OPINION

Adolf Hitler and Indians

September 14, 2006
Sujai

I am about to make a wild hypothesis here. I believe that of all the countries and cultures in the world, India would be hosting highest number of admirers of Adolf Hitler. I don't have any statistical evidence and I don't have access to an online poll either. Here's what I could find from one survey done few years ago.

An article in the Times of India, Mumbai, December 26, 2002, reported on a poll of students from India's premier academic institutions about the country's political future. Seventeen per cent of the students polled favoured Hitler as the ideal model for the kind of leader India ought to have.

After WWII, the Allied forces spent great efforts to educate most of the warring nations about the evils of Nazism (and other associated radical nationalism and fascism). The countries that lost - Germany, Austria, Japan, etc, - started growing up to new teachings where belligerent notions of fascism and nationalism were shown in negative light. Most of modern Europe condemns everything that Nazism represents (barring some miniscule neo-Nazis scattered here and there). The whole of North America, under the influence of USA and Canada have inculcated in its people a feeling of hatred for Adolf Hitler. Japan, growing up under the influence of US and other allies, has also given up its fascination for its aggressive imperialism. Other regions like Soviet Union, China, South East Asia, East Europe, Western Europe, having suffered the war renounced everything that Nazism represented. Most of these countries hate or dislike Adolf Hitler. There is no reason why anyone in Africa would like him either (he thought they were subhuman).

Of the big geographies and populations, this leaves South America and India. While some of the countries like Brazil and Argentina did give refuge to ex-Nazis to settle down in their countries, they have, in the modern times, renounced that support (coming under pressure from other parts of the world).

This leaves India in a unique position.

India did not face the war directly though many of its soldiers participated in WWII and won great victories in different parts of the world. Not only do we not relate ourselves to this war, we do not even talk about our soldiers' achievements in this war. It is more to do with our nationalistic political agenda that sought to highlight specific Indian contributions while suppressing other achievements. During WWII, our nationalist leaders coming from all ideologies (who were fighting for Independence) were not keen on supporting the British overtly though many Indian soldiers recruited themselves into the war - in fact a whopping 2.5 million of them (the biggest volunteer force) participated in that war.

And now for the interesting part - Japan's biggest army defeat (till then), which actually stopped their war machine on land, was at the hands of the Indian Army (under British). This happened on the Indo-Burmese border in which more than 55,000 soldiers of Japan died in a single battle. After defeating China, the whole of Indo-China, Singapore, Malaysia and Burma, the Japanese war machine looked invincible but was stopped by the Indian Army through a massive defeat! Indian soldiers player a pivotal role in WWII, and we do not even talk about it!

Why do we not glorify this achievement? There are two reasons for this. First, we are caught in a weird dilemma. Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose (who should be pardoned for his naiveté) chose to support this invading Japanese Army, renowned for its war crimes and occupation brutalities (which included rape of Manchuria and Indo-China), while the Indian soldiers were fighting this invading army on the Indian border. His support of Japanese Army puts us in a weird position.

Netaji is the symbol for our aggressive movement for Independence. All those quarters and sections who were disenchanted with non-violence movement (promoted by Mahatma Gandhi) sought refuge in this militant ideology. Netaji is idolized for a strong and aggressive militant posture and most of us in India have grown up revering Netaji. Hence the contradiction - how can we glorify the Indian Army under the British which defeated the Japanese Army supported by Netaji and his INA? Conveniently, we decided to completely ignore our participation, role and involvement in WWII and instead chose to highlight achievements of INA (Indian National Army). Who cares if some hundreds of thousands of nameless Indians died in this war? We wanted our idols (in Netaji and INA) and we got them. As a conscious decision, Indian people and its government chose to highlight the not-so-grand achievements of INA and Subhas Chandra Bose while meticulously ignoring the momentous achievements of Indian soldiers in WWII.

Second, we are fascinated with anyone approving anything Indian. Most Indians look way back into past, almost thousands years back, searching for moments of glory and grandeur, which is starkly missing in the contemporary history. Indians are extremely proud of their ancestry and wallow and bask in the dim warmth the ancient glory provides. The present is far too depressing lacking in any achievements. So, if any foreign country or people or author shows respect for our ancient history and our past contributions, we just love it. We love Germany, not because we are related to them in anyway but because they included us in some weird research of theirs to conclude that Indians are Aryans and Germans are Aryans too. For once, we got a chance to be proud that such 'great culture and country like the Germans' are in fact our brothers. Don't we all know that even the infamous Swastika is borrowed from us?

Lacking in formal exposure and education to events of WWII, many Indians do not know the exact crimes committed by the Nazis, and even if they do, they completely ignore it the way they desensitize themselves to all the miseries of India - roadside begging kids, colossal garbage piling up next to their home, people dying from malnutrion, etc. We have developed a habit of conveniently shutting our senses when we want to. We developed a glorified image of Adolf Hitler and we see only the positives of Nazi regime - like fastest industrial growth, discipline of their armies and execution, fast paced occupation, and enmity towards British (who were our rulers). Adolf Hitler's Mein Kampf is sold everywhere in India and is one of the popular books amongst college going students. Nowadays, we have restaurants and brands named after Adolf Hitler. Many Indians, both young and old, admire and glorify Adolf Hitler and many vouch that someone like him is required for India to correct things. I have not seen this much fascination and admiration for Adolf Hitler in any other community, culture or society.

In addition to the above hypothesis, I would like to make another far-fetched conjecture. I believe that there is a great correlation between the groups who admire Adolf Hitler, the groups who hate or think low of Muslims, and those who are against reservations. I constructed a small picture to illustrate this correlation.

What are Anti-Muslim sentiments?

There are many Indians, especially Hindus, who feel there is something wrong with Muslims. These negative sentiments come in different gradations - from mere dislike or contempt to downright hatred.

How are these feelings expressed? Say, you tell someone that you have a Muslim roommate. The reaction is, "Really? How come? Did you not find anyone else?" or something like, "So, do you guys get along?" A person who has a good experience with a Muslim officer/attendant comes home to relate it, "Though he was a Muslim, he was really nice to me. He helped me out today". There is an innate assumption that they are not friendly and that you can't get along with them - and those you can get along are exceptions. Another person says, "I have a Muslim friend. But he is very different though. He does not go to Mosque and all that. He is not a typical Muslim. He is very good." The prevailing feeling is that devout and typical Muslims are somehow not easy to get along. On the other extreme are people who think that most of the evils of Indian society exist because of Muslims (very synonymous to how Nazis blamed certain sections of people for all evils of their society). They believe that Muslims should have gone to Pakistan during Partition and they even blame Mahatma Gandhi and other founding fathers for allowing them to stay back in India. Most of them complain that our minorities are unnecessarily pandered and believe that excessive concessions are doled out to them.

