Tag Archives: afghanistan


Indian Muslims are today at a crossroad. The bombs attacks in Hyderabad, may have been guided by Pakistan, but could not have happened – like all recent Islamic attacks on India – without the strong support and involvement of Indian Muslims. Once again, we see that the silent Muslim majority of India – remains silent. Instead of universally condemning violence against their motherland, India.

The question that Indian Muslims should ask themselves now is simple: “who are we” ? Amongst the 120 millions of Muslims in India, only a tiny percentage descends from the Turks, Afghans, or Iranians who invaded India. The majority of them are converted Muslims. And converted how ? By terror, coercion, force, bloodshed. The ancestors of today’s Indian Muslims are probably those who suffered the most from the Arab and Muslim invasions. Those Hindus and Sikhs who chose not to convert, took refuge in their faith, fought together and kept their pride and honor. The first two generations of those who converted must have endured hell: for they certainly did not convert out of conviction, but because they had no choice: their daughters and wives were raped, sons taken into slavery, parents killed. It is sad today that their descendants have sometimes made theirs the intolerant cry of Islam.

Do Indian Muslims understand that they were part of the richest, most advanced, most tolerant and generous civilization of ancient times. That their culture was so advanced that it had spread all over the world ?Do they realize that more and more archeological an historical discoveries are pointing out that the genocide of Hindus by Muslim invaders is without parallel. The conquest of Afghanistan in the year 1000, was followed by the annihilation of the entire Hindu population there; indeed, the region is still called Hindu Kush, ‘Hindu slaughter’. The Bahmani sultans in central India, made it a rule to kill 100.000 Hindus a year. In 1399, Teimur killed 100.000 Hindus in a single day. Professor K.S. Lal has estimated that the Hindu population decreased by 😯 million between the year 1000 and 1525, probably the biggest holocaust in history. Surely, many of present day Indian Muslims’ ancestors must have been among those slaughtered.

Islam cannot be wished away. As Sri Aurobindo said “Mahomed’s mission was necessary, else we might have ended by thinking, in the exaggeration of our efforts at self-purification, that earth was meant only for the monk and the city created as a vestibule for the desert”…. . Thus Indian Muslims have to keep their faith and any attempt by Hindus to convert them back is not only futile but counterproductive. But the question to be asked to them is: “what kind of Islam do you want to practice ? An Islam which looks westwards, towards a foreign city, the Mecca, swears by a Scripture, the Koran, which is not only not relevant to India, but which was meant for people living 1500 years ago, in a language which is not Indian ? Or do they want to practice an Islam which is “Indianized”, which accepts the reality of other Gods, as Hinduism and Buddhism accept that there have been other avatars than Ram or Buddha.

Do India Muslims want to worship Babar, a man who destroyed everything which was good, beautiful and holy and lived by the power of violence, or do they want to imbibe the qualities of Ram, who believed in the equality of all, who gave-up all riches and honors of the world because he thought his brother deserved the throne more than him ?
Whatever the West says, which is obsessed with China, India, a vibrant, English speaking, pro-western democracy is going to become the superpower of the 21st century. Do Indian Muslims want to participate in that great adventure ? Do they want to feel that they are part of India, that they are
Indians ?

Nowadays it is politically not correct to say anything against Islam. You are immediately labeled anti-Muslim and dismissed as a “rightist”. No matter if you are only reporting the fact that there is a real problem with Islam in South Asia: that India is surrounded by fundamentalists states: Afghanistan and Pakistan, while more moderates like Bangladesh, tend to close an eye to anti-Indian activities; that Indian Muslims sometimes tend to put their religion before their country; and that Kashmiris, far from being the persecuted that the Foreign Press likes to portray, are actually paying the price for having allowed Afghan and Pakistani Sunnis radicalize what used to be a more gentle and tolerant Islam and left their Hindu brothers and sisters being butchered and chased away from their ancestral land.

Thus the question has to be asked again: do Indian Muslims want to be like Babar or like Ram? This choice will shape their future for generations to come. It is maybe only in India, that Islam can come to terms with itself and accept the reality of other faiths. Otherwise, if it continues on the path of confrontation, not only in India, but with the whole western world, it is surely going towards self-destruction.



