The Marxist view of Indian History

The Marxist view of Indian History

Noam Chomsky is a much-flaunted linguist. But his genuineness as a scholar is critically under consideration. He was a declared Communist, a much-avowed defender of Communism. Now Marxism or Communism demands a strict Marxist view of any aspect of life, and in scholarship this demand for a Marxist view is more pronounced. Chomsky’s scholarship and theories were thus coloured according to his belief in Communism and Marxism. According to the Marxist historian Karr, (the historian who laid down the guidelines for the Marxist historiography), history must be written according to a pre-imagined Marxist framework. Facts must be fitted in this Marxist frame, and if there are left some chinks in the theory then facts must be invented for the sort of convenience. The interpretation of history is not a task left for historians. It has already been interpreted in the theory of Marxism, and the only task left for historians is to mould, manipulate, invent history so as to fit and prove the Marxist model of history. Indian history has been written by Marxists with this view in their mind and we must also view this history, with the fact in our minds that this is not the real history but the Marxist interpretation of history.

According to the Marxist view history is divided into the following periods:
1) The primeval stage of feudalism – this was an age of barbarity when a society was divided into two classes. One class was that of feudal lords, generally an elite being less than 1% of the society, which ruled and commanded the society on its own terms. Other was the ruled class, the proletariat, which worked and toiled endlessly for their feudal masters and got nothing in return, except a wretched existence.
2) The stage of class struggle – This is a stage of class struggle when the two classes clash with each other, one for defending its exclusive rights of masters and lords and other for gaining their natural rights, i.e., equality and justice.
3) The Communist egalitarian heaven – Then after the clash comes the Communist stage when all the inequalities between the two classes are put to an end (by an extermination of one class, namely the elite or bourgeoisie).

So every Communist and Marxist views Indian History in this context. The Ancient Age(including the so-called Harappan Age and the Vedic Age) is viewed as an age of barbarism, an age dominated by the death and destruction brought by the barbarous invading Aryans, the age of injustice, illiteracy, and the primeval age of Science and Arts, followed by a caste ridden society plagued by the various ills of Hinduism.

The comes the medieval Age of Islamic invasions, which is viewed by Marxists as a Golden Age when the noble light of Islam was introduced to the poor populace of India, which was ravaged by the superstitious rigours and rituals of Hinduism.

The third stage of a Communist Heaven is yet to come in India, as despite repeated efforts of the Communist Party, it has not succeeded to persuade the ignorant superstition ridden Indian populace of the fruits of a Communist State.

Marxists view history in linear view in which an ancient barbaric age is succeeded by a capitalist stage of class struggle, and then the final egalitarian stage of Communism. Religion is also viewed by Marxists in such a successive stage of social evolution in which Polytheism as an inferior religion is succeeded by a superior brand of Monotheism, and then finally the best stage of Atheist Communism. Regarding this view, Hinduism being polytheist in nature is said to be a religion of ancient barbarous invaders, and Islam is regarded as a noble betterment in the form of Monotheism. So the Aryan Invasion theory and its development is also a result of the Marxist view of history, and the reason that all the State Historians of India like Thapar, and R.C.Sharma support the Aryan Invasion theory is that all of them are avowed Marxists. Some of them namely Harbans Mukhia have written history books on Aryan Invasion theory, with a title as “The Marxist view of Indian History”. It needs not to be told how much we can trust in historians, scholars and linguists like Thapar, Mukhia, Sharma and Chomsky.

Definition of a Fundamentalist

Fundamentalism, like Secularism ,is talked about glibly. Let alone very senior politicians ,even highly enlightened press reporters get stumped when they are requested to define FUNDAMENTALISM .It is therefore, important to first know who is a fundamentalist, and what are his traits.
1)That HIS religion is the ONLY religion through which any human soul can achieve salvation.
2)That his faith is governed by some set tenets written in a book on the basis of which that religion was founded and not one word of the text of his basic scripture can afford any change whatsoever. That no one except the authorized authority of his religion has any right to interpret the provisions of his scripture and once any interpretation has been given it is final and not open to any questioning or nay challenge.
3)That any person of his own faith or any other faith dares to question, challenge or seeks to provide an alternate interpretation ,the top authorities of his religion possess a divine right to provide punish such individual including award8ng of death penalty.
4)That the entire edifice of his faith can get threatened by anyone inflicting the slightest insult to his holy book or to its contents or to his place of worship and his entire community must rise as a body to avenge it.
5)That he has a religious obligation to despise and denigrate any and every other religious faith and hence a religious duty to articulate accordingly, specially while seeking to convert others to his faith.
6)That he has a divine right granted to him by his religion to expand the number of his followers of his faith by converting the followers if other faith.
7)That by increasing the number of followers, he stands glorified in the eyes of his religion irrespective of whether such conversion us done by deceit ,by offering material temptations ,by exploiting their hapless plight., threats of force or by actually resorting to violence.
8)That he has a Divine right sanctified by his religion to desecrate and destroy the religious scriptures of other faiths.
9)That he has a Divine right to destroy the worship places of other religious faiths and by so doing he stands glorified in the eyes of his Lord God .
10)That the religious authorities of his religion have an undisputed right to lay down any code of personal conduct extending even to what should and should not be worn by the men and women belonging to that religion and further that there is a divine right to award punishments to all deviants to the extent the authorities deem fit.
By the above definition:
NO HINDU CAN EVER BECOME A FUNDAMENTALIST.