Most moderate Hindus may not harbor much ill-will but they are fine as long as they see a Muslim as a grocer, a laborer, or auto-driver, but not in their regular life. Their attitude is more on the lines of "Well, they exist, but not in our midst. Let's keep it that way". Just ask yourself, how many Muslims do you see in any of the top colleges or IT companies? Do they comprise 12-14% as our demographics suggest? (In my experience, most often they constitute less than 1%.) How many of them are in your apartment complex?

Those who hate Muslims find their voice and expression in some of the political and militant outfits- like VHP, RSS, Bajrang Dal, Shiv Sena and the BJP. Is it a coincidence that these groups comprise mostly upper caste leaders? Also, just look at the well-to-do NRI lobbies in US - most of them are anti-Muslim. (According to my experiences, around 90% of Indians living in US share negative sentiments towards Muslims.)

Most of this hatred is founded on the following:

  • Feeling of superiority (based on certain attributes of birth, legacy and history)
  • Fear of other types of people - other religions and caste
  • Lack of familiarity with other types of people, their culture, their mannerisms, their dress sense, language, family lifestyle, etc.

Most chaste Hindu communities forbid their kids from mingling closely with Muslim kids. The Muslims go to different kinds of schools and somehow are not part of the mainstream. It's as if they are living in a different India altogether. The IT revolution which brought many Hindus to cities like Bangalore somehow seems to have completely skipped this community. The Hindus in villages also have distinct hierarchy towards these communities akin to the Indian caste system. The history also suggests that majority of the Muslims converted from lower castes in India.

What are Anti-reservations views?

These are harbored by most upper caste Hindus in India. According to my experiences, almost 80% of Indian upper caste seems to hold anti-reservation views- ranging from overt protests to mild disapprobation. The remaining 20% are labeled socialists and communists and hence dismissed as exceptions. The sentiments range from, "No, there should be no reservations based on caste", to "Yes, there should be reservations even for poor upper caste". An upper-caste Hindu confesses - "I didn't know his caste till yesterday and I was happily friends with him. But yesterday I got to know that he belongs to lower caste (because of 'reservations' issue) and now I feel differently about him". Many from this group believe that they held the upper-caste status because they were better off in mental faculties while the menial jobs were relegated to other castes - and since they were superior it was natural that this segregation should have happened (very similar to Nazi ideology that certain races are superior and hence should have access to more resources). They rationalize their higher presence in universities and employment stating that they are meritorious and hence deserving. There is an innate belief that some castes are superior to others because they have certain attributes passed on hereditarily (or genetically?). And this belief is conveniently codified into our religion itself.

Ideas of Adolf Hitler, that certain groups are superior to others and hence deserve better, that 'other kind' of people are inferior and hence need to give up resources, that a certain section is to be blamed for all evils of society, are reflected in both anti-reservation sentiments and anti-Muslim feelings. Modern India is witnessing a growing sense of superiority complex in most upper-caste Hindus. These sentiments are being fueled by many political outfits and associated organizations (like RSS, BJP, VHP, Bajrang Dal, Shiv Sena, etc) which blatantly foment Hindu supremacist ideology; they are also supported and encouraged by elite Indian media which is comprised of upper-caste Hindus; and most unfortunately, a large section of educated Indians, in their attempt to rediscover India's superior contributions by showcasing how our religion, history and sciences were always superior to that of West (no wonder they attempt to equate Vedas to modern science) also fuel these supremacist sentiments including anti-reservations protests. No wonder I see a great correlation between these groups- those who admire and revere Adolf Hitler, those who oppose reservations, and those who dislike Muslims.

I could be completely wrong in my hypothesis. If any statistics or surveys prove that I am wrong, I would be the happiest. But if the surveys indeed prove that I am closer to being right, then there is a far greater danger- that most of our prejudices are coming from the same innate belief system which is based on a sense of supremacy, fear of unknown and intolerance of diversity. This only means we have much bigger problems ahead in this country. If we do not tackle these issues consciously as a society, we will be forced into another surgical procedure or a civil war- far bloodier than any thing we have experienced in our history.

I maintain most of my blogs at sujai blog. E=mc^2.
eXTReMe Tracker
Keep reading for comments on this article and add some feedback of your own!

Comments! Feedback! Speak and be heard!

Comment on this article or leave feedback for the author

#1
Sanjay
September 14, 2006
12:42 AM

Again, Godwin's Law demonstrated by Sujai.

If you check Sujai's site, his "chart" showing the convergence between opponents of school admission reservations and Hitler supporters pretty much shows what Sujai is all about.

Opposing university quotas = Supporting Hitler

according to our illustrious Sujai.

Good way to flush your credibility down the toilet, man. To learn how to do it further, consult with temporal.

#2
Lakshmikanth
URL
September 14, 2006
02:04 AM

I wish u had learned statistics dude. Even though I agree to some of your views and whole heartedly and completely disagree with some that i consider to be morally evil. However This statement is statistically erred:


According to my experiences, almost 80% of Indian upper caste seems to hold anti-reservation views- ranging from overt protests to mild disapprobation. The remaining 20% are labeled socialists and communists and hence dismissed as exceptions.


Did u run a statistical check on the people whom u know? Are u sure that ur experiences reflect the right thing.

Experience can be a statistical measure only when u know what u are measuring and the measurement is made in a controlled manner. Then and only then can u make a statistical inference about any factual thing that ur experience say to u.

Going by this, almost whold of your article is just a lame attempt to put a statistical look to your own views. Would it not be better if u hypothesize this and leave it at that, instead of stating percentages from experiences?

#3
Lakshmikanth
URL
September 14, 2006
02:09 AM

Also, i did note the "chart" u had up on your blog. How confident are you about the facts? How confident are u about ur deductions?

In short how valid is this article?

to make a long story short: Its a worthless article, with little or no factual information. Its more of propaganda than facts.

If u notice Almost All propagandas have little or no factual information in them, so i should conclude that you too sujai, are a hitler fan! Coz hitler had mastered the art of propaganda?

