We wonder, whatever its meaning may be, does it minimize the significance of the mindless killings that we see today in the name of Islam, across borders, all over the world? Does it change the nature of the killers whether you call them holy warriors, mujahidins, fedayeens or plane suicide bombers?
We wonder, whatever its meaning may be, does it minimize the significance of the mindless killings that we see today in the name of Islam, across borders, all over the world? Does it change the nature of the killers whether you call them holy warriors, mujahidins, fedayeens or plane suicide bombers?
We agree with you that terrorism has no religion. But hopefully you will also agree with the people who perceive that most terrorist in the world today happen to believe in the scriptures of Islam. They actually believe that they themselves are the true Islamists.
The so called "moderate" Islamist, perhaps does not want to contradict them or may be does not dare to speak out against them. You have probably not forgotten the FIR against you for listing Prophet Mohammed as one of the most unimpressive personalities in history, the threats from which you had to skillfully wriggle out. Others who are not so fortunate, famous or flexible are suffering lifetime, as Tasleema Nasreen or Salman Rushdie would testify. For blasphemy in Islam is punishable with death, even for a believer.
Do I have to spell out the fate if it is a non-believer?
It is due to the inherent intolerance and exclusivity of Islam itself despite your effort to convince us that there is an Islam from Allah and very unfortunately, there is an Islam from the Mullahs.
Here is an historical insight from writer Irfan Hussain, "The Muslim heroes who figure larger than life in our history books committed some dreadful crimes..all have blood-stained hands that the passage of years has not cleansed. Indeed, the presence of Muslim historians on their various campaigns has ensured that the memory of their deeds will live long after they were buried...Seen through Hindu eyes, the Muslim invasion of their homeland was an unmitigated disaster."
So why should the "non-believers" care to accept them? Why should the majority of Indians like to welcome back such disasters again?
Since partition, India has come a long way in progress and development to her current status and is projected as an economic superpower in coming decades while Pakistan is perceived as a failed state on the verge of disintegration.
What does India have to gain by offering neighbourly friendship to such a hostile and failed state?
India has never been an invader and is not in conflict of any other Muslim country. None of the wars and conflicts with Pakistan was instigated by India. In the current geopolitical situation, one can argue for the Muslim worlds grudge and anger against Israel or the west and USA but one fail to fathom why India should also be at the receiving end and why Indians should be the second largest group of people to die from terrorists attacks. Indian majorities do not have anything to do with the Danish cartoon or the death of Saddam Hussain; so why should they suffer from Islamic havoc on those occasions.
In almost all occasions of terrorism, questions are raised about possible role of Pakistan, its terror bases and its terrorist organizations, as either directly or indirectly involved. Be it state sponsored (as recently admitted by President Zardari) or by non-state actors, Pakistan or Pakistani born are prime suspect in terrorist activities all over the world. The ISI has been accused of playing a role in major terrorist attacks including 9/11 in the USA, terrorism in Kashmir, Mumbai Train Bombings, London Bombings, Indian Parliament Attack, Varanasi bombings, Hyderabad bombings, Mumbai terror attacks or the attack on the Indian embassy in Kabul.
Do you believe these are marks of a good neighbour? Then what is the reason for your preaching of love towards Pakistan?
Perhaps, as you said, because it is your ancestor's homeland, you have a soft feeling for Pakistan and cannot see the difference. On the eve of accepting an honorary doctorate from a British university, we heard you say, "I really believe we are the same ..when you come away from India or Pakistan you realize there is no Indian or Pakistani were all together. We are - culturally, as human beings, as friends"
Which Pakistanis are you referring to?
The Pakistanis belonging to the land, admonished as the epicenter of global terrorism, not just by India or USA but even by its friendly allies like Iran or China.
Or is it the self-created, Talibanic Pakistan, who still imposes Jijya on the non believers or finds pleasure in blowing up girl's schools..
Are you talking about its President class like the current Mr. Zardari, vowed to wage a 1,000-year war with India or the late Mrs. Bhutto who started Jihad in Kashmiri that lead to the exodus of Hindu minorities from the Muslim majority state of India, as refugees in their own country?
Are you referring to Pakistanis loyal to the ISI and the military who train their soldiers with only one objective, i.e. to fight Hindu India?
If your mind is concerned about the faceless mass of Pakistanis, does it also include the dwindling minorities?
Or are you just concerned about the celebrities and the social elites?
It is true Mr. Khan that we belong to the same human species but it is hard to stretch the similarities much further between "us" and "them".
We from the same original land of Bharat but we want to keep her intact, they want to break it into thousand pieces.
Our ancestors happen to be the same. We acknowledge and adore the heritage but they abhor and decimate whoever is available in an attempt to wipe out the link.
We are culturally the same. We have created the culture over centuries what they dream to destroy in moments.
Ours is a 10,000 year old civilization, theirs is a 62 years old country undoing whole human civilization.
Subscribe today by clicking the link and stay updated with the latest news!" Click here!
