ENGLISH

Definition of Secularism and How “So Called Seculars” contradicts their own views!

              Now days we are come to hear that secular and socialist fabric is in danger in India. “So called Seculars” says NDA government is in communal and not treats minority well. But as per my personal view many people need to understand what is secularism and socialism first.

               Here, I am going to present some facts, various definitions of secularism and views of various people on socialism. Also I will try to put some facts that how “so called Seculars” contradicts their own views on secularism.

               First, I will start from the preamble of Indian constitution. Here are the some text of preamble which I get from WIKIPEDIA.

WE, THE PEOPLE OF INDIA, having solemnly resolved to constitute India into a SOVEREIGN, SOCIALIST, SECULAR, DEMOCRATIC, REPUBLIC, and to secure to all its citizens:

JUSTICE, social, economic and political;

LIBERTY of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship;

EQUALITY of status and of opportunity;

and to promote among them all

FRATERNITY assuring the dignity of the individual and the unity and integrity of the Nation;

IN OUR CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY this twenty-sixth day of November, 1949, do HEREBY ADOPT, ENACT AND GIVE TO OURSELVES THIS CONSTITUTION.[1]

 

The Important thing is this is not the exact text adopted in November,1949. But this is the amended preamble. The preamble is only once amended in 1976 during the “emergency” in the 42 amendment of the Indian constitution. And the words like “Secular, Socialist, and integrity” were added through amendment. [1]

Now, we see the views of Mahatma Gandhi on religion and secularism.

He believes that The State would look after secular welfare, health, communications, foreign relations, currency, and so on, but not your or my religion. That is everybody’s personal concern.”[2] That means state has no right to interfere in views of any citizens related to religion, whether he is HINDU or MUSLIM or CHRISTIAN. It also suggests that any government scheme or policy should not be based on any religion or help to particular religion.

So, any state or central government shouldn’t make religion specific schemes or shouldn’t not give reservation on the basis of religion, which Congress/NCP government tried to do in Maharashtra. Also, on the state resources all citizens of India should have equal right irrespective of their religion. While former PM Manmohan Singh on 9 DEC 2006 in 52 meeting of National Development Council said that “We will have to devise innovative plans to ensure that minorities, particularly the Muslim minority, are empowered to share equitably the fruits of development. These must have the first claim on resources”. [3]. This contradicts their own idol M.K. Gandhi’s view.

For Mahatma Gandhi, Secularism meant:

“All subjects would thus be equal in the eyes of the law. But every single individual would be free to pursue his own religion without let or hindrance so long as it did not transgress the common law. What [M.K. Gandhi] wished India to do, was to assure liberty of religious profession to every single individual.” [2][4]

               This means what Narendra Modi and Hamid Ansari did on wearing              skull cap and lightning lamp respectively was not communal at all, which actually claimed communal by different sections of people at time.

               Here are some reactions of people when Narendra Modi didn’t wear skull cap:

To run the country, you have to take everyone along… at times you will have to wear a topi (cap), at times a tilak (vermillion mark on the forehead).” : Nitish Kumar (CM of Bihar) [5] And the same Nitish Kumar refuses to take skull cap, shawl from Muslims and also refuse to Cover Head at Patna Gurudwara.

“By not wearing the skull cap, he is sending an unmistakable signal to his hard core supporters that he will not cater to the needs of this community. He never misses an opportunity to signal his bias and bigotry to the nation.” : Shashi Tharur [6] The same Tharur said “Engineer defended the right of Muslim women to wear a burqa, but out of choice, not coercion. He spoke for both culture & freedom, Empowerment. ” (write on his Facebook status)

               As per Jawaharlal Nehru Secular nation means there should be clear separation of religion and Politics which quite near to the western secularism. Nehru gave more importance to the ideas growing out of the Enlightenment, such as rational inquiry and scientific temper. Historians have suggested that he wanted a complete divide between religion and politics.

               Contradicts to Nehru’s Idea of Secularism, Gandhi believed that “every activity of man must be derived from his religion.” He said “Many of my political friends despair of me because they say even my politics are derived from religion. And they are right. My politics and all other activities of mine are derived from my religion. I go further and say that every activity of a man of religion must be derived from his religion, because religion means being bound to God, that is to say God rules your every breath” [2]

              In November 2014, Sonia Gandhi said “Nehru’s idea of secularism a must for country like India.” But in April 2014, she met shahi Imam when campaigns for LS election are running and demands appeal the Imam to demand “Secular” votes for congress. So we can say that Sonia Gandhi either not aware of Nehru’s idea of secularism or just use Nehru and secularism for only political gain.