“Muslims are bullies and Hindus cowards”, the Mahatma Gandhi once said. He may be right – at least about Hindus: there has been in the past 1400 years, since the first invasions started, very few Shivaji’s and Maharana Pratap’s to fight the bloody rule of the Moghuls, or hardly any Rani of Jhansi’s to stand against the humiliating colonial yoke of the British. If a nation’s soul is measured by the courage of its children, then India is definitely doomed: without the Sikhs, whose bravery is unparalleled in the more recent history of India, Hindus would have even lost additional land to the Muslim invaders and there would have been infinitely more massacres of Hindus by Muslims during the first weeks of Partition.

Are Hindus more courageous since they have an independent nation? Not at all! Because of Nehru’s absurd and naïve “hindi-chini-bhai-bhai” policy, the Indian army was shamefully routed in 1962 by the Chinese, a humiliation which rankles even today. Beijing is still able to hoodwink Indian politicians, by pretending it has good intentions, while quietly keeping on giving nuclear know-how to Pakistan, as well as the missiles to carry their atomic warheads to Indian cities, arm separatists groups in the north-east and continuing to claim Arunachal Pradesh or Sikkim.

Today, we see that Indian politicians, instead of standing-up to Islamic militancy and Chinese bully, prefer to look the other way and speak of ‘Hindu terrorism’, an absurdity if there is one. Hindus are hounded, humiliated, routed, be it in Pakistan and Bangladesh, where Muslims indulge in pogroms against Hindus every time they want to vent their hunger against India (read Taslima Nasreen’s book “Lalja”). In Kashmir, the land of yogis, where Hindu sadhus and sages have meditated for 5000 years, Hindus have been chased out of their ancestral home by death, terror and intimidation: there were 25% of Hindus at the beginning of the century in the Kashmir valley… and hardly a handful today. And look how the US is treating India, refusing to hand over Headley, responsible for the planning of the horrible Mumbai attacks and continuing to prop-up Pakistan, knowing very well that when American troops will leave Afghanistan, Islamabad will make sure that a friendly Taliban regime is reinstalled, with dire consequences for India’s security

There is no point in playing cricket against Pakistan, as long as Islamabad is sending militants to kill and maim into Indian territory. Yet, Hindus continue to think that in the name of sportsmanship, or democracy, it’s the right thing to do. We keep hearing about Hindu ‘terrorism’. But since fourteen centuries, Muslims have always struck first against Hindus, And those who live in Indian cities which have important Muslim minorities, will tell you that every time there are Hindu-Muslims, it is the Muslims who start them, either by attacking the police, or by provoking the Hindus.

The truth is that there are two standards in India: one for the Hindus; and one for the Muslims. Did the “fanatic” Hindus who brought down Ayodhya (and brought shame onto secular India, according to the Indian media) kill or even injure anyone in the process? No. But Muslims do not have such qualms. When Gandhi said they were bullies, he was being very nice or very polite. For forget about the millions of Hindus killed during the ten centuries of Muslim invasions, probably the worst Holocaust in world history; forget about the hundreds of thousands of Hindu temples razed to the ground, whose destruction – whatever our “secular” Hindus of today say – was carefully recorded by the Muslims themselves, because they were proud of it (see Aurangzeb’s own chronicles); forget about the millions of Hindus forcibly converted to Islam, and who sadly are now rallying under a banner, a language, a scripture which have nothing to do with their own ethos and culture (*). Yesterday and also today, when the Muslim world feels it has been slighted, in even a small measure by Hindus, these Infidels, who submitted meekly to Muslim rule for ten centuries, it retaliates a hundred fold – this is the only way one intimidates cowards. After Ayodhya, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia (at least in a passive way by giving shelter for a while to Tiger Memon) with the help of Indian Muslims, planted bombs in the heart of Bombay and killed a thousand innocent human beings, most of them, once more, Hindus.

This is no to say that all Muslims are fanatics; on the contrary, many of India’s Muslims are extremely gentle and their sense of hospitality unsurpassed. The same thing can be said about Pakistan: Pakistani politicians, for instance, are much more accessible than in India and Pakistan has its own identity, which cannot be wished away. No, the problem is not with Muslims, whether they are Indians or Pakistanis, the problem is with Islam, which teaches Indian Muslims from an early age, to look beyond their national identity to a country – the Mecca, in Saudi Arabia – which is not their country, to read a Scripture which is not written in their own language, to espouse a way of thinking, which is inimical to their own roots and indigenous culture. Indian Muslims, have to think of themselves first as Indians and secondly only as Muslims. Muslim soldiers fighting against Pakistan in Kargil, have shown the way.

One would be tempted to say in conclusion : “Arise ô Hindus, stop being cowards, remember that a nation requires Kshatriyas, warriors, to defend Knowledge, to protect one’s women and children, to guard one’s borders from the Enemy”….
And do Indians need a Narendra Modi to remind them of that simple truth ?



