26/11, when all failed Bombay



Each year, I wake up on 26/11 full of sadness. I mourn those brave people who gave their lives for my city. I mourn the innocents who were murdered by Pakistani terrorists. And I say a silent prayer, hoping that something like this never ever happens again.

But I also regret the fact that after all these years we still have not come to terms with the most tragic reality of 26/11: it could have been prevented.

At every step of the way those who were supposed to protect us fumbled and stumbled. And while it is Hafiz Saeed and the other Pakistani terrorists who planned this attack and whose hands are stained with the blood of innocents, there are many in India who are also to blame.

Let’s take apart the unforgiveable lapses that led up to the Bombay massacres.

Firstly, it is not true to say that 26/11 was a surprise attack.

Indian intelligence had more than enough notice. The CIA had told us that Pakistani terrorists were planning to attack Bombay from the sea and that a hotel on the seafront would be the most prominent target.

We know now that this information came from David Headley. But our authorities did very little. They did not even monitor the sea routes more carefully to prevent terrorists from landing in Bombay.

But it gets worse. Just as the terrorists were sailing towards Bombay, R&AW, our external intelligence agency, picked up radio transmissions from them. These transmissions made it clear where they were headed and when they would arrive. In any Western country, this would have been enough to sound an all-out alert. The navy and the coast guard would have been instructed to intercept the boat which carried the terrorists. The attack would have been foiled. Lives would have been saved.

But that’s not how things work in India. R&AW filed a report about the interceptions and sent it to national security advisor, MK Narayanan, at the Prime Minister’s Office. That report just lay there.

Nobody seems to have read it. Or if it was read, then nobody acknowledged it or acted on it.

And so, the terrorists were allowed free access into Bombay.

Secondly, even though we were monitoring the conversations between the terrorists and their handlers, we did not act on this intelligence.

R&AW had advance information that several SIM cards had been bought by terror organisations. It checked these cards on a regular basis, waiting to see when they would be activated.

On 26/11, the cards were activated and R&AW suddenly discovered that it could listen to conversations between the terrorists and their controllers. It is these conversations that are now replayed again and again on TV in reconstructions of the events of 26/11.

Bizarrely, none of this information seems to have been used to our advantage. Long into the attack, the NSG had no idea how many terrorists there were, where they were hiding or what they were planning. Despite being privy to the enemy’s plan in real time, our authorities continued to stumble in the dark.

Let’s take just two examples of how this information could have been used. We know now that the Pakistani handlers told the terrorists at the Taj to go to the Chambers because guests were taking refuge there.

The Indian authorities heard these instructions at the same time as the terrorists. They could have easily rushed cops into the building or tried to intercept the terrorists. Instead, they did nothing and scores of people were shot.

Or consider another instance. Pakistani handlers were monitoring TV coverage of the attacks and passing this information on to the terrorists. The authorities knew this was happening. Yet, they made no attempt to move TV cameras away from the scene or to even tell the press to refrain from reporting details of the operation. In fact, the navy’s commandoes even went so far as to hold a televised press conference in which they bragged about their exploits even as hostages were still being killed at the Taj.

What can you say about a country that has access to so much information and chooses not to use it? Nothing except for this: what use is intelligence to people who have so little intelligence themselves?

Thirdly, there is the shameful failure of the Bombay Police. On the night of 26/11 when there were four terrorists inside the Taj and two at the Oberoi, the entire Bombay Police sat back and refused to enter the hotels arguing that it was too dangerous. They would wait for the NSG to arrive the next day, they said.

The few policemen who had been called in by the Taj, when the firing seemed to be part of a gang war, quickly retreated once they realised that this was a terrorist attack.

Is it credible that a police force whose men routinely carry automatic weapons while on VIP duty did not have the capacity to take out two terrorists at the Oberoi Hotel? People died because the police force failed.

And yet, there were tales of individual bravery by policemen. Bombay owes a huge debt to Tukaram Ombale, who lost his life while holding on to Ajmal Kasab. It is because of Ombale that we were able to learn the truth about the operation from Kasab’s own lips. We owe a lot also to men like Hemant Karkare and Ashok Kamte, who died needless deaths because they had been misinformed by the police control room about the deployment of personnel at the hospital where Kasab and Ibrahim had been seen.

But these individual instances of bravery cannot make up for the complete failure of the police force as a whole. Nor can they make up for the absence of any chain of command. On the night of 26/11, as the sixth floor of the Taj went up in flames, the hotel’s officials pleaded with the fire brigade to train its hoses on to the fire. There were people stranded inside, they explained. The fire brigade refused. We have no orders, they said. And in fact, there was nobody to issue any orders. Because nobody was in charge the night that Bombay burned and bled.

So yes, I get emotional when I think of the events of 26/11. But I also get very angry. My city was attacked. And nobody cared enough to stop the attack even though they could have. And nobody tried hard enough to try and save the lives of the people of my city. It took the entire might of the Indian state three full days to defeat 10 terrorists.

And it was Bombay that paid the price.

1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (43 votes, average: 4.58 out of 5)
Loading ... Loading ...
  • SAMIR

    good article.

    [Reply]

  • Ritesh

    This is an intelligent and well reasoned rant, I am ashamed that while we have people in power, there are no leaders in India.

    [Reply]

  • Jaichands of India

    The bitter fact is that both Centre and the Maharashtra governments failed dismally; yet India rewarded them with a resounding win in 2009. Therefore, the people of India actually do deserve what they get. Tough, but unavoidable. The reality is also that at that time the Vir Sanghvi’s (later day Jaichands) were singing paens of the rotten governments and now come up with the facts that they always knew to be the truth. These traitors are equally culpable.

    [Reply]

  • Mythbreaker

    we are a soft state question is can we survive as a soft state in 21 century you loose security you loose it all there should be no compromise on internal security that means no appeasement of any community
    India does need a right wing nationalist moment

    [Reply]

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100001904292850 Raj Singh

    Dude well written and good research work.

    [Reply]

  • Cheryllne

    Thank you for this timely piece. Exquisitely and thoughtfully written.

    [Reply]

  • Akash Satyawali

    I really don`t understand what was meant to be conveyed by the article. Let me start with the last line where you say, it took the nation to handle those terrorists, and the price was paid by Bombay. You seem to toe the line of Shiv Sena here. And the part on the authorities should have informed the media o not cover it, didn`t the media have that sense? At places you narrate it like you were there present when everything took place. I mean what do you exactly think this is? A movie? Whatever happened should surely not be repeated, another thing that does not need to be repeated is an article as such. Just dont understand why people have voted it 5 on5, when other posts happen to be better.

