Search This Blog


Sunday, July 31, 2011

I stand by Dr Subramanian Swamy & his DNA article

To:  Harvard University, Sanjay Pinto & Umang Kumar

This is a point by point rebuttal petition to

Where is Secular Media Now?

"Declaring India a Hindu Rashtra in which non-Hindus can vote only if they proudly acknowledge that their ancestors were Hindus"

Re: what's wrong in it? Is not Vatican a Christian country? Does anyone have any say in its political system or anything they do? Are not Saudi Arabia and other Islamic countries pure Islamic in nature and in its political system? If Vatican and other Islamic countries are not wrong in what they are then India is not wrong on this either. So, if Vatican and other Islamic countries' politic system is influenced by religion, what's wrong if India demand the same? And last but not least, non-Christian can't become political leader in US. Even If he wants to, he will have to convert to Christianity. No wonder, there has been a big uproar and controversy over president Obama' religious faith.

"Removing the Masjid in Kashi Vishwanath temple and the 300 Masjids at other temple sites"

Re: Nothing wrong in this. If that is objectionable to you then what do you have to say on the big controversy and objection to the Ground Zero Mosque?

Let's see, who said what on this Controversial Ground Zero Mosque:

Sarah Palin, former Republican Vice-Presidential candidate

'Peace-seeking Muslims, please understand, Ground Zero mosque is UNNECESSARY provocation; it stabs hearts. Please reject it in interest of healing'.

Harry Reid, Senate Majority leader, Democratic senator for Nevada

'The First Amendment protects freedom of religion but the mosque should be built someplace else'.

Rudolph Giuliani, former New York City mayor, Republican presidential candidate

'This is a desecration. Nobody would allow something like that at Pearl Harbor'.

Newt Gingrich, former GOP House Speaker

'There should be no mosque near Ground Zero in New York so long as there are no churches or synagogues in Saudi Arabia. The time for double standards that allow Islamists to behave aggressively toward us while they demand our weakness and submission is over'.

Beside this Controversial Mosque, can you build temple in Vatican or Saudi Arabia? If no, then why can India not demand to be a Hindu Rashtra and removal of Controversial mosques at Hindu holy places?

So, if these politicians can speak out against controversial ground zero mosque, if Vatican and Saudi Arabia can be dictated by religious rules, how come an Indian politician (as introduced by you in the beginning) Dr Swamy is being termed as bigoted for objecting to Mosques at Hindu holy places ?

"Enacting a national law prohibiting conversion from Hinduism to any other religion"

Re: Here, he is talking about induced conversion. There is already anti-conversion law exists in 5 states of India. What is wrong if it is implemented throughout India? Would you say that people from those five states do not qualify to be in Harvard only because they posses anti-conversion law? And who has given you the rights to interfere in someone's constitutional & judicial matters? Criticism is welcome but foreign interference, not.

"And propagating the development of a Hindu mindset"

Re: Do Christians and Muslims not propagate their religious mindset all over the world? If answer is yes then Dr swamy is right on the money. After all it is a matter of protecting one’ core interests.

"Writing in the wake of the July 13, 2011, bombings in Mumbai, Swamy has exploited this event not only to promote a vision of Indian society based on Hindu supremacy, but to disparage and cast suspicion on the entire Muslim community in India. "Muslims of India," he states, "are being programmed by a slow reactive process to become radical and thus slide into suicide against Hindus."

Re: Is not Vatican based on Christian ideology? Is not Saudi Arabia and other Muslim republics based on Islamic Ideology? Then why does your stomach ache if someone talks about Hindu Ideology? As far as your allegation on exploitation on Mumbai bombings is concerned, let me expose your double standards or selective dementia. This is US politician Rudolph Giuliani, talking about Radical Islam and how to destroy them >> So, if US politicians can talk openly on "how to destroy Islamic extremists" then why can an Indian politician not talk about "how to wipe out Islamic terror"?

"While free expression and the vigorous contest of ideas are essential in any academic community, so, too, are respect and tolerance for human difference. By advocating measures that would grossly violate freedom of religion and the unqualified right to vote for different religious groups, and by aggressively vilifying an entire religious community, Swamy breaches the most basic standards of respect and tolerance."

Re: Which of Dr Swamy's ideas are extreme and breach of respect and tolerance? Would you say the same thing to all US politicians and other people who oppose Ground Zero Mosque? Would you say the same thing to FBI and US Govt which talks openly on Radical Islam and how to tame it? There have 100s of Temples and Mosques been destroyed by various Indian State Govts for various Govt/public purposes. So what is wrong if few 100 Mosques are removed (not demolished) as a part to tame Radical Islam?

"More specifically, Swamy's comments cast doubt on his ability to treat a diverse community of students with fairness and respect. The highly insulting and stereotypical nature of his comments suggest that he cannot be trusted to regard Muslims -- and no doubt other groups--with anything but a jaundiced eye."

