One other matter-I have often (& I read every one of your articles) seen you branding Christians in India along with the people who call themselves Muslims before Indians. Just so that I may make your highness aware, Christianity was brought to India not by the British but by St. Thomas who landed in Calicut (b4 AD 60). &then by Syrian families who came over the ages. They were peaceful, the local rulers had no problems with these people. &these Christians got assimilated into the general population without any conflict It was later during the British rule that the Anglican church came. Also, the Portuguese started forcibly converting these Syriac Orthodox Christians into Catholics. The Europeans are the ones who started an intolerant kind of Christian movement. Their missionaries as well as the Protestant groups (brother, CSI etc in Kerala for eg) do the same today too. How many times have you seen Hindus carry a grudge against Syriac Orthodox Christians in Kerala?(these people only fight against themselves, the ongoing battle b/w Indian and Syriac Orthodox Churches) What you say abt Christianity in general is like saying that all Muslims are terrorists because Osama is a Muslim
Rajeev sir has got his best enemies (China and Islam)all related now. As much as I admire this guy's knowledge and his writing skills, I regret to say that his words are inflammatory at times. I am not here to say that what the Islamic terrorists did is justifiable. And I know that my country bleeds every day because of ISI agents passing off as "freedom fighters" in Kashmir.
But, surely. Are you saying that the British deserve this for welcoming other cultures? There's no point in whining about the wrongs done by Constantine's army, the Muslim invaders or even the British and their divide-and-rule policy. Just because some (or a lot) of idiots did that then, we should be happy that the current crop of Britons or for that matter Christians in India should be apologetic about it.
What is the point of this article? Seems to me that the author was initially trying to say something about why the western media is worried a whole lot about violence in London when similar incidents are common place in Iraq and Kashmir. But then he wanders off. Hopefully the PartII will bring in some conclusion.
In my opinion these acts of extremism or religious fanaticism should not be attributed to one religion or a group of individuals.It is absolutely true that countries like the US & UK created the Osamas and in a way are responsible for the 9/11s and 7/7s.But one simply cannot blame Islam or Muslims for this.Germaine Lawson, who was one of the London bombers was not a Muslim.What do we have to say about the demolition of the Babri masjid by the 'Kar Sevaks'? Wasn't that an act of exremism?One doesn't even know about the seeds being sown in the minds of youth by the RSS.A friend of mine trains students in combat(in crude terms, breaking the head with one blow of the 'latth').So essentially these horrendous acts were carried out by individuals who in turn were misguided or brainwashed by religious fanatics.Mind you, these people are still out there and continue to do so in places like Madrasas.Now something like this could happen in India too and we certainly cannot remain complacent.Lets just pray for those who suffered and hope that an incident like this does not happen in our country. Needless to say ,the results of which could be catastrophic,considering the religious backlash.
Islamic terrorism is the only form of religios terrorism that is trans-national. Unless this type of islamic movement is suppressed, it will seek to expand in all modern societies and bring with it the same type of death and destruction we see in Israel. It has to be crushed decisively. A better alternative is to use them against each other. The old british principle is all time useful -- divide and rule, something they seem to have forgotten. It is not difficult to divide the various islamic fundos, and set them at each others throats and bomb each other to glory.
