“The lady doth protest too much, methinks” is a line from the play Hamlet by William Shakespeare. It is spoken by Queen Gertrude in response to the insincere overacting of a character in the play to prove Hamlet’s uncle’s guilt in the murder of his father, the King of Denmark.
The phrase is used in everyday speech to indicate doubt of someone’s sincerity, especially regarding the truth of a strong denial.
This line accurately describes TMC MP Mahua Moitra who is accused in a cash for query scandal for asking questions in Parliament to benefit a businessman Darshan Hiranandani, who was a business rival of Gautam Adani, against whom she asked 50 questions.
Mahua Moitra allegedly received numerous costly gifts from Hiranandani for this.
When summoned by the Ethics Committee of the Indian Parliament Ms Moitra appeared, but later stormed out of the meeting shouting and screaming that she had been asked ‘filthy questions’ and playing the victim card. Evidently she subscribes to the the dictum that the best defence is offence.But this seemed just a drama and charade, by a person having a long history of theatrics and grandstanding, to avoid answering relevant, but uncomfortable, questions.
The allegations against her were that she had a connection with Darshan Hirananandani from she allegedly received many costly gifts and other favours ( like paying for her frequent foreign travels ), and with whom she had shared her parliamentary login account and email password. How was it unethical to ask her how many times she had travelled to Dubai to meet Hiranandani, and to other foreign countries, and on what dates ? How was it ‘Draupadi’s cheer haran’ as alleged by BSP MP Danish Ali ? How was it rude, ‘behuda’ and ‘besharam’ to ask such questions?
Mahua Moitra was asked questions as to who funded her foreign travels, etc. What was wrong in that ?
It has been revealed that Mahua Moitra’s Lok Sabha portal was logged in 47 times from Dubai, where Hiranandani lives, and who has now given an affidavit supporting the complainant Nishikant Dubey..
One can understand an MP sharing his/her parliamentary login account and password with a secretary, PA, or intern. But why should he/she share them with a businessman unless it is for some material benefits ? ” Something is rotten in the state of Denmark ”, said Shakspeare in Hamlet. And something seems rotten in this whole episode.
The question is whether they will be free and fair ?
Presently 90-95% of Pakistanis support former Prime Minister Imran Khan and his PTI party ( as all opinion polls indicate ), and if free and fair elections are held the PTI will sweep the polls.
However, the Pakistan army, which is the real ruler of Pakistan, is determined not to allow Imran Khan to become the Prime Minister again, and has incarcerated him in jail, and seems determined not to let him come out alive
This means that the army is determined not to permit free and fair elections, and for this it will either not permit the PTI to contest at all, or will rig the elections heavily.
The army has brought back former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif with great fanfare to Pakistan, and is evidently determined to foist him as the next Prime Minister, though he is hated by the vast majority of Pakistanis, who regard him and his family corrupt ( as the Panama Papers and other evidence proves ).
In this situation it seems to me obvious that since the people have been denied all rights, and a reign of terror has been unleashed against them by the Pakistan army, a people’s guerilla war against the army is inevitable, as it happened in the early stages of the American War of Indepence, in Spain during Napoleonic rule, in Vietnam during French and American rule, in Afghanistan during Soviet and later under American rule, in Algeria during French rule, and in France ( by the Maquis ) during Nazi occupation, etc. Wherever there is oppression, a resistance is bound to arise.
An army can fight another army, it cannot fight the masses. A tiger can kill a prey, it cannot kill a swarm of mosquitoes. The army officers who are presently trampling over the Pakistani people do not realise they are playing with fire.
An angry populace, whose kith and kin have been murdered or tortured and jailed, once aroused can go to any lengths, and then the conventional rules of warfare will be thrown to the winds.
The army officers may feel safe in their guarded houses, but their families are bound to be exposed, by the wives coming out for shopping, social visits etc and the children going to school or college, etc, and then they may be targets of people seeking revenge.
Former Pakistan Prime Minister Imran Khan was deposed in April 2022, and later arrested, and has been confined since early August in a tiny, dingy cell in jail with few amenities.
About 180 criminal cases have been foisted against him, so that if he is acquitted in one, he will be rearrested in another, the intention being not to let him come out of jail alive throughout his remaining life.
And what are his crimes ? Ostensibly it is alleged that he took toshakhana gifts without paying fully for them, that he was involved in a cypher crime, etc.
But his real ‘crimes’, for which he is being punished, are very different. It is a long list.
