Last Resort



It was the Lakme Fashion Week that first decided to do away with “summer” and “winter” themes and come out with their fashion weeks with resort wear as the main theme. I thought it was a good decision as even with the seasonal themes for summer or winter one saw contradicting collections hitting the runways. With resort wear as the theme one thought the collections will be more interesting and thus more saleable.

That time there was also a misconception in the minds of many… that resort wear means bikini clad models on the runway… many came and asked me how a fashion week will survive with just bikinis after bikinis on the fashion runway. But soon these confusions got cleared as resort wear collections started hitting the runway.

Many buyers and journalists started getting interested in these fashion weeks with resort wear as their themes. Last year, the India Resort Fashion Week kicked off in Goa and I was told that many buyers and members of the media appreciated the first time effort made by the organizers. Now, the second edition of the same is about to begin in Goa on November 28 and it will be interesting to see how the participating designers are going to interpret the resort wear theme.

Of course, the venue being Goa, I expect to see plenty of bikini clad models as many expected initially, but I also expect to see many breezy collections with hints of detailing hitting the fashion runway… more next week as the event gets going…

1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (1 votes, average: 3 out of 5)
Loading ... Loading ...
  • Anonymous

    Constitutionally, Indians are barred from settling in Kashmir. But I presume you have no problems with that.

    [Reply]

    Shriman Reply:

    Constitutionally, there are 2 Constitutions of India. Article 370 provides for the enactment of a separate Kashmir Constitution. How can I occupy Kashmir? Is nationalism all about occupation. Isn’t common currency, aviation, defense, telecommunications, external affairs, railways sufficient to call Kashmir an Indian entity. Will it be Indian only if Bihar can occupy it? This Bihari mindset of “Occupy All That Is Indian” is dangerous and counterproductive for integration, albeit paradoxically.

    [Reply]

    Anonymous Reply:

    Kashmiris have a right to settle anywhere in India but not vice versa. Selective integration. All discriminatory legislation need to be reworked. It is a recipe for separatism not integration. By your yardstick, Kashmir is basically an Indian protectorate and entitled to benefits but not vice versa. By the way I am not a Bihari but am proud of the great Indian state of Bihar which produced Nalanda university, the Buddha, Babu Rajendra Prasad and Babu Jaya Prakash Narain and has made immense contribution to our country and civilisation. I am certainly no fan of the likes of Lalu Yadav & co, Afzal Guru and his band, etc.

    [Reply]

  • Ashilal

    ‘Raj Thackrey’ CM of Maharastra this too shall never come. He is exploiting Marathi youths and brain washing young maharastrians, nevertherless the ones supporting are either unemployed or uneducated.Hes has lot of influence in Maharastra, how many jobs did he provide to young maharstrians? This too shall NEVER come.

    [Reply]

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_URSXATBEMZ7HUAB3OH36PLYWDM Ashok

    When Raj asks people on voting day to give him power so that he can show them what he can do, they too will say Tomorrow.

    [Reply]

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1090048352 Shahid Khan

    good informative news.

    http://www.arkwhisper.com

    [Reply]

  • http://www.facebook.com/rahul.diddi Rahul Diddi

    IK Gujral was a friendly, urbane ambassador to the Soviet Union when I was a student there. He loved life and adapted to Moscow’s conditions by being the only Indian ambassador who enjoyed skiing in Moscow’s cold winters. He was very friendly to us students. I have very fond memories of the few meetings I enjoyed with him in Moscow.

    [Reply]

  • Sad sad sad

    It is truly sad, and an evil portent for my beloved country, that a self acknowledged goonda like Bal Thakeray is mourned publicly and in the press, but the passing of a true gentleman like Mr Gujral is hardly even in the news.

    [Reply]

  • Suparna Salahuddin

    suave, intellectual, well-spoken and a think -tank, no doubt. Had more potential in foreign policy diplomatic areas. His potential could have been well-utilized if he stayed back in adviser’s team of Prime-minister. His decision for taking up prime-minister ship was a wrong step.

    [Reply]

  • http://www.facebook.com/selman.khan.3 Selman Khan

    He Was indeed a Good Guy.When the anouncement of his becoming the PM was made I happened to be in Okhla just near his house in Maharani Bagh in G block.I went to congratulate him and found I could cooly go to his house with no Bheed around his sardarji secretary made me comfortable in a room where where Gujaral saheb came offered Barfi. Perhaps the crowd was waiting at his official residence.

    [Reply]

  • KP

    sir,what are those economic reforms you are talking about,that would make xi as next Deng Xiaoping? ..and other thing is do you really believe that these high level diplomatic talks really work or worthy enough?

    [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]

  • Ganesh Rao

    Gandhi was assaulted mercilessly by a Muslim in s.Africa on Feb-10 1908.Here is the discription of the assault in his own words. WHo will not become a muslim after such a savage assault.

