Mighty India from world's 2nd wealthy nation in 1770's to bottom in 1920's under BRITISH EMPIRE.LOOT.

Reason for india to be poor. Indian economy was second 28% GDP of world second to China's 33% GDP in 1770's came down to 15% in 1850's and then 1% in 1920's. For detail -
CLICK HERE

Mughalistan -A change coming for India if Soniya led empire come rule by ROME in proxy.

It is the Islamic Pakistan-Bangladesh plan to split India. The plan is being billed as Mughalistan – An undivided Islamic nation in the Indian Subcontinent. Pakistan and Bangladesh would be connected through a land corridor running across the Indo-Gangetic plain, the heartland of India.

In 1947, India was partitioned into two countries based on religion – India for Hindus and Pakistan for Muslims. Pakistan had two parts to it – West and East. West is now Pakistan, East is now Bangladesh. The Bangladesh Liberation War in 1971 occurred and a declaration of independence was made. Muslims wanted a corridor between the two countries in 1947 to unite the country and now want it again to ensure that Bangladesh becomes Islamic. For a full explanation of this Project, read here.

Islam has totally infiltrated India. India has 29 member states and 7 union territories. Kashmir now has a population that is 97% Muslim. This has happened by highly aggressive conversions, marriages and brutal violence. Muslims now own around 100 districts in India and what they don’t own, they are now trying to take by converting owners to Islam, by using violence to drive the Hindus out or by outright theft.

In West Bengal, out of their 19 districts, 5 are now Muslim and the takeover is growing rapidly. Islam composes 40% of the population there now. In Assam, out of their 21 districts, 8 are now a Muslim majority. There are thousands of no-go areas – these are areas that only Muslims may venture into and where sharia law rules. In Uttar Pradesh, the largest state in India, the Islamic population is now 25%. In Bihar, it is 20%. Kerala – 30%. And in Jammu, it is 40%. These are the most violent territories and it is spreading like wildfire. These numbers were given to me by others living in India. In the US, we are worried about Mosques and Madrassas. In India, their entire country is being invaded; converting hundreds of Hindus every day by force and the rape of Hindu women is commonplace.

According to the last census in India, the Muslim population was 13.4%. My sources tell me it is actually closer to 25%.

If Mughalistan becomes a reality (and it looks like it is well on its way to being one), it will be the largest Islamic Republic on the planet and it will take the whole of eastern, northeastern and northern India as part of its domain. Mughalistan will be an independent homeland for the Muslims of India and it will become part of the upcoming caliphate.


ARTICLE LINK.

DEFALCIFICATION OF HISTORY OF INDIA/BHARAT

'Defalsification of Indian history is the first step for our renaissance.' - Dr. Subramanian Swamy

In this falsified history, it is made out that Hindus capitulated to Islamic invaders. But on the contrary,unlike Iran, Iraq and Egypt where within decades the country capitulated to become 100 per cent Muslims. India despite 800 years of brutal Islamic rule, remained 80 per cent Hindu.

The fabrication of our History begins with the falsification of our chronology.

The accepted history of no country can be structured on foreign accounts of it. But Nehru and his Leftist cronies did just that, and thus generations of Indians have been brainwashed by this falsified history of India.

The UPA has succeeded in persuading more state governments to accept the NCERT texts. A report on Monday (January 5, 2009) said 12 more state governments have accepted to teach NCERT texts in their schools.

For the last two weeks the Organiser is carrying a series of articles on the NCERT textbooks prescribed for students at the primary, secondary and higher secondary schools. We have found these books written with a peculiar mindset, to denationalise and deculturise the young Indian. These books fail to make the children aware of their true heritage. These books seem to distort even India's freedom struggle, Mahatma Gandhi's role and try to divide the society into different caste and class segments. Their idea is to convince the children that India as a nation came to exist only after August 15, 1947.

We request the parents, teachers, students and scholars to join this academic exercise to expose the shenanigans behind promotion of these books in Indian schools. ?Editor

The identity of India is Hindustan, i.e., a nation of Hindus and those others who acknowledge with pride that their ancestors were Hindus. Hindustan represents the continuing history of culture of Hindus. One?s religion may change, but culture does not. Thus, on the agenda for a national renaissance should be the dissemination of the correct perception of what we are. This perception has to be derived from a defalsified history. However, the present history taught in our schools and colleges is the British imperialist-sponsored one, with the intent to destroy our identity. India as a State is treated as a British-created entity and of only recent origin. The Indian people are portrayed as a heterogeneous lot who are hopelessly divided against themselves. Such a ?history? has been deliberately created by the British as a policy. Sir George Hamilton, Secretary of State for India, wrote to the Home Office on March 26, 1888 that ?I think the real danger to our rule is not now but say 50 years hence?.. We shall (therefore) break Indians into two sections holding widely different views?.. We should so plan the educational text books that the differences between community and community are further strengthened?.