Le fascisme c’est d’accuser l’autre sans prendre la peine de faire passer ces accusations par le test de la logique et de la raison…

Le fascisme c’est de refuser le dialogue, comme le font tous les indianistes du CNRS et de l’EHESS quand on leur tend la main, dialogue qui peut prendre place devant témoins sous forme de débat…

Le fascisme c’est de traiter de fasciste quelqu’un qui vit depuis 40 ans en Inde, est marié depuis 20 ans à une Indienne, dont les meilleurs copains sont des Indiens appartenant à toutes les religions. Quelqu’un qui dans sa vie privée n’est ni raciste, ni haineux, ni méchant…

Le fascisme c’est d’être assis sur son pesant derrière à Paris (ou dans cette grosse bulle qu’est Delhi) et de disséquer l’Inde à partir de préjugés, de faux théorèmes, en se basant sur le politiquement correct, qui n’est que du reçu de son éducation, son atavisme et ce qu’on lit (cela s’appelle  de la connaissance de deuxième main)….

Le fascisme c’est d’accuser de fascisme quelqu’un qui a couvert le Cachemire pendant 15 ans, au moment des troubles les plus graves, qui a parcouru de long en large le Pakistan, le Bangladesh, l’Afghanistan, qui a sillonné l’Inde comme aucun autre journaliste français… Même s’il se trompe – au moins il parle d’expérience – et peut-être le temps lui donnera raison…

Tout ce que j’ai fait, lorsque je travaillais pour le Figaro, c’est de dire qu’il existait un problème avec l’islam en Asie du sud, à un moment où il n’était pas politiquement correct de le dire. J’ai aussi rédigé une série d’articles sur les grandes religions en Inde, qui ont provoqué l’ire des indianistes. Ceux-ci ont écrit au Figaro un impressionnant nombre de lettres de protestation, demandant des droits de réponse et ma démission. De ce jour là, j’ai été marqué et une campagne de diffamation à tous les niveaux a été initiée contre moi.

Quand on est accusé d’être antimusulman, c’est pire que d’être un pestiféré, on est condamné sans jugement, sans que les accusateurs s’objectivent une seconde. S’ils le faisaient, ils réaliseraient que c’est une ironie terrible: on excuse les attentats suicide en Israël ou à Bombay qui tuent des centaines d’innocents, au nom de la ‘persécution’ des Palestiniens, des Tchéchènes ou des Kashmiris; mais on accuse des pires crimes quelqu’un qui n’a jamais assassiné personne, ni même prôné la haine, mais a simplement écrit ce qu’il a constaté de ses yeux, en vingt ans de reportages.

Tout au long de ma carrière, j’ai souffert de cette étiquette qui ne s’explique pas mais est véhiculée de personne en personne et fait rapidement le tour de tout ce qui touche à l’Inde, que ce soit les agences de voyage, les expatriés, les diplomates ou les journalistes : « c’est un antimusulman, un pro-hindou, un fasciste »… Les gens, même les plus éclairés, ne veulent écouter que le politiquement correct, l’idéologie de masse, ils ne veulent jamais entendre la différence. J’ai connu six ambassadeurs de France, mais jamais m’a-t-on invité pour me demander mon avis sur un sujet ou un autre. Je me suis même dernièrement fait jeter par l’ambassadeur actuel, Jérôme Bonnafont, qui m’a traité de… fasciste… parce que je lui ai fait remarquer que c’est après que 59 hindous innocents, dont 36 femmes et enfants, aient été brûlés dans un train par une meute de musulmans, que les émeutes antimusulmanes du Gujarat ont démarré. Pourtant Jérôme Bonnafont ne fait pas lui-même exactement dans le politiquement correct: il est le premier ambasadeur étranger à Delhi ouvertement gay, ce qui fait jaser le tout Delhi francophone.

C’est cette arrogance bien française, qui ne s’explique pas au pays des cartésiens, de traiter de secte tout ce qui a une couleur hindoue, ou de fascistes ceux avec qui on est en désaccord, sans leur accorder la chance de s’expliquer et sans même s’expliquer à soi-même la logique de ses accusations. Le président Sarkozy, qui a montré qu’il savait être différent, devrait constituer un petit comité de Français qui VIVENT l’inde du dedans, pour le conseiller.