Re: First of all, who are you to cast doubts on his abilities? You are not even from his teaching classes. If you were really worried about "Muslims getting hurt because of his DNA article", you would have presented counter arguments but rather you chose to be used by anti-swamy elements, you chose to do witch hunt, you chose not to confront him by presenting valid counter points but rather chose to hide and take pot shots. Is this your so called Harvard culture where people are taught to be narrow minded and not to discuss the issues? If this is the case then what is the difference between Harvard culture and Sharia law in which sanity & questioning are curse.

"Swamy's views are deeply offensive; they are also dangerous. The measures he proposes--far out of step with the everyday secularism and tolerance embodied by most Indians--would threaten to tear apart the basic fabric of India's pluralist democracy. And, as Indians know too well, the brand of rhetoric that he employs has fuelled violence against religious minorities in the past."

Re: Who are you? The guardian of the Indians? Which one is more dangerous, Dr Swamy who has given steps (still unchallenged) to eradicate extremism or US Govt, which, under the guise of UN, kills millions around the world? As I said before, criticism with counter arguments is welcome but foreign interference in Indian souverinity, not.

Who is Dr Swamy ?

>> A person, who, single handedly, fought for law and order during Indira's emergency rule.

>> A person, who, single handedly, prepared the complete blue print of India's economic liberation reform which was later implemented by successive govt
>> A person, who, single handedly, succeeded in stopping Islamic banking from coming to India. (Islamic banking is unconstitutional under RBI law)
>> A person, who, single handedly, fought for Ram setu cause and won.
>> A person, who, single handedly, succeeded in preventing TN govt overtaking very famous TN temple
>> A person, who, single handedly, exposed India's biggest scam – 2G scam

I can go on and on and on and on, on his ability, honesty & commitment.

In short, he is hard core constitutionalist, hard core nationalist, honest to the core & most tolerant towards all religion (no wonder, his wife is Parasi, his brother in-law is Jew, his one daughter is married to a Muslim, his another daughter is married to a Christian). His goal to write DNA Op-Ed was only to suggest "how we can eradicate extremist terrorism". If anyone has any problem with his write up, do challenge him by presenting counter arguments rather than be used by anti-swamy elements and go for witch hunt.

Please Sign This Petition to stand by Dr Subramanian Swamy & his DNA article.

This was Subramanian Swamy's solution to terrorism
Goal 1
: Overawe India on Kashmir.
Strategy: Remove Article 370 and resettle ex-servicemen in the valley. Create Panun Kashmir for the Hindu Pandit community. Look for or create an opportunity to take over PoK. If Pakistan continues to back terrorists, assist the Baluchis and Sindhis to get their independence.

Goal 2: Blast temples, kill Hindu devotees.
Strategy: Remove the masjid in Kashi Vishwanath temple and the 300 masjids at other temple sites.

Goal 3: Turn India into Darul Islam.
Strategy: Implement the uniform civil code, make learning of Sanskrit and singing of Vande Mataram mandatory, and declare India a Hindu Rashtra in which non-Hindus can vote only if they proudly acknowledge that their ancestors were Hindus. Rename India Hindustan as a nation of Hindus and those whose ancestors were Hindus.

Goal 4: Change India’s demography by illegal immigration, conversion, and refusal to adopt family planning.
Strategy: Enact a national law prohibiting conversion from Hinduism to any other religion. Re-conversion will not be banned. Declare that caste is not based on birth but on code or discipline. Welcome non-Hindus to re-convert to the caste of their choice provided they adhere to the code of discipline. Annex land from Bangladesh in proportion to the illegal migrants from that country staying in India. At present, the northern third from Sylhet to Khulna can be annexed to re-settle illegal migrants.

Goal 5: Denigrate Hinduism through vulgar writings and preaching in mosques, madrassas, and churches to create loss of self-respect amongst Hindus and make them fit for capitulation.
Strategy: Propagate the development of a Hindu mindset.


  1. Please annex 1/3 of Bangladesh as proposed to settle the oppressed Bangladeshi Hindus and the Bangladeshi who are already left for India.

    I know many people say Swamy a mad etc.

    But we have a time now where the weak don't have a voice.

    People who say right things are called mad.

    I wish good luck to BD Muslims. But I am sorry I don't want to live in BD with them.

    - Humble Bangladeshi Hindu

  2. Why are examples from other countries used to justify the arguments? Saudi Arabia, USA, and the Vatican are mentioned constantly throughout the article. A lot of the arguments start with "If Saudi Arabia can do this then why cant India".

    What if they are wrong? What if we don't agree with other countries' policies? What if India shows that She is bigger than other nations and does not let religion dictate her policies. Wouldn't that be a worthy goal to strive towards?