1. After the 9/11 attack on the Twin Towers in 2001, US President Bush decided to invade Afghanistan, and declared ” Those who are not with us, are against us ”.
At that time Gen Musharraf was the ruler of Pakistan ( having staged a military coup in 1999 ), and to save his own skin he supported the US invasion, though Pakistan had friendly relations with Afghanistan, and the Afghans had never done any harm to Pakistan.
Imran Khan strongly opposed Pakistan support to the US invasion of Afghanistan, saying this was not our war, and that Pakistan paid a very heavy price for it. 70,000 Pakistanis were killed in this war, and Pakistan’s fragile economy suffered a loss of a staggering 150 billion dollars.
3. While he was Prime Minister he went to Russia to get a deal on import of oil, when the war against Ukraine was going on. This naturally angered the Americans, who were strongly supporting Ukraine.
All this has antagonised the US Govt, and the Pakistan army which follows instructions from the former, has accordingly incarcerated Imran Khan on various trumped up charges.
It may be mentioned that the real ruler in Pakistan is its army, but the senior Pakistan army officers are all beholden to USA and do its bidding. Apart from direct financial gratification which they might be getting secretly, their children are having high paying jobs in the World Bank, IMF or some multinational corporation, or given admissions with full scholarship in Ivy League Colleges like Harvard or Yale.
Antagonising the USA is the real ‘crime’ of Imran Khan, for which he is paying the price confined in Adiala jail in wretched conditions, and time alone will tell whether a ZA Bhutto will be done to him
The Indian Supreme Court by its verdict delivered on 17.10.2023 in Supriyo vs Union of India has rejected the petitions claiming recognition of same sex marriages
In this connection I may refer to an incident in California.
When I was there I was invited by two Judges of the Federal Appellate Court of California, one of whom, Judge John Breyer, was the younger brother of US Supreme Court Stephen Breyer, who was then a sitting US Supreme Court Justice, but has recently resigned as he had become too old ( US Supreme Court and Federal Court Judges have a life tenure but can resign on full pay ).
While sitting with them in the Federal Appellate Court building in San Francisco, I criticised the US Supreme judgment in Obergefell vs Hodges, 2015 ( in which Justice Stephen Breyer was part of the 5-4 majority ) which had directed all states in USA to recognise and register same sex marriages.
Now some liberal states like California and New York had by legislation recognised such marriages, while others, particularly the southern conservative states, had not. Now by this judgment even the latter were directed to recognise them.
I said that the US Supreme Court verdict was wrong as it amounted to judicial legislation. Judges should excercise judicial restraint, and not be over activist. Laws could be made by the legislature, not by judges. There was separation of powers in the Constitution, and one organ of the state could not encroach into the domain of another. Making laws was the job of the legislature, not of judges.
In this connection I referred to my judgment in Divisional Manager, Aravali Golf Club vs Chander Haas, 2007 ( see para 17 onwards ), in which I said that Judges should know their limits, and not behave like Emperors.
However, such relationships did not create any rights.
On the other hand, a marriage creates certain rights e.g. a partner to the marriage has the right to inherit the property ( or part of the property ) of the other partner on the latter’s death, claim maintenance on separation or divorce, etc.
Legal rights can only be created by the legislature, not the courts.
Hence the Supreme Court rightly dismissed the petitions, saying that it was not for courts to recognise same sex marriages, and the petitioners should approach parliament or the state legislatures for getting a law passed recognising same sex marriages.
The hearing of the case by a 5 member bench took a marathon 10 days, and the verdict was reserved for 5 months. I respectfully submit that the case should have been dismissed quickly by a short order the same day saying that judges can not legislate, and the petitioners should approach the legislature for relief.
Ever since Israel declared itself a sovereign state on 14th May 1948, Israelis, knowing they have the backing of Western powers, have been kicking around the Palestinians, as if the latter were dogs.
Earlier, over 90% people living in the territories of Israel were Arabs. After creation of the state of Israel, many of them ( including women and children ) were killed, and most fled in panic and fear, and now only about 20% population of Israel is Arab. Those who fled are still living in horrible and squalid conditions in Jordan, the West Bank, Gaza, Lebanon, etc.
I had a long talk about the present Israel Hamas conflict with a friend living in UK. These are the points we discussed
1. He said that Israel had a right to defend itself if attacked.
I replied that if someone forcibly occupies my house after throwing me out, and I fight to get it back, will you support me, or the person who forcibly occupied my house in the first place ?