Through, Nehru and Gandhi’s secularism contradicts each other, Political parties’ claims that they believe in “Nehru and Gandhi’s idea of secularism” and following it.

Finally for me, What I leaned and believe about secularism is “An individual person or group should have all right to follow their religion/faith, perform their religious rituals but that must not harm/insult others faith/religion, freedom and most important it must be as per law.”

Author: Tejash Patel (@Tejash__P)

References:

[1] Wikipedia, Article: Preamble to the Constitution of India

[2] GEORGE KARUVELIL, “GANDHI ON RELIGION IN PUBLIC LIFE”, Chapter-III

[3] Times of India, 9 DEC 2006 edition

[4] Speech at Narkeldanga, August 17, 1947, CW, 89, pp. 56-7

[5] NDTV website, September 20, 2013

[6] The New Indian Express, 19 April 2014 Edition

Quality or Quantity Education?

In India now a days everybody talk about education. Everybody tell that education is main thing for development of education. Right. Our state governments and Central government also talk about providing education to all people. They announces new institutes for higher education, also improved various physical facilities to governments schools and colleges.

But the Main question is, all these step are sufficient? Will it really benefit society? Many says “of course, yes”.  But also some people including me will tell “No”.

Why “No”? Answer can be given by another question ” whether we want to provide Quality education or Quantity Education?”. By starting new institutes and providing physical falsities may increase quantity but not improve quality. Here is the example from “Gujarat Model”. There is one government village school in eastern tribe area of Gujarat. The School has total 8 standards. All classes have separate classrooms. Government also provide facility of mid-day mill and purified water to students. School has wide ground, separate toilets for girls and boys, means all necessary amenities.School also has computers as well as facility of distance learning or e-class. But the major problem is number of teachers. Government opens new schools to nearby area of village for students who live their. Result is that the number students per standard is decrease in the school. But government has rule for teacher to student ratio. So this 8 standard school has only 5 teachers. Out of 5 teachers, two teachers are work for government works like electorate roll correction and counting of people etc. The question is how 5 teachers can handle 8 standards? with each standard has different syllabus. How one teacher can two syllabus in two standards at the same time? Will student get quality education?

The second thing which stops quality education is syllabus in different universities and boards.Most the syllabus are politically influenced. some times the update of syllabus became center of scams. Those who design syllabus are highly paid peoples. They may be really intelligent. but actually they perform their duty seriously? Most of the times syllabus are copied from other universities without thinking much. Some times instead of including latest technology and events in syllabus, they make syllabus small and easy to pass the maximum number of students. In this circumstances how a student can get quality education?

Teachers in private institution are paid less as compare to government institutes and forced to work more. So they apply sort-cuts in duty. Like on-paper they show all work good but actually they not doing the work. same thing they do in checking answer sheets of exam. They are paid per answer sheet to examine. So to earn more they check more answer sheet and not consider quality of answer but quantity of answer and the students who write movie scripts are also passed in exams.

Many times a government rules also become the cause of low quality education. One of the rule is, teacher can not fail any student in primary school. So if student can’t able to even read or write anything can pass. So if child enroll in school then without learning anything he/she can complete primary eduction. Of course the percentage of literacy increase. But actually how many people learn?

Reservation is also one of the reason to stop supply of good teachers. If any general category candidate get 59% in eligibility test then he not eligible to become teacher,but if reserve category candidate get 55% then also he become eligible to become teacher. We need to think who can provide better education?

At last we must understand that quantity eduction just increase the “literate unemployment.” Is it better than “illiterate unemployment”?

Author : Tejash Patel

Why Gujarat Voted for Modi?

In this season of 2014 Parliament it seems that all parties not fight against the ruling party but fight against the opposition party. Most Parties attack on Narendra Modi lead BJP. They attack more on the “Gujarat Model” instead of past government works.

Before understanding the reason why Gujarat voted for Modi, we quickly see that why opposition attacks on Modi. Here are some reasons.

1> whether they accept on public or not but they believe that the mood of the nation is in fever of Modi and not Congress.

2> They believe that if Modi lead BJP then its difficult to work under him while they can easily blackmail Congress lead UPA as seen in past 10  years.

