As per the Indian government, India is teeming with infiltrators (ghuspaithi). These illegal people have entered across India in Bihar, Jharkhand, Bengal, Kerala and so on. And they are in large numbers. They, as per the Home Minister, the Prime Minister and other important people in the Indian government, come from Bangladesh, Pakistan and elsewhere. They are, according to the Indian government again, a threat to India. Most of the problems that India faces today are because of them. I'm using the Indian government here to refer to statements or information shared by Prime Minister Modi, Home Minister Amit Shah and other important people part of the Indian Government. After all, if the Prime Minister and Home Minister's word isn't a word from the nation itself, then whose word would be said as a word from the nation?

Infiltrators to become majority in Jharkhand in 25–30 years if unchecked: Amit Shah He also criticised the state government for “vote bank” politics and vowed that if the BJP comes to power, it would chase “each” illegal immigrant out of the state.

'Will make Bihar ghuspaithiya mukt': Amit Shah says infiltrators will be deported within 5 years from Seemanchal Amit Shah questioned whether the infiltrators should be removed from the voters' list or not, and asserted that they would have to return to their countries and would have no place in Seemanchal.

Amit Shah directs officials to identify 100 'infiltrators' in every State and deport them The Union Home Minister asked intelligence officials to continue with the targeted crackdown even if the neighbouring countries do not accept the undocumented migrants.

These are just samples. If you dig more, you will find an even larger number of intruders, in thousands and lakhs, roaming in India currently. People in the Indian government know the number; they also know in what states they exist. People in the national media also know about these intruders. All of this makes you wonder, how did these intruders get into India? Who facilitated their entrance? While such a question gets difficult to answer since each intruder might have followed a different path and agent to get in, the other question becomes important. Whose job is to guard our borders? Whose job is to ensure intruders don't intrude on our borders? It is the job of the Indian Army and the Home Ministry, headed by Amit Shah himself. And these repeated statements from the Home Minister reveal a startling reality. People guarding our borders, that is, the Indian armed forces, are no more following orders from the Home Ministry. They are on their own. It is they who are letting these intruders enter India. I'm not saying this thing. It is said, and inferred by the Indian government via the Prime Minister, Home Minister and even the national media.

So there are two things here. Either intruder after intruder is let in by the Indian army. Or these intruders are smarter than the Indian armed forces. These intruders who are illiterate, living on meagre incomes, going inside India to do daily wage labour are cleverer than the Indian armed forces. Essentially, Amit Shah, Modi and the entire machinery of RSS and BJP are saying that the Indian Army is incompetent. That they have failed India, that the Indian army has let in this huge influx of intruders. Given all these facts, does it make sense to even have these men holding guns at the borders? What are they drawing their salaries for? Why are we paying them if they are such failures at their jobs? What's there to take pride in these incompetent men who cannot stop poor intruders from entering our borders? And not one or two, but in such large numbers? And it has been more than ten years since the Modi government has had such reliable information about these intruders, but the Indian army has failed to find any of these enemies from other countries. Just how incompetent are our supposedly brave soldiers? I'm not raising these questions. India's Prime Minister Modi and Home Minister Amit Shah are raising these fingers on our armed forces. And so far, at least I'm not aware of any army commander or regiment clarifying anything on these statements. Meaning? These statements by the Indian government are right, and they agree they are losers who cannot protect our borders or, and I fear to suggest this, for these are the men who brought Ram to Ayodhya, they cannot be liars, for the whole Ram's story is about the truth, Amit Shah and Modi are not lying. Those who follow the message of Ram could never lie. Modi and Shah would never resort to lies. I cannot for once imagine believing such a thing. But then again, years of Congress propaganda have made it harder to disrespect the Indian armed forces. They are a professional force we have been told again and again. It is hard to believe they would let intruders into our borders or even that such a large number could intrude under their watch.

If people who brought Ram to Ayodhya are liars, then how come Maryadapurushottam Ram, whose entire life was a message of adhering to truth, blessed and decided to come to Ayodhya on their request? How did the great seers, learned minds and devotees of Prabhu Ram allow these liars who are so far from the principles of Ram's teachings to inaugurate his abode? Has the lord Ram corrupted himself over the years? Is lord Ram now one among the supporters and cheerleaders of rape and lying? No? Meaning Modi and Shah are not the liars? I can't. I respect Prabhu Ram too much to think of Modi and Shah, soldiers who gave us Ram in Ayodhya, to be liars. That spells the other statement, the one that the Shah and Modi have been repeating without any counterclaim from the army. The Indian army is indeed an incompetent pool of men with arms. Utterly shameful that Indians are paying for their upkeep and more using their hard-earned salaries via taxes.

