An extraordinary claim made despite all the contrary evidence, just as contrary to all evidence, Islamic terror is dismissed with the facile statement that “terrorism has no religion.” 
The English translation says,
“In India, Hindu sponsored terrorism is at its peak. As long as these Hindu terrorists exist, Kashmiris are not safe in any corner of this country.
Prashant Bhushan, Aam Aadmi Party”
AAP is Arvind Kejriwal’s political party. Bhushan is endorsing what Raul Vinci aka Rahul Gandhi of the Congress party claimed — that the greatest threat to India is from “Hindu” terrorism. That’s not the surprising bit. The surprising bit is that some Hindus will certainly vote for AAP. This is part of the big pattern: Hindus acting against their own long-term interests. As long as this goes on, the future is bleak for Hindus — and for India.
Atanu Dey : Life is a Random Draw 
I disagree with Bhushan on almost everything. Still, I can’t help but notice that when you say
“This is part of the big pattern: Hindus acting against their own
long-term interests. As long as this goes on, the future is bleak for
Hindus — and for India.”
you sound exactly like the “pseudo-secular” people. I thought you hated groupthink, atleast when the grouping is on the basis of religion.
LikeLike
In India, there are three kinds of intellectuals: secularists (like Rajiv Bhargava, etc); communalists or Hindutva (RSS, Sangh pariwar, etc); Gandhian anti-secularists (like Ashish Nandy, etc).
The whole intellectual debate about religious conversion, etc has stalled; and has become a mud-slinging match: one groups calls the other a fake secular or pseudo secular; the other group calls the opponent fundamentalists and communalists.
There are many ordinary people in India, who are not Hindutva, don’t support Secualrists at all. In fact, you can see the same trend here: many supporters of Modi are anti-secularist, anti-Congress, etc. It is one thing to easily write off these guys as hindutva; but such writing off does not help understand whats going on.
Indian secular state is NOT neutral to Indian heathens (Hindus). That’s what ordinary Hindus feel; however, these Heathens don’t have the intellectual rigor to trash secularists. Now these heathens/hindus can use Balagangadhara’s work to trash Academic Indian intellectuals.
Check these papers:
1. Is Indian secular state Neutral? http://xyz4000.wordpress.com/2013/03/10/the-secular-state-and-religious-conflict-liberal-neutrality-and-the-indian-case-of-pluralism/
2. Secularism and Fundmentalism are two faces of the same coin. In other words, Secularism is the root cause for the existence of Hindutva. Read this research paper: http://www.academia.edu/1587154/The_Dark_Hour_of_Secularism_Hindu_Fundamentalism_and_Colonial_Liberalism_in_India
Every concerned Hindu should read these two papers and use them to trash secular intellectuals, Christians, Muslims. Here, the notion of trashing = beat them intellectually in debates, because the required research is done and ready for ordinary Heathens out there.
LikeLike
That”s a clarification from Prashant Bhushan.
While you are at this, could you also link to the wikileaks memo about Arun Jaitley.
LikeLike
prashan ki ma ka bhosda. Miye ki aulad madar chod teri ma ko gadhe le bhadve
LikeLike
Teri maa ko chodu prashant. Bhadve. AAP tera baap hu me. Harami bhadve cong. ke sath mu kala karva raha hai madar chod. Hindu ke khilaf bolta hai
LikeLike
Prashanth Bhushan, Praful Bidwai, Salil Tripathi, ….
All sing in the same tune. Weep for Kashmiri’s.
564 provinces assimilated into one country, but 1 state ……
Only, if, if Sardar Patel had handled Kashmir too.
LikeLike
The article is about terrorism and not separatism. But who cares? “They” are all the same people, right?
I could understand the arguments made by those who say: most Kashmiris, except a seperatist minority, want to be in India; so we are justified in the use of force.
But what you are saying is: we should not care how they feel, we just have to force them.
That is so medieval. Any union of states bound by anything less than a consensual and voluntary agreement is immoral. I don’t know what Kashmiris want (thanks to censorship). So I really don’t know what the right course of action is. But I am appalled by your belief that we simply should not care.
LikeLike
it’s a pity you were not there to ask the same from Kashmiri Pandits when they were being driven out of their homeland, by the same ‘kashmiris’ , simply in the name of religious jihaad.
real pity man… hope that doesn’t appall you, eh ?
LikeLike
How is it even related to my post? What kind of logic could possibly connect both?
LikeLike
your ignorance and low intellectual faculties connect both.
LikeLike
Ah yes, the bogeyman of “saffron terror”, the crutch used by some, and the lame excuse used by our dear leaders to bend over backwards and offer open invitations to extremists while persecuting the 80% hindu majority of the country. Politics as usual. Only queen Antonia and prince charming Raul can save us with the help of the catholic church.
LikeLike