A few talks with Rajiv Malhotra

INTERVIEW: Rajiv Malhotra on where his work fits within the Hindu tradition

Shri Malhotra, what are your views on gurus, acharyas, swamis and other leaders of Sampradayic traditions?  How do you see their role in the modern world? When you represent Hinduism at various public fora, are you presuming to replace these individuals and institutions with a new mould of spokesperson?

RM: Can anyone presume to "replace" them, ever? I can't imagine how. 

The leaders of Sampradayic lineages and mathas are not merely an integral feature of Hindu Dharma. They are, in themselves, proof of the core competence of our Dharmic traditions. Each enlightened master transmits the distilled wisdom of generations of embodied practice in a particular technique, a specific tradition customized to the community he or she teaches. The very existence of such masters is a testament to the enduring vitality of Dharmic spiritual practice.  It is from their inspiration, their teachings, that others in turn are guided on their own paths of personal spiritual discovery. 

In my  own life, and the task I've committed myself to, I continuously derive inspiration from such teachers. In the 1990s, it was the influence of my own guru that inspired me to give up all business activity at the peak of my material success, and devote all my energies to the work I have taken up. 

My immersion and devout association with many Sampradayic traditions goes all the way back to my childhood... when I was raised in a prominent Arya Samaj family of Punjab. Early on, I became involved with the Ramakrishna Mission in Delhi, and studied Gita under Swami Chinmayanand.  In the 1970s, I was initiated into Maharishi Mahesh Yogi's Transcendental Meditation movement, in which I was active. About 20 years ago, I became an adherent of Sri Sri Ravi Shankar's  Art of Living as well. 

I've also studied with Yogi Amrit Desai, the founder of Kripalu Yoga in the USA,  and was certified as a teacher of Yoga Nidra under this tradition.  I've attended workshops with Swami Nityananda as well.  My experience of all these sadhanas, has proved invaluable to me.

Besides having availed of treasured spiritual interactions with living masters,  I've made it my business to study and imbibe the works of the historical greats: Sri Aurobindo, Ramana Maharshi, Adi Shankara, and many more recent interpreters and thinkers of our tradition.  The systematic study of Madhyamika Buddhism has also added to my understanding of Dharma.

There's no question of my "replacing" any of these exponents of our tradition. Indeed, without the millennia of cumulative wisdom they embody, I might not even have a Dharmic tradition to fight for today.

You appear to have benefited from these relationships a great deal, but have you given back to such spiritual masters in any form? How have you helped them?

RM: I'm continuously engaged with many of them, as part of the work I do. In the process, I try to be of service in whatever form is needed of me.

Swami Dayananda Saraswati, head of the Hindu Dharma Acharya Sabha, is one of the individuals I've worked very closely with.  On many occasions, he's asked for my participation in strategic planning and discussion of issues facing Hinduism across the global theater. In 2008, I had the privilege of being centrally involved in the Second Hindu-Jewish Leadership Summit, which he convened.  The summit concluded with a historic resolution removing certain critical biases that had long endured about Hinduism... and much of the language that I proposed, as lead scholar, was included in that resolution.

[Interviewer's Note: See the text of this declaration at:http://www.scribd.com/doc/2258129/2nd-Hindu-Jewish-SummitFinal-DeclarationP-1#archive ]

Building on the success of that, I was once again included at the Hindu-Buddhist Summit of 2010 in Cambodia,  which aimed to conclude strategic resolutions between our two Dharmic traditions. 

I've also been blessed with opportunities to be of service to the Chinmaya Mission. When their temple project in New Jersey faced legal hurdles, I actively mobilized supporting voices that were successful in overturning the local biases. Recently, I was invited to speak before three large groups by the Chinmaya Mission at Washington, DC...  other centers have sent invitations as well.

I was privileged to have been hosted by Ramakrishna Mission mathas for days together, and to have participated in discussions at the highest level regarding issues of major concern for the future of Dharma.  Subsequently, I was honored by their invitation to write an article for a special volume they are producing to celebrate Swami Vivekanand's 150th anniversary. 

Additionally, I've shared the dais with leaders like Sri Sri Ravi Shankar on many occasions, and availed of private sessions with them to discuss the kinds of issues I raise in my writings.  I'm active in the HMEC (Hindu Mandirs Executive Committee), which is doing great work in bringing together the Hindu temples of North America on issues of common concern.  I can't even begin to estimate the number of times I've been invited by Hindu temples across the USA, to address their congregations. 

I do not cite these instances to emphasize the degree of my personal achievement, but rather out of gratitude that I've been able to provide seva at so many levels. 

Some have been critical of your statement that our Acharyas should have looked beyond their traditional roles and also studied philosophers such as  Hegel and Kant, to refute the West in its own terms.  How do you justify such a statement? Do you think that the Acharyas have failed in this role, and therefore are to blame for the intellectual bankruptcy of our Brown Saheb class today?

RM: You say "look beyond their traditional roles."  In fact, purva-paksha is very much part of the traditional roles our Acharyas have performed for thousands of years!  How else do you explain the sublime intellectual vigor of Adi Shankara in studying the diverse theological positions that existed in his day, and traveling the length and breadth of the country to debate the adherents of them all?  

What do the Vaisheshika teachings expounded by Kanada,  or the Nyaya Sutras of Akshapada Gautama represent?  They are the vibrant response of Hindu traditions after having conducted purva-paksha of contemporary Buddhist and Jaina philosophies. This sort of work has been the life-blood of relevance and vitality, pumping through the veins of Dharmic tradition since it began.

I do not "fault" our traditional Acharyas for the emergence of Brown Sahebs at all... far from it. In fact, it is thanks to their efforts that Dharmic traditions endure independently even today, despite the best efforts of Brown Sahebs to aid in their cultural digestion by the West. 

It is not a "failure" I'm speaking of here... rather, it is a tragedy, and the result of 800 years of predatory colonialism by brutal foreign agencies.  The magnitude of trauma that our society and its institutions experienced from this, is hard to even imagine.  Continuous, relentless suppression and frequently realized threats of extermination will eventually drive a society to look inwards to the exclusion of all else... to "keep its head down" so as to appear less threatening to the dominant outsider.  But in keeping  one's head down, one's horizon becomes limited, and one is denied the opportunity for vigorous purva-paksha.

The Macaulayization of our educational system directly produced the Brown Sahebs as its offspring; but that was only one aspect of it. The other aspect was to systematically, viciously delegitimize Dharmic traditions of knowledge by all methods of cultural, economic and physical violence available to it.  So it is hardly a "fault" of our Acharyas that collectively, India's philosophical perspective turned inwards; rather, it is  a credit to them that our traditions survived through such monstrously difficult times. 

Yet, the fact remains that the perspective did turn inwards; had the same intellectual vigor of Adi Shankara been applied to a purva-paksha of the West, had we studied and understood the positions of Kant and Hegel and engaged in rigorous, logical refutation using our own traditional hermeneutics, who knows what might have happened!  Instead, the Brown Sahebs were given the "legitimacy" of Macaulayite education, and through them, the Western perspectives of Kant and Hegel became universalized. 

I do not say all this to put the blame on any of our own people, especially not the enlightened masters who inspire me and whom I engage with regularly in my work.  I say it because it needs to be recognized as a tragedy of history... and corrected by us in the present.