    I took severe blows on my left ribs. Even now I find breathing difficult. My upper lip has a cut on one side. I have a bruise above the left eye and a wound on the forehead. In addition, there are minor injuries on my right hand and left knee. I do not remember the manner of the assault, but people say that I fell down unconscious with the first blow which was delivered with a tick. Then my assailants struck me with an iron pipe and a stick, and they also kicked me. Thinking me dead, they stopped. I only remember having been beaten up. I have an impression that, as the blows started, I uttered the words ‘He Rama!’ [Oh God]. Mr. Thambi Naidoo and Mr. Essop Mia intervened. Mr. Woo was hit as a result and injured on the ear. Mr. Essop Mia received a slight injury on a finger. As I came to, I got up with a smile. In my mind there was not the slightest anger or hatred for the assailants.

    [Reply]

    Viswanathan Krishnamoorthy Reply:

    how old are you, Sir.

    [Reply]

    Jay Sahni Reply:

    hilarious

    [Reply]

    Anonymous Reply:

    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]

    Ramesh Reply:

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

    [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]

    Sumit Bose Reply:

    Rao, Maharaja Bharata ruled and united the land into one administrative unit then, but that does not preclude the non-existence of our philosophy, culture and our way of life, that extended from way beyond present day Afghanistan, Tajikistan right down to the land touching the Arabian Sea , Bay of Bengal and Indian Ocean. Our civilization precedes Maharaja Bharata by several millenniums.
    Why are you bringing in your bias against BJP? The post is not about current politics, and is strictly germane to Bapuji’s posturing and his Himalayan blunders. With a uneviable track record from the first army jeep scandal to some other that possibly will come out tomorrow, even Marcos or Mobutus of the world put together, would never be able to match the whole-sale uninterrupted plunder inflicted by the Corrupt Party; so it does not stand either in context or content.

    Anonymous Reply:

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

    Ganesh Rao Reply:

    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

    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.

    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]

  • 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]

  • Vns

    If left to muslims these vermins would say indias are muslims and hinduism is nothing but islam. Breeding terrorism, killing and raping innocents, fighting in the name of religion, and defending all crimes as if the whole world is against them and projecting themselves as innocents is the summary of islam.

    [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

    rajeevs and indurani bose………..How can we end corruption & exploitation when Hindu values worship the filthy rich?
    Every society, every country in the world is governed by its value system. And the values come from our religions. The Western values are governed by its Christian religion, the Muslim values from Islam and in the East particularly China it is the Budhism that set the values.
    That is how the West has made tremendous progress not only in science and technology but also in liberal thoughts, literature, philosophy, social sciences etc.
    The progress achieved by the West is so evident from the big rush of Indian students to Western universities and later settling down there itself for jobs, cursing India. All rich upper castes love to live and even settle down in the West, particularly the US and say they hate everything Indian.
    China replacing Japan: In the East, China is poised to become the world’s No.1 country in a couple of years. It is expected to replace Japan as the No.2 world economy in another year.
    All the Eastern countries like Japan, Korea, Malaysia, Indonesia, Thailand and even the little Vietnam, completely wrecked in the American bombing raids, are surpassing India in all spheres.
    Why every other country in the world is soaring to new heights while the ancient India, the second most populous country in the world (1,200 millions), is languishing and limping?
    Values come from religion: There is no mystery in this. The answer lies in our value system. And to repeat, the values come from the religion. Unfortunately our values are set by the religion of Hinduism that governs us. Defenders of Hinduism may quote from a stray sentence here and there to contradict us but there is no Hindu religious institution in India or even outside which does not roll in wealth.
    During the remote past of Indus Valley Civilization of the Harappa and Mohenjadaro glory, it was a flouring system which the invading Aryan-Brahminical marauders destroyed.
    The oppression let loose by the Brahmins produced the country’s greatest spiritual philosopher, the Budha, who fought the Brahmins and launched the golden period of Indian history.
    The Brahmins infiltrated Budhism and fought the Budha’s Dhamma both from within and without and injected their spiritual poison which caused our steep fall and deep decline.
    Manu & Chanakya : History records all the barbarous values that were injected into our veins by the Manu Dharma Shastra and Chanakya’s Arthasastra — the two guiding Brahminical spiritual poison that set our values.
    Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar, the Father of India, has exhaustively dealt with all these subjects in his voluminous writings and speeches. And hence no need for repetition.
    M.K. Gandhi, the humbug who roamed in the guise of a sanyasi, injected all the dangerous Brahminical values into our veins. It is these values that make us think that Gandhi is a Mahatma. As long as the country goes on calling him a Mahatma we will continue to be steeped in the Brahminic poisonous values.
    DV family members need no further elaboration.
    This has direct bearing on each and every action of our society. The governance of a society right from its President, Prime Minister, Parliament, every wing of the society — political party system, bureaucracy, judiciary, defence, education, textbooks, media, commerce and industry, art and literature, health system, business, sports etc. — all these are governed by the Hindu spiritual poison injected into our blood.
    Hindu spiritual values: That is how all of us are feeling helpless, unable to fight back the poisonous values injected into the veins of our forefathers and even to us today. And our children tomorrow.
    Why we all feel so helpless because we are governed by a set of values which are governed by the “Hindu spiritualism”.
    The most striking feature of this Hindu value system makes us think that wealth brings prestige, position, happiness and recognition. This is the most dangerous value which is killing this country.
    Because there is a desperate competition among our people even down to our youth to “somehow” become rich — beg, borrow or steal— even kill. Your parents, teachers, friends, neighbours and even the girl whom you want to marry love the rich, admire the rich. There is a country-wide craze to get rich quick.
    India’s rank falling: But how can you become rich in a country which is dirt poor? Enough statistics are before us. If you have the eyes you can see them.
    Out of about 200 countries in the world in the UN, India’s rank is about 120. And it is steadily going down. Every small country surrounding the giant India has jumped ahead of us. But we are slipping down and down — hitting the rock bottom.
    Yet we go on shamelessly claiming the Security Council seat, posing as “India Shining”. But the fact is India is a failed state. All the biggest cities — where our highest educated Hindus live and call themselves the leaders of all thought and action— are turning into slums. Yes.

