Total Pageviews


Monday, March 1, 2010



Geert Wilders
Geert Wilders (born 6 September 1963) is a young Dutch politician and leader of the Party for Freedom, a political party that is growing very rapidly in the Netherlands. Born in the city of Venlo, raised as a Roman Catholic and having left the Church at his coming of age, Wilders attributes his politics to his ardent ideological support for what he terms 'Judeo-Christian values'. He started his political career as a speechwriter for the liberal People's Party for Freedom and Democracy. In 1996, he moved to the city of Utrecht, where he was elected to the City Council and later to the House of Representatives of the Netherlands. Wilders resigned from the People's Party for Freedom and Democracy in 2004 to form his own party, the Party for Freedom. Since then, he has been very outspoken on a number of sensitive issues such as immigration, freedom of speech, the fundamental beliefs of Islam etc. He has been strongly pleading for a hard line against the unruly mob behavior of Islamic Moroccan youth in the cities of Netherlands. He has always advocated that Islamic street terror should be firmly crushed by the army. Sometime back he told the Dutch Parliament: "The Netherlands has been too tolerant to intolerant people for too long. We should not import a retarded political Islamic society to our country".
Geert Wilders‘s controversial 2008 film about Islam in the Netherlands, Fitna, has received international attention. FITNA made in 2008 is a short film by Dutch parliamentarian Geert Wilders. Approximately 17 minutes in length, the film shows selected excerpts from Suras of the Quran, interspersed with media clips and newspaper cuttings showing or describing acts of violence and/or hatred by Muslims. According to Wilders, his film Fitna is intended to demonstrate that the Quran motivates its followers to hate all who violate Islamic teachings. Consequently, the film argues that Islam encourages --- among other things --- acts of terrorism, anti-semitism, violence against women, violence and subjugation of infidels and against homosexuals and Islamic universalism. A large part of the film details the influence of Islam on the Netherlands.

The Arabic title-word fitna means “disagreement and division among people” or a “test of faith in times of trial”. Wilders, a prominent critic of Islam, described the film as “a call to shake off the creeping tyranny of Islamization”. This creeping tyranny of Islamization now sweeping Europe like Bubonic Plague of the Dark Ages, goes by the grandiloquent name of EURABIA --- a word, not only metaphorically but also actually, pregnant with Islamic terror and savagery against the Jews and White Christians (very similar to the position of hapless Hindus in India today) in which the Islamic tail has a stranglehold over the Christian head and body! To be more specific, terror-embracing and White-Christian-hating devout Muslims in clear minority in several countries of Europe are dictating the terms of not only their religious lives inside the mosques but also in the wider secular world outside in the most militant and belligerent manner possible.

In countries like UK, the raging disease among the common people is the inexplicable fear of vociferously violent Muslim community there. The UK Government policies, today, regarding Islamo-Fascists and Islamic terrorists bring back to our minds the Appeasement policy of Neville Chamberlain towards Adolf Hitler’s Nazi Germany in 1938. It is in this context that the comparison of the Holy Quran with Adolf Hitler’s “Mein Kampf” done by Geert Wilders seems to be absolutely, precisely and exactly appropriate to the political situation not only in the Netherlands but also in the rest of Europe. Wilder’s analysis would also fit into the explosive Islamic terrorism situation in several countries of Asia and more particularly the democratic India.

Let me now deal with the Quranic details portrayed by Geert Wilders in his film Fitna. He seems to derive his inspiration for his film from the Sura Al-Anfal, the eighth Chapter of the Quran with 75 verses. The first Sura of the film, Al-Anfal verse 60, is translated as: “Prepare for them whatever force and cavalry ye are able of gathering, to strike terror, to strike terror into the hearts of the enemies, of Allah and your enemies." This verse figures again and again in the film Fitna, not as a hyperbole or metaphor but as a constant repetition in the manner of a battle cry for saving his country against the Islamic marauders.

The film fitna starts with a warning to the viewer that the film contains "very shocking images". A caricature of the Prophet Muhammad with a bomb on his head is shown next to a timer counting down from 15 minutes. Suras are juxtaposed to video clips of Imams stating Islamic teaching, and videos of violent atrocities committed in the name of Islam, including major terrorist attacks.
I saw this film in Singapore in December 2009. In this film, footage of the September 11 terrorist attacks is shown, followed by the Madrid train bombings. An unidentified Imam rises above the smoke and declares "Allah is happy when non-muslims get killed." Stills taken from the 7 July 2005 London bombings show an exploded bus and the underground train. Sheikh Bakr Al-Samarai is shown raising a sword while declaring: "If Allah permits us, Oh Nation of Mohammed, even the stone will say Oh Muslim! A Jew is hiding behind me, come and cut off his head. And we shall cut off his head! By Allah, we shall cut it off! Oh Jews! Allahu Akbar! Jihad for the sake of Allah!" An auditorium of several hundred people responded with approving chants and fist shaking.

