Part III Read here

What about the treacherous anti-National snakes hissing ‘Aman-ki-Asha’ poison all the time?

As for domestic anti-national snakes from Abrahmo-Leftist cabal…the sane argument will apply, but with even more force.

It cannot happen that LeLis keep fear-mongering and shaming Hindus with a possible “Hindu Pakistan” dystopian scenario, while asking Bharat to ‘normalize’ relations with the actual dystopian reality without exorcising its original sin of separatist anti-Hindu hatred.

It cannot happen that LeLis will vehemently disagree with ‘Two-Nation theory’ at home, design an entire constitution in a reactionary opposition to it rather than taking cues from our own Civilizational legacy for original thought, and then agree to the same hateful theory being ‘normal’ for another nation, and especially for exactly that nation in whose opposition they’d created their hallowed ‘Idea of India.’

It cannot happen that LeLis will simultaneously agree with ‘Idea of India’ and then ‘Idea of Pakistan’ too.

Am I expecting too much from them?

I think not.

Because there’s a decades long precedent for it under the same deluded Nehruvian foreign policy paradigm. They had used even the warped, extremist interpretation of the above logic in that.

Saying that a nation cannot be founded on the sole basis of religion.

Liberating the Idea of religion-based-nation from hijab of liberal hypocrisy.

That precedent, was about denying even official, normal diplomatic relations to exist between the Jewish nation Israel and Bharat.

Before anybody accuses me of hypocrisy here, let me demolish this farce for what it is: Another historical Nehruvian mistake couched in the veil of moral superiority lecture.

Because if Bharat cannot accept or recognize all nations based on religion, why did it recognize so many Muslim and Christian countries that were already there and had committed horrendous crimes against humanity because of their respective religions’ mandates?

Why this arbitrary date of 15 August 1947 to decide all things religious?

And even if we accept that arbitrary date non-sense, and…well, why go that far? To Muslim and Christian countries oceans away? Let’s come to the most-celebrated-by-secularists alleged failure of 2-nation-theory, right in our backyard: Creation of Bangladesh and subsequent bilateral relations.

In 1988, 40 years after that ‘cut-off date’ for Bharatiya secularism, they’d declared Islam to be their State religion.

Did Bharat break all diplomatic ties and de-recognized Bangladesh immediately after that, based on that one religious move?

To my knowledge, that never happened in the 50+ years history of our bilateral relations, despite Bangladesh’s on-and-off affair with secularism.

So why that hypocritical double standard of Nehruvian consensus?

I’ll tell you why – straight from ‘truth-has-a-left-bias’ Wikipedia.

Albert Einstein wrote a four-page letter to Jawaharlal Nehru on June 13, 1947, to persuade India to support the setting up of a Jewish state. Nehru, however, couldn’t accept Einstein’s request, and explained his dilemma stating that national leaders have to “unfortunately” pursue policies that are “essentially selfish”. India voted against the Partitioning of Palestine plan of 1947 and voted against Israel’s admission to the United Nations in 1949.

It further says:

On 17 September 1950, India officially recognised the State of Israel. Following India’s recognition of Israel, Indian Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru stated, “we would have [recognised Israel] long ago, because Israel is a fact. We refrained because of our desire not to offend the sentiments of our friends in the Arab countries.”

It also says:

Domestically, politicians in India feared losing the Muslim vote if relations were normalised with Israel.

Additionally, India did not want to jeopardise the large amount of its citizens working in Arab States of the Persian Gulf, who were helping India maintain its foreign-exchange reserves. India’s domestic need for energy was another reason for the lack of normalisation of ties with Israel, in terms of safeguarding the flow of oil from Arab nations. India’s foreign policy goals and alliances also proved problematic to formal relations with Israel, including India’s support for the pro-Palestine Liberation Organization Non-Aligned Movement, India’s tilt towards the Soviet Union during the Cold War, and India’s desire to counter Pakistan’s influence with the Arab states.

And…

After all that shrewd realpolitik comes the so-called “ideological reason” of ‘dominant political party’ of Bharat during this time.

On an ideological level, the dominant political party in India during this era, namely the Indian National Congress, opposed Israel due to their perception that it was a state based on religion, analogous to Pakistan.

National…sorry, *cough Muslim cough* interest above ideology

So there it is.