So how are you helping present-day Hindu samaj to correct this tragedy? How have you contributed to arming modern exponents of Dharmic tradition, with the instruments to conduct such a "purva paksha" of the West?

RM: I continuously strive towards conducting, and equipping others to conduct, such a purva-paksha. In fact, that's one of the primary goals of the Infinity Foundation I have established.

For instance, over a ten-year period, we provided grants to a department of the University of Hawaii that researches and teaches Indian philosophy. Among other things, our efforts produced a Sanskrit book that explains modern Western thought to Sanskrit scholars. 

That book was written by Professor Arindam Chakrabarti, himself a highly regarded scholar of both Dharmic and Western thought.  Professor Chakrabarti used the text in conducting workshops with a number of Sanskrit scholars, at Tirupati University as well as at Varanasi. 

The results were astoundingly clear in revealing the immense potential for our traditional scholars to study the Western "other", and to respond to it with our own system of hermeneutics, our traditional siddhanta. The success of Professor Chakrabarti's workshops was met with many requests for more such programs to be convened. 

More recently, at the World Sanskrit Conference held at Delhi in 2012, I presented my thesis on this issue as addressed in "Being Different". Again, the responses were very encouraging: multiple invitations from the heads of Sanskrit universities and traditional mathas, requesting further workshops on purva-paksha. Similarly, following a seminar on my work hosted by Banaras Hindu University early this year, the Dean of their Faculty of Arts asked for my help in creating a new center for intercultural studies, aimed specifically at initiating purva-paksha. 

Most people would agree that all this indicates a widespread and resolute acceptance of my thesis, by many of today's Dharmic scholars and spiritual leaders. Among modern Indian intellectuals rooted in Dharmic tradition, a consensus is already forming that it is desirable, indeed necessary, to study Western thought... and to respond using the refined and sophisticated techniques of siddhanta. 

Given this, it's rather curious that a handful of cynics... these "critics" you speak of... appear to be raising "concerns" about my thesis.

What, exactly, are their "concerns" based upon? Are they aware of what purva-paksha is... of its role as a scholarly technique, in our intellectual tradition spanning thousands of years? Do they even realize that India originated critical thinking and debate many centuries before the West conceived of such things? 

For that matter, what depth of substantive research have they contributed on this issue... or any other... which qualifies them to make such sweeping pronouncements of dismissal? 

Their attitude in this regard betrays a blind adherence to prejudice... something more characteristic of the dogma-based religions of the desert, than of any Dharmic practice. 

Some of your critics also claim that you, yourself, are doing a "U-Turn" by engaging with Christians and others through the inter-faith dialogue process. In doing this, aren't you simply providing Christians with another window to continue their conversion of Hindus, and digestion of Dharmic wisdom?

RM: Let me ask you something. If I were not to engage in the "inter-faith dialogue process"... would it mean that all "inter-faith" dialogue would stop?

No. It would go on. And it would continue on the Western universalist terms that have already privileged the Abrahamic faiths for too long! 

I do not create windows for inculturation or contextualization by engaging in inter-faith dialogue. The missionary Abrahamic faiths are continuously engaged in a number of processes to create such windows and exploit them. Dialogue is only one such process... there are many more, including the appropriation of Dharmic traditions without attribution,  the denial of mutual respect to other religions, the maintenance of history-centric exclusivity, the adoption of native cultural forms of spiritual expression to disguise the ingress of missionary Christianity. So many things, and they all go on. 

I am not contributing to any of these processes by joining in inter-faith dialogue... in fact, I endeavor to bring some honesty to the dialogue, and level the playing field, by pointing these things out! 

 If someone did not point these things out, we would go on slumbering, and dreaming dreams of "sameness"... thinking that Western universalism was harmless in privileging Judeo-Christian faiths, because in the end all religions are the "same". 

In fact, they are not. In fact, Dharmic faiths are irreconcilably different from Abrahamic faiths in some fundamental ways.  It is only when we remain ignorant of the differences, that inter-faith dialogue can become a source of threat to us. When we are informed about the differences,  and demand that dialogue must proceed from a position of mutual respect... then, what is the threat? It doesn't exist, except in the reactionary minds of those who remain hopelessly and persistently colonized.

But doesn't interfaith dialogue itself provide an opportunity for missionary Christianity to further its agenda by deceitful inculturation? How do you respond to the charge that you're contributing to this agenda?

RM: I think the question has oversimplified and confused two entirely separate issues.

Inculturation and interfaith engagement exist independently of each other. Of course, we see both phenomena exert themselves in Indian society today. 

Among the Hindu elite, the fluffy popularization of the "sameness" myth... the idea that all religions are ultimately the same... has the effect of inculturating Indians in educated circles. This isn't a consequence of interfaith dialogue, but of a fad created by some of our own writers and thinkers.

Meanwhile, inculturation in villages... where missionaries put on the external trappings of hindu forms of worship, such as aarti, and apply these to Jesus... is entirely unlinked to interfaith discussions.

Conversely, much interfaith dialogue isn't based on inculturation, and has separate dynamics of its own. So it's important to recognize, and treat each of these things as an independent issue.

Firstly, let's look at inculturation, and how I've confronted it.

To begin with, my critiques of the "sameness" myth have considerably impacted Indian intellectuals' appreciation of the dangers inherent in inculturation... of the deceitful claims of "sameness" that are used to confuse and disorient our people.  My entire thesis about "difference" focuses on the need to retain awareness that we are NOT the same, so that external predators cannot stealthily digest our traditional wisdom.

Critics of my work don't seem to have the background required to understand the nature of the "sameness" myth... which, ironically, is being propagated by many of our own teachers and self-appointed spokespersons.

Moreover,  I've made a deep study of the history, psychology and politics of Westerners who appropriate and digest critical elements of our Dharma, aiming to boost Western identity while depleting our own. This is what I refer to as my U-Turn Theory, and as far as I know it's the only major study of its kind in existence. 

Beyond this, I've sought to introduce a whole new vocabulary that deepens our understanding of inculturation.  You will find that many terms of this vocabulary, including "sameness", "being different", "digestion", and "u-turn" are now gaining widespread usage, becoming part of the popular idiom among thinking Indians.

Has anyone else, in recent years, conducted this extent of research on the subject... combined with fact-finding at the ground level, with an analytical understanding of both Western and Indian identity?  I'm not aware that anyone else has done so, or articulated their findings as effectively.

Secondly, let's address the subject of my involvement with interfaith dialogue.

Besides the events that are explicitly convened for the purpose of "interfaith dialogue", there are many other instances of interfaith interaction that are not openly identified as such.

You have discussions on TV or radio involving representatives of various faiths; often, unfortunately, the Hindu participant, who is deeply knowledgeable of dharmic tradtions,  in these discussions comes across as ill-prepared to counter the arguments of the other representatives

You have the United States government making appointments to various bodies, where discussions occur that are very similar to what goes on at "interfaith" events... shouldn't we aim  to better empower the representatives who speak for us there? Or are we better advised to boycott such discussions, so that our place is taken by mala-fide opponents who claim to speak on our behalf? 

When I first began to expose the biases of the interfaith movement, I realized that such biases were frequently exercised by designating certain types of individuals for participation in discussions on Hinduism. These included anti-Hindu leftists, Indian or Western Christians, and token "Hindus" who were neither qualified nor confident enough to speak up assertively. I responded with an awareness campaign urging our temples, our community leaders and our youth to demand a seat at the table for authoritative, knowledgeable voices. 