The next Sura, An Nisa verse 56, is shown as a justification for Islamic anti-semitism.
because "Allah" said so "in the Qur'an". In an interview in Iqraa TV, virulent anti-semitism is shown by an unidentified Imam, who says: "The Jews are Jews. They are the ones who must be butchered and killed." Then Muslim Child soldiers are shown holding guns in uniform.
Following this, a three year old Muslim girl, says that JEWS are "apes and pigs"

Sura 47, verse 4 is shown in relation to the murder of Dutch film director Theo Van Gogh, committed by Mohammed Bouyeri. Bouyeri is reported as saying: “If I had the opportunity to get out of prison, and I had the opportunity to do it again, what I did on November 2nd, Allah I would have done exactly the same.” Islamic protesters are shown supporting Van Gogh's murder, warning others to heed the lesson or “pay with your blood”.

Dutch newspaper headlines are reproduced, outlining intimidating threats of murder to prominent critics of Islam, followed by footage of Eugene Armstrong's beheading. Armstrong's disembodied head is shown held up by Al-Qaeda terrorists.
The recent happenings in India, such as banning of senior Supreme Court Advocate Shri R.V Bhasin’s book ‘ISLAM: A Concept of Political World Invasion By Muslims’ convinces me that if a film such as fitna were to be made against the Quran by a Hindu filmmaker in this anti-Hindu “Secular” Republic of India, the film would have been banned and the Hindu filmmaker would have been arrested immediately and the copies of the film seized even without obtaining a magistrate’s warrant. This would have happened with the political backing of the evangelist Italian colonial Sonia Congress Party and the judicial approval of the Islamic Supreme Court of India. I am calling the Supreme Court of India Islamic because the present Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of India has viewed the pornographic paintings of Hindu Gods and Goddesses and Bharat Mata by Muslim cultural terrorist M.F Hussein as an inviolable part of his “artistic freedom”.
On 21 January 2009, the Amsterdam Court of Appeal ordered prosecution of Wilders for what it said was "the incitement to hatred and discrimination". Controversially, Wilders was also banned from entering the United Kingdom between 12 February 2009 and 13 October 2009, with the UK Home Office viewing his presence as a "threat to one of the fundamental interests of society". The ban was overturned after Wilders appealed in a British Court. Wilders visited the UK on October 16, 2009.
More importantly, Mr. Wilders's prosecution may in the end inadvertently create a crisis between the Netherlands and the Islamic world. On trial is not so much Geert Wilders, but the Holy Book of Islam. On Jan. 20, the first day of the case, Mr. Wilders's defense team presented the court with a list of expert witnesses. It is indicative of his strategy. The expert witnesses, a group of internationally renowned academics on the one hand and, on the other, radical Islamists (among them Mohammed Bouyeri, the killer of Theo van Gogh, and the influential Iranian Ayatollah Mesbah Yazdi, an outspoken anti-Semite and religious mentor of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinedjad) are requested to testify about the Quran's message and Mr. Wilders's comparison of the Quran to “Mein Kampf.” As Mr. Wilders stated on the first and, so far only, session in court, if his statements about the Quran and "Mein Kampf" are correct, he cannot be convicted for telling the truth. So Mr. Wilders's defense team will concentrate on the extreme and violent paragraphs in the Quran, and compare them to paragraphs in "Mein Kampf."
Some interesting facts relating to the trial of Geert Wilders have come to light. Without any doubt, there are many anti-Jewish remarks in the Quran. According to some researchers, there may be more of these in the Quran than in "Mein Kampf." So it is quite conceivable that the Amsterdam Court may well judge that Geert Wilders was well within his right to compare the Quran to “Mein Kampf”. Anything is possible in this absurd trial

I understand that Geert Wilders is emerging as a great leader among his own people displaying outstanding leadership qualities of courage under fire, astute political judgment amidst competing and conflicting claims and pressures, unimpeachable integrity that refuses to sell one’s soul for a mess of pottage and above all long-term vision for his country. I reliably understand that if elections are held in the Netherlands, there is every possibility of his party sweeping the polls and his becoming the Prime Minister of the Netherlands. What I like most about him is his bold, forthright and fearless criticism of the ways of Islam in his country in general and ways of terrorist Islam in particular.

Recently a Court in Amsterdam issued a notice to Geert Wilders for having hurt the religious feelings of Muslims in the Netherlands. What is interesting to note is that in his writing and speeches, Geert Wilders has always been emphasizing that the Quran and Adolf Hitler’s “Mein Kampf” are similar in terms of their anti-Semitism and incitement to hatred. As one of the leading politicians in the Netherlands, Geert Wilders has called for a ban on the publishing of Quran similar to the one already in place for the “Mein Kampf.” It is this kind of open political stand that triggered Mr. Wilders's prosecution for discriminatory and insulting remarks against Muslims and Islam. Geert Wilders denies his having insulted the Muslims. He insists that his focus is on Radical Islam and the Quran, which he considers to be not only a religious text but also a political pamphlet encouraging Muslims to discriminate against and, if necessary, kill Jews, Christians, apostates and other unbelievers. That's why Mr. Wilders claims the right to criticize and condemn Islam.
What started as a trial against Geert Wilders for alleged Islamophobia has nearly turned into its opposite: a historical case about the message of the Quran. The Amsterdam court trying the controversial Dutch politician is now preoccupied with the question of whether this book, sacred to more than a billion believers, can be compared to one of the most vile publications in the history of Western civilization— Hitler's “Mein Kampf.”