3> Many regional party leaders want to become PM and in MODI lead BJP it’s never possible.

Now we will see why Gujarat Voted for Modi 3 times.

“Hindutva” is the biggest issue in 2002 for people of Gujarat to vote. After 2002 Modi become “Hindu Hraday Samrat” and for that large number of Hindu vote for Modi.In later elections it was not a big issue and many who support him 2002 for Hindutva not give him vote for that.

Another bigger issue is rehabilitation or advance development in Kutch after earth quake. People know the good work under Modi government and that’s why they voted for him.

In 2007, Modi came with agenda of development. Many people feel the development under him. The major developments under his government are electricity, Water, Roads and security. At the same time Modi made his image as a strong leader who acted hard against terrorism. People want to came out of the ghost of the 2002 riots. But congress not understand the mood of the people. There is no major issue, especially on development against Modi so congress and their supporters starts to blame Modi on 2002 riots. Even Hindus want to forget 2002 issues but congress’ appeasement politics not let them to do so. The statements like “Maut Ka Saudagar” add petrol in fire. And Modi starts to blame congress leaders on “So called Secularism”. Ultimately this all things help Modi and he win again in 2007.

As time passes, People feel more development in infrastructure and industries. Even Rural areas of Gujarat got 24hour electricity. Women Empowerment and safety is largely improved in Gujarat as compare to other states. People see stability  in BJP government, There was negligible cases of BJP leaders which disturbs daily life of people. But still congress not understand the mood of people. As they  went far from power they went far from real public issues and blaming more and more on 2002 issue. And as a result large number of people make their strong bond with Modi and they voted for Modi irrespective of who is local candidate. And as a result the big leaders of Congress like Modhwadia, Shaktisinh Gohil loose in 2012 assembly election. After 2012 election congress became very weak in Gujarat as its large number of leaders and workers joined BJP.

Those who blame Gujarat model are far away from actual reality. There are some lies on corruption and etc but at least in Electricity, Road, Water, Women empowerment & safety, Industries, Development in tribe area, Health sector in urban area, Transport facility, Advancement in governance technology no one can blame Modi. And if they blame their condition will not different from Congress after 2014 in Gujarat.

Author: Tejash Patel

Why should remove Article 370?

Article 370 is very controversial topic in India. It provides special status to Jammu and Kashmir. Because of this article not a single rule can directly be applied in Jammu & Kashmir without the permit of J & K government. J & K government only applies rules in JK which are beneficial to them and not to the JK public.A person who not the citizen of JK can not purchase land in Kashmir. It restrict the businessmen and companies, which are not from JK to make Investment in JK. And actually that limits the development in JK. There is a major problem of unemployment in JK which force youth to do illegal activities. The politicians and anti national elements take benefit of this situation. They explain to people that this situation only develop because of Indian government and if they want to do progress they have to make their own country.

Pakistan support this separatists and also support terrorist to unstable the situation at JK. People suffers because of that a very lot. Many of Kashmir origin people (KP) leave JK because of the instability and terrorism, Government of India not support them to settle their life at either place (JK or outside JK in India). This make demand to separation of Kashmir more loudly and many politicians even from India support that.

The main question how to stop all this? The only way is to connect people of JK with other part of India give them employment and help JK people to re-settle their life at their origin place. How it Possible? By invite investors and make new policies for them. How can they implemented? Only by removing Article 370!

Why Different Religions?

           Recently, after riots at various places, Peoples discuss more about religion and compare with them. Most of the people finds differences between various religions and try to prove their religion superior then others.Very few tries to find similarity between them and I, one of them.

           When we try to find similarity between them what comes first in mind? The Gods of different religions. Hindus have 33 crore gods, Muslims believes in Allah and Christians have Jesus. The common thing between them is, all religions believe that the whole universe is controlled by one super element and we should praise it. Each religion gives it separate name, each has a different method to praise it.

           The second common thing between all the religion is how they identify a person. All religions identify a person by his/her deeds and not by his/her birth. They gave importance to character and deeds of person rather than his/her birth or “KUL”. Can we say a person is Jain or Buddha if he/she believes in cruelty, even if he born in Jain/Buddha family? The answer is simply NO. Can we say a person is Muslim if he drinks in Ramzan? No. what it shows? only the deeds of the person decides his religion and not his family or birth.

