Author: Varsha Bhosle
Publication: Rediff
on Net
Date: September 18,
2000
Hehehehehe... The
European Union has lifted the sanctions it had imposed 7 months ago against
Austria when Joerg Haider's "far-right" Freedom Party http://www.rediff.com/news/2000/feb/07varsha.htm
was awarded a spot in the coalition government. The party had campaigned
against immigration and EU expansion and finished second among the six
political parties -- sparking concern across Europe, concern that the stooopid
people didn't know what was good for them.
So, the EU donned its
leathers and did some disciplining: Austria's partners broke off bilateral
political contacts, restricted the promotion of Austrians at the EU HQ
in Brussels, and snubbed ministers attending meetings. Diplomatic
measures included boycotts of cultural exchanges, military exercises and
even school trips. What it got your favourite psycho was an honourable
mention on one of the anti-Nazi websites.
Whites are far more clever
than the rest: The EU didn't ease up on Austrians because it suddenly began
to respect their right to determine their own government, no. It
was only after an investigating committee concluded that maintaining sanctions
would stoke the very nationalism they were aimed at curbing that the EU
retreated. The sanctions triggered a backlash amongst the Austrian
public, which considered them an affront to the nation; they "triggered
nationalistic feelings in Austria."
Both parties, being White,
have brains and balls: The self-respecting Austrians reacted with anger,
and the smart EU backed off to prevent a backlash. Now think of Hindus
and the permanent communal-divisive-fundamentalist tag...
* * *
Last Tuesday, The Indian
Express carried a report titled "If at all, our dead bodies will return
to Pak - Migrant Hindus" on the plight of seven Hindu families who arrived
in Haryana from Leyya in Pakistan. The gist of their woes is summed
up by: "If we go back, they will force us to convert to Islam...
We've come on the pretext of meeting our relatives, but actually, we're
saving our lives."
For those under the spell
of the Pakistan-India People's Forum for Peace and Democracy (members:
Teesta Setalvad, Dilip D'Souza), here are some of the facts revealed by
the "Migrant Hindus": The Hindu dead have to be buried according to Muslim
customs. Women and young girls have been abducted, forced to convert
and then married off to Muslims. Hindu women are not allowed to touch
water taps, and children are beaten up for playing with Muslim neighbours.
The Hindu temple was destroyed. Forty of the 60 Hindu families in
Leyya traded their religion in the hope of a better life, after which the
conversion threats from maulvis *and* commoners alike increased for the
remaining Hindus. They were never allowed to celebrate any Hindu
festival, except at night and only at home. The Hindu life in Pakistan
is so wretched that one "migrant" said, " Ab to sirf hamari lashen jayengi
Pakistan."
As is my wont, I stripped
the report and filed it away under the title "Hindu refugees from Pak speak
out." And then I did a double-take... I had automatically tagged
them as "refugees" - persons taking refuge, especially in a foreign country
from war or persecution or natural disaster. But the news report
mentioned "migrant" - a person who moves from one place of abode to another,
especially to a different country. What a difference in perception!
At no point did The Indian Express see these Hindus, who fled death at
the hands of Islamic Pakistan, as refugees! Instead, the report pointed
out that Siddhuram, "doesn't hesitate to indulge in his own bit of Muslim-bashing.
'I hate all Muslims now, even those in India,' he says." The man was shown
as being communalistic...
Do I think that the reporter
had no sympathy for the refugees? No. Otherwise the report wouldn't
be so detailed, if it existed at all. The point I've been making
ever since I started writing is this: It has been *ingrained* into the
"secular" Press to always, always, discount Hindu feelings and trivialise
the Hindu's predicament. The Press uses the limp and colourless "migrant"
even for Kashmiri Pandits - who are, in fact, refugees from Islamic fundamentalism.
These "migrants" haven't just changed locations of their own free will!
They've been *forced* to migrate.
It's high time that Indians
- especially Hindus - understand the nature of evil, of Islamic fundamentalism.
India should be taking the issue of the ill-treatment of Hindu minorities
in Pakistan to the UN and every other international body. Instead,
just about everybody is on our case for the supposedly organised attacks
on minorities. While Pakistan cries itself hoarse over the maltreatment
of Kashmiri Muslims, India hasn't even once raised the all-too-real issue
of human rights abuses by Pakistani Muslims against the Hindu minority.
But then, which Bandar would step forward for such a cause...?
* * *
On Thursday, the NY-based
Human Rights Watch released a briefing which described extensive HR problems
in India and included specific questions to be put to President Clinton
and PM Hajpayee at a joint press conference. The suggested questions
included:
o Several prominent
members of your party [BJP] have openly defended the actions of people
who are accused of killing members of religious minorities, such as Christians
and Muslims. Would you care to comment?
o Why has the US
government been silent on the Hindu- nationalist policies of the BJP and
the BJP's close relations with extreme nationalist organizations which
openly promote the creation of a Hindu nation?
o Are you satisfied
that the Indian government is doing enough to investigate and prosecute
those responsible for attacks on Christians, Dalits, and other minorities?