To quote the brilliant observations of Mr. Leon de Winter, a Dutch novelist and adjunct fellow at the Hudson Institute:
To quote the words of Leon de Winters once again: “The three judges hearing the case—no doubt decent, modest, postmodern Dutchmen with a minimum knowledge of Islam and its culture and traditions—will now be forced to debate the nature of a religious text, something that should have never been heard in the court of an enlightened society. In front of the judges and television cameras, the ancient founding text of an entire civilization will be criticized and weighed against one of the most inhumane texts written in the 20th century—without any doubt a deep insult to Muslims, radical or not.”
criticism of Islam, summing up his views by saying, “I don't hate Muslims, I hate Islam. There is no such thing as ‘moderate Islam’ … Quran also states that Muslims who believe in only part of the Quran are in fact apostates”. Wilders has suggested that Muslims should “tear out half of the Quran if they wished to stay in the Netherlands because it contains 'terrible things' and that Muhammad would ... in these days be hunted down as a terrorist".
Wilders is best known for his
open letter to the Dutch newspaper De Volkskrant on August 8, 2007, Wilders stated that the Quran, is a “fascist book” and that it should be outlawed in the Netherlands, like Adolf Hitler's Mein Kampf. He has stated that "The Quran incites hatred and killing and therefore has no place in our legal order". He has also referred to Mohammed as "the devil". He believes that all Muslim immigration to the Netherlands should be halted and all settled immigrants should be paid to leave. Referring to the increased population of Muslims in the Netherlands, he has said: “Take a walk down the street and see where this is going. You no longer feel like you are living in your own country. There is a battle going on and we have to defend ourselves. Before you know it there will be more mosques than churches!”
In an
In a speech before the Dutch Parliament, Geert Wilders declared: “Islam is the Trojan Horse in Europe. If we do not stop Islamification now, Eurabia and Netherabia will just be a matter of time. One century ago, there were approximately 50 Muslims in the Netherlands. Today, there are about 1 million Muslims in this country. Where will it end? We are heading for the end of European and Dutch civilisation as we know it. Where is our Prime Minister in all this? “

The Prime Minister of the Netherlands, Jan Peter Balkenende, made a political statement on the floor of the Dutch Parliament as follows: “There is no question of our country being Islamified.”
According to Geert Wilders, this reply of the Prime Minister of the Netherlands became a historical error as soon as it was uttered. Taking note of this fact, Geert Wilders concluded as follows: “Very many Dutch citizens, Madam Speaker, experience the presence of Islam around them. And I can report that they have had enough of burkas, headscarves, the ritual slaughter of animals, so‑called honour revenge, blaring minarets, female circumcision, hymen restoration operations, abuse of homosexuals, Turkish and Arabic on the buses and trains as well as on town hall leaflets, halal meat at grocery shops and department stores, Sharia exams, the Finance Minister's Sharia mortgages, and the enormous overrepresentation of Muslims, including Moroccan street terrorists, in the area of crime,!”

Geert Wilders is absolutely right about the rabidly growing global virus of Islam in the world. This will be clear from the photographs shown below

to file an application in the Calcutta High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India on 29 March, 1985, praying for a Writ of Mandamus directing the State of West Bengal to declare each copy of the Quran, whether in the original Arabic or in its translation in any of the languages, as forfeited to the government?
Unlike in other civilized countries in the West, there is no uniform Rule of Law in India for all its citizens regardless of their religion.
In India, there is no Uniform Civil Code despite the fact that Article 44 expressly mandates the government to introduce a uniform civil code, which would include such items as marriage, inheritance and divorce, which were the main protections granted to Muslims in their personal law. Muslims are governed by their own Islamic Personal Law. The State in India after Independence has by established convention applied this special rule to all the Muslims (special care being taken by the Government not to exclude the Islamic Terrorists!) in respect of enforcement of Rule of Law; every Muslim has been given a privilege under the umbrella of Minority Rights to tell every Law Enforcement Authority: “Keep in mind that we are Muslims. Never fail to take note of the fact that the Government of India from the days of Maulana Nehru have given us this free socks size privilege: ‘HEADS WE WIN AND TAILS YOU (MEANS ONLY THE CONDEMNED KAFIR HINDUS OF INDIA!) LOSE ON EVERY ISSUE’.
Based on this outlandish premise, the Muslims of India have often sought shelter under Sections 153A and 295A of the Indian Penal Code (I.P.C.) for preventing every public discussion of their violent desert creed in general and of their Prophet in particular. Quite a few publications which examine critically the sayings and doings of the Prophet or other idolized personalities of Islam, have been proscribed under Section 95 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) as a result of pressure exerted by vociferous, very often violent Muslim protesters. Little did the Muslims of India or their permanent sponsors after our independence—I mean the Nehru-Congress Government, the Indira Gandhi-Congress Government, Rajeev Ghandhi Congress Government and now the Italian Catholic Sonia Congress Government --- suspect that the same provisions of the same law could be invoked by non-Muslims for seeking a ban on their holy book, the Quran.

