Nagaland - Is it a part of India or not?

The leaders of Nagaland do not seem to be consider the state as an integral part of the Indian Union. The CM of Nagaland pleads for a peaceful dialogue with India as cannot be defeated in a war. Perhaps, he has forgotten that he is the Chief Minister (CM) of the Indian state, Nagaland not a leader of some 'alien Nagaland'. A recent article in 'The Pioneer' opens our eyes to the political reality in Nagaland. It is the height of hypocrisy that those parties which harp on secularism do not even think about condemning such secessionist activities which are clearly based on religion (Muslim majority Kashmir Valley, Christian Majority Nagaland - the Baptist Church of Nagaland is an active supporter of such anti-national activities). Perhaps, for these 'sickular' parties, secularism means 'anti-Hindu' and nothing else. The hard truth is that despite being a secular country, people do view this nation as a 'Hindu nation' - be it various Islamic nations or our own 'minority dominated' states. It appears that the best way out is to recognize India as a Hindu nation (not necessarily as a Hindu theocratic state but recognizing its Hindu nature and as such the need for its preservation as such). After all, this nation of great diversity is held together by the common thread of Ramayana and Mahabharata binding the people together. When people lose the touch of this thread, they wish to make themselves separate from the national stream. May God help the eyes of the idiots in this nation to open. May this nation remain united. If we do fail to wake up to the realities staring at our face, we may to too late to save the nation from another partition.

Refer the article below:

http://dailypioneer.com/160719/Give-peace-a-chance-Naga-diaspora.html

"...... Nagas have three clear choices before them, the Chief Minister said. The first option is to wage war against India, defeat her and achieve sovereignty; second option may be approach a third country to intervene and pressurise India to recognise the political rights of the Nagas; and third option is: Negotiate with India through peaceful dialogue and political negotiations based on mutual trust and understanding to achieve a lasting and honourable settlement acceptable to the Naga people."

Racial Disparity in Human Rights? Kosovo and Pakistan

5 Top Serbs found Guilty of War Crimes in Kosovo

- New York Times, 26 February, 2009

url:http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/27/world/europe/27hague.html?_r=1&ref=world

About 700,000 civilians (ethnic albanians) of Kosovo were expelled to Albania. Many were killed, raped and robbed by the Serb forces. Justice has been delivered in this case. But whatever happened to the war crimes committed by Pakistani troops in 1971? The Hindu minority population of East Pakistan (present day Bangladesh) was literally massacred. Millions fled to India as refugees. It is estimated that more than few million Hindus were killed. May I know the steps taken by the international community to bring these criminals to justice? Perhaps, skin color and nationality does matter. Despite repeated statements to the contrary, we see that the lives of whites and citizens of the Western world do have a greater value than that of Oriental and African people.

As far as I can see, the so called equality of all humanity is a farce. It is certainly not practiced in India. The plight of Kashmiri Pandits has not attracted the attention of the international community. Even within India, the same kind of attention, given to Muslim victims of Post-Godhra riots in 2002, is not given to the Hindu victims nor do the Sikh victims of 1984 get that much attention in media/politics.

Perhaps it is time for the 'international community' to wake up. Either they must act like they say or they must accept that 'certain lives are more equal than others'.

Terrorism in Bible – John

John

3.36 – If you do not believe in the ‘son of God’, you shall suffer the wrath of God forever. (If God wants everyone to believe only Him, then why the hell did He allow so many religions to come up? Why the hell does He allow people to be born in the families of non-believers? I can't believe these to be the words of God. They sound pretty sadistic to me.)

12.48 – If you don’t believe in Jesus, you have a ‘one way ticket’ to hell.

15.6 – If you do not believe, you will be cast into fire and burned.

15.22 – As Jesus has come, the non-believers have no right/excuse not to believe in the ‘true doctrine’ preached by Jesus. (Great statement!!! One man visits a tiny desert country and preaches some ‘doctrine’. It wipes away the ‘right to use the brains’ from the entire humanity.)

Rampant anti-Semitism is found in the following areas of this Gospel:

5.16-18, 7.1, 7.13, 8.44, 11.8 and 20.19

The whole chapter 19 is hell bent on blaming the Jews for the ‘crucifixion’ of Christ. These ‘statements’ have lead to the persecution of Jews over several centuries. Let us use some common-sense in this case. If the Jews did crucify Jesus, didn’t they do a favour to humanity as per the Christian doctrine? After all, they ensured that the ‘Son of God’ dies and thereby, washes away the sins of humans. So, why should the Jews be condemned? Shouldn’t their work be praised? But then, the ‘authors’ of the Gospels do appear to lack ‘common sense’ and ‘rational thinking’. Therefore, it is too much to expect from them.