    [Reply]

    Anonymous Reply:

    Look who is talking… a terrorist from Pakistan.

    [Reply]

    world traveler Reply:

    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.

  • 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]

  • world traveler

    rajeev and sumit bose,AURANGZEB: TRUTHS ABOUT A RULER

    Hello, I am Brijendra Singh; I have done
    my PGDM course from I.I.S.E Business School Lucknow. I am not a student of
    history but I like to read history due to my interest. In this article I have
    tried to provide some facts related to E

    mperor Aurangzeb. His image as a person and as a ruler is negative
    among the Indian citizens, but I am sure when you will go through this article
    your attitude will change towards this ruler.

    Aurangzeb Alamgir was the
    sixth & the last great mughal emperor of India. He ruled India from 1658 to
    1707 AD. He was one of the greatest mughal emperors & lived a very simple
    life. He lived on a small quantity of food, he used to write the quran with his
    own hand & sell them to earn extra wage. If he wanted, he could have lived a
    life of extra-ordinary luxury as the, emperors, kings, nawabs, rajas, maharajas
    did in those days.

    He was a well-read man; he kept up his love of books
    till the end. He wrote beautiful Persian prose. A selection of his letters
    (Ruq’at-i-Alamgiri) has long been a standard model of simple but elegant prose.
    He understood music well but he gave up this amusement in accordance with
    Islamic injunctions.

    Emperor Aurangzeb is considered as the greatest of
    all the mughal kings. The mughal state reached its height under his leadership.
    The state has 29.2% of the world population under its flag (175 million out of
    600 million in 1700 AD) & was one of the richest states the world had ever
    seen, with a world GDP of 24.5% ($ 90.8 billion out of $ 371 billion in
    1700).

    Of all the Muslim rulers who ruled vast territories of India from
    712 to 1857AD, probably no one has received as much condemnation from western
    & Hindu writers as Aurangzeb. He has been castigated as a religious Muslim
    who was anti-Hindu, who taxed them, who tried to convert them, who discriminated
    them in awarding high administrative positions, & who interfered in their
    religious matters. This view has been heavily promoted in the government
    approved text books in schools & colleges across post partition India (i.e.,
    after 1947). These are fabrications against one of the best rulers of India who
    was pious, scholarly, saintly, un-biased, liberal, magnanimous, tolerant,
    competent & far sighted.

    Fortunately, in recent years quite a few
    Hindu historians have come out in the open disputing those allegations. For
    e.g., historian Babu Nagendranath Banerjee rejected the accusation of forced
    conversion of Hindus by Muslim rulers by stating that if that was their
    intention then in India today there would not be nearly four times as many
    Hindus compared to Muslims, despite the fact that Muslims had ruled for nearly a
    thousand years. Banerjee challenged the Hindu hypothesis that Aurangzeb was
    anti-Hindu by reasoning that if the latter was truly guilty of such bigotry, how
    could he appoint a Hindu as his military commander -in –chief? Surely, he could
    have afforded to appoint a competent Muslim general in that position. Banerjee
    further stated: “No one should accuse Aurangzeb of being communal minded. In his
    administration the state policy was formulated by Hindus. A number of
    non-Muslims including Hindus, Sikhs, Marathas & Jats, were employed by him
    in his court. He did not compromise on the fundamentals of Islam, which are
    infact the moving spirit of every faith. Historical facts must be interpreted in
    their true & objective spirit & not subjectively as expressed by the
    Hindu writers.

    Dr. BISHAMBHAR NATH PANDE’S VIEW

    The late scholar
    & historian, Dr.Bishambhar Nath Pande’s research efforts exploded myths on
    Aurangzeb’s rule. They also offer an excellent example of what history has to
    teach us if only we study it dispassionately. Mr. Pande was ranked among the
    very few Indians & very fewer still Hindu historians who tried to be a
    little careful when dealing with such history. He knew that this history was
    ‘originally compiled by European writers’ whose main objective was to produce a
    history that would serve their policy of divide & rule.

