Protectionism, Fascism, Nationalism are cousins

It is feared that world economy is moving to protectionism. This is shown by American fiscal stimulus bill provisions for buy American. I would like to equate this to Fascism or Nationalism and also explain why Nationalism will one day lead to regionalism and casteism and all kind of hate between people.

When you protect American interests you are caring people in one region distressing countries which are exporting to America or the country that is showing protectionism. This is very close to Nationalism that is shown for example fascists in India. This nationalist financial protectionsim is closer to the regionalist financial protectionism shown by MNS - regional nationalist Hindu party in Mumbai. (In Mumbai these parties wanted jobs to be reserved for locals)

This nationalism can easily mutate to the regionalism shown by MNS in Mumbai - Attacking Biharis from the poorer parts of India. Soon you will have one region turned against another, one caste turned against another. Once you detonate the nationalist bomb (hate, fear against a community/nationality), you will never have control over it.

People who support and confuse patriotism with Nationalism should realize that Nationalism can easily mutate into other dangerous cousins that will be very difficult to cure. If you see India now you will realize what will happen when you elect a fascist party like BJP to power. (I always avoided naming the party directly, but I think it is time that people talk about it as that party is not just another party)

America should stay away from protectionism, India should stay away from nationalism and regionalism its side effect.

Indian Taliban show their true color - Karnataka CM comment on Pub culture

Now they are playing to their traditional support base, losers and goondas.
This is same stand as they have when people are burnt in India. Their stand is - you should not burn people, but victims should have behaved well. It is same as telling women are raped because they dress provocatively. You are condoning an act when you criticize the real victim.
Now people who commented that Mumbai attack happened because of the genocide/massacre in Gujarat. If you say that in some way you are condoning the terror attacks. When Mumbai attack happened, I chose not to think about reasons. I did not want to hear the reasons - attacking people is wrong - end of argument.
BJP is not a mainstream party or just another party, it is a party with a hidden agenda and it will always remain that. India does not have a good opposition party, BJP is winning seats just because of that.

 

Modifying the poem
"In India, they came first for the untouchables, And I didn't speak up because I wasn’t an untouchable;
And then they came for the Muslims, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn't a Muslim;
And then they came for the Christians, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Christian;
And then they came for the Biharis, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn't a Bihari;
And they came for pub goers, And I didn't speak up because I wasn't a pub goer;
And then they came for ......
And then . . . they came for me . . . And by that time there was no one left to speak up."

Politics of hate and the Indian Nazis

Accidentally read the Organizer editorial on Pashupathinath incident . In one article they managed to incite Hindus by calling them cowards - the way they put it tolerant mean coward - they showed hate towards Muslims -reference to Bamiyan. Finally they managed to blame the Pashupathinath incident on Christians. They cross boundaries of hate, these nazis.
If you are silent today, you will realise that politics of hate will affect you. Some of you might have realized how it feels to be targeted as a community when Bihari migrants in Mumbai were attacked by another hate-party. It is a disease, a cancer -if you do not stop it now, it will spread all over and cut off your body/country part by part.
The poem given below is interesting. Read Nazi history, Nazis come up by inciting people about how they did not get justice and fair share of the world.
"In Germany, they came first for the Communists, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Communist;
And then they came for the trade unionists, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a trade unionist;
And then they came for the Jews, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew;
And then . . . they came for me . . . And by that time there was no one left to speak up."
Translated for India ----
"In India, they came first for the untouchables, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t an untouchable;
And then they came for the Muslims, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn't a Muslim;
And then they came for the Christians, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Christian;
And then they came for the Biharis, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn't a Bihari;
And they came for .................
And then . . . they came for me . . . And by that time there was no one left to speak up."

Hindu Tolerance

I always get to hear about the great Hindu tolerance. I would like to break it up and understand what this is about.

First to get definition clear, who is a Hindu. This term is so unclear that Supreme court of India had to define who is a Hindu. Different Hindu fanatic groups have their their own definition to suit their needs. Indian tribes had their own religion, Dravidians in the south had their own religion. Aryan Vedic religion was conveniently adopted(forced?) by most and it is now evolving as a religion.

If the definition of Hindu is limited to the Brahmins, the upper caste Hindus, they are guilty of designing the worst inhuman racism known called as untouchability to native Indians or non Aryans. They called non Aryans as Asuras (roughly translated as devils) and monkeys. They never let them near them and never let them drink from the same well and atrocities never heard of in any part of the world. Does that sound like tolerance?

Islam came to India through Mughal emperors and rulers. Hinduism never had the opportunity to show tolerance towards them. If there was tolerance, it might have been shown by Muslim rulers. Hindus never got the opportunity to show it during the British rule.

If tolerance is about letting westerners colonialize India, I don't think that is tolerance. It was because the local kings collaborated with westerners for their convenience.

Evidence of Hindu tolerance can be seen in Gujarat massacre where thousands of unarmed human beings were raped and burnt by the 'tolerant community'. Evidence from Orissa where an unarmed, aged foreign missionary and his young sons were burnt to death. Evidence from violence against Christians in orissa and other parts of India.

Now they have the guts to justify the Hindu terrorists saying they were tolerant till now and now they are angry. Let me remind them that they were never tolerant.

Let me also remember the sensible people of India who were tolerant and was modern in outlook and it was all because of how they were brought up and nothing to do with religion.

I do not understand why I need to be tolerated in my own land. The land belongs to me and just because I belong to another religion does not mean that someone has to tolerate me. I am tolerating them in return.

Definition of terrorism

Who do you think is a bigger terrorist, the person who throws a bomb and runs away or get blown up or the cowardly idiot who come with a mob of 100 to rape and burn? Guajarat muslims were terrorised by terrorists who raped and murdered with support from Government and police.

How can you complain of terrorism when you cannot see how terrorised Gujarat Muslims or Orissa Christians were. Sikhs, Jains, Budhists, Scheduled Castes and tribes, it is your turn next.

Who gave shelter to who

There was a 'secular' writer who wrote that Hindus gave shelter to other religions. I do not understand what he meant by shelter. Nobody gave me any shelter. It is my land  and land of my forefather's. I do not need any shelter in my home. Why are people confusing religion with race? If it is my choice to be Christian, who are you to tell otherwise?

Ksheera Saagara Madhanam - Polarizing a nation

There is a clear strategy by the Hindu fanatic to polarize India. They want to divide and rule over India unquestioned.

Strategy is very simple.
1. Attack Christians in small scale
2. Moderate Christians will become polarized and will react to events like an insecure person
3. Now this makes the moderate Hindu polarized when they see the Christian reaction to innocent comments/events.
4. Now this will polarize the Christians more
5. Chain continues and you get a polarized nation.

This is what happened to Muslims and the Hindu fanatic is happy to see the polarization. Now they can use the religious card at their will so that moderate Hindu voters are forced to vote for them. They enlarged the Hindu definition to include Scheduled caste and tribes. Buddhism could not survive the onslaught of Hinduism preached by Hindu missionaries like Adi Shankaracharya and now suddenly Buddhists are Hindus. How can you not see the hypocrisy?