Fifty people who have affected Hindus and Hinduism in a negative way – Francois Gautier ( Part- 2)

13 min read

Fifty people who have affected Hindus and Hinduism in a negative way – Francois Gautier  ( Part- 2)

  • Akbaruddin Owaisi – Proof that India is a democracy lies in the fact that people like Owaisi and his brother can not only rant against the Hindus and preach near secession, but also get elected. There has to be some limits to preaching hatred and separatism.
  • Geelani & Other Kashmiri Separatists – It is confounding to see that the Indian Government allow these separatists to openly visit the Pakistani embassy in Delhi or travel to Pakistan. No country tolerates that kind of open separatism, be it France with Corsica, or even England with the faraway Falkland Islands, which geographically belong to Argentina. Also, one cannot forget that the Muslims pushed out of the Valley of Kashmir 500.000 Hindus who had lived there for generations.
  • Zakir Naik – Zakir Naik tried to hurt religious sentiments of Hindus by denigrating Shri Ganesh; that too, during the Ganesh Festival. He gave Hindus a challenge, through the medium of Facebook and Youtube, to prove that Shri Ganapati is a Deity. He also made an anti-Hindu statement that “If your God is unable to recognise his own son, how will he know that I am in danger”. By making such comments Naik has hurt religious sentiments of billions of Hindus. It has also created rage among members of Shiv Sena, BJP and various pro-Hindu organisations, Ganeshotsava Mandals and devout Hindus. Naik also went after Sri Sri Ravi Shankar in the famous debate.
  • Christophe Jaffrelot – This most famous French Indologist, paid by the French Government, is most responsible for the bad image of the BJP in France. He wrote many offensive books on ‘Hindu fundamentalism’. He is feted by the press corps and gets all kind of laudatory reviews when he comes to Indian to release the English translations of his books. So much for secularism in India—Jaffrelot, Sanjay Subramanyam (who teaches in the prestigious College de France), and others in France—keep harping on India’s problems—castes, poverty, so-called Hindu fundamentalism, etc. I know for a fact that in France, it has an influence on the top bureaucrats and the politicians, as every time something important happens in India—elections, catastrophes, riots, etc, their slanted opinions are hunted by newspapers, radios and televisions.
  • NGO’s – NGO’s in India are most of the time anti-Hindus. 70% of them work on “woman empowerment”, or “uplifting” the villagers in tribal areas, which is good, but should be done in a neutral manner with friendliness to the Indian Government. It is nowadays fashionable in India to always highlight the downtrodden condition of Indian women and their underprivileged place in Indian society. But no country in the world has granted such an important place to women in its spirituality and social ethos. And even today, behind all appearances—arranged marriages, submission to men, preference of male children in some rural areas (but girls are loved in India like nowhere in the world)—it can be safely said that very often, from the poorest to the richest classes, women control—even if behind the scenes—a lot of the family affairs: the education of their children (men in India are often “mama’s boys”), monetary concerns, and husbands often refer to them for important decisions. Countries such as France or the United States, who are often preaching to India on “women’s rights” never had a woman as their top leader, whereas India had Indira Gandhi ruling with an iron hand for nearly twenty years; and proportionately they have less MP’s than India, which is considering earmarking 33% of seats in Parliament for women, a revolution in human history! But this obsession of NGO’s with women and village empowerment (usually they take one village and make it like a showcase, for the benefit of visiting donors from abroad) has completely eclipsed the burning issue that would require NGO’s attention with the tremendous amount of funds they attract from abroad: afforestation, as there are hardly any forest worth the name left today in India.