What really is sarva-dharma sambhava?

One of the most hallowed slogans of 20th century India is ‘Sarva-dharma sambhava’. However, the term has many anomalies with many presumptions. The term pre-supposes that there are various dharma, hence accepting its multiplicity automatically and then adjoins that we must keep the same respect feeling or reverence, toward every dharma as they all say the same truth though in different ways. But although it declares that there are various dharma and implores us to keep no distinction between them, it does not gives us any criteria to judge that what is “dharma” and what is “adharma”. So in practice ‘Sarva-dharma sambhava leaves it as adherents or believers help less or defenseless against any criminal political ideology like Islam and Christianity, which are masquerading as religion or dharma. Consequently a believer in ‘Sarva-dharma sambhava’ cant judge whether a particular ideology is really dharma or not. He treats both dharma and adharma alike. So ‘sarva-dharma in practice becomes ‘dharma-adharma sambhava.

My views on Hindu Rashtra

Hindu Rashtra is really a great issue and a long topic. So, I hope you cannot discuss it in one scrap.But instead of saying anything about t, I must say that we will do our duty if we will be able to spread the awareness among Hindus about their internal and external enemies. We will do our duty if we will spread awareness in them about Islam and Christianity.The only thing barring a Hindu Rashtra, is the ignorance of Hindus about the nature of their enemies. Hindu Rashtra will emerge spontaneously when The Hindu Mind will be Decolonized, decolonized of cowardice, ignorance, adharma and illusion about sarva-dharma sambhava.

What is the message of Bhagvada-Gita?

What is the message of Bhagvada-Gita?

Though it is not within the range of a person like me, but still I have tried to take a lesson from Gita and discuss it here with you.

All of the 18 Adhyayas (Chapters) of Gita are about the disenchantment of Arjuna from War, and Shri Krishna’s exhortation of Arjuna to fight. There is a single theme in Gita, which is present, everywhere and that is the eternal fight between dharma and a dharma good and evil. Pandavas are siding with dharma, while Kauravas are siding with adharma.

Though on stake is a mere material and worldly thing, i.e., Rajya or possession of a kingdom (though it is not so trivial as a corrupt reign tyrannizes its subjects) but still that becomes a sufficient cause, for Lord Shri Krishna to exhort Arjuna to fight and kill his own kith and kin, his own blood.

Why did he exhort Arjuna to kill his own relatives for a mere worldly possession?

Why did he resort to violence and even deceit in order to fight Kauravas?

Wasn’t it immoral, illegal and not befitting the stature of Shri Krishna or good conscientious people like Arjuna to commit all this violence?

This is the reason given by today’s opportunist politicians and half-baked intellectuals regarding Ram Janmabhoomi and Krishna Janmabhoomi, that they are mere stone structures, that what if they are desecrated, broken and replaced by Mosques, God is everywhere, and Ishwar Allah tero naam, hence, what is the difference if Allah is worshipped there instead of Shri Krishna and Shri Ram. Let it be?

In the words of Sita Ram Goel, “ Hindu psyche has suffered greatly.”

Coming to the point again, then what is the purpose of Gita, what was the purpose of Shri Krishna in resorting to violence, and exhorting Arjuna to fight and to kill.

Why did he lead such disastrous was just for the sake of a kingdom.

Because on the stake, was a much greater thing than a material thing such as kingdom. No material thing could be the justification of such a great war.

On the stake was dharma. Kauravas had gained the kingdom by adharma, and if Shri Krishna had allowed them their adharmic deeds, then it would have created precedence for the posterity of the victory of adharma over dharma.