    [Reply]

  • SK

    Hindsight is 20-20, which is what Vir is harping on. It possibly could have been prevented, as was 9/11, but that is an irrelevant question today. Today the question that needs to be asked is what has changed to prevent something like this from happening again? Is there better coordination in place between the intelligence agencies, and how fast is the reaction time once there is an intelligence input. What organisational changes are in place to intercept the next terror attack, whether home grown or from across the border.

    [Reply]

  • http://www.facebook.com/jyothi.shankaran.1 Jyothi Shankaran

    How true. So much information and nobody acted. What a shame! And we were acting as if we were taken by surprise! So, how did the govt come back to power in 2009?

    [Reply]

  • Anonymous

    It’s always easy to do post analysis and blame. Given the Indian geography, population composition, maturing democracy and very many other factors, it’s very difficult to draw certain strategies. We also suffer from enemy within, which make life even more difficult. It’s probably only the time which will make us more responsible in tackling such terror related problems.
    By the way lets also respect the fact that Bombay was renamed to it’s original name Mumbai. If journalist like Vir doesn’t follow the protocol, how do you expect ordinary people of India would?

    [Reply]

  • patriot

    You can not really say all failed Bombay on 26/11 but blame it on poor adminstration and police who is nothing but”Nikami”Please watch Farid Zakaria HBO made documentry on 26/11.Many of our problems are because of Congress party who has appeased all along muslims and that is why we have some enemies within.Corruption is another evil ailment which is part and parcel of Congress party and if you look honestly we have chaos every where.Surprisingly this party is winning again and again because of solid muslims and majority Christian votes.We need immediate change and new honest educated party otherwised we are doomed and there will be no end like Bombay carnage.After 26/11 our Government is doing business with Pakistan as usual like nothing has happened.

    [Reply]

  • raj

    ok, we had intel about this, but when polic start investigation, so called secular brigade will shout innocent slims harassed. when police hv proof of bombs, again secular brigade will shout, police don’t know about bombs, and even its a bomb it was not exploded. after explosion, what use in catching terrorist, when they work from pakistan, so we should improve relationship with pakistan to get culprits. you are alos member of this brigade , mr vir… stop this crocodile tears.
    its reading articles like this which makes me angry.

    [Reply]

  • Ramesh Kumar

    First of all ,instead of attack on Mumbai ,we must say it was attack on India.THe biggest tragedy of the nation is ,we talk as if it was a local incident.IT WAS NOT ATTACK OM MUMBAI BUT ON INDIA.
    Remember initial reactions of pm and other congress leaders.what happened after few months ,we were sending dossiers to pakistan.IS THIS THE WAY TO DEAL ATTACK ON SOVERGNITY OF A NATION.
    Media was playing its role.You could hear sentences like ,how fast life in mumbai became normal.What do we expect from those who are not dead,not to work ,not to eat or live.
    People after cremating even their dear ones has to become normal.
    I feel sad on whole approach.

    [Reply]

  • Ramesh Kumar

    First of all ,instead of attack on Mumbai ,we must say it was attack on India.THe biggest tragedy of the nation is ,we talk as if it was a local incident.IT WAS NOT ATTACK OM MUMBAI BUT ON INDIA.
    Remember initial reactions of pm and other congress leaders.what happened after few months ,we were sending dossiers to pakistan.IS THIS THE WAY TO DEAL ATTACK ON SOVERGNITY OF A NATION.
    Media was playing its role.You could hear sentences like ,how fast life in mumbai became normal.What do we expect from those who are not dead,not to work ,not to eat or live.
    People after cremating even their dear ones has to become normal.
    I feel sad on whole approach.

    [Reply]

  • Ramesh Kumar

    First of all ,instead of attack on Mumbai ,we must say it was attack on India.THe biggest tragedy of the nation is ,we talk as if it was a local incident.IT WAS NOT ATTACK OM MUMBAI BUT ON INDIA.
    Remember initial reactions of pm and other congress leaders.what happened after few months ,we were sending dossiers to pakistan.IS THIS THE WAY TO DEAL ATTACK ON SOVERGNITY OF A NATION.
    Media was playing its role.You could hear sentences like ,how fast life in mumbai became normal.What do we expect from those who are not dead,not to work ,not to eat or live.
    People after cremating even their dear ones has to become normal.
    I feel sad on whole approach.

    [Reply]

  • Ramesh Kumar

    First of all ,instead of attack on Mumbai ,we must say it was attack on India.THe biggest tragedy of the nation is ,we talk as if it was a local incident.IT WAS NOT ATTACK OM MUMBAI BUT ON INDIA.
    Remember initial reactions of pm and other congress leaders.what happened after few months ,we were sending dossiers to pakistan.IS THIS THE WAY TO DEAL ATTACK ON SOVERGNITY OF A NATION.
    Media was playing its role.You could hear sentences like ,how fast life in mumbai became normal.What do we expect from those who are not dead,not to work ,not to eat or live.
    People after cremating even their dear ones has to become normal.
    I feel sad on whole approach.

    [Reply]

  • Ramesh Kumar

    First of all ,instead of attack on Mumbai ,we must say it was attack on India.THe biggest tragedy of the nation is ,we talk as if it was a local incident.IT WAS NOT ATTACK OM MUMBAI BUT ON INDIA.
    Remember initial reactions of pm and other congress leaders.what happened after few months ,we were sending dossiers to pakistan.IS THIS THE WAY TO DEAL ATTACK ON SOVERGNITY OF A NATION.
    Media was playing its role.You could hear sentences like ,how fast life in mumbai became normal.What do we expect from those who are not dead,not to work ,not to eat or live.
    People after cremating even their dear ones has to become normal.
    I feel sad on whole approach.

    [Reply]

  • KSAM

    I am sad to read the story and he is right that our force could save the people but i think this was a planned attack on Mumbai and some big shots were involved. in one sentence i will say This was happened to eliminate The Great Karkare the ATS chief.For this shameful attack we will blame our Leaders(Both from congress and BJP RSS ShivSena) those are selling the country for their selfishness.At that time where were our bravo Shiv Sainiks those say they are nationalist.