Par François Gautier, ancien correspondant du Figaro en Asie du sud, rédacteur en chef de la Nouvelle Revue de l’Inde (Editions l’Harmattan)
Comme le président Obama vient de l’affirmer, la nouvelle stratégie des États-Unis pour l’Afghanistan et le Pakistan « ciblera le démantèlement des réseaux terroristes et emploiera à cette fin un vaste éventail de moyens, allant de l’amélioration des capacités des forces de sécurité régionales à une nouvelle attention portée à la diplomatie, au développement et à la coopération internationale ».
Mais est-ce vraiment une nouvelle stratégie ? Ses prédécesseurs, de Reagan à Bush, en passant par Clinton, se sont tous appuyés sur le Pakistan et l’Afghanistan pour combattre les Soviétiques dans un premier temps, puis pour neutraliser les Talibans et Al Qaida aujourd’hui. « Nous devons nous assurer que ni l’Afghanistan ni le Pakistan ne servent d’abris sûrs à Al-Qaïda », a justement dit M. Obama le 29 mars. Le président a qualifié le nouveau plan de « stratégie d’ensemble qui compte non seulement sur des fusils et des bombes, mais aussi sur des agronomes, des médecins et des ingénieurs pour aider à créer un climat dans lequel les gens reconnaissent qu’ils ont plus à gagner en devenant nos partenaires et ceux de la communauté internationale qu’en adhérant à certaines de ces idéologies extrémistes ». Pour ce faire, M. Obama souhaite une présence civile plus vaste en Afghanistan et a demandé au congrès américain d’adopter une proposition de loi autorisant une aide directe au Pakistan de 7,5 milliards de dollars sur 5 ans. Ces fonds serviraient à construire des écoles, des routes et des hôpitaux de même qu’à renforcer la démocratie pakistanaise. Rappelons qu’entre 1952 and 2008, Islamabad a reçu plus de 73 milliards de $ en aide étrangère, selon le Pakistan’s Economic Survey. Mais depuis les attentats de Mumbai de novembre dernier la somme totale reçue par le Pakistan est de 23.3 milliards de $ ! Ceci n’inclue pas l’aide chinoise dont one ne connaît pas le montant exact.