So dharma and satya were at stake in Kurukshetra, the prevention of adharma gaining victory over dharma was the purpose of Mahabharata and is fighting for dharma against dharma by any possible means and in any conditions is the message of Gita.

However, we have forgotten this message of Gita in Kali Yuga and have distorted it. We have taken ahimsa as our dharma unconditionally, even when it leads to adharmic forces defeating dharmic forces and destroying the very peace and ahimsa, which was vowed to be protected by ahimsa.

Actually this ahimsa was never our primary dharma. Our dharma was satya (truth), and our duty was to fight and protect dharma and satya from every enemy. And violence was not prohibited in this fight for satya and dharma.

Actually violence committed for ensuring peace and non-violence, but non-violence.

And a non-violence which leaves its borders unguarded, which lets adharmic forces overcome dharmic forces and lets them destroy the peace and non-violence, is not non-violence but violence.

That’s why Shri Krishna asks Arjuna in each and every chapter of Gita to pick up the weapon and fight adharma. This is the message of Gita.

But in Kali Yuga having lost the message of Shri Krishna in Gita have also lost the distinction between dharma and adharma, and also our deity to fight for dharma and adharma. That’s why we all raise mindless slogans of non-violence when adharmic forces attack and destroy our culture, our temples, our civilization. This is no, non-violence, but sheer cowardice.

At last in the words of Shri Krishna, “Arise Arjuna, pick up your weapon and fight to defeat adharma”.
So, if we want to save our civilization, then we will again have to hear the teachings of Shri Krishna.

Why did Shri Rama deceive Bali?

Why did Shri Rama deceive
Bali?

There is an episode in Ramayana in which Shri Ram deceives Bali in order to killing and ends his tyrannical and corrupt reign.

This episode has been criticized by many (mainly the modern political motley crowd of Marxists, Socialists, Communists etc.) as immoral or at least not befitting the stature of Shri Ram. In fact this episode has been the whipping boy of its opponents.

But if we will think a little on the topic then we will understand its importance.

In that era, there was a clear distinction between dharma and adharma, good and evil. Nothing stood above dharma and nothing bad amounted to adharma. There was no confusion regarding what is what is dharma and what is adharma. Adharma had to be defeated by any means. There was no compunction in using even deceit to defeat dharma, as it was considered dharmic and nyayasangat to defeat adharma by any means.

So that is the reason why Shri Ram used deceit to defeat Bali.

This episode send a clear signal to us. It exhorts us to recognize and defeat adharma by any means possible.

However, in Kali Yuga we have lost the distinction of dharma and adharma. We can no longer differentiate between dharma and adharma. We are confused by the mindless slogans raised by opportunist politicians like Secularism, sarva-dharma sambhava, and half baked thinkers.

We have accepted the half-baked socio-political idea given to us by Mr. Gandhi, without even enquiring about it. We have lost our distinguishing powers. We do not realize that under this cover of sarva-dharma sambhava, there may be lurking adharma in order to overcome dharma.

We have lost our sense of duty towards dharma. We have forgotten what Shri Rama conveyed to us by defeating Bali.

Civilizations in particular like humans are mortal. Their continued existence cannot be taken as granted. We will have to strive hard in order to save it from degeneration.

We will have to stand again with dharma, against adharma to fulfill our duty to Shri Rama.