Try as I did, I could find no mention of Hindus killed at the hands of
Christians and Muslims. Take the BBC's report of August 28, "Hindu
preacher killed by Tripura rebels." The title should've been "Hindu preacher
killed by Christian terrorists." Swami Shantikali Maharaj was killed by
ten guerrillas of the National Liberation Front of Tripura who broke into
his ashram and riddled him with bullets. The NLFT itself had declared
that it would convert all tribes people of Tripura to Christianity.
The majority of tribals are Hindus or Buddhists.
Then there's the case
of Abhilash, a popular RSS pracharak of Pandalgudi village in Tamil Nadu.
Father Arulanandam, Jayaseelan and Victor promised Abhilash all the riches
if he converted. On his refusal, Fr Arulanandam and 20 Christians
thrashed him in the village market in full daylight. Then they took
him to the police station and complained that Abhilash had brought a bomb
to the church. The police conducted inquiries and released Abhilash.
Hindu leaders - and the public - went to the police station to file an
FIR against Fr Arulanandam and his gang. The sub-inspector lodged
the complaint only after intervention from higher authorities (FIR No.
71/2000, dated 18-7-2000). So far, four Christians have been arrested.
Abhilash is under treatment at the Madurai Government Hospital. Fr
Arulanandam, Jayaseelan and Victor are absconding.
Then there's the case
of Father Victor Crasta who was gunned down by the NLFT at Bhalukcherra
in North Tripura on July 25. Eh...? Uff, no, it's not a mistake.
You see, Crasta was a Roman Catholic. The NLFT are Baptists.
The principle is the same: Religious persecution.
The HRW is oblivious
when it comes to Hindus, but it's even more stringent when it comes to
India. Last year, it called upon the five permanent members of the
UN Security Council as well as India's trading partners to suspend all
military aid and sales to India unless it provides greater accountability
of HR abuses in Kashmir. Its report recommended that in the annual
World Bank- sponsored donors meeting on India, the participant countries
should publicly state that continued economic support for India should
not be seen as support for India's policies.
But on Pakistan's proxy
war, the report called upon "the groups fighting security forces" to abide
by HR norms. Apparently, "These groups should desist from using anti-
personnel landmines." Now tell me, why does HRW advise "the groups fighting
security forces" to shun only landmines??
The HRW's October 1999
report was even worse. Written by an Indian dramatist (I did not
make this up), it said that "India embarked on a policy of ethnic cleansing"
and maintained that Delhi must prohibit surveys by district administrations
to assess the activities and whereabouts of minority community members
and leaders! Hunh? We may as well pass over the Lok Sabha to these dipweeds
and bend over and open up.
Now, I've got the low-down
on HRW from an American of East European descent: "Despite its influence,
HRW is not an impartial advocate. It often collects or adapts 'information'
to suit its objectives. Its researchers aren't confused about India
- they are deliberately presenting falsehoods and exaggerations - as they
have done in other cases, like Kosovo. HRW itself is part of that
elite, which includes government departments, foundations, NGOs and academics.
It is not a association of 'concerned private citizens.' HRW board members
include present and past government employees, and overlapping directorates
link it to the major foreign policy lobbies in the US. Cynically
summarised, it is a joint venture of George Soros and the State Department.
"HRW is a tool of US/NATO.
They helped destroy Yugoslavia and justified NATO intervention in Bosnia
and Kosovo by demonizing the Serbs and ignoring terrorism by KLA (Muslim
narcoterrorists), Bosnian Muslims, and Croats. HRW has circulated
false stories about massacres that never happened or mass graves that turned
up empty. HRW helped manufacture the war in Kosovo. Now we
have two Islamic states - Bosnia and Kosovo - being established in Europe."
One ethical tradition
has become associated with the US, that includes the universal rights set
out in its Constitution. In a sense, the US was "designed" as an
interventionist power: interventionist HR orgs are a logical result.
They express the belief of most US citizens, that their values are superior
to all others. To maintain that character, HRW operates a number
of discriminatory exclusions: Firstly, it is linguistically racist; although
it publishes material in foreign languages to promote its views, the org
itself is English-only. Secondly, the org discriminates on grounds
of nationality. Its list of functionaries makes clear that non-Americans
are excluded at board level. Thirdly, the org discriminates on grounds
of social class. Again, the list makes clear that board members are
recruited from the upper class and upper-middle class.
Paul Treanor, who has
extensively researched the org, writes: "HRW can therefore claim no ethical
superiority. It is itself involved in practices it condemns elsewhere,
such as discrimination in employment, and exclusion from social structures.
It can also claim no neutrality. An organisation which will not allow
a Serb or Somali to be a board member, can give no neutral assessment of
a Serbian or Somali state. It would probably be impossible for an
all-American, English-only elite organisation, to be anything else but
paternalistic."
Perceptions...
perceptions... Dig deep enough and the truth will out. But,
why would the Indian stooges of these dorks care...?