#4
anamika
September 14, 2006
06:02 AM

GROW UP! Which part of India do you live? A lot of us grew up with Muslim classmates, work with Muslim colleagues, socialise with Muslim friends. And these ARE officers/middle class professionals etc.
Also, the bit on Hitler. Remember the old adage of my enemy's enemy is my friend? One reason why many Indians supported the Germans during the war. Moreover, India has no European-style feelings of guilt about the Holocaust given that our own Jews have lived 2000 years here without discrimination. So harder to construct an automatic reaction the way Western Europe/USA has regarding the Nazis. I would say that our view is simultaneously ignorant and nuanced about that period. Ignorant because we aren't aware of the war crimes, nuanced because it is seen through the colonial prism which denies the "Allies" their automatic status as the "good guys." Remember its hard for Indians to condemn the Nazis for 12 million deaths in the camps when the British knowingly killed 3 million Bengalis by starvation (the full count of the famine deaths in eastern India goes higher but Bengal was worst hit) during the same time thanks to their "war effort" which basically meant confiscating all grain to be sent off to Europe. So can we not make such spurious comparisons?
Wont talk of the statistics because others have already shredded that part of your argument.

#5
Tom Paine
URL
September 14, 2006
06:59 AM

Sujai, trolling is merely a hobby or is it your vocation? You are pretty good at it. Let me guess: you hang out with commies, don't you. Let's see, given your feeble grasp of history, you must be educated in some very highly regarded private school. But wait, your composition skills leave much to be desired. Still, that could be part of the trolling persona.

Anyway, do keep up the good work. Desicritics needs you. The world needs trolls. Someone has to be feeding at the bottom of the pond. I know it is a dirty job but someone has to do it.

#6
Anil
September 14, 2006
10:34 AM

Let me go ahead and make a wild guess. You have never been to Austria, have you?

#7
Apollo
URL
September 14, 2006
02:02 PM

Sujai, More than 80% of Indians will not be able to distinguish between the photos of Adolf Hitler and Charlie Chaplin from the movie "The Great dictator".

Infact if u have watched Indian movies someone who is called "Hitler" is some father/authority figure who is too strict etc... or a comedy character.

That is the level of awareness of the average Indian about Hitler.


#8
anon-by-choice
URL
September 15, 2006
02:43 PM

agree with u. in a different manner

large no of middle-class urban educated indians do find gw bush as a role model 'n admire him... sanjay, atanu, lakshmi, raj.... so many of them

same thing as yr hyp bout hitler, only 60 yrs later names have changed

#9
Lakshmikanth
URL
September 15, 2006
02:45 PM

ABC,
good try... keep trying..

#10
anon-by-choice
September 15, 2006
02:56 PM

dont need to 'try' LK
yr choices n words reveal u...

#11
Lakshmikanth
URL
September 15, 2006
02:57 PM

urs do too :-)

#12
anon-by-choice
URL
September 15, 2006
02:59 PM

ye, they do.. but not as a neo-fascist

#13
Lakshmikanth
URL
September 15, 2006
03:00 PM

and what about u: a stalinist revolutionary.

#14
Atlantean
URL
September 15, 2006
03:32 PM

People,

Please do take a look at my what Sujai calls "elaborate criticism" in reply to his post "Adolf Hitler and Indians."

Sujai himself has said it was just a hypothesis. A hypothesis should be challenged.

#15
S
September 15, 2006
04:40 PM

U absolutely have nothing to do. Do you?

#16
Durgesh
September 16, 2006
07:46 AM

I have read some of the post of this guys blog and it seems to me that his name sujai seems to be a fake. My strong hunch is that this fellow is a muslim masquerading around with a hindu name to sound credible.

#17
balaji
URL
September 16, 2006
07:54 AM

i guess we seem to run on hypotheses galore :)

is it an assumption or hypothesis that muslims cannot be credible and hindus are credible?

cheers

#18
Sujai
URL
September 16, 2006
10:18 AM

While this has no bearing on the present discussion, but since everyone is freewheeling to discuss what they perceive is relevant, I thought I would like to present the following.

Most discussions degenerate to become vacuous and unintelligible when people resort to harsh statements or make leapfrog assumptions - against the writer or another commenter. They resort to one-upmanship using verbosity and certain smart tricks attacking others credentials. Within in no time, rational discussion is out of the door since everyone is baiting each other. Most of these guys don't know me personally but they all feel like pointing out something wrong with me instead of addressing the topic. And some of them try to attack my intellect or my background in education. And that's another sorry Indian trait- 'Gauge the other person by what marks he got in English and what school he went to in kindergarten'.

Just to showcase, I pasted some of the comments received at the two articles that I posted at desicritics ('Adolf Hitler and Indians' and 'Why Muslims do not sing Vande Mataram').

Durgesh writes:
...it seems to me that his name sujai seems to be a fake. My strong hunch is that this fellow is a muslim masquerading around with a hindu name to sound credible.

Lakshmikanth writes:
I wish u had learned statistics dude.

Anamika writes:
GROW UP! Which part of India do you live?
...does your intellect little justice.

Anil writes:
Let me go ahead and make a wild guess. You have never been to Austria, have you?

S writes:
U absolutely have nothing to do. Do you?

Tom Paine writes:
Sujai, trolling is merely a hobby or is it your vocation?
...Let me guess: you hang out with commies, don't you.
...Let's see, given your feeble grasp of history, you must be educated in some very highly regarded private school. But wait, your composition skills leave much to be desired
...Someone has to be feeding at the bottom of the pond. I know it is a dirty job but someone has to do it.

None of them have no idea where I have been, where I studied, or what I do in my daily life. But they believe that they can contribute something to the discussion not by talking about or criticizing the topic that I wrote, but by resorting to some personal attacks.

Unfortunately for them, I do not get affected the way they want me to get affected. On the other hand, it makes me feel sad at our plight - it is all pervading. This happens so often on Indian TV debates- there are certain elite who use such deriding language against another person, sometimes insinuating lower intellect or sometimes using overt disparaging remarks, that there is no more room for rational discussion - everyone is mudslinging now. No wonder our Parliament and State Assemblies (which are representative of people) behaves the same. I was actually hoping that people would come with examples from their own experiences and observations to say that my hypothesis is wrong- that indeed there is no correlation. They could have talked about people harboring sentiments A and B but not C to say that my argument for correlation does not stand. I am patient. I still hope to see such arguments.

