Tuesday, October 28, 2008

Yehudi-Hindu Bhai Bhai (Jews and Hindus are Brothers)

Title: Yehudi-Hindu Bhai Bhai (Jews and Hindus are Brothers)
Author: Ranbir Singh(UK)
Publication: Sword of Truth
Date: Sept 3, 2003
URL: http://www.swordoftruth.com/swordoftruth/archives/readersvoice/yhbb.html
[sadly a dead link]

"Besides all this, the servants of Huram and Solomon, who had brought gold from Ophir, brought also cargoes of algum wood and precious stones . . . The like of them had never before been seen in the land of Judah. . . . The king had a fleet of ships plying to Tarshish with Hurram's men; once every three years this fleet of merchantmen came home, bringing gold and silver, ivory, apes, and monkeys." (2 Chronicles 8,9, New English Bible, The Bible Societies, 1970, pp.324-5)

The above Passage from the Old Testemant refers to 'Ophir'. This mysterious land has been identified by some scholars as Bharat itself. The Solomon in the above extract was King of Israel, of the Jews. Like the Hindus, Jews are an ancient people, and with the above passage, the relations between the two are very old indeed. The far-sighted observer might then bemoan how this has not been utilised to the mutual benefit of both.

New geo-political alliances form in the post Cold War world as one enters the new millennium. It has taken over 50 years for the Indian government to realise who its true allies are, as it gains a raj which is reflective of its majority community, in harmony with its indigenous traditions, and lack the rootlessness so common of Congress raj. In 1947, the battle of Kurukshetra was truly lost when the Kaurava Congressiya of Nehru and Indira Khan, Rajiv Khan reduced the sacred Punyabhoomi to further oblivion. Nehru's Panchsheel made Bharat an unwanted prostitute to the imperialistic designs of Communist China; entirely fitting to Jawaharal's own family background but not to Bharat. Indira and Rajiv Khan mafia crawled like rats to the USSR. Their seduction by Islam was no less, not entirely surprising as they flitted from one totalitarian ideology to another. It was against this political backdrop that they alienated what could have been Bharat's most supportive ally, Israel.

Indeed the parallel struggles for self-determination by the Jews and Hindus has been largely ignored. The domination of India' institutions and organs of education by a motley collection of Marxists, Islamists, Macaulites, pseudo-Dalits, and Christians has led not only to Hinduphobic indoctrination of anyone who aspired to be intellectual or just plain informed, but a streak of anti-Semitism in a land where it had no place.

Anti-Semitism and its sister hate of anti-Zionism has become part of India's pseudo-secular and Hinduphobic political mainstream. The pre-BJP raj tried hard to show its solidarity with the Islamic and Communist nations by a strong anti-Israel stance, in the name of anti-colonialism and Third World solidarity. Had the philosophy which manifested itself during the early days of Hindu and Indian nationalism (as readers will know the two are harmonised, Gandhism now consigned to the dung heap) triumphed this would not have been so.

Veer Savarkar, ideologue of Hindutva, saw the Jews as allies in a common struggle. In his famous Hindutva of 1923, he wrote:

"if the Zionists' dreams were realised, if Palestine became a Jewish State, it would gladden us almost as much as our Jewish friends."

Savarkar had been pro-Zionist since 1908 and remained so as Bharat's betrayers went in the opposite direction. In 1952, Savarkar looked to the Jews an example for the Hindu to emulate if they wished to be a modern nation:

"Even a tiny state like Israel has sensibly started developing fish field and sand fruits and because of that they are able to meet the needs of the countless immigrants who would have otherwise half-starved. The Jews are a brave and intelligent people. And although their State looks like a child before our great state of Bharat we must emulate its example."

In the post-1947 years Savarker denounced Comrade Nehru's refusal to recognise Israel, saying quite frankly that he feared that it would invite the very Muslim opposition which he was so eager to please. In February 1956 at the annual session of the Hindu Mahasabha in Jodhpur, he was clear that this was a suicidal course:

". . . if tomorrow there breaks out a war between Pakistan and Bharat almost all Muslims will be arrayed on the side of Pakistan in opposition to us and their enemy Israel will be our only friend. Therefore I say that Bharat should give unequivocal recognition to Israel. If we desire to safeguard the independence of Bharat we should be militarily strong."