    In his famous
    Khuda Bakhsh Annual Lecture (1985) Dr. Pande said: “Thus under a definite policy
    the Indian history text books were so falsified & distorted as to give an
    impression that the medieval (i.e., Muslim) period of Indian history was full of
    atrocities committed by Muslim rulers on their Hindu subjects & the Hindus
    had to suffer terrible indignities under Muslim rule and there were no common
    factors (between Hindus & Muslims) in social, political & economic
    life.”

    Therefore, Dr.Pande was extra careful. Whenever he came across a
    ‘fact’ that looked odd to him, he would try to check & verify rather than
    adopt it uncritically. He came across a history text book taught in the
    Anglo-Bengali College, Allahabad, which claimed that “three thousand Brahmins
    had committed suicide as Tipu wanted to convert them forcibly into the fold of
    Islam.” The author was a very famous scholar, Dr.Har Prasad Shastri, head of the
    department of Sanskrit at Kolkata University. (Tipu Sultan (1750-99), who ruled
    over the South Indian state of Mysore (1782-99), is one of the most heroic
    figures in Indian history. He died on the battle field, fighting the
    British.)

    Was it true? Dr. Pande wrote immediately to the author &
    asked him for the source on which he had based this episode in his text-book.
    After several reminders, Dr. Shastri replied that he had taken this information
    from the Mysore gazetteer. So Dr. Pande requested the Mysore university vice-
    chancellor, Sir Brijendra Nath Seal, to verify for him Dr. Shastri’s statement
    from the gazetteer. Sir Brijendra referred his letter to Prof. Srikantia who was
    then working on a new edition of the gazetteer. Srikantia wrote to say that the
    gazetteer mentioned no such incident and, as a historian himself, he was certain
    that nothing like this had taken place. Prof. Srikantia added that both the
    prime minister & commander-in-chief of Tipu Sultan were themselves Brahmins.
    He also enclosed a list of 136 Hindu temples which used to receive annual grants
    from the sultan’s treasury.

    It inspired that Shastri had lifted this
    story from Colonel Miles, History of Mysore, which Miles claimed he had taken
    from a Persian manuscript in the personal library of Queen Victoria. When Dr.
    Pande checked further, he found that no such manuscript existed in Queen
    Victoria’s library.

    FALSE HISTORY PROVIDED BY BRITISHERS

    British
    historian Sir Henry Elliot remarked that Hindus “had not left any account which
    could unable us to gauge the traumatic impact the Muslim conquest and rule had
    on them?” Since there was none, Elliot went on to produce his own eight-volume
    history of India with contributions from British historians (1867). His history
    claimed Hindus were slain for disputing with ‘Mohammedans’, generally prohibited
    from worshipping and taking out religious processions , their idols were
    mutilated , their temples were destroyed , they were forced into conversion
    & marriages , & were killed & massacred by drunk Muslim tyrants.
    Thus Sir Henry, & scores of other empire scholars, went on to produce a
    synthetic Hindu verses Muslim history of India, & their lies became a
    history.

    Lord Curzon(Governor General of India 1895-99 & Viceroy
    1899-1904(d.1925) was told by the secretary of state for India, George Francis
    Hamilton , that they should “ so plan the educational textbooks that the
    differences between community & community are further strengthened.” Another
    Viceroy, Lord Dufferin (1884-88), was advised by the secretary of state in
    London that the “division of religious feelings is greatly to our advantage ’’,
    & that he expected “some good as a result of your committee of inquiry on
    Indian education & on teaching material ’’. “ We have maintained our power
    in India by playing – off one part against the other’’, the secretary of state
    for India reminded yet another viceroy, Lord Elgin (1862-63), “& we must
    continue to do so. Do all you can, therefore to prevent all having a common
    feeling?”

    MYTH RELATED TO DESTRUCTION OF TEMPLES

    Some of the Hindu
    historians have accused Aurangzeb of demolishing Hindu temples. How factual is
    this accusation against a man, who has been known to be a saintly man, a strict
    adherent of Islam? The Qur’an prohibits any Muslim to impose his will on a
    non-Muslim by stating that “There is no compulsion in religion.”(Surah
    al-Baqarah 2.256). The Surah al-Kafirun clearly states: “To you is your religion
    & to me is mine.” It would be totally unbecoming of a learned scholar of
    Islam of his caliber, as Aurangzeb was known to be, to do things that are
    contrary to the dictates of the Qur’an.

    Interestingly, the 1946 edition
    of the history textbook Etihash Parichaya (introduction to history) used in
    Bengal for the 5th & 6th graders states: “If Aurangzeb had the intention of
    demolishing temples to make way for mosques, there would not have been a single
    temple standing erect in India. On the contrary, Aurangzeb donated huge estates
    for use as temple sites & support thereof in Benaras, Kashmir &
    elsewhere. The official documentations for these land grants are still
    extant.”

    A stone inscription in the historic Balaji or Vishnu temple,
    located north of Chitrakut Balaghat, still shows that it was commissioned by the
    emperor himself. His administration made handsome donation to temple of
    Pandharpur – seat of deity Vitthal. Historian the late D.G Godse has claimed
    that trustees of Vitthal temple were more worried about marauding Maratha armies
    than the mughal one.