#19
Apollo
URL
September 16, 2006
12:34 PM

I'am extemely sorry to say that the author of this article is just looking for some attention rather than a serious discussion about his "hypothesis".

Why does he need to paste all the vacuous, unintelligible assumptions - against the writer or another commenter.

which he goes on to explain as
"They resort to one-upmanship using verbosity and certain smart tricks attacking others credentials. Within in no time, rational discussion is out of the door since everyone is baiting each other. Most of these guys don't know me personally but they all feel like pointing out something wrong with me instead of addressing the topic. And some of them try to attack my intellect or my background in education. And that's another sorry Indian trait- 'Gauge the other person by what marks he got in English and what school he went to in kindergarten'."

pathetic indeed.

#20
Atlantean
URL
September 16, 2006
05:48 PM

"None of them have no idea where I have been, where I studied, or what I do in my daily life. But they believe that they can contribute something to the discussion not by talking about or criticizing the topic that I wrote, but by resorting to some personal attacks."

Yes, sad stuff. Personal attacks accompanied by an absence of rational argument (on the original issue) are not acceptable. I appeal to such people to desist from doing so. If you have anything substantial to contribute, please do so. Otherwise, you'll do everyone good by just passing by - you'll be saving time and energy both your yourself and the readers here.

This website says "Personal attacks are *not* allowed". I wonder what the moderators are doing.

#21
Sanjay
September 16, 2006
07:45 PM

Let's not bring the moderators into this, otherwise we'll only be encouraging ideological thought police. Sujai should learn to be adult enough to take some criticism and not blubber over it like a baby.

Nextly, when it comes to personal attacks, I'd say that comparing opponents of school reservation quotas with Hitler supporters is about as slanderous as you can get. And you can see from the "chart" on his site where he superimposes Hitler support with opposition to school reservations, that he is trying to make that slanderous comparison.

Clearly, there is a lack of rational argument from his side which needs to be rebutted. Pouncing on Hitler's name to somehow contrive an association with opposing school quotas, is ridiculous calumny and not a hypothesis.

As for the Left's feelings on Hitler, I think they need to first read up on the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact.

#22
Lakshmikanth
URL
September 16, 2006
08:50 PM

Infact, thats one thing that i wanted to makes me wonder about the moderators too.

I dont want the moderators to be moral policemen, but an article that blatantly GENERALIZES that all reservation opposers ARE hitlers devotees is as personal as it can get.

I oppose reservations, for reasons different than the author thinks. I do not consider any member of Homo-Sapiens to be better than any other, and for the same reason I think that reservations wont achieve any purpose, because all people are equal!

In my criticisms of this author's article, I have clearly mentioned WHY the author should learn statistics, and also which points make his statistical illiteracy apparent. Now if the author responds back with a personal sentiment such as "they dont know where i have been", without giving valid data points to criticize my arguments, it makes me repent my decision to rationalize with someone incapable of rationalizing.

WIth this i conclude that the author is in general incapable of arguments. However he is capable of giving Ad-Hominems and getting extremely personal while writing such articles.

I suggest that the moderators should not allow such articles which make blantant acquisations without the supporting facts to be presented in this forum. They are morally wrong to the principles that this forum was founded:

PERSONAL ATTACKS *NOT* ALLOWED!

#23
Lakshmikanth
URL
September 16, 2006
09:11 PM

sorry! the following lines got jumbled up:
"Infact, thats one thing that i wanted to makes me wonder about the moderators too."

should be read as:
"Infact, thats one thing that i am wanted to comment on. This article makes me wonder about the moderator's/editor's role."

#24
Aaman
URL
September 16, 2006
11:05 PM

Articles may have flaws in reasoning, but the critical analysis that follows helps clarify viewpoints

#25
anamika
URL
September 16, 2006
11:45 PM

"Most moderate Hindus may not harbor much ill-will but they are fine as long as they see a Muslim as a grocer, a laborer, or auto-driver, but not in their regular life. Their attitude is more on the lines of "Well, they exist, but not in our midst. Let's keep it that way"."

Sujai you took the remarks personally because, like good old Bush, you have provided little fact to back your claims. So faced with a paucity of evidence or indeed any scientific reasoning (refer to critique of the lack of your statistical grounding), you now resort to protestations of victimhood.
Read that statement above: Can you back this up with any facts? How do you know this? A lot of us allegedly intolerant, resentful "Hindus" went to school with Muslims, still live in the same neighbourhoods, work in the same offices, and celebrate our festivals together. Are we the same resentful Hindus who work for Azim Premji? Or work with Aziz Mirza? Or report to duty in the Indian Army by saluting to a Muslim senior officer. Muslims may not have senior management representation in many sectors that is exactly proportionate to their demographic presence, but surely there are reasons beyond Hindu resentment for this? How about preferring madrassas over public schools that leave students without real skills? How about the negative impact of Shah Bano case on the levels of impoverishment among Muslim women and children? There is enough work done by Muslim scholars and academics on these - all you need to do is read a bit. That might improve the debate as well as help solve the real problems of illiteracy, malnutrition and poverty that plague many Indians (Muslim and otherwise).
Oh and the bit on Hitler - you know one of Hosni Mobarak's key aides until he retired was named Hitler? Its a common enough name in much of the Muslim Middle East. One of the most popular in the Occupied Territories. What does that prove?
As I said earlier - grow up. At least enough to do your research properly.

#26
Durgesh
September 17, 2006
02:24 AM

Sujai {or whatever},

I read your Hitler post. Then i read your blog. And somehow, i had this hunch that you are not exactly what you seem to be. So i wrote my comment. If it has pained you, i duly apologize.

Now coming to the point. Its very clear that by floating your "Hypothesis" you intend to do only one thing, demonize. Yes, your intentions are quite clear, You intend to DEMONIZE your intellectual enemies and those with whom you differ. You want to think of them as nothing less then "mass murderers". Smart dude, by your bloody "hypothesis" you have betrayed the filth of your own mind.

Now please dont think of all this as "attributing motives". Please do not flatter yourself as a "guy under attack" from filthy bastards. First take a look at yourself.

Another important point. There is more similarities between the mass murder tendencies of Nazism and Islam than between Nazism and "hindus who hate muslims" and oppose "reservations". {part of your bizarre bizarre mind}. Read history to find out how many countless innocents Islams has killed. How many minorities have lost there motherland, how many converted and enslaved. The murders committed by Islam throughout history make the murders committed by the Nazis just a bloody kitty pary.