After achieving Independence, under the leadership of Jawaharlal Nehru and the implementing authority of the anglicized ICS, revision of our history was never done, in fact the very idea was condemned as ?obscurantist? and Hindu chauvinist by Nehru and his ilk.

The Imperialist History of India
What is the gist of this British imperialist-tailored Indian history? In this history, India is portrayed as the land ?conquered? first by the ?Dravidians?, then by the ?Aryans?, later by Muslims, and finally by the British. Otherwise, everything else is mythical. Our history books today exhibit this obsession with foreign rule. For example, even though the Mughal rule from Akbar to Aurangzeb is about 150 years, which is much shorter than the 350 year rule of the Vijayanagaram empire, the history books of today hardly take notice of the latter. In fact the territory under Krishna Devaraya?s rule was much larger than Akbar?s, and yet it is the latter who is called ?the Great?. Such a version suited the British rules who had sought to create a legitimacy for their presence in India. Furthermore, we were also made to see advantages accruing from British rule, the primary one being that India was united by this colonialism, and that but for the British, India would never have been one country. Thus, the concept of India itself is owed to the plunder of colonialists.

In this falsified history, it is made out that Hindus capitulated to Islamic invaders. But on the contrary, unlike Iran, Iraq and Egypt where within decades the country capitulated to become 100 per cent Muslims. India despite 800 years of brutal Islamic rule, remained 80 per cent Hindu.

These totally false and pernicious ideas have however permeated deep into our educational system. They have poisoned the minds of our younger generations who have not had the benefit of the Freedom Struggle to awaken their pride and nationalism. It has thus to be an essential part of the renaissance agenda that these ideas of British-sponsored history of India, namely, (1) that India as a State was a gift of the British and (2) that there is no such thing as a native Indian, and what we are today is a by-product of the rape of the land by visiting conquerors and their hordes and (3) that India is a land that submitted meekly to invading hordes from Aryan to the English, are discarded.
Falsification of Chronology in India?s History
The fabrication of our History begins with the falsification of our chronology.

The customary dates quoted for composition of the Rig Veda (circa 1300 B.C.), Mahabharat (600 B.C.), Buddha?s Nirvana (483 B.C.), Maurya Chandragupta?s coronation (324 B.C.), and Asoka (c.268 B.C.) are entirely wrong. Those dates are directly or indirectly based on a selected reading of Megasthenes? account of India. In fact, so much so that eminent historians have called if the ?sheet anchor of Indian chronology?. The account of Megasthenes and the derived chronology of Indian history have also an important bearing on related derivations such as the two-race (Aryan-Dravidian) theory, and on the pre-Vedic character of the so called Indus Valley Civilization.

Megasthenes was the Greek ambassador sent by Seleucus Nicator in c. 302 B.C. to the court of the Indian king whom he and the Greek called ?Sandrocottus?. He was stationed in ?Palimbothra?, the capital city of the kingdom. It is not clear how many years Megasthenes stayed in India, but he did write an account of his stay, titled Indika. The manuscript Indika is lost, and there is no copy of it available. However, during the time it was available, many other Greek writers quoted passages from it in their own works. These quotations were meticulously collected by Dr. Schwanbeck in the nineteenth century, and this compilation is also available to us in English (J.M. McCrindle: Ancient India as Described by Megasthenes and Arrian).

The founder of the Mauryas, however, is not the only Chandragupta in Indian history, who was a king of Magadh and founder of a dynasty. In particular, there is Gupta Chandragupta, a Magadh king and founder of the Gupta dynasty at Patliputra. Chandragupta Gupta was also not of ?noble? birth and, in fact, came to power by deposing the Andhra king Chandrasri. That is, Megasthenes? Sandrocottus may well be Gupta Chandragupta instead of Maurya Chandgragupta (and Xandremes the same as Chandrasri, and Sandrocryptus as Samudragupta).

In order to determine which Chandragupta it is, we need to look further. It is, of course, a trifle silly to build one?s history on this kind of tongue-gymnastics, but I am afraid we have no choice but to pursue the Megasthenes evidence to its end, since the currently acceptable history is based on it.

In order to determine at which Chandragupta?s court Megasthenes was ambassador, we have to look further into his account of India. We find he was at Pataliputra (i.e. Palimbothra in Megasthenes? account). We know from the Puranas (which are unanimous on this point) that all the Chandravamsa king of Magadh (including the Mauryas) prior to the Guptas, had their capital at Girivraja (or equivalently Rajgrha) and not at Pataliputra. Gupta Chandragupta was the first king to have his capital in Patliputra. This alone should identify Sandrocottos with Gupta Chandragupta. However some 6-11th century A.D. sources call Pataliputra the Maurya capital, e.g., Vishakdatta in Mudrarakshasa, but these are based on secondary sources and not on the Puranas.