We must realize that interfaith events are not centered on Hinduism, but on religions in general... Muslims, Christians, Jews and others have many motives of their own to participate in such discussions. Our absence as Hindus will not be enough to kill any interfaith event. The events will simply go on without us, and we will be represented by proxies who are either inadequate or hostile to our purposes.

In any case, the earlier problem has been alleviated somewhat; it has now become more common for Hindus to be invited to such gatherings. 

Today, by contrast, we have a new problem. There is a clamoring horde of Hindu spokespersons who present themselves as ambassadors of Dharma, but in fact, end up selling us out. Some of these individuals have genuine intentions. Others are in it for self-aggrandizement, ego-inflation, prestige, or to network for professional or business opportunities. 

All too often, our would-be ambassadors are handicapped by lack of training in debate, insufficient expertise in Dharmic scholarship, and minimal familiarity with the issues we face. Most of all, they lack any education in conducting purva-paksha of the Western mindset. All these handicaps have proved very costly to us.

To reverse these handicaps, we must organize workshops and educational programs. We must rigorously train the aspiring ambassadors of Dharma, equip them with the knowledge they need, and arm them to face public forums with confidence, so that they're unafraid even to go on the offensive when that's necessary. This has been another major focus of my efforts, as they relate specifically to interfaith engagement.

From your explanations, it appears that the arguments being used by some of your critics... or should I say detractors... are quite spurious. However, they continue to insist that you are against our spiritual leaders, that some of them are against you... why is this?

RM: According to our Dharma, one must draw one's own conclusions based on the evidence of one's own experience. Hearsay is no substitute at all.

In this case, the appropriate thing to do is to find out which specific gurus or acharyas, allegedly, are purported to have expressed hostile opinions towards me.  Personally, I am unaware of any who have. 

As I've mentioned before,  my collaboration has been requested... and continues to be requested... by so many groups affiliated with a number of different Sampradayic traditions, both in India and in North America.  I'm honored by the opportunity to serve them through writing, speaking engagements, discussions on strategy, and so much more. I hardly think that such  relationships could be predicated on a basis of hostility... do you?

I don't claim to understand why some people persist in making these sorts of allegations about me. The allegations themselves are easily identifiable as unfounded, and that's what matters. 

One might examine the relationship of my detractors with the types of individuals and traditional institutions, that they're trying to portray as being hostile towards me. Do they have a depth of engagement with these institutions, similar to mine?  Is their involvement as consistently sought after by these institutions, as mine?  If not, then what qualifies them to judge the nature of something that's clearly outside their own realm of experience?  Of course, judgments borne of personal prejudice don't need to be qualified in this way... but most people wouldn't consider such judgments to be valid, either.

Do you think that you're being attacked by some people out of simple jealousy? A few individuals seem particularly obsessive about making these sorts of personal attacks on you. Yet, they seem to lack any personal contributions or achievements in your field of scholarship, that might lend credibility or authority to their attacks. How do you view such attacks: do they reflect a personal grudge, or a psychological issue?

RM:  I'm really not interested in reversing the smear. Let such persons do what they will. I shall continue with my work.

Are you ever concerned that such nuisance attacks might adversely impact your work, or your standing with others?

RM: My sva-dharma does not demand that I must compete against anybody for electoral victories, public approval, high-profile appointments or other contests of popularity. I'm busy enough as a writer and public speaker...busier than ever these days, with all the invitations to various engagements coming in. 

It's hard enough to keep up with the legitimate demands on my time and energy...  so these sorts of silly insinuations are hardly worth bothering with!   I do not think that the energetic, involved collaborators that I’d welcome would turn away from my work because of such attacks. In fact the number of serious thinkers, groups and invitations to conduct briefings has kept growing rapidly.

Courtesy: http://indospheric.blogspot.in/2012/03/interview-rajiv-malhotra-on-where-his.html

Demographic coup of Islam: Agony of Hindu Civilization

by R K Ohri

India faces a major demographic upheaval. The sharply rising Muslim numbers, both in absolute and percentage terms, and a corresponding decline in the population of Hindus, Sikhs, Jains and Buddhists has the potential to escalate fault-line conflicts and create a Lebanon-like situation. Data from the last six censuses held since 1951 suggests that in percentage terms there has been a relentless increase in the population of only one community, the Muslims; all other communities are in a declining mode. Since 1981, Muslim population growth has been in a fast forward mode, growing at almost 45% higher rate than Hindus and Christians. In terms of percentage, Sikh population has recorded the steepest decline since independence.

Census 2001 put the decadal growth rate of Muslims at around 36%, while Hindu growth rate declined from 23% to 20%. On the eve of the Maharashtra Assembly elections, an unseemly political controversy was manufactured by the government on the ground that since no census had taken place in J&K in 1991, the conclusions drawn in terms of Census 2001 data were faulty. This led to a very clumsy fudging of Census 2001, by omitting from the census 3.67 crore people living in Jammu & Kashmir and Assam, States having high Muslim population.

In 1981, no census could be held in Assam due to disturbed conditions, but that did not result in any political ruckus, nor was fudging of census data done at that time because no elections were due then. The most extraordinary aspect of this fudging of the population profile was the deletion with retrospective effect of population data of these two sensitive states from every Census held since 1961 - something never done before in any democratic country.

In a lucid article, professional demographers, late P.N. Mari Bhat and A.J. Francis Zavier, wrote that “the fertility of Muslims, which was about 10 per cent higher than that of Hindus before independence, is now 25 to 30 per cent higher than the Hindu rate”. This means the Muslim population is now growing at a rate nearly 45% higher than that of Hindus.

The authors added that the assertion in a section of English media that Census 2001 had revealed a higher reduction in the growth rate of Muslims than Hindus was incorrect. The decline in Hindu growth rate was higher at 12.2% as against 10.3% decline in Muslim growth. Fast growth of Muslim population, especially in non-Muslim countries, is a global phenomenon, they averred.  

There is no truth in the assertion that higher Muslim fertility was due to poverty or illiteracy. Since 36% Muslims live in urban areas, as against only 26% Hindus, and as Muslims have a higher life expectancy at birth than Hindus, logically their fertility should have been lower than Hindus. But Muslim fertility continues to be higher despite their greater urbanization and lower incidence of infant and child mortality. Within 7-8 years, the gap between the longevity of Hindus and Muslims has widened to 3 years, i.e., 68 years for Muslims as against only 65 years for Hindus [National Family Health Survey of 2005-2006].     

Acceptance of family planning by Muslims is lower at least by 25 percent than Hindus and other Indic communities. Late Mari Bhat and Francis Zavier highlighted the fact that in non-Muslim countries there is a general trend towards higher growth rate of Muslim populations. 

According to the National Family Health Survey-2 of 1998-99, in Kerala where the literacy level of the two communities was almost equal (and due to large remittances from Gulf countries Muslims are economically better off than Hindus), the growth rate of Muslims remained much higher than Hindus by almost 45 percent. Analysis of Census 2001shows that on an average every Muslim woman is giving birth to at least one  more child than her Hindu counterpart. 