Naipaul's views on Indian History

Naipaul’s views on Indian History and its
analysis

"How do you ignore history? But the nationalist movement, independence movement ignored it. You read the Glimpses of World History by Jawaharlal Nehru, it talks about the mythical past and then it jumps the difficult period of the invasions and conquests. So you have Chinese pilgrims coming to Bihar, Nalanda and places like that. Then somehow they don't tell you what happens, why these places are in ruin.
They never tell you why Elephanta island is in ruins or why Bhubaneswar was desecrated."
“People in India have only known tyranny. The very idea of liberty is a new idea. Particularly pathetic is the harking back to the Mughals as a time of glory. In fact the Mughals were tyrants, every one of them. They were foreign tyrants and they were proud of being foreign”.
“India has been a wounded civilization because of Islamic violence: Pakistanis know this; indeed they revel in it. It is only Indian Nehruvians like Romila Thapar who pretend that Islamic rule was benevolent. We should face facts: Islamic rule in India was at least as catastrophic as the later Christian rule. The Christians created massive poverty in what was a most prosperous country; the Muslims created a terrorized civilization out of what was the most creative culture that ever existed.”
"India was wrecked and looted, not once but repeatedly by invaders with strong religious ideas, with a hatred of the religion of the people they were conquering. People read these accounts but they do not imaginatively understand the effects of conquest by an iconoclastic religion."
"India became the great land for Muslim adventurers and the peasantry bore this on their back, they were enslaved quite literally. It just went on like this from the 11th century onwards." (source: Economic Times - www.economictimes.com).
"The millennium began with the Muslim invasions and the grinding down of the Hindu-Buddhist culture of the north. This is such a big and bad event that people still have to find polite, destiny-defying ways of speaking about it. In art books and history books, people write of the Muslims "arriving" in India, as though the Muslims came on a tourist bus and went away again. The Muslim view of their conquest of India is a truer one. They speak of the triumph of the faith, the destruction of idols and temples, the loot, the carting away of the local people as slaves, so cheap and numerous that they were being sold for a few rupees. The architectural evidence- the absence of Hindu monuments in the north is convincing enough. This conquest was unlike any other that had gone before. There are no Hindu records of this period. Defeated people never write their history. The victors write the history. The victors were Muslims. For people on the other side it is a period of darkness."
On Hindu militancy and India's secularity
“To say that India has a secular character is being historically unsound. Dangerous or not, Hindu militancy is a corrective to the history I have been talking about. It is a creative force and will be so. Islam can't reconcile with it.” .
On Hindu Revivalism
"India was trampled over, fought over. You had the invasions and you had the absence of a response to them. There was an absence even of the idea of a people, of a nation defending itself. Only now are people beginning to understand that there has been a great vandalizing of India. The movement is now from below. It has to be dealt with. It is not enough to abuse these youths or use that fashionable word from Europe, 'fascism', There is a big, historical development going on in India." (carribeanhindu.com)
"What is happening in India is a new historical awakening....Indian intellectuals, who want to be secure in their liberal beliefs, may not understand what is going on. But every other Indian knows precisely what is happening: deep down he knows that a larger response is emerging even if at times this response appears in his eyes to be threatening."
"Indian intellectuals have a responsibility to the state and should start a debate on the Muslim psyche. To speak of Hindu fundamentalism, is a contradiction in terms, it does not exist. Hinduism is not this kind of religion. You know, there are no laws in Hinduism. And there are many forces in Hinduism.... My interest in these popular movements is due to the pride they restore to their adherents in a country ravaged by five or six centuries of brutal government by Muslim invaders. These populations, in particular the peasantry, have been so crushed, that any movement provides a certain sense of pride. The leftists who claim that that these wretched folk are fascists are wrong. It's absurd. I think that they are only reclaiming a little of their own identity. We can't discuss it using a Western vocabulary."
"I think every liberal person should extend a hand to that kind of movement from the bottom. One takes the longer view rather than the political view. There’s a great upheaval in India and if you’re interested in India, you must welcome it. "
"What is happening in India is a new, historical awakening. Gandhi used religion in a way as to marshal people for the independence cause. People who entered the independence movement did it because they felt they would earn individual merit. Only now are the people beginning to understand that there has been a great vandalising of India. Because of the nature of the conquest and the nature of Hindu society such understanding had eluded Indians before." (indolink.com) On how he reacted to demolition of Babri Masjid
“Not as badly as the others did, I am afraid. The people who say that there was no temple there are missing the point. Babar, you must understand, had contempt for the country he had conquered. And his building of that mosque was an act of contempt. In Ayodhya, the construction of a mosque on a spot regarded as sacred by the conquered population was meant as an insult to an ancient idea, the idea of Ram which was two or three thousand years old.” (The Times of India, 18 July 1993). On the attire of the people who demolished Babri Masjid
“One needs to understand the passion that took them on top of the domes. The jeans and the tee shirts are superficial. The passion alone is real. You can't dismiss it. You have to try to harness it. Hitherto in India, the thinking has come from the top. What is happening now is different. The movement is from below.” (The Times of India, 18 July 1993). On the Taj Mahal
“The Taj is so wasteful, so decadent and in the end so cruel that it is painful to be there for very long.” (Outlook, 15 November 1999).
"You see, I am less interested in the Taj Mahal which is a vulgar, crude building, a display of power built on blood and bones. Everything exaggerated, everything overdone, which suggests a complete slave population. I would like to find out what was there before the Taj Mahal." (economictimes.indiatimes.com, 13 January 2003) On Islam
Naipaul says that Islam had enslaved and attempted to wipe out other cultures. "It has had a calamitous effect on converted peoples. To be converted you have to destroy your past, destroy your history. You have to stamp on it, you have to say 'my ancestral culture does not exist, it doesn't matter'." (Guardian News Service)
“It is not the unbeliever as the other person so much as the remnant of the unbeliever in one’s customs and in one’s ways of thinking. It’s this wish to destroy the past, the ancient soul, the unregenerate soul. This is the great neurosis of the converted.” (The New York Times Magazine, 28.10.2001)
“I had known Muslims all my life. But I knew little of their religion. The doctrine, or what I thought was its doctrine, didn't attract me. It didn't seem worth inquiring into; and over the years, in spite of travel, I had added little to the knowledge gathered in my Trinidad childhood. The glories of this religion were in the remote past; it has generated nothing like a Renaissance. Muslim countries, were not colonies, were despotisms; and nearly all, before oil, were poor.” (From his book Among the Believers, 1981)
On non-fundamentalist Islam
“I think it is a contradiction. It can always be called up to drown and overwhelm every movement. The idea in Islam, the most important thing, is paradise. No one can be a moderate in wishing to go to paradise. The idea of a moderate state is something cooked up by politicians looking to get a few loans here and there.” (The New York Times Magazine, 28.10.2001)
On formation of Pakistan
Naipaul considers Pakistan’s founding “extremely fortunate” for India as the “religious question would otherwise have paralysed and consumed the state”.
“The Iqbal idea that religion wasn’t a matter of conscience, that it needed a separate community and society, was a wicked and rather foolish idea.”
Naipaul calls Pakistan a “criminal” enterprise. “Here is a Muslim country which after its creation in 1947 promptly became a state of manpower exports. Lots of people came to Britain. The idea of a state for the Muslims began to undo itself very quickly.”
Naipaul’s advice to every Indian
Naipaul has advised every Indian to make a “pilgrimage” to Vijaynagar “just to see what the (Muslim) invasion of India led to. They will see a totally destroyed town.”