Pursuing Megasthenes? account further, we find most of it impossible to believe. He appears to be quite vague about details and is obviously given to the Greek writers? weakness in letting his imagination get out of control. For example, ?Near a mountain which is called Nulo there live men whose fee are turned back-wards and have eight toes on each foot.? (Solinus 52.36-30 XXX.B.) ?Megasthenes says a race of men (exist in India) who neither eat or drink, and in fact have not even mouths, set on fire and burn like incense in order to sustain their existence with odorous fumes?..? (Plutarch, Frag. XXXI). However, Megasthenes appears to have made one precise statement of possible application which was picked up later by Pliny, Solinus, and Arrian. As summarized by Professor K.D. Sethna of Pondicherry, it reads:

?Dionysus was the first who invaded India and was the first of all who triumphed over the vanished Indians. From the days of Dionysus to Alexander the Great, 6451 years reckoned with 3 months additional. From the time of Dionysus to Sandrocottus the Indians reckoned 6452 years, the calculation being made by counting the kings who reigned in the intermediate period to number 153 or 154 years. But among these a republic was thrice established, one extending?..years, another to 300 and another to 120. The Indians also tell us that Dionysus was earlier than Heracles by fifteen generations, and that except for him no one made a hostile invasion of India but that Alexander indeed came and overthrew in war all whom he attacked.?

While there a number of issues raised by this statement including the concoction that Alexander was victorious in battle across the Indus, the exactness with which he states his numbers should lead us to believe that Megasthenes could have received his chronological matters from none else than the Puranic pundits of his time. To be conclusive, we need to determine who are the ?Dionysus? and ?Heracles? of Megasthenes? account.

Traditionally, Dionysus (or Father Bachhus) was a Greek God of wine who was created from Zeus?s thigh. Dionysus was also a great king, and was recognised as the first among all kings, a conqueror and constructive leader. Could there be an Indian equivalent of Dionysus whom Megasthenes quickly equated with his God of wine? Looking through the Puranas, one does indeed find such a person. His name is Prithu.

Prithu was the son of King Vena. The latter was considered a wicked man whom the great sages could not tolerate, especially after he told them that the elixir soma should be offered to him in prayer and not to the gods (Bhagavata Purana IV.14.28). The great sages thereafter performed certain rites and killed Vena. But since this could lead immediately to lawlessness and chaos, the rshis decided to rectify it by coronating a strong and honest person. The rshis therefore churned the right arm (or thigh; descriptions vary) of the dead body (of Vena) to give birth to a fully grown Prithu. It was Prithu, under counsel from rshi Atri (father of Soma), who reconstructed society and brought about economic prosperity. Since he became such a great ruler, the Puranas have called him adi-raja (first king) of the world. So did the Satpatha Brahmana (v.3.5 4.).

In the absence of a cult of soma in India, it is perhaps inevitable that Megasthenes and the other Greeks, in translating Indian experiences for Greek audiences, should pick on adi-raja Prithu who is ?tinged with Soma? in a number of ways and bears such a close resemblance to Dionysus in the circumstances of his birth, and identify him as Dionysus. If we accept identifying Dionysus with Prithu, then indeed by a calculation based on the Puranas (done by DR Mankad, Koti Venkatachelam, KD Sethna, and others), it can be conclusively shown that indeed 6,451 years had elapsed between Prithu and a famous Chandragupta. This calculation exactly identifies Sandrocottus with Gupta Chandragupta and not with Maurya Chandragupta. The calculation also identifies Heracles with Hari Krishna (Srikrishna) of Dwarka.

This calculation must be necessarily long and tedious to counter the uninformed general feeling first sponsored by Western scholars, that the Puranas spin only fair tales and are therefore quite unreliable. However, most of these people do not realise that most Puranas have six parts, and the Vamsanucharita sections (especially of Vishnu, Matsya, and Vagu) are a systematic presentation of Indian history especially of the Chandravansa kings of Magadha.

In order to establish these dates, I would have to discuss in detail the cycle of lunar asterisms, the concept of time according to Aryabhatta, and various other systems, and also the reconciliation of various minor discrepancies that occur in the Puranas. Constraints of space and time however, prevent me from presenting these calculations here.

However, on the basis of these calculations we can say that Gupta Chandragupta was ?Sandrocottus? c.327 B.C. His son, Samudragupta, was the great king who established a unified kingdom all over India, and obtained from the Cholas, Pandyas, and Cheras their recognition of him. He also had defeated Seleucus Nicator, while his father Chandragupta was king. On this calculation we can also place Prithu at 6777 B.C. and Lord Rama before that. Derivation of other dates without discussion may also be briefly mentioned here: Buddha?s Nirvana 1807 BC, Maurya Chandragupta c. 1534 BC, Harsha Vikramaditya (Parmar) c. 82 BC.