Terrorism in Bible: Mark and Luke

Mark:

6.11 – If your city does not receive the message of Jesus’ apostles, it will be destroyed in a manner worse than that of Sodom and Gomorrah. What a great mercy!

16.16 – If you do not get baptized and do not believe in Christian doctrine, you will be damned (i.e. sent to hell).

Luke:

3.17: “.....the chaff he will burn with fire unquenchable.” It is stated that Jesus will burn the damned souls with unquenchable fire. It certainly does not appear merciful. Anyone who is not baptised is damned and then, they will be thrown to hell for eternal suffering. So, even His Holiness Dalai Lama, who has not harmed a single life, is damned to such a suffering according to this book.

10.10-15: Once again (like in Mark), the cities that do not receive the apostles’ message are damned to a fate worse than that of Sodom and Gomorrah (whose entire population was butchered by God).

11.23: “He that is not with me is against me...” Doesn’t the so called God speak like the leader of a terrorist gang??

13.24-28: Very few people will go to heaven. Others will suffer eternal damnation in hell. It certainly does not appear to be a ‘merciful, loving God’ to me. If this is the meaning of the words ‘mercy’ and ‘love’ according to the Christian scholars then there must be something very wrong with their thinking process.

19.27: The parable of talents – God orders that those who do not accept ‘His reign’ over them shall be slain before His eyes. It looks like an order to kill unbelievers.

Terrorism in Bible – New Testament Gospels – Matthew:

There is a claim made by some Christian ‘scholars’ that New Testament is a book of peace. Their claim is that violence is found only in Old Testament. The doctrine of modern Christianity is found in New Testament and that New Testament is void of such bloodthirsty passages. If so, why is that Christianity killed millions in the Americas and other Pagan lands. Why it is that Inquisition was a reign of terror in Goa? Why is it that Portuguese and French destroyed Hindu temples in the name of Christianity in South India? The very claim that New Testament is a ‘book of peace’ is wrong. It is as bloodthirsty as other texts. Moreover, it was the New Testament which gave the ‘verdict against Jews’ which has been used by the Christians to massacre the Jews throughout several centuries.

Let us have a look at the ‘Holy Gospels’ now.

Matthew:

8.12: The children of kingdom (Jews) will be cast out of Israel. Perhaps, God is not satisfied with the Jews’ inhuman killings. After all, they did not indulge in some massacres which were ordered by God. Whatever, God condemns the Jews to a miserable living.

10.14-15: Jesus says that those cities, which do not receive the message of his disciples, shall suffer a fate worse than that of Sodom and Gomorroh (which were completely destroyed by God – even little children were not left alive).

10.21: “And the brother shall deliver up the brother to death, and the father the child: and the children shall rise up against their parents, and cause them to be put to death.” Jesus seems to be a destroyer of families. Is this the person whom Christians refer to as ‘lamb’?

10.34: “Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.” – Jesus says that he has not come to send peace. What more proof is necessary?

10.35-36: “For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man's foes shall be they of his own household.”

11.21-24: “Woe unto thee, Chorazin! woe unto thee, Bethsaida! for if the mighty works, which were done in you, had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. But I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon at the day of judgment, than for you. And thou, Capernaum, which art exalted unto heaven, shalt be brought down to hell: for if the mighty works, which have been done in thee, had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day. But I say unto you, That it shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom in the day of judgment, than for thee.” Jesus condemns entire cities to death and a horrible fate. Surely, it looks like a proclamation of Devil (if there exists one) than God.

23.31: Jesus condemns the Jews. He calls them as the children of those people who killed the prophets. Perhaps, he thinks that children must be punished for the parents’ mistake. What a great sense of justice!!

25.41: If Jesus does not like someone, he will cast them into everlasting fire. We have seen that it takes very less to make Jesus ‘dislike’ you. It also appears that Jesus does not believe in second chances. What sort of Devil has New Testament invented for a God?