Geert Wilders is a fearless champion of Civil Liberty. His heroic speeches and writings bring to my mind the work and glorious deeds of another outstanding champion of Civil Liberty Sita Ram Goel (1921-2003) of India. Sita Ram Goel was a fearless intellectual fighter who dedicated his life to the terribly important task of representing the collective suffering of the Hindus in India during more than 800 years of despotic rule of the Muslim Rulers from 1000 AD to 1800 AD testifying to the travails undergone by the Hindus, reasserting their enduring presence and reinforcing their collective memory going back to the dawn of history. Through his powerful writings for more than four decades, he succeeded in explicitly universalising the Hindu crisis in India, thereby giving a greater scope for all round the world to see and understand the Hindu predicament in India. In this context, I cannot help recalling the work done by him to make the people of India aware of the facts and issues relating to the famous Quran Petition which came up before the Calcutta High Court 25 years ago. This case reminds me of the current ongoing case of Dutch Politician Geert Wilders in an Amsterdam Court.
Three heroic sons of India, namely Sri Chandmal Chopra, advocate of Calcutta High Court, Sri Hamangshu Kumar Chakraborthy and Sri Sital Singh filed an application in the Calcutta High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India on 29 March, 1985, praying for a Writ of Mandamus directing the State of West Bengal to declare each copy of the Quran, whether in the original Arabic or in its translation in any of the languages, as forfeited to the government.

In their petition they had stated, among other things, the following reasons for moving the above petition:

'In terms of Section 95 Cr P C read with Sections 153A and 295A I P C every copy of a book is liable to be forfeited to the government if the book contains words or sayings which promote, on ground of religion, disharmony, enmity, hatred or ill-will between different religious communities or which outrage the religious feelings of any class of citizens of India or insult the religion or religious beliefs of that class of people. This is so whether the book is classic or epic, religious or temporal, old or new.'

'For example, the Quran incites violence by saying,
'Believers! make war on the infidels who dwell around you. Let them find harshness in you' (Surah 9: ayat 123)
'Do not yield to the unbelievers, but fight them strenuously with this Koran' (Surah 25: ayat 52)
'If you do not fight He will punish you sternly and replace you by other men' (Surah 9: ayat 39)
'When the sacred months are over, slay the idol-worshippers, wherever you find them. Arrest them, besiege them and lie in ambush everywhere for them' (Surah 9: ayat 5)'.
The judgment in this case was delivered by Justice Bimal Chandra Basak of the Calcutta High Court on 17 May 1985. He dismissed the petition. IF WE CAREFULLY GO THROUGH THE CASE RECORDS, WE GET A VERY CLEAR IDEA OF THE POLITICS AND PSEUDO-SECULARISM OF INJUSTICE REIGNING SUPREME IN INDIA AFTER OUR INDEPENDENCE ON 15 AUGUST, 1947. The application was first moved before Justice Khastgir J of the Calcutta High Court. The learned Judge entertained the petition, gave directions for notice to the contending parties. Thereafter perhaps on account of political pressure from the pseudo-secular anti-Hindu Italian Rajeev Congress government in New Delhi and the Islamic Marxist Government in Calcutta, the learned Judge chose not to proceed in this matter, releasing this matter from her list. As was expected Justice Bimal Chandra Basak dismissed the petition. This judge was also suitably rewarded by the Congress government. ALL THAT I AM WORRIED ABOUT IS THAT THERE SEEM TO BE EFFECTIVE COMPETITORS TO THE LIKES OF BUTA SINGHS AND NATWAR SINGHS EVEN IN THE FIELD OF JUDICIARY IN INDIA!
On 18 June 1985, Chandmal Chopra filed an application in the Calcutta High Court for review of judgment dated 17 May 1985 given by Justice Bimal Chandra Basak. Aggrieved by some mistakes or errors apparent in the judgment dated 17 May '85, Chandmal Chopra gave a petition for review on the following grounds:

1. The findings in paragraph 28 of the judgment that the Quran is of divine origin and that the Quran has no earthly source, based as they are not on any evidence but on mere religious beliefs, are derogatory to the basic Constitutional principle of secularism and are therefore unconstitutional.
2. The finding given in paragraph 34 of the judgment that a court cannot sit in judgment on a holy book is unconstitutional.
3. A book, even if it be a book held sacred by any community living in India, loses protection of Sec 295 of the Indian Penal Code if its publication amounts to offences under Section 295-A of the Indian Penal Code and should have been held accordingly.
4. The finding given in paragraph 31 that the Quran does not insult other religions is not correct in view of the various sayings of the book already quoted in para six of the Writ application.
5. The finding given in paragraph 37 of the judgment that Sec 153A I P C has no application in this case is not correct as the various sayings of the Quran, already quoted in para five of the Writ application, do promote, on grounds of religion, disharmony or feeling of enmity, hatred and ill-will between different religious communities.

