Supposed devout Hindu origins doesn’t preclude being dharma shatru

Sagarika Ghose, Deputy Editor at CNN-IBN, where her husband Rajdeep Sardesai is Editor-in-Chief, recently made an interesting remark on twitter.


Ms. Ghose’s tweet provides some food for thought. We won’t go into the politically loaded allusion to “minorities”. However we certainly need to consider a few other other important points.

  1. Does being a devout Hindu (self-proclaimed or otherwise) preclude one from performing actions detrimental to Hindu society and Hinduism?
  2. Does any public self-proclamation of supposed devout Hindu origins preclude one from any critical inquiry into whether and how their actions may be inimical to Hindu interests.
  3. Who defines the yardsticks for being a “true” Hindu? We can safely assume Ms. Ghose has taken upon herself to save Hinduism from the evil, ugly Hindus. Except perhaps those with devout origins such as herself and her political, ideological fellow travelers. So, no doubt, she in this case gets to define the yardstick and characteristics for being a “true” Hindu. This however, is somewhat tangential to the focus of this post, so we will put it aside for another time.

The answers to the first two questions can be found in a historical inquiry. An inquiry which unequivocally reveals the fact that some very critical, if not the biggest, blows to Hindus were delivered from within. In what can be described as a twist of delicious irony, Ms. Ghose unintentionally actually only adds to what we have long held. That the biggest enemies of Hindus are Hindus themselves. Indeed, Hindus did not lose to non-Hindu invaders and colonizers. Hindus lost to Hindus themselves. Peering into history reveals how at some very critical junctions Hindus were put on the back foot not due to Muslims or Christians, but due to traitors who were Hindus. There should be no doubt that traitors like Silhaditya, Veerbhadra Tiwari, Ambhi Kumar, Jaichand Rathore, who betrayed their country and community for petty personal reasons would have, just like you-know-who, most likely called themselves proud or devout (origin) Hindus. Then there were also another class of devouts who took employment from the marUnmatta-s. As Sarvesh Tiwari rightly notes,

such Hindus were joked about by mullAh-s, as kAfIrs spreading the reach of Islam.

The marUnmatta Badaoni proudly reports of one such traitor [1],

through the generalship of Man Singh, the meaning of this line of mulla Shiri became known, “A Hindu wields the sword of Islam”

This situation hasn’t really changed much since the time of Badaoni. In more recent past, we had Subhash Chandra Bose, who spared no effort to ally with staunchly anti-Hindu elements, including rabid Jihadis.

Indeed, as Sarvesh Tiwari, in his stirring series on Bose, says

Bose is really an uncomforting case in point, that even deeply religious Hindus, of excellent intellectual gifts, untiring patriotism and great leadership acumen, can remain utterly gullible to the Islamic propaganda and keep causing self-injury to the nation.

Of course, we should not flatter those merely projecting their political and ideological drivel on sundry social media fora by comparing them with someone like Bose. But nonetheless, as we have seen, supposed devout (origin) Hindus have historically delivered critical blows to Hindu survival and revival.  Discerning Hindus committed to dharma surely are already aware of this fact and will no doubt be specially wary of those who self-proclaim their devout origins in public fora.

Update (19 Aug 2012): Turns out, Ms. Sagarika Ghose is not only of self-proclaimed devout origin, but is also self-proclaimed attractive and intelligent.


[1] Badouni, Muntakhabut Tawarikh II pp 238-39 (cited by JL Mehta in Advanced study in the history of medieval India Vol 2)

From Marxist to liberal. Gunga Din all the way.

Here is the “evolution” of the communist propagandists from the Delhi “Historians” Group: Post cold war, from socialist, Marxist, these worthies now flatter themselves with epithets like progressive, liberal. Any other talk of “ability to learn and evolve” is pure hogwash. How many of these worthies and their indoctrinated students expressed any dismay, leave alone protested, when communist terrorists in Nepal burnt down an entire university? But of course, surely, that was for the greater good of the coming revolution. Hang on, I should correct myself. Surely, that progressive act was for the greater good of secularism and liberalism in “South Asia”. It is hardly surprising that these ideologically and politically motivated academics serve as good Gunga Dins of Western Euro-American centric academics.