2. He then said that Jews in Europe and elsewhere were always longing to go back to Palestine. I said this was rubbish, and I referred him to my two articles, given below :
The Holocaust was not perpetrated by the Palestinians Arabs but by Germans and their European collaborators. So why should the former be punished for the fault of the latter ?
3. He then said that the Jews have converted a desert into a green, blooming paradise.
I replied that if you forcibly occupy my house and throw me out, how does it matter to me that you have converted my house into a luxurious mansion ? I am still living on the road.
The Jews who came into Israel were mostly Europeans, who brought their advanced technical skills with them. This made the desert bloom, and was like the European immigrants pouring into North America from the 17th century onwards, bringing with them their technical skills, which led to rapid development of North America.
But this does not resolve the plight of Palestinians rendered homeless, and living in horrible conditions, just as it does not resolve the plight of the native Americans, who were displaced by European immigrants, and many of whom are still living in reservations in bad conditions.
4. He then contested my thesis that Israel was created by Western powers to control and safeguard the oil supplies for Western industries from the Middle East region. He said that the Israeli army has rarely invaded other countries near Israel which have huge oil deposits.
I replied that armies everywhere in the world are rarely fighting all the time. But they have yet to be maintained, just in case a need arises at a particular time.
The situation in Arab countries is that though the people are mostly anti-Western, the rulers are pro-Western ( in fact Western puppets ). So there is no need of sending the Israeli army into the oil producing countries, because even without that the rulers of these countries ensure oil supplies to the West. When Iranian Prime Minister Mossadegh nationalised the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company in March 1951 he was promptly deposed by the CIA, and the puppet Shah Reza Pahlavi installed.
5. He then said that many Arab countries have recognised Israel, and Saudi Arabia is about to do so.
I replied that the rulers of Saudi Arabia and most Arab countries are Western puppets, and so is Israel. So this was only to be expected. But has the wish of the peoples of these Arab countries been taken into account ?
6. He lastly said that Israel has a right to exist. I said that I am not against Jews, and I am not in favour of expelling Jews from Israel. After all, the Jews presently inhabiting Israel are not immigrants ( like their grandparents or great grandparents ) but were born and brought up in Israel.
But I believe that the only just solution to the conflict is creating a secular, democratic, State of Palestine, uniting Israel, Jordan, the West Bank, Gaza, the Golan Heights, and Lebanon, where Arabs, Jews, Christians, etc can all live peacefully, amicably and in harmony.
There is no other way, and unless this is accepted there will be no peace in the region.
Many people, particularly in Western countries, are calling for total elimination of Palestinian Arabs, which implies women and chioldren too. But they do not go deeper and try to understand what motivated Hammas in launching the attack. The truth is that it was a result of decades of horrible oppression and atrocities on Palestinians by Israeli forces. Newton’s Third Law of Motion says that every action has an equal and opposite reaction. This applies to human affairs too. Wherever there is oppression there will be resistance
The sudden attack by Hamas on Israel reminds one of the well known Tet offensive in South Vietnam in January 1968, which caught the American occupying forces completely off guard, and was a complete failure of US intelligence, just as the Hamas attack caught the Israelis off guard and was a complete failure of Israeli intelligence.
Many people call Hamas savages, and regard people living in Gaza as animals. It is probably true that Hamas soldiers may have committed some atrocities in Israel. But this was only a reaction to over 75 years oppression and atrocities on Palestinians committed by Israelis, backed by some Western powers. The Hammas soldiers who entered Israel probably knew they were going on a suicide mission, like the Japanese Kamikaze pilots towards the end of the Second World War. Yet they did not flinch from this mission, with their anger pent up over decades seeing the atrocities on their people
And what about the retaliatory killing by Israelis of thousands of people, including women and children living in Gaza, by the Israeli forces, which was, and still is continuing, several times worse than the Hamas attack, whole apartment buildings with their occupants being obliterated, food, water and electricity being cut off, and the 2 million people of Gaza being effectively blockaded and deprived of subsistence ?
Before Israel was created 90% people living there were Arabs. Later most of them fled in fear and panic leaving their homes behind, after many were killed by israelis, and most of them are still living in horrible conditions in Gaza, the West Bank, Jordan and in Lebanon. There will never be peace in the region until justice is done to them, and they are properly rehabilitated.
A selective campaign has been launched by Western political leaders, including US President Biden, as well as the Western media, blaming Hammas for all that has happened, calling them vicious animals. It is time now to know the whole story and the truth
Imran Riaz Khan is a well known Pakistani journalist who was arrested by the Pakistan police on 11th May, 2023, and ultimately released on 25th September
There was wide speculation in the media about his disappearance for over 4 months, and some even feared he was dead.