    [Reply]

  • Asifiya

    We can expect this from our politicians but Muslims who call Islam a religion of peace can carry this massacre of civilians in name of Islam is more shocking. Besides 26/11, Mumbai has been hit many times by terrorists- all Indian Muslims- acting in name of Islam. This is something we need to debate as well.

    [Reply]

  • http://twitter.com/aumshanti1 aum shanti

    veer sanchvi is kayar sanghvi who is anti national congress’s paid anti national who is hired by hindustan times to get more advertisements

    [Reply]

  • Raj Nath

    For this Dalal, every one can fail, but the only infallible is the Corrupt Party and its Italian ex-maid, University-drop out “hope of the nation” etc etc.
    Sure we know how inept our Police are: didn’t Haji Mastaan, Karim Lala and then Dawood ibrahim build huge fortunes and operate “large-scale operations” with impunity for decades?
    Who are to blame, the police officials whose hands get tied by our beloved Gandhian Congress-men, and inured into protecting the turfs of their political masters or the political leaders who have not only emasculated our police and Army. Our judiciary that permits anti-nationals to conspire against our nation and go hammer and tongs against political rivals, who are out of power?
    There is a large-scale systematic conspiracy of weakening the nation and looting of the treasury, just pointing at the police who are at the receiving end and have to fend for themselves and expecting them to give up their lives when they have paid huge amounts to secure a job, obtained sans merit, is expecting a potato to do the work of a sword in that crucial moment of test of character.

    [Reply]

  • sandeep deshmukh

    Mr. veera Sangvi article is nothing bt the same pompous trumpeting about all that is under the sun and hw he has the best knowledge about it. the fact of the matter is Veera Sanghvi is urban coctail drinking and 5star seelping urchin who never sees how the rest have FAILES MUMBAI, but yeah, VEERA SANGVHI is up in arms when something remotest happens to the neo-rich.

    [Reply]

  • patriot

    Why telling all failed Bombay on 26/11 when it was adminstration and “Nikammi”police responsible for it.But our Government is doing business with terrorist country Pakistan as usual like nothing happened on 26/11 and LeT is now threatning to attack on Vishno Devi temple in Jammu.Untill and unless appeasement by our Government will not stop to muslims we will be always in trouble.It was big mistake to keep muslims after partition.Please see documentry on Mumbai terror narrated by Farid Zakaria and produced by HBO.

    [Reply]

  • Girish Kumar

    Why Sanghvi has not spoken a word against the media, which was broadcasting the events live and giving out details on the location of hostages, the placement of snipers, the movement of the police and commandos? Apart from the government, the media is equally culpable in its amateur handling of the 26/11 events.

    [Reply]

  • KP

    sensible comparison

    [Reply]

  • Indianfirsttt

    Author seems conveniently forgetting when Gandhi’s son fell in love with a Muslim woman in South Africa, whose father happened to the employer of Gandhi ji for whose company Gandhi ji was working as a Lawyer, Gandhi fought tooth and nail against his son’s love affair and did not allow him to marry a muslim woman. Most of the authors apparently in an attempt to sell their stuff project Gandhi ji what he was not or hide for what he was actually. If Gandhi had loved Muslim so much, he would have preferred Jinnah instead of Nehru, an action which has led to partition of the country. The truth is that Gandhi ji was a revolutionary in the sense that he left his Caste age old trading ancestral occupation and opted for poliitcs. That way he was a Hindu reformist in higher caste hindus themselves. It is too much to say he lived Islamic life in any manner. Even while working with Muslim Employers in South Afirca as a lawyer, he strictly followed Hinduism, as explained in first few lines above.

    [Reply]

    engricn Reply:

    gandhi also disturb the marriage of vijay laxmi pundit with muslim who was freedom.she cursed ghandhi for this act.gandhi was a communal bania.he introduce poison of religion in indian politics and helped britishers and rss to divide india and in killing of millions of indian.

    [Reply]

  • Mike

    Gandhi also used to have a shishi (bottle) of sarson-ka-tail with high denisty in his dhoti, some say to massage his bony legs, but other says to massage his genitalia with this mustard oil. Often found with only two things in his dhoti, sometime when he went to see the Governor Generals’s meeting, cheese from his goat, and sarson-ka-tail. His penis was not as small as some writers had alluded. It was functional and working. Also, he used to read books on Kama sutra (reference shall be provided if asked). Thanks.

    [Reply]

    mike Reply:

    He had something more common with Jinnah of Pakistan, both of them were born in Gujrat, both were lawyers and barristers and of course both of them had child brides. Oh yeah, one more thing. Gandhi was the first Indian leaders who addressed him as Quaid-a-Azam. (the great leader) Again, reference will be provided if asked, but you need to go to India Library in England

    [Reply]

  • anil

    Zia Haq back again, doing the usual rattling!

    Why can’t Zia Haq do some research on Islamic world and find a Islamic origin Gandhi who would have lived like M. Gandhi to safeguard the interests of the non-Muslims? There are plenty of non-Muslims who lived on this earth who have fought for rights for Muslims and non-Muslims alike and Gandhi does not have to be the only one!

    As a way of life whole democratic world gave (and still giving) Muslims and Non-Muslims (those who are freedom loving) same right until, of course, Osama came into the scene, trying to destroy that trust among various communities.

    Mr. Haq, do you read the same book for inspiration which Osama got his inspiration from?

    [Reply]

  • Raj Reddy

    gandhi neither believed in killing kafirs nor was gandhi a kid lover, so how is he islamic????

    [Reply]

  • Harm

    Ok…if Zia is saying Islam preaches non-voilence which Gandhiji followed…what do you say guys.

    [Reply]

  • Harsh

    Zia…would you ever right against Islamic extremism? Would you talk about Popular Front of India which is new name for SIMI but supported by terrorist parties like Samajwadi Party, Muslim League, etc.. No. Anu guesses why?

    [Reply]

  • Harsh

    Why doesnt Hindustan Times sends him away. Why do they bear this extremist Zia who would never shed a tear for any Hindu or Sikh or Jain or Buddhist but ready to emphatize with a Muslim even though he did a terrorist act

    [Reply]

  • gajanan

    This Prof Hasan is writing all poppy ****. Gandhi never ate meat. The Abrahamic religions eat meat like fish taking to water. What Gandhi practised was Rishi Atharvans and Jainism’s premise. Hasan and Haq are like scoundrels taking refuge in Gandhism. I remember very well when I was overseas an Arab scholar telling me ” We Arabs do not have a man like Gandhi to tackle the West” Yes very true. Hasan and Haq have hijacked Gandhi for this cause. Just writing anything will not do. As Eric Ambler put it ” Never tell a lie when you can bullshit your way” Hasan and Haq are the greatest bullshitters. Well if the Islamic world cannot produce a Gandhi , why hijack his name for a Islamic cause? Hasan and Haq can come out of their power pulpits and become the Islamic version of Gandhi. Wear a Arab dress and plead for peace , fast for peace , do a satyagraha for peace. Do they have the guts? Do they have the bile to do a Gandhi?

