The genocide beyond the Hindu Kush

The West seems to have suddenly woken up to Muslim fundamentalism in South Asia when the Taleban demolished the Bamiyan statues, in spite of frantic appeals from all over the world. But there is a bit of hypocrisy in the outrage triggered by this destruction.

Firstly, Islam is very clear about statues: didn't Prophet Mohammad break the first stone Gods himself? Thereafter, it became a holy duty for all good Muslims. Firuz Shah Tughlak (1351-1388), who has an avenue named after him in New Delhi, wrote: 'On the day of a Hindu festival, I went there myself, ordered the executions of all the leaders and practitioners of this abomination; I destroyed their idols and temples to build mosques in their places.' As Belgian historian Konraad Elst points out, 'Muslim fanatics are merely faithful executors of Quranic injunctions. It is not the Muslims who are guilty, but Islam.' Thus, the Taleban, who want to restore the early purity of Islam, really thought they were performing a righteous act by destroying the 'heathen' Buddhist statues.

Secondly, does the West ever protest when Hindu temples are destroyed periodically in Bangladesh and Pakistan? The HRCBM, a Santa Clara-based organisation that investigates and exposes human rights violations in Bangladesh, has recorded a few outrages against Hindus in Bangladesh during 2000:

On March 29, 2000, Malarani Roy of Karagola village was abducted by Muslims. She was brutally beaten up and gang-raped. The local police found her, but refused to register a case. On June 26, a group of Muslims directed Smriti Rani Saha of Sirajganj town to migrate to India. When she refused, she was abducted, gang-raped and brutally murdered. On May 28, Debasish Saha of Poradaha was fatally shot by a Muslim gang. On June 4, Mayaram Tripura of Balipara was shot dead by local Muslims. On October 6, 2000, Muslim devotees, after offering namaaz at the Gajipur Jama Masjid, strolled across to the Hindu Kali temple, destroyed the puja pandal, smashed the idols, and looted nearby Hindu-owned shops.

Take a look at the figures of the Hindu population of India's Muslims neighbours: in 1941, in what would become Pakistan, there were approximately 25 per cent Hindus and 30 per cent in what would later become Bangladesh; in 1948, only 17 per cent in Pakistan and 25 per cent in Bangladesh; in 1991, a bare 1.5 per cent remained in Pakistan and less than 10 per cent in Bangladesh.

Thirdly, the West has not yet realised that for the Muslims of South Asia, Hindus are kafirs by excellence: the Buddhists adore only Buddha, the Christians only Jesus, but Hindus worship a million gods and goddesses; and that makes them -- even today -- the number one enemy of Islam. This is why Kashmir is so important: it is not about territory, it is about a holy war against Hindu India that has been going on for 15 centuries and it is only the first step of the encirclement of India by hostile Muslim neighbours: Pakistan, Afghanistan, Bangladesh, with soft nations, like Nepal, often lending them a helping hand.

Nothing symbolises more the absoluteness of Muslim belligerence towards Hindus than the Hindu Kush. Historically, the passes across the Hindu Kush have been of great military significance, providing access to the northern plains of India to foreign invaders, starting from Alexander the Great in 327 BC, to Taimurlane in 1398 AD, and from Mahmud of Ghazni, in 1001 AD, to Nadar Shah in 1739 AD.

As noted by Srinandan Vyas on the Hindu.org web site: 'In Persian, the word "Kush" is derived from the verb Kushtar -- to slaughter or carnage, because all Hindus living there were slaughtered. Encyclopaedia Americana says of Hindu Kush: The name means literally "Kills the Hindu," a reminder of the days when Hindu slaves from Indian subcontinent died in harsh Afghan mountains while being transported to Moslem courts of Central Asia. While Encyclopaedia Britannica mentions that the name Hindu Kush first appears in 1333 AD in the writings of Ibn Battutah, the medieval Berber traveller, who said the name meant "Hindu Killer," a meaning still given by Afghan mountain dwellers who are traditional enemies of Hindus.'