What is Shariat?

What is Shariat?

Shariat, is the Islamic Law, the basis of which is to tell Muslims how to behave in every aspect of their lives, from trading, praying, eating, walking, sleeping, inhaling to even such private matters as, how to have sex with your wive.
The purpose of Shariat is to provide a guideline to all Muslims for a perfect behaviour. Shariat derives its laws from the behavious of Prohpet Muhammad himself, as Muslims regard him as complete and perfect and his behavious as to be the ultimate example for all of Muslims of the posterity. This is the basis of Shariat. And it is not surprising that innocent Muslims cant repeal the law of Shariat.
Muslims cant forsake the writ of Shariat, until and unless they forsake Islam itself. And this act amounts to apostasy, the punishment of which is death.
Actually this writ of Shariat against the raped women is not a strange phenomenon. As I said earlier, Shariat derives its laws from the deeds of Prophet Muhammad himself.
So this episode of a raped women being transferred to her rapist derives inspiration from the life of Muhammad himself.
Once it so happened that Prophet Muhammad visited the home of his son. At that time his son was not at home and his wife Zainab bint Zahsh was bathing, being naturally undressed. Muhammad saw her through the chink of the door and becane so enamoured of her, that he made his son divorce Zainab and married her afterwards.
So, this recent episode in India is not after all so strange. It has its parrells in Islamic history and the life of Muhammad. Only we Hindus are too lethargic to explore the history.

Hindu civilization in danger:What shall we do?

Hindu civilization in danger:What shall we do?

On 8: 15 AM 05-07-05 the center of Hindu civilization was attacked.

Ayodhya, the birthplace of Shri Rama was defiled by the impure blood of Islamic terrorists. It was stained with the blood of an innocent women.

Islamic terrorists dared to attack the epicenter of Hindu civilization, piety, spirituality and emotions.

Can there be a more heinous crime committed against the Hindu society?

Can there be a more audacious act of Islamic terrorism?

No! Definitely not!

This is limit!

Hindu society is in stark danger, it is a question of our survival.

Now its time! We have to decide, what shall we do?

We have to think over why this happened?

Why did these Islamic terrorists at the very first place decid3 to attack Ram Janmabhoomi? Where did they get the inspiration and guts to do this?

Why were they able to defy whole of the Hindu society?

Why didn’t they attack Jama Masjid instead, as per the Secularists claim that they are misguided youth, misled on the non-violent path of terrorism due to poverty?