The European scholars have thus constructed an enormous edifice of contemporary foreign dates to suit their dating. A number of them are based on misidentification. For instance, the Rock Edict XIII, the famous Kalinga edict, is identified as Asoka?s. It was, however, Samudragupta?s (Samudragupta was a great conqueror and a devout admirer of Asoka. He imitated Asoka in many ways and also took the name Asokaditya. In his later life, he became a sanyasi). Some other facts, which directly contradict their theories, they have rather flippantly cast aside. We state here only a few examples ? such facts as (1) Fa-hsien was in India and at Patliputra c. 410 AD. He mentions a number of kings, but makes not even a fleeting reference to the Gupta, even though according to European scholars he came during the height of their reign. He also dates Buddha at 1100 BC. (2) A number of Tibetan documents place Buddha at 2100 BC. (3) The Ceylonese Pali traditions leave out the Cholas, Pandyas, and Cheras from the list of Asoka?s kingdoms, whereas Rock Edict XIII includes them. In fact, as many scholars have noted, the character of Asoka from Ceylonese and other traditions is precisely (as RK Mukherjee has said) what does not appear in the principal edicts.

The accepted history of no country can be structured on foreign accounts of it. But Nehru and his Leftist cronies did just that, and thus generations of Indians have been brainwashed by this falsified history of India.

The time has come for us to take seriously our Puranic sources and to re-construct a realistic well-founded history of ancient India, a history written by Indians about Indians. Such a history should bring out the amazing continuity of a Hindu nation which asserts its identity again and again. It should focus on the fact that at the centre of our political thought is the concept of the Chakravartian ideal ? to defend the nation from external aggression while giving maximum internal autonomy to the janapadas.

A correct, defalsified history would record that Hindustan was one nation in the art of governance, in the style of royal courts, in the methods of warfare, in the maintenance of its agrarian base, and in the dissemination of information. Sanskrit was the language of national communication and discourse.

An accurate history should not only record the periods of glory but the moments of degeneration, of the missed opportunities, and of the failure to forge national unity at crucial junctures in time. It should draw lessons for the future generations from costly errors in the past.

In particular, it was not Hindu submission as alleged by JNU historians that was responsible for our subjugation but lack of unity and effective military strategy.

Without an accurate history, Hindustan cannot develop on its correct identity. And without a clearly defined identity, Indians will continue to flounder. Defalsification of Indian history is the first step for our renaissance.

PSEUDOSECULARISM IN INDIA PLUNGING INDIA BACK TO 1700'S CENTURY.

Faces of Indian Secularism-Article based on facts.HINDUS ARE WORST ENEMY OF HINDUS.

Hindus have practiced ‘secularism’ right from the Vedic time. The concept of separation of state from religion is well documented not only in Ramayan and Mahabharat but also in Puranas and other Vedic scriptures. Hinduism (Sanatan Dharma), being a pluralistic religion, has always been tolerant to other religious beliefs. The Hindu traditions have always maintained that other religious faiths like Christianity and Islam could exist without competing with each other. However, the Semitic religions have not accepted the Hindu views claiming that their God is the only true creator and theirs are the only true religions.

This is borne out of the fact that thousands of years ago Hindus provided shelter to the Jews and the Zoroastrians (Parsis) when they were persecuted in their own countries. In the same manner, the Syrian Christians and the Muslim Arab traders were welcome by the Hindus several centuries ago.

But ignoring this historical truth, some of the Indian leaders led by Jawaharlal Nehru at the time of India’s independence imported the word ‘secularism’ from Europe. On November 17, 1953 Nehru wrote to the then President of India, Dr. Rajendra Prasad: “The Hindu is certainly not tolerant and is certainly narrower minded than almost any person in any country except the Jew.” The result of his hatred towards Hindus was mainly responsible for the introduction of Articles 29 (Protection of interests of minorities) and 30 (Right of Minorities to establish and administer educational institutions) in the Constitution which have defeated the very essence of secularism.

When it was decided to restore the temple of Somnath entirely funded by the devotees, Nehru objected to it and tried to stop Dr. Rajendra Prasad from attending the opening ceremony claiming that it was anti-secular even though not a single penny came from the government’s coffer. But the same secularist Nehru was responsible for the Haj bill in 1959 which subsidizes the Mecca pilgrimage of the Muslims. The cost of this subsidy works out to more than Rs. 1,000 million per year.

Rajiv Gandhi following in the foot steps of his grand father and mother, bent backward to woo the Muslims by passing a law reversing the Supreme Court judgment on the Shah Bano case. The victims of this secular law are the Muslim women who can be divorced by their husbands without providing for any adequate maintenance allowance to them.

The word ‘secular’ was missing in the Indian Constitution till Mrs. Indira Gandhi, late Indian Prime Minster, got it inserted into the constitution by bringing the 42nd amendment in 1976 to suite her political purpose Though the Indian Constitution did not specifically mention the word ‘secular’ before 1976, Nehru and other Congress leaders proclaimed India as a secular country. But at the same time they legalized separate laws (articles 29 & 30) for different communities strictly based on their religions instead of one common law for all its citizens irrespective of their religious beliefs. Thus, they negated at one stroke the very spirit of secularism.

Let us look at the absurdity and hypocrisy of the Indian secularism by citing a few examples below.