    [Reply]

    Viswanathan Krishnamoorthy Reply:

    A good comment. If Hassan and Haq paints Gandhi as an Islamist (thank God, not an Islamist fundamentalist), they have every right to dress him up with a skull cap, and worship him as he was instrumental in creating a islamic fundamentalist state which claims its origin is from the middle east. So, USA and its UN organizations treat Pakistan as part of middle east, and not part of Asia. That gives a clear indication that Gandhi pushed Jinnah towards the middle east as he was a fighter himself for the causes, he felt, was good for him and Islam. Gandhi accepted division of India because, to me, he has adopted Nehru as his adopted son to lead the country and subsequently led his family members and relatives to misuse the term Gandhi; Gandhi adopted Rajaji as his sambandhi (relationship because of the marriage of Rajaji’s daughter to Gandhi’s son). Gandhi although worked for the upliftment of dalits, his failure to get a daughter-in-law from that community would have left Ambedkar, a Congressman, upset. This itself would have led Ambedkar to embrace Buddism, because Gandhi wanted his grandson to be half-brahmin, atleast, and his vision of upliftment of dalits appears hollow. One single of act of Gandhi, arranging the marriage of his son to a dalit girl, would have uplifted the entire dalit community, real upliftment, and the result would have been much much different. Dalits would have felt that they are now REALLY part of the Hindu society and not interested to convert to other religions and visit holy places located in foreign countries. SCs would not have demanded reservation in everything as they are very weak and needs help in everything. They would have felt elated as their community is sambandhi of Gandhi. Sitting Gandhi in the midst of dalit families would be a God-sent opportunity for India, which Gandhi has failed to adopt as the leader of the country. Ambedkar would have felt offended (may not be said it in so many words) which moved him from a dalit hindu to a dalit buddhist. That marriage (marriage of Rajaji’s daughter with Gandhi’s son) has eliminated Rajaji from challenging his adopted son Nehru to become the first PM of India, as Rajaji was more powerful and a visionary better than Nehru or any other leader at that time; Rajaji’s British employment as India’s first Indian governor general would not have happened. Definitely, Rajaji’s name would have been narrowed for the position of GG because of his proximity to Gandhi as his Sambandhi. Thus Rajaji lost both eyes (one, becoming first PM of the country, and second remain in the memory of the people for ever along with Gandhi). There would have been his statutes everywhere, along with that of Gandhi statute. Who remembers the British employee GG Rajaji? This proves there is a price for everything. No one is above…..

    [Reply]

  • RK Sharma

    MK Gandhi was biggest scamster of modern times, to me he along with Nehru is responsible for all problems India is facing, MK Gandhi colluded with Nehru who in turn ask Stalin of USSR to Kill Netaji Bose (the biggest patriot and most efficient leader India has ever produced) in Siberian Jail, Airport crash theory is false, to me Gandhi is even worse then modern politicians, people may say he did that or this, No he shouldn’t have done anything, he was a manipulator who tried to stole fame for himself by sidelining and killing better people like Bhagat Singh and Subash Bose.

    [Reply]

  • milind

    According to author allah another name is ram it is true why he died say hey ram not hey allah

    [Reply]

    engrich Reply:

    ramallah is name of a palestanian city.king ramses was egyptian paroah.story was brought to india by valmiki an emigrant.later promoted by brhmns .at some stage time brhmns declared him 8th incarnation of vishnu.but has no ramtemple as he was kurmi not double distilled brhmn.how this name came on tngue of mahatama is a mystery.

    [Reply]

    Ramesh Reply:

    India has been made 3rd most pwerful country by Brahmins..hhahahahah!!hence poor Muslims venting their anger against Brahmins!!

    [Reply]

  • Anonymous

    Gandhi once said “Moosalman are bully and Hindus are coward”. This speaks a lot about what he thought of muslims.

    [Reply]

  • Anonymous

    Gandhi’s experiment failed with Islam..Why read below..

    http://www.faithfreedom.org/oped/HinduWoman40718.htm

    Gandhi’s experiment with Islam and why it failed

    by Hindu Woman

    When India ’s independence struggle was at its height Gandhi realized that independence cannot come about by the efforts of the Hindus alone. Muslims too must be involved in the struggle. It is important to note that Muslim separation or Hindu involvement in the national movement is not a simple monochromatic affair. There were some Muslims already in the fold and many Hindus who supported the British rule. However Gandhi decided to bring in the Muslim masses and particularly their religious leaders. This led to the Khilafat Movement of 1919-24. Gandhi and led by him the Indian National Congress joined hands with the religious group knows as Jamiat-e-Ulama-e-Hind. This was Gandhi’s experiment with orthodox Islam and it was a spectacular failure.

    The demands of the Jamiat were simple. In Turkey the Caliph (the supreme religious ruler who was also the temporal authority) was being repeatedly threatened by the Young Turks who were Republican Nationalists. The power of the British in Turkey had rendered the Ottoman Caliphs subservient to British interests. However since the Caliph was also a religious figure, the Jamiat wanted the power of the Caliph to be restored to the full and all republican movement to be stopped. It claimed that the Caliph was the true ruler of all Muslims everywhere; therefore the Muslims must restore him; in the process they must oppose the British who had weakened the Caliph’s authority is such a manner and allowed secular forces to take over. The Jamiat therefore proposed an alliance with the Congress to fight the British in India . Without realizing the implications Gandhi agreed to join the ‘restore Caliph’ movement. Thus the Jamiat’s entry into Indian national movement had nothing to do with India , but everything to do with a faraway country. Even more importantly it had nothing to do with Hindus, Christians, Parsis or secular Muslims — in short it had no interest in the welfare of Indians as such; the Jamiat cared only for the religion of Islam. That was the first mistake Gandhi made: he believed that the movement would bring Hindus and Muslims closer; but since the primary focus of the movement was on Islam (the independence struggle being a side-dish), such an alliance cannot last. When finally Ataturk by a coup took over Turkish government and secularized it, the movement came to an end. But it did nothing for Hindu-Muslim friendship.

