Author: Subramanian Swamy
Publication: Organiser
Date: August 20, 2006
URL: http://www.organiser.org/dynamic/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpage&pid=144&page=18
Make no mistake about it: all terror attacks
since 1945 in India have been carried out to demoralise the Hindus, to undermine
and ultimately dismantle the Hindu foundation of India. In fact, the earlier
terror tactics in India were deployed in Bengal, in 1946, by Suhrawady and
Jinnah to terrorise Hindus to give in on the demand for Pakistan. The Congress
Party capitulated and handed 25 per cent of India on a platter to Mohammed
Ali Jinnah. Since then they say in Pakistan: "Hass Hass ke liye Pakistan,
aur ladd ladd ke lenge Hindustan".
In the 1960s, the Christian missionaries inspired
the Nagas. The Nagas also wanted to further amputate Bharat Mata by seeking
secession of Nagaland from the nation. Thereafter the Hindus of Manipur were
targeted by foreign trained elements. Manipuris were told: "give up Hinduism
or be killed." The British inspired Dravidian Movement led by E.V. Ramaswamy
Naicker, in the name of rationalism tried to debunk none of the other religions
as irrational except Hinduism alone, and targeted for humiliation the Hindu
priestly class, otherwise known as Brahmins, for propagating the Hindu religion.
The movement's organisational arm, the Dravida Kazhagam (DK), had venerated
Ravana for fifty years to spite the Hindu adoration of Rama and vulgarise
the abduction of Sita, till these DK semi-literates learnt that Ravana was
a Brahmin and a pious bhakta of Lord Shiva too. Now they have become stooges
of the LTTE, which has specialised in killing Hindu Tamils of Sri Lanka. In
Kashmir, militants in league with the Pakistani trained terrorists also targetted
the Hindus by driving the Hindu Pandit community out of the Valley, or killing
them or dishonouring their women folk.
Even in the latest atrocity in Mumbai, of
killing nearly two hundred and maiming almost a thousand in the suburban train
bombings, the target may be taken to be Hindus because the bombs were detonated
in the first class compartments in which Hindu traders from South Mumbai usually
travel to their homes in the suburbs, while Muslims and Christian commuters,
mostly employees and labourers, don't.
Hence, the first lesson to be learnt from
recent history, for tackling terrorism in India is that the Hindu is the target.
It is to undermine the Hindu psyche that terror attacks are organised. And
hence since the Hindu is the target, Hindus must collectively respond as Hindus
against the terrorist and not feel individually isolated or worse, be complacent
because he or she is not personally affected. If one Hindu dies merely because
he or she was a Hindu, then a bit of every Hindu also dies.
Therefore, we have to collectively as Hindus
stand against the terrorist. In this response, Muslims and Christians of India
can join us if they genuinely feel for the Hindu. That they do, I will not
believe, unless they acknowledge with pride that though they may be Muslims
or Christians, their ancestors are Hindus. It is not easy for them to acknowledge
this ancestry because the Muslim Mullah and Christian Missionary would consider
it as unacceptable since it would dilute their religious fervour and also
create an option for their possible re-conversion to the Hindu faith. Hence,
these religious leaders preach hatred and violence against the kafir and the
pagan i.e., the Hindu (for example read Chapter 8 verse 12 of the Koran) to
keep the faith of their followers. The Islamic terrorist outfits, e.g., the
SIMI being the latest has already resolved that India is Darul Harab, and
they are committed to make it Darul Islam. That makes them free of any moral
compunction whatsoever in dealing with Hindus.
But still, if any Muslim or Christian does
so acknowledge his or her Hindu legacy, then we Hindus can accept him or her
as a part of the Brihad Hindu Samaj, which is Hindustan. India that is Bharat
that is Hindustan is a nation of Hindus and those others whose ancestors are
Hindus. Even Parsi and Jews in India have Hindu ancestors. Others, those who
refuse to so acknowledge or those foreigners who become Indian citizens by
registration can remain in India, but should not have voting rights (which
means they cannot be elected representatives).
Hence, to begin with, any policy to combat
terrorism must first begin with requiring each and every Hindu becoming a
committed or virat Hindu, or be regarded a 'tankhiya'. By this is not meant
that it is enough commitment if one claims to be Hindu, or goes to temples,
does pujas, and celebrates festivals. That is not sufficient to be a committed
or virat Hindu. To be a virat Hindu one must have a Hindu mindset.
What constitutes the Hindu mindset cannot
be elaborated in detail here because the focus of this article is on combating
terrorism. But readers can see my new book: Hindus Under Siege-The Way Out
(Haranand Publishers; 2006) for details.
I recall in this connection what Shri Guruji
(M.S. Golwalkar) had told me, just after I had joined the Jana Sangh in 1970
and was introduced to him in Lala Hansraj Gupta's residence in New Delhi.