Indians must understand the mindboggling import of Statement 7 of Census 2001 Religion Data Report (page xlii) which gives the religion-wise breakup of children in the 0-6 year age group. It shows that the percentage of 0-6 year old Muslim cohorts (a term commonly used in demographic parlance) is 21% higher than Hindu cohorts. This gives Muslims an advantage of 7.6% over Hindus as and when these cohorts enter reproductive age, say roughly between 2012 and 2016.

This gives a vital clue to the demographic crisis likely to engulf India anytime after 2011 or latest by 2021. These 0-6 yrs old cohorts (enumerated in 2001) will become reproductively active between 2012 and 2016 and continue to reproduce for the next 30-40 years. With a 21% higher cohort population and at least 25 percent less acceptance of family planning, the growth in Muslim population during the next few decades is likely to become even more fast-paced.

The Census 2001 Religion Data Report further reveals that among all religious groups, the Muslim population of 0-6 year cohorts was highest at 18.7%. The lowest percentage was seen among Jains (10.6%) and Sikhs (12.8%). In coming years, the percentage increase in the population of these two religious groups, important components of Indic civilization, will be slower than the growth recorded in Census 2001, and their share in the population will decline further, possibly at a faster pace.

In terms of percentage increase, the biggest quantum jump in Muslim population in coming decades will occur in Haryana where the ratio of Muslim cohorts is almost 60% higher than Hindu cohorts! Next in descending order registering fast Muslim growth will be Assam, West Bengal, Uttaranchal, Delhi, Nagaland and Bihar. 

A further analysis of 0-6 year cohorts’ data reveals that out of 35 States and Union Territories listed in Statement 7, the percentage of Muslim cohorts was higher than Hindu cohorts in as many as 31 States and UTs. The percentage of 0-6 year Hindu cohorts was marginally higher than Muslims only in Sikkim and Madhya Pradesh and the UTs of Daman & Diu and Andaman & Nicobar Islands. In coming decades, Muslim population will grow at a higher rate than that of Hindus in 31 States and Union Territories.  

Statement 7 of Census 2001 Religion Data Report is self explanatory and vividly depicts the looming shadow of future demographic changes across India.

Trapped in a suicidal cult of political correctness, most Indian intellectuals refuse to understand the reasons which prompted former British Prime Minister Tony Blair to advise all British couples to opt for the 5 children norm. Incidentally, his wife Cherry Blair gave birth to their fourth child while her husband was Prime Minister. Indeed, in recent years many European countries have announced liberal cash bonuses to couples who opt for more children. Peter Costello, Australia's Chancellor of the Exchequer, urged every couple to have at least 3 children, preferably more – “one child for father, one for the mother and one for the country”. Apprehensive of population growth in Indonesia, Peter Costello announced an incentive of 2000 Australian dollars for every child born after June 2004. Many keen observers of global population trends like Niall Ferguson, Bernard Lewis, Robert Costello, Bruce Bawer and Mark Steyn are alerting their countrymen to the threat posed by demographic changes to their civilisational values.

India has many bleeding heart liberals who will ask why this global panic? The answer is that in 1900, Muslims constituted only 12% of the world population; they grew to 18% in 1992-93 (when Huntington published his first thesis on clash of civilizations). Today Muslims constitute 24% of global population. Samuel Huntington pointed out that by 2025, they will constitute 30% of world population. [Source: Spangler, The Decline of the West].

According to some demographic estimates, Muslims might constitute 37% to 40% of world population by 2100 AD. In recent years the number of jihads worldwide has also multiplied; Thailand is the latest entrant to the growing list of jihadi conflict zones.

In India, the Hindu birth rate is fast approaching the European average. According to Census 2001, the decadal Total Fertility Rate of Hindus of Kolkata district (West Bengal) was barely 1.0%, much lower than the birth rates of Germany, Italy and Spain. In Kerala too the Hindu TFR at 1.64 is below the replacement level of 2.1in 2001.

Kerala has witnessed a massive increase in Muslim population from approx. 23,75,000 in 1951 to 78,64,000 in 2001. During the same period the population of Hindus grew from 83,48,000 to 1,79,2000, while that of Christians increased from 28,26,000 to 60,57,000. During the last five decades the Hindu percentage in Kerala’s population declined from 61.61 to 56.28, while that of Muslims rose from 17.53 to 24.70 percent. The percentage share of Christians declined from 20.86 in 1951 to 19.02 in 2001. 

The Indian middle class and opinion makers must grasp the long term consequences of the demographic crisis. In a different context, while analyzing socio-economic aspects of   Census 2001, demographer Ashish Bose estimated that in 49 districts Muslims already constitute more than 30% of the population. A back-of-the envelope calculation made in the light of Muslim growth rate in the last two decades shows that Muslims will attain majority status in all these 49 districts between 2091 and 2111, perhaps even earlier. 

According to a study published by the Centre for Policy Studies, around 2061, the total Muslim population of the sub-continent (India, Pakistan and Bangladesh, counted together) will exceed the total Hindu/ Sikh population. This could lead to a fierce struggle for supremacy in the sub-continent.

This is already visible in the chorus for more unmerited concessions for Muslims. The Sachar Committee admitted, perhaps unwittingly, that by 2101 Muslim population in India will be around 32 to 34 crores.  It was 13.8 crores in 2001 and barely 3.77 crores in 1951.

In recent times, there have been strident demands by Muslim leaders for greater share in jobs and elected bodies. In 2006, Mohammad Azam Khan of the Samajwadi Party called for carving a Muslim Pradesh out of Western UP, instead of a Harit Pradesh advocated by the Rashtriya Lok Dal. 

A similar demand to create four or five Muslim-dominated enclaves was voiced by Dr. Omar Khalidi in an interview published in The Times of India, New Delhi, June 2004. He later wrote in The Radiance, mouthpiece of Jamaat-e Islami. He was assiduously following the roadmap for another partition of India. Advocating the creation of Muslim-dominated enclaves in the Mewat region of Haryana, certain parts of UP, Bihar, Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka, Dr. Khalidi demanded reservations for Muslims on the pattern of Kerala, Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh.

The late Dr. Khalidi was in the forefront of the lobby seeking proportionate representation for Muslims in various services, especially in the defence services and para-military forces.  He and G.M. Banatwala of the Muslim League are believed to have indirectly used the Sachar Committee as a medium to mount political pressure for seeking jobs for Muslims in proportion to their growing population in government departments, especially the defence and para-military forces, besides greater representation in Parliament and State legislatures. 

Muslims are fully aware of their future empowerment through sharp growth in their numbers.  Many have started pushing the claim to disproportionate political power in India. Sometime ago when Amethi MP Rahul Gandhi visited Aligarh Muslim University, a student asked him how soon he visualized a Muslim becoming Prime Minister of India. Obviously, the battle lines are being drawn for another politico-religious conflict in India.

In conclusion, it would be in order to recall late P.N. Mari Bhat and Francis Zavier’s analysis that the fertility of Muslims was about 10% higher than that of Hindus before independence and is now 25 to 30% higher than the Hindu rate. Hindus have lost considerable ground since 1947. Yet no Hindu political or spiritual leader has tried to rouse the millions of ill informed Hindus about the looming threat of demographic decimation of their ancient faith and civilisational values.

The writing on the wall is clear. The Christians of Europe and Hindus of India have pushed themselves to the edge of suicide by failure to understand the dynamics of demography in this age of adult suffrage. Russian demographers describe the rampant recourse to abortion by their countrymen in quest of the small family norm as ‘do it yourself genocide’. 

