Shaking The Secular Roots!
INDIA THAT IS BHARAT
SATIRICUS is alarmed. Despite the best (or worst) efforts of Sonia and Shahi Imam, it seems secularism is more and more khatre mein hai. For, believe it or not, Justice Anil Dave, a Supreme Court judge, no less, has said had he been a dictator he would have made the Mahabharat and the Gita compulsory in class one in schools. Does that mean what secular Satiricus shudders to think it means? For it may menacingly mean this judge wants India that is Bharat to become India that is Mahabharat. The secular gods forbid! The very idea shakes Satiricus to his secular roots. For the Mahabharat is called the Fifth Veda, and going back to the Vedas would mean an end to India that is Bharat. There would then be no India, there would then be just Bharat—an unthinkable eventuality.
And of course if the Mahabharat is unthinkably undesirable, the Gita is far more so. For it is the crass quintessence of Hinduism preached by a communal Krishna. This is precisely the point that a towering torch-bearer of Indian secularism, the head of the All India Muslim Personal Law Board, made when he said, “Article 28 of the Indian constitution says no institution recognized by the government should propagate one religion, while Justice Dave wants to teach Hindu scripture in schools.” How unbelievably ignorant of a Supreme Court judge! Why, even this illiterate ignoramus, who happens to have a degree in Law under his belt, knows that 30 years after the Constituent Assembly passed a communal constitution, Indira Gandhi made it secular by adding that adjective to it. Since then, an Indian cannot be constitutionally a secularist, if he is illegally a Hindu.
By the way, secular Satiricus was surprised to see that the Muslim board chief had forgotten to point out, while on the subject of Hindu scriptures, that the main Hindu scripture, the Gita, has also a dangerously dark side to it—its open advocacy of violence. Satiricus recalls that years ago he had read a Muslim Indian’s letter to a newspaper demanding that the Gita be banned because it is a war-mongering book. How did the Muslim board’s legal eagle miss out on this supreme argument in his case against the Supreme Court judge? Satiricus is sure he must be a faithful follower of Islamic Ahimsa. Or is his knowledge of the constitution as flawed as that of law-graduate Satiricus, who has come to believe that a Muslim Indian can demand a ban on the Gita but a Hindu Indian cannot demand a ban on the Quran for the command to kill infidels—like Satiricus?
Right To Kill!
IS GENOCIDE permissible? Only of sinners. And who are sinners? Those who do not follow the same religion as you. At least that is what it seems to Satiricus. Take this newspaper Times of Israel. The other day its website carried a piece titled “When genocide is permissible”. It is, says this piece, when it is “the only way to achieve the goal of sustaining quiet”. Of course there was a furore, and the piece was deleted. But the very next day, the paper carried another story with a quote from the Bible as its title—“Go and utterly destroy the sinners, the Amalekites, and fight against them until they are exterminated.” (Samuel, 15:18.)
Well, now, what do you know? Satiricus does not know what’s what, because he is a sinful pagan. All he knows is that the Amalekits were a tribe living in Palestine in Old Testament days and the Jews called them enemies. The encyclopaedia does not seem to know what sin they had committed to deserve extermination, except that they were enemies. How simple to understand for this simpleton! The Jews must slaughter the non-Jews for committing the sin of being non-Jews, like the Amalekites. The Christians must slaughter non-Christians, killing one crore of them in holy crusades carried on for 200 years. And Muslims must slaughter non-Muslims, as Mohammed himself did when he killed 800 Jews and as Mughal emperors and invaders from Nadir Shah to Akbar are on record as having done. And not only Hindus, even Shias are sinners. Why else is ISIS killing them en masse in Iraq? And why else were 200 of them killed in Karachi in oh-so-pak Pakistan not long ago? Satiricus gives up. He does not know which is preferable—being a cursed Kafir or a sinful Shia. Either way, he would deserve to be slaughtered. So either way he would be dead. But wouldn’t that pose a problem for his editor? Where else would the editor find an equally illustrious illiterate adept at sinfully slaughtering his readers by boring them to death?