But the fascination with Islam and Communism held by the Congress raj would never allow for such practical thinking. Indeed in the name of anti-colonialism, anti-Israel sentiment became an article of faith, supporting the PLO terrorists an act of proof of this desire to shake off the colonial shackles. Yet how did this Non-Aligned Movement benefit Bharat? Until the BJP victory India remained a nation ridiculed by others as weak, the easy punching bag of others' frustrations. Hindus the world over, self-alienated, eager to please others at how stupid and backward they regarded their cultural roots. Anti-Semitism meanwhile seeped into India's political structure. Islam from the outset has been anti-Semitic, as the Prophet's own genocide of Jewish tribes of Arabia attests. That is why Anwar Shaikh is keen to point out that such an example of extreme nationalism was not witnessed so early elsewhere. With the pro-Islamic stance of Hinduphobic groups claiming to speak for Dalits, such as that led by Rajashekhar, anti-Semitism and belief in a global Jewish plot were parcel of the ideological baggage (this has been reviewed by Koenraad Elst in Indigenous Indians from Voice of India).

The Communist influence on India's institutions was also a factor, and not just in the anti-Isreali stance. Marx, though born Jewish, was ashamed of his Jewish origins: like many latter day Hindu pseudo-intellectuals of JNU who also shout about how they are just Hindus by birth, accident, or some other unnatural freak. This factor and because many Jews joined the Communist movements in Europe and North America, as well the self-righteous stance taken by Reds in opposing Fascism, has given the opinion that Communists were anti-Zionist and not anti-Semitic per se. Yet a deeper investigation would reveal that many Jewish Communist leaders in USSR were liquidated by Stalin, Trotsky being the most notorious case. The 'liberation' of Nazi Europe by Communists in 1945 brought no respite from anti-Semitism. Keen to play friends to Arab nations, who remained Islamic to the core however lax such as Syria, Egypt, Libya and Algeria, and incensed at Israel's pro-Western stance, the Warsaw Pact nations fuelled hatred of Jews under the guise of anti-Zionism. Eastern Europe was also the heir to virulent anti-Jewish hatred which remained under anti-Zionism, and almost erupted into a mass pogrom in USSR in 1953 had it not been for Stalin's death (the infamous Doctor's Plot). Communism, being born in reaction to Christian dogma, nevertheless imported its erstwhile foe's (and mother's) sinister baggage, with anti-Semitism against Jewish capitalism, Israeli imperialism, rootless Cosmopolitanism (Judaism), and Zionist world domination.

Yet Bharat's indigenous philosophy was not suppressed, which is why anti-Semitism never could gain mass acceptance. Web site articles by Sudheer Birodkar (http://www.hindunet.org/hindu_history/sudheer_history/judaism.htm) will attest to the fact that in a 2000 year presence in Bharat, Jews never suffered anti-Semitism at Hindu hands. Such intolerance was an anathema to the Hindu mind. In 1981, RSS Sarsanghachalak, Balasaheb Deoras made this clear when discussing the once large Jewish community of Kerela:

"In a book published by the Israeli Consulate in Bombay . . . it says that the Jews were ill-treated and subjected to all sorts of humiliations all over the world, the only example being Bharat and that during their long sojourn in Bharat, there was not even one single instance of their persecution."

The Jews left India to help build the fledgling state of Israel, not because of persecution. Israel showed a marked contrast to India in its dealings with hostile neighbours. Attacked on its very inception by the Arabs in 1948, it routed them. While in 1965 and 1971 Bharat sought peace with Pakistan following two wars instigated by the latter, Israel not only defeated the Arabs in 1967 and 1973, but also annexed territory for itself. In a very short space of time, Jewish pioneers transformed a land of desert into the most prosperous and advanced nation in the Middle East. It is the only viable democracy in that region, with a diverse society in stark contrast to the dull, monotonous, corrupt and totalitarian regimes of its Islamic neighbours.