Instead of going into the substantive merits of the fundamental issues raised in the case under review, Justice Bimal Chandra Basak of the Calcutta High Court --- behaving like a third grade Mullah in a mofussil Mosque in the Islamic Republic of Bangladesh --- peremptorily dismissed the review petition on 21 June, 1985 with Islamic fervour on the flimsiest technical ground of the time-barred nature of the review petition. I derive my inspiration to sit in judgment on this disgraceful verdict of InJustice Bimal Chandra Basak from the words of Lord Atkin in this context: 'Justice is not a cloistered virtue; she must be allowed to suffer the scrutiny and respectful, even though outspoken, comments of ordinary men'.
Now it is very important to ask this public question: What provoked Chandmal Chopra, Sri Hamangshu Kumar Chakraborthy and Sri Sital Singh

The credit for this turning of tables goes to Chandmal Chopra of Calcutta. It was he who filed a Writ Petition in the Calcutta High Court on 29 March 1985 stating that publication of the Quran attracts Sections 153A and 295A of the I.P.C. because it “incites violence, disturbs public tranquility, promotes, on ground of religion, feelings of enmity, hatred and ill-will between different religious communities, and insults other religions or religious beliefs of other communities in India”. He also prayed for a rule nisi on the Government of West Bengal “to show cause as to why a writ of mandamus be not issued to it directing it to declare each copy of Quran whether in the original Arabic or in any of the languages as forfeited to the Government” in terms of Section 95 of the Cr.P.C.
This case had caused considerable excitement among the “believers” (Momins) and interest among the “infidels” (Kafirs) in April-May, 1985. The press in India and abroad gave many headlines to what was rightly regarded as an unprecedented event in the history of religion. Sita Ram Goel has brilliantly put it: “ It was the first time that a Pagan had questioned the character of a document hailed as the very Word of God by a People of the Book. The roles now stood reversed. So far it had been the privilege of the Peoples of the Book to ban and burn the sacred literature of the Pagans.”
The QURAN PETITION filed by Chandmal Chopra was disallowed by the Calcutta High Court. But the issues raised by the Petition remain pertinent. No law court can deny to “infidels” the right to know what treatment the Quran prescribes for them at the hands of the “believers”. The Calcutta High Court showed extraordinary, extrasensory, extra-Constitutional and extra-territorial consideration only for the Quranic feelings of the “believers” (Momins) in India and not the absolutely human and humane feelings of the “infidels” (Kafirs)!!!

Law has its limitations, particularly in a country where its main corpus continues to be what alien regimes, Islamic and British, had devised for their own imperialist purposes. Moreover, a law court is hardly the forum for framing final judgments on matters of grave moral and spiritual import. A free and forthright discussion of the Quran cannot and should not come to a stop simply because the existing law is not competent to take cognisance of its contents.
The surAhs and Ayats of the Quran which Chandmal Chopra had cited in support of his plea, received scant or no attention at all in the heat of the controversy whether a book regarded as sacred by a large number of people can be the subject of a lawsuit. Those who have not read the Calcutta Quran Petition, as it came to be known, cannot envisage the quantum and quality of evidence marshalled by Chandmal Chopra. Our people are entitled to know exactly the issues that were involved. It is only a properly informed public opinion which can decide in the long run whether a book qualifies --- rationally, morally, and spiritually --- or not as a religious scripture. Keeping this larger public objective in view, Sitaram Goel displayed extraordinary moral and legal courage in publishing verbatim the Petition filed by Chandmal Chopra and the papers connected with it in the form of a book titled ‘The Calcutta Quran Petition’ in 1986. This book published by Voice of India has gone into several editions.

A brief history of the case will help in placing the Petition in its proper perspective. Most people do not know why the Petition was presented. The people of India also do not know how the case was politicised form the very outset and what powerful pressures were brought into play even before the Calcutta High Court had a chance to consider whether the Petition could be admitted for adjudication.

Before Chandmal Chopra came into the picture on 29 March, 1985, Himangshu Kishore Chakraborty, also of Calcutta, had written a letter on July 20, 1984 to the Secretary, Department of Home, Government of West Bengal, pointing out that the Quran contains matter which makes its publication an offence under Sections 153A and 295A of the I.P.C. In three Annexures to his letter, he had cited quite a few sayings of the Quran - 37 sayings which “preach cruelty, incite violence and disturb public peace”; 17 sayings which “promote, on ground of religion, feelings of enmity, hatred and ill-will between different religious communities in India”; and 31 sayings which “insult other religions as also the religious beliefs of other communities”. He had requested that all copies of the Quran in the original Arabic as well as in translations be forfeited forthwith to the Government in terms of Section 95 of the Cr.P.C.

Citations made by Chakraborty showed that he had made a painstaking study of the Quran. He had reason to do so. As a former resident of East Bengal (now Bangladesh) which became a province of Pakistan in August 1947, he had witnessed horror, at the time of Partition as well as later, of the savagery of explosive violence of murder, assault, gang-rape, forcible conversions and wide-spread looting let loose by the Muslims against the peaceful Hindus of East Bengal. HE HAD ALSO KNOWN HOW THE RENOWNED RELIGIOUS LEADERS OF EAST BENGAL MUSLIMS HAD APPROVED OF THAT MURDEROUS BEHAVIOUR PATTERN AS IN KEEPING WITH THE HIGHEST TENETS OF ISLAM. Ever since, he had been searching for the belief system which inspired this behaviour pattern. He felt sure that he had found the primary source of that belief system when he studied the Quran.
The Secretary of the West Bengal Home Department, however, did not even acknowledge Himangshu Kishore Chakraborty’s letter. He, therefore, wrote a reminder on 14 August 1984, enclosing a copy of his first letter along with the Annexures. But six months passed and there was no response. It was during this interval that he met Chandmal Chopra who also had been studying the Quran in order to understand why the Hindus in Bangladesh were being systematically uprooted from their ancestral homeland, even after India had made great sacrifices for securing freedom for Bangladesh.