Courtesy: http://www.vijayvaani.com/FrmPublicDisplayArticle.aspx?id=2242

The mighty fortress of Brahmanism

by Vijaya Rajiva

“The mighty fortress of Brahmanism” is the phrase used by Monier Williams (author of the Sanskrit English Dictionary, 1899) to describe Hinduism. It is a mix of ignorance, hatred, fascination, racism, and the desire to overcome this religion by an ignorant colonialist of the 19th century, but it sums up the general ignorance of the Christian West regarding Hinduism, much like the seven blind men who tried to describe an elephant by touching one part of the animal and proclaiming that it represented the whole elephant!

 The exact quote from Monier Williams is:

“When the walls of the mighty fortress of Brahmanism are encircled, undermined & finally stormed by the soldiers of the cross, the victory of Christianity must be signal and complete” (Modern India and Indians, p.247).

The Indologist Max Mueller saw the Rig Veda as the root of all the problems that needed to be resolved (in a private letter to his wife). Macaulay destroyed Hindu education in 1835 by replacing it with English education. He had confidently predicted that Indians would in 30 years abandon their “paganism.” Alas, for him, this did not happen. As early as the 12th century, the Pope had been setting up councils to learn Indian languages so that the “pagans”, the “infidels” could be converted to the true faith, Christianity.

The mission to destroy Hinduism would not/could not/ will not succeed simply because of the lack of understanding of the religion. It was not “Brahmanism” at all. Even today, writers like Arundhati Roy mistakenly speak about the Brahmanic Hindu state. It is not Brahmanism, but the entire religious and social structure of Hinduism that originated with the Vedas and continued down the millennia. Its innate strengths could not be analysed or defeated. It was held up by the ordinary Hindu and the traditional acharyas, gurus and maths.

Thousands of Hindus lost their lives defending the sacred sites, whether Somnath or Ayodhya. Hundreds of Hindus continue to lose their lives in Bangladesh and Pakistan. Many brave the inclement weather to visit Amarnath…

Belgian scholar Koenraad Elst observed there is a constant ongoing low level violence against Hindus throughout India, which is not reported by the liberal media which, however, jumps up and down if even a single member of the minority communities is affected. Even P.N. Benjamin of the Bangalore Initiative for Religious Dialogue has stated that the violence against the Christian community in Karnataka is exaggerated. It is rare and on a very small scale. Hindus have seldom initiated violence; it has almost always been retaliatory. Benjamin was speaking about the incidents in Kandhamal when the octogenarian Swami Laxmanananda was murdered along with four other sanyasi-disciples for having resisted the church’s conversion activities in that region.

We are not talking about the barbarian invasions. Those are in a category by themselves. The Nestorian Christians (7th & 8th centuries) destroyed Hindu temples; the cruelty, murder and mayhem of the Goa Inquisition of the 17th century is well documented, as is the first Vatican Council in that century, which planned to destroy Hinduism. Journalist Kanchan Gupta has called for an apology from the Church, but none has been forthcoming; indeed the Church in India went ballistic when the topic was mentioned.

Then came the Inculturation-ists, starting with Robert de Nobili in the 17th century, who tried to infiltrate the society by devious means and thus subvert the social and religious order, a process that continues under euphemistic titles such as interfaith dialogue.

It has never been understood why there should be an olive branch style dialogue from the Hindu side. Yet we have lofty rhetoric such as “understanding,” respect”, though it remains unclear why a tradition that has accepted and accommodated alien religious/ ethic groups into the country should tie itself up in knots with words such as ‘engage’ with a tradition best known for conquest and violence.

There has been much covert and overt conversion activity by the Church and evangelists through force, fraud and bribery. This is now couple with attempts by social and political groups to overcome Hinduism in various devious ways; with limited success so far.

Among recent assaults against the “mighty fortress” is the State encroachment on Hindu temples and their jurisdiction. This began most noticeably with the ascent to unaccountable power of an Italian Catholic at the Centre. This too is an ongoing process, with temple lands being brazenly stolen as under Chief Minister Samuel Rajshekhar Reddy in Andhra Pradesh. Only prompt action by the sadhu community stopped further incursions in the Tirupati hills some years ago.

Last year, there was a brazen attempt to appropriate the wealth of the Padmanabhaswamy temple in Trivandrum under the rubric of legalisms. The immense wealth generated by the Sabarimala pilgrimage disappears into private pockets.

The allied Communist-Congress-Islamic-Christian forces in Kerala are now seeking to deploy state power to remove the traditional priests in temples from their jobs and replace them with their own candidates. The ploy is to claim that this is being done in the interests of social justice. This claim must be seriously investigated.

Sadly, Hindu politicians have assisted in the enterprise in the mistaken notion that training non-Brahmin priests is the right way to go. While inclusiveness is a sound principle, such an exercise needs to be undertaken with extreme caution – with desiring candidates themselves coming forward to seek training and guidance from traditional priests and teachers, so that the sankaras necessary for such an arduous profession-cum-vocation, which is really a seva to society, can be properly ingrained in the mind of the disciple.

This cannot and should not be the consequence of political nepotism. Yet this is how it has been in Tamil Nadu, where this was first attempted under the DMK regime.

Kerala is now trying the same experiment in the reign of a Christian chief minister from the Congress party.

Non-Brahmins deserve all the social and educational and economic opportunities that all citizens of India should have. But they cannot be genuinely empowered by throwing out existing Brahmin priests! Such careless meddling with temple tradition is fraught with danger.

The writer Tamizhchelvan observes, “This ‘All Caste Archagas’ concept is a Christian ploy. They did the same in Tamil Nadu during the previous DMK regime, which passed a bill framing the “All Caste Archagas Act”. That was a well crafted political stunt by the DMK regime in the name of ‘social justice’ (whatever that means).

We have different types of temples in Tamil Nadu. They are the Agama Temples, Non-Agama Temples, Community Temples and Village Temples. The Agama Temples are the ancient ones which are built as per Agama Shastras and where the rituals are also conducted as per the Agama rules. Here the Sivacharyas (from Siva temples) and Bhattacharyas (from Vishnu temples) have been serving as traditional Archagas for centuries. The non Agama temples are those which are not built as per Agama Shastras and the Agama Shastras are not so strictly followed. The community temples are the ones built and owned by the various communities (castes) who mostly employ their own people as Poojaris. Some have opted for Brahmin poojaris. The Village Temples are mostly manned by Poojaris from the SC, BC, and MBC categories.

Barring the Agama Temples, in all other temples we have archagas from all castes employed for ages.”

It follows that there is per se no exclusion of non-Brahmins from performing temple rituals, and even serving as pujaris. So there is no need for such ‘social reform’, which is really an euphemism for political intrusion into the affairs of religion and a vulgar form of social engineering for no larger social good.

The preservation of ancient Hindu rituals must be left to families and groups trained in carrying them out as a religious duty. Attempts by deracinated secular Hindus to pervert Hindu dharma at the instigation of non-Hindu faiths is a recipe for disaster.

Post-colonial Hindus indoctrinated by Monier Williams, Max Mueller and Macaulay must refrain from such meddling with the Hindu tradition. Had they lived this great tradition, they would have understood that the complex diversity and continuity of the tradition erected the ‘mighty fortress’ sensed by Monier Williams. It was never the physical handiwork of any particular caste.