Brief notes from the Chachnama on the tyranny of Muhammad Bin Qasim

Salman Rashid, in an otherwise meaningful article, blamed “so-called upper caste Hindus” for conversion by Hindus into Islam. He specifically refers to the Chachnama, yet amazingly arrives at a conclusion that is belied by evidence from that very text.

So, let us examine the evidence from the Chachnama itself. Provided below are excerpts and short summaries.

Then Muhammad Kásim came to the temple… The two door-keepers, however, were dragged out and killed, and entry was then made. 700 beautiful females, who were under the protection of Budh, were all captured with their valuable ornaments, and clothes adorned with jewels. Four men at a time were admitted into the fort. Some say 400 men came in at once, and took away by force their ornaments.

At Debal, the carnage by the forces of Qasim went on for three days. All adult males who did not accept Islam were killed and the women and children taken as slaves and converted. The temples was destroyed and a mosque erected in its place. What remained of the cash and slaves and other spoils was collected and sent to Hajjáj along with the two daughters of the ruler of Debal.

I (Muhammad Kásim) consider it my bounden duty to carry on this religious war, in obedience to the orders of God who says in the Koran: ‘wage war against the infidels and dissemblers’; and I have undertaken this task simply to secure divine pleasure.

Muhammad Kásim then appointed a representative within the fort. He (also) built a mosque in the place of the idol-temple of Budh, and appointed a erier to call the people to prayer, and a priest (Imám) to be their guide in prayers and other religious matters.

Muhammad Kásim now took possession of the fort, and halted there for three days, during which time he massacred 6,000 fighting men who were found in the fort. Some of them were shot with arrows. Their followers and dependents, as well as their women and children, were taken prisoners.

At Brahmanabad, Qasim demanded jizya or death. After the fort was taken following a six month seize, 20,000 were taken as slaves (including women) and some say 16,000 were killed. Many more were distributed as booty among the soldiers.

The slaves were counted, and their number came to 60,000. Out of these, 30 were young ladies of royal blood, including Rái Dáhar’s niece. Muhammad Kásim sent all these to Hajjáj, together with Dáhar’s head, and one fifth of the treasure obtained as booty, for the royal coffer in charge of Kaab son of Mubárik Rástí. When the head of Dáhar and the women and the treasure were brought to Hajjáj, he placed his forehead on the ground and offered prayers of thanks-giving, by two genuflections to God, and praised him, saying: “Now have I got all the treasures, whether open or buried, as well as other wealth and the kingdom of the world…. Allah Says, Give no quarter to Infidels, but cut their throats. Then know that this is the command of the great Allah…”

Qasim levied brutal taxes on the populace. Along with jaziya, baj, ushari, etc. were also levied. Hindus and Buddhists were regularly humiliated and both political and economic pressure levied for conversion to Islam.

The Chachnama details the massacres, conversions and iconoclasm of Qasim and his hordes in all gory details.

This is just the tip of the iceberg. In fact, along with the Chachnama, there are numerous other instances of Muslim scribes gleefully recording details of the outright barbarity, massacres and forced conversions by the hordes of Islam on the dharmic populace of bhArata.

However, given current trends it is just so much easier to sing paeans to the “secularism” of Muhammad Bin Qasim, and the “tyranny” of the “upper caste Hindus” (specially those “blasted, evil, ugly Brahmins”). Never mind what records themselves have to show. Whats a “little” engineering of history if only to toe the dominant ideological paradigm, if only to advance one’s career, if only to be politically correct. Truth be damned.

[Note: Salman Rashid, to my knowledge, usually sticks to facts and isn’t afraid to be politically incorrect. So, his largely false assertion in this case was somewhat surprising. My comments in the last paragraph are more directed towards India’s Marxist history engineers and their bedfellows, the Islamists in the land of the pure.]


  1. Elliot and Dawson: The History of India, as Told by Its Own Historians. The Muhammadan Period, Vol1
  2. KS Lal: The Legacy of Muslim Rule in India
  3. Ishwari Prasad: Medieval India
  4. Andre Wink: Al-Hind Vol1

Thoughts on genetics, Aryan debate and dharma

[Preface: We have in this blog already discussed the Aryan influx hypothesis issue. From my previous posts in this matter, readers will note that my stand has been very cynical w.r.t. any proposed influx. I have presented comments and inferences by various geneticists and their research papers, which go against any influx. However, I am always open to discussion and new ideas. I welcome any fresh evidence and any perspective provided it has the weight of scholarly analysis. One such scholarly analysis recently came to my attention, which I have excerpted in this post.]