#NarendraModi #RSS #BJP #Aliens #migrants #refugees #India #Army #hate #propaganda

Every day when a Muslim person walks out of their home they come across or by the time they get back to their home in the evening, they invariably would have interacted with close to five or seven non-Muslims. This has been happening for generations and continues to happen even today with most Muslims, and to the most extent even without their own explicit knowledge. But in contrast, how many Hindus interact with Muslims on a daily basis? In fact, many Hindus end up knowing zero Muslim persons in the entirety of their life. Try to think of yourself, randomly ask elders at your home, how many Muslims have they interacted with and know personally. So Muslims interact with non-Muslims, especially Hindus on a daily basis while Hindus by and large do not. One mingles and the other does not. In fact, Hindus have gone out of their way to move Muslims away from spaces they previously existed in and where there was a chance for Hindus to encounter and interact with Muslims. Hindus have evicted and moved Muslims away from spaces thereby reducing or completely nullifying even the bare-minimum possibility of interaction with them. Secularism in India, unlike what’s practised in France, is tolerance and respect for all faiths. In schools, offices and almost every sphere of their life they participate in Hindu festivals that are celebrated there, they wish you on your festivals, they adjust their businesses to accommodate your religious beliefs, and they go out of their way to make you and your practice of faith possible without any hassle. There are Muslim poets who have written songs praising lord Krishna, Muslim qawwals who sing Hindu bhajans and a lot more. Clearly, Muslims (compared to Hindus) come out as more secular or better practitioners of secularism in India. If secularism is at the heart of Indian identity and the core ideal of the Indian republic then Muslims come out as its strongest practitioners and custodians.

Let’s travel back into the past for a moment. Few decades, to the time when the British were leaving the Indian subcontinent.

India and Pakistan both became independent dominions on the 14–15 of August 1947. While doing so, portions of the Punjab Province and Bengal Presidency of British India (which included present-day India, Pakistan and Bangladesh) were divided through an imaginary line, now famously referred to as Radcliffe Line, after its architect, Cyril Radcliffe, who, as the joint chairman of the two boundary commissions for the two provinces, received the responsibility to equitably divide 175,000 square miles (450,000 km-squared) of territory with 88 million people. The demarcation line was published on 17 August 1947 upon the Partition of British India.

The regions affected by the extended Partition of India: green regions were all part of Pakistan by 1948, and orange part of India. The darker-shaded regions represent the Punjab and Bengal provinces partitioned by the Radcliffe Line. The grey areas represent some of the key princely states that were eventually integrated into India or Pakistan, but others which initially became independent are not shown. Courtesy: Wikipedia

At this point during the partition, the Muslims of India had to make a choice. They had two options to choose from. Two new nations, both ready to accept them as their citizens, required them to decide their fate regarding their domicile. They could either stay in India which had declared itself as a non-religious nation-state where all religions were accepted and respected, where anyone could practice the faith of their choosing and the state had pledged itself to respect faiths and people of all kinds; or they could choose Pakistan which had declared itself as an Islamic state, the faith of Muslims. So they could either choose to live in an Islamic state or a secular India. And Muslims of India chose India. They chose to be secular over Islamic subjects. Indian Hindus on the other hand never had any such offering. They never had to make any choice. They didn’t have anything to choose from. So retrospectively if you have to think, Muslims chose India, they became citizens of India by choice and they did so despite there being a state of their own faith inviting them to come and settle. In other words, Muslims of India rejected a theocratic state, and Muslims of India rejected a nation-state based on religion, their own religion. They wanted or at least they chose to stay with Hindus and other citizens of India. They chose diversity over narrow-mindedness. What does this mean? This means Muslims have already pledged allegiance to the Indian state, they have already spoken about their choice and so their patriotism, if you think of it, is not under speculation, suspicion or in question. But in comparison, Hindus of India never really asserted their allegiance to secular India, they never made it clear that they wanted to stay in a secular state and not a religious one, they never discarded a state of their own faith, Hindus never rejected a Hindu state. You might say, Hindus never had to make that decision, they were never offered such a choice. And you are right, they never were offered such a proposal. And I’m not saying we have to question the commitment of Hindus towards the Indian republic. We should not. But if it ever comes to that, if we ever come to a point where we have to doubt someone’s commitment to the nation vis-a-vis their faith then it isn’t Muslims who are to be questioned or seen through a lens of suspicion but Hindus. It is Hindus whose allegiance and commitment to the ideals and spirit of the Indian republic are under suspicion not that of Muslims. Muslims made the choice, when there was an opportunity they spoke their intentions, they rejected a religious state (of their own faith) and thus they are in the clear. The rest of us are not so much in there, not definitively.