    For the sake of Hindu-Muslim alliance Gandhi continued to make compromise after compromise, but ultimately the alliance collapsed. It collapsed because of several reasons and because Gandhi did not think things through. He was not interested in Turkey but according to his own words wanted to buy Muslim friendship. He also believed that the British were truly oppressing the Muslims everywhere. The problem was that Gandhi simply did not understand the mindset of Islamic leaders he was dealing with.

    (i) In the first place, the Jamiat presented the image of a Christian war against Muslims in the regions of Ottoman Empire . But this is a misreading based on their religious prejudices. What was happening in the Balkans and Arabia were nationalist movements. The Arab colonies though Muslims were in revolt against the Ottoman rulers because they wanted national states. Secondly the British were in no way opposed to the Ottoman Caliphs. In fact British forces actively tried to prevent Republican Nationalists in Turkey from taking power. The British government had even financed a Khilafat trip to Europe to plead their cause. It was only after World War I when Turkey lost its colonies that the Indian Muslim religious groups turned against British. Up until then they had been very loyal to the British. But Gandhi ignored these facts in his eagerness. The Islamic movements are not anti-British, not anti-Imperialists or pro-nationalists – they are simply supporters of their version of Islam. They are extremists to whom orthodox Islam is everything.

    (ii) The Muslim leaders of the Khilafat movement painted a picture of world-wide conspiracy against Muslims. Gandhi was swayed by the eloquence of Mohamed and Shaukat Ali. It is common for Muslims to claim that everyone is unjustly persecuting them and there is a conspiracy against them everywhere. (These claims of victimization can be as ridiculous as “9/11 was carried out by Jews” or “Americans beheaded Paul Johnson to give Islam a bad name”)

    (iii) Gandhi ignored voices coming from the Indian Muslim community. There were many Indian Muslims who did not support the Khilafat movement. The more religious held that the Ottoman Sultans were not legitimate Caliphs. In India the acceptance of the Turkish Sultan as the universal Caliph was only from the middle of 19th century and that too due to the propaganda by Urdu press. By accepting the legitimacy of Khilafat movement Gandhi was actually strengthening the hold of an orthodox clergy. There was also a more secularized tradition. Sir Sayed Ahmed Khan had distinguished sharply between the political realm and religious realm declaring the two to be separate. He also said that a Caliph is the Caliph only of his own territory and there is no universal Caliphate. By these reasoning Indian Muslims owed no loyalty to the Turkish Caliph. Neither the first nor the second group, were pro-Hindus. What Gandhi did was to legitimize Islamic identity over other ties and give a boost to the pan-Islamic identity.

    (iii) Another mistake Gandhi made is to ignore the sections that would have actually helped him. He ignored the sects of syncretic Islam that had arisen in the Indian subcontinent. Such sects were more willing to live in peace with other religions. A ‘pure’ form of Islam yearning for Dar-ul-Islam puts up with non-Muslims only as long as they [the Muslims] are weak. Gandhi should have encouraged these heretical sects. There were also a growing number of secular Muslims. But Gandhi ignored them in favour of religious mullahs.

    (iv) The Muslim clergy did not believe in living peacefully with other religions. The Koran divides the world into Dar-Al-Harb (House of war) and Dar-Al-Islam (house of Islam). The faithful are commanded to fight until the non-Muslims are converted, subjugated or annihilated. Though the Koran also allows treaties with pagans, according to traditionalist interpretations based on Muhammad’s own actions, such a peace is to be kept only as long as Muslims are weak. A strict interpretation of such commandments means there can be no tolerance in Islam for other religions, particularly of non-Abrahamic variety. After the British conquest of India when it was realised that there was no way for any Muslim ruler to gain power, there had been a debate about whether India was Dar Al-Harb or Dar Al-Islam. One school favoured the former since Muslims were no longer sovereigns. During the Khilafat movement the Ali brothers and Maulana Azad declared thatIndia was enemy territory and so favoured migration to Turkey . A group actually set out to go to Turkey under their inspiration. It is obvious therefore such Muslims had no love for India or for their fellow citizens; they cared only for their pure Islam.

    (v) It cannot be emphasized enough that Khilafat movement had no real connection with India ’s national movement. It was all about Turkey ; but the Turks themselves have kicked out their Caliph. Yet Indian Muslims were asked to fight for this deposed leader. The reverence was based solely on religious feeling. Though ‘moderate’ Islamic intellectuals like Ashgar Ali Engineer lecture that it was through Khilafat movement that Muslims were brought into the secular fold, there is nothing secular about a movement that tried to replace the secular government by a religious government. Gandhi thus ignored the actual nature of Khilafat agitation. It was only later when many Congressmen began to question the extra-territorial loyalty of Muslims that Gandhi woke up.

    (vi) Gandhi viewed Islam through his own spirituality ignoring how the parishioners of Islam actually saw it. For them religion and politics are inseparable. To Gandhi this was not bad since he also believed that religion and politics should not be separable and religion is needed to make politics ethical. He himself was a devout Hindu and declared his allegiance to Hinduism as an essential component of national struggle. But his Hinduism was of a different brand than the Islam practiced by orthodox Muslims. About Hindu sacred texts Gandhi said, “My belief in the Hindu scriptures does not require me to accept every word and every verse as divinely inspired… I decline to be bound by any interpretation, however learned it may be, if it is repugnant to reason or moral sense. … Every word of the printed works passing muster as `Shastras’ is not, in my opinion, a revelation … The interpretation of accepted texts has undergone evolution and is capable of indefinite evolution, even as the human intellect and heart are …. Nothing in the shastras which is manifestly contrary to universal truths and morals can stand… Nothing in the shastras which is capable of being reasoned can stand if it is in conflict with reason.” Such evolutionary Hinduism is a part of Hindu tradition. But no devout Muslim can accept this as true of the Koran or even the Hadith. For them their revealed texts are eternal and immutable; the commandments are not to be rationally scrutinized but simply accepted. Though there is a limited space for interpretation, there is no space for questioning or rejecting the doctrines even if they conflict with reason and morality. That was the essential difference between the way Gandhi practiced his religion and the orthodox Muslims practice theirs.