27.25: “Then answered all the people, and said, His blood be on us, and on our children.” This verse has been used by the Christians for several centuries to vilify the Jews and persecute them. But I think that crucifixion could not have occurred as shown in the Gospels. If Jesus had committed religious heresy, the Jews had every right to punish him. They would not have taken him to the Romans. So it appears that Jesus (if at all he is historical) committed a secular crime for which he was crucified by the Romans. Moreover, the Roman governor (Pilate) is recorded as a ruthless ruler and almost inhuman in the historical documents. Only the Gospels show him as a man of peace and justice with a very humane face. It looks like the writers of the Gospels wanted to gain favor from the Romans and hence, they vilified the Jews and commended Pilate in their ‘Gospel lies’. Finally, the Roman system of justice was so strong that even a inhuman person cannot condemn someone without proper evidence. As such, this scene could have never occurred in a Roman court. The entire 'Passion of Christ' is filled with lots of loopholes and mountains of lies.

Terrorism in Bible - Isaiah

Isaiah

2.18: God will utterly abolish the idols. (May I know why God suffers from such insecurity?)

5.24-25: God will tear the bodies of those who do not follow the rules laid down by Him. (Note that God does not say about ‘hurting fellow humans’ warranting such punishment but simply not following the ‘rules’. Those very rules also include killing entire races as per God’s command!!)

9.17: God hates the widows and children of the hypocrites. He punishes them for the misdeed of their husbands/fathers. (What sort of justice is this?)

9.19 – 20: When God gets angry, he will force the people to burn their brothers and eat their flesh. (Terrorise the followers into following His orders blindly)

13.15 – 18: God will not only kill the sinners but kill their children and rape their wives (what a ‘pious’ act!!). Even the children and the pregnant women with their foetuses will not be spared from God’s (more like a devil) anger.

14.21: God will kill the children for the iniquity of the fathers.

Isaiah 15 and 16 are full of God’s tales about how Moab shall be destroyed. He will destroy the entire land and its population. If anyone survives, God will send lions to finish them off. Complete destruction of Moab in 3 years is prophesied.

Isaiah 17 is about God will destroy Syria with its capital Damascus. (God says that Damascus will never be inhabited again. But it is even now a very highly populated city and the capital of Syria. Perhaps Biblical God must improve His divination skills.)

Isaiah 18 is about God will destroy the nations beyond the rivers of Ethiopia.

Isaiah 19 is about how God will destroy Egypt.

19.1: God will destroy the idols of Egypt. He will destroy the country.

19.2 – 4: God shall make the Egyptians fight one another (brother against brother, neighbour against neighbour etc). He will make them live under a cruel king.

19.5: God says that Nile (river of Egypt) will go dry. It has never occurred in history and is still flowing with water around the year.

Isaiah 24 is about the Apocalypse. God will turn the earth upside down (??!!). Burn all the inhabitants of earth except a few. He will even make the earth reel like a drunkard as he will weaken the foundation (earthquakes). [God seems to be very fond of terrorising His followers into following His commands. After all, no normal thinking human will even consider following the commands of such a ‘God’.)

[Note: I think that I will stop citing from Old Testament for the time being. I’ll start with the New Testament. I am disgusted with these ridiculous and cruel writings. Now that we have seen the amount of cruelty and terrorism inherently present in Old Testament, we will look at the New Testament. (Only a part of Isaiah (chapters 1 to 24) is covered in this post. The chapters from 25 to 66 have not been covered)]

Terrorism in Bible - Psalms (Part 2)

Psalms:

68.23: “That thy foot may be dipped in the blood of thine enemies, and the tongue of thy dogs in the same.” Very blood thirsty to be spoken by God. It seems that God wants the ‘believers’ to behave like blood thirsty hounds.

78.21-34: God burns and kills several humans because they do not believe in his existence. (How can anyone accept an insecure personality as God? Do we need such a God?)

106.34: The Israelis did not destroy those nations that God had commanded to be destroyed. This is seen as a great sin. Is it a crime ‘not’ to destroy entire nations with their whole population? In this chapter, the worship of other Gods is also seen as a sin.

109.10: Not only is a man to die early because he is an enemy (a heathen) but his children should suffer as well. The reason: well, they are the children of an enemy; should there be any more reason?

110.6: God shall fill the lands with the bodies of heathens. It seems that being a heathen is a crime fit for death sentence. Knowing the various acts of God, we can safely conclude that this ‘cleansing process’ will also include the death of little children.

135.8: God is praised for having killed the firstborn children of Egyptians (whatever did those children do to God?) and also those of the beasts of Egyptians (well, perhaps God needs to be hounded by animal rights activists).

[135.5 – On a lighter note, this line says ‘our Lord is above all gods’. It seems Bible is not as ‘monotheistic’ as the Christians want us to believe. The Israelis had a God who they believed to be better than all the other Gods.]