And finally, kind sir, I must notify you that if you think you have been flamed, than please do not have any doubts. You have been FLAMED. And the more you write such filthy-trash-of-your- mind on this forum, more Flames await you.

With Much Thanks.

Durgesh Singh.

#27
Sujai
URL
September 17, 2006
12:35 PM

Anamika writes:
"A lot of us allegedly intolerant, resentful 'Hindus' went to school with Muslims, still live in the same neighbourhoods, work in the same offices, and celebrate our festivals together."

If that is the case, my hypothesis does not apply to you.

My hypothesis applies to only those Indian Hindus who are resentful and intolerant of Muslims, do not live in the same neighborhoods, do not rent out apartments to Muslims, carry negative sentiments towards Muslims, and believe that there is something wrong with them.

Not all Hindus carry negative sentiments towards Muslims. Those who don't carry such sentiments automatically fall out of my categorization.

Moreover, I do NOT think that ALL those who dislike Muslims also hold anti-reservation views and admiration of Hitler. Its only that I think there is a great correlation.

#28
Sujai
URL
September 17, 2006
12:56 PM

Part 1:
My hypothesis that there is a correlation between the groups carrying the stated sentiments may appear far-fetched only because no study or survey has been done to check this. I have expressed my opinion, which comes from my experiences talking to and interacting with different people on these topics, that there is an underlying belief system which is common to all these groups- a sense of supremacy, fear of other kinds of people, and lack of tolerance towards opposing views. People who harbor these beliefs do not find it difficult to admire a person like Adolf Hitler- consciously or subconsciously. Compounded with the problem of lack of formal education of WWII crimes, it becomes even easier to admire him. While it is very natural for many in India to harbor anti-Muslim feelings, anti-reservation sentiments, and admiration for Hitler (which are seemingly innocuous and disparate), I find that such feelings are based on certain innate prejudices (those that I listed above) which when harbored for too long can become extremely dangerous- as seen from pre-Nazi or any pre-fascist movement. Those who harbor these sentiments are not necessarily evil- but without their conscious knowledge they are feeding into those elements that could be evil (in future). Not knowing the consequences of harboring, nurturing and promoting certain prejudices could (sometimes) lead to catastrophic consequences, as seen from history.

#29
Sujai
URL
September 17, 2006
01:01 PM

Part 2:
Most fascist movements started with a growing sense of nationalism, a sense of pride in what they or what their ancestors were, an effort to consolidate religion or culture, with sporadic skirmishes with other kind of people who do not conform, a need to prove one's patriotism by following certain agreed symbols, and later on fueled by the elite who define the whole movement through philosophical texts giving the needed legitimacy. There are signs of all these in the present India, and were there for quite some time now.

What is new and therefore looks ominous is the convergence of other necessary ingredients to make this fascist movement a reality- a growing sense of supremacy amongst middle class and academia that is buoyed by booming economy; the urgent need to identify oneself closer to pristine religion because of rapid urbanization and globalization; the growing lack of tolerance towards opposing views; the all pervading instrument of media which airs its opinions to masses; reinterpreting history to suit the present needs of supremacy; redefining and reinventing ancient texts to position Vedic Sciences as an alternative to modern science, etc.

At present, most of these sentiments look very confined to certain organization like VHP, BJP, Bajrang Dal and its associated groups. Actually, most Hindus do not subscribe to the activities of VHP, BJP, Bajrang Dal, etc. They may not necessarily be aligning themselves with these groups either, but some of them are definitely sympathetic. By condoning their acts, or by staying silent on their acts, or by being ambivalent about them, we as Hindus are allowing certain prejudices to grow. It will catch up in a generation or two.

I believe that it is the Dawn of Indian Hindu Fascism because I see the seeds for such convergence happening right now. I could be completely wrong. That would be good for all of us. If it is indeed right, is it not better to take right precautions instead of brushing it aside?

#30
Sujai
URL
September 17, 2006
01:04 PM

Part 3:
All I am saying is- 'Hey! Wake up India! Don't harbor these sentiments and fuel them thinking it will be harmless. Such seemingly harmless sentiments in the past have led to great tragedies. If you do not curb them now, in another generation or so, we will have bloody war on this land unlike anything we have seen in our history!'

What did we learn from Partition of India? I am not really sure. The only man who predicted how tragic the surgery would be, we shot him right away. Will people of India react to certain event as a monolithic rock? Yes, they can. The Indian masses can suddenly ignore all the apparent differences and amalgamate into distinct entity to take on another entity. Our history showcases many instances of such sudden joining of forces that resulted in blood baths. The forces that unite them will be the slowly brewing set of prejudices.

In a democracy, such prejudices and hatred cannot be curbed with force. Instead, it is the responsibility of the people itself to learn from history, teach kids of history and install mature institutions to ensure continuity of its people/nation/culture/religion/etc. Onus of learning and accommodating to set a precedent, unfortunately, always resides on the majority. Forcing and shoving certain ideals onto minorities will only ensure that they hate us forever. Glorification of the past while deliberately avoiding learning from our mistakes is one way to go about it. How about cross-examining our actions and belief systems of the past that led to major flashpoints?

#31
Sujai
URL
September 17, 2006
01:15 PM

Part 4:
I am not comparing anyone or any group to Adolf Hitler or his Nazi Party. Correlation is not comparison. In India, admiration for Adolf Hitler is not considered bad (and that's why people admire him), and therefore my hypothesis cannot be assumed to be an attempt to show someone in bad light. It is not an attempt to insult or demonize someone either. I think it is a sincere attempt to ask some hard questions for us to check if indeed such correlation exists. If so, what dangers do we see in continuing to harbor such sentiments? Dismissing it right away will not allow us to even think about it. At the end it is just a hypothesis - and any statistics or survey can dispel it. My intention was to elicit introspection from Indians- not another tirade of defense and excuses. When a nation does not question itself or criticize itself by learning from history, it tends to brush off all the signs of danger and repeat similar mistakes of the past.

I thought Hitler was necessary in this discussion because that's what Germans did- they harbored and condoned each of Nazi actions, and contributed to WWII and Holocaust by being silent. The seeds for tragedies were sown many years before, through harboring such seemingly innocuous sentiments by ordinary and normal people - starting from creating new philosophies, nurturing growing nationalism, curbing opposing views and thoughts, accusing certain people for all evils, etc. Who in post-WWI Germany would have predicted such a calamity would befall on whole world? Who in Germany before WWII believed they would actually be running a concentration camp? There were signs everywhere but nobody chose to read them. Those who did were first ignored and then brushed aside and later on were shot or asked to leave.