• While all major Hindu temples are controlled and supervised by the states and the money donated by Hindus in temples goes straight to the state exchequer, Muslims and Christians are allowed to run their institutions without any supervision from the state. The recent reports show that hardly 20% of Hindu donations to temples are used for temple support and the rest are used by the states for other uses including supporting the minority institutions.
• The Indian Government subsidizes the Haj travel by the Indian Muslims even though the Supreme Court has disapproved such subsidy. The Christian church recently claimed similar subsidy for traveling to Jerusalem and the government agreed to it. While both subsidies come out from the exchequer, similar subsidies are not granted to Hindu pilgrims going to Mansoravar or other revered Hindu holy places.
• Minorities can open educational institutions without any government permission and are allowed to reserve 50% of the institutions’ seats for their religious followers without any quota restrictions. However, Hindus are allowed to open educational institutions, with or without government grants, only after the approval of the government and cannot reserve any seats for Hindus and have to follow strictly the government’s quota system.
• Even though the article 44 of the Constitution clearly states that “The State shall endeavor to secure for the citizens a uniform civil code through out the territory of India”, the Indian politicians have foiled all attempts to enact such law in order to appease the minorities. The Supreme Court’s repeated reminders to the government to enact the common law have been completely ignored.
• Educational trusts of minority religions are easily given Income Tax exemptions under Section 80 G of the Income Tax Act. But whenever Hindu institutions like Ved Pathsalas apply for such income tax exemption, they are denied on grounds that they are communal.
• Whereas the Congress party having alliances with Muslim League, MIM, MQM and PDP is considered ‘secular’, BJP is considered ‘communal’. Even rabidly communal Muslim and Christian parties are called secular.
• Muslims and Christians have the ‘right’ to convert the poor and illiterate Hindus and Tribals but as soon as some of these converts are reconverted, they are called ‘communal fascists’ and ‘religious chauvinists’ by the secularists.
• While the announcing the quota for Muslims on the basis of religion by the Indian Government is not communal but talking about massacre and ethnic cleansing of Hindus in Jammu & Kashmir is called communal.

The Indian secularists argued that MF Husain had the right to paint Hindu Goddesses nude (pornographic depiction) because it was a matter of aesthetics. But when asked in ‘Aap ki Adalat’ (Sept. 8, 2004) why he did not apply the same ‘aesthetics’ to icons of Islam, he refused to answer the question. The same secularists will not extend this principle to the Danish Cartoons of Prophet Mohammad. The message is that Hindus should remain tolerant even if their gods and goddesses are portrayed in the pornographic manner but the Muslims have the right to complain about the visual portrayal of their prophet.

In India ‘secularism’ has become synonymous with radical ‘anti-Hinduism. While the Islamic youth terrorist organization, SIMI is considered by the secularists as innocent because they are fighting for justice and therefore any ban on it is unfair and wrong. But the Bajarang Dal, VHP and RSS are called dangerous ‘saffron’ Hindu terrorist organizations and hence they should be banned.

The Indian variety of secularism has also some serious national security implications. In order to appease the minority community, the Indian Government and the ‘secular’ cabal discourage any rational discussion on the issue of Islamic terrorism in India.
In spite of the Supreme Court verdict to hang the Islamic terrorist, Afzal Guru, for the Parliament attack, the government has been dragging its feet for many years by not carrying out the sentence for the sake of vote-bank politics. Several Islamic terrorist acts have taken place in India during the last few years resulting in massacre of hundreds of innocent men, women and children. But the Indian government has in most cases failed to take any concrete action against these terrorists because of its minority appeasement policy. As a matter of fact, there have been well-coordinated efforts by the Congress and its Communist/leftist allies to prevent the security agencies from going after the terrorists with the help of secular media. This has emboldened the terrorists to carry out terrorist acts with impunity, knowing fully well that the Indian state is soft on terrorism. Pakistan and China are using the Indian secularism to destabilize the country.

The Nehruvian secularism over the last sixty years has spread into the vast spectrum of the Indian society. Besides the Congress and its regional allies, the Communists and leftists parties have been in the forefront in advocating and practicing the ‘pseudo-secularism’ as a part of their vote-bank politics. In order to substantiate this falsehood, they have recruited the Marxist historians who have mastered the Goebbelsian art of lies, deceit and distortion by fabricating the Indian history. Under the grab of secularism, an unholy alliance has taken place between Communists, Muslims and Christians to denounce Hinduism and its culture. Of course, Islam considers secularism as an absolute evil but it suits their agenda of portraying negatively the majority Hindu community.