Guruji said that a mindset must recognise that there is vyaktigat charitra
(personal character) and a rashtriya charitra (national character). It is
not enough if one is pious, honest and educated. That is personal character
only. National character is a mindset actively and vigorously committed to
the sanctity and integrity of the nation. For example, Dr. Manmohan Singh,
our current Prime Minister, has high personal character (vyaktigat charitra),
but by being a rubber stamp of a semi-literate Sonia Gandhi, and waffling
on all national issues, he has proved that he has no rashtriya charitra.
The second lesson for combating the terrorism
we face today that we need to learn is: since demoralising the Hindu and undermining
the Hindu foundation of India to destroy the Hindu civilisation is the goal
of all terrorists in India, we must never capitulate and never concede any
demand of the terrorists. They are encouraged by it but never satisfied by
it. Therefore, no matter how many Hindus have to die for it, the basic policy
has to be: never yield to any demand of the terrorists. But that resolve has
not been shown in our recent history. Instead ever since we conceded Pakistan
in 1947 under duress, we have been mostly yielding time and time again.
In 1989, to obtain the release of Mufti Mohammed
Sayeed's daughter, kidnapped by terrorists, five terrorists in Indian jails
were set free by the V.P. Singh's government. This made these criminals in
the eyes of Kashmiri separatists and fence sitters as heroes, as those who
had brought India's Hindu establishment on it's knees.
In 1991, however, when Chandrashekhar was
PM, and I was his senior Minister handling the Law & Justice portfolio,
Saifuddin Soz's daughter was kidnapped by the JKLF. They too made the same
demand (release of four terrorists in jail), but we refused. We also took
some secret action which made the JKLF frightened and hence Soz's daughter
was put on a autorickshaw and sent home unharmed. This toughness was shown
at a time when our government was tottering and about to fall! The difference
was in our mindset, and it had become clear from day one to the JKLF that
we meant business as also that two can play the game of terror.
We also showed similar grit and guts when
we received information that LTTE had established a parallel establishment
in Tamil Nadu, with Karunanidhi's connivance. We dismissed DMK government,
sacked Governor Barnala, and smashed the terror infrastructure in the state.
Had we not done that then, Tamil Nadu today would have been worse today than
Kashmir. Thus toughness on both occasion was rewarded.
But we could not prevent Rajiv Gandhi's assassination
because at that time we did not have information that the conspiracy with
the LTTE to murder him was an in-house supari. Now I do know fully, and hope
at the next opportunity in government to redeem fully Rajiv's martyrdom.
The worst capitulation to terrorists in our
modern history was in the Indian Airlines hijack incident in December-end
1999. The terrorists after hijacking an Indian Airlines flight from Kathmandu
to Delhi, demanded money and release of three of the most dreaded terrorists
held in judicial custody in Jammu jail (Maulana Masood Azhar, Omar Sheikh,
and Ahmed Zargar). About 40 policepersons had earlier died in various encounters
to capture them. Yet in the call of saving the lives of 259 passengers in
the IA Airbus parked in Kandhar, the government released these terrorists
even without getting court permission (required since they were in judicial
custody). Moreover they were escorted by a senior Minister on the PM's special
Boeing all the way to Kandhar as royal guests instead of being shoved across
the Indo-Pakistan border.
Worse still, all the three after being freed,
went back to Pakistan and created three separate terrorist organiszations
to kill Hindus. Mohammed Azhar, whom the National Security Adviser Brijesh
Mishra had then described (on NDTV) as "a mere harmless cleric",
upon his release led the LeT to savage and repeated terrorists attacks on
Hindus all over India from Bangalore to Srinagar. Since mid-2000, Azhar is
responsible for killing of over 2000 Hindus. Omar Sheikh is in jail for killing
US journalist Daniel Pearl and is in US custody, while the third, Zargar is
engaged today in random killings of Hindus in Doda and Jammu.
What should India have done instead? In the
first place, it is a mystery how the IA plane shrewdly brought by the pilots
to land in Amritsar was allowed to take-off again. That was a missed chance
which counter-hijack experts find inexplicable. Who was responsible for allowing
the plane to take-off? At very least, the tyres of the plane should have been
punctured by the NSG with long-range rifles to immobilise the aircraft.
Even later, when the plane had landed in Kandhar,
we should have threatened to drop a tactical nuclear weapon of 1KT on Osama
bin Laden's camp just 50 kms from the airport if the passengers had been harmed.
This was the suggestion I had publicly made then. At the very least, we should
have demanded the custody of the killer of Rupa Katyal's husband. His throat
was slit by one of the hijackers in front of his newly wed wife, Rupa. The
Katyals were returning by the ill-fated flight after their honeymoon in Nepal.
Even if, all the 259 passengers had to be put at risk, we should have demanded
that this callous butcher of Katyal be handed over as part of the deal. For
freeing Azhar, the Taliban would have sacrificed him. But at the end of it
all, Bharat Mata is still bleeding unavenged. This whole Kandhar episode proves
that we should never negotiate with terrorists, never yield. If you do, then
sooner or later you will end up losing more lives than you will ever save
by a deal with terrorists.
The third lesson to be learnt is that whatever
and however small the terrorist incident, the nation must retaliate-not by
measured and "sober" responses but by massive retaliation. For example,
when Ayodhya Temple was sought to be attacked, or the Institute of Science
in Bangalore was targetted, these were not big terrorist incidents but we
should have massively retaliated. Our Intelligence agencies keep telling me
in private that we have clinching proof of terrorist training camps in PoK
and Bangladesh, and if that is so, we should bomb them by despatching our
airforce. If instead of being supportive, Pakistan and Bangladesh protest
or retaliate, it means that they are sponsors and not unwilling hosts to free
lancing terrorists, and hence we should be ready for war. We could retaliate
then by fulfilling our pre-1947 commitment to NWFP, and openly help the Baluchis
and the Sindhi to meet their legitimate aspirations. We could demand territory
from Bangladesh for all those illegal Bangladeshis settled in India. After
all, Partition was for those Muslims who could not bear to live with Hindus.
Hence, the territory of Bangladesh should be reduced in proportion to millions
of Bangladesis that have come to India and the Hindus pushed out since 1947.
Strategically, northern one-third of Bangladesh could then be annexed if Bangladesh
goes to war with us.
Otherwise what is the alternative ? Walk meekly
to the gas chambers expecting our "sober" responses will be rewarded
by our neighbours and their patrons ? We will be back to 1100 AD. We should
not be ghouls for punishment from terrorists and their patrons. This is Kaliyug,
and hence there is no room for sattvic responses to evil people. Hindu religion
has a concept of apat dharma and we should use it.
The fourth lesson to learn is that more than
the overt threat of the terrorists in India, the more sinister corrosion of
our nation state occurs from within. This corrosion provides 'a force multiplier'
to the terrorists. That is, the terrorists are able to leverage the influence
of highly placed individuals in the government, media and academia, who have
been compromised by the terrorists and blackmailed on sex, drug money and
illegitimate favours, into collaborating with them. Take for example the assassination
of Rajiv Gandhi. He had been the Prime Minister, and the LTTE killed him because
it claimed that he had to be punished for sending the IPKF to Sri Lanka. The
dispatch of the Indian army was a government policy ratified by Parliament,
and yet the LTTE arrogated to itself the right to hold Rajiv Gandhi responsible
and to be murdered for it. Smt. Sonia Gandhi wrote to the President that the
four LTTE/DK criminals to be hanged on the orders of the Supreme Court (delivered
on May 12, 1999), should be given a lesser sentence of life imprisonment even
though the four criminals did not ask for mercy !! Is this her concept of
zero tolerance for terrorism, or is there some mysterious reason why Ms. Gandhi
wrote this letter? Were Jawaharlal Nehru and Rajiv Gandhi less humane than
Sonia because they refused to forgive Godse and Satwant Singh? A noted US
General when asked if the US should forgive the perpetrators of the 9/11 atrocity
said: "It is God's job to forgive, and our job to arrange the meeting".
How appropriate!
And why is it that ever since the assassination
till today Ms. Gandhi has not written a single letter to the President or
raised in Lok Sabha demanding the immediate extradition of the LTTE supremo
and accused no.1 in the Rajiv murder case, V. Prabhakaran, or even carpet
bombing of his hideout in Mullaitheevu or wherever in Sri Lanka ? Even the
media and the academia does not write op-ed pages demanding action. Why does
not the media raise this question of alliance of Congress with pro-LTTE parties
with her? What is behind this conspiracy of silence? One thing is for sure-terrorists
in India of all hues and background have their compromised moles in the India's
Establishment, and hence no anti-terrorist policy can succeed unless these
fifth column elements are weeded out. The IB/RAW/MI/CRPF all have files on
them and so identifying them is no problem. The political support these traitors
have to withdrawn and some have to be made an example of.
India can solve it's terrorist problem within
five years, but for that we have to learn the four lessons outlined above,
and have a Hindu mindset to take bold, risky, and hard decisions to defend
the nation. If the Jews can be transformed from lambs walking meekly to the
gas chambers to fiery lions in just ten years, it is not difficult for Hindus
in much better circumstances (after all we are 83 per cent of India), to do
so in five years. Guru Gobind Singh showed us the way already. We can get
a Panch Pyara set in government if even half the Hindu voters collectively
vote as Hindus. And that is the bottom line in fighting terrorism.
(The author is president of Janata Party.)