I could have easily taken any other example- that of Stalin, that of Mussolini, that of Mao, that of Khmer Rouge, or of the recent genocide in Rwanda. Hitler, his Nazi regime, the Holocaust and WWII represent the best examples- they are gigantic in proportion and also most well-known.

I agree that a blogger has to be responsible. Having said that- should I refrain from writing my thoughts just because it will put us Indians in the negative light? Questioning one's prejudices helps. And while we are questioning ourselves against all yard-sticks, we need not be worried as to how others think of us. Questioning ourselves is only the first step towards building a mature state.

#32
Sumanth
URL
September 17, 2006
03:32 PM

Sujai,

There is little to introspect so far as religious intolerance is concerned.

Intolerance of all kinds are same (whether the root is religion, caste or gender).

Indian situation today can not be seen in isolation from the environment (the world scene) just the way muslims can not be seen in isolation.

Majority of people(of any religion) are moderates. As you are such a fan of statistics, you must have heard about the famous "Bell Curve".

Once someone or a group are termed as Fascist, there is little chance that this group will do any soul searching or introspection.

If the idea is about you making people get present to the "dangers", then it is a threat. I feel Indians as a race are the ones who are must capable of taking on any threats and dangers without making a fuss about it.

Any Statistics by TOI or Media should be taken with care.



#33
K
September 17, 2006
03:54 PM

Dude! I don't know where in India you grew up in. I grew up in Calcutta, West Bengal. We have over 25% Muslim population...and they are pretty much integrated into their local communities.

I have many Muslim friends - and have no feelings of superiority etc. And my best friend has a Muslim roomate in college...and it was cool..

#34
Sujai
URL
September 17, 2006
03:56 PM

Lakshmikanth writes:

"Did u run a statistical check on the people whom u know? Are u sure that ur experiences reflect the right thing.
Experience can be a statistical measure only when u know what u are measuring and the measurement is made in a controlled manner. Then and only then can u make a statistical inference about any factual thing that ur experience say to u.

Going by this, almost whold of your article is just a lame attempt to put a statistical look to your own views. Would it not be better if u hypothesize this and leave it at that, instead of stating percentages from experiences?"


How do you answer to something like that?
I mean, most of us resort to guesstimates or percentages or probabilities to express some of our opinions. Everyone who is responsible for his organization knows this. I am trained to do that. Even if it is a gut feel I am supposed to say it in percentages.

I thought of going though some of the blogs or articles or books where the authors have resorted to expressing their opinions in percentages which are based on gut feel to showcase why such a practise is in place.

Due to laziness, I narrowed my search to just one blog- that of Lakshmikanth himself. Here's one instance.

Lakshmikanth on his Blog writes:

"Our citizens dont care anyways, while thier freedom is eaten away by the church or the temple or the mosque...

Freedom.. what is that? I am sure 50% of India is much the same as it was when the mother-fucking british left us.. .what freedom are you talking about!

[emphasis is mine]

In another instance, Lakshmikanth writes:

It is another word to say that we do not have the balls to do. It could also be put as lack of self-esteem. A quality which I should say defines an Indian (there maybe 10% who are different). If u see a person without a self-esteem. I would say that there is a 90% chance that he is an Indian...
...This was the magic mantra that many impotent Indians (i would say 99% of them) were waiting for.

[emphasis is mine]

One could ask:
How can you say it with confidence? Did you measure it? Why do you resort to percentages?

I understand that this is a crude way to refute someone. If I had instead went about explaining why people use certain % from their experiences, it would turn out to be another lengthy article. This turned out to be a quick one.

Lakshmikanth:
I apologize for resorting to such a crude one. But I hope now you realize why I resorted to percentages from my experiences.
Thank you.

#35
Sanjay
September 17, 2006
08:00 PM

[no personal attacks]

#36
Sanjay
September 17, 2006
10:07 PM

[edited - please read and adhere to comment policy]

#37
Lakshmikanth
URL
September 17, 2006
10:57 PM

Sujai,
Great, now remember that the idea is this: if u look at my blog.. which i am glad that you so much viciously read, that article was written long long ago...

Now u would agree that people change, rite? my blog reflects that. A change from a crude statistically illiterate guy into a more mature, more well read guy (I have had a university course on statistics now, at that time i did not even know what statistics means: just like u :-) ). I hope u have the guts (and the brains) to do the same and change.

As i always say to stalinist revolutionaries and lefties and appeasing clowns out there: Keep trying :-) Some day u will get fed up.

Best of luck!

And as someone above said: the more u publish such ________ articles the more u will get flamed.. and then u would have to stoop down to the level of pond scum to do what u did just now.

all the best! and GROW UP!

#38
Naveen
URL
September 19, 2006
11:06 AM

Hmm.....true, there are some things wrong in the article......BUT, we all froth at the mouth, call the writer a raving lunatic....but have we even once looked at the mirror....have we thought that there are some rights in what he has said....hmm, no one raises his hand.....on we go marching ahead, leaving no sentimental stone unturned towards our path to being one of the strongest countries in the planet....

#39
null
URL
September 30, 2006
08:46 PM

Churchill's will to preserve the "European balance of power" not only meant fighting Nazis.
"The European balance of power" meant that Europe's most precious people--"The British" -were chosen by God to rule the world" (Churchill said).

In his private writings as well as his public speeches he believed himself to be a kind of Avatar, or protective representative of the Anglo-Saxon race.
In his speeches he referred to his people and Europe in particular as "the parent race".

The race or community that was divinely inspired to spread democracy and freedom to all peoples.

This justified British rule in India no matter how much cruelty this rule would demand and no matter how much the Hindu's protested; it meant complete subjugation of the races of the middle east; it also meant a new European military and financial Empire in ASIA; an idea that American businessmen and cooperating dictators in America also dreamed of ever since the beginning of the 20Th century.
Therefore Churchill certainly believed in not only the superiority of England, but that of the white race and he saw the Anglo-Saxons as the main Representatives of Europe.
It was because of America's and England's dream of a financial and military Empire in Asia that the Japanese became their biggest enemy in the Orient.
England and America just continually strove to stick their heads where they did NOT belong.

After doing the research some brainwashed leftist might wonder: what was the difference between Hitler and Churchill?
They both either wanted to dominate or exterminate all non-white peoples...THEY WERE RACISTS!