The Jews and Hindus have been victims of the dogmatic totalitarianism which has stalked the earth for two millennia. Born from Judaism, Christianity nevertheless was opposed to it, as the Jews remained steadfast to their ancient beliefs. The conversion of the Roman Empire was a negative factor for the Jews as the now state sponsored Church began the anti-Semitism which became an integral part of its belief whilst stealing many Jewish cultural aspects. It was this hatred which could not be suppressed by the Reformation in the 1500s which led to Protestantism, the Enlightenment in the 1700s which had rationalism, nor by the emergence of Communism in the 19th century. Fascism and Nazism as the most extreme forms of nationalism naturally saw Jews as an unwanted alien presence in a secularised religion in which race and nation were the pseudo-spiritual pillars. The modern Christian rejection of overt anti-Semitism does not his the fact that it is a monstrous being of its own creation. Pastor Martin Niemoller, imprisoned by Hiler for opposing the persecution of Jews, as in many ways an exception. The Roman Catholic Church, especially in Croatia and Poland was an eager participant in Nazi atrocities. This was revived following the collapse of Communism in 1989, most evidently with Pamyat in Russia which inherits its Judeophobia from the Russian Orthodox Church itself.

The advent of Islam brought no respite for the Jews. Indeed it made things worse. Ibn Warraq (Why I am Not a Muslim, 1995) as well as Anwar Shaikh have exploded the myth of Islamic tolerance. Christianity after all was the heir to an earlier age of humanism and rationalism found in Greek philosophy. It had a possibility of reforming itself. Though often credited with laying the foundations of modern democratic traditions, Christianity did the opoosite. Western democracy is the heir of pre-Christian 'pagan' ideas, the philosophy of ancient Greece, the glory of Hellas. It was Western Fascism and Communism which were ejected from the loins of Christianity.

Abba Eban, a great authority on Jewish history and one who has yielded immense service to Israel, nevertheless continues with the myth of Jewish prosperity under Islam. Even a scholar such as Robert Wistricht (AntiSemitism, The Longest hatred, 1991), who by no means ignores Islamic Judeophobia, tries to explain it away. Bat Y'eor is one of the few who does not. Islamic history is not as clear and reliable as one would be led to believe. The Quran is full of contradictions, grammatical errors, even non-Arabic words. To rely on the Hadith is no better as contradictory accounts occur of the same event. But if one relies upon the Islamic traditions then it is clear that Islam was anti-Semitic form the outset. Muhammad's massacre of Medina's Jews could in no way set an example for Islamic tolerance. The Prophet stole Jewish ideas, and claimed them as his own, mixing them with aspects of Arab 'paganism', and pure unabashed egotism. It is amazing how this has gone unnoticed and how one is brainwashed into the myth of Islamic tolerance, as opposed to Israeli aggression. The Quran, Hadith and numerous fatwas since all show that Islamic ideology is replete with anti-Semitic manure of the vilest type.

But the Jews did not just come to Israel from the west. They were not just the idealistic pioneers from USA, the survivors of the death camps such as Treblinka, nor the victims of the sickening 1946 pogrom in Poland. Many came from Arab lands, the Sephardi Jews, where they had suffered relentless persecution. It was the coming of the French to the Maghrib and British to Egypt which gave greater political rights to these Jewish minorities, even though these nations were by no means innocent: France had its own Dreyfus Affair of 1897, endemic anti-Jewish paramiltary outfits in the 1930s, Vichy pro-Nazi collaboration, and more recently the largest post-war Fascist party; Britain's more polite society confined overt anti-Semitism to Mosley's Blackshirts and the qualgmire of the post-1945 far right. The rise of anti-French nationalism in Algeria also had anti-Semitic overtones. By 1962, most Jews had been driven from Algeria. Nasser, Egypt's strongman and apparent leader against Western colonialism, imperialism and racism, expelled all Jews from Egypt. Israel had all Yemeni Jews evacuated. Saudi Arabia to this day refuses entry to Jews. Pogroms, distinctive clothing (preceding the Star of David worn by Jews in Nazi Europe), degradation, were as much of the lives of Jews in dar'ul Islam as they were in Christian Europe. Unlike in Europe, there was no Reformation, no Enlightenment, no parallel to the French Revolution. So there was no Emancipation.

In short Jews suffered anti-Semitism in Islamic lands which was not due to any importations from the west such as that which led to the rise of modern Arab nationalism. No doubt that helped but the elements were already in existence. In no Islamic country were Jews accorded respect. When Israel was formed, they saw the opportunity of liberation and left. Some had already chosen the path of exit. Prominent UK commercial success stories of Sassoon and Saatchi, are in fact of Iraqi Jewish origin. The opposition to Israel by Arab and Muslim nations must be understood in this context. The only exception is Turkey, and that because Islam was uprooted by Ataturk in 1924. If it was merely a local issue, then why would Pakistan, Malaysia, Bangladesh, and Indonesia all be so concerned to bray Judeophobia like an ass. Pakistan and Bangladesh may wish to court Arab petrodollar, but Malaysia and Indonesia have had comparative prosperity. It is due to Islam. It is Islam which has led to the anti-Israeli sentiment of these nations, and the statement in 1998 by Mahathir Mohamed of Malaysia that the East Asian economic crisis was due to the Jews.