Chandmal Chopra is an adherent of the ancient Jain tradition which has all along stood for the five principal virtues prescribed by all schools of Sanatana Dharma - non-violence, truthfulness, non-stealing, chastity and non-covetousness. It was a puzzle for him as to how adherents of another religion could persist in practices to the contrary and that, too, with a good conscience. His question stood as if answered when he came to the Quran. He was in a position to confirm that the conclusions reached by Chakraborty were correct.

Chandmal Chopra now felt reinforced to do something about what he thought to be a matter of major public interest. So he wrote a letter on March 16, 1985 to the same Secretary in the Government of West Bengal, drawing the latter’s attention to the contents of the Quran and referring to the demand made earlier by Chakraborty. He requested that his letter be treated as “notice demanding justice” and made it clear that unless necessary steps were taken by the Government of West Bengal within 7 days from the receipt of his letter, he would take “such steps as may be advised to us”.

Chandmal Chopra’s letter also remained unacknowledged. If only Afzal Guru or Rahamatullah or Bazulullah or Hebaidullah or some other Muslim had sent a letter to the same secular West Bengal official, then he would have received a prompt reply. Himangshu Kishore Chakraborty’s letter sent on July 20, 1984 was totally ignored with Islamic contempt by the Marxist West Bengal Government. The letter sent by Chandmal Chopra on March 16, 1985 also met with the same fate.

Having failed to elicit any reply from the Government of West Bengal, Chandmal Chopra filed on March 29, 1985 his famous Writ Petition in the Calcutta High Court under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution. Sital Singh, another public-spirited citizen, joined him as a co-petitioner. The grounds the Writ Petition gave for seeking action from the Government of West Bengal were the same as provided earlier by Himangshu Kishore Chakraborty. But now they were couched in appropriate legal language and presented according to the correct legal procedure.

The Writ Petition came up before. Justice (Mrs) Padma Khastgir on April 1, 1985. She directed that the matter would appear in her list on April 8. There were, however, two postponements before the matter could appear on April 12. On that date, the learned judge gave directions for filing of affidavit-in-opposition by th6 Respondent (State of West Bengal) by May 3, 1985, and affidavit-in-reply by the Petitioners by May 17, 1985. The matter then stood adjourned to May 27, 1985.

The affidavit-in-reply was duly filed by the Government of West Bengal stating that “as the Holy Quran is a Divine Book, no earthly power can sit upon judgment on it and no court of law has jurisdiction to adjudicate it” and that “from the time of the British Rule and since Independence, inspite of the Indian Penal Code being in existence, there had never been such an application in any Court in India”.
But for reasons unknown, (political pressure, blackmail, physical threats or a combination of these) Justice Khastgir released the matter from her list on May 2, 1985.

On May 7, the Advocate-General of West Bengal requested the Chief Justice of the Calcutta High Court to assign the matter to another bench. Finally, on May 10, the Chief Justice chose Mr. Justice Bimal Chandra Basak for hearing the Writ Petition.

Meanwhile, all hell had broken loose. The Telegraph of Calcutta dated May 9 carried a UNI report date-lined New Delhi, May 8. “The Union Government,” the report said, “has decided to intervene in the writ petition in the Calcutta high court praying for a ban on the Quran. According to an official release, the law minister [Ashoke Sen] is proceeding to Calcutta immediately for giving the necessary instructions. The government has decided to seek the outright dismissal of the petition, the release added. It is also understood that the Attorney-General [of the Government of India] is being briefed to appear in the case.”
A staff Reporter of The Telegraph added: “Justice Khastgir had asked the state government and the Union government to show cause as to why the Quran should not be banned. The order created considerable resentment at the Bar Association [in Calcutta] where Muslim lawyers had called an extraordinary meeting and moved a motion for condemning Justice Khastgir for having admitted the case. The motion was. however, defeated as the lawyers moving the motion could not muster enough votes.”
The Telegraph dated May 10, 1985 reported that the same sort of pressure was being mounted by the pro-Islamic Marxist Government of West Bengal: “The Chief Minister, Mr. Jyoti Basu,” it wrote, “today [May 9] described the writ petition filed in the Calcutta High Court challenging certain portions of the Quran as a despicable act.” This despicable anti-Hindu vermin, owing his extra territorial allegiance to the Government of China, Jyothi Basu while replying to the Forward Block MLA, Mr. Anil Mukherjee, in the state Assembly also felt that the court should have dismissed the petition outright as the subject matter pertains to religion. According to Jyothi Basu, the Union government has already contacted the state authorities who had sought the former’s help in resolving the issue. “I have also told the advocate general to talk to the chief justice of Calcutta high court in this regard” Mr. Basu added.”