The publication of a new paper on Indian population genetics studies has once again elicitated some excitement over the Aryan question. Some of the authors of the paper made some very strong statements against the colonial theory of Aryan invasion turned euphemistic migration turning trickle-in theory.

Widely believed theory of Indo-Aryan invasion, often used to explain early settlements in the Indian subcontinent is a myth, a new study by Indian geneticists says.

“Our study clearly shows that there was no genetic influx 3,500 years ago,” said Dr Kumarasamy Thangaraj of CCMB, who led the research team, which included scientists from the University of Tartu, Estonia, Chettinad Academy of Research and Education, Chennai and Banaras Hindu University.

“It is high time we re-write India’s prehistory based on scientific evidence,” said Dr Lalji Singh, former director of CCMB. “There is no genetic evidence that Indo-Aryans invaded or migrated to India or even something such as Aryans existed”. Singh, vice-chancellor of BHU, is a coauthor.

The comparison of this data with genetic data of other populations showed that South Asia harbours two major ancestry components. One is spread in populations of South and West Asia, Middle East, Near East and the Caucasus. The second component is more restricted to South Asia and accounts for more than 50 per cent of the ancestry in Indian populations.

“Both the ancestry components that dominate genetic variation in South Asia demonstrate much greater diversity than those that predominate West Eurasia. This is indicative of a more ancient demographic history and a higher long-term effective population size underlying South Asian genome variation compared to that of West Eurasia,” researchers said.

“The genetic component which spread beyond India is significantly higher in India than in any other part of world. This implies that this genetic component originated in India and then spread to West Asia and Caucasus,” said Gyaneshwar Chaube of University of Tartu, Estonia.

A very knowledgeable Hindu blogger whom I admire and agree with on most matters, and who is a highly educated (evolutionary) biologist by training (if I have deduced his identity correctly), had this to say on this latest Metspalu, et. al., 2011 paper.

A recent paper by Metspalu et al in AHJG adds additional data to the growing material on the genetics of the Indians. The paper has several issues that are rather unsatisfactory – chief among them is the attempt to meaninglessly hand wave on OIT and AIT. The AIT is sitting right there in their data, yet they attempt to obfuscate the issue in somewhat amateurish ways. But that is not something we wish to discuss today because there is new work that might be published relatively soon that will smash the OIT theory for good.

Interestingly, while the authors of an earlier paper (Reich et. al. 2009) have spoken against AIT/AMT (albeit indirectly) in a press conference, their paper itself has been interpreted by many as supporting AMT (Breaking India, Appendix A). A discussion of their paper in Nature by Dr. Aravinda Chakravarti makes interesting reading. On one hand Dr. Chakravarti seemingly supports AMT. On the other hand, he also supports Reich, et. al. that current Indian population is admixture of ANI (Ancestral North Indian), ASI (Ancestral South Indian), both of which groups have remote ancestry in India (can be traced back to around 40,000 to 65,000 years). Of course, the paper itself mentions that ANI has affinity with Europeans. If we go by geneticists, this affinity would imply that there was/were major migration(s) out of the Indian subcontinent which contributed to the non-African genetic population of the world. Geneticist Oppenheimer says,

For me and for Toomas Kivisild, South Asia is logically the ultimate origin of M17(Y-DNA Haplogroup R1a, associated with the male Aryan invasion theory) and his ancestors; and sure enough we find the highest rates and greatest diversity of the M17 line in Pakistan, India, and eastern Iran, and low rates in the Caucasus.

In his book, “The Real Eve”, Dr. Oppenheimer traces the genetic origin of Europeans and Central Asians to a single mother who lived in the Indian subcontinent, whom he calls the “Eurasian Eve”. This inference points to the autochthonous origin of the genetic population of the Indian subcontinent, which agrees with the results of many genetic studies, including but not limited to, Sharma, et. al. 2009,  Sengupta, et. al. 2006, Sahoo, et. al., 2006, Metspalu, et. al., 2004. Not surprisingly, while Bamshad, et. al. 2001, which seemed to support a invasionist/migrationist model had the professional Aryanists jumping up and down, vast majority of subsequent genetic research, which go against any so-called Aryan invasion or migration into India, don’t elicit the same excitement from them.