          The third aspect which is common between all the religion is the reason behind the establishment of any religion. The reason is common and that ” to do something good for this universe”. nothing else. The question arise is that what is the need of so many religions? The answer is thoughts of people. Different people have different thoughts. Like most of the Hindus believes in worship of idols. But Muslims didn’t. Like that Christians have a different method for worship. So people follow different religions as per their thoughts.

            The fourth thing that is common between most of them is birth of super element. People believes that god comes to earth to end the rule of evil and establish peace.

             After observing these all thing we should think why we want that everybody should follow our religion. If we follow these things, aren’t we follow different religion simultaneously? Aren’t our friends from other religion follow our religions? If Salman khan celebrate Ganesha Chaturthi and Id both then which religion he follows, Hindu or Islam? Many Hindus often visit Dargah, and mosque. I personally know them. Like wise Many Muslims visit temples. It means they didn’t follow their religion? I am Hindu but not visit temple Daily, does it mean I am not Hindu?

          Doesn’t understand why people force others to follow their religion when even they themselves follows different religions. Most of the people (Not all) who change their religion not knowing facts about their past and future religions. They only change their religion to get something given by people or saints of their future religions.

            What is the meaning of secularism?

A. Follow all religion. Like wear CAPS which Muslim wears. Wear saree which Hindu women wear and celebrate 31 December?

or

B.  Let follow our religion without disturbing others to follow their religion?

If we understand true meaning of religion and secularism there is no riots anywhere.

Author: TEJASH PATEL

Why We Critique Only Islam!

Why We Critique Only Islam!

           Frequently we are facing one common accusation from the Islamist, semi-Islamist and even from the moderate (ignorant) Muslims—which is “why only critiquing Islam” and why not critiquing also other religions? This is of course a very prudent question. And this question needs to be answered by the group of critics. Critics may think that enough have been discussed about the fallacies of Islam everywhere in the whole world. By now every simple mind should understand very well as to why we only critique Islam! But I am not surprised by the question, because we must know that—childhood brainwashing of those moderate Muslims and utter hypocrisies of those erudite Islamists they mostly fail to realize the truth simply due to their sheer blind-faith in Islam.

               In this essay, I would like to make a hypothetical comparison between the Islam and all other major religions of the world. I shall try to establish the very unique and special character of the religion Islam by an honest and impartial judgment. I shall attempt to answer this very prudent question by my own style. That is, I will generate the right answers from the mouth of those questioners themselves. Instead of answering this question, let me ask those Islamists, moderate Muslims and others the following questions:

            America has a super plural society having many religions (Christian, Hindu, Muslim, Jews, Buddha’s etc). Every day, every hour or every minute—we are sick and tired of hearing in the radio, TV, or newspapers some very common (colorful) adjectives, such as: Muslim militants, Muslim terrorists, Islamic terrorists, Islamic radicals, and Islamic militants, Islamic fanatics, Al-Qeada, and Taliban. My question is that, why do not we hear about terrorists or radicals of any other religions? Why do not we hear these kind of ear-soothing colorful adjectives about those millions of atheists, agnostics or even Homosexual guys? Why it is always attached with the peaceful (?) ISLAM?

            In the North America and throughout the western world—there are hundreds of societies bearing the name of only one religion and that is ISLAM. Examples: AMC, AMA, NABIC, ICNA, ISNA, CAIR etc. etc. There are hundreds of Ummatic organizations/societies throughout the North America and elsewhere in the whole world. Ummatic organizations mostly preach segregation/isolation of Muslims from other peoples in general in the host countries. They teach Muslims that they are superior and their religion is superior and ask to guard their children from mixing with the western “rotten” society. As a result, future generations of Muslims can not blend with the society of host country resulting isolationists and problematic youngsters in an alien society. Ultimate result is the scenario of item# 13 below. In this, I have many questions: How many Ummatic organizations for Hindu, Christian or Jews can we find? Why no such organization is needed by any other religions? Why only the people of Muslim origin need such Ummatic organization? What is the purpose of such organization?

           Can we find Jihadi organization in any other religions such: Islamic Jihad, Hamas, Hizbullah, Horkut-ul- Jihad, Horkut-ul-mujahedin, Jaise Muhamad, Jihad-e-Muhammad, Tahrik-e-Nifaj-shariaat-e-Muhammad, Al-Hikhma, Al-badr-Mujaheddin, Jamah-e-Islamia, Hijb-e-Islamia, etc. etc.??? We can find several dozens of Jihadi Islamic terrorist organizations exists in every Muslim country throughout the world. Can we find such organization in other religions? If not, then why?