There was nothing ideological about congress – or the larger secularist cabal in general – taking that particular stand on the issue except veiling ruthless national but mostly party-political interest in moral sermonization to Hindus.

In other words: it was all about national and even international Muslim appeasement!

Hindus naturally look at 2-Nation Theory as what it was – and is: An Anti-Hindu genocidal project of Islamists.

Besides, partition was not done in the name of some abstract concept of “religion”. It was very specific, single minded Islamist hatred of Hindus, that caused it.

Let’s be very clear about it: Partition didn’t happen because of “religion.” Partition happened in the name of one, specific religion, carried out by its militant followers – and that religion’s name was not Hinduism. Nor were those militant followers Hindus.

So elevating the reason of such tragedy from specifics to a gross generalization as “religion caused it”, is not just unfairly punishing Hindus for a genocide Muslims did, but instead such a farcical argument is extremely insulting to all religions that don’t indulge in regular separatist behavior.

And besides, Hindus’ support for Jewish nation was always based on their civilizational understanding of ‘Homeland’.

Pakistanis cannot claim their stolen territory as Islamic civilizational homeland.

And that’s also why Hindus sympathize and cheer for the Jewish nation’s fight for survival when its neighbors had, for long, vowed to wipe it off from the face of the earth – just as Pakistan and Pakistanis had, with their ‘Gazwa-e-Hind’ genocidal fantasies, despite being genocidal maniacs who had stolen ancient Hindu lands and carried out an ethnic cleansing against its original inhabitants.

So all Hindus have a much larger and quite frankly, existential reason, to oppose any ‘normalization’ of relations with a State that has been such a pioneer in institutionalized anti-Hindu hatred, not just in its own stolen lands but exporting it all over the world – until those institutional structures of hate are removed from Pakistani national political and social psyche.

The sickular test of a lifetime

As for sickular LeLis of Bharat – led by “recently ideologically aware” young prince pappu who opposes Savarkar and his Hindutva tooth and nail – these people who keep hating Israel even to this day in the dogged pursuit of Muslim appeasement and in name of their beloved “Idea of India”, let them prove their commitment to that same idea here.

If for them, a “religion based state – especially like Pakistan”, is everything they stand against, then they should lead from the front in opposing any ‘normalization’ of ties until Pakistan discards its own, well, “Idea of Pakistan.”

They must say so in unequivocal terms that ‘State of Pakistan’ itself is NOT ‘normal’ in international geo-politics – according to the perceptions of Idea-of-India, then how can there be ‘normal’ ties of Bharat with such a State? On any level?

They must condemn and refuse to join any alliance with any party – like that of Mufti’s PDP or Abdullah’s NC – that keeps insisting on talks with Pakistan while it remains as it is.

The young prince keeps saying that “Indian democracy is a global public good” in all appropriate and inappropriate international forums, right? He also keeps screaming about “Hindutva Vs. Hinduism” and how he is pro-Hindu. Correct?

Then let him – and his cabal – go on those same platforms and from there, scream their lungs out to outline the biggest threat such a democracy faces, a threat as admitted by that same party and his ancestors who champion their Idea of India.

That until Pakistan adopts this hallowed “Idea of India” for itself, permanent peace and ‘normal’ bilateral relations with such a hateful symbol of nuclear armed institutionalized anti-Hindu bigotry is just not possible.

That until Hindu minorities enjoy the same superior rights in Pakistan as Muslim minorities in India – and Muslim majorities are as crippled and handicapped in their political religious affairs over there as Hindu majorities have been in India, there will be nothing ‘normal’ between the two countries.

After all, bilateral agreements are core of any international relationship between 2 countries, right?

One of those were Nehru-Liyaqat pact.

Pakistan broke it.

So until war-crimes tribunals were formed to prosecute those who broke it and led genocide and ethnic cleansing of Hindu minorities in Pakistan, until situation is restored to such an extent that Hindus are as big in numbers as Muslims are in India – with their religious practices intact, nothing ‘normal’ needs to exist between the two countries.

If sickulars not just fail to stand up for this very core of their ideological foundation which is grounding their very own ‘Idea of India’ but actually oppose it and insist on having ‘normal’ relations with Pakistan remaining as it is, then we know what they really want and stand for: ‘Idea of Pakistan’.

They’d want Pakistanization of India.

In which case, we Hindus need to be prepared for our imminent genocide.