Questionnaire for the so-called Secularists who provoke Muslim Indians against Hindus Hindu and Muslims both could not get rid of hatred against each others, despite having lived together for centuries. Attempts for reconciliation had been mostly one sided always culminating in futility. Despite partition, two nation theory could not be disproved. India is paying a very heavy price for the mistake, congress committed in 1947 by not implementing a correct partition. Two nations live even today in one geographical unit. It is easier to fight any invasion from out side, but very difficult to suppress silent and secret revolt of co-citizens, particularly when one segment is increasing population with sole intention of establishment of its hegemony with all elements of immorality. The so-called secularists must answer following questions before questioning RSS, BJP and HINDUS (which includes Indian population not classified as Christians and Muslims) 1- Should the foreign invaders be abused or appreciated? 2- Was Zinnah really wrong, while acting on two nation theory? 3-Does the two nation theory not operate openly when numerical strength of minorities become capable of ignoring TRUTH, LOGIC and COMMON INTEREST of uncommon people of a nation? 4-Are the situations very good in J&K, Kerala and North-east? 5-Can Hindus be blamed for the problems presently being faced in the said parts of India? 6-Can nationalism and secularism be in TWO SETS instead of ONE for all types of population in India? Why should media not make demand for enactment of essential ingredients of secularism, so as to stop the blame game between BJP and other political parties? 7-Why should only temples be removed from the developmental sites and NOT the churches and mosque? 8-Once religious freedom is available; there should not be any problem in behaving like one people, one nation, in every walk of our national life. Is the article 370 a permanent feature? If yes, was it necessary to drive Hindus out side the J&K? What is justification for one way traffic? 9-Should the driven away Hindus not be resettled in J&K? 10- Should the Bangladesi Muslims not be driven out of India? 11- Should Hindus not worry at the higher rate of procreation by non- Hindus? Should the freedom for increasing non-Hindu population be granted at the cost of Hindu population? 12- If not, why should government expenditure on welfare of minorities not be in proportion to the revenue collected from them? 13- At the time of partition, Muslims got 30% good land for their 20% population in the undivided India. Have they suffered like SC/ST for thousands of years for being eligible to get the reservation presently being proposed by the so-called secularists? Had the Muslims not got preferential treatments during Muslim and British rules? 14- Why should the freedom of increasing population not be subjected to (1) fixing of a permanent quota at 8% in total strength of legislatures, executives and government employment in accordance with their post partition population and (2) non-acquisition of land and buildings belonging to Hindus for exclusive use of Minorities?. 15- Is a big population not a problem? Can increase in population be rewarded by increasing caste and religion based quota after every census? 16- Is slaughtering of cow a compulsory component of some religions? 17- When other cattle are available, is killing of cow necessary to hurt sentiments of Hindus? 18- Accepted that marriages of Muslim boys with Hindu girls are due to pure natural love and not due to any internal or external conspiracy. Should it not be two way, instead of one way traffic? Will minorities allow it with out any criminal revenge? 19- Any speech or even the above questions may be classified as provocative. Should truth not be spoken or recorded, merely because some people may not like or call it provocative? 20- Should Hindus not demand Shri Ram temple at Ayodhya, because it causes riot and terrorism? 21- Should the Government not frame reconciliatory rules containing some” do and do nots” to facilitate peaceful co-existence? 22- How are shri Abhay Dubey, and one lady professor as also some others are allowed to speak against HIDUTVA, when MUSLIM debaters are allowed to make every objectionable matter as a part of Islam? In prime time NDTV debate dated 13-10-2014, the lady Professor in question said that males want to maintain their right on the body of females, but what about vice-versa? She also lied that Hindu population have not declined due to a large-scale procreation by Muslims. Anchor ignored all mistakes against Hindus. 23- According to bias media persons terror and one way ISHKA (not love) with Hindu women should not be linked with Islam and Islamic jihad, but the same media debaters do not open mouth when Muslims terrorize police and take law in their own hands to get the Muslim criminals released, even before they are taken to police station. (latest example is Budaun).
Posted on: Tue, 14 Oct 2014 07:43:42 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015