Therefore the crisis facing Israel must be seen in the ideological context. The problem is not Arabs or even Muslims, but Islamic ideology. Before Islam, Jews had found shelter with the Arabs. They had prospered in Medina and elsewhere. In an earlier article, Koenraad Elst had reviewed David Duke's chapter on India in his 1999 My Awakeining. Duke devotes a large part of his book on Jewish arrogance, racism, and domination of the media. He puts the blame of anti-Semitsm on the Jews themselves, for their chauvanism towards host populations. Yet this cannot explain why they lived peacefully for 2000 years in Bharat. The roots of anti-Semitism lie not with the Jews but the dogmatic ideologies which have twisted and stolen ideas from their victims: Christianty, Islam, Communism, Nazism. Even in Ethiopia, one of the earliest victims to be swallowed by Christian dogma, the Falashas (Ethiopian Jews) could not escape the shadow of persecution. The scenario of Arabia is perhaps the best example. In the pre-Islam period, Arabia, as explained by Aditi Chaturvedi, was a Hindu rashtra, which was why the Jews enjoyed the same tolerance their co-religionists in India. This changed with Muhammad. There was no evident change in Jewish thinking or habits, nor a mass change in the Arab genotype (just to please Duke, who seems obsessed with genotype, a more sophisticated word for race he utilises, in his aspirations to be taken seriously as an intellectual, and perhaps one day as a normal human being). The only quantifiable metamorphosis was ideological, that of Islamic ideology, which introduced anti-Semitism to the formerly civilised an tolerant Arabs. Israel has failed to take this into account. It has seen the opposition in a purely political context. This explains why it has fallen for the trap of trying to make peace with its Islamic neighbours in the hope that it will not be a pariah.

One can thus express surprise since the Jews have learnt much from their history and turned their misfortune into something positive. Yet this is due to the west's own fascination with Islam, as a parallel civilisation, another wonder of human creation. Jewish groups such as JDL (Jewish Defence League, www.jdl.org ) and Kach, who take their ideology from the late Rabbi Kahane, are condemned as extremist or even Nazi. One would hope that Israel would learn from its treatment at the hands of Islam as well as the west. A new nexus of Islamists and Nazis is forming, not content with what Hitler had committed. Ahmed Rami's site of Radio Islam has long been the centre of anti-Semitic propaganda, linked to the sites of white Nazis who would if true to their ideology expel or even gas this Arab 'wog'. Yet the Nazi-Islamic alliance is nothing new. Jinnah himself said that India's Muslims should act like Sudenten Germans, who were trying in the 1930s to secede from Czechoslovakia. Many ex-Nazis such as Remer found sanctuary in the Middle East. The Mufti of Jerusalem was openly supportive of Hilter. Arabic translation s of Hitler's Mein Kampf have remained popular in the Middle East, even distributed to soldiers on the eve of the 1967 Six Day War, by 'socialist' Egypt. It was that country's later president, the dark-complexioned Anwar Sadat who had been an admirer of Hitler (one wonders if Sadat ever heard of Hitler's reaction to Jesse Owen's victory in the 1936 Olympics) Saudi Arabia's King Faisal funded Holocaust denial 'research', and encouraged the UK to expel its Jews. In Kuwait and Saudi the two worst things that one can import are pictures of scantily clad women (they have to wait until they reach the Islamic heaven before enjoying those sort of sights) and an atlas with Israel on it (which is promptly scrubbed off the map). In UK Islamic groups Hizb-ut Tahrir and Omar Bakri's new outfit, Al Muhajiroun have wreaked anti-Jewish (and anti-Hindu) violence on college campuses, causing the National Union of Students to establish Campuswatch against such hate groups. So it is not surprising when one finds David Duke featured on Radio Islam's self- righteous 'anti-racist' and anti-Zionist website: (http://www.radioislam.net/duke/index.htm)

