Close

Why Narendra Modi is compared only to Hitler and not Mao

  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
Why Narendra Modi is compared only to Hitler and not Mao
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  

Introduction

The   critics of Narendra Modi (including foreign governments, related agencies and NRI academics)  have long been  accusing him  of carrying out  a “genocide”, a “pogrom”,  and  being a “mass-murderer”, and then comparing him to Hitler. Incidentally, they scrupulously refrain from naming any other villain in history.

We will  examine  if the parallels they draw have any resemblance to truth or are purely propagandist,  and whether these critics themselves are ideologically loyal to  historical personalities and ideologies closer to Hitler and people with the worst possible records of carrying out genocide and pogrom.

Since their “accusation” is based on what happened in Gujarat in February -March 2002, we begin with the roasting alive of 56 Hindu pilgrims in the Sabarmati Express at the Godhra railway station on 27 Feb 2002.  This fits into a historical pattern: in a long chain of orchestrated Islamic attacks on the polytheists, going on for centuries on the Indian soil  including Gujarat. The merciless burning of Hindus on the Sabarmati Express justly reminded the Hindus of Gujarat (certainly elsewhere too) that they remain as vulnerable to the Jihadis as their ancestors were centuries back, when they fell victims of genocide, that their Holy Somnath temple was desecrated and Karnavati was renamed Ahmedabad.

For these “progressive”  Jihad-friendly “secularists”,  mass murder of Hindus is a non- event, a routine that must go unchallenged whether in the history books or in day to day life.

Moreover, in this  mindless criticism of Modi, they emphasise only one aspect – the unfortunate backlash, caused by the centuries of pent-up Hindu resentment. not an uncommon phenomenon in history, which is often difficult to contain. How long did it take for the British colonial authorities to suppress the Quit India movement and at what cost ?  Did Napoleon control the spontaneous uprising against his regime in the Iberian peninsula in 24 hours ? How many Islamic nations have ever seriously tried to contain the fury of their Muslim majority people against their kafir minority ? If they did so, so many parts of the Islamic world  would have never  been denuded of its non-Muslim minorities.

Yet Narendra Modi  had called out the Army within 24 hours. When we look at the casualty figures, it shows that Hindus being 88% of the population with an administration being run by the “Hindu nationalists” lost 274 lives while the Muslim loss stood at 754. For the Jihad-friendly “liberals”,  the killing of polytheists is no issue. They would do well to tell us how many  German Christians had been killed by the Jews in the 1930s.

In the last big communal riots in Gujarat during Congress regime in 1969, the Army was never deployed to contain it fast, and in our own Kashmir valley, the army was never used to prevent terrorism against Hindus and prevent their mass exodus. No one in India ever questions such massive and well-planned Jihadi operations. Oh, and what about the role of Indian administration which abetted and encouraged illegal infiltration from Bangladesh ?

Genocide in History

As for “genocide” in recent times,  let’s look beyond Gujarat 2002. The first major case of genocide in modern India was orchestrated by the Moplah Muslims of Kerala,  killing hundreds of Hindus, desecrating and destroying their temples, converting 2500 Hindus by force to Islam besides having forced nikah with abducted Hindu women. This happened when Gandhi gave a call for supporting the Khilafat and Non Cooperation. Yet no one talks of that event as a genocide of Hindus. Neither was this term used when unprecedented loss of human life and mass migration took place during the partition pogroms. Those who hurl the absurd charge of  organizing a genocide in Gujarat are also those directly responsible for the holocaust of the Sikhs in Delhi and elsewhere in 1984. In this case, all the victims were Sikhs while the army was called four days after the pogrom had started.

It is among these mindless critics that we also find an easy acceptance of Pakistan and mollycoddle it despite its successful genocide of Hindus, Sikhs and Christians (reduced from 23% in 1947 to 2%) and Bangladeshis (90% Hindus) in 1971. No wonder the UPA  has accorded a “Most Favoured Nation” status to Pakistan, even after Sir Vidia Naipaul calls it a “criminal enterprise” and the world loathes it as a rogue state.  Similarly, Bangladesh has done nothing to prevent the systematic ethno-religious cleansing of Hindus/Buddhists in Bangladesh (reduced from 29% to 9%). This is the glorious record of genocide that the anti-Modi brigade is curiously silent about.

It is these “democrats” who had once forced Subhas Bose out of  the Congress, imposed a fake Emergency and went on to promote a fanatical Muslim League after partition.

Why Mussolini, Mao and Jinnah are not mentioned

If by referring to Adolf Hitler, these critics of Modi  suggest an authoritarian, dictatorial, cruel and ruthless ruler, why do they only mention Hitler (1889-45) of Germany, and not Benito Mussolini (1883-1945) of Italy who came to power 11 years before Hitler did. Is it in deference to some loyalty which they want to flaunt, so that they continue to be in the good books of  Edvige Antonia Albina Maino, the Italian de facto head of the UPA establishment? The  dubious role of the Congress in the Italian marines case, and another Italian Quattrarachi of the Bofors fame tends to further strengthen the suspicion.

One might ask why they don’t mention other mass murderers like the Moplah leaders of Kerala, Mohammad Ali Jinnah, Gen Ayub Khan, Yahya Khan, Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto, Stalin Mao Dezong and so on. Is it because those opposed to Modi in India and abroad have a worldview similar to those in the rogues’ gallery mentioned above?

Why no example from India’s medieval past

What is queerer about these progressives is their scrupulous avoidance of naming anyone from India’s blood-soaked medieval history full of many ruthless  invaders, conquerors, and rulers.

Ever since the Arab invasion of Sind, there have been many such merciless people in power all over India (including areas now in Pakistan/Bangladesh), who had wreaked terrible destruction over the hapless Hindus for a millennium. Yet, they escape comparison. From Muhammad Ghori to Aurangzeb, there is an unending chain of bloodthirsty invaders and rulers known for their bigotry, rapacity, intolerance and destruction of  Kaffirs. Akbar the “Great”, has a record of mercilessly wiping out 30,000 Hindus in Chittor. So was Tipu Sultan, another “iconic” figure for India’s deracinated intelligentsia and the jihad-friendly “secular” political class and their patrons-collaborators in India and abroad. These names are never used because they are holy icons for many liberal secularists.

Modi critics are actually ideologically and mentally closer to mass murderers

Those who falsely go on and on, repeating this calumny against Narendra Modi to provide legitimacy to Jihad against India create an artificial fear psychosis among certain sections of our society, mobilize electoral support for their parasitic political masters and keep all anti-India forcess satisfied are actually mentally and ideologically closer to the likes of Mohammad Ghori, Aurangzeb, Tipu Sultan, Mussolini, Hitler, Stalin, Jinnah, Yahya Khan and Mao.

But in doing so, they threaten the very idea of India, and thus pose a grave danger to the very survival of a civilized human society.

  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  

Saradindu Mukherji

Dr Saradindu Mukherji is an academic and historian, He was a Charles Wallace Visiting Fellow, department of Politics, Centre for Indian Studies, University of Hull. He was a former Member of ICSSR, He retired as Head of Department of History, Hansraj College, University of Delhi. He is currently a Member, Indian Council for Historical Research.