    (vii) It was not that Gandhi was ignorant of Islamic fanaticism. He complained that Muslims are bullies and Hindus are cowards during riots. The Ali brothers had invited the Amir of Afghanistan to invade India . Swami Shraddhananda who was converting Muslims into Hinduism was shot dead by Abdul Rashid. No Muslim condemned the murder; instead Rashid was declared a martyr and was given anamaaz (prayed upon) in the mosques. However Gandhi’s response was the mistaken one of appeasement: the belief that the bully would be transformed if only one shows friendship. So he pardoned every Muslim fanaticism. He said, “I have called Abdul Rashid a brother and I repeat it. I do not even regard him as guilty of Swami’s murder. Guilty indeed are those who excited feeling of hatred against one another”. He did not support the Hindu and Sikh protests against the cruelties of Nizam of Hyderabad. After 1947, he said “Hindus should never be angry against the Muslims even if the latter might make up their minds to undo even their existence.” Also: “They (Hindus) should not be afraid of death. After all, the killers will be none other than our Muslim brothers”. Unfortunately spirituality and brotherhood do not have any impact on Muslim fanatics who by the very tenets of their religion are called upon to regard the non-Muslims as their enemies. No matter how much you give them they are never satisfied until the world is Islamic according to their views.

    Needless to say Gandhi’s experiment with Islam failed. The results were disastrous for both Hindus and Muslims. In the first place since the movement understood nothing about the dynamics of Turkish politics and nationalism it was bound to fail – the time of Sultans was over. In 1922 there was violence and Gandhi withdrew his support for the movement. Now let us take a look at the consequences of support to this Islamic movement:-

    (a) The Muslim clergy became the centrepiece of Muslim politics in India . Though they had a toehold in politics they were not very powerful. But now they became de facto leaders and the genuinely secular and educated Muslim leaders were sidelined. As usual Congress leaders bent backwards to help fundamentalist Muslim leaders to come to power – a policy they have continued to this day.

    (b) Muslims blamed Gandhi for the failure of the restoration of Khalifa.

    (c) It led to Mopla riots. The Mopla Muslim community heard rumours that the time for jihad had come and an end must be put to all kaffirs. So they violently attacked the Hindus, killing old and young, raping women, tearing off fetuses from wombs. Finally the British restored peace. This must be the only time during the national movement when British troops were welcomed with open arms by the Indians. It is evidence that religion-addicted Muslims cannot live in peace with non-Muslims for long. That was what Hindus got for taking part in a purely Islamic agitation.

    (c) The Khilafat movement made the Muslims more conscious of their Islamic identity. It was this that finally led to the Pakistan movement and partition. Even if the partition was inevitable and the net result had been good for Hindus, a great chance was lost to reform Indian Islam so that it can cope with the modern world. Instead India was divided on the basis of religion and a Muslim minority remained.

    (d) Let us see how the orthodox Muslims repaid Gandhi: In 1924, Mohammed Ali to whom Gandhi showed such affection said, : “However pure Mr. Gandhi’s character may be, he must appear to me, from the point of religion, inferior to any Mussalman even though he be without character.” In 1925 he emphasized: “Yes, according to my religion and creed, I do hold an adulterous and a fallen Mussalman to be better than Mr. Gandhi”. That is the true Islamofascist mentality revealed in all its glory.

    In this way Gandhi’s experiment with Islam failed. This should serve as an object lesson to all who try to appease the fanatic Muslims. It will not succeed but only lead to greater fanaticism and destruction.

    [Reply]

    Sumit Bose Reply:

    RajeevS many thanks for this copy/paste. Ali Sina and his faith freedom has blown the wind out of every muslim fraudster who claims Islam is a religion of peace. He has along with his collaborators brought out the Islam’s fetid innards skillfully “hidden” over the centuries.
    Our BapuJi was a totally failed barrister both in South Africa and in Bombay, but was very successful in his dabbling to rise within the Congress Party. He is brought into the core of the Congress the entire structure of Muslim appeasement that is unethical and repugnant.
    The most interesting consistent theme of his entire life has been to go to any place where Hindus have been slaughtered, and fast for peace (only) and at every place Hindus retaliated to call for “punishment” for the “evil mongers”. That is why only the “shit-heads” in the Corrupt Party call him the “father of the nation”; totally ignoring that Bharat has been a nation since over 6000 years.
    The other lasting legacy of BapuJi was installing the dynasty of another failed barrister ChachaJi.

    [Reply]

    Ganesh Rao Reply:

    ; totally ignoring that Bharat has been a nation since over 6000 years

    life of hindus is 3000 years.if congressis are chor bjp is daku.

    [Reply]

    Avatar Ganesh Rao Reply:

    Letters between Mahatma Gandhi and the Zionist Hermann Kallenbach are said to shed light on their ‘loving relationship’

    The letters were bought by the Indian government in July 2012.

    Kallenbach, a German-born Jewish architect, met Gandhi in South Africa in 1904.

    Gandhi and Kallenbach became constant companions.

    Gandhi and Kallenbach lived together for two years in a house in South Africa.

    They promised to give one another “more love, and yet more love… such love as they hope the world has not yet seen”.

    According to Lelyveld’s book, Gandhi reportedly told Kallenbach: “How
    completely you have taken possession of my body. This is slavery with a
    vengeance.”

    Gandhi split with his wife so he could be with Kallenbach, according to Lelyveld.

    Gandhi wrote that vaseline was a ‘constant reminder’ of Kallenbach.

    More on the ’sex’ stuff here: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2172967/Indian-government-spends-700-000-buy-letters-prove-national-hero-Gandhi-gay.html#ixzz20ZEVC5dD

    [Reply]

    Anonymous Reply:

    This relation was same as between Mohammad and Omar.

    [Reply]

    Ganesh Rao Reply:

    also between your mother and me.

    Anonymous Reply:

    Didn’t you say that your mother slept with all congressmen?

  • athiest

    “Where else have some of the greatest ideas of mankind, such as justice, compassion and righteousness, come from, but religion?” justice as in case of killing infidels..compassion as for loving the kids literally and righteousness when it comes to subjugation of women. all religions are alike that they all are false but yours is far retarded

    [Reply]

  • worldtraveler

    Hahaha….Gandhi = peaceful, Muslims = terrorists……no comparision ! Muslims always try to defend their evil deeds by citing stupid logics !

