In Denial Part-1: Cover-up Muslim Violence With Anti-Hindu Rant

This is in context of a movie “Innocence of Muslims” by an American. The movie, a satire on the Prophet, has angered Muslims in around 20 countries. It has driven many to violence, destruction and deaths in protest. Most have trashed the movie as stupid, badly made and tasteless satire. But does that really matter? Would the consequences have been any different if it were historically accurate or more tasteful? Your guess is as good as mine.

If you had the good fortune of going to a school but the misfortune of being taught sanitised history here’s a small KBC quiz for you, and you have to answer this off-hand: Name 7 prominent Hindu Kings. That’s easy, isn’t it? You can choose to scribble the list in your writing pads or in the comments section on this blog. If, for some reason, you didn’t manage that list then try this: Name 7 prominent Mughal rulers.

If you couldn’t easily name 7 prominent Hindu kings it’s not really your fault. It’s how our communist text books were designed. Imagine, in a line of marauding invaders, a somewhat compassionate Akbar is considered the greatest secularist by Nobel Prize winner and Bharat Ratna Amartya Sen. If the communist text books left any job unfinished we have most Commie Fiberals in our MSM continue their propaganda and distortion of Indian history. If I were to ask the Social Genius to name 7 Hindu kings off-hand, I estimate she would have to use the “call a friend” option. And Oh, in case you forgot, SG is a “devout Hindu”. Why? Because her ‘uncle’ joined the Ramakrishna Mission.

In a recent post I had attempted a fun review of interviews with Salman Rushdie (SR) by two media celebs, Barkha Dutt and Sagarika Ghose (SG). Here are a couple of questions from one of the interviews. First SG asks: “But in your mind religion is wrong? Is it untrue? Are gods unnecessary and irrelevant?

SR: Yeah I think so…”. She follows it up with this:

SG: But why were you sad when Babri.. was demolished if you're not a believing Muslim?

SR: Because it was beautiful and an important part of Indian history. I am trained as a historian… I would feel the same way if someone knocked down the Taj.. And by the way, everything is built on top of something else… Probably even under a Hindu temple, there are Buddhist temples.

The stupidity of the question reflects the poverty of the brain and the bigotry of SG, her channel and their agenda. By her logic why would we be sad or annoyed if Bamiyan Buddhas were destroyed in Afghanistan if we aren’t Buddhists? We have nothing to do with Afghanistan either. Why would we be upset if the Twin Towers were destroyed on 9/11? We aren’t Americans, are we? Those who didn’t lose any friends or family have even lesser reason to be upset, isn’t it? That’s the kind of Moronery she brings to the table. Motive: To somehow get a few sound-bites that would tar Hindus as extremists. She did twist a quote to create the headline “Hindu intolerance as bad as Muslims’” for the interview. If that wasn’t crooked enough, try this: “Hindu temples were built over Buddhist temples”. That could have been her back-up headline.

There are many who believe that the TajMahal was built over a Shiva temple. Some have provided pictures as evidence too. But nobody is asking to take down the Taj. It doesn’t occur to the social genius that Babri is a dispute raging over hundreds of years and cannot be equated with other incidents. Without condoning the incident, the particular significance to Hindus of Ram Janmabhoomi is not the same as Taj. I’m sure everyone’s heard of ‘RamRajya’ but there isn’t a concept called ‘ShivaRajya’. Is there? This is true for a couple of more historic Hindu sites and temples.

Now, let’s take up SR’s answer: “Probably even under a Hindu temple, there are Buddhist temples”. Should we challenge him? Should we ask him to prove it? No, not really. He just made an off the cuff, generalised remark and he clearly qualifies it with “Probably”, indicating he doesn’t know and can’t be sure. But others do make such remarks seriously but have never produced any evidence that Hindus conducted a religious-campaign to replace Buddhist temples. I haven’t seen any authentic evidence yet. And Hinduism is a lot older than Buddhism. But why is there such a clamour to tarnish Hindus when Muslim violence is so all pervading? Let’s not pick on SG, she is just the visible and voluble symptom of the disease that afflicts much of our MSM, communist historians and most political parties. SR claims to be “trained as a historian”. Ironically, even SG is a History graduate. Isn’t that surprising?

So if you look up our school textbooks you won’t find what historian Will Durant said about the Islamic invasion of India. He called it the bloodiest in human history. You will only find those books glorifying all the Mughal rulers. It’s only since the Internet that some of the real history is being disseminated more accurately. The historians, as with MSM now, have chosen to turn a blind eye to real history. Why is that so? If our media talked honestly about Muslim violence most of them would have burnt offices and dead bodies.