Courtesy: http://www.vijayvaani.com/FrmPublicDisplayArticle.aspx?id=2231 

Prime Minister’s Package: The Long Betrayal

by Mohan Krishen Teng

Reports appearing in the Indian press, emanating from the statement made by the Home Ministry in Parliament, on the eve of the 22nd anniversary of the exodus of the community of Hindus from Kashmir, that not a single family living in exile had availed of the Prime Minister’s Package, should give no cause for any surprise. What should cause surprise is the belief that the Indian Prime Minister and the men around him harboured the thought that the Hindus of Kashmir living in refugee camps in Jammu and other parts of India should have returned to Kashmir to live in refugee camps there at the charity of the Muslims and the mercy of separatist flanks who are leading the so-called struggle for freedom of Kashmir from the ‘occupation’ of the Indian army.

Not only the Indian Prime Minister, the whole Indian political class knew the inherent conflict between the return of Hindus to Kashmir and the Muslim separatist and secessionist struggle, and the rumbling underground of the Muslim Jihad. The leaders of the Jihad and the Muslim separatist regimes never changed their stand that the Hindus had been driven out of Kashmir because they had always opposed the Muslim struggle in Jammu and Kashmir, and that they had been dealt with as they deserved.

At no point during the last two decades were Muslim separatist regimes prepared to abandon the strategic advantage of the demographic change in Kashmir, created by the ethnic cleansing of Hindus in 1990. The pretentious acceptance of the return of the Hindus by some Jihadi war groups, Muslim separatist regimes, and their over ground mentors in the Hurriyat conglomerates, with the rider that the Hindus would join the Muslim struggle against India, was a well-planned move aimed more to silence their protest in exile than open the way for their rehabilitation.

The ethnic extermination of Hindus was the first objective of the religious war, the Jihad unleashed in Kashmir. The Hindus had through the crucial days which followed the partition, offered stubborn resistance to the secessionist movements in the State and the Muslimisation of the government and society in Kashmir. The ethnic extermination of Hindus was therefore, the first strategic objective of the militant flanks which formed the vanguard of Jihad for the secession of Jammu and Kashmir from India.

After the war of separation triumphed, Jammu and Kashmir would, as part of the fundamental unity of the Muslim brotherhood, join the commonwealth of Pakistan. The terrorist violence in Jammu and Kashmir, as it spread, unfolded several aspects which were characteristically original to it. The terrorist violence had a wider portent: the expansion of pan-Islamic fundamentalism and the achievement of the Muslimisation of Jammu and Kashmir. The extermination of Hindus in Kashmir was a part of the Islamic revolution which the armed struggle aimed to accomplish.

Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and the people around him could not have been unaware of the conditions the return package would push Hindu refugees into. It would be an irony of history if Indian leaders believed that Kashmiri Hindus would return to their homes and hearths to join the Muslim struggle against India. The sociology of the exodus of the Hindus of Kashmir needs to be studied in order to understand the impact of genocide on them, and the upturning their exodus brought about in their lives.

The Sociology of Exodus

The Hindus of Kashmir had fought shoulder to shoulder with the people of the Princely States for India’s freedom from British Paramountacy as also from princely rule. In fact, the first Plenary of the All India States’ Peoples’ Conference, held in Kathiawad, was presided over by a Kashmiri Pandit, Shanker Lal Koul, who, along with Lalla Muluk Raj Saraf of Jammu, represented the princely State of Jammu and Kashmir in the Conference. Shanker Lal Koul sounded the bugle of revolt against the Princes and their British mentors.

The Hindus of Kashmir fought alongside their Muslim compatriots against the princely rule. They were also at the center-stage of the Khilafat Movement launched by Gandhi, which took Jammu and Kashmir by storm and which shook the British, who were secretly conspiring to colonise more temperate regions of the north of India, including Jammu and Kashmir. In fact, the Hindus of Kashmir provided the main thrust to the State-subject movement, which was aimed to frustrate British efforts to colonise Jammu and Kashmir and convert it into a white enclave in India.

The Muslims of Jammu and Kashmir opposed the State-subject movement and in collaboration with the Muslims of Punjab beseeched the British to merge the State with British India. In spite of Muslim intransigence and singed by the anti-Hindu riots of 1931, the Hindus of Kashmir joined their Muslim compatriots to initiate a secular peoples’ movement for the freedom of the State. The leaders of the Hindu community of Kashmir alone dared to openly question Gandhi’s decision to refuse the request of the President of All India States’ People Conference, Shri N.C. Kelkar, to integrate the State peoples’ struggle in the princely states with the liberation struggle of India.

In 1946, during the turmoil that followed the Quit Kashmir agitation, the Secretary General of the All India States Peoples’ Conference, Dwarika Nath Kachroo, a Kashmiri Pandit, played a historic role to prevent a split between the National Conference and the Indian National Congress which was still committed to cooperation with the princely rulers. Meanwhile, the left flanks of the National Conference, predominantly Kashmir Pandit, who formed the core of the War Council the National Conference had constituted, carried on the agitation from its underground quarters under the leadership of Mohi-u-Din Qarra. The man second to Qarra in the War Council was Niranjan Nath Raina Saraf, a veteran communist and an intellectual, who turned to academics later and became one among the first nuclear scientists of post-independent India.

In the aftermath of the June 3 Declaration, which envisaged the creation of Pakistan, the Hindus of Kashmir lost no time to declare their commitment to the accession of the State to India. It is not a widely known fact that during those fateful days, while the National Conference maintained complete silence on the issue of accession, the leaders of the Yuvak Sabha, the premier organisation representing the Hindus of Kashmir, had a secret meeting with Congress president Acharya Kriplani, who had come to Srinagar, at the residence of Bal Kak Dhar. The next day, Shiv Narayan Fotedar, Professor Laxmi Narayan Dhar and Pandit Gana Koul, moved a resolution in the General Council of the Yuvak Sabha, calling upon the ruler of the State to prepare ground for the accession of the State to India and bring to a close the existing distrust in the State. The resolution was adopted unanimously by the Sabha and given to the press the same day.

Dwarika Nath Kachroo participated in the crucial Working Committee meeting of the National Conference in early October 1947, which took the historic decision to support the accession of the State to India. He cabled the minutes of the meeting to Nehru. The decision of the Working Committee of the National Conference was a determining moment in the unification of Jammu and Kashmir with India.

In the aftermath of the invasion of the State by Pakistan in October 1947, the Hindus of Kashmir joined the resistance the people offered to the invading columns. After the accession of the State to India, the Hindus put themselves into the forefront of the resistance against the long war of subversion that Pakistan and the pro- Pakistan Muslim flanks carried on in the state.

They gave ideological content to the political and economic reforms the Interim Government, constituted by the National Conference, embarked upon. They accepted the political and economic reforms with the hope that Indian Secularism would eventually triumph, though they knew that the reforms underlined Muslim precedence in the government and society of the State. They did not oppose the exclusion of the State from the constitutional organisation of India mainly because they were aware of the pressures the Indian government faced in the Security Council.

However, they threw away their caution and stormed the streets of Srinagar after the disintegration of the National Conference in 1953, in support of the second Interim Government, headed by Bakshi Ghulam Mohammad. Indeed the Hindus formed the main flanks of resistance against the long struggle for self-determination that the All Jammu and Kashmir Plebiscite Front spearheaded for more than two decades. For their audacity in opposing the Front, they earned their wrath and were branded as “unpaid agents of Indian imperialism”. The condemnation pursued them even after the conclusion of the Indira-Abdullah accord which restored the Front leaders to power in the State in 1975.