Hindus should thus recognise that Israel can be one of its few reliable allies. From Israel Bharat has much to learn. Instead of peace treaties it should have followed the Jewish state'' example in annexing the lands of the aggressor. Pakistan is eager for war again. This time it will be different if Hindus follow the Israeli example. The jawans should carry the saffron into Lahore, which is the natural capital of East Punjab and the city of Lav. How could Lahore become a city of Islam any more than Jerusalem? These are just two of the examples of Islam's theft of the cultural icons of others. If Pakistanis want to be Arabs they should be sent forth to their imaginary homeland where they can do the jobs the Arab sheikhs have reserved for them: mercenaries, prostitutes, menial workers, nannies, attendants wiping the faeces from the expensive porcelain toilets of the sheikhs. Islamic fascists see Bharat as the soft spot to propagate their irrational creed and foment violence. India tries to placate them. Israel expels them, This is what Bharat should do. If they hate Hindu Rashtra so much they are free to leave for dar'ul Islam.

Bharat can also learn in the economic sphere. Israel was pioneered via its kibbutzim system, which transformed desert into lush agricultural land. The opportunity is there for closer collaboration in both economic and political spheres. Israeli expertise can contribute into alleviating some of Bharat's obstacles to becoming an advanced nation. Military expertise will show how one survives, thrives, and even turns the tables on its aggressors. They also retain the memory of their Holocaust. We Hindus do not, to our eternal shame, even though it continues unabated in Pakistan, Bangladesh, Afghanistan, and Assam.

From Bharat Israel can also envisage what would happen should it fall victim to complacency. It can ill afford to have an Islamic monster in the form of a Palestinian state on its borders. It can also ill afford to have its most sacred shrine usurped by Islam. Just as Babri Masjid hijacked the site of Rama Janmabhoomi, the al-Aqsa, Dome of the Rock, sits like a parasite on the Temple Mount. In Israel as in Bharat, Islam has hijacked 'pagan' shrines for its own purpose, its own imperialist stamp of victory on the sub-human 'kaffirs' Jewish as well as Hindu shrines have been victims of this Islamic colonialism.

Worse than the Iron Curtain of the Cold War, an Iron Purdah has descended from Kashmir to Karchi in the east, from Senegal to Sudan in the south, and advances elsewhere. Bharat and Israel are holding back this Purdah and Green Menace, but have thus far made inefficient use of their resources. The Jews and Hindus are two ancient nations, survivals from a more enlightened era which we are hopefully once again entering as the new millennium dawns, and dogmatic ideologies are shelved by intelligent people. They have faced common enemies, being victims of the aforementioned dogmas: the religious dogma of Christianity, the colonialist Orwellianism of Islam, the pseudo-rationalism of Marxism, and the racial fundamentalism of Nazism. Presently they face two challenges. One is from a resurgent Nazism, presented by figures such as David Duke (www.duke.org) in North America, and Le Pen and Haider in Europe. Yet the most pressing danger is Islam, which aims at the conversion or physical liquidation of Jews and Hindus, and with that Israel and Bharat.

The arrival of a Hindu led government in Bharat should be an advent in rejecting earlier myopic political actions. If any people are the true brothers of the Hindus, it is the Jews. If any nation is the true ally of Bharat it is Israel. Let all Jews and Hindus who have the vision for the new millennium work closer together to achieve the liberation of their respective peoples from the shackles of anti-human dogmas.

Israel is Yehudi Rashtra, as Bharat is Hindu Rashtra.

Refrences:
2 Chronicles 8,9, New English Bible, The Bible Societies, 1970, pp.324-5
Dhanajay Keer, Veer Savarkar, Popular Prakashan Private Ltd, 1988, Bombay, p.467.
Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, RSS: A Force for Social Change, Jagarana Prakashana Kempegowda Nagar, 1981, Bangalore, pp.7-8

Also see http://islamicdangerstill.blogspot.com/2007/12/problem-of-resurgent-islamic-jihad-and.html

3 comments:

Bangladeshi said...

Yes, Hindus and Jews should work together eliminate terrorism.

More importantly, Hindus need work among themselves to restore pride in our religion.

Jai Sri Ram & Happy Diwali!

Bhindu
http://www.bangladeshihindu.com/

urbanadder22 said...

Thank you for your thoughts and the link to the Bangladeshi Hindu site.

The depth of the Hindu religion and its all-encompassing--encompassing all that there is--when compared to the poverty of thought and the rules and regulations of Islam--dependent as they were on the mood-of-the moment of its originator--make the Hindu religion a treasure.

Isa das said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.