           We can find dozens of countries ruled by Islamic Shariaat (Huhud laws) where Quran is the only viable constitution. Remaining Muslim majority countries also have family laws enforced as per Quranic laws. We can still find many Islamic Republics exist in this modern world of 21st century. My questions here are: Can we find any country ruled by Bible, Old Testament or Ghita today? Can we find just one Republic for Christian, Jewish, Hindus or Buddhas? If the answer is no, then please tell us why no?

      Islam has become a fearful religion in the whole world today. Islamic terrorists are conspiring to kill innocent civilians, especially western civilians everywhere in the whole world. Whole civilized world is in a panic situation for fear of Islamic terrorism. Very recently, German police have arrested an al-Qaeda sympathizer and his fiancé on suspicion of planning to bomb the U.S. Army’s European headquarters and other targets in Heidelberg, Germany. Interestingly these arrested al-Qaeda sympathizers were none but Muslims who kept pictures of Osama bin Laden in their apartment. My questions are: why could not these two human beings belonging Hindu, Jew or Christian? Why can’t we incriminate any other religion for the similar cause?

          Honor killing is the most inhuman and most disgraceful act by any human standard. This act is condemned by any sane human being today. But surprisingly—this horrendous episode is only present in the Muslim countries and Muslim societies. Islamists will argue that there is nothing in the Quran which suggests honor killing! Well, question here is, if Islam has nothing to do with it, then why it is only practiced by Muslims? NO OTHER SOCIETIES EXCEPT ISLAM PRACTICE IT, PERIOD. Even in the same country—example Nigeria, Northern Nigerian (Muslims) do practice this heinous act, but Southern Nigeria (Christians) do not practice this at all. It may present in any country in the whole world—but 100% sure that it will happened only in a Muslim family. My questions here are—please tell me why Muslims only perform this heinous act? Why this act is totally absent in any other religions?

            Today in the whole world Muslims are apologetic to the entire humankind for the shameful terrorisms and constantly trying to erase this stigma by various apologetic fruitless arguments and excuses. They are trying very hard to disown Osam Bin Laden and other Islamic terrorists by saying “Islam has been hijacked” etc. Very recently, ISNA (Islamic Society of North America) held four days full-fledged program in the Washington, D.C. to disown the burden of doubt in Islam by using same-old apologetic slogans—”Islam is a religion of peace” or Prophet Muhammad is the God’s mercy to earth” etc. These Islamists of North America also tried to fool the westerners (may be they fooled themselves) by quoting a few good/kind Quranic verses. They all simply blamed Western Media for projecting Islam as the religion of terrorism. With much hypocrisy they absolutely hide all those hundreds of hateful/dreadful Quranic verses. My question here is—why any other religionists do not need to do all these hypocrisies like Islamists are doing today?

           “Jihad” is the most fearful and despised word spoken/uttering throughout the whole world today. This famous word “Jihad” belongs to one religion, and that is—”Islam”. My question is—why Jihad belongs to only Islam?

              Suicide-bombing only to kill innocent human beings is committed by Muslims only. In Palestine-Israeli conflict hundreds of incidents of such heinous suicide attempts have occurred so far. It was quite obvious that all these suicide bombers were brainwashed by the fiery inspirational teachings by Islamic clergy citing various Quranic dictums and hadiths. Among the Palestine citizens there are good percentage of Christian minority who support Palestinian cause and they are also enemy of Israel. Surprisingly, not a single “suicide bomber” could be found who was a Christian. My questions here are—why there was no suicide bomber evolved out of those Christian-born Palestinians? Why it is the only Muslims committing this horrendous act of suicide bombing?

          Mosque-Islamic center connections: all most every terrorist arrested or identified so far, they obviously (without fail) belonged to some Mosque or Islamic center. It was quite apparent that the terrorists arrested or dead was later identified as the member/visitor of certain famous Mosque or Islamic center. In most cases—Muslims attacked their rivals after the Friday prayers, because the fiery sermons of the Imam of the Mosque energize these fanatics. My questions here are—if Islam and Mosque has nothing to do with terrorists then why they could not be belonged to some other religious center such as Hindu Temple, Jewish Temple, Buddhist temple or Christian church? Or why they could not be even the members of some atheists/agnostic/homosexual clubs?