    [Reply]

  • Gopi

    Such a load of Bxxx…
    And, reading this “internationally reputed” tag, I was reminded how our media bhompus used to add same tag to an economist (who in reality was an econ babu) but now do not do anymore. So much for “internationally reputed” xyz…:)

    [Reply]

  • Anonymous

    Gandhi was born in a hindu family,and was brought up as one.Being a Hindu ,he was an Indian,and to him Hindus,muslims christians,Jain and all religions in India was the same to him,”…..we are all brothers….”he never changed his religion nor he died a muslim.people took him wrong.As a Hindu I have many muslim friends,and this does not mean that I am becoming a muslim.I respect all religions.and we are all children of God.

    [Reply]

  • deepak

    please do not confuse varna system with caste system.
    varnas were 4. castes are thousands. varnas system has already collapsed.

    [Reply]

  • Shacharsmith

    I think that Gandhiji did not tell about caste system .He saying that All are equal there were not discrimination in caste system.

    http://www.prlog.org/12112705-6pm-coupon-codes-may-2013-75-off-entire-categories.html

    [Reply]

  • Anonymous

    I think Gandhi tried his best to keep HIndus and Muslims together and whatever his faults, we need to learn from him.

    [Reply]

  • Balakrishna

    “Vasudeva Kutumbakam” is one of the vedanta principle under which people of many religion, caste creed will live under one umbrella called Hinduism. Can we find any other place than India where so many religions came and prospered? It is this Hindu philosophy which influenced Gandhi to fight discrimination in the name of religion.

    [Reply]

  • world traveler

    bring in free market enterprise” – in other words, sell the nation to
    corporations and win support from the rest o the world

    [Reply]

    Anonymous Reply:

    Look who is talking..worshipper of mid-east who survives on west’s corporation.. They can’t even dig out their petroleum.

    [Reply]

  • gopi_thomas

    Alisher Burkhanovich Usmanov (Uzbek: Alisher Usmonov, Алишер Бурханович Усмонов) (born 9 September 1953) is an Uzbek-born Russian business magnate. According to the 2011 edition of Forbes magazine, the oligarch Usmanov is Russia’s richest man, with a fortune estimated at $18.1 billion, and the world’s 28th richest person.[1]
    According to the December 2012 Bloomberg Billionaires Index, he has an
    estimated net worth of $17.3 billion, making him the 39th richest person
    in the world.[4] In April 2013, the Sunday Times listed him as the richest person in the UK, ousting Lakshmi Mittal for the number one spot.

    [Reply]

  • Anonymous

    Sumit,
    This guy is a Islamofascist who takes different identities.

    [Reply]

  • Ganesh Rao

    BOSE……we have glimpse of last 3000.during this period you never made any shool any researche centre or any hospital.education was beened to indian.land was snatched by temples.our women too were to temple to work as devdaasi.

    hamaree jehalat ka fayda utha kar hame bhagwan bechte aut chutia banate the .

    before converting to budhdhism ahoka killed entire population of orrisa and murdered his 99 brothers.during muslim rule u were polishing their shoes.during british time u were helping brits to rob india.aaj coorperate ke hath me dal kar ghoom rahe aur bharat bech ke duniya kee wah wah le rahe ho.

    yahee choota sa itihas hai hamara.humne jabse aye hai indians ka khoon choosa hai.hum sirf 10%hain.

    waiting your reply bose

    [Reply]

    Sumit Bose Reply:

    Rao, it is abundantly clear you are a “cutlet” who is writing under several pseudonyms. I have this issue with any “educated cutlet”, they are never on the topic, diversionary digression is either deliberate or .mischievous. What ever may be in your case; you are just on a rant that Sanatan Dharma and its adherents for over 6000 were just ignorant savages living in caves wearing animal fur.
    Sadly, the brutal destruction of the marauding Muslim scoundrels had been so complete that all the inventions, libraries, structures were razed and burnt to dust and very rare glimpses have survived the Islamic zeal.
    So , it becomes so easy for converts as you to debunk our past that sadly was so pacifistic at one junction of history, that our land had to bear the ravages of small time bandits and these bandits forcibly converted our own people and propagate more banditry on us all.
    In the recent past, this band of bandits opted for their own land, but did not leave, have stayed back and just because they dont have the numbers to run amok, ensure that another band of bandits (Corrupt Party) remain in power, till you bandits can grow in numbers to revert to the banditry of your past.

    [Reply]

    Ganesh Rao Reply:

    bose u say……………………Sadly, the brutal destruction of the marauding Muslim scoundrels had been so complete that all the invention

    where.dont shelter yourslf in zhoot and lies.last 800 muslim invaders were resisted by mulim rulers of india.moghuls were builders of india.how hindu heritages would have destroyed when c-in-c and pms and majority of advisors to state were hindus.36%of ministers in the cabinet of aurangzeb the great were hindus.

    even somnath was destroyed it was looted because of filthy wealth it had.helped by competitive brhmns of that time.
    first 50 years of british rule muslims were boycotting brits and english.that time u and britishers wrote ur own history to defame past rulers of india.

    conversion was because of hindu apartheid social system.actually vivekanad and mn roy gave call to

    victim of hinduism to convert and have self respect.

    we were supporting congres.now our votes go to regional parties.like cpm in bengal.why should we vote for fascists and terrorist parties of india.

    ashoka built 63000 temples in kalinga present day orrisa.after 3 genrations when brhmns came to power all were destroyed.destroying others place of worship is your history.keeping others jahil and rule them through hatred for others and fear is your dna.best hindu temples including 4 dhams of shankaracharyas were built during muslim rule.

    spewing the poison of hate is ur habit.signs of muslim greatness was everywhere from murshidabad to ahmadabad from hyderabad to tipu sultan.u survive on lies which is your staple and hate wich is your duty.

    bose and raj please reply.

    [Reply]

    Sumit Bose Reply:

    “Cutlet Rao” there is a very detailed book named Islamic Jihad written by M A Khan that you should read. He has painstakingly translated from the chroniclers or all the marauding scoundrels who ravaged our lands and its inhabitants. You would have a very real logic why some ancestor of yours had to make the immediate choice to kiss the feet of some bearded scoundrel and have to become a pseudo-arab. Obviously, if your family had education and sophistication, they would retain a record in the family line, the point of turning to Mecca, but that is most unlikely, so please do yourself and your “ignorance” a big favour and read that book, because our Congressi sponsored marxist historians always white-washed islamic subjugation of our land simplistically,as “muslilms coming to India”, just as your popat’s taking as sex-slaves/concubine the women of the Jewish tribes he massacred, are put out as reconciliation with the Jews.