  • Karunanidhi – Karunanidhi and before him his mentor, Anna, exploited to the hilt the Dravidian theory. According to this theory, which was actually devised in the 18th and 19th century by British linguists and archaeologists, who had a vested interest to prove the supremacy of their culture over the one of the subcontinent, the first inhabitants of India were good-natured, peaceful, dark-skinned shepherds, called the Dravidians. Then, around 1500 B.C., India is said to have been invaded by tribes called the Aryans: white-skinned, nomadic people, who originated somewhere in Urals, or the Caucasus. To the Aryans are attributed Sanskrit the Vedic or Hindu religion, India’s greatest spiritual texts, the Vedas, as well as a host of subsequent writings, the Upanishads, the Mahabharata, the Ramanaya, etc. And thus English missionaries and, later, American preachers were able to convert tribes and low caste Hindus by telling them: “you, the aborigines, the tribals, the Harijans, were there in India before the Aryans; you are the original inhabitants of India, and you should discard Hinduism, the religion of these arrogant Aryans and embrace Christianity, the true religion”. Karunanidhi also exploits this theory and he and Anna have made life for Tamil Brahmins so miserable that many left Tamil Nadu for Delhi or even the US.
  • Wendy Doniger – This American Hindu hater, supposedly a historian, says that Rama thinks that sex is putting him in political danger (keeping his allegedly unchaste wife will make the people revolt), but in fact he has it backward: Politics is driving Rama to make a sexual and religious mistake; public concerns make him banish the wife he loves. Rama banishes Sita as Dasharatha has banished Rama. Significantly, the moment when Rama kicks Sita out for the second time comes directly after a long passage in which Rama makes love to Sita passionately, drinking wine with her, for many days on end; the banishment comes as a direct reaction against the sensual indulgence. Her latest book, The Hindus: An Alternative History was written with an intent to mock Hinduism.
  • Akbar – Akbar is one of the goody-goodies in Indian history books, like Ashoka because he was a Buddhist, that Marxist historians like to glorify. No doubt, Akbar was one of the better Mughal emperors, but few people know that when he captured Chittor on February 25, 1568, he ordered that the thirty thousand civil population be butchered, including women and children who had taken shelter in the fort. Destruction of temples also took place on mass scale in Akbar’s reign and it is even said that he ordered that a mountain be made of the tufts of the Brahmins’ hairs.
  • Michael Witzel – He is a professor of Sanskrit at Harvard, who recently tried to prevent the removal of references to India and Hinduism in the curriculum followed by schools in California which parents of Indian origin found to be inadequate, inaccurate or just outright insensitive. Known for aggressively pushing theories forged by Left historians of the Romila Thapar genre that have been long discredited through scientific means, including DNA studies, this ‘linguist’ is known for promoting himself as a ‘historian’ in academic circles. His proximity to Left historians in India is no secret. On one occasion, he even said, “Hindus in the US are lost or abandoned people”.
  • Amnesty International – Amnesty International, which has a large number of Pakistanis in its staff, has always been hostile to Hindus. I remember showing an exhibition on Kashmir in London at the prestigious Commonwealth Club. The South Asia Amnesty in-charge refused to come and see it—although the club was just a stone throw away from Amnesty’s London office. What did the Kashmiri Hindus do that Amnesty considers them untouchable? And how come that the Muslims of the Valley who chased them by terror and made them flee their ancestral lands and homes are not condemned by Amnesty? It triggers a lot of questions about Amnesty’s impartiality.
  • Prannoy Roy (CEO of NDTV) – No doubt, Prannoy Roy created one of the best TV channels in India in terms of content and professional quality, but from the beginning NDTV’s slant was anti-Hindu. Why? Did you know that Prannoy is married to Radhika Roy, who is the sister of Brinda Karat, one of the leading lights of the Communist Party of India Marxist (CPI(M))? The sad thing is that many BJP leaders always run to NDTV, to be crucified by Barkha Dutt, Pranno’s second in command today.
  • P. Chidambaram – There are many questions asked today about the role of P. Chidambaram when he was in power during the ten years of the Congress. As finance minister, he went after Hindus by clamping down on Hindu institutions that had the 100% yoga tax rebate; as home minister his role is even more dubious: he had cleared an affidavit in 2009 which described college student Ishrat Jahan as a Lashkar-e-Taiba terrorist involved in a plot to assassinate then Gujarat chief minister Narendra Modi. About a month later, a second affidavit was filed in court in which all references to Ishrat’s alleged terror links were missing.