Les intentions sont louables. Mais le gouvernement indien n’est pas convaincu : « Depuis Ronald Reagan, une grande partie des armes données par les Américains aux Pakistanais se sont retournées contre nous au Cachemire, puis plus tard ont servi à commettre des attentats en Inde, dont ceux de Mumbai de novembre dernier », commente un officiel indien qui préfère garder l’anonymat. Pourtant le gouvernement indien sait que ce nouveau plan en Asie du sud résulte de consultations étroites pendant plusieurs mois du gouvernement américain avec des responsables afghans et pakistanais ainsi qu’avec les alliés des États-Unis au sein de la Force internationale d’assistance à la sécurité à laquelle participent 41 pays en Afghanistan sous le commandement de l’OTAN.
New Delhi a également noté que M. Obama avait déjà ordonné le déploiement en renfort de 17.000 soldats et marines pour appuyer la mission de maintien de la paix sous mandat onusien à l’approche des élections afghanes prévues pour août. Le nouveau plan des États-Unis préconise l’envoi de 4.000 soldats supplémentaires, dont la tâche sera de renforcer les progrès accomplis dans la formation des forces de sécurité afghanes afin qu’elles puissent protéger leur pays. Ceci ne gêne en aucune manière New Delhi, qui souhaite également « renforcer la démocratie en Afghanistan », mais le gouvernement indien s’inquiète de l’aide financière et des armes qui vont être fournies à Islamabad par M. Obama.
« Un élément central de notre stratégie est de fournir de l’entraînement à l’armée nationale afghane pour qu’elle puisse jouer un rôle capital et c’est l’une des quelques réussites dont nous avons été témoins au cours des dernières années. En effet, l’armée nationale afghane a beaucoup de crédibilité. Ses soldats sont des combattants efficaces. Nous devons renforcer cela», a précisé M. Obama. «. » Ceci laisse crédule de nombreux observateurs indiens : « Dès que les Américains s’en iront, l’Afghanistan, pour qui se battre est un passe-temps national, retombera dans l’anarchie – et c’est nous voisins indiens qui en souffriront, s’exclame Sabeer Narendra un journaliste de Delhi.
Le plan d’Obama met également en lumière la nécessité d’appuyer le Pakistan dans sa lutte contre les extrémistes, un point ponctué par l’attentat suicide contre une mosquée qui a fait plus de 50 morts, le 27 mars, dans le nord-ouest du pays, et par une attaque terroriste contre une école de police de Lahore, le 30 mars. Mais les Indiens font valoir que non seulement les Pakistanais s’entretuent, mais que depuis vingt ans ils exportent le terrorisme : « tous les grands attentats islamiques, que ce soient ceux de Bombay ou de New York, ont chacun une connexion pakistanaise », souligne Narendra.
« L’un des points de plus en plus préoccupants de ces dernières années est la notion, je pense, chez le Pakistanais ordinaire qu’il s’agit d’une façon ou d’une autre d’une guerre qui concerne les États-Unis mais ne le concerne pas », a indiqué M. Obama. « Cette attitude, je pense, a entraîné au Pakistan une recrudescence graduelle de l’extrémisme qui constitue la menace la plus importante contre la stabilité de son gouvernement, et en fin de compte, la menace la plus importante contre le peuple pakistanais. » Les Indiens ont une opinion bien différente : « l’attitude des gouvernements pakistanais successifs depuis le général Zia, a toujours été ambivalente, car d’une main ils prétendent soutenir la lutte contre le terrorisme et de l’autre ils accordent licence aux services secrets de l’armée pakistanaise (ISI) d’armer de financer et d’entraîner certains groupes islamistes tels le Lashkar-e-Taiba ».
« Ce que nous voulons faire, c’est dire au peuple pakistanais : vous êtes nos amis. Vous êtes nos alliés. Nous allons vous donner les outils nécessaires pour vaincre Al-Qaïda et éliminer les zones de refuge des extrémistes. Mais nous nous attendons aussi à une certaine responsabilité de votre part, et à ce que vous deveniez conscients de la gravité et de la nature de cette menace », a plaidé Obama.
« Bush a tenu le même discours au Pakistan après les attentats du World Trade Center, sourit Narendra. Mais on ne combat pas le terrorisme en soutenant une des fontaines principales du terrorisme . M. Obama est un homme éclairé, mais il succombe, comme de nombreux leaders occidentaux, au chantage nucléaire du Pakistan, qui menace toujours d’utiliser ses armes atomiques contre l’Inde. C’est pourquoi même le président français Nicolas Sarkozy pousse l’Inde et le Pakistan à la négociation et éventuellement à un accord sur le Cachemire, qui verrait l’Inde faire de nombreuses concessions. Mais comment, conclue-t-il, ces deux présidents ne peuvent-ils pas voir que contrairement au Pakistan, petit pays islamiste toujours au bord de l’implosion, l’Inde, une nation démocratique, libérale, pro-occidentale, est leur meilleur allié dans la guerre contre le terrorisme ? »


A Lire : Un Autre Regard sur l’Inde (Editions du Tricorne, 1999), François Gautier.
La Caravane intérieure, par François Gautier (Les Belles Lettres, 2005)
Les Français en Inde (France Loisirs, 2008), par le même auteur.

Taliban, Hindu Kush and Hindu Genocide

Taliban, Hindu Kush and Hindu Genocide
Author: Mr Francois Gautier
Date: April 16, 2001

The West seems to have suddenly woken-up to Muslim fundamentalism in South Asia when the Taliban broke down the Bamyan statues, in spite of frantic appeals from all over the world. But there is a bit of hypocrisy in the outrage triggered by this destruction.

Firstly, Islam is very clear about statues: didn’t the Prophet Mohamed break down himself the first stone Gods ? Thereafter, it became a holy duty for all good Muslims. Firuz Shah Tughlak (1351-1388) who has an avenue named after him in New Delhi, wrote: “on the day of a Hindu festival, I went there myself, ordered the executions of all the leaders and practitioners of this abomination; I destroyed their idols and temples to build mosques in their places”.

As Belgium historian Konraad Elst points out, “Muslim fanatics are merely faithful executors of Quranic injunctions. It is not the Muslims who are guilty, but Islam”. Thus, the Taliban, who want to restore the early purity of Islam, really thought they were performing a righteous act by destroying the “heathen” Buddhist statues.

Secondly, does the West ever protest when Hindu temples are destroyed periodically in Bangladesh and Pakistan? The HRCBM, a Santa Clara-based organisation that investigates and exposes human rights violations in Bangladesh, has recorded a few of the outrages against Hindus in Bangladesh during the year 2000: On March 29, 2000, Malarani Roy of Karagola village was abducted by Muslims. She was brutally beaten up and gang-raped. The local police found her, but refused to register a case.

On June 26, a group of Muslims directed Smriti Rani Saha of Sirajganj town to migrate to India. When she refused, she was abducted, gang-raped and brutally murdered. On May 28, Debasish Saha of Poradaha was fatally shot by a Muslim gang. On June 4, Mayaram Tripura of Balipara was shot dead by local Muslims. On October 6, 2000, Muslim devotees, after offering namaaz at the Gajipur Jama Masjid, strolled across to the Hindu Kali temple, destroyed the puja pandal, smashed the idols, and looted nearby Hindu-owned shops.

Take a look at the figures of the Hindu population of India’s Muslims neighbours: in 1941, there were approximately 25% Hindus in Pakistan and 30% in Bangladesh; in 1948, only 17% in Pakistan and 25% in Bangladesh; in 1991, a bare 1.5% remained in Pakistan and less than 10% in Bangladesh.

==============added by LSK begin==================
| year  ||  % of hindus in Pakistan  ||      % of hindus in Bangladesh    ||
|_____||____________________ ||___________________________||
| 1941 ||             25                     ||                 30                             ||
| 1948 ||            17                      ||                 25                             ||
| 1991 ||            1.5                     ||                 <10                           ||     |________________________________________________________ ||

=============added by LSK end  ===================

Thirdly, the West has not yet realized that for the Muslims of South Asia , Hindus are the Kafirs by excellence: the Buddhists adore only Buddha, the Christians only Jesus, but Hindus worship a million Gods and Goddesses; and that makes them – even today – the number one enemy of Islam. This is why Kashmir is so important: it is not about territory, it is about a Holy war against Hindu India that has been going on for fifteen centuries and it is only the first step of the encirclement of India by hostile Muslim neighbours: Pakistan, Afghanistan, Bangladesh, with soft nations, like Nepal, often lending them a helping hand.

Nothing symbolizes more the absoluteness of Muslim belligerence towards Hindus than the Hindu Kush. Historically, the passes across the Hindu Kush have been of great military significance, providing access to the northern plains of India to foreign invaders, starting from Alexander the Great in 327 BC, to Timur Lane in 1398 AD, and from Mahmud of Ghazni, in 1001 AD, to Nader Shah in 1739 AD. As noted by Srinandan Vyas in the Hindu.net website: ” In Persian, the word ‘Kush’ is derived from the verb Kushtar – to slaughter or carnage, because all Hindus living there were slaughtered.

Encyclopaedia Americana says of Hindu Kush: The name means literally ‘Kills the Hindu’, a reminder of the days when Hindu slaves from Indian subcontinent died in harsh Afghan mountains while being transported to Moslem courts of Central Asia. While Encyclopaedia Britannica mentions “that the name Hindu Kush first appears in 1333 AD in the writings of Ibn Battutah, the medireview Berber traveller, who said the name meant ‘Hindu Killer’, a meaning still given by Afghan mountain dwellers who are traditional enemies of Hindus”.

“Unlike the Jewish holocaust, writes again Vyas, the exact toll of the Hindu genocide suggested by the name Hindu Kush is not available. However the number is easily likely to be in millions”. A few known historical figures can be used to justify this estimate. Encyclopaedia Britannica recalls that in December 1398 AD, Timur Lane ordered the execution of at least 50,000 captives before the battle for Delhi; likewise, the number of captives butchered by Timur Lane’s army was about 100,000 .

Encyclopaedia Britannica again mentions that Mughal emperor Akbar ‘ordered the massacre of about 30,000 captured Rajput Hindus on February 24, 1568 AD, after the battle for Chitod, a number confirmed by Abul Fazl, Akbar’s court historian. Afghan historian Khondamir records that during one of the many repeated invasions on the city of Herat in western Afghanistan, which used to be part of the Hindu Shahiya kingdoms “1,500,000 residents perished”.

Why does not the Government of India tell Indian children about the Hindu Kush genocide? The horrors of the Jewish holocaust are taught not only in schools in Israel and USA, but also in Germany. Because both Germany and Israel consider the Jewish holocaust a ‘dark chapter’ in the history. Yet, in 1982, the National Council of Educational Research and Training issued a directive for the rewriting of school texts.

Among other things it stipulated that: ‘Characterization of the medireview period as a time of conflict between Hindus and Moslems is forbidden’. Thus denial of history, or Negationism, has become India’s official ‘educational’ policy.

It is high time that the West realizes that India is fighting a lonely battle against Muslim fundamentalism in Asia. The French for one, who have a definite problem with Muslim terrorism, should support India more openly.

NOTE: The Indian Express refused to carry this column by Gautier, clearly indicating a policy of censorship being applied by the publication.