There should not be separatism to condemn the violence:

Hindu and Sikhs unitedly protest the current violence of Punjab. First Sikh PM and secular Sonia Gandhi were buisy in other works. In the past there were bomb blast in Hanuman Temple of Varanasi and Akshardham of Ahmedabad. Perhaps the same spirits of condemn would be shown by our leaders and media. There should not be separatism to condemn the violence of any type with any one or any community. After all we all are brothers and sons of Indian soil. We have to live jointly in Bharat Bhumi.

Sacha Sauda?

Sacha sauda word is picked up by Dera wala Ram Rahim Singh from an incident related to Guru Nanak Dev. Picking word of Nanad dev is easy but to follow his preaching is difficult for him. Father of Nanak dev gave his son few amount for doing a sauda in the market. Nanak went in the market but distributed all amount to the needy saints. He replied to his father that distribution of amount to the needy saints was a sacha sauda. Rah Rahim Singh says he is follower of all religions. His name also shows this. But his work and preaching also should be like that. When he and his dera are not the follower of only Sikh panth then why ad as the duplicate of Guru Gobind Singh came in the media? Why fatwa from Dera to support the Congress in the past assembly election of Punjab? Are these sacha sauda?

Why partiality in condemning any type of violence:

If, you follow Guru Nanak dev then there may be minus in your bank balance. But if you you give your knowledge to others then there will be increase in your knowledge bank. Like that if you show sympathy towards the victims than you will be a true follower of humanity, secularism and democracy. This will be greater sacrifice for the people and the country opposite to so called actors (Bahurupiyas) of human rights, secularism and ‘divide and rule’ policy adopting leaders. Don’t show partiality in condemning any type of violence. Partility is the birth right of so called secularists.

Wearing the mask of Human right and honorary servant of people:

Throw the mask of so called human activists and NGOs. They are touring abroad. They get reward and dollars both to insult the India and Indian people. Arundhati Roy, Teesta Setalwad, organizations NBA, PUCL and others are among them. They are more dangerous than terrorists. Terrorists are florising due to these traders of humanity and secularism. Human Rights have become the stick with which the rest of society can be beaten with.

It is rightly said: “You Forfeit Your Human Rights When You Fail to Respect others human rights.” Torn

War against the aggressor country and war against terrorism:

Infiltrators of an aggressor nation - a nation that unjustly initiates a war as has been done four times by the Pakistan - can be enslaved by a nation that successfully defended itself against that aggression as our brave army defended India against the aggression of Pakistan.

Where is the justice in this? It lies in a very simple principle. If you fail to respect my human rights, don't come crying to me about your human rights if I catch you and defeat you. The principle helps to prevent war by increasing the costs of using or threatening force unjustly.

This is a mathematical game that models how people interact, whether they help each other to make everybody better off or behave selfishly to secure a small reward for them.

False Human right groups and fake seculars are more dangerous:

So called Human Right groups and secularists who are trying to bootstrap the misconduct and fake encountering of few instances of army and police as publicized related to J&K and Gujarat (Not of other stalest so loudly) forget that these terrorists do not want to be our friends. They are not interested in a future where Muslims, Hindus and others live side by side in peace.

We see human activists and NGOs in studios of media and offices of naxalites and terrorists supporters. They are touring abroad. They get reward and dollars both to insult the Indians. They are more dangerous than terrorists. Terrorists are florising due to these traders of humanity.

It is rightly said that you can send full mad to Agra but where is the place for half mad?

Law of Human right and Anti-terror should be to protect people:

Our human rights and Anti-terrorism laws and false propaganda of secularism and humanity should be overhauled to protect the public from terrorists and naxalites. These laws must be 'modernized' with determination to cope with the terror threat Two days before Home Minister Shivraj patil has said that naxalites have links with the militants. The same home Minister’s has said naxalites and terrorists are their brothers. Somnath Chatterjee is the possible candidate of Leftists for the presientship. Left decisively through Sonia Gandhi publicized the name of Pranov Mukherjee to push its move behind the doors for Somnath da.

UK and India

In a speech on May 113, 07 to a European summit, JOHN REID, the outgoing home secretary of UK, broke ranks with cabinet colleagues by suggesting that legislation such as the Human Rights Act brought in by Tony Blair’s government should be reinterpreted because it was helping terrorists escape jail and fight deportation. Strict interpretation of human rights laws by judges “to the letter” was leading to the government being unable to protect the public properly, the minister said. Such laws needed to be looked at in a different light and not under the “old model of war”.

The situation of India is not better than the UK in tackling the terrorism. UK is the first country of out world which condemn the blast in Masque of Hyderabad.

Don’t see vote bank in terrorism

Terrorists wield political power by placing the victim in a state of perpetual fear. Often, they take public responsibility for an act of terrorism. We need leadership to do this. It can’t be left solely to the lawyers. Politicians must expose these issues and set a lead so that we can protect the rights of all our citizens, including all those threatened by terrorism

In our country, all State decisions are subject to pressures and counter-pressures, pulls and counter-pulls, judicial interventions, and so on and so forth. We are a liberal State. So.the State is always on its toes. But what is about terrorists? They have no constraints. They act as self-appointed prosecutors, judges, juries and executioners. Human right groups, NGOs and so called secularists even renowned Supreme Court advocates comes to defend them such as Jethmalani, Shanti bhushan as both be succeded to make free Prof Geelani accused in parliament attack and  Salman Khursheed pleaded the case of banned SIMI in the Supreme Court. They say this their holy work but defending Vanzara accused in fake encounter of a man of Don Daud Sohrabuddin is a sin for them. These are the definition of sedcuarism in their books.

Dictums of Renowned world known personalities are as following:

“Human Rights for our societies have to uphold the rule of law"- Lord How

Paul Wilkinson says terrorism is "coercive intimidation, which is in practice a systematic use of murder and destruction and the threat of murder and destruction in order to

terrorise individuals, groups, communities or governments into conceding to the terrorist political demands."

"Terrorism wins only if you respond to it in the way that the

terrorists want you to: which means that its fate is in your hands

and not in theirs." Version of of David Fromkin

We should not follow blindly the western countries. What they did for to save the human right of Tibetans and San Suu Kyi of Mynar. What did they for the fight for democracy of Chinese students against the chinese dictatorship?

Conclusion

Western thinkers and advocates are willing to accept that they do not have the monopoly on defining human rights and the sole right to decide as to how human rights are to be enforced in the Third World including India. The western human rights and humanitarian organisations need to disassociate themselves from the US led alliance's agenda of military interventions in the Third World countries in the name of protecting human rights. Above all, the Indian intellectuals and the academia should engage the non-European intellectuals and societies with divergent views in a dialogue so that their contributions are not excluded from our common effort to develop a more universal human rights corpus.

By Premendra Agrawal

agrawalpremendra@hotmail.com