  • Sitaram Yechury – Yechury is an intelligent man and a brilliant speaker but he went full steam against Mr Modi’s declaration of June 21 as International Yoga Day, which was supported by the UN General Assembly and which should not cause any problem, as yoga is a universal technique that is practiced all over the world by millions of Christians. Oh, but the hitch is that yoga is a Hindu invention, hence Mr Yechury’s hostility, who famously said: “under this BJP government’s aggressive global campaigns, India appears to be seeking a global positioning not on the basis of its internal strength, economic or otherwise, but on the basis of such ‘accomplishments’ as having the UN General Assembly declare International Yoga Day on June 21”. The fact that a senior communist leader in India fails to see the potential to leverage the acceptance and spread of yoga across the world as a means to further India’s global influence and power is a testament to the monumental intellectual bankruptcy afflicting the communists in India.
  • Mother Teresa – Mother Teresa is still the fallacy for India. No doubt, she did saintly work. But was caring for the dying and orphaned children her only goal? The truth is that she stood for the most orthodox Christian conservatism. There is no doubt that Mother Teresa also had a goal to convert Hindus to Christianity, the only true religion in her eyes.
  • Karan Thapar– Karan Thapar, who owns ITV, which unfortunately produces shows for BBC, is one of the most famous faces of journalism in India. Karan Thapar’s father was General Pran Nath Thapar COAS during 1962 war, and his aunt is Romila Thapar. Does that explain why Karan, though a decent man, is known for his anti-Hindu bias? Once he invited me on a program about the painter M. F. Husain, who as you know has depicted Hindus’ most revered Gods fornicating or even sodomizing each other. I had brought on the show photocopies of these paintings, a solid evidence of Husain’s hatred of Hinduism, but Karan refused that I showed them on camera. So much for ITV’s journalistic impartiality.
  • Javed Akhtar – Though Javed Akhtar came out recently against those who opposed saying “Bharat Mata ki Jai”, he is also known as a Hindu baiter. I remember him going full steam against Sri Sri Ravi Shankar and Hindu gurus in an India Today symposium a few years ago. Akhtar also repeatedly equated the Gujarat 2002 anti-Muslim riots to the Jewish holocaust. As one of his detractors said: “it is impossible to believe that Akhtar isn’t aware of the horrors at Auschwitz or Sobibor to compare them with rioting in Gujarat”.
  • Shabana Azmi – Akhtar’s second wife, Shabana Azmi is a fine actress. Nevertheless she is also a Hindu baiter. When she was invited to the international film festival of Deauville in France, I read the numerous interviews where she kept harping about “Hindu fundamentalists”, and repeatedly lambasted the “right wing” BJP Government and accused them of turning a “blind eye” to the attacks towards India’s minorities, while portraying herself as a courageous social activist fighting for freedom of expression. She also only spoke en passant about Muslim fundamentalism. Again the old trick to either equate Muslim and Hindu fundamentalism, or even in the case of Azmi, Rahul Gandhi and others, to say that Hindu fundamentalism is more dangerous than the Islamic one.
  • Aakar Patel – Aakar Patel, a subtle but redoubtable Hindu hater, is sadly the head of Amnesty International India (one can see there the perversion of Amnesty, to name a Muslim as its head in a country inhabited by 80% Hindus). Aakar indeed always rants against Narendra Modi and the Hindu majority, saying: “one must be neutral.” But “we dissent against our own country, because dissent is patriotic”. However he adds: “Anyone opposing us (Amnesty International?, is morally deficient and a repugnant human being”. Aakar Patel’s hatred for the majority community is not veiled. He wrote, “Most extremists in India are not Muslims, they are Hindu Maoists”.
  • Arundhati Roy – Cousin of Prannoy Roy, she was married to Gerard da Cunha first and then to filmmaker Pradip Krishen. Apart from her first book The God of Small Things, Arundhati never wrote again anything of value. She is most happy in the company of Maoists, Naxalites, Tamil Elam [LTTE], and Kashmiri separatists. Roy famously said, “Kashmir has never been an integral part of India and the Indian Government is at war with Maoists to aid the MNCs”. She also says that Modi is promoting Brahmanism. After the “intolerance” debate, she returned her national award for screenplay.
  • Father Cedric Prakash – This Indian Christian priest has been most active in betraying his own country in the US, amongst Congress parliamentary committees. In June 2002, he testified before the US Commission for International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) in Washington, about the lack of religious freedom in India. His is a clear case of an Indian citizen asking an alien nation intervene in India’s domestic affairs. Fr. Prakash has been a vocal critic of Narendra Modi, often in collaboration with John Dayal and Teesta Setalvad.