'Unlike the Jewish holocaust,' writes again Vyas, 'the exact toll of the Hindu genocide suggested by the name Hindu Kush is not available. However the number is easily likely to be in millions.' A few known historical figures can be used to justify this estimate. Encyclopaedia Britannica recalls that in December 1398 AD, Taimurlane ordered the execution of at least 50,000 captives before the battle for Delhi; likewise, the number of captives butchered by Taimurlane's army was about 100,000 .

Encyclopaedia Britannica again mentions that Mughal emperor Akbar 'ordered the massacre of about 30,000 captured Rajput Hindus on February 24, 1568 AD, after the battle for Chitod, a number confirmed by Abul Fazl, Akbar's court historian.' Afghan historian Khondamir records that during one of the many repeated invasions on the city of Herat in western Afghanistan, which used to be part of the Hindu Shahiya kingdoms '1,500,000 residents perished.'

Why does not the Government of India tell Indian children about the Hindu Kush genocide? The horrors of the Jewish Holocaust are taught not only at schools in Israel and USA, but also in Germany. Because both Germany and Israel consider the Jewish Holocaust a 'dark chapter' in history. Yet, in 1982, the National Council of Educational Research and Training issued a directive for the rewriting of school texts. Among other things it stipulated that: 'characterisation of the medieval period as a time of conflict between Hindus and Moslems is forbidden.' Thus denial of history, or negationism, has become India's official 'educational' policy.

It is high time that the West realises that India is fighting a lonely battle against Muslim fundamentalism in Asia. The French for one, who have a definite problem with Muslim terrorism, should support India more openly.

Did you forget that little ditty about Christians killing Jews in World War II? Or how about the Turkish Islamics exterminating the Armenians? Maybe you prefer the mass killings perpetrated by Stalin which claimed 1/3 of the people of the Ukraine. Which is more obscene, the mass extermination of an entire race of people with full permission of the government, or a few misguided hooligans assaulting another band of people? Look at the big picture, you moron. The India government, which is a democracy, has never sanctioned violence against anybody based on religion. In fact, it punishes it as soon as it sees it.

Jinnah was a great man and a visionary. He only backed out of the unified Indian National Congress when they refused to compromise on items of civil rights for Muslims. If, as you claim, Jinnah was a lunatic, then certainly it was Gandhi who hypnotized the Hindus.

BTW, you didn't answer my question: how will losing "the beauty of nature, trout fishing, big and small game hunting" destroy India?

Let's put this thing in perspective Campion. The Hindus have never undertaken Jihads. There are Hindu extremists no doubt much of this is a reaction to the centuries of Islamic death and destruction wrought on the Indian sub-continent against the Hindus. Prime Minister Vajpayee has called for religious tolerance and spoken out against the persecution of Christians in India by the extremists. But a Hindu extremist doesn't seek to export his position outside of India and create Jihads globally. Hindu extremists seek for the Hinduization of the Indian State. But just as people will fight for nationalist principles and extremists exist in many contexts so you have these in India. The point of this thread, however, is to understand the global Jihad and how it ravaged India and this entire area. India is a reflection of Islamic methodology.

Jinnah was a megalomaniacal tyrant, and akin to Hitler in his ethnic cleansing of Hindus from Pakistan. The massive ethnic cleansing of 1947 in Jinnah's Pakistan is an example of self-determination of an evil variety. Pakistan lived up to its name by becoming a "cleansed land" within weeks of independence. And now Kashmir is taking a leaf out of Jinnah's book. Self-righteous chanters of "self-determination" with direct Pakistani assistance seem well on their way to stamping out religious diversity from Jammu and Kashmir. Will we never learn the cruel lessons of history? The previous UN Secretary General Boutros-Ghali put it about as bluntly as could be: "If every ethnic, religious or linguistic group claimed statehood, there would be no limit to fragmentation. Peace, security and economic well-being for all would become even more difficult to achieve." Self-determination for a group must never sanctify the violation of human rights of another. Automatic self-determination, for whosoever shouts the loudest, is a sure recipe for tragedies like Kashmir. It is the greatest of evils to allow one person's self-determination to degenerate into his neighbour's extinction. Kashmir desperately calls out for respite from fanatical Pakistani terrorists who have turned the land into a living hell. Abraham Lincoln courageously faced down those that chanted "secession" to perpetuate the evil of slavery. We, too, must confront those that chant "self-determination" in heedless pursuit of Jinnah's evil ideology of religious apartheid.