               Pure (Pukka) Muslims: all most all the terrorists (John walker Lind, Zakaria Moussai, Padia etc.) so far arrested or known to the authority are very pure and devoutly good practicing bearded Muslims. Just last week, Swedish authority has arrested one suspected terrorist from onboard an aircraft who attempted to hijack the plane and crash it to the American Embassy in the Western Europe. Later he was identified as the bearded young Tunisian born devout Muslim by the name Kerim shatty who wanted to go to join the Islamic conference in London. My questions are: Why they (terrorists) could not be from some moderate or not so good Muslim group? Why always terrorist have to be one of those most devout pukka Muslims? What possibly is the obvious indication here? Isn’t it true that any true followers (real Muslim who follows Quran and hadiths) of Islam could be a terrorist?

           Converts: we know conversion to other religion is a common phenomenon throughout the world. Many people convert to Islam, Christianity, Buddhism etc. My questions are why it is only those Muslim converts turn into terrorists or Taliban (American Taliban, Shoe-bomber and dirty bomber suspect—they all are converted Muslims)? Why any other converts (Hindu or Christian) could not be a Taliban or terrorist?

             Clash of immigrants with the host: very recently, there were riots between the immigrant British citizens and the host Britons. Surprisingly those immigrant British citizens were none other than the Muslim immigrants (mainly Pakistani and Bangladeshi). Britain has the immigrants from various countries and various religions. My question here is why those rioting-immigrants could not be from any other religions?

          Dress code and food restriction: Do you know Islam has a special dress code for both men and women? Islam is nothing but Arab nationalism in the disguise of religion. Anybody from any foreign land convert to Islam also needs to adopt/change his dress and cultural habits, which is nothing but Arab national dress and Arab culture. A devout Bangladeshi, Chinese or a Burmese convert to Islam will pretend to be a good Muslim by wearing Arab garb or hijab for women, even though his/her own national dress is not at all similar to Arab national dress. Muslims also follow very strict food codes. Unlike other religious groups, Muslims can not eat western most hygienically produced meat products. Muslims need to eat so called un-hygienically produced halal meat. Convert Muslims even need to learn Arabic for daily rituals of Islam. They are not allowed to pray in their own mother tongue. Result is they do not know what they are praying. But unlike Muslim convert, Hindu, Christian or Jewish converts do not need to forsake their own national dress code or languages. My questions here are why the converts of no other religions need to change their own national dress code or food habits? Why Islam is so different?
         Coercive imposition: Islam is the only religion in which peoples are being forced/coerced to observe Islamic daily rituals. In any Islamic paradise—like Saudi Arabia, Iran, Talibani Afghanistan, or any other Islamic Arab countries—Islamic police (Muttawalli) force general citizens to observe daily rituals very strictly. Anybody who fails to obey is punished by beating severely or even by imprisonment. Even in the moderate Muslim countries like Bangladesh, Pakistan, Indonesia, Malaysia etc. Clergies, general public or the elders will repeatedly remind or even force people to join the daily five time prayers/rituals of Islam. Anybody who do not join or refuse to join will be cursed, looked down or insulted by the seniors.
Punishments for the crime: Punishments for the crime (like stealing, adultery, killings etc.) in Islamic paradise (Saudi Arabia, Iran, Nigeria, Pakistan, Sudan and many other Arab nations) according to Allah’s laws (Islamic Shariaat or hudud laws) are cutting/chopping hands, feet and even chopping heads, or stoning death and lashings one hundred and one times. My questions here are: could we find such ancient uncivilized/draconian laws in any other religions today? If the answer is no, then please tell us why?

          Brotherhood in Islam: Islam is the only religion having brotherhood or Ummatic provision. One muslim is considered brother of another muslim only. A muslim can not be a brother of Hindu, Christian or Jews or infidels. Muslims are forbidden even to pray for any infidels. Therefore, Islam is like a large-scale religious cult which does not recognize any other religion as pure religion. My question here is why no other religious group has such separatist brotherhood system?

             Islam and poverty: Poverty and Islam goes side by side. Islam means submission to Allah. Therefore, general muslims become like a dependent servant of unseen authority in the sky. Muslims loose their strength and desire of freethinking and innovation. Result is pure poverty. Look everywhere—muslims are the most poor human beings on earth. Go to Africa or Asia—every muslim majority country is a desperately poor country. Please don’t try to cite some Arab oil-rich countries as the denial to my assertion. Because, that happened only due to the discovery of oil by the west—such as America and Britain. Before that, all the Arabs were miserably poor country. Muslims are poor even in a same country or region: In Nigeria—northern (Muslim majority) people are poor, but southern (Christian majority) people are rich and affluent. In Europe—only two most poor countries are Bosnia and Albania. Both of these European countries are populated by convert Muslims of same Caucasian white peoples. But they are poorer than their neighbors. My question here is why it has to be always like that?