    But I know you are not going to do you, but will continue to f@rt your half-truths , as that is the let-motiff of your existence.

  • http://www.facebook.com/om.bansal3 Om Bansal

    Gandhi’s life was based on teachings of Bhagvat Gita, Even in his darkest moments he would find solace in Gita .To say he lived an Islamic life is untrue.

    [Reply]

    Avatar gopi_thomas Reply:

    Gandhi’s life was based on teachings of Bhagvat Gita

    so he was copying lord shree krishna.

    [Reply]

  • Sumit Bose

    Thanks for the trouble of putting this post. I can rip into shreds, your conclusions with many more diabolic and barbaric incidents not only in context of the quotes from the “terror manual” from the 7th century, but also regarding the anecdotes from Aurangzeb, but also our great Corrupt Party labeled “freedom fighter” Tipu Sultan.
    But that would be too time consuming, and regretfully unable to give time to. So I let your say stay, without making the effort to consign it to the bin.

    [Reply]

    world traveler Reply:

    u bengalees were cleaning the shoes of brits.what is your contributiobn.aurangzeb made india.TUM SAARE JINDAGEE ZHOOT BOLOGO AUR NAFRAT PHAILOGE.u and brits looted india and reduced our gdp frpm 30%to 1%.ur history is full of thugy.ur god kaali was also thug ho killed 1000 innocents.u starved crores of indians to death to apease your new god ,BRITISHERS.

    [Reply]

    Sumit Bose Reply:

    “Cutlet” “Brijendra Singh”…ha ha ha hah. before traveling the “world” i suggest you need to travel within your own past. I have maintained some decorum and have never used pejorative personal words. India was subjugated for nearly a millennium, first by the muslims and then by the Brits. We have had to run the gauntlet of centuries of humiliation, the inhuman brutal subjugation of muslim rulers and then the polite subjugation of the Brits, and I am not denying our collective past.
    I am happy that we have risen from abject brutal slaves to obtaining education and dignity once again.

    Can you admit the same for yourself. You will never admit that your ancestor either to save his head to be separated from his torso, or to avoid repaying his debt to the village money-lender, or was to avoid punishment from from criminal act opted for the escapist route to become a pseudo-arab, and you being a blinkered moron, consider yourself more Arab than the Arabs and get a real jolt when you get kicked and humiliated by the Arabs in Saudi Arabia.

    Yet so blinkered are you that you are happy to lick and kiss Arab feet there , return to India and yet consider yourself as India’s master.

    Hate and brutality is intimately ingrained in the cult of the Popat you blindly follow, and hate and brutality is what you have poisoned your existence with. Just look around the circumstances in all the muslim countries of the world:, steeped in strife, ignorance and brutality.

    Islam is what Islamic societies do, need i say anymore?

    [Reply]

    vinayak purohit Reply:

    u are still the same or more divisive racialist racist voilent society.with time u are changing for worst.

    http://navbharattimes.indiatimes.com/mumbai-crime/in-fresh-trouble-sreesanth-under-mumbai-police-scanner/articleshow/20127193.cms

  • ROOPESH KUMAR

    Oye Engrich. Chiutiye…. terre ko Auranzeb naam ka DAST lag gaya hai kaya?

    [Reply]

    world traveler Reply:

    tumahare aise logon se desh ko bachane ke liye truth ko samne lana padega.truth is always sour especialy people like u whose staple food is lie.hate is duty

    [Reply]

  • world traveler

    agore on vande
    matram…………………………………………………………………………..Vande
    Mataram! These are the magic words which will open the door of his iron
    safe, break through the walls of his strong room, and confound the hearts of
    those who are disloyal to its call to say Vande Mataram.” (Rabindranath Tagore
    in Glorious Thoughts of Tagore, p.165)

    The controversy becomes more complex in the light of Rabindranath Tagore’s
    rejection of the song as one that would unite all communities in India. In his
    letter to Subhash Chandra Bose (1937), Rabindranath wrote:

    “The core of Vande Mataram is a hymn to goddess Durga: this is so plain that
    there can be no debate about it. Of course Bankimchandra does show Durga to be
    inseparably united with Bengal in the end, but no Mussulman [Muslim] can
    be
    expected patriotically to worship the ten-handed deity as ‘Swadesh’ [the
    nation]. This year many of the special [Durga] Puja numbers of our magazines
    have quoted verses from Vande Mataram – proof that the editors take the song to
    be a hymn to Durga. The novel Anandamath is a work of literature, and so the
    song is appropriate in it. But Parliament is a place of union for all religious
    groups, and there the song cannot be appropriate. When Bengali Mussulmans show
    signs of stubborn fanaticism, we regard these as intolerable. When we too copy
    them and make unreasonable demands, it will be self-defeating.”

    In a postscript to this same letter, Rabindranath says:

    “Bengali Hindus have become agitated over this
    matter, but it does not concern
    only Hindus. Since there are strong feelings on both sides, a balanced judgment
    is essential. In pursuit of our political aims we want peace, unity and good
    will – we do not want the endless tug of war that comes from supporting the
    demands of one faction over the other.” [1]

    In the last decade, Vande Mataram has been used as a
    rallying cry by Hindu
    nationalists in India, who have challenged the status of the current national
    anthem by Rabindranath

    [Reply]

  • Ramesh

    Yeah the same way Gujarati Hindus love their muslim neighbours…hahahaha!!!Here for Gujarati muslims Hindus are protectors…hahahah!!

    [Reply]

  • Just

    Our beliefs, or faith, inflict the strangest kind of logic on our minds. Therefore, much of what you say can be understood as a function of your faith and the passion that comes from loyalty and xenophobia.

    But “Where else have some of the greatest ideas of mankind, such as justice, compassion and righteousness, come from, but religion?” is factually incorrect.

    Religions are fairly recent (in human history) and have incorporated some of the philosophy expounded thousands of years earlier. The nicest thing one can say about religion (or any faith) is that they wrote down the philosophical thoughts that existed at that time and instructed their followers accordingly.

    Please remember that all that is good, comes from life – human and non-human. Similarly, all that is bad. Good and bad never arose from religion. Religion merely adopted the existing thoughts about good and bad.

    But, by writing them down, religion prevented itself from growing with reality.

    [Reply]

  • Jay Sahni

    hilarious

    [Reply]