Why was Churchill so dead set against Hitler and the Nazi's?
Because he thought they were better off with the Democracy he and his creed wanted for Germany in the 20's: the freedom to starve and die.
This was the same Democracy Churchill wanted for Ireland.
It's true, it has been said that both Hitler and Churchill were products of their "racist generation".
But Churchill was HATED by the whole non-white world because he insisted on the British goose-stepping their pompous armies and administrators on non-white peoples living space.
The idea of the "European Balance of Power" was the main reason why Churchill supported undermining the Japanese claim to take care of it's own race, no matter how brutal this might have been {certainly much more brutality has been practiced in China, Korea, and other Asian countries since communism has triumphed among them than in Japan. On the contrary Japan is more or less pacifist, hates war, and has improved human rights in their nation.}
In any case wouldn't most Westerners rather see Asian people fight communism in Asia than a European Nation?
That was the logic Hitler used when making his alliance with Japan, and now when one glimpses at how America in particular has dealt with the Asian world since WWII it's obvious that American businessmen wanted chaos in Asia so they could have an excuse to build an American Empire in Asia.
Also, now Korea and China not only have some of the worst human rights records besides countries like Iraq, Saudi Arabia and some African nations but they also want to threaten America and possibly even Europe!
They want to use American Imperialism as an excuse to wage war.
Even though their "communists" rulers are supposed to be against all "bourgeois war".

They are in fact militarized to the point were they threaten capitalism.

ANYWAYS...Get this!

Hitler was not interested in playing police man in non-white nations.
Hitler wanted to clean up his own race by defeating the barbarians of Eastern Europe and thus prevent them from making life a living hell for all of Europe and also for non-white nations.
He also looked for revenge against all the nations who plotted the death of Germany, and it just so happened that these Anglo-Saxon powers were also the oppressors and enslavers of Indians, Arabs, Asians, exterminators of the red race, and enslavers of the African peoples.
It should come as no surprise that many Arabs, Indians, Asians, and North Africans supported Hitler, admired him as a rebellious successful nationalist, and a man who took on the world.
The night of January 12Th 1942 Hitler talked of Churchill and his insane ideological worldview:
"Churchill is a man with a completely out of date political idea, that of the 'European balance of power'.
It no longer belongs to the sphere of realities. And yet it's because of this superstition that Churchill stirred England up to war."
(source-Hitler's Table Talk-Martin Borman)

Hitler knew this was a time for change, he knew that the rebellion of the millions of subject races was a natural and inevitable reaction.
He also knew that many races were evolving rapidly and would not allow the West to rule their areas.
He knew thus that many races were ready to take control of their own interests and move towards political and social independence, and he did not wish to interfere in their social issues and internal battles, nor did he want Europeans to create extra difficulties for these emerging peoples.
He knew that the old order of "European balance" was not really done right from the start, even if he saw it to be sometimes necessary, he wanted the new era to be that of organic truth and national independence.
The time of real racial justice and independence was dawning.
Hitler thought Europe had plenty of problems of it's own to work out and should not concern itself with "solving the problems of other nations without their asking" let alone creating new ones for them.
In Germany the backward order was being challenged and overcome by the new generation of youth, and he believed that such a youthful transformation should in fact take place all around the world in every national cell or body if possible.
Nevertheless he did think that good and wise things of the past should be remembered and preserved, even if some of them would be eventually left in the past. To honor and understand ones past was important to him, and the elimination of the bad things of the past was also important
Though he wanted to preserve some of the wise things he admired about the "old world"--such as the mysticism of Wagner's operas, pagan-primitive wisdom and legends, he also wanted the old order to be swept away by the new. Not because it was old, but because it was hindering evolution and thus wrong.
Thus the "flaws" of the Old White world which was fuelled and driven by Capitalistic greed and it's system of millions of inferiors being lead and fed by by small elites would be corrected, and tolerance for each caste would be given, while in each cell the breeds of "superiors" and "nobles" would be dominant.
He did not want a world of masses being ruled by cruel masters, he wanted a world of Nobel masters of each race and species who were able to rule themselves through self-discipline, compassion and self-sacrifice for the common good.

Hitler clearly disagreed with Churchill's "enlightened" "democratic" Geo-political worldview.
Hitler believed that all the best of the races should take care of themselves, he did not think it was Europe's job to take care of other peoples the way Churchill dreamed.
This is why he showed tolerance and friendship to the Arab peoples whom he clearly admired because of their glorious part in history and it was because of this obvious tolerance that the Arabs responded with enthusiasm and support.
Apparently the colored peoples also did not appreciate the philosophy preached by Churchill. They regarded him as their worst enemy while they honored Hitler as a great nationalist rebel who was not a white supremacist in the Anglo-Churchillian sense, but as a racialist nationalist leader of a people who was driven by his genius to restore the health of his oppressed nation and race and whom they therefore regarded as a hero and an example for their own struggle for liberation.

On the night Hitler was talking of Churchill's "European Balance of Power" he also commented on the Indian view of this meat eating, alcohol guzzling, cigar smoking greed machine: "If a British newspaper in India writes an article today attacking Churchill, that's because it can't do anything else--or it would loose it's whole public".

Later that night Hitler claimed: "Already Arabs and Moroccans are mingling my name with their prayers.
Amongst the Tartars I shall become Kan.
I shall be incapable to share the sheiks' mutton with them.
For I'm a vegetarian and they must spare me from their meat".

Okay so there goes a little rejection of meat, not the rejection of sheiks.
How can I think Hitler was a Libertarian with Socialist gleanings?

I would have asked the same question three years ago.

To understand where I am coming from you would have to read "Hitler's Table talk". The collection of recordings of Hitler's conversations which have been verified as genuine.
In these recordings we have Hitler stressing religious tolerance, making it quite clear that he thinks it's a bad idea to colonize non-white peoples--on the contrary he claims they should be left alone in their own "living space", as any creature, animal, organism-cell body.
Even with his colonization of the Slav's he goes against English tradition and opposes the idea that the natives should be forced to "ape" German ways but contends that they should "develop under their own nature given standards".
The groups he is the hardest on are the majority of the Slavs, but even as he talks about colonizing them and stressing the brutality that would be needed, he continually claims that the Germans should leave them to their own devices, not civilize-or Christianize them--As Britain always tried to do with their conquests--but to let them keep their customs and not interfere with their way of life.
In his views you can clearly see that he wanted each individual group to keep their identity whether it was the Spanish, French, Irish, English, and Arabic, Indian etc.