    The proof of Aurangzeb’s land grant for famous Hindu
    religious sites in Varanasi can easily be verified from the deed records extant
    at those sites. The same textbook (Etihash Parichaya) reads: “During the fifty
    year reign of Aurangzeb, not a single Hindu was forced to embrace Islam. He did
    not interfere with any Hindu religious activities”. Alexander Hamilton, a
    British historian, toured India towards the end of Aurangzeb’s fifty year’s
    reign & observed that everyone was free to serve & worship god in his
    own way.

    The Mughal emperor Aurangzeb is the most reviled of all the
    Muslim rulers in India. He was supposed to be a great destroyer of temples &
    oppressor of Hindus, & a ‘fundamentalist’ too. As chairman of the Allahabad
    municipality (1948-53), Dr. Bishambhar Nath Pande had to deal with a land
    dispute between two temple priests. One of them had filed in evidence some
    firmans (royal orders) to prove that Aurangzeb had, besides cash, gifted the
    land in question for the maintenance of his temple. Might they not be fake, Dr.
    Pande thought in view of Aurangzeb’s fanatically anti-Hindu image? He showed
    them to his friend, Sir Tej Bahadur Sapru, a distinguished lawyer as well a
    great scholar of Arabic & Persian. He was also a Brahmin. Sapru examined the
    documents & declared they were genuine firmans issued by Aurangzeb. For
    Dr.Pande this was a ‘new image of Aurangzeb’, so he wrote to the chief priests
    of the various important temples, all over the country, requesting photocopies
    of any firman issued by aurangzeb that they may have in their possession. The
    response was overwhelming; he received copies of firmans of Aurangzeb from the
    great temples of Mahakaleshwara, Ujjain, Balaji temple, Chitrakut, Umanand
    temple Gauhati, & the Jain temple of Shatrunjai & other temples &
    gurudwaras scattered over northern India. These firmans were issued from 1659 to
    1685AD. Though these are only few instances of Aurangzeb generous attitude
    towards Hindus & their temples, they are enough to show that what the
    historians have written about him was biased & is only one side of the
    picture. India is a vast land with thousands of temples scattered all over. If
    proper research is made, I am confident; many more instances would come to light
    which will show Aurangzeb’s benevolent treatment of
    non-Muslims.

    Aurangzeb did not indiscriminately destroy Hindu temples, as
    he is commonly believed to have done so, & that he directed the destruction
    of temples only when faced with insurgency. This was almost certainly the case
    with the Keshava Rai temple in the Mathura region, where the Jats rose in
    rebellion & yet even this policy of reprisal may have been modified, as
    Hindu temples in the Deccan were seldom destroyed. The image of Aurangzeb as an
    idol – breaker may not with stand scrutiny, since there is evidence to show
    that, like his predecessors, he continued to confer land grants or jagirs (large
    parcel of agricultural lands) upon Hindu temples, such as the Someshwar Nath
    Mahadev temple Allahabad, Jangum Badi Shiva temple in Varanasi, Umanand temple
    in Gauhati & numerous others. He did not harm to the famous Alura temples (a
    huge complex of Ancient temples) in his conquest of Deccan.

    DEMOLITION OF
    KASHI VISHWANATH TEMPLE

    Dr. Pande’s research showed that Aurangzeb was as
    solicitous of the rights & welfare of his non-Muslim subjects as he was of
    his Muslim subjects. Hindu plaintiffs received full justice against their
    Muslims respondents &, if guilty, Muslims were given punishment as
    necessary.

    One of the greatest charges against Aurangzeb is of the
    demolition of Vishwanath temple in Varanasi. That was a fact, but Dr. Pande
    unraveled the reason for it. “While Aurangzeb was passing near Varanasi on his
    way to Bengal, the Hindu Rajas in his retinue requested that if the halt was
    made for a day, their Ranis may go to Varanasi, have a dip in the Ganges &
    pay their homage to Lord Vishwanath. Aurangzeb readily agreed. “Army pickets
    were posted on the five mile route to Varanasi. The Ranis made journey to the
    palkis. They took their dip in the Ganges & went to the Vishwanath temple to
    pay their homage. After offering puja (worship) all the Ranis returned except
    one, the Maharani of Kutch. A thorough search was made of the temple precincts
    but the Rani was to be found nowhere.

    “When Aurangzeb came to know about
    this, he was very much enraged. He sent his senior officers to search for the
    Rani. Ultimately they found that statue of Ganesh (the elephant – headed god)
    which was fixed in the wall was a moveable one. When the statue was moved, they
    saw a flight of stairs that led to the basement. To their horror they found the
    missing Rani dishonored & crying deprived of all her ornaments. The basement
    was just beneath Lord Vishwanath’s seat.”

    The Raja demanded salutary
    action, & “Aurangzeb ordered that as the sacred precincts have been
    despoiled, Lord Vishwanath may be moved to some other place, the temple be razed
    to the ground & the Mahant (head priest) be arrested &
    punished.”