He was interviewed by many persons after his release, and he appeared to have become a totally changed man– old, weak and haggard–a shadow of what he earlier was. He was also not disclosing anything about his captors ( probably out of fear that this may lead to another arrest ), but the general opinion is that they belonged to Pakistan’s ISI ( the military intelligence ). From his physical appearance it seemed he was subjected to brutal third degree methods during his captivity.
Why was he kept in custody and treated brutally for 4 months ? Nobody has answered this question but I will hazard a guess.
Everyone knows that the real ruler of Pakistan is its army ( though there may be a figleaf of civilian rule ). Criticism of the army is highly dangerous in Pakistan, and most Pakistanis avoid talking about it.
However, Imran Riaz Khan was often highly critical of the Pakistan army, and he was made to pay the penalty for this, both to silence him, and also to set an example for others.
There is a story of a man who told his friend that his father was a very brave man, who once fought with a tiger. His friend asked what happened thereafter ? The man replied ” What could happen ? The tiger tore him up and ate him up ”.
The moral of the story is that one should know his limits. Zyaada rangabaazi karna theek nahi hai.
I do not mean to say that one should not criticise wrongdoings. But one should not do so directly with a stronger enemy. Instead, one should use guerilla tactics, that is to say, one should not criticise directly but indirectly, by allusions, suggestions, metaphors, hints, etc, the way many Urdu poets like Faiz Ahmed Faiz, Josh Malihabadi, etc did ( see Faiz’ poem ‘Hum Dekhenge’ ).
Evidently Imran Riaz Khan forgot this, and paid the price
Today, 2nd October, is Gandhi Jayanti, or the birthday of Gandhiji, and some people have asked me to send my greetings to people on this occasion.
I regret I cannot do that, as I regard Gandhi as objectively a British agent, who did incalculable harm to the Indian people, for which they are still suffering. Let me explain.
Gandhi has been proclaimed as a ‘Mahatma‘, the Father of our nation, who gave freedom to India. I submit this is a myth carefully built up by the British and certain other vested interests. What is the truth ?
India has tremendous diversity, numerous religions, castes, races, languages, etc ( see my article ‘ What is India ?’ online ). Realizing this the British policy was of divide and rule ( see online ‘ History in the Service of Imperialism ‘ , which is a speech delivered by Prof. B.N. Pande in the Rajya Sabha ).
By constantly injecting religion into politics continuously for several decades, Gandhi furthered the British policy of divide and rule.
When Gandhi came to India in 1915 from South Africa ( where he practised law for about 20 years ) the Congress party was confined to some intellectuals, and had little mass following.
Gandhi thought that since India is a deeply religious country the best way to build up a mass following would be use of religion. So from 1915 till his death in 1948 in almost every public meeting and his writings he would propagate Hindu religious ideas like Ramraj, cow protection, varnashram, brahmachrya, etc ( see ‘The Collected works of ‘Mahatma Gandhi ‘, which is a Govt. of India publication in several volumes ).
This indeed converted the Congress from a party of only intellectuals to a mass party. But it was a mass party of the Hindu masses alone. How could the Muslims join such a party which appealed to Hindu sentiments ? In fact such an appeal to religion necessarily drove the Muslim masses to a Muslim communal organization– the Muslim League.
Did this not serve the British policy of divide and rule ? And therefore was Gandhi not objectively a British agent ?
In his book ‘The Partition of India ‘ the eminent jurist Seervai has written that the method of Gandhi of appealing to Hindu ideas may have mobilized the Hindu masses, but it inevitably led to Partition of India.
Thus while Gandhi claimed he was secular, that was only hypocrisy. In fact he was communal, and his ideas reactionary.
Unfortunately most people in India have not read the speeches and writings of Gandhi from 1915 to 1948, and so they do not know what he had done, and they have been taken for a ride. It is high time for them to know the truth.
If we read Gandhi’s public speeches and writings ( e.g. in his newspapers ‘Young India‘, ‘ Harijan ‘, etc ) we find that ever since Gandhi came to India from South Africa in 1915 till his death in 1948, in almost every speech or article he would emphasize Hindu religious ideas e.g. Ramrajya, Go Raksha ( cow protection ), brahmacharya ( celibacy ), varnashram dharma ( caste system ), etc ( see Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi ).