                Muslim World: Do you know we have two worlds in the same planet earth? One is the real world (with every nation except the Islamic nations) and other is the Muslim world (with all the Islamic nations only). Surprisingly, there is no Christian world, no Hindu world or any Jewish world, Buddies world or infidel world. But we have Muslim world. My question here is: why there is no Christian, Hindu, Buddies or Jewish world?

~:: Author : Tejash Patel ::~

India-China Relation ship

The relations of India with its neighbors are always a favorite point of  discussion in India as well as in Asia. The relations of India with its neighbors are not so good and increasingly towards bad. Most of the Indian governments are failed to built good relationship with neighbors. There are many reasons behind it and we will discuss them here.

The first and main reason is Indian foreign policy. The foreign policy of India is always defensive except in the case of freedom of Bangladesh. The foreign policy of India is never attacking and its neighbors takes advantage of that. All of the neighbor countries except china are not so strong that they can defeat India in any form either economically or in the war. Even though they saw eye to India time by time.
 We defeated Pakistan several times in the war. we make contracts with them every time they lost.And what happened finally? Even though Pakistan lost against India it get some part of Kasmir from India and India can not do any thing to get back it. Even Pakistan give some part of POK (Pakistan occupied Kashmir) to CHINA as agift which India will never get back. Pakistan supports terrorist to attack on India.Its navy men coming into Indian coastal area and caught Indian peoples. Its army personals coming India illegally and kills Indian army men. But in reply what India or Indian government do? Only give some statements. And after sometime every thing is forgotten.

When India gets freedom Jawaharlal Nehru became Prime minister. At that time Sardar Patel warns Nehru to be careful in relation with Chinese dragon. But Nehru didn’t take it seriously and give slogan of ‘Hindi-Chine bhai bhai” to get some peace awards. But what happened actually? CHINA attacks on INDIA in 1962. India loss the war. But still Indian government didn’t learn from that. Indian government still wants good relations with china while china works on its plan to envelop India. China already get supports from Pakistan, Bangladesh, Shrilanka  and now it wants support from Mal-div. In this all countries china is going to built its military stations. CHINA wants some part from Bhutan so it can take its military at high and take advantage of height. In Nepal, India support to st democracy. But now there is a government of left parties in Nepal which favors CHINA .

Earlier India accept the TIBET as part of CHINA but now INDIA supports the freedom fighters of TIBET. China already made its claim on Indian Land in Arunachal Pradesh, Sikkim and in Jammu and Kashmir. Already china had rob some part of India. But India can’t do anything.

The water of rivers like Brahmaputra are diverted by china by bulding big dams in china. Instead Rise this issue in international level Indian government are trying to hide this issue from people by speaking lies.When Chinese Army coming into Indian area. Indian Government trying to resolve this issues by talks. that is good but what happens in talks? Indian government make compromise with china that India will recall its military from Chumar post. After that Chinese military went back. But Indian foreign minister and government hide this fact of compromise and make Indian people fool by telling that talking with china was successful and we resolve this issue without any condition. Here the most important thing is that china had already make incursion in the past at chumar. Actually China wants this area so it can directly reach to Pakistan through Karakorum highway.

Actually China wants its directly connectivity with India ocean. As well as it wants authority of Indian ocean so it can reach to the all world easily. But the only one country who oppose it is India, so China wants India to go back foot. 

In this situation India can also do some steps to push china back foot. These steps are following:

India should make good relations with the countries who faces Chinese incursion  and claims on their lands. these countries are South Korea, JAPAN, Vietnam, Indonesia, Bhutan, Myanmar etc.

India should punish peoples who are Indian but support china, like Naxalists, Maoists. etc. India Should fight with them like Srilanka who fought wit LTTE and defeat them.

If even after that Chinese incursion is continue then stop import from china. If countries like Bangladesh supports chins than push its nose on the issues like water, flood and incursion of peoples from Bangladesh to India till they stop supporting china against India.

:: TEJASH PATEL ::

%d bloggers like this: