ईश्वर के नाम पर

good story

yah hinduon ke liye garv ki bat hai

stop spreading christanity in india.hindu never captured land of any one beyond their country boundry.It is these christans & Muslims who ruled over us for more than a thousand years acrossing their boundry and making hindu population in chri..,muslims,with the help of funds from vatican and arab world. you are purely a fool who don't think of his community .remember i am not a member of BJP or rss, it is the feeling of a middle class hindu who has gone all his teachings in CBSE board.

oh ... hindus only killed other religions is it? atleast that is what they seem to be doing now ...

www.hindujagruti.org/eng/...ws&id=1311
The non-violent destruction of Akhand Bharat!
By Aditi Sharma - 18 December, 2006

"If you come, with you, if you don't, without you;
and if you oppose, in spite of youthe Hindus will
continue to fight for their national freedom as best
as they can." - Vinayak Damodar Savarkar

"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." -
Maulana Mohammed Ali

"I do regard Islam to be a religion of peace in the
same sense as Christianity, Buddhism and Hinduism
are." - Mohandas Karamkhand Gandhi

"We have heard Muslim leaders declare that if the
Afghans invaded India, they would join their
fellow-believers, and would slay the Hindus who
defended their motherland against the foe; we have
been forced to see that the primary allegiance of
Mussalmans is to Islamic countries, not to our
motherland." - Annie Besant

Delving in to the pages of primeval history, we
observe that it is replete with the theory of
primordialism, which postulates that people will
invariably remain the way they are due to the repeated
actions of their past. Their attitudes towards each
other are influenced by a prescribed and rigidly
controlled edict that has given its followers a sense
of identity, and an unchanging worldview. When
expounding on religion and aspirations of a group of
people, this theory gives way to constructivism, which
claims that there is a definite hand of humans in
ensuring actions of other humans. After all,
monotheistic cults have been created by psychopathic
individuals with an over inflated ego, and not because
these individuals received any kind of divine message
for the betterment of the world. Therefore, one is
compelled to conclude that monotheistic faiths, that
have been constructed and fueled by self-seeking
humans, are responsible for much of the gory actions
of the past rather than the innate nature of mankind.
For instance: the Romans, due to the instigations by
the emperors, did not stop quarreling among themselves
to prevent the formation and solidification of a
Christian empire, the Spaniards did not abandon their
inhumane ways to live amicably with the native
American population in the hope of discovering new
lands, and the Muslims did not miss out on a chance to
extirpate Hindu property and to maraud innocent
people, just because Bharit aspired to becoming an
independent nation.

Background Analysis

On August 15th, 1947, Bharat gained independence from
the British. This propitious day is celebrated with
much fanfare. But there is another less celebratory
fact and that is Bharat was vivisected forcefully by
the silent consent of people who put themselves in
positions of protecting the Hindu homeland, but who in
the end cowardly surrendered one-third of the
territory to Islam. Something went terribly wrong
somewhere, and with the right kind of maneuvering and
the right amount of concessions, the Congress came in
to power to reek havoc on the Indian polity with its
brand of secularism which is In full force even today.

A strategy based on self-deception, stands defeated
from the very start. It is interesting when the
secular polymaths professing to know all the answers
to the historical communal problems that lead to
partition, quickly point the finger of blame to
British ploys and later to Hindu communalism of the
Hindu Mahasabha. But they will never part with the
notion they so dearly cherish,, i.e. the British
created the rift between Hindus and Muslims. The
message we get from this specious reasoning is that,
Hindus and Muslims were the best of neighbors before
the wily British came around. This is false and
misleading; the uncouth invaders who were
unquestionably pious Muslims had never made it a
priority to befriend the Kafirs of Bharat, instead
they had expressly come to efface paganism altogether.
The fact is that separatism is as intrinsic and
fundamental to Islam, as an adhyatmik quest for
eternal Satya is to Sanatan Dharm. Of course, like
smart opportunists, the British did their part by
exacerbating the already existing grave ideological
disparities between Hindus and Muslims by offering
Muslims favors to keep them aloof from the freedom
struggle. This entailed offering well-placed jobs,
favoring Urdu over Hindi, ignoring the Hindus demand
for a ban on cow slaughter, granting special rights
under the pretext of minority protection, and
encouraging the already inherent separatist
proclivities with the prospect of a separate Muslim
state. We can sum up British attitude as: (divide and
rule). As far as Hindu communalism being the culprit
is concerned, there was no movement to divide Bharat,
no question of surrendering territory to Islam, and
there was certainly no concerted effort to appease one
community at the expense of another.

The Muslim League also played its part by fomenting
hatred and violence and overtly indulged in direct
action also known as the Great Calcutta Killings which
left thousands of Hindus dead or homeless. The Muslim
League never truly supported the freedom struggle; the
Hindus were its main enemies, not the British. The
riots that took place in late 1946 and early 1947
could have been avoided. And, of course, before this
tragedy, the Muslim League had been making absurd
demands.

So, is there another more subtle but equally important
factor that tipped the scales towards an ineluctable
vivisection of the Hindu homeland? Yes. That factor is
Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi and the Indian National
Congress. Now, it would be completely unfair and an
insult to the memory of Gandhiji to say that his
contributions were negligible. He had extraordinary
appeal to the hoi-polloi, he transmuted the
freedom-movement in to a mass-movement, and the idea
of Swadeshi revolutionized the way the Bharatiya
people viewed the British Empire from an economic
perspective. In order to defeat Britain, Bharat would
have to establish economic self-reliance, and Gandhi
understood that very well. Gandhis principle of
non-violence has influenced many personalities such as
Martin Luther King Jr. in the fight for civil
liberties for the Black community, and Nelson
Mandelas struggle to rid South Africa of apartheid.

It would also be pure exaggeration to claim that
Gandhi and the Congress were not honestly for a united
Bharat. But the truth is, the national leadership
simply could not expect a community whose essential
belief is to eliminate Dar-ul-harb land of (infidels),
and to establish Dar-ul-Islam to constructively
participate in an essentially pagan nations
aspiration for freedom. Gandhis distorted knowledge
of the Quran and its anti-humanity message was a major
factor that determined Bharats blood-soaked fate. In
two parts, this essay attempts to explain a series of
avoidable blunders made in the hope of achieving unity
with the Muslims which left Bharat bleeding, its Hindu
population fleeing from death and destruction, and the
leaders silently and heartlessly watching their
mistakes burgeon but too proud to admit that they
indeed were wrong for entertaining even the slightest
possibility that Muslims would abandon their slake for
Hindu blood.

After the first war of independence of 1857, the
British realized that they would have to grant India a
level of limited autonomy. So, in 1885, the Indian
National Congress was formed by a British civil
servant with the objective of granting Indians some
rights at the local and even state level, but to have
central British rule continued unhindered. The
Congress eventually split in to distinct ideological
camps. The moderates: were the ones who believed that
if they complied with the British authorities and
worked on expanding the meager reforms offered, it
would sooner or later lead to freedom. The extremists
believed in a less forbearing method; they asserted
that freedom could only be achieved through
conventional violence. Patriots such as: Bipin Chandra
Pal, Gopal Krishna Gokhale, Orobindo Ghose, Vinayak
Damodar Savarkar, the Chafekar brothers, Kudiram Bose,
Madanlal Dhingra, Dadabhai Naoroji, Lala Hardayal,
Rash Behari Bose, Udham Singh, Shiam Krishna Verma,
Sarat Chandra Chatargee, Virendranath Chatopadhyaya,
Ulhaskar Datta, Bhagat Singh, Bal Gangadhar Tilak,
Lala Lajpat rai and later Subhash Chandra Bose who
took an invigorating initiative by infusing national
pride in the populous and created an exhilarating
ambience of infectious aspiration for complete
Svarajya.

It wasnt until 1914 when Gandhi was excommunicated
from South-Africa. Upon reaching Bharat, he
immediately plunged in to political life. The struggle
for freedom however, was begun much earlier by more
assertive and discerning revolutionaries. It was only
during Gandhis reign that the concept of Satyagraha
(civil disobedience) was formulated and put in to
practice, and that is when the placation method
commenced culminating in an event drenched in so much
blood that it can only be likened to the Holocaust.

Separate Electorates: a Solution?

Although Lord Dufferon the Viceroy of India in 1888
was the first to spur Muslim separatism by suggesting
separate electorates and communal representation,
which became an unfortunate reality with the
introduction of the Moorley-Minto reforms, the
Congress too, quietly accepted the terms of the
Lucknow Pact conceived at its 31st session on December
29th 1916, and later agreed upon by the All India
Muslim League on the 31st. After the unsuccessful
partition of Bengal in 1905, a tactic initiated by the
governor General Lord Curzon, and its annulment in
1911, the Muslims wanted some kind of special
pirquisites because of their supposed delicate
position in the Indian polity. Muhammad Ali Jinnah
although still belonging to the Congress, was the
chief architect for cementing one outrageous and
destructive demand after another eventually
precipitating to the partition. The pacts main
clauses were increased self-government for Indians at
the provincial and central level, and more sinisterly
the granting of separate electorates and communal
representation to the Muslims. One of the first seeds
of certainty that Akhand Bharat would no longer exist
as concrete reality had been sowed. Muslims did not
have to fear the Hindus at all, because the provinces
in which the Muslims were a minority, weightages were
granted to them. This was a gargantuan mistake fore a
united nation having separate electorates for each
community is unheard of and usually spells doom as far
as harmony between different religious groups is
concerned. How can a section of the population that is
allowed special treatment in such a blatant and
partisan way be loyal to a state whose very political
mechanism it is being divided against? The Lucknow
pact not only sanctioned the intrinsic separatism of
Islam, but it also let loose a juggernaut of
increasingly irrational Muslim demands, that made it
impossible for Gandhi and the Indian National Congress
to refuse.

In Punjab Muslims were to represent as much as
One-half of the electorate! In Bombay One-third, in
Madras 15 percent, in the central provinces 15
percent, in bihar 25 percent, and in Bengal 40
percent. In 1918, placating the implacable went
further, the communal representation was expanded to
include Muslims not just in the legislative and local
bodies but also spread to the cabinet. The Montague
Chelmsford reforms which were devised by Mr. Edwin
Montague the secretary of state for India and the
Viceroy Lord Chelmsford, lead to the Government of
India act in 1919. Here, communal representation was
increased, especially in Bengal where Muslims got more
than what had been surrendered by the Lucknow Pact.
The craven attitude of kowtowing to Muslims by
surrendering vital issues that the Congress adopted
did not help Bharat to move towards a self-governing
eventuality; rather it emboldened certain minorities
to look out for their self-serving and partisan
interests instead of being collective citizens. There
was more to come.

Khilafat Agitation = Mopla Rebellion

Turkey was expeditiously becoming a secular state, and
the Sultan of Turkey or the Khillifa was losing power.
The Khilafat was an extra-territorial pan-Islamic
movement that sought to align Muslims with Turkey.
This movement had nothing to do with Svarajya, but it
was a detriment to Bharat; the Hindus would not gain
anything at all by assisting the Muslims. In a last
bid to preserve Muslim domination, the Muslim League
invited the Congress to join in the Khilafat agitation
in its meet in December 1919. Gandhi was positively
elated at the prospect of Hindu and Muslims
amalgamating to achieve the primary goal, Svarajya.
He was deluded however. The Congress also lent its
support to the Khilafat movement and from 1919 to
1921, precious time was squandered to expedite an
impracticable and anti-national cause. Arvind
Lavakare, a Rediff columnist, in an article titled Of
Sabarmati secularism & non-violence, quotes Gandhi
from VB Kolcarnis book India and Pakistan, as
saying: "If the Hindus wish to cultivate eternal
friendship with Mussalmans, they must perish with them
in the attempt to vindicate the honor of Islam." It is
worth asseverating that when the secularists hurl
vituperations at the Hindutva parties for mixing
religion with politics, they would do well to remember
that it was the Father of the Nation who began the
deleterious practice.

The leaders of the Khilafat agitation in India were
Maulana Mohammed Ali and Maulana Shaukat Ali also
known as the Ali brothers. Gandhiji of course,
showered encomiums upon the Ali brothers, forgetting
that not only was Khilafat Andolan far removed from
the goals of independence, butt was also a violent
movement that sought to bring the entire world under
the aegis of Islam. Gandhi thought that he could
intricately intertwine the non-cooperation movement,
which he started in support of the Khilafat, with
Islams desire to rule Bharat once again. The two
movements were diametrically opposed to each other.

It is indubitable that Gandhi did not fully understand
the implications or repercussions of what he was
doing, or that what he was trying to accomplish, i.e.
(Hindu-Muslim unity), could not be achieved as long as
Islam retained its fundamentals of inequity between
the believer and the unbeliever. In a book titled:
Pakistan, or, the Partition of India, Dr. B.R.
Ambedkar perspicuously illucidates the irrational
positions that the Congress and Gandhiji adopted in
order to defend their formula of Hindu-Muslim unity.
For instance: they had no qualms about defending a
violent movement that without any doubt was against
Ahimsa. The author states, that when the Hindus
expressed their doubts about supporting the Khilafat
on the grounds that:



The Muslims would never support a ban on cow
slaughter.

There was a good possibility that the Amir of
Afghanistan might invade Bharat.

Finally, the main concern was Muslims might gain
political dominance over the Hindus.

But Gandhiji had explanations for all these valid
concerns. For the issue of cow slaughter, he advised
the Hindus to assist the Muslims without placing any
conditions in supporting the Khilafat (Ambedkar 109).
Regarding concerns over the Amirs invasion of Bharat,
Gandhi informed his faithful followers that he would
certainly assist the Amir of Afghanistan if he were to
wage war against the British (109). In short, this
statement was a clear endorsement of the invasion of
Bharat. Finally, regarding the possibility of the
potential for political dominance of the Muslims, he
simply said that the Hindus were right to raise these
concerns, but the Muslim position was irresistible. He
suavely asserted: If I deem the Mahomedan to be my
brother, it is my duty to help him in his hour of
peril to the best of my ability, if his cause commends
itself to me as just (110). So, supporting Khillifat
movement was just? But was it not the complete
antithesis of what Gandhis non-violence was all
about? Ambedkar further evinces how Gandhi not only
lent his support to the Khilafatists but was also
their one and only enthusiastic Hindu guide. In a
fruitless attempt to win eternal friendship with the
Muslims, Gandhi forgot the real goal of the Bharatiya
people which was to win freedom.

Another blunder that Gandhi made was like all things,
he over-emphasized Ahimsa, and the Chauri Chaura
incident was no exception. When the enraged mob burned
down the police station after being provoked by
passing constables, Gandhi hurriedly withdrew the
non-cooperation movement. This incident was relatively
minor compared to some of the sanguinary history and
more grim incidents that would occur in the near
future. In short, Chauri Chaura did not merit a
cancellation of a movement whose aim was freedom, and
not allegiance to a gross misinterpretation of Ahimsa.

The Khilafat agitation failed and the Khilifa in far
off Turkey was defeated. Furious at being thwarted by
the British regime in the attempt to reestablish the
Khilafat, the Muslims vented their anger on the Hindus
of Malabar. Thousands of Hindus were killed, their
property looted,women raped, and many more were
forcibly converted to Islam. British troops were
called to quell the unprecedented bloodshed. Gandhi
also called an immediate halt of hostilities, against
the Hindus? No. Gandhi wanted the British troops to
suspend hostilities against the Moplas! As proof of
Gandhis and Congresss soft-corner for Muslim
intransigence and barbarism, Dr. Ambedkar presents the
resolution passed by the Congress Working Committee
(CWC), which claimed that, the reports published on
behalf of the government were very one-sided and
exaggerated accounts of Mopla enormities against the
Hindus. The resolution was very carefully worded, so
as not to hurt Muslim sentiments. The CWC still urged
the Khilafatists to adopt the message of non-violence;
if the CWC and other national leaders had bothered to
study Islamic theology, they would have known that
non-violence against the infidels did not figure in
the Quranic vocabulary. The CWC was blissfully
incognizant of the seriousness of the attacks on
Hindus, or, perhaps, if such enormities were
acknowledged, then that would patently suggest that
the Muslims were at fault. For the sake of
Hindu-Muslim unity, no atrocity against Hindus could
even be alluded to, let alone acknowledged. Another
interesting instance cited by Dr. Ambedkar is the
CWCs reaction to the massive bloodshed. While mildly
condemning the pernicious actions of moplas, the
congress asserted that the blood of the Hindus had
been spilled due to provocation. This was pure and
unadulterated casuistry, because there was no
provocation by the British government or the Hindus.
Today, going by the logic that the Congress employed
during the Mopla massacres, we can safely conclude
that the post-Godhra incident is also pure
exaggeration, just as the enormities committed by the
Moplas were one-sided and exaggerated. The Muslims and
their Mullahs and Maulvis think of it as a divine
right to slaughter the Kafirs (unbelievers). It is not
difficult at all to locate the Quranic Ayats from
which this divine inspiration to eliminate Kafirs came
from. But Gandhiji did not like to face reality,
instead he clinched the matter by saying, "They are
brave and god-fearing people who were fighting for
what they consider as religion, and in a manner which
they consider as religious.

Although the forcible conversions and assaults on
Hindus of Malabar were widespread, Gandhi and the
Congress were mum on the matter. It is time to
question the whole idea of Gandhis version of Ahimsa,
which becomes glaringly patent even in an early stage
of this essay that it was applied selectively, and was
reserved exclusively for the Hindus. Gandhi was no
specialist in Islamic theology, and therefore did not
realize that the sudden interest in defeating the
British patrons was simply fugacious, and had ulterior
pan-Islamic motives.

However, not everyone had fallen victim to Gandhijis
sophistic logic, and Dr. Annie Beasant was certainly
not impressed by the slogan of "Ishwar Allah Tere
Naam". In a report titled: Malabars Agony that
appeared in New India on November 29, 1921, she
criticized the stance of Gandhi on the plight of the
Hindus of Malabar. She rightfully claimed that the
predictable outcome was due to Gandhis impolitic idea
of supporting the Khilafat movement, and mixing it up
with non-cooperation. Dr. Beasant described the
sufferings of the Malabar men, women, and children At
the hands of the God fearing Moplas. For instance:
the report sites an instance where a Muslim asked the
Doctor if he would live, when the answer was in the
negative, the Moplas reply was: "Well, I'm glad that
I killed fourteen infidels", but of course this was
the true and righteous Mopla spirit and religion
according to Gandhi.

Despite these sharp observations recorded by Dr.
Beasant, and the report by the British government, the
CWC put the number of forcible conversions at only
three. The Moplas did not hesitate even a second to
slay innocent Hindus, and Gandhis attitude vis--vis
the Moplas reflected anything but condemnation for the
savage acts sanctioned by Islam.

More Fruits of Hindu-Muslim Unity

In spite of Gandhis tireless efforts to encourage the
so-called nationalist Muslims to participate
constructively in the national struggle, nothing was
achieved as far as Hindu interests were concerned.
Throughout the 1920s and 1930s, there were ferocious
riots that claimed a high loss of life. These riots
were usually started under pretexts such as: a Muslim
holiday, around a mosque, or over Hindu religious
processions passing through Muslim dominated
neighborhoods. The book Pakistan, or the Partition of
India further clarifies Gandhis hazardous obsession
with Hindu-Muslim unity. In 1924, Gandhi fasted for 21
days to bring about unity among Hindus and Muslims;
this fast was taken under the roof of a Muslim house
(233). The fast produced unity conferences, which,
were superficial and ephemeral to say the least. There
was heavy rioting from 1924 to 1926. As Bharats
struggle for achieving freedom unfolded, so did the
results of Gandhis misguided and stubborn policies.

The Arya Samaj founded by Swami Dayananda Saraswati,
was proactive in removing untouchability, promoting
widow remarriage, denouncing animal sacrifice,
discouraging Sati (widow immolation), and most
crucially, the founder of this pioneering reformist
organization actually bothered to examine Islamic
dogma and was one of the few Hindu revivalists to
recognize the cult for what it really is. But of
course, this novel and liberating approach did not
stand a chance, when Gandhiji and the Congress were so
busy overdosing the Hindu Samaj with otiose all
religions are equally trueslogans.

The Arya Samaj was also active in the Shuddhi program
started by Swami Shraddhananda that sought to bring
the alienated Muslims and Christians back to the Hindu
fold. This movement gained tremendous popularity in
the early 1900s, and at the same time Mullahs began to
denounce this movement and openly called for the
elimination of Swami Shraddhananda. The call was taken
up by one Abdul Rashid, a Muslim youth who
assassinated the Swami in his sick bed. Rashid was
hanged for his untenable crime, but the Muslim
community treated him as a martyr. Gandhi as usual
went a step further, and pronounced that he considered
Abdul Rashid to be a brother.

From 1926-1930, several prominent Hindu leaders were
killed or severely injured, and the death toll from
rioting also rose exponentially. The Muslim community
defended these acts by simply asserting that the
Quranic law sanctioned the killings of Kafirs. The
Congress under the leadership of Gandhi, did not
condemn Muslim aggression; no protestation at all was
expected from the Muslim leaders.

In 1927, the Simon Commission was set up to monitor
and proffer suggestions regarding the constitution,
the Muslims quickly rushed forth with yet another set
of intemperate demands, which entailed: autonomy for
all provinces, central legislature to constitute
one-third Muslim representation, more safeguards for
Islamic personal law, culture, and religion, raising
the North-West Frontier Provinces and Baluchistan to
the status of self-governing provinces, weakened
authority of the central government, and the
separation of Sind from the Bombay presidency.
Ironically, along with the Hindus, the Simon
Commission also opposed the importunities, but when
push came to shove, the British gave in and each of
the desires was fulfilled.

Thus far we have observed an abysmal pattern of: the
Muslims make a demand, the Congress and Gandhi rise
magnificently to meet that demand, which is then
ensued by sanguinary acts by the Muslims. Was this
constant surrender necessary, was it called for?
Gandhi frequently invoked the Bhagavad-Gita as his
divine inspiration. Although the Bhagavad-Gita does
focus on Ahimsa as a virtue to be emulated, however it
does not put a premium on the aggressors excesses
regarding morality. Srikrushna urges Arjun to fight;
he does not advise the Pandavs to lay down their arms
and lead a protest against the outrages of the
Kauravs.

In the English translation of the Bhagavad-Gita by
A.C.Bhaktivedanta Swami, Shri-Krishn asserted that
Arjun should perform his duty as a Kshatriya, and
advises Arjun not to hesitate in defending Dharm
against Adharm. ShriKrishn further affirms: Do thou
fight for the sake of fighting, without considering
happiness or distress, loss or gain, victory or defeat
and by so doing you shall never incur Sin. Simply
from a few verses of the Gita, we can patently observe
that its essential meaning is not full surrender to
the forces of evil, but rather it is a call to defeat
this evil, first by dialogue, than if necessary by
force.. Ahimsa does play a prominent role in
dissuading the enemy from their unjust deeds, but the
Gita does not rule out all other alternatives. If
Gandhi had really comprehended the clarion message,
than he would not have spent all his time trying to
enlist Adharmic forces in support of Bharats
independence, and that Adharmic force is Islam.

With separate elections firmly established, the Mopla
uprising being a success in once again terrorizing the
Islam incognizant Hindu samaj in to making more
concessions, and the subsequent street riots playing
an efficacious role, the Muslim League with each
successive election became increasingly powerful. One
sagacious step that Gandhi and the Congress could have
taken, was to join the Hindu Mahasabha to check the
alarming growth of the Muslim League and its
irrational demands. However, as we have observed and
will continue to observe, Gandhi had very little time
or patience with anyone opposed to his scheme of
Hindu-Muslim unity and his distorted version of
Ahimsa. Finally, we are left with the rhetorical
question: if valorous Hindus like the Marathas, the
Rajputs, the Sikhs, and the Jats had followed Gandhis
interpretation of the Bhagavad-Gita in dealing with
Islamic invaders, would Bharat still be predominantly
Hindu at present?

कंधमाल में जो कुछ भी हो रहा वह सोचनीय है | इस पूरी कहानी को पढने के बाद ये तो पुरे स्पस्ट तरी से पता चलता है की कंधमाल में कुछ भी ठीक नहीं हो रहा है ... ओडिशा सरकार भी उदासीन बनी हुई है ...

hame samaj ko jati aur dharm ki nazar se nahi balki manav ko sirf manav ki nazar se dekhna chahiye.

महोदय,
आपने लेख में जिन तथ्यों को उजाकर किया है वे निसंदेह विचारनीय हैं. मैं एक हिंदू हूँ किंतु मेरी जीतनी श्रद्धा प्रभु श्रीराम में है उतनी ही जीसस में......क्योंकि ईश्वर एक है.......
भारतीय संस्कृति (हिंदू संस्कृति) विश्व कि सबसे पुरानी संस्कृति है. इस संस्कृति के उदय होने के कितनी ही शताब्दियों बाद धरती पर ईसाई और मुस्लिम धर्म कि स्थापना हुई.....याने एक समय था जब इस धरती पर सबसे ज्यादा हिंदू थे और आज क्या है !!!!!! आज हिन्दुओं कि संख्या ईसाई और मुस्लिम धर्मों के कहीं पीछे है. अब ये बताईये कि ये कैसे ही गया.......? इतिहास गवाह है ईसाई और मुस्लिम धर्मों नें अपनी संख्या हिन्दुओं को परिवर्तीत कर के बनाई है. मुस्लिम समुदाय ने इसके लिए हिंसा का सहारा लिया और ईसाइयों ने भोले भाले लोगों को गुमराह कर, उन्हें लालच देकर या किसी और तरीके से फुसलाकर उन्हें अपने पाले में लाया.....
इतने पर भी हिंदू ने कभी कोई आपत्ति नही जतायी.....दुःख इस बात से नही होता कि इन्होने हमेशा हिन्दुओं को ही निशाना बनाया...बल्कि इस बात से होता है कि इतना करने पर भी इनकी आत्मा संतुष्ट नही होती....
हिन्दुओं को आजकल अल्पसंखोंको प्रताडित करने का दोषी माना जाता है.....जो उपरी तरह पर सत्यता का चोला ओढे हुए दीखता अवश्य है.....किंतु जरा गहन विचार करें और कारणों कि जड़ में पहुंचे तो सत्य कुछ और ही होता है....
जरा बताइए......यदि गोधरा नहीं होता तो क्या गुजरात में दंगे होते.........यदि स्वामी लक्ष्मानन्द सरस्वती कि हत्या नही होती तो क्या आज उडीसा में ये आग सुलगती........बात साफ, सीधी, सच्ची और सरल है खुल के हिन्दुओं कि भावनाओं को भड़काओ और जब हिंदू उसकी प्रतिक्रिया करें तो उन्हें बीच कटघरे में खड़ा करदो...

कल ही मैंने एक माओवादी का साक्षत्कार पढ़ा जिसमे उसने स्वीकार किया कि स्वामी लक्ष्मानन्द सरस्वती कि हत्या उसके संगठन ने कि है...जिसमे ईसाई मिशनरी का भी हाथ है.....इतना होने पर भी अब यदि कोई ख़ुद को बे-दाग साबित करने कि कोशिश करे को हम कैसे उसकी बातों पर विश्वाश करें !!!!!!
मुझे जीसस कि महानता को एवं उन्हें ईश्वर रूप में स्वीकार करने में न तो कोई संकोच है और न ही कोई आपत्ति...... कितु जब भोले-भाले लोगों का धर्म परिवर्तन इस तथ्य पर किया जाए कि हिंदू देवी-देवताओं से ज्यादा जीसस शक्ति सम्प्पन हैं....तो इन पढ़े-लिखे ईसाइयों कि ईश्वरीय समझ पर तरस आता है...
मेरा मानना आज जो प्रतिक्रिया हिन्दुओं के तरफ़ से हो रही ही....वह अपने अस्तित्व को बचने के लिए हो रही है न कि ईसाईयों को मारने के लिए. पिछली कुछ शताब्दियों में जो करतूत और वैश्विक अशांति इन दो धर्मो ने फैलाई है.....उसके परिणाम उन्हें भुगतना होगा.....हो सकता ही......कि ये कहर एक छोटे पैमाने पर मानव हिंसा के रूप में आया है किंतु अभी महाप्रलय आना बाकि है.......जिसका निर्धारण प्रकृति करेगी.........
अंत में ईश्वर से, जीसस से एवं अल्लाह से यही कामना है कि वो हमसब को ऐसी सद्बुद्धि दे जीससे हम उसके मूल तत्व को समझे और इस धरा पर प्रेम और शान्ति का स्वर्ग तुल्य लोक का निर्माण करें.......

जय हिंद..............................

shame shame yah hinduon ke liye garv ki bat hai ye sab ke liye bade sharm ki baat hai...

vkfnoklh bykdksa ls lyhc m[kkM+us dh izfdz;k esa Hkxokdj.k dk tks nkSj py jgk gS og fuf”pr rkSj ls vkxkeh yksdlHkk pqukoksa ds fy, ekgkSy dks xekZxje djus dk iz;kl gSA D;ksafd Hkktik mM+hlk] e/;izns”k] NÙkhlx<+ vkSj >kj[ka Mesa /kekZUrj.k dks vkxkeh pqukoh eqn~nk cuk;sxhA ;g rks Hkfo’; dh jktuhfrd j.kuhfr gS] ysfdu orZeku ds gkykr fdrus gkSyukd gksxsa ;g tkuuk t:jh blfy, gS D;ksafd xzkge LVhoVZ vkSj Lokeh y{e.kkuan ljLorh dh gR;kvksa us iwjs fo”o dk /;ku mM+hlk dh vksj vkd`’V fd;k gS tgk¡ m)r jk’Vªokn vkSj lkEiznkf;drk dk f?kukSuk [ksy [ksyk tk jgk gSA D;ksafd xzkge LVhoVZ dh gR;k mruh gh t?kU; Fkh ftruh Lokeh y{e.kkuan ljLorh dh gR;kA D;ksafd t?kU;rk dh dksbZ tkfr ugha gksrh] dksbZ etgc ugha gksrkA ;g ckr nwljh gS fd xzkge dh gR;k dh izfrfdz;k esa blkbZ fgalkrqj ugha gq, tcfd Lokeh th dh gR;k ds ckn mM+hlk ds taxyh bykdsa ty jgsa gSaA ;g fgUnwoknh ekufldrk dk ,d detksj i{k gSA D;ksafd blkbZ Hkys gh lsok ds uke ij lkSnk dj jgsa gSa ;k f”k{kk ds uke ij lkft”k jp jgsa gks exj ctjax ny ;k fo”o fgUnw ifj’kn ds yksx ftl rjhds ls vkfnokfl;ksa dks mUekfnr dj jgsa gSa mlds nwjxkeh ifj.kke ?kkrd gksuk fuf”pr gSA /keZ ns”k ds fy, [krjk ugha gksrk] [krjk rks lkEiznkf;drk ls gSA ctjax ny vkSj fo”o fgUnw ifj’kn~ ds yksx “kk;n ;g Hkwy jgsa gSa fd ftu vkfnokfl;ksa ds cqrs os fgUnwRo dk ijpe ygjkuk pkgrs gSa os vkfnoklh fgUnw gS gh ughaA mudk /keZ fgUnw ugha gSA

Lokeh y{e.kkuan ljLorh dh gR;k ds ckn vHkh jkT; esa fdrus da/keky tysaxs] Hkfo’; dk ;g [kkSQukd loky bl “krkCnh dk ftruk Toyar loky gS] mruk gh ge lH; lekt ds fy, “keZukd HkhA

.........हो सकता है कि उस दौर में मलेरिया से पीड़ित कुछ लोग जब ठीक हो गए हों तो इसे चमत्कार के रूप में प्रचारित किया गया हो. आज भी कंधमाल में हिंदू से ईसाई धर्म अपनाने वाले ज्यादातर लोग कहते हैं कि उन्होंने ऐसा इसलिए किया क्योंकि जब उन्होंने जीसस से प्रार्थना की तो उनके परिवार का कोई सदस्य चंगा हो गया..........क्या ये भोले भाले आदिवासियों को बरगलाने को साबित नहीं करता है

Dear Vivek Bais Bhai koi Bhi bat ho Usme le de ke muslims ko puri dunya Hinsak Batane par Tuli Hui Hai aaur ap bhi Keh Rahe Hai Hamare Desh Par muslims ki hukumat 1000 saal tak rahi Hai agar Islam Hinsa se Phelta to aaj ap Muslim Hote(ye ek chota sa udaharan Hai ke Islam sabse zyada Hinsa ke Khilaf hai). Islam me hai ke agar Kisi ne kisi begunah ka hkoon kiya to usne sari manawta ka khoon kiya.apne mastak ko angrezon ki phoot dalo raj karo ki palisi se azad karo Musalman isse 1857 me azad ho chuka hai.(western contry to chahti hi aisa hai ke ham log apsi jhagron me uljhe rahe aur age na badhe.

me ye nahi keh raha hun ke isai udisa mai kya kar rahe hain lakin wahan jagre fsad me jo kuch hua wo theek hai,log rai de rahe hai ke isaiyon ne ye kia wo kiya unhone bhole bhale logon ko lalach de kar isai banaya lekin wo bhole log lalach mai kyon aye,aur agar a gaye tounko mar kar unke gharon ko ag laga kar unnhe tabah kar ke bahkawe se bahar nikala jai is tarah to log aur garib honge