    EMPLOYMENT FOR NON-MUSLIMS

    Aurangzeb has often been
    accused of closing the doors of official employment on the Hindus, but a study
    of the list of his officers shows this is not so. Actually there were more Hindu
    officers under him than under any other Mughal emperor. Though this was
    primarily due to a general increase in the number of officers, it shows that
    there was no ban on the employment of Hindus.

    In his administration the
    state policy was formulated by Hindus. Two Hindus held the highest position in
    the state treasury. Some prejudiced Muslims even questioned the merit of his
    decision to appoint non-Muslims to such high offices. The emperor refuted them
    by stating that he had been following the dictates of the Shariah (Islamic law)
    which demands appointing right persons in right positions. During Aurangzeb’s
    long reign of fifty years, many Hindus, notably Jaswant Singh, Jay Singh, Raja
    Rajrup, Kabir Singh, Arghanath Singh, Prem Dev Singh, Dilip Roy & Rasik Lal
    Crory, held very high administrative positions. Two of the highest ranked
    generals in Aurangzeb’s administration, Jaswant Singh & Jay Singh, were
    Hindus. Other notable Hindu generals who commanded a garrison of two to five
    thousand soldiers were Raja Vim Singh of Udaypur, Indra Singh, & Achalaji
    & Arjuji. One wonders if Aurangzeb was hostile to Hindus, why would he
    position all these Hindus to high positions of authority, especially in the
    military, who could have mutinied against him & removed him from his
    throne?

    Most Hindus like Akbar over Aurangzeb for his multi-ethnic court
    where Hindus were favored. Historian Shri Sharma states that while Emperor Akbar
    had 14 Hindu Mansabdars (high officials) in his court, Aurangzeb actually had
    148 Hindu high officials in his court (Ref : Mughal Govn.). But this fact is
    somewhat less known.

    If Aurangzeb was so ferocious a communalist, why is
    it, some historians have asked, that the number of Hindu employed in positions
    of eminence under Aurangzeb’s reign rose from 24.5% in the time of his father
    Shah Jahan to 33% in the fourth decade of his own rule?

    JIZYA AND OTHER
    TAXES

    Now let us deal with Aurangzeb’s imposition of the Jizya tax which
    had drawn severe criticism from many Hindu historians. It is true that Jizya was
    lifted during the reign of Akbar & Jahangir & that Aurangzeb later
    reinstated this. Before I delve into the subject of Aurangzeb’s Jizya tax, or
    taxing the non-Muslims, it is worthwhile to point out that Jizya is nothing more
    than a war tax which was collected only from able-bodied young non-Muslim male
    citizens living in a Muslim country who did not want to volunteer for the
    defence of the country. That is, no such tax was collected from non-Muslims who
    volunteered to defend the country. This tax was not collected from women &
    neither from immature males nor from disabled or old male citizens. For payment
    of such taxes, it became incumbent upon the Muslim Government to protect the
    life, property & wealth of its non-Muslim citizens. If for any reason the
    Government failed to protect its citizens, especially during a war, the taxable
    amount was returned.

    It should be pointed out here that zakat (2.5% of
    savings) & ushr (10% of agricultural products) were collected from all
    Muslims, who owned some wealth (beyond a certain minimum, called nisab). They
    also paid sadaqah, fitrah & khums. None of these were collected from any
    non-Muslim. As a matter of fact, the per capita collection from Muslims was
    several fold that of non-Muslims. Further to Aurangzeb’s credit is his abolition
    of a lot of taxes, although this fact is not usually mentioned. In his book
    Mughal administration, Sir Jadunath Sarkar, foremost historian on the Mughal
    dynasty, mention’s that during Aurangzeb’s reign in power, nearly 65 types of
    taxes were abolished, which resulted in a yearly revenue loss of 50 million
    rupees from the state treasury.

    Other historians stated that when
    Aurangzeb abolished 80 types of taxes, no one thanked him for his generosity.
    But when he imposed only one (jizya), & not heavy at all, people began to
    show their displeasure.

    While some Hindu historians are retracting the
    lies, the textbooks & historic accounts in western countries have yet to
    admit their error & set the record straight.

    SOME IMPORTANT POINTS
    RELATED TO CHARACTER OF AURANGZEB

    Just think a man such, character,
    caliber that cares and concern for public can be unjust, cruel. Just imagine a
    king such cruel & unjust to the majority could rule a huge country, for
    about 50 years, where high majority members serving highest position &
    comprising 80% in the military.

    He was so pious best character person
    noble & just. You cannot find a single one in the present
    leaders.

    His personal piety however is undeniable. He led an exemplary
    simple pious life. He cares for the royal treasury as public treasury & for
    public. The present leaders considers public treasury to personal
    treasury.

    Unlike his predecessors, Aurangzeb did consider the royal
    treasury as a trust of the citizens of his empire & did not use it for
    personal expenses.

    He was Subedar in Deccan & Gujarat. He didn’t
    destroy any temple. His period was peaceful & prosperous, called golden
    period.