Other followers of the Indian secularism are the English media editors, journalists and TV anchors, the products of Christian missionary and other English schools, who treat everything Indian, particularly Hinduism, with contempt. They suffer from the colonial hangover and inferiority complex which are reflected in their bias and distorted writings and broadcasting against the Hindu society. Most of them are also closely associated with the Communists, Muslims and Christians,

Many intellectuals and elite of the Indian society have also been affected by the virus of secularism. They are the products of the Macaulayite English education who have been brainwashed to disown and denounce their own faith, culture and traditions. After all, Macaulay’s main objective was to “create a class of persons, Indian in blood and color, but English in taste, in opinion, in morals” and undoubtedly, he has succeeded beyond anyone’s imagination.
This phony secularism is tearing the entire nation apart by creating conflicts between the majority Hindu community and minorities. Besides, it has led to mass conversion of Hindus and Tribals by the Christian evangelists which have completely changed the demographics of the North Eastern sates. Some of these states are already asking to secede from the Indian union. Another threat to India’s security comes from the influx of the illegal Bangladeshis who are allowed into the country freely by the vote-bank politicians using the tool of secularism. It has resulted in massive demographic changes in Assam, West Bengal and UP which will have grave consequences in future for the stability and integrity of the Indian state.

If this unprincipled and dishonest form of secularism is allowed to continue any further in India, it will not be too long before India will be Balkanized like Yugoslavia at the behest of the anti-India forces from within and abroad. The time has come to abandon the current anti-national and anti-Hindu secularism and follow the path of true secularism as advised by Dr. Radhakrishnan, former President of India who said: “No group of citizens shall arrogate to itself rights and privileges which is denied to others. No person shall suffer from any form of disability or discrimination because of his religion…The religious impartiality of the Indian state is not to be confused with secularism or atheism. Secularism has been defined in accordance with the ancient religious traditions of India”.

NEHRU WAS A TRAITOR OF FREE INDIA.KASHMIR PROBLEM GENERATOR

NORTH EAST TO CHINA AND KASHMIR TO GO TO PAKISTAN ? IF MODI IS NOT PM

KASHMIR TO GO TO PAKISTAN AND NORTH EAST TO CHINA? IF MODI DOES NOT COME IN POWER. IS IT CIA'S MOTIVE THROUGH AAP AGENDA.



AAP website showing this map grenn ,out kashmir

The problems of the Northeast India is very serious because it does not get the attention of the Political class and the Media attention it deserves because it does not have many vote.
The area remains inaccessible, short of essential services, not speak of development worth the name.
For the political class it is because they do not produce enough Parliament seats that would matter in the national arena, like UP or Andhra Pradesh..
For the Media the readership in the area does not warrant them to cover them.
The people have been revolting for quite some time and the attempt at solution is farcical, offering them autonomy.
People have seen this in other areas like Telengana in AP, where nothing has been done and the result is the upheaval for a separate State.
Boros have also noticed that despite assurances earlier, no developmental activities have take place there.

They seem to have come to the end of their tether and now want a separate State and worse prefer to be under China.
Instead of cajoling Sri Lanka not to go the China way even to the extent of neglecting the Sri Lankan Tamils problems and the frequent killing of Taml Nadu fishermen being killed by the Sri Lankan armed forces,had India spent 50 % of its efforts in solving the development problem of Northeast, the problem would have been solved by now.
Story:
The National Democratic Front of Boroland – Progressive (NDFB-P), which is in dialogue with the Centre, said it would prefer the tribal-dominated northeast to be part of China’s Special Administrative Region (SAR) rather than accepting New Delhi’s proposal on giving more power to autonomous councils for the uplift of various tribes.
NDFB(P) has been demanding a separate Bodoland state under the constitution and it held several rounds of talks with the Centre on this demand. But the latest statement on preferring to be part of China’s SAR came as an opposition to Union home minister Sushil Kumar Shinde‘s reported remarks that the central government would provide more powers to the autonomous councils set up under the Sixth Schedule of the constitution for the development and safeguards of tribal communities in the northeast.”
Source:
http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2013-07-16/guwahati/40611847_1_bodoland-territorial-council-separate-state-more-powers

Boroland:
The early history of Bodos is largely unknown. For centuries majority Bodos remained as farmers, weavers, and peace loving society. Like many cultures in the world today, Bodos are alsoethnocentric or nationalist society. Cultural assimilation with Assamese was not productive. In brief, before the British Raj, Dimasa Kachari Kingdom may have included a vast area extending far and beyond Assam, a small state in the North-East India. History suggest that Dimapur was the capital of Kachari kingdom (Dimasa Kachari kingdom), The Dimasas are part of Tibeto-Burman Bodo race. The British-India colonial rulers effectively adapted divide and rule policy for over 300 years. It is likely that Kachari were lagging behind their fellow Indians in terms of education and employability. Since the time of British Raj, Assam is known to produce oil and natural gas, and Assam tea. Before independence (1947), North-East India was a remote place.
Compared to other parts of India, such as West Bengal and Maharastra, opportunity for general and mass education came to North East India only after Indian independence (1947). Following Indian independence, the Bodos were given the opportunity to take advantage of scheduled tribe (ST) status. This process lead to the creation of tribal belts and blocks, protected lands meant for farming and grazing, specifically for the Bodo people.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bodoland

AAP is a CIA sponsored party and not it is showing MAP of India in Green with Part of Kashmir of India in Pak territory. AAP has fixed news with AAJTAK AND INDIATODAY, a news with Foreign link. LINK-Navbharat times arvind-kejriwal-asks-tv-anchor-to-play-up-sections-of-his-interview.
LINK OF CIA,FORD FOUNDATION AND AAP-CLICK HERE.

