National success in unity rooted in nationalism is Communal and non-secular; national failure in disunity rooted in pseudo-secularism is non-communal, secular and cosmopolitan and beyond all UPA dispute, non-saffronized. Dr. Rusty Shackleford who runs the website THE JAWA REPORT has recently written a brilliant article entitled 'Why my website was banned in India?' In this article, he has put certain unanswerable questions to the anti-national quislings of the government of India holding top posts for having imposed a total ban on 17 websites which bring out in graphic terms all the dimensions of the grim tragedy of Islamic terrorism in India.
According to the UPA government, if thousand Hindus or non-Muslims get killed in a matter of seconds by Islamic terrorists, then it must be viewed as an act of Islamic compassion and generosity of spirit embracing all mankind. The same UPA government of quislings, by quislings for quislings would expect all the websites round the world which expose the horrors of global Islamic terrorism to be treated as purveyors of global hatred and global destruction. Against this background Dr. Rusty Shackleford (to the best of my knowledge he does not seem to be a condemned non-secular Hindu!!) has put the following communal and saffronized questions to the government of India:
A) Why did the government of India issue a lighting directive banning 17 websites which were only describing and depicting barbarous acts of Islamic terrorism in Mumbai and round the world and even when the men behind these websites were not non-Muslim terrorists? Known and seen acts of terrorism are considered as of no consequence by the government of India. Only the Anti-Islamic terrorism websites are considered as incendiary bombs by the government of India and they give the most convoluted excuse for the barbaric ban using the might of the State to put down the forces of civilization and culture represented by these websites. These websites were singled out for stringent action because in the highest echelons of governance in New Delhi, perhaps on the ground that these websites might incite religious violence. In other words, criminal acts of violence can be ignored with secular indifference. Civilized acts of reporting for public information criminal acts of violence would be viewed as violent acts that would provoke religious violence. Government of India seems to have forgotten that a ban on these websites cannot by itself lead to instant eradication or elimination of planned acts of Islamic terrorism in India and the world.
To quote the appropriate words of Dr. Rusty Shackleford in this context: 'These websites were singled out because, according to the Indian government, they might incite religious violence. The nine American websites banned by India are all critical of the Islamist movement. Not a single website of Islamic extremists justifying and even celebrating the Mumbai bombings has been banned. Why did India ban these websites? And what is the larger meaning of this action? As proprietor of one of the banned websites, I am in a unique position to answer those questions.'
It is a matter of shame and dishonor for the non-existent UPA government in so far as the orphaned non-Muslims of India are concerned that Dr. Rusty Shackleford has himself given an answer to the first question by saying that these banned websites have offended the feelings and sensibilities of Islamists and the non-men in the government of India are mortally scared of our own Muslim citizens. Another categorical fact known throughout the world is that liberty will never be able to co-exist in a situation where there are large populations of Muslims. As Dr. K D Pratipal, Professor Emeritus, Comparative Religion, University of Alberta, Canada, aptly puts it: 'Muslims will only live as an oppressive majority and a turbulent minority.' In the case of India the latter half of the quotation is relevant and appropriate, and duly blessed by the politically insolent and ideologically insolvent government of India.
B) The second question which Dr. Rusty Shackleford seems to put to government of India is: 'What are the definitions of tolerance and intolerance acceptable to the pseudo-secular men in the government of India?' Do they define 'tolerance' as meek and submissive lamb-like acceptance of Islamic intolerance? Do they define 'intolerance' as the naturally human reactions of those who 'say', 'write' or 'depict' things they find offensive in compassionate acts of Islamic terrorism through their websites?
I would like ask the question: Is the self-deluded surrogate UPA government in New Delhi committed to the oddly fraudulent and fraudulently odd official philosophy of viewing The Intolerant Acts Themselves as Intolerant as a form of communal or religious intolerance? If that is so, should only the acts of murder, death, loot, plunder, abduction, rape, hijacking, bombing of towns and cities and other benevolent acts by terrorists be considered as acts of humanity, charity, understanding and broad-based tolerance? When perversion becomes a principle, when prostitution becomes a noble practice, when rape becomes the rule, murder becomes a meaningful message, goondaism becomes an act of grace, and political rascality is elevated to the level of national righteousness and as a part of legitimate minority rights, then are we not creating ideal conditions, extending an open invitation to an armed revolution in the immediate future?
Dr. Rusty Shackleford dismisses the reasons given by the Islam-embracing Christianity-coveting and Hindu-baiting UPA government for the illegal ban on 17 international websites with scorn in these words: 'India's banning of our websites is completely rational. It is based on the real fear of real people who do real violence. I understand India's reason for banning our websites, but certainly don't condone it.' He, perhaps, does not seem to be aware of the fact that by condoning such actions through his website he stands a better chance of being given all the civilian honors of the highest category by government of India, even 'Bharat Ratna' not excluded! That is the state of our secular, cosmopolitan, non-saffronized anti-Hindu national blessedness today.
Mumbai should be a reminder to India as to who its real friends are and who are its enemies. By upholding a policy of religious censorship, India is voting herself to national death. India cannot cement its alliances by adopting the values of its enemies and rejecting those of its allies round the world. But unfortunately all Indian governments and I would argue Indian society at large has been shrinking away from taking the hard decisions required to protect the mass of innocent citizens ever since our independence.
I am not overstating or sensationalizing the problem. I am shocked to see from several newspaper reports that the Shahi Imam of the Jama Masjid in Delhi has given his Islamic decision regarding recent Mumbai bombings which ought to be totally acceptable to the pseudo-secular UPA government in New Delhi - more particularly to A R Antulay, Arjun Singh and Ram Vilas Paswan. 'I can say with authority that it is not any Muslim but the Shiv Sena, the RSS and the Vishwa Hindu Parishad who are responsible for the serial blasts in Mumbai'.
I would like to ask one simple question in this context. Will he be able to ask the question at a public meeting of Muslims in Bulgaria, Romania and Yugoslavia: 'You were all part of the Ottoman Empire till the end of I World War. Soon, should you not all unite to win back the glorious days of Ottoman Empire?' He would not dare to do that in those countries for obvious reasons because he would attract the law of treason. What is politically treasonable in other countries of the world, becomes highly reasonable in India under the supreme umbrella of pseudo-secularism.
The policy of UPA government today is Muslim appeasement, appeasement at all costs, in spite of all terror and however long and hard the road may be. For without appeasement there is no survival, no survival for Sonia Gandhi and the Nehru clan, no survival for the UPA government, no survival for the urges and impulses of draconian secular men like Arjun Singhs, Antulays, Yadavs and Paswans. The UPA government is proclaiming to the whole world that India is one of the failed states.
Who dies if India lives and who lives if India dies? This question will be brushed aside by the UPA government as highly communal. Who dies if UPA government lives and who lives if UPA government dies - this is the question that will be upheld as an indispensable part of State policy by government of India today.
Up with pseudo-secularism!