Unfortunately I think the Muslims got a shot of courage when the Bosnian Muslims undertook their breakaway activities from Yugoslavia. Where Yugoslavia was completely within her rights under international law to put down this "self-determination" (civil war) by force the West particularly saw it as an opportunity to destroy and fragment a sovereign European country which never did anything to hurt the West. I hope India will be left to her own devices in putting down these Islamics in Kashmir. Notice how Bush has backed off saying anything more about Putin's activities in Chechnya in putting down the Jihad there.

In a way, yes. This is because Imperialism/Colonialism is a whore, selling out to the highest bidder. No one commits a "suicide terror act" in the name of Imperialism or Colonialism. But for religion, many hundreds of people have done so, in recent history. That is the danger of Islam.

Musharraf IS terrorism. I do not understand U.S. policy regarding these Muslims fanatics. We should have killed Saddam Hussein back in the Gulf War. We should have killed Osama bin Ladin years ago, after all of the incidents of global terrorism. And we should now, bomb the living shit out of Pakistan and kill Musharraf, because I promise you, if we strengthen him and trust him, he will rear his ugly head again. Islam has a pattern. It's pretty obvious that these guys, even when allowed to leave with their lives, always come back stronger, better armed, more sneaky, and much more insidious.

Which is exactly my point. The stakes have now gone up, and nuclear technology is part of your much coveted and so-called "policy." You are downplaying the fact that Pakistan has nukes. We left Saddam alive, and he sent us anthrax and financed global terrorism. We left bin Ladin alive, and we got 6,000 dead at the World Trade Center, and the horrific bombings in Sudan and the U.S.S. Cole. If this policy keeps up, and we give Mussharaf his 28 F-16 fighters (this is actually being debated in Congress), in addition to his healthy little "reward" of over 1.5 billion dollars, the next time it won't be 6,000 people dying on American soil, it may very well be billions of innocent people.

Re: #48. The reason Saddam survived the gulf war was that the U.S. made a deal with several arab states to allow U.N./U.S. forces to use their lands and bases to prosecute Desert Storm. The U.S. part of the agreement was that the U.N. would not kill Saddam or change the government of Iraq. The U.S. honored their agreement, that is why there was no U.S. support of the Kurds in the north or the Sheites in the south when they tried to rebel and overthrow Saddam. Me, I would have made an "error" in bombing and oops he's dead.

Thanks to you and Lent for all the interesting info about India.

They were Norman, more French that English,

In actual fact they were originally from Denmark. They were "vikings." They conquered northern France, started speaking French, then conquered England. No doubt along the way they intermarried with French and English.

By the time of William the Conquerer, the conquered English were, racially--Anglo-Saxon-Jute-Frisien, Nordic, Celtic. The conquered French were Germanic (Franks were a German tribe), Celtic. For what this is all worth.

You really have to learn all about "subjunctive mood" and secondary reference.

I didn't say Hindus worship rats. I said that's a favorite propaganda ploy of a certain type of Indian or Pakistani Moslem. I deal with it the same way I deal with Indian propaganda ploys regarding Moslems.

First time I've ever seen anybody claim the caste system is non-existent - just a fraud perpetrated by the Ukian people.

My first discovery of the caste system was in the pages of the Bhagavad Gita. I have also read the Upanishads and a number of other ancient Indian cultural documents. (BTW, "Arabian Nights" also qualifies as such and I have read that.).

All of these Indian sources agree that there was a caste system and it has truly ancient roots. It continues into modern times. One of the ways out of the caste system is to become a Moslem. Another is to become a Sikh. Yet another is to become a Christian. It is a violation of Indian law to suggest to a Hindu of whatever caste that he become a Moslem, Sikh or Christian.

In India Protestant Christian missionaries have been murdered by being burned alive with burning motor vehicle tires within recent memory. They were murdered by Hindus.

I have several posts there going back and forth with you.

Now, tell me seriously, are you mentally ill or just senile?

Your language is a violation of policies here at FR. Besides that I am neither evil, ignorant nor a son of a bitch.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.