WILL CIA AND USA SPONSORED AAP,CONGRESS EVENTUALLY STOP INDIA TO GROW#DECODING #CIA

A US decision has evidently reaffirmed that Narendra Modi cannot be allowed to become prime minister of India. This is similar to the verdict reached on the elected President of Egypt, Mohammed Morsi. The US simply did not trust him and the Muslim Brotherhood to keep their promises of good behaviour. It seems the conclusion was that Morsi had to be removed from power despite his firm crackdown on the interests of the Hamas in Egypt and emollient tone about other issues of concern to the US.
The Saudis had also weighed in because the Muslim Brotherhood has historically laid claim to leadership of the Islamic world. This was an intolerable threat to US influence over what has been State Department Islam, the best antidote to Arab nationalism and underpinning for anti-communism, in the context of the Cold War, through a supine Saudi monarchy, totally dependent on the US for survival. The US was also possibly aware of everything Morsi was saying in private through its comprehensive eavesdropping activities that leave little confidential. It is probable that Morsi was counselling his Muslim Brotherhood associates of the need to bide their time.
Narendra Modi’s case is not fundamentally different because it is feared that Modi and his supporters will curtail the huge incursions into India by US agencies the UPA has facilitated. It is assumed that once Modi forms the government and becomes aware that India’s is well on the way to becoming a US banana republic satellite–in the age-old Central American and Asian tradition, subject to indirect rule–he will move to end it. The US has evidently infiltrated India on a massive scale, blackmailing politicians with covertly acquired information, sponsoring countless secular and religious foundations and the purchase of a huge swathe of the Indian media.
However, the erstwhile BJP as such was not really a drawback for the US because some of its prominent leaders have been very close to the US, virtual spokesmen for it. Others bent over backwards during the tenure of the NDA to please. Two of the BJP’s most senior decision makers, including the late Brajesh Mishra, even made offers of sending Indian troops to join the coalition in Afghanistan. The Americans themselves had not made such a request to India because it would have sent their vital ally in the Afghan war into veritable frenzy. This idea was very wisely vetoed personally by Atal Behari Vajpayee himself!
The Muslim Brotherhood is now facing savage repression, with the US-backed Egyptian military embarked on a reign of terror. It has not hesitated to kill hundreds of civilian Muslim Brotherhood demonstrators, including many women, by the simple expedient of shooting them while they slept. It is also systematically decapitating the Muslim Brotherhood political leadership. The Egyptian military has effectively re-imposed a dictatorship that is a prelude to shepherding its own pliant creatures into power, but through a process that assures an outward democratic fig leaf. The Muslim Brotherhood has been denounced as a terrorist organisation and cannot contest elections.
An even harsher version of this model for maintaining US control was tried out successfully in Algeria during the 1990s. The US and French sponsored Algerian military dispensation killed anything up to 300,000 civilians to eliminate the radical Islamic Salvation Group. The free Fourth Estate of Europe and the US played its usual collaborationist role. It blamed the army of the Islamic Salvation Group for the widespread killings, often of their own supporters, in orgies of mindless bloodlust, however incredible and unlikely that might appear. The bloody conflict lasted a decade and ended with the total destruction of the Islamic radicals. The Western intervention, which has destroyed much of Syria, killing more than 150,000 people, to the approving clamour of the Western human rights lobby, is another variant for re-imposing imperial control over a country. The invasion and destruction of Iraq was another, the death toll approximately 2 million so far.
The Indo-US nuclear accord has puzzled many observers, especially the mostly ill-informed Indian public. Some insiders involved in the negotiation of the Indo-US Nuclear Accord were also mystified by the US decision to allow India to ascend, in effect, to the extraordinary status of a bona fide nuclear power. Even more apparently inexplicable was the direct efforts made by President George Bush Jnr. himself to ensure a favourable outcome at the IAEA negotiations. He made a personal phone call to the President of China at a crucial juncture of the negotiations, when the latter embarked on a discreet, last-minute manoeuvre to scupper the deal it had agreed earlier with the US.
An excellent, revealing account of China’s machinations, by a senior Indian journalist present in Vienna was buried by his editor, the owner of India’s most pro-Chinese daily. In the end, the most knowledgeable attributed this paramount political American decision, recognising India as a nuclear power, to President Bush supposedly becoming enamoured with the country on a visit during the 1990s. It is unconvincing, indeed inconceivable that such a decision of huge political import could have been the product of a sentimental whim. Although it is possible Bush acquired an undue affection for India, however weird that might seem to even the most patriotic Indian.
The decision to accord India nuclear status occurred because of a US perception that it had finally managed to acquire a durable foothold in it and access to high level Indian decision-making during the tenure of the UPA. Indeed, it seems, the US was even able to determine appointments to the Union Cabinet, certainly in the case of the Commerce and the Environment portfolios and perhaps even the EAM’s selection is cleared now by the US ambassador in Delhi. The granting of nuclear status to India, which was well and truly an enormous gift was motivated by the US view of India as a new client satellite. The journey in this fateful direction began during the tenure of the NDA and has neared completion under a totally subverted UPA. To their credit, both Jawaharlal Nehru and India Gandhi had resisted this dire predicament during the first decades of Indian independence.