After his interview with that anti-Hindu celeb, SR has spoken to a few more. This time around he’s a lot more honest. To Fareed Zakaria he stated India is close to “no longer an open society” and in an interview to Le Monde (TOI report) he mentions “Something’s gone wrong at the heart of Islam”. To balance the stupidity of Muslim violence Rushdie points out certain incidents. He points out Rohinton Mistry’s book being removed from the University course. That had nothing to do with religion but more with a darker view of Mumbai which the Sena permanently gets worked up over. The 300 Ramayanas being removed from University courses had no violence involved. It was a decision by the managing authorities and removed by legal protests. The book itself is not banned. And yes any sensible man would condemn violence surrounding a book on Shivaji. There was no need to ban the related book either. The SC has overturned that ban. But our cowards in politics play the appeasement game instead of protecting the writer and publisher. But there is no way Rushdie or anyone should ever equate these incidents with chronic Islamic violence. If India ever was and still largely remains an open society it is simply because of Hindus and Hindu culture. Period.

Here’s a question for Rushdie and the Social Genius: Reverse the population of India. Let’s say 70% Muslims and 30% Hindus+others, what do you think will happen? It doesn’t need an Einstein to answer that. For all the whining that Rushdie does he still gets to come to India and go back when political and election temperatures aren’t hot. Now I wonder if he would dare a trip to Pakistan, BanglaDesh or any other Islamic county. So some of his utterances about India are filled with as much nonsense as SG’s about Hindus. Rushdie didn’t blame the last Jaipur LitFest crap on Hindus fortunately. He doesn’t blame them directly in anyway. He rightly blamed a criminal govt that abdicated its responsibility to protect him. What Rushdie now admits openly (something gone wrong with Islam) he could have done during the many interviews he did earlier.

SR has proclaimed himself to be an atheist or a rationalist. He did briefly claim to be a Muslim after the Fatwa. So why not see another rationalist talking about religion, particularly to Muslims? Rushdie has appeared on many shows with comedian and satirist Bill Maher. I can quite appreciate the humorous way rationalists look at religion and even ridicule it. Here are edited excerpts from Bill Maher’s Religulous. I am willing to wager Rushdie has seen the movie: (8:52 mins)

Some observations from the video:

(00.50): Talk about the name. Ahem! He calls himself ‘Propa Gandhi’ and he’s a Rapper. He is of Pakistani origin and is British. His lyrics for the infidels:  “… easy to use a mobile trigger.. Blow them all to hell for a million dollar figure”. Of course, he says it’s a satire and doesn’t reflect his intentions. Okay, accepted! Question: what satire is acceptable to the believers? And then he says Rushdie insulted and provoked intentionally. (02.35): Maher then ridicules Propa Gandhi: “You have the truth, I have the fiction”! (03.14): Dutch Imam: “Islam is peace, peace, peace”. (03.22): When asked about Islamic violence, everyone uniformly says: “No,No,No” “ It’s politics, it’s politics, it’s politics”. (04.05): Dutch Muslim politician Fatima Elatik states those passages in the Quran were in the context of the time they were written in. Maher points out, that’s not how people read holy books; that God’s word is forever. (04.30): Maher talks about how Islam conquered many parts of the world. The Imam says “not conquered, but spreading Islam”. And Maher laughs and says maybe but they weren’t spreading it by singing Kumbaya (a spiritual song).

Now this is interesting: (05.17): The site of Solomon’s temple in Jerusalem, the holiest site for Jews. The Muslims built a dome on top of the Jewish temple and Jews are not allowed into that place anymore. That has been so for a very long time. That’s like “under new management”. Couldn’t that be true for Babri or Taj Mahal? Couldn’t that be true for a lot of other temples too? I leave that to the historians and SG and Rushdie. The next one gets even better at (05.31): The holy Mount of Olives. Orthodox Jews want to be buried there because they believe when the Messiah comes he will raise the dead and march them through Golden Gates to the Temple Mount. But guess what the Muslims did? They walled up the gates to keep out the Jewish Messiah. Maher asks the hilarious question: “If He (The Messiah) has the power to raise the dead, He’d have the power to jump a fence”? Oh yes, wouldn’t he? Haha! But that’s Faith for you.

Now here’s something about the movie Religulous that most people would have missed: It’s 1Hr 41 minutes in duration. Bill Maher talks about Christianity, Judaism and Islam and even Scientology. He travels across the US, Europe and UK. He shows a glimpse of Hare Krishna followers dancing in the opening titles. That’s it! But there’s not one word, I repeat, not one word ridiculing Hinduism or Buddhism in the entire movie. You and I can wonder why but maybe the Social Genius has that answer. It’s not as if there aren’t enough Hindus and Buddhists in the US or UK. There are more Hollywood Buddhists than Scientologists.

In the 2^nd Part we will attempt to examine why so much Muslim violence is being tolerated and covered up by media for all the wrong reasons. In the meantime, if you managed, off-hand, to name 7 Hindu kings and 7 Mughal rulers, you’re a winner!