And more so why doesn’t any Hindu attack any Masjid?

Then why were they ale to defy the security?

Why doesn’t any government including Center and State blame the Islamic terrorists or at least Pakistan for this act of terrorism?

Why instead of rebuking Islamic terrorists heir brethren and tightening noose over them, theses politicians are imploring Hindus to remain calm!

Its time, that we think over all of these issues, otherwise we as a Hind society will not be able to survive.

We shall discuss all of these topics here.

World Civilization in Danger: What Shall we do?

World Civilization in Danger: What Shall we do?

On 07-07-05, about 10:30 A.M. one of the centers of World Civilization London was attacked by Islamic terrorists. Several bombs ripped through London metro killing more than forty people.

London’s beauty, serenity and peace was annihilated. But why?

Only two days earlier 05-0705 Ayodhya, the birth place of Hindu deity Shri Rama was attacked by Islamic suicide bombers.

Why did these Islamic terrorists commit this heinous crime against humanity.

What instigates them to do so?

What is the ideology which gives them the courage and moral high ground to commit such crimes against humanity?

What makes them so defiant in their terrorist behavior?

Which is the ideology which exempts them from the guilt of committing such crimes, which even makes it obligatory and praiseworthy to butcher non-Muslims?

Why do these Muslims turn against to destroy the very nations which have given them asylum, freedom, carrier and everything else? (And, the intensity of their terrorist ferocity is directly proportional to the grants and aids given to them; greater the lenience, greater the resultant violence)

What makes ‘them’ so different from ‘us’?

Why do they behave as ‘others’?

These questions are partly answered by Huntington’s ‘Clash of Civilizations’ theory. That they belong to a completely different civilization than us. That, their civilization is completely hostile to ‘us’? That their entire ‘thinking process’ is different form ‘us’?

That they live in an ‘other’ world. That their entire value system is different for ‘us? We can not thing their way neither ‘they’ can ‘ours’. Their entire concept of ethics, morality and humanity is completely different and antagonistic to us. What is an unthinkable crime for us’, is a pious service to Allah for ‘them’?

What is an inhuman barbarity for ‘us’ is ‘war of freedom’ for them.

That is why they did 9/11?
That is why they blasted bombs in WTC in 1993.
That is why they blasted bombs in front of American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania.
That is why they killed 12 Americans in Saudi Arabia in 1998.
That is why they butchered more than 500 children in Beslan.
That is why they blasted bombs in two planes to kill more than 800 people, in that same week in Russia.
That is why they laid the theatre siege in Russia, two years earlier, killing some 500 people.
That is why they again and again attack Israel.
That is why they have reduced Serbs to an even greater minority in Bosnia and Kosovo. That is why they blasted bombs in Bali to kill more than 250 Australians.
That is why they beheaded Japanese and Hindu Nepalis alive in Falujah, Iraq.
That is why they again and again hijack planes and butcher non-Muslims all over the world.
That is why they are running a country wide terror network in India (An estimated 60,000 Hindus have been butchered by Islamic terrorists in last 20 years)

Recently there was the Ayodhya attack. Some time ago Indian parliament was attacked by 12 Islamic suicide bombers. Then J and K Assembly was attacked. In Indian Islamic terrorism has become so common a phenomenon that we have started living with it.
According to a survey [b]seven[/b] Hindus die daily at the hands of Islamic terrorists. Hindus have been saying so far many years but their calls seem to fall on deaf ears. But now, when West is under direct attack of Islam, then westerners must understand the plight of Hindus also.

The point is that Islamic terrorism is a global phenomenon. [b]Islam is at war with rest[/b]. For Islam every other religion is fake and false and annihilating every other religion and converting whole world to Islam is the mission of Muslims. These Islamic terrorists are no misguided Muslims, but are the real followers of Islam. And those, who are called as liberal Muslims are completely in league with these terrorists, as they are the ones who whitewash Islam everywhere, in media, in politics and elsewhere.

This is a menace which cant be dealt by any of us alone.

Fro Islam this is a ‘do or die’ war and for them there are only two groups in the world, Muslims and non-Muslims.

So, all non-Muslims are ‘they’ for Muslims and they are eternally at war with every non-Muslim entity whether it be an individual a society or a state.

So if we want to fight and defeat them, then we will also have to think in similar terms. For us all non-Muslims world must be one and united and Islamic terrorism must be our joint enemy. Only then we will be able to defeat them and save humanity and world civilization.