Long Betrayal

The dissolution of the Plebiscite Front and withdrawal of the movement for self-determination that the Indira-Abdullah Accord envisaged, did little to contain Muslim separatist movements in the State. On the contrary, the Accord broke up the plank on which the resistance to Muslim separatist movements was based.

The Front leaders reconstituted the National Conference after they dissolved the Front. In order to consolidate their hold on State power, they adopted a two pronged strategy. First, they put the National Conference on the right side of Muslim separatist movements to assuage the ruffled tempers of large sections of Muslim society which did not approve of the abandonment of the movement for self-determination.

Second, the National Conference leaders launched a surreptitious campaign to: (a) neutralize the Muslim flanks which had given support to the National Conference faction lead by Bakshi Ghulam Mohammad, State Congress party led by Ghulam Mohammad Sadiq and Syed Mir Qasim, and drive them out of State politics; (b) eliminate the left flanks, which had played a decisive role in the dismissal of the first Interim Government headed by Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah in 1953; (c) isolate the Hindus and other minorities to eliminate whatever influence they still exercised on the ongoing political process in the State; and (d) subvert the institutional framework which formed the basis of the support structures India had in the State.

The Accord broke up the main plank on which the resistance to Muslim separatist movements was based. During the days which followed the Accord, the Indian political class bent so low to seek compromise with Muslim separatist and secessionist forces that Hindus were pushed out of the frame.

The involvement of Pakistan in Afghanistan gave that country fresh ground and a new ideological plank for intervention in Jammu and Kashmir. The Islamic Revolution in Pakistan provided a new thrust to the fundamentalisation of Muslim society in Kashmir, a serious development which successive state governments chose to ignore. As Soviet power declined, Pakistan began the militarization of the separatist and the secessionist forces in the State. Not unexpectedly, Pakistan launched the Jihad in Kashmir towards the close of 1989. By that time the disintegration of Soviet power had become imminent.

Hindus of Kashmir were a witness to what happened around them. They cried in the wilderness. The Indian political class gloated over its dependence on Muslim support structures it claimed to have built on the basis of the recognition of the right of Muslims in the State to a separate freedom which placed them outside the secular political organisation of the Constitution of India.

Jihad struck Kashmir in January 1990. The support structures the Indian political class boasted to have built in the State vanished overnight. Hindus were left alone on the frontline. Indian security forces remained in the rear.

Hindus bore the brunt of the first assault mounted by the Jihad. In the midst of the holocaust, as death and destruction enveloped them, Hriday Nath Jattu, Chairman of the All India Kashmiri Pandit Conference, and his close associate Jagar Nath Sapru, waited upon State Governor Jagmohan. With tears rolling down their cheeks, they beseeched him to save the Hindu community. A few days later, Sapru was kidnapped by the militants. He survived the torture he was subjected to, dragged himself out of a gutter he had been thrown into, and crawled to a nearby house where from he was taken to the Military Hospital at Badami Bagh.

The Indian political class refused to recognize the real import of the jihad because it did not possess the courage to fight the religious war Jihad waged in the State. For a long time the Indian political class took recourse to subterfuge. When it could not hide its face any longer, it withdrew into the traditional trappings of its colonial past and offered to reach a compromise with the Muslim separatist flanks and their military regimes. The Hindus were hurled into oblivion.

Return Package

In the sordid drama enacted by the Indian political class as Jihad engulfed the state, the Hindus of Kashmir were the “dramatis personae” who fought on the battlefront, from where the nation of which they were “unpaid agents” had withdrawn without giving a fight. For more than four decades, they had borne servitude in the hope that history would set right the wrong done to them. They faced the Jihad with the fortitude of a people who refused to surrender after their defeat.

The veterans of the freedom movement in Jammu and Kashmir, Omkar Nath Trisal, Pran Nath Jalali, Reshi Dev, who had given the freedom struggle in Jammu and Kashmir its ideological content and imparted direction to the resistance against Muslim separatist movements and foreign intervention, met this author in their exile. A sob was stuck in their throats. They gave expression to their remorse and the hurt exile had caused them. A decade later, Makhan Lal Sher, who enlisted himself in the defence of Srinagar in 1947, and later played a key role in the resistance against Muslim separatism in the state, met this author in Jammu. He said in resigned tomes: “We have done our duty. If the people of India failed to fulfill their pledge, they will pay a heavier price than we have.”

The Prime Minister’s Return Package came as an affront to the hopes nurtured by the Hindus in exile. It did not seek to set right the wrong done to them. It did not envisage the reversal of the genocide. It did not promise the Hindus the restoration of their homes, their temples and the sources of livelihood lost in the holocaust that enveloped them. Nor did it promise them protection in a social environment which was politically unstable, ideologically regimented, and exposed to subversion.

The Hindus of Kashmir acted as “unpaid agents” for their commitment to the unity of their country. They could not be prepared to allow the Indian political class to use them as its errand boys. They gave the Prime Minister’s Return Package the consideration it deserved.

Courtesy: http://www.vijayvaani.com/FrmPublicDisplayArticle.aspx?id=2226 

Muslims in India are being misled: Salman Rushdie

Acclaimed writer Salman Rushdie, author of the controversial "The Satanic Verses" as also bestsellers like "Midnight's Children" and "Shame", on Saturday denounced "disgraceful vote bank politics" being practised in the country and said "95 per cent of Muslims in India are not interested in violence being done in their name".

Returning to India two months after he was stopped from attending the Jaipur Literary Festival, Rushdie spoke at the concluding dinner at the two-day India Today Conclave at the Taj Palace Hotel.

The event was marked by tight security presence but devoid of the kind of protests that had marred the Jaipur event by radical Muslim groups protesting his visit.

Rushdie, who was happy at the "lack of interest and protest in my visit" this time around to his land of birth, was, however, severe on politicians of the subcontinent, both in India and Pakistan, who pandered to "religious fanaticism" and indulged in "political opportunism", an allusion to those who cancelled their speaking engagements at the conclave because of his presence.

Union Finance Minister Pranab Mukherjee, Jammu and Kashmir Chief Minister Omar Abdullah and Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Akhilesh Yadav, as well as Pakistani opposition leader Imran Khan, stayed away citing "other engagements".

The Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaaf leader said he could not come to the same venue as Rushdie who had done "immeasurable hurt to Muslims" with his allegedly blasphemous references in "Satanic Verses".

Rushdie said "Deobandi bigotry" and "kneeling to mullahs" had not worked for the Congress, alluding to their recent loss in the state elections during which the party was accused was trying to win over Muslims in Uttar Pradesh with inducements of job quotas and other blandishments.

Rushdie, who addressed a packed hall that greeted him with frequent applause, spoke out strongly against "public apathy", against violence and intolerance of cultural freedom, saying: "Freedom is not absolute, if you don't defend it, you lose it. If you give in to the threat of violence, there won't be less violence, there will be more."

Rushdie began by joking at being "promoted" as the keynote speaker at the closing gala dinner after Imran Khan dropped out. But he then proceeded to target Imran with his verbal barbs, describing him as a "dictator in waiting", a person who is not very well read ("during his playboy days in London he was known as 'Im the Dim'") and also one who lied about not knowing that he would be here as the organisers had told him about his presence as far back as last month.