The matter was also raised in the Lok Sabha at New Delhi on May 10 by two MPs, one belonging to the Congress(I) and the other to the CPI (M). According to The Statesman dated May 11, “The Lok Sabha Speaker, Mr. Balram Jakhar, agreed with them that this was a serious matter. There was, he noted, enough trouble in the country and there was no need to add anything which would stir up another conflagration.” WHAT BOTHERED THIS BALRAM JOKER WAS THE FEAR OF TROUBLE AND NOT THE RIGHT OR WRONG INVOLVED IN THE CASE. In fact, he, like Jawaharlal Nehru, was inviting Muslim mobs in India to take to the streets, and create trouble for the Hindus.
The Government and politicians of Pakistan, however, were not impressed by the Government of India’s efforts to protect the Quran. The Telegraph dated May 14 carried a PTI report datelined Islamabad, May 13: “Pakistan’s minister of state for religious and minority affairs, Mr. Maqbool Ahmed Khan, said today that the petition against the Quran moved in the Calcutta high court was the worst example of religious intolerance.” THE WOLF CALLED THE SHEEP VIOLENT AND INTOLERANT!!!

The Governments of India and West Bengal had panicked because of their presumption that the Writ Petition had been admitted by Justice Padma Khastgir. Meanwhile, the registrar of the Calcutta High Court has informed The Telegraph that he has been directed to state that the petition under Article 226 had not been admitted by Justice Khastgir.” The accomplices of Islamic imperialism in India --- Communists, Socialists, Nehruvian Secularists, Gandhians --- were throwing all judicial proprieties and procedures to the winds in defence of Islam which they viewed as the most effective weapon against their common enemy – the Hindu society and culture.

Obviously, the panic created by mounting violent Muslim protests had paralysed all rational faculties in certain quarters. According to The Telegraph dated May 10, “The Union law minister, Mr. Ashoke Sen, informed the advocate-general that the Union government would make itself a party to the case as it would affect the Muslim community all over the country and that the case would have international ramifications.” Political considerations thus came to override legal and Constitutional proprieties.
What was still more reprehensible, the Government of West Bengal set in motion its Intelligence Branch for digging up some information which could be used for a smear campaign against the Petitioners. The Telegraph dated May 10 reported: “According to an intelligence report Chandmal Chopra and Sital Singh are not permanent residents of the addresses given by them. Chandmal Chopra, who said he resided in 25 Burtolla Street, does not stay there. According to the report, Chandmal aged 55 has a room in his name at the above-mentioned premises... The 50 year old Sital Singh is an ex-army man and resident of Hyderabad. He occasionally comes to the city and stays at 1 Sadruddin Street in north Calcutta in Jorasanko area which is actually an Arya Samaj mandir. Both of them did not have any police records nor were their names on the special branch files.” Obviously, police files had been rummaged in order to locate something which could compromise the character of Chandmal Chopra and Sital Singh. No one from India’s public life stood up to ask the simple question whether checking the police record of someone was legal or legitimate just because that person had filed a Writ Petition in a High Court.
The panic on the part of the State and Union governments could not but produce some more unsavoury results. Muslim mobs in India and elsewhere had been incited by all those who mattered in India, Pakistan and Bangladesh. They started taking to the streets and turning violent. The demonstrators in Dhaka were trying to storm the office of India’s High Commission when they were stopped by the police.
The Statesman dated May 14 carried a report dated May 13 from Ranchi in Bihar: “Agitated over the writ petition concerning the Koran, Muslims here marched in protest for the second day on the main thoroughfare. The marchers carried banners and black flags and shouted anti-Government slogans. Yesterday some processionists threw stones at a few shops on the main road while asking the shopkeepers to pull their shutters down. Following yesterday’s incidents, most of the shopkeepers today preferred to keep their establishments closed when the procession was taken out.”
On the same day, widespread violence was staged by Muslim mobs in Srinagar in the Kashmir Valley.
It was in the midst of this mob fury that The Times of India published three articles by Dr. Rafiq Zakaria in praise of the Quran. It was one of the many efforts being made by concerned authorities to mollify the Muslims. According to knowledgeable circles, the articles were a command performance.

The developments that took place in the Calcutta High Court were no less dramatic. As stated earlier, Justice Khastgir had directed Chandmal Chopra to file his affidavit-in-reply by May 17. He was busy preparing it when he received a message on the midnight of May 12-13 that the matter would appear “to be mentioned” on May 13 before Justice Bimal Chandra Basak. Next day, when Chopra appeared in the court, Justice Basak recalled the earlier court directions regarding filing of affidavits and directed him to move the Writ application afresh as a Court Application. Chopra had no alternative and had to do what he was told to do by an august authority.

On the other hand, the Attorney-General of India and the Advocate-General of West Bengal had come to the court fully prepared as was obvious from the fat volumes they had brought with them. Chopra requested for an adjournment on the ground that he had received notice only for “to be mentioned”. But his request was rejected. The Advocate-General of West Bengal and the Attorney-General of the Government of India were directed to proceed with their arguments against the Writ Petition, which they did with considerable confidence. Ill-prepared as he was, Chopra tried his best to counter the arguments. Justice Basak then dismissed the Writ Petition and reserved his judgment for a later date.
The judgment which Justice Basak delivered on May 17, 1985 is a lengthy document. It quotes copiously from criminal and constitutional case law. It also contains some passagees about the profundities of Islam and India’s philosophy of Secularism. In between, there are some observations about the eternal, the unknowable, the transcendental, and so on. A layman’s summary, I am afraid, may mar the majesty of the learned judge’s commanded performance.
There was, however, one point in the judgment which had a sequel even after the Calcutta High Court considered the matter as closed. Justice Basak had criticised Justice Padma Khastgir for having admitted the Writ Petition. He had pronounced: “The application was entertained and admitted without going into the question of prima facie case and the jurisdiction and power of the Court to entertain this petition. In spite of the same, directions were given for filing of affidavits. This by itself amounts to holding that there is a prima facie case though this question was not gone into. The Court should be circumspect in such kind of matters and be very cautions about the same. Otherwise though it might attract cheap publicity but may cause untold misery and disruption of religious harmony. The petition should have been rejected forthwith as unworthy of its consideration as soon as it was moved.”

