The Hindu Terror Thing

“Hindu Terror” is a next incarnation of calumny against Hindu society in general and Hindu organizations in particular – its previous one being “Hindu Fascism”. The older one was a leftist invention while the new one is a creation of congress itself. The “Hindu Fascism” concept required some homework to be done in terms of inventing superficial similarities between Nazis-Fascists and the Hindu organizations, so that those can be used to establish a “deeper” ideological resemblance namely “extreme right wing”. While it was debunked, congress came up with this new concept called “Saffron Terror”/”Hindu Terror”. Since congress is more intellectually bankrupt than the Indian leftists, they do not seek to do such homework. But as they are in government, it was easy for them to implant evidence – and book a few Hindus. That it was done with the specific intent of framing Hindu organizations is evident from the fact that none of them were found guilty or sentenced but continue to be in jail and under torture. What Nehru did to HMS and RSS using Gandhi murder was not very different – the intent behind calumny is evident.

While this much is known to any careful observer, what is puzzling is the way many Hindus and sympathizers of Hindu society have bought this argument of Hindu Terrorism.

Koenraad Elst

Dr. KE in a recent article talks of Hindu Terrorism and ways to prevent it. This article seems to be a clearly an exception to his general levels of erudition and scholarship, as it lost its way in the very beginning. He starts with Godse the “Hindu terrorist”. While it is evident that RSS never endorsed Gandhi’s murder, it is history. But what matters is whether Godse can be called a terrorist. You can call someone a terrorist if he (1) kills innocents (2) uses that violence to terrorize the society (3) force leadership to his terms. Clearly Godse did not seek to terrorize the state or the society. Nor did he kill “innocents” – Godse’s violence was directed against the person he found guilty and not violence against innocents to manipulate the state or political opponents. Godse happens to be someone who took law into his hands and committed a murder – which qualifies as a crime but not terrorism by any standard.

Islamic Terror exists not merely because Islam is comfortable with violence as KE says, but because as history attests Islam is comfortable with fear and terror as their primary means of achieving Islamic dominance. Islam is comfortable with terrorizing the Hindu society and also the “deviant” elements within Islam. This is one of the reasons why the moderate voices in Muslims do not come out vocal and influential.

Beginning here, KE tends to equate violence to terrorism, and goes astray missing the main point. Hindu organizations rise in the defense of Hindu society, whether nonviolent or violent. It is unfortunately not really a choice of Hindus what those means should be, since in Bengal or Assam for instance there is just no scope for a nonviolent uprising. Violence is what happens against Hindus and hence their defense has to be violent. That does not qualify as terrorism by any standard.

Hindu terrorism does not exist for the simple reason that there is no violence Hindus are organizing in order to terrorize the state. No organization claimed any ownership of killing of innocents, and no organization said it is done either to avenge or to secure better terms with the government. Hindu terrorism does not exist for the simple reason that this is a Hindu society. Hindu organizations have nothing to gain by terrorizing their own society, the one which they seek to work for.

3 thoughts on “The Hindu Terror Thing

  1. Confused Krishan Bhakta in Canada

    ” It is unfortunately not really a choice of Hindus what those means should be, since in Bengal or Assam for instance there is just no scope for a nonviolent uprising. Violence is what happens against Hindus and hence their defense has to be violent.”

    There was violence against freedom fighters during Gandhi’s time and yet Gandhians/Satyagrahis did not become violent back.

    And Asaram Bapu says, “Can one hand clap? I don’t think so.”

    Following his advice they “fold hands and call them ‘brother’ “.

    1. skandaveera Post author

      I hope you know the difference between satyagraha and Muslim aggression. For the former, Gandhi’s reasons were practical – British did an extensive demilitarizing of India over a century, and made laws to prevent Indians from holding weapons. Those who tried to rise an armed revolt, such as Gadar party, were all tortured and killed. Gandhi found peaceful satyagraha a practical and plausible way, and hence resorted to it. With Islam there is nothing like it – remember how the peaceful and passive resistance of middle-east and Bauddha reaction? And now everything is wiped out of those areas. Same happened with Pakistan, Afghanistan and Bangladesh. So what works and where, is what matters. Hindu society survived because of the heroic military resistance against Islam, while it was not so with British.

      How did you deduce that Asaram Bapu’s advise is directed to all women? It was another case where the lady was totally overpowered by the offenders and appealing to the conscience of the offenders happens to be her only practical option. You need to understand that he is a knowledgeable man, and knows what he is saying – there is no point taking words out of context and evaluating them in air.

      1. Confused Krishan Bhakta in Canada

        Indian women need to be trained in arms from age 14 on and “concealed carry” needs to be their norm. “Appealing to the conscience” of rapists and killers is nonsense. They need to be shot and killed. End of story.

Leave a Reply

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

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s