  • Martha Nussbaum – Her pronouncement: “perpetrators of violence are not Muslims but Hindus”, is proof enough of Nussbaum’s hatred. Her interest in India started while working for Amartya Sen, with whom she shared an intimate relationship, a fact she herself bragged about. Before the 2014 parliament elections, Amartya Sen had said that he wouldn’t like Modi to be the PM of India. Martha does not have any qualification or training in archaeology, Sanskrit, geology, or metallurgy, yet writes with authority about the dating of the Vedas.
  • Hillary Clinton – Hillary Clinton has no great love for India and often leans towards Pakistan (her vice chairman of the 2016 election campaign is Huma Mahmood Abedin, of Pakistani origin). Maybe the numerous infidelities of her husband Bill made her into a hard and cynical woman, but if she becomes president of the US, she will be no friend of India and Hindus. Her attitude towards Islam and Muslim fundamentalism is also ambiguous and she is probably closer to Obama’s views, than any other presidential candidate. You can expect continuing support, financial and in armaments to Pakistan if she is elected.
  • Medha Patkar – Another NGO, who very selectively targets only Hindus. Her Narmada dam agitation had one target only—Narendra Modi. Yet the dam has proved to be the biggest factor to Gujarat’s prosperity, bringing electricity, water, prosperity to all, Hindus as well as Muslims. Medha was also involved in many movements that blocked Mr Modi’s visas in the UK and the US and that tried to stop him from becoming prime minister.
  • Mahatma Gandhi? – I put it with a question mark, as I consider him as a great soul indeed. But there are many who point out that he never seemed to have realised the great danger that Nazism represented for humanity. Calling Hitler “my beloved brother”, a man who murdered 6 million Jews in cold-blood just to prove the purity of his own race, is more than just innocence, it borders on criminal credulity. And did not Gandhi also advise the Jews to let themselves be butchered? His not condemning Muslims during the Khilafat Movement when thousands of Hindus were butchered by Indian Muslims, or his indulgence of Jinnah, going as far as proposing to make him the prime minister of India, have not always earned him Hindu goodwill. ¶ Gandhi’s love of the Harijans, as he called them, was certainly very touching and sprang from the highest motivations, but once more Gandhi took the European element in the decrying of the caste system, sowing the seeds of future disorders and of a caste war in India, of which we see the effects only today.
  • Hindus Themselves – Hindus, it must be said, are their own biggest enemies. They must be some of the most selfish and individualistic people in the world: rich Hindus never help their poorer brothers and sisters—that’s’ why the Mother Teresas and Sonia Gandhis are able to flourish in India. A Hindu abroad never acknowledges another Hindu, but pretends he or she does not exist. You can insult Hindus and their Gods and Goddesses as much as you want and nothing will happen to you. A billion Hindus have not raised a finger about the 450.000 Kashmiri Pandits who became refugees in their own country after they were chased out by terror from the Valley of Kashmir in the 90’s. Hindus today don’t give a damn whether their children know about the Ramayana, the Mahabharata or the Bhagavad Gita, where every truth that needs to be known about life, after life, karma, dharma and soul is taught. Modern Hindu children do not go to temples, pray or know what a puja is. Hindus do not care to have colleges where Hindu values are imparted, like the Muslims have (Aligarh University for instance) The only one ever, the Benares Hindu University, should not be called ‘Hindu’, as nothing Hindu is taught there anymore.

Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj, who along with a few hundred men, stood his ground against the most powerful emperor of his times, has practically no place in Indian history books and is often described as a petty chieftain or even a plunderer. So is Maharana Pratap, the only Rajput who fought against the Mughals and actually defeated Akbar in Haldighati.

Hindus tend to merge and melt wherever they live—and in the process, lose some of their identities and togetherness. And finally the most deadly and vicious intellectuals that we have reviewed above, are Hindus most of them. They are the ones that should be targeted, in a non-violent but firm manner. – Francois Gautier, 13 June 2016. The list has been edited by a staff writer at Newsgram and again by the editor of Bharata Bharati.

Courtesy  : Bharata Bharati

====  ++  ====

1 thought on “Fifty people who have affected Hindus and Hinduism in a negative way – Francois Gautier ( Part- 2)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *