Home

A Prophet Dishonored

Dear Editor,

The Nation

Dear Sir,

I am writing in response to Jonathan Schell’s article "A prophet dishonored". I could have written you a short letter saying what Schell wrote is completely inaccurate, misleading, mischievous, full of innuendos etc.etc. But that will not serve any purpose because it would have been dumped in trash can as the ranting of a "Hindu nationalist". There is no doubt that it is explicitly clear that Schell is completely unaware of the history of the region he is writing about and the issues involved. And the fact that his article was published by "The Nation" shows that those who were involved in making the decision to publish are also equally ignorant unless they have a fixed political agenda against India in general and the Hindus in particular – which, however, I doubt very much given the standing of your journal. I decided to write a long letter instead to apprise you of facts and give you some background to the whole situation. You might forward this letter to your other colleagues and also to Schell for his information, or to anyone else who might be interested in India and the problems that India is facing.

I would be glad to hear Schell’s side of the story and his justification for what he wrote.

1. Assassination of Gandhi: Schell writes "it was a follower of the Hindu nationalist party now in power, The Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), who in 1948 assassinated Gandhi, the greatest practitioner of non-violence …..". The association of Godse, the man who assassinated Gandhi with the BJP is both mischievous and sinister and completely false. The BJP, the party currently in power was formed only 1980. So any connection between the BJP and Godse is not only completely false but also illogical. Schell is probably associating Godse with Rashtriya Swayam Sevak Sangh (RSS) – National Volunteer Organization – which stands for Indian nationalism. As has been wrongly publicized it is not an organization that is anti-Muslim; it is to be more accurate for Indian nationalism. Many nationalistic Muslims are its member too. Godse had been a member of RSS but so has he been a member of the Congress party to which Gandhi belonged. At the time of assassination, he was member of neither. The RSS regarded Gandhi very highly and disagreed with some of his policies as many in the Congress including even Nehru and Patel, Gandhi’s two top associates, did too. So to flaunt his previous association with one and neglect his association with the other is not good intellectual exercise.

To blame Indian nationalists for Gandhi’s assassination is like blaming the entire white race for Martin Luther King’s assassination just because Earl Ray was white and there by extension the present govt. of the USA because Mr. Clinton is also white, or like blaming all Christians for the Jewish holocaust because Hitler was a Christian. Now, who in his right mind buy such a ridiculous and outrageous argument, if it can be called an argument.

2. Hindu – Muslim conflict: Talking of Hindu-Muslim conflict, Schell writes "it began with the conquest when the Muslim Mughal dynasty conquered India, in 1526". The roots of Hindu-Muslim conflict are much deeper and of much more serious nature than mere conquest of Babar in 1526. These are rooted in history and the very basic ideologies of the two.

Will Durant in his Story of Civilization has described the Muslims conquest of India as the bloodiest story in history and it did not begin in 1526 with Babar, the Mughal. The seeds of this conflict were sowed in the seventh century when a man declared himself the Prophet and preached "Idolatry is worse than carnage" (Koran 2:191) "The only true faith in the sight of God is Islam" (Koran 3:19) and exhorted his followers: "Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them captive and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush". (Koran 9:5) – to mention just a few of his teachings which bear directly on the Hindu-Muslim conflict.

The basic tenets of Islam unabashed opposition to idol worship, "There is no God other than Allah" and "Islam is the only True faith" are in direct confrontation with the basic Hindu beliefs of idol worship, "Ekam sat vipra bahuda vadanti" ( there is one truth meaning god but people call him by different names) and "Sarva dharma sambhava" ( all religions are good and deserve equal respect).

Murder in the name of religion was unknown to Indian religions. There is no more valid testimony to it than Al-Beruni, a Muslim astronomer and scholar of Persian, Arabic and Greek who came with Mahmud Ghaznavi (we shall learn about him later in this reply), stayed back in India, learnt Sanskrit and Hindu literature, sacred texts and philosophy, when he wrote of the Hindus (c. 1030AD): "There is very little disputing about theological topics among themselves; at the utmost, they fight with words, but they will never stake their soul or body or their property on religious controversy." Dying or killing in the name of religion was unknown to the Hindus. They could not comprehend why a would any body even stake his property for a religious argument much less give his life or take someone else’s.

Now coming back to the historical causes of Hindu-Muslim conflict:

The first chapter of Hindu-Muslim conflict in India started in 712AD when Muhammad Bin Qasim, cousin of Hajjaj, Governor of Iraq, defeated Dahar, the king of Debal, in Sindh what is now part of Pakistan and as VS Naipaul writes in "Among the Believers": "But Hajjaj (the governor of Iraq) had issued precise instructions for his first victory: the residents of Debal are not to be spared. The Arab army has to slaughter for three days: this is what Bin Qasim tells the people of Debal."

After the massacre at Debal the killing is more selective. … When he (Hajjaj) gets Dahar’s head and Bin Qasim’s report of victory he writes sternly: "My dear cousin, I have received your life-augmenting letter. On its receipt my gladness and joy knew no bounds. But the way of granting pardon prescribed by law is different from the pardon adopted by you….. The Great God says in the Koran: ‘O true believers, when you encounter the unbelievers, strike off their heads.’ The above command of the Great God is a great command and must be respected and followed…."

This was the introduction of Islam to India and the practice has been followed ever since whenever it was feasible to do so – this will be covered again as the subject comes up. This was a new kind of way that descended on India. "Power is power, and (Indians) believe they are only changing rulers; they can not conceive that a new way is about to come." wrote VS Naipaul. For Indians change of a ruler was no big deal because the life of the people was never affected. With the change of a ruler, the towns were never plundered, the women never raped, the temples never demolished, the religion of the new ruler never imposed. The ruler changed but the life continued as usual. Islam brought new dimensions to India, completely unknown before as observed by Al-Beruni three hundred years later.

Mahmud Ghaznavi (from Ghazni, Afghanistan) who raided India seventeen times – from AD 1000 to AD 1027 repeated it. His each excursion and adventure left a trail of devastation and plunder. He destroyed Hindu temples by the tens of thousands, raped the women and plundered the cities and took slaves by the hundreds of thousands. To give an idea of his plunder and devastation let us just look at one instance.

His historians record: "The Sultan next directed his attacks against the sacred city of Mathura. The city was surrounded by a massive stone wall, in which there were two lofty gates opening on to the river. There were magnificent temples all over the city and the largest of them stood in the center of it. The Sultan was very much struck by its grandeur. In his estimate it cost not less than 100,000,000 red dinars and even the most skillful of masons must have taken 200 years to complete it. Among the large number of idols in the temples, five were made of pure gold, the eyes of one of them were laid with two rubies worth 100,000 dinars, and another had a sapphire of a very heavy weight. All these five idols yielded gold weighing 93,300 miskals. The idols made of silver numbered 200….. He seized all the gold and silver and ordered his soldiers to burn all the temples to the ground. The idols in them were deliberately broken into pieces. The city was pillaged for 20 days, and a large number of buildings were reduced to ashes."

After each of his victory the vanquished were given two choices – convert to Islam or die. Hundreds of thousand were taken as slaves to be sold in Afghanistan and beyond. Historians observe: "he carried with him such a large number of Indians (Hindus – there were no Muslims then in India) as prisoners that they were sold as slaves at a very cheap price in Ghazni. Men who occupied high positions in India, were seen serving the shopkeepers there as slaves."

The loot from India was so humongous that he was declared by other Muslim monarchs as the "richest Monarch ever in the history of the world." He has looted much but still he had covered relatively a small part of India. Pakistan, the land which was the scene of much devastation caused by Mahmud, has decided to name one of its missiles Ghaznavi, after Mahmud in direct insult to India and Hindus. What an irony – how people celebrate the one who caused so much destruction on their own land!!

Babar, who started the Mughal dynasty in 1526, whom Schell mentions was one of the last of Muslims adventurers into India. Before Babar India had seen the carnage by hundreds of Muslim rulers and invaders for eight hundred years.

Muhammad Ghori, also from Ghazni, Afghanistan started his forays into India in 1178AD. He won some battles and plundered the cities and temples as ordained by his religion. He was defeated by several Indian rulers and each time he was spared his life. He was again defeated and captured by Prithvi Raj Chauhan in 1190-91 and again spared his life. Then Ghori came back in 1192 and this time he defeated Prithvi Raj. Prithvi Raj was captured, blinded and put to death. Ghori demolished the temples and built mosques and Islamic colleges on their ruins. This marks the beginning of permanent Islamic rule in India. Form this point on till the British took over starting from 1760s till full takeover in 1857, India was for all purposes ruled by the Muslims.

Pakistan has named its last missile – Ghauri --after this invader. Again in direct insult to Indian and Hindu sensibilities.

Another invader was Timurlang (Tamerlane) who in his own memoirs records: "About the year 800AH (Hijri – Muslim calendar around 1398AD) there arose in my heart the desire to lead an expedition against the infidels and to become a champion of faith, for it had reached my ear that the slayer of the infidels is a champion of faith and if he is slain, he becomes a martyr. It was for this reason that I formed my resolution… I sought an omen from the Koran and the verse which to which I opened was this: "O Prophet make war upon the infidels and unbelievers, and treat them with severity."

He then goes on to describe how he called the assembly of his nobles and chiefs and put the proposal of his expedition before them. They were not so enthusiastic about going to India (from Samarkand). Timur then consulted some wise men of Islam and goes on to record: "At the time the wise men of Islam came before me, and a conversation began about the propriety of a war against the infidels and polytheists, whereupon they declared that it is the duty of Sultan of Islam and all those who profess that "There is no god but Allah and Muhammad is His Prophet" to exert their utmost endeavor for the suppression of the enemies of their faith…" They likewise said that it is the duty of every Muslim and true believer to use his utmost exertion in the obedience of his ruler. When edifying words of the wise men reached the ears of the nobles, all their hearts were set upon a holy war in Hindustan, (Muslims’ name for India) and throwing themselves on their knees, they repeated the Chapter of Victory.

He then goes on to describe how when he was in Hindustan how he ordered his forces not to kill ‘Sayyids, Alims and other Muslims’ and how on the eve of his attack on Delhi he ordered 100.000 Hindu prisoners to be executed.

VS Naipaul has called all Mughal rulers almost without exception as tyrants.

To get some idea of what the Hindus had to go through this period is difficult to explain in a short letter but the following should give some idea. Muslims’ hate of Hindus goes beyond human decency and imagination. It is not that all Muslims are bad or evil people with no humanity in them. But when it comes to their religion, they are helpless. They have to follow the laws of God.

Barani, a famous Muslim historian and scholar (c. early 14^th century) wrote of another Muslim ruler of India: "Sultan Alauddin Khilji (AD 1296-1316) demanded from learned men rules and regulations, so that the Hindu should be ground down and property and possession, which are the causes of disaffection and rebellion, should not remain in his house….." Qazi (scholar of Islamic jurisprudence or in other words an Islamic Judge) Mughuis-ud-din of Bayana whom Ala-ud-din consulted whole heartedly justified Ala-ud-din’s rigorous policy towards the Hindus and pointed out that Islamic law sanctioned sterner principle, so much so that, "if the revenue collector spits into a Hindu’s mouth, the Hindu must open his mouth to receive it without hesitation." He (Khilji) was gratified to learn that his treatment of the Hindus was in full accordance with the Islamic law and assured the Qazi that he had given orders that the Hindus shall not be allowed to possess more than what is required for a bare subsistence." (History and Culture of the Indian People, Quoted from Fatwa-e-Jahandari by Barani)

To say that Hindu-Muslim conflict began with Babar in 1526 is a travesty of truth and a show complete ignorance of the basic history of India.

To give a finishing touch to Muslim atrocities on the Hindus, let me quote from Will Durant’s History of Civilization. Of Aurangzeb, sixth descendant of Babar who ruled from AD 1658 – 1707, Durant writes:

"Aurangzeb cared for nothing for art, destroyed its ‘heathen’ monuments with coarse bigotry, and fought, through a reign of half a century, to eradicate from India almost all religions but his own. He issued orders to the principal governors, and to his other subordinates, to raze to the ground all the temples of either Hindus or Christians, to smash every idol, and to close every Hindu school. In one year (1679 – 80) sixty-six temples were broken to pieces in Amber alone, sixty-three at Chitor, one hundred and twenty-three at Udaipur; and over the site of a Benares temple especially sacred to the Hindus he built, in deliberate insult, a Mohammedan mosque. He forbade all public worship of the Hindu faith, and laid upon every unconverted Hindu a heavy capitation tax. As a result of his fanaticism, thousands of temples which had represented the art of India through a millennium were laid in ruins. We can never know, from looking at India today, what grandeur and beauty she once possessed."

This is the description of India by Durant during the reign of Aurangzeb in the eighteenth century a thousand years after Qasim and seven hundred years after Mahmud Ghaznavi and five hundred years of continuous Muslim rule.

The much talked about demolition of Babri mosque is one such story. The mosque demolished was one of such mosques which the Muslims built on the site of a demolished Hindu temple. This was a holy temple for the Hindus built at the birth place of Rama whom Hindus regard as reincarnation of God Vishnu and Hindus have fought for its reclamation ever since it was demolished on the orders of Babar in c.1526. When the world media talks of the demolition of the mosques by the Hindus in 1992, they completely neglect to mention the Hindu sentiments and the demolition of tens of thousands of Hindu temples. They forget to mention the background of this struggle and how Hindus have fought for this temple and what significance it holds for them. It is like someone demolishing the Vatican and the Catholics trying to reclaim it or like someone demolishing the Kaaba and the Muslims trying to reclaim it. Now tell me is it an intellectually honest exercise?

From the history written by contemporary Muslim historians, the conservative estimate is that no less than eighty thousand Hindu temples were demolished by the Muslims in India. The massacre of the Hindus runs into millions.

This is the past. Let us now jump to the twentieth century. Two men who deserve much credit for the creation of Pakistan are Muhammad Ali Jinnah – the political Father of Pakistan – and Muhammad Iqbal – the spiritual Father of Pakistan. Their career is very interesting. Both started as liberal Muslims who firmly believed in Hindu – Muslim unity and brotherhood. Jinnah was called the "best hope of Hindu Muslim unity". Iqbal, a poet wrote songs in praise of India saying while the cultures of Misr (Egypt), Rome and Greece have been effaced from the surface of the earth, despite numerous attempts and invasions, the culture of India still survives. His song in praise of India is still sung by all Indians. But as these two grew and learnt more and more about Islam, they both came to the conclusion that any rapport between the Muslims and the Hindus was not possible and worked tirelessly for the creation of an Islamic Pakistan. They took pride in the atrocities of the Muslim invaders on the Hindus. It is ironic that both Jinnah and Iqbal families were recent convert to Islam – only two generations back. It were their families too which had gone through the Islamic atrocities.

The question arises "should the Muslims of today be held responsible for the acts of their ancestors"? The logical response would be: NO. But that response is logical only if the Muslims of today disassociate themselves from those ancestors and more importantly from the ideology that made those ancestors demolish these magnificent – by the Muslims own account – temples and commit all the atrocities on humanity. But unfortunately that is not so. Even today the Muslims are proud of what their ancestors did and still believe in the same ideology that made their ancestors demolish the art and architecture of India.

The Muslims of Pakistan till fifty years ago were part and parcel of India and ninety percent of them are the progeny of forced conversions. Their naming of their missiles as Ghauri and Ghaznavi is a clear proof of what they think of the destroyers of the culture of India. As a matter of fact, the most devastation caused by Ghauri and Ghaznavi was in the part of India that is today Pakistan. That was the part that faced the fury of Islam time and again.

Schell’s assertion that Hindu – Muslim conflict is some recent phenomenon spurred up during the British rule or in this century has no basis, whatsoever. It is rooted not only in the history of India but more so in the basic ideology of Islam. Were it not so, the preaching and practice of religions other than Islam would not be banned and illegal in truly Islamic countries like Saudi Arabia and Iran. These are not renegade Islamic States, these are to the contrary truly Islamic countries. The Talibans are a classical example of the thinking of traditional Islam.

It is not without reason that Ayatollah Khomeini wrote: "Every part of the body of a non-Moslem individual is impure, even the hair on his hand and his body hair, his nails, and all the secretions of his body." (p51, Sayings of Ayatollah Khomeini, published by Bantam Book Inc. USA and Canada)

Whatever one may accuse Khomeini of, lack of knowledge of Islam is not one of them. This is in no way to degenerate Islam but a statement of historical facts.

Gandhi’s dream of Hindu-Muslim unity was good but it was completely irrational and it was doomed to failure from the beginning. The question of Hindu-Muslim unity was put in better perspective by Jinnah in his interview with Beverly Nichols in 1944.

Jinnah said: "It is extremely difficult to appreciate why our Hindu friends fail to understand the real nature of Islam and Hinduism. They are not religions in the strict sense of the word, but are, in fact, different and distinct social orders and it is a dream that that the Hindus and Muslims can ever evolve a common nationality, and the conception of one Indian nation has gone far beyond the limit and is the cause of most of your troubles and will lead India to destruction if we fail to revise our notions in time. The Hindus and the Muslims belong to two different religious philosophies, social customs, literatures. They neither intermarry nor interdine together and, indeed, they belong two different civilizations which are based mainly on conflicting ideas and conceptions. Their aspects on life and of life are different. It is quite clear that the Hindus and Mussalmans (Muslims) derive their inspiration from different sources of history. They have different epics, different heroes, and different episodes. Very often the hero of one is a foe of other and, likewise, their victories and defeats overlap. To yoke together two such nations under a single state, one as a numerical minority and the other as a majority, must lead to growing discontent and final destruction of any fabric that may be so built up for the governance of such a state."

This was the reality which Jinnah was aware of and Gandhi knew it too. Gandhi had not only read history but seen it repeated in his own lifetime. Gandhi had made Hindu-Muslim unity the corner stone of his life’s work, and however unrealistic, he was not willing to give it up. For Gandhi’s obstinacy, India has suffered much.

To talk of Hindu –Muslim unity is, to put in words that a western man can understand, to expect the Jews to live together with the Nazis while the Nazis still believe in the Hitlerian doctrine of complete elimination of the Jews.

3. Gandhi’s non-violence and Orphaned Muslim Children: Schell wrote, "Hindus should bring up orphaned Muslim in their own homes as Muslims".

Gandhi said the above in Calcutta after the Direct Action Day fiasco August 1946. Let us recount the full story and not only part of it. In his demand for a separate country for the Muslims of India and to prove their commitment to it, Jinnah had called a "Direct Action Day" in Calcutta on 16 August 1946. On that day the Muslims of Calcutta under the leadership of Shaheed Suhrawardy, later Prime Minister of Pakistan. Took to streets and massacred 10,000 Hindus in cold blood while the govt. under the Chief ministership of Suhrawardy looked away. It was a shock to every one. Then, a few days later when the Hindus took to the streets to protest against the massacre of the Hindus, Suhrawardy ran to Gandhi to protect the Muslims. A few hundred Muslims were killed by the Hindus in revenge. Then Gandhi, the apostle of peace and non-violence went on his regular hunger strike and asked the Hindus to bring up the orphaned Muslim children as Muslims in their own homes. Many have wondered where was Gandhi and his message of non-violence when Jinnah called for Direct Action day and 10,000 Hindus were massacred in cold blood in one day. The apostle of non-violence did not ask the Muslims to bring up the orphaned Hindu children as Hindus in their own homes.

Gandhi, no doubt is regarded as an apostle of non-violence. But it is sad that his non-violence was always one-sided and always directed towards one group i.e. the Hindus. He even went on to admire the violence of the Muslims.

In 1921 in Malabar, a district on the west coast of India, the Muslims rebelled against the British and went on the rampage against the Hindus, "brutally dishonoring women, flaying people alive, wholesale slaughter of men, women and children, burning alive entire families, forcibly converting people in thousands and slaying those who refused to get converted, throwing half-dead people into wells and leaving the victims to struggle for escape till finally released from their suffering by death. Reports in the newspapers "gave detailed accounts of the most horrible outrages on women which can not be reproduced for the sake of decency" and "cases of men who were skinned alive or made to dig their graves before being slaughtered."

And Gandhi, the apostle of peace and non-violence, committed to Hindu-Muslim unity at any cost, "himself spoke of the ‘brave God-fearing Moplahs’ who were ‘fighting for what they consider as religion, and in a manner which they consider as religious’." "Little wonder that the Khilafat leaders passed resolutions of congratulations to the Moplahs in the brave fight they were conducting for the sake of religion."

Even in 1947, during the partition when almost all the non-Muslims (30%) of what became Pakistan were massacred or made to leave the country where they had lived since times immemorial, Gandhi’s non-violence played no role. But like he had done in Calcutta a year earlier, when the reprisals started in India, he immediately went on his "regular" hunger strike to save the Muslims. Many today realize that Gandhi’s non-violence was not as universal as most of the rest of the world thinks it to be. It is for this reason that when Godse, the man who assassinated Gandhi gave his reasons for Gandhi’s assassination in the court, the presiding Judge observed in his book "The Murder of the Mahatma": "I have no doubt that had the audience of that day been constituted into a jury and entrusted with the task of deciding Godse’s appeal, they would have brought a verdict of ‘not guilty’ by an overwhelming majority."

This is in no way to diminish the greatness of the Mahatma but a little truth does not hurt anyone specially the apostle of truth and non-violence.

Gandhi’s commitment to non-violence would have had more credibility in India had he applied it equally to all situations. He simply exploited the Hindus’ reverence for him and deep-rooted Hindu philosophy of equal respect for all religions. He was a good man no doubt but his non-violence was a bit too far fetched. The entire world is also equally hypocritical when they talk of the greatness of Gandhi and his non-violence in one breath while at the same time they keep on committing violence and multiplying the means of mass destruction of the world.

Gandhi had seen the failure of his non-violence in his own lifetime and he himself, the apostle of non-violence approved the dispatch of Indian army to Kashmir to protect it from Pakistan. I am not saying non-violence is not good. It is the only way to live in this world. But sadly unilateral non-violence has no place in this world. And also as misconceived, the concept of non-violence does not mean that one should not protect one self. Non-violence means that one should not cause violence to others. Non-violence does not mean suicide. Unfortunately that is how the rest of the world wants India to do. They quote Gandhi’s non-violence and expect Hindus not to protect themselves and commit suicide. That is absolutely wrong interpretation of the concept of non-violence and if Gandhi promoted it, he was wrong. Non-violence is about living and about living peacefully with all; not about dying. Non-violence is about not causing injury to others; it is not about not-protecting one’s legitimate human rights. It is not about tolerating injustice. There is no sin greater than suicide.

To summarize this section, the BJP, the ruling party in India fully believes in non-violence. Not only because Gandhi preached it but also because it is deeply rooted in Hindu ethos but, and rightly so, they do not believe that unilateral non-violence does any good. Non-violence can only prosper if every party subscribes to it. They have the highest regards for Gandhi, as a matter of fact they are today then only one who talk about him. And testing the nuclear weapons for self-defense is not violence. Violence would be if India were to go and explode and kill millions without any provocation. As stated earlier self-defense is not violence by any standards. Otherwise there would be no difference between non-violence and suicide.

4. India’s Nuclear Tests:

To criticize India for carrying out nuclear tests is a hypocrisy unparalleled in the history of the world especially by the countries who have not only conducted thousands of tests themselves but also used the destructive power of the atoms, not once but twice. On top of they have the audacity to quote Gandhi.

India has carried out only six tests in a span of fifty-four years (counting from the time US started its first tests) and, that too, all of them under ground. The very fact that India carried out two more tests two days after the first three tests and the visit by the Prime Minister of India within a week to the test side is a clear indication that there was no nuclear fall out. Compare this with over two thousand tests by the custodians of world moral authority and most of which were above ground where they did not flinch from exposing their own people from radiation and infecting the oceans from nuclear fallout.

To criticize India for six tests is the nothing but a clear sign of moral and intellectual hypocrisy and bankruptcy.

If Gandhi’s non-violence is such a great principle why do not those who recommend it to India follow it too. India has not patented it; they would not demand any royalty for its use. Let charity begin at home.

Much has been written on justification and condemnation of India’s nuclear tests, and many in the US including President Carter, Speaker Gingrich, Senator Moynihan have also come around after the initial shock to realize their justification. I leave that subject for the media to discuss. History is still being written about it.

In closing I would say it was shortsighted on the part of American foreign policy makers to make India appear as a villain in its long-term foreign policy equations. The current friendship between the West and the US with China and Pakistan is a marriage of convenience. With China it developed because in the USSR they saw a common enemy and with Pakistan, the US saw an ally on the borders of the USSR and Pakistan saw in the US a strong ally against the nation they were born to hate.

To be good friends, one has to share some common deeply cherished ideology and principles. The basic ideology of freedom of religion, separation of state and religion, freedom of thought and expression, and commitment to democracy which the West and the US symbolize are an anathema to both the Communist China and Islamic Pakistan. These are the very things which these two are against. It is only India with its Hindu philosophy of "Sarva Dharma Sambhava" (all religions are equal) and "Ekam sat vipra bahuda vadanti" (there is One Truth but sages call it by different names) which India has cherished for millennia that can be the true friend and natural ally of the West and the US in their furtherance of their ideology.

I hope wiser counsel shall prevail upon the policy makers in the US and they would realize who their real friends in the long run can be?

Vinod Kumar

@ Copyright

Bibliography

@ Copyright

Home