Thus Gandhi wrote in ‘ Young India ‘ on 10.6.1921 ” I am a Sanatani Hindu. I believe in the varnashram dharma. I believe in protection of the cow “. In his public meetings the Hindu bhajan ‘ Raghupati Raghav Raja Ram ‘ would be loudly sung.
Now Indians are a religious people, and they were even more religious in the first half of the 20th century. A sadhu or swamiji may preach such ideas to his followers in his ashram, but when they are preached day in and day out publicly by a political leader, what effect will these speeches and writings have on an orthodox Muslim mind ? It would surely drive him towards a reactionary Muslim organization like the Muslim League, and so it did. Was this not serving the British policy of divide and rule ?
By constantly injecting religion into politics for several decades, was Gandhi not objectively acting as a British agent ?
Some people say that the fact that Gandhi went to Noakhali etc in 1947 to appeal for communal amity shows that he was secular. But in fact this was the typical hypocrisy of Gandhi. First you set the house on fire by propagating Hindu religious ideas day in and day out for several decades, and then when the house is burning you do the drama of trying to douse the flames by appealing for communal harmony. Why did you set the house on fire in the first place ?
Some people ask : what did Gandhi get by this ? My answer is that different people have different motivations. For some money is the motivation, for others power. In Gandhi’s case it was probably power ( he was effectively the leader of the Congress ) and the desire to be called a ‘Mahatma’.
However, that is irrelevant. Whatever may have been his motivation, the real question to be asked is : did his actions in fact further the British policy of divide and rule ? They surely did, and that is why I have called Gandhi objectively a British agent. An objective agent may not receive any money, and he may not even be conscious of the fact that he is working as an agent. But that does not matter. If by your deeds you are in fact serving the interests of a foreign power, you are an agent of that foreign power.
As regards the claim that Gandhi gave us freedom, this again is a myth. Does any country give up its Empire without an armed fight ? Did America get independence from England by satyagraha and hunger strikes, or by mobilizing a Continental Army under George Washington which fought the American War of Independence from 1775-1781 ? Did Bolivar liberate several Latin American countries with guns, or by presenting flowers and bouquets to the Spanish rulers ? Did the Vietnamese defeat the French, and later the Americans, by use of arms, or by salt marches ?
It is said by some that if the Indian people had resorted to arms against the British rulers there would have been a lot of bloodshed. That is true, but then that is the price a people must pay for getting freedom.
In fact our real freedom fighters, Bhagat Singh, Chandrashekhar Azad, Surya Sen ( Masterda ), Ashfaqulla, Ram Prasad Bismil, Khudiram Bose, Rajguru, Sukhdev, etc realized this and took up arms against the British in the early 20th century. This was no doubt only the beginning of a nationwide armed fight against the British, and was therefore only on a very small scale. But later on it would have developed into a full blown War of Independence.
However, Gandhi successfully diverted this genuine freedom struggle towards a harmless channel called satyagrah, which was sentimental nonsense, and which would do no real harm to the British. Would a great power like Britain give up its Empire because Gandhi was going frequently on fasts and singing Raghupati Raghav Raja Ram in public meetings ? The names of our real freedom fighters ( mentioned above ) have been relegated to the footnotes of our history books, and they have been branded as mavericks and deviants, while Gandhi is given the credit of winning freedom for us
So who was responsible for Independence in 1947 ? Let me explain.
In the Second World War, which started in 1939, Germany attacked England, and considerably weakened it. Possibly Germany would have conquered England, had it not been for American help. But this help came at a price. The Americans put pressure on the British to give up their monopoly in India, and open up India for American enterprize and investments. This is the real cause of independence to india. It had nothing to do with Gandhi.
In India a revolutionary movement against British rule had started in the early 20th century under the Anushilan Samiti, Jugantar, and revolutionaries like Surya Sen, Ramprasad Bismil ( who wrote the song ‘ Sarfaroshi ki tamanna ab hamare dil mein hai ), Chandrashekhar Azad, Ashfaqulla, Bhagat Singh, Rajguru, etc ( who were all hanged by the British ). Gandhi successfully diverted the freedom struggle from this revolutionary direction to a harmless nonsensical channel called Satyagrah, which also served British interests.
Gandhi’s economic ideas were thoroughly reactionary. He advocated devolving power to self sufficient village communities, though everybody knows that these communities are totally casteist and in the grip of landlords and money lenders.