He wanted a more racially based version of what I propose, which is that every individual group--whether race or ideological creed-- should not be forced to morph their identity but create their own state where they can be free.
Hitler looked to enslave the peoples that he believed had made themselves enemies of Germans--it just so happens that he also thought the majority of these Slavic peoples were terribly inferior and had just a little too much confidence, and should learn who is older and wiser then they.
Hitler clearly wanted a non-imperialistic relationship of mutual friendship with all non-white peoples and most Non-Aryans.
He definitely believed it would be a mistake to take after the English and implant themselves in places that people of their race truly did not belong unless it was for archaeological or some kind of scientific-anthropological-ancestral studies of ancient Aryan cutler, or for the purposefully uplifted of a race or nation.
As far as cultural-archaeological research Hitler and Himmler clearly did this all over the Mediterranean, India, even sent SS researchers to Tibet where they shared a beautiful collaboration with an Asian people who had separate themselves from the corrupt world--had developed a complex living system--and who had traditional memories of "Atlantian kings of the past"--and hoisted the swastika as their "most honored symbol".
Hitler certainly wanted cutlers that were no threat to his nation to preserve their identity while all the real nations of enslavement: Britain and America--still pride themselves in ripping the identity of many peoples from their souls to make them slaves of the Anglo-Christian order.
Africans lost their identity that way and in fact most groups who do not unwillingly lose their identity to Anglo Imperialism come to America willingly to forget their past and start a "new life".
So the whole point of Americanism and therefore Anglo-ism is to create a soup of humans who wish to leave their uniqueness and individual identity behind.
Germans always understood the importance of preserved national and cultural identity as a law of nature, and therefore always understood when other nations opposed Britain for example.
So to understand why I might say that an improved--updated---rehabilitated Hitler would be an ideal Libertarian you have to first read Marin Borman's "Hitler's Table Talks" where Hitler talks favorably of many non-Germanics--If this is a forgery I don't know why the biggest anti-Semite and racist in the Party --Borman-- felt it important to carry a pen and paper and record these conversations.
Also Otto Wagener's "Memories of a Confidant" is a very valuable source.
In it you will find Hitler stating that he would have no problem allying with a yellow people--as he eventually did---even Africans--he claimed--"We can work with these pure races in tolerant collaboration".
Otto Wagner saw Hitler as a sort of Messiah and was able to discern and see his true nature.
Then finally you must get "my new order" which is a collection of Hitler speeches from 1922--1941.
In "my new order"---where I found some of the speeches which I quoted from earlier---Hitler clearly opposed the way in which Britain colonized and regretted the way they treated cultured peoples even though he knew the British themselves were supposed to be "educated Aryans".
Hitler always admired the individual artistic characteristics of various foreign races be they Brahman Hindu's, Arabs, Asians of all kinds, even admiring the natural activities of African tribesmen.
In various European peoples he acknowledged the special characteristics that where unique to their kind, the only race which he seemed to have little if no sympathy, was the majority of the primitive Slavic peoples although he did claim that Czechs, Hungarians, Poles and Russians (The Russ) had "Nobel Aryan blood".
It has always been nothing but propaganda when the Allies said that Hitler wanted to "Germanize the world" for he believed that the German mind and psyche was to unique to sell-out through undemocratic force and
Likewise the myth that he wanted to make the world a blond-haired and blue-eyed Aryan world is just nonsense.
He wanted a "New Germany and a "New England" to run and keep order in Europe--not the world.
He did not think a race should die just because they were on a lower level or "inferior"---he wished to leave them alone---but if they were inferior and they wanted to threaten Germany as he believed the Slav's wanted to do---then he would show them no mercy, and he didn't.
Most of all Hitler wanted to avenge Germany of it's oppressors--Corporate America--{whom he used financially to attain power but whom he in reality loathed},
--Colonial Britain who had taken everything from Germany--and Bolshevik Russia who looked to impose their degenerate influence on all of Europe.
--These are the peoples he wanted to teach a lesson.
To him the Japanese would take the Orient rightly, Egypt would take Africa--{He didn't want whites in any undesirable situation with the natives of Africa, he also obviously wanted to prevent any unfavorable racial mixing with any foreign race {which always happens in any colonialism} {it happened when Germany herself had colonies in Africa before WWI and interestingly, the Germans gave their subjects the most rights and the best living conditions of any other colonized country.
To Hitler the worst that could happen when Nazi's would colonize Slavic area's was a mixture of Slavic and Nordic---which he knew could eventually breed back into pure Aryans but he did not want to chance any mixture that would have effects for centuries with any radically different race, he at least wanted it to be prevented in any way possible

#40
Chandra Krishna
URL
September 30, 2006
09:05 PM

Unforchunatly the Arabs have outlived their worth, they are people of the past and are unab le to link with the way of the future.
They are a failed model and the Indians have always seen them for what they are.
If Hitler was around today I'm sure he would also recognize these facts and would surely side with India over the desert hords.
Hindus understand the cyclic reality of history and of life, that is why we will progress eternaly.
But the Arabs are on the same level as the Christians in the sense that they see things purely from a personal perspective.
Christians and Muslims are decived into beleiving that they can just break from the cycle of birth and death by "surrendering" to a God that they have formed from their own imagination.
They are insane and that is why they will finally lose.
Those who see the truth will be the only ones left.
And India will lead a brave new world.

So yes I think India should adopt a ethnic-culteral-national socialism that preserves the greatness of our homeland.
Therefor I beleive Hitler was a shining example of a man in the West who dared to preserve the greatness of his country.
He sided with muslims because he was remembering the Muslim of the middle ages, the Muslims that protected great minds when Christians were burning them at the stake.
But if he could see the Arab world looking the Islamify his country he would react with the same national defense that soldjers of Hindutava are doing and that the people of the great nation of India should do.
India is the oldest civilization in the world.
We were great when the Arabs were living in the mud.
Now 5 thousand years latter they are still living in the mud, and we are still great, and we cannot aford to wait untill they "catch up", that is not life.
They wouldn't do it for us and they are playing on our graces.
We must defend greatness of the Indian Race!
The only way we can do it is if we defend ourselves from both internal and external infections.

Add your comment

(Or ping: http://desicritics.org/tb/3002)

Personal attacks are not allowed. Please read our comment policy.






Remember Name/URL?

Please preview your comment!