    Despite more than two decades he campaign as subedar in Deccan
    & Gujarat there is no record of temple destruction in the region. He
    continued to confer Jagirs to Hindu temples. His period was golden period &
    relatively peaceful, prosperous in his tenure.

    He was maligned that he
    was against art & music. He was the accomplished musician playing VEENA. The
    largest numbers of books on classical Indian music in Persian were written
    during Aurangzeb’s reign. He banned all nude dances.

    Aurangzeb cruelty as
    mere rumors or at best lies invented by Hindu bigotry & British historians
    who wanted to weaken India by their divide & rule policy. Bankim Chatterjee,
    who served his whole life to British government, was a tool of this conspiracy
    and dividing.

    He was so concern about duties; he did not miss prayer
    during the ongoing war.

    He spread his prayer rug & prayed in the
    midst of battle ground, brought him much fame. He stopped all bad things, which
    today everybody want. Why government banned bar balayien, dances of Rakhi Sawant
    & Mallaika. Why sattabazi is illegal?

    Today we pay more than 66% of
    our income as taxes. The present government is worse than Aurangzeb’s.

    He
    forbade sati, drinking, gambling, prostitution, devadasies, dancing in brothels,
    ashrams & mutts. He put jizya to Dhimmis (non-believers) which around 2.5%
    like Muslim pay their Zakat, 2.5% eligible person should pay. The old, women,
    children were exempted. Only the young man who didn’t want to serve in the army
    should pay the jiziya. Indian parliament still hung the bill of Lok Pal, whereas
    Aurangzeb the only ruler who appointed Lok Pal to control corruption in
    Judiciary, Finance & other departments.

    He appointed Muhattasib (lok
    pal) censors to control injustice & atrocities. The Brahmans & higher
    caste Hindus now found themselves facing Islamic law courts for the atrocities
    on lower castes Hindus.

    He was best knowledgeable & brilliant
    administrator. He never tolerates injustice. He was a brave soldier & best
    commander in the field. He was the only who control Deccan & Bijapur
    dynasty. Under his leadership, in particular, he led Mughal forces in the
    conquest of the Deccan, seizing first the Golkunda & Bijapur Sultanates,
    & then attacking the Maratha chieftains. He annexed all the Maratha
    territories. He left Shivaji because he was no threat to his
    kingdom.

    These are the few evidence of his greatness. The Brahmans &
    higher caste were subject to Aurangzeb justice. They maligned & created,
    invented, fabricated these & all other baseless stories.

    This is all
    about emperor Aurangzeb. I am confident that when you will go through all these
    facts & figures your perception towards this Mughal emperor will change. Our
    medieval history consists of various false stories. Our nation had never seen an
    emperor like Aurangzeb. I need your feedback about this article. What should I
    do to change the perception of people? I want to know merits, demerits, area of
    scope & any suggestion related to this article from your
    side.

    BRIJENDRA SINGH

    [Reply]

    Anonymous Reply:

    Load of cr@p.

    [Reply]

    Sumit Bose Reply:

    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]

  • Muslim Behavior Population

    As long as the Muslim population remains around or under 2% in any given country, they will be for the most part be regarded as a peace loving minority, and not as a threat to other citizens. This is the case in: USA — 0.6% Australia — 1.5% Canada — 1.9% China — 1.8% Italy — 1.5% Norway — 1.8% At 2% to 5%, they begin to proselytize from other ethnic minorities and disaffected groups, often with major recruiting from the jails and among gangs.This is happening in: UK — 2.7% Thailand — 4.6% From 5% on, they exercise an inordinate influence in proportion to their percentage of the population. They will push for the introduction of halal food, thereby securing food preparation jobs for Muslims. They will increase pressure on supermarket chains to feature halal on their shelves — along with threats for failure to comply.This is occurring in: France — 8% Philippines — 5% Netherlands — 5.5%. At this point, they will work to get the ruling government to allow them to rule themselves under Sharia, the Islamic Law. When Muslims approach 10% of the population, they tend to increase lawlessness as a means of complaint about their conditions. In Paris, we are already seeing car burnings. Any non Muslim action offends Islam, and results in uprisings and threats, such as in Amsterdam , with opposition to Mohammed cartoons and films about Islam.Such tensions are seen daily, particularly in Muslim sections, in: Guyana — 10% India — 13.4% Israel — 16% Kenya — 10% Russia — 15% After reaching 20%, nations can expect hair trigger rioting, jihad militia formations, sporadic killings, and the burnings of Christian churches and Jewish synagogues, such as in: Ethiopia — 32..8% At 40%, nations experience widespread massacres, chronic terror attacks, and on going militia warfare, such as in: Chad — 53.1% Lebanon — 59.7% From 60%, nations experience unfettered persecution of non believers of all other religions, sporadic genocide, use of Sharia Law as a weapon, and Jizya, the tax placed on infidels, such as in: Albania — 70% Malaysia — 60.4% Qatar — 77.5% Sudan — 70% After 80%, expect daily intimidation and violent jihad, some State run ethnic cleansing, and even some genocide, as these nations drive out the infidels, and move toward 100% Muslim, such as has been experienced and in some ways is on going in: Bangladesh — 83% Egypt — 90% Iran — 98% Iraq — 98.7% Pakistan — 97% Turkey — 99.8% UAE — 96% 100% will usher in the peace of ‘Dar es Salaam’ — the Islamic House of Peace. Here there’s supposed to be peace, because everybody is a Muslim, and the Koran is the only word, such as in: Afghanistan — 100% Saudi Arabia — 100% Somalia — 100% Yemen — 100%. Unfortunately, peace is never achieved, as in these 100% states the most radical Muslims intimidate and spew hatred, and satisfy their blood lust by killing less radical Muslims, for a variety of reasons.