The UPA of course represents mainly the family, rather than India and is also deferential to the US, which is the fate of the family itself as well. Quite noticeably, the US has helpfully striven to conceal any embarrassing information on the likely UPA prime ministerial candidate. The purchase of untested Westinghouse nuclear reactors as quid pro quo for the Indo-US Accord was a less significant secondary understanding. One also begins to understand why the UPA became an agent WalMarts rather than representing the vital interests of millions of Indian retailers.
This does not mean India accedes to all US dictates, for example over the purchase of Iranian crude. However, a deeper subservience to US preferences has been established and is being institutionalised. The US has become the major shareholder in the equity of the GoI, much as it has been in Pakistan for decades.
Mohammed Morsi may have eventually brought its own divinely-sanctioned misfortune to Egypt, but his entrapment, after the preliminary honeyed effusions from Washington, is a lesson for Indians, themselves on the verge of losing control over their country. Morsi was never in full command of the Egyptian government and the affairs of the country, despite an overwhelming electoral mandate. The religious obsessions of the Muslim Brotherhood also constrained a calculated grasp of the harsh secular international realities lapping around them.
They were determined to achieve, in short order, some of their Shariah-ordained goals on personal conduct, especially pertaining to women’s dress codes and sexual behaviour, a central pillar in the history of Islam, imperial expansion apart. The desire to impose curbs on other supposedly un-Islamic liberal freedoms was also accorded high priority. Yet, he was never in full control of critical economic issues like food and petroleum prices, which rose inexorably. As a result, a myriad of voluntary organisations and media outlets, blatantly sponsored by the US, had tens of thousands of the religiously less observant on the streets, baying for his blood. Within days of his brutal overthrow prices and other shortages mitigated and the Saudis and Kuwaitis extended huge loans to the beleaguered Egyptian economy.
The virtually instant announcement, after the swearing-in of Arvind Kejriwal and his juvenile crew, following their inept, comic preening for the media, was a hunger-strike in Bhopal and the decision to contest elections in Gujarat. The goal of AAP is now blindingly obvious. The intention is to split the anti-Congress vote to prevent Modi and the BJP winning enough seats in 2014 to form a viable government. The other alternative outcome would be to reduce their number sufficiently to facilitate the barely-concealed claim of his implacable opponents inside the BJP to propose an alternative candidate for prime minister, ostensibly to help form a governing coalition. The Indian domestic political support for the AAP intervention is from the counterparts of the so-called young and liberal in Cairo’s Tahir Square. They are really all a product of India’s manipulative and manipulated English language media, much of it in hock to banks and foreign conglomerate owners.
How the AAP originated and their personal international ties are indeed a matter of interest, but not the only issue. The Magasaysay award is a known instrument for affording recognition to Asians sensitive to the US portrayal of the world. Volunteering to work for Mother Teresa is also an agreeable item on a CV, indicating desirable political impulses to Western governments. At the very least, the US has intervened in a dynamically unstable Indian polity to affect outcomes. Funding a useful political or voluntary local entity through an Indian business house is standard practice for foreign countries. They reimburse the business house by engaging with it in an unrelated profitable transaction. The Saudis regularly employ such business deals in India on behalf of Pakistan and the US does so as well in scores of countries. It offers complete anonymity and its legality hard to question.
The final solution to a difficult and high stakes political standoff will be to assassinate Narendra Modi. The attempt already made in Patna is almost certain to have had foreign participation and the background to it presents a truly shocking picture of high level local complicity. Attempts to assassinate Modi are likely to occur again. Determined efforts continue to incite Islamic radicals to make such an attempt, by funding endless court proceedings to ensure the accusations over the 2002 Gujarat riots remain alive.
The logistical backup for any plan to murder Narendra Modi will likely originate in Pakistan, already rejoicing at the colossal damage to Indian intelligence the UPA attempt to curb him has inflicted. It is also extremely suspect that invitations to Narendra Modi to visit came from three close US allies, two of them with little compelling reason for extending them. The US itself persists in using the issue of his visa to cause him whatever negative publicity possible. Quite clearly, assassinating him abroad might have been considered more logistically feasible and less damaging politically than in India. The intention is to end the career of the most popular Indian politician since independence and one that threatens to assert it.
Dr Gautam Sen taught international political economy at the London School of Economics.
- See more at: http://www.indiafacts.co.in/stopping-modi-at-all-costs/#sthash.p4212jNE.dpuf