Rushdie said "immeasurable harm" was caused to Islam by terrorists who attacked India, by Osama bin Laden who had taken refuge in Pakistan and by fanatics like those who killed former Punjab governor Salmar Taseer, whose son, writer Aatish Taseer sat on the dias with Rushdie and was in conversation with him.

Rushdie said common people were more sensible than their leaders and 95 per cent Muslims in India were not in favour of the violence and the things being said in their name.

India always had a long and hoary cultural and religious tradition of accepting free speech. Everyday, there is a price for hooliganism by bigots," he said, taking a dig at the "disgraceful votebank politics taking place in India".

Rushdie said the customs ban on the import of "The Satanic Verses" in the age of the internet was absurd and said there was apparently no bar on his controversial book being published in India.

He said his notion of freedom was the freedom to propagate ideas, even though it might offend a particular individual or group, as long as it was done in a civil manner, without threat of violence.

"A writer is the adversary of power, but power is so scared of the writer that it ends up strengthening the writer," Rushdie said.

Asked whether India matched Pakistan in intolerance, Rushdie responded: "However bad things get in India, they will be worse in Pakistan."

Courtesy: http://ibnlive.in.com/news/muslims-in-india-are-being-misled-salman-rushdie/240187-3.html

Why should I respect these oppressive religions?

Whenever a religious belief is criticised, its adherents say they're victims of 'prejudice'

By Johann Hari

The right to criticise religion is being slowly doused in acid. Across the world, the small, incremental gains made by secularism – giving us the space to doubt and question and make up our own minds – are being beaten back by belligerent demands that we "respect" religion. A historic marker has just been passed, showing how far we have been shoved. The UN rapporteur who is supposed to be the global guardian of free speech has had his job rewritten – to put him on the side of the religious censors.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights stated 60 years ago that "a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief is the highest aspiration of the common people". It was a Magna Carta for mankind – and loathed by every human rights abuser on earth. Today, the Chinese dictatorship calls it "Western", Robert Mugabe calls it "colonialist", and Dick Cheney calls it "outdated". The countries of the world have chronically failed to meet it – but the document has been held up by the United Nations as the ultimate standard against which to check ourselves. Until now.

Starting in 1999, a coalition of Islamist tyrants, led by Saudi Arabia, demanded the rules be rewritten. The demand for everyone to be able to think and speak freely failed to "respect" the "unique sensitivities" of the religious, they decided – so they issued an alternative Islamic Declaration of Human Rights. It insisted that you can only speak within "the limits set by the shariah [law]. It is not permitted to spread falsehood or disseminate that which involves encouraging abomination or forsaking the Islamic community".

In other words, you can say anything you like, as long as it precisely what the reactionary mullahs tell you to say. The declaration makes it clear there is no equality for women, gays, non-Muslims, or apostates. It has been backed by the Vatican and a bevy of Christian fundamentalists.

Incredibly, they are succeeding. The UN's Rapporteur on Human Rights has always been tasked with exposing and shaming those who prevent free speech – including the religious. But the Pakistani delegate recently demanded that his job description be changed so he can seek out and condemn "abuses of free expression" including "defamation of religions and prophets". The council agreed – so the job has been turned on its head. Instead of condemning the people who wanted to murder Salman Rushdie, they will be condemning Salman Rushdie himself.

Anything which can be deemed "religious" is no longer allowed to be a subject of discussion at the UN – and almost everything is deemed religious. Roy Brown of the International Humanist and Ethical Union has tried to raise topics like the stoning of women accused of adultery or child marriage. The Egyptian delegate stood up to announce discussion of shariah "will not happen" and "Islam will not be crucified in this council" – and Brown was ordered to be silent. Of course, the first victims of locking down free speech about Islam with the imprimatur of the UN are ordinary Muslims.

Here is a random smattering of events that have taken place in the past week in countries that demanded this change. In Nigeria, divorced women are routinely thrown out of their homes and left destitute, unable to see their children, so a large group of them wanted to stage a protest – but the Shariah police declared it was "un-Islamic" and the marchers would be beaten and whipped. In Saudi Arabia, the country's most senior government-approved cleric said it was perfectly acceptable for old men to marry 10-year-old girls, and those who disagree should be silenced. In Egypt, a 27-year-old Muslim blogger Abdel Rahman was seized, jailed and tortured for arguing for a reformed Islam that does not enforce shariah.

To the people who demand respect for Muslim culture, I ask: which Muslim culture? Those women's, those children's, this blogger's – or their oppressors'?

As the secular campaigner Austin Darcy puts it: "The ultimate aim of this effort is not to protect the feelings of Muslims, but to protect illiberal Islamic states from charges of human rights abuse, and to silence the voices of internal dissidents calling for more secular government and freedom."

Those of us who passionately support the UN should be the most outraged by this.

Underpinning these "reforms" is a notion seeping even into democratic societies – that atheism and doubt are akin to racism. Today, whenever a religious belief is criticised, its adherents immediately claim they are the victims of "prejudice" – and their outrage is increasingly being backed by laws.

All people deserve respect, but not all ideas do. I don't respect the idea that a man was born of a virgin, walked on water and rose from the dead. I don't respect the idea that we should follow a "Prophet" who at the age of 53 had sex with a nine-year old girl, and ordered the murder of whole villages of Jews because they wouldn't follow him.

I don't respect the idea that the West Bank was handed to Jews by God and the Palestinians should be bombed or bullied into surrendering it. I don't respect the idea that we may have lived before as goats, and could live again as woodlice. This is not because of "prejudice" or "ignorance", but because there is no evidence for these claims. They belong to the childhood of our species, and will in time look as preposterous as believing in Zeus or Thor or Baal.

When you demand "respect", you are demanding we lie to you. I have too much real respect for you as a human being to engage in that charade.

But why are religious sensitivities so much more likely to provoke demands for censorship than, say, political sensitivities? The answer lies in the nature of faith. If my views are challenged I can, in the end, check them against reality. If you deregulate markets, will they collapse? If you increase carbon dioxide emissions, does the climate become destabilized? If my views are wrong, I can correct them; if they are right, I am soothed.

But when the religious are challenged, there is no evidence for them to consult. By definition, if you have faith, you are choosing to believe in the absence of evidence. Nobody has "faith" that fire hurts, or Australia exists; they know it, based on proof. But it is psychologically painful to be confronted with the fact that your core beliefs are based on thin air, or on the empty shells of revelation or contorted parodies of reason. It's easier to demand the source of the pesky doubt be silenced.

But a free society cannot be structured to soothe the hardcore faithful. It is based on a deal. You have an absolute right to voice your beliefs – but the price is that I too have a right to respond as I wish. Neither of us can set aside the rules and demand to be protected from offence.

Yet this idea – at the heart of the Universal Declaration – is being lost. To the right, it thwacks into apologists for religious censorship; to the left, it dissolves in multiculturalism. The hijacking of the UN Special Rapporteur by religious fanatics should jolt us into rescuing the simple, battered idea disintegrating in the middle: the equal, indivisible human right to speak freely.

Courtesy: http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/johann-hari/johann-hari-why-should-i-respect-these-oppressive-religions-1517789.html