    [Reply]

    vinayak purohit Reply:

    hum hindu log jahan bhee hote us mulk ko deemak kee tarah khatein hain wo america ho ya africa
    where there is no america there is no voilence.

    [Reply]

  • vinayak purohit

    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

    [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]

  • vijay !

    Taliban in Afghanistan would be the same Taliban of IC 814 period. America in Afghanistan meant thAt evil jehadis from afghanistan were spent and killed in fighting USA.

    SO if you wish well fro India you should pray that US sticks out in Afghanistan as it also periodically bombs Pakistan our enemy with drones. If this is doen for another 10 years, the concept of Jehad and Islamic superiority over minorities and other religions will die out. After all how many je3hadis will keep beleiving that they are going to janat…

    [Reply]

  • Anonymous

    “Obama: What a let-down he’s been?”

    Says ZIa Haq…Why? Because Obama did not spare Zia’s hero Osama.

    [Reply]

  • Faulitics

    Haha..Vali Nasr is a Muslim originally from Iran. Of course he is stabbing his own country in the back and supporting openly radical and Islamist regimes like Iran and the Taliban. Valid Nasir is to the US what Zia is to India. These communal types have only one loyalty and that is to their religion. Obama did one really good thing. He took the war to the home turf of zia’s “brothers”, the Islamists. He is droning them to hell as they richly deserve it.

    [Reply]

  • Anonymous

    That’s really good one. I doubt whether anyone takes this writer seriously.

    [Reply]

  • momn doter

    I was waiting for his next post, for I thought it would be about row over vande matram walkout. Instead he goes to US, for which I dont give a rat ***.

    [Reply]

  • Anonymous

    Zia shows why muslims will remain laggard for foreseable future. It is the ostrich burying its head in the sand scenario.Rather than see things for what they are worth , No turn your head or eyes from uncomfortable truths and turn to , yes you guessed it the OBSCURANTIST REGRESSIVE MEDIEVAL DOCTRINE.Rather than advice Iran to junk religion become a secular republic WITH FULL FREEDOM ie, RIGHT TO PASS LAWS THAT IS ACCORDANCE WITH MODERN REALITY AND SHOWS TWO FINGERS TO THE BOOK. Rather than advice TO SQUEEZE PAKISTAN DRY so that it will realise that to survive IT HAS TO JUNK ARMY AND ALLAH and by extension the vicous virus that is Taliban.
    Next Zia will advocate SIMI be exonerated and allowed to spread terror Dawood Ibrahim allowed to return to india and no terrorist charges against him

    [Reply]

  • engricn

    Bankim Chatterjee’s provocative books gave birth to extremist Hindu
    groups who translated his thoughts into reality. Anadamath written by
    Chatterjee in 1882 was the first manifestation of militant spirit of
    Hinduism against Muslims. Abominable Vande Matram, the hymn of Mother
    India was part of this book which became the national anthem of Bengali
    Hindu nationalists. Later it became the national anthem of India.
    Chatterjee’s book preached hatred against Muslims of India and
    instigated the religious sentiments of Hindus to rise against them,
    terrorize them into submission and merge them in Hinduism or annihilate
    them. He portrayed them as interlopers in the land of Hindus

    [Reply]

    Abhi Reply:

    “Chatterjee’s book preached hatred against Muslims of India”
    Which do you think came first? Muslim’s hatred of ALL other religions or Hindu’s hatred against moslims? Even to day, Modi will wear a scull cap gladly if the moslim who asked him to wear it will wear a tilak.

    [Reply]

  • Anonymous

    Zia can not think anything beyond Islam. His kind of people are great threat to secular society.

    [Reply]

    Anonymous Reply:

    Very sad. I wish he develops a pro India vision rathr than seeing what is good for Muslims in Serbia and karachi.

    [Reply]

  • W.J.D

    I don’t think in any literature we find Gandhi ji’s Islamic leaning. Yes regarding Pakistan he might have given some concessions due to nascent country and for the plight of people a helping hand. In this matter was a secular figure. Gandhiji’s non-violent method was due to his reading of the Holy Bible. He discussed Jesus sermon on the mount with Russian leader. He was perticularly impressed with it. Yes he did comment famously “I like Christianity but not the christians”.

    [Reply]