Gandhi was against industrialization, and preached handspinning by charkha and other such reactionary nonsense. Similarly, his ‘ trusteeship ‘ theory was all nonsense, and an act of deceiving the people. It inevitably led to Tatas and Birlas, and now Adani and Ambani
It is time the Indian people know the truth about the so called ‘Father of the Nation’
The godi media says ‘Hindu, Hindu, Hindu’, while Arfa Khanum Sherwani says ‘Muslim, Muslim, Muslim’, all the time. Thus they are two sides to the same coin, dividing and polarizing society, like the Hindu Mahasabha and Muslim League before Partition.
Neither godi media nor Arfa talk much of massive poverty in India, record and rising unemployment, appalling level of child malnutrition, almost total lack of proper healthcare and good education for the masses, etc.
Arfa says that the voice of 20 crore Muslims in India has been suppressed.
She does not add that the voice of 100 crore poor Hindus has also been suppressed, because poverty is destructive of all rights.
Please see these videos of Arfa. Is there any mention of the massive socio-economic evils which plague 80% of our entire population of 1400 million people, not just Muslims, like poverty, hunger, unemployment, etc ? No, Arfa only highlights and focuses on the plight of Muslims, which is a half truth ( or rather a one sixth truth, because Muslims are only one sixth of the population of India ).
I too condemn atocities on Muslims. But I believe that there are people other than Muslims who also live in India. And the solution to the basic problems of all ou people is a mighty united people’s struggle led by modern minded leaders determined to give our people a high standard of living and decent lives.
I wonder who finances Arfa’s foreign trips ? She may say they are some foreign organisations. But what is the real aim of these foreign organisations ? Is it to keep India polarised so that India does not emerge as a modern Indian giant, like China, as explained in this video ?
When she goes abroad Arfa keeps ranting about atrocities on Muslims ( which no doubt is the truth ), but never about poverty, unemployment, malnutrition, etc which afflict all in India, not just Muslims ( which is a far greater truth ).
Is she not behaving like Jinnah, who was a British agent responsible for Partition ? And are her financers not like the British who relentlessly pursued a divide and rule policy ?
The Senior Editor of the portal thewire.in, Arfa Khanum Sherwani, recently spoke at the Dr Ambedkar International Centre, New Delhi
In her speech she spoke of the atrocities on Muslims in India, hate speeches against Muslims, voters being polarised, etc
It is true that atrocities on Muslims have increased after the BJP came to power in 2014. However, Arfa did not mention a word that this was the inevitable and logical outcome of Partition of India in 1947 on the basis of the bogus two nation theory, as I have explained in this article :
Arfa has never condemned Partition. What she advocates is more Muslim representation in legislatures, local bodies, etc. She said in her speech ” Jo hamaara haq hai hamein dila deejiye ”.
She also said that Muslim representation ” Inmein jaan baksh deta hai ”.
Everyone knows that persons in legislatures and local bodies in India, whether Hindu or Muslim, are mostly a set of rogues and rascals who have no genuine love for the country, but are there only for power and pelf. So according to Arfa, looting of the people should not be done by Hindus alone, but also by Muslims, and this will solve the country’s problems.
Arfa says that the voice of 20 crore Muslims in India has been crushed. What she deliberately does not say is that the voice of 100 crore poor Hindus in India has also been crushed, because poverty is destructive of all rights.
Arfa said that being identified as a Muslim journalist ” ab main taaj ki tarah pahanti hun ”.
While the godi media keeps harping on atrocities on Hindus, Arfa keeps harping on atrocities on Muslims. I submit that these are two sides of the same coin.
In India there is massive poverty, record and rising unemployment, appalling level of child malnutrition ( Global Hunger Index has said that every second child in India is malnourished ), skyrocketing prices of food and other essential commodities, almost total lack of proper healthcare and good education for the masses, etc.
These socio economic evils are common to both Hindus and Muslims, and not to Muslims alone.
To abolish them a mighty historical united people’s struggle, led by patriotic, modern minded leaders, is needed, which will be protracted, and in which tremendous sacrifices will have to be made.
As to who will be those patriotic leaders determined to raise the standard of living of our people and give them decent lives, how will that struggle be conducted, how much time will it take to achieve success, what will be the alternative to parliamentary democracy under which India will rapidly industrialise and modernise, etc no one can predict. One cannot be rigid about historical forms. The enlightened sections of the people will have to use their creativity in solving these problems.
Arfa has no understanding of all this, yet, like the godi media, she keeps strutting around like a peacock dispensing to the public her pearls of wisdom.