Interestingly, some professional Aryanists theorize that even if the Indian subcontinent is the genetic origin for Central Asian and European populations, that still doesn’t rule out a migration of Sanskrit speaking (or PIE speaking) “Aryans” into the subcontinent around 1500 BCE (or around that time). Now some questions arise with this theory. How major was this theoretical migration to have contributed language and beliefs in such a scale? Did Sanskrit develop in the subcontinent prior of this said migration? Or, did the ancient migration out of the subcontinent carry PIE into Central Asia, Europe? If we go by genetic studies, among others, Metspalu, et. al., 2004 clearly state that since the initial settlement of South Asia by modern humans, when this region may well have provided initial settlers who colonized much of Eurasia, gene flow in and out of India has been very limited. Metspalu, et. al., 2011 also provide the same thesis. Co-author Gyaneshwar Chaube of University of Tartu, Estonia explicitly states this in an aforementioned quote from India Today. However, given the possibility of new research disputing this out-of-India model, as mentioned by the editor of mAnasataraMgiNI, we eagerly await that publication.

In any case, even though the invasionist model has been largely discarded by the professional Aryanists for a migrationist (and even trickle-in) model, there are still significant mainstream books, sites, etc. that talk of conquering light skinned Aryans and defeated dark skinned natives. It may still take significant amount of time before this Aryan debate is settled once and for all. While genetics holds the key, as long as there exists political reasons for patronizing the professional Aryanists, namely, the Marxist history engineers of India and their occidental Eurocentric associates, the results and inferences of genetic research won’t reach textbooks that easily. That said, it will probably take another decade of more genetic evidence, on top of what we already know, to put an end to this Aryan debate once and for all.

Notwithstanding the direction genetics studies take, it is important to dissociate dharma/Hinduism from the Aryan theories. The soul of India has always been dhArmika be it Hindu, Buddhist, Jain or Sikh. Wherever dharma has ceased to exist, secessionist activities have taken root. The nations of Afghanistan, Pakistan and Bangladesh stand as testimonies to what happens once the population is converted from dharma. If the break India agenda is to be foiled, among other things, there needs to be a resurgence of dharma in India. Whether dharma “came to” India from outside or not shouldn’t really be the focus. Focus should be that dharma is that soul of India and cleansing of dharma enables the break India agenda. Of course, if genetic studies of the last few years is any indication, the evidence for autochthonous origins of the Indian population groups and hence dharma is gradually mounting. While any new paper may as well change this, after some deliberation I have come to believe that it is definitely befitting to decouple the whole Aryan influx matter from dharma/Hinduism. Otherwise, we will merely be playing into the hands of our civilizational opponents.

Meera Nanda’s hollow rhetoric on ‘Voice of India’

Instead of clumsily attempting to discredit the pioneering Voice of India publication house, through the proxy of Breivik, I would like to see Meera Nanda try to discredit the data presented by VOI publications through hard evidence and reasoning. But since characters more capable than Nanda have abysmally failed to do so, I can see why she chooses instead to throw muck at VOI without actually even attempting to debunk the veracity of data presented in VIO publications.

Nanda insinuates, the claim that Muslims enslaved Hindus and drove them to their death in the Hindu Kush mountain ranges is questionable. I would like to point to no other than Al Beruni, the Muslim chronicler who has himself written in support of the irrefutable veracity of that claim. This is history straight from the horse’s mouth. I would also like to direct the curious to Elliot’s “The History of India, as Told by Its Own Historians. The Muhammadan Period” for further evidence of the unimaginable atrocities committed by Islamic invaders on India’s native population. Elliot’s work is merely an English translation of accounts by Muslim scribes in Persian. Again, history straight from the horse’s mouth.

What Breivik’s madness presents is an opportunity for an open dialog and honest debate to analyze the reasons behind religious conflict and terrorism in the Indian subcontinent starting from medieval to modern periods. Such a dialog needs to accept history without whitewashing and needs to be open to free speech from different spectrums. Unfortunately, an open dialog is unpalatable for the torch bearers of Indian secularism, since that will expose their duplicity and empty scholarship. No wonder they feel the need to resort to hollow rhetoric.