Some Muslim leaders pounced on this point to demand action against Justice Padma Khastgir. A notable example was G.M. Shah, the Chief Minister of Jammu and Kashmir. He had returned from abroad on May 20 after a month’s stay in the U.S.A. On the same day, he addressed a mass rally at Iqbal Park in Srinagar. According to a PTI report reproduced by Navabharat Times, New Delhi, dated May 22, Shah said that “action should be taken against the judge who permitted the petition to be filed”.
The mass rally itself was the climax of continued violence in the Kashmir Valley even after the Writ Petition had been dismissed on May 13. Leaders of the Muslim community in Kashmir had widened their protest against the Writ Petition for voicing some permanent Muslim “grievances”.

Another sequel to Justice Basak’s judgment may be mentioned briefly. Chandmal Chopra filed a Review Petition on June 18, 1985 stating that the premises on which the judgment was based were not sound. He gave eight grounds on which the judgment could be reviewed. In violation of the normal judicial procedure, the Review Petition also came up before Justice Basak on June 21. He dismissed it the same day for purely technical reasons without going into the grounds. The only concession he made was that some of the grounds “may or may not be grounds for appeal”.

After Justice Bimal Chandra Basak dismissed the famous Quran petition as also the review petition in June 1985, Sita Ram Goel compiled, edited and published a book entitled 'THE CALCUTTA QURAN PETITION' in July 1986. This book states the truth about the dastardly nature of the vote-bank politics of pseudo-secularism in India based on romantic infatuation for the minorities and congenital political hatred for the helpless Hindus in majority.

Soon after publication of the book in July 1986, Indra Sain Sharma, President of the Hindu Raksha Dal, Delhi, and Rajkumar Arya, secretary of the Hindu Raksha Dal, Delhi, were arrested under Sections 153A and 295A of the Indian Penal Code for publishing a poster which had cited 24 Ayats of the Quran under the caption, 'Why riots take place in the country?' They had added the comment: 'These Ayats command the believers (Musalmans) to fight against followers of other faiths' and that 'so long as the Ayats are not removed from the Quran, riots in the country cannot be prevented'. Unlike the hyper politically-inclined Judge of the Calcutta High Court, Justice Z S Lohat, Metropolitan Magistrate of Delhi, in the noblest traditions of an impersonal court of justice gave a landmark verdict discharging Rajkumar Arya and Indra Sain Sharma on 31 July, 1986. I give below the operative portion from his judgment:

'It is found that the Ayats are reproduced in the same form as are translated in the said 'Quran Majeed'. In my opinion the writer by writing the above words has expressed his opinion or suggestion and at the most it can be branded as a fair criticism of what is contained in the holy book of Mohammedans'.. With due regard to the holy book of 'Quran Majeed', a close perusal of the Ayats shows that the same are harmful and teach hatred and are likely to create differences between Mohammedans on one hand and the remaining communities on the other. In view of the above discussion, I am therefore of the view that there is no prima facie case against the accused as offences alleged against the accused do not fall prima facie within the four corners of Sections 153-A/295-A of the Indian Penal Code and hence both of the accused are discharged..”
As an 'intellectual Kshatriya', Sita Ram Goel fought relentlessly for upholding certain values: honesty, rigour of thought and conscience, and a sublime disdain for dogma. To conclude in the incisive words of Sita Ram Goel: “Islam in India is still suffering from the high fever of self-righteousness, though lately it has shifted its claim from the 'only true religion' to the 'only human brotherhood'. Powered by petro-dollars, is it again dreaming of an empire in India? Will Hindu society have to pay the price again?”
I began this story with Geert Wilders and his case in an Amsterdam Court. His fears relating to the Islamization of the Netherlands seem to be very valid, reasonable and legitimate. He should understand in the light of what I have stated above in regard to The Calcutta Quran Petition that the Jews, the White Christians of Europe / North America and the Hindus of India today are facing the same existential threat from the desert Arab imperialist ideology of Islam. In understanding the deadly threat of the spread of Islam in his own country of the Netherlands, Geert Wilders as a true Dutch patriot, is showing the same vision and wisdom as was displayed by Sir Winston Churchill (1874-1965) in 1899: "The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property, either as a child, a wife, or a concubine, must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men. Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities - but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science, the science against which it had vainly struggled, the civilisation of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilization of ancient Rome."
(Ref: Sir Winston Churchill, from The River War, first edition, Vol. II, pages 248-50 (London: Longmans, Green & Co., 1899).

No comments: