, which at the moment is being squeezed to near-death by technological momentum, corporate greed, militarism, and secular fundamentalism. The ultra-sophistication of the new weaponry and the accompanying military tactics create a new divide in the military sphere, giving rise to an era of virtually "casualty-free" and one-sided wars where the devastation and victimisation are shifted almost totally to the technologically inferior side. Examples include The Gulf War of 1991, the Kosovo War of 1999, and the Gaza Attacks of 2008-09. In the background, however, is the persisting threat of a use of nuclear weapons either by a state or an extremist non-state actor that could in a flash change this ratio of comparative vulnerability.

This web of historical forces continues to entrap major political actors in the world, and dims hopes for a sustainable future, even without taking into account the growing threat of climate change. Scenarios of future cyber warfare are also part of this evolving capacity to destroy distant societies without any human interaction. The cumulative effect of these developments threatens to make irrelevant the moral compass that alone provides acceptable guidance for a sustainable political future. Because international institutions remain too weak to provide global governance, reason and prudence remain the best hope to guide human destiny.

Richard Falk is Albert G. Milbank Professor Emeritus of International Law at Princeton University and Research Professor in Global and International Studies at the University of California, Santa Barbara. He has authored and edited numerous publications spanning a period of five decades, most recently editing the volume International Law and the Third World: Reshaping Justice (Routledge, 2008) and Achieving Human Rights (Routledge 2009).