Thoughts on economics and liberty

The cultivation of hatred by Vishwa Hindu Parishad (which Modi enabled to drive mass-killings after Godhra)

Modi actively deployed VHP to conduct the pogrom against Muslims in Gujarat after the Godhra incident. There is as conclusive evidence as one can possibly need, to justify this claim:

– constant meetings and talks with VHP leaders on 27 February 2002

– handing over burnt bodies after the most cursory and unsatisfactory post mortems, to VHP

– VHP bringing these bodies to Ahmedabad (an act that no sensible government would ever have allowed) almost in the form of a "rally"

– VHP announcing a Gujarat bandh on 28 February 2002, supported by BJP and Modi

– Modi giving a carte-blanche to VHP through claims that the Godhra incident was an act of terrorism supported by Pakistann (not a shred of proof of that was ever found)

– VHP leaders giving the most venomous and hate-ridden speeches inciting thousands of VHP goons to step in to a mass-killing mode (directly prompting violence)

– VHP leaders NOT being arrested for such speeches, but given a free rein

– numerous VHP and Modi's BJP leaders directly killing people (some – only a few – are now in jail after being exposed by Tehelka stings). Modi on his own spent all his time and effort to support them, and fund them, bribe judges, kill witnesses, etc. to escape justice.

Recently Modi has pretended publicly to distance himself from VHP even as VHP have made clear that this is merely a strategy. They are both driving to the same goal: the conversion of Muslims into second class citizens in India – but in different ways.


VHP propagates hatred for Muslims DIRECTLY and BLATANTLY. Here's a report from the Kolkata Book Fair:

I promote freedom of expression so even such hatred must be allowed to be 'sold'. Muslims have the option of fighting this hatred through their own books and works which promote harmony. However, it is high time for BJP to stop taking money from VHP (which, in turn, gets a huge amount of money from Indians abroad). If it claims to support India's Constitution, BJP must condemn such hate literature.

Further, the VHP website makes clear that RSS is directly related to it. That is something everyone knows, but RSS had allegedly moved away from Muslim hatred. Well, RSS should distance itself from VHP as well.

Sanjeev Sabhlok

View more posts from this author
9 thoughts on “The cultivation of hatred by Vishwa Hindu Parishad (which Modi enabled to drive mass-killings after Godhra)
  1. Harsha

    Dear Sanjeev,

    I dont want to comment on what Modi tried to do with VHP.

    But I refute your claim that Quran does not contain hate. I have a translated copy of Quran myself and I have seen several verses that directly suggest hate and intolerance. I can post them if you insist.

    This does not mean Hinduism was very tolerant, Hinduism also suggested to kill/destroy/transform those who were against Dharma, but its final target was limited to specific persons. Eg. Hiranyakashipu(Father) was killed, Prahlada(Son) was spared, Ravana(Elder brother) was killed but Vibhishana(Younger brother) was spared and so on.Since it also relied on war as an inevitability to restore Dharma, I hold it equal to Jihad of Muslims.

    Both did spread hate. However Hinduism accepted various reforms (by Buddha,Shankara,Madhwa,Ramanuja,Basavanna,Chaitanya) adapted to current social conditions but Islam was not so open to ammendments.

    Whether Hinduism or Islam or any other religion its preachings(hatredness/love) depends on the prevailing social conditions and the extent of scientific knowledge at the time of original proposal. It should not be blindly continued forever.

    People can understand this without prehudice when they see the religions from outside. (Perhaps by being atheists for sometime)

  2. Sanjeev Sabhlok

    “But I refute your claim that Quran does not contain hate.”

    That’s not my claim. ALL religions have promoted hatred that’s why I oppose ALL religions equally. But I don’t distort any ONE religion for the of promoting any particular religion.


  3. Harsha

    I was surprised to read that this is your opinion “I’ve learned Arabic then studied the Quran and I know well that it doesn’t contain hate”. But thanks for clarifying now.

    Yes all religions spread hate and intolerance in one way or the other, one religion may promote violence and the other religion may promote contempt, both are against freedom of expression.

  4. Younus

    Harsha … You have translated version of quran,, But have u ever read it fully rather than just reading verse with out having knowledge on the context ??? All the major religions of the world have prescribed fighting , at sometime or the other, especially in self-defence or for fighting against oppression …. Just u describe the term JIHAD like any1 else .,, ‘Jihad’ is an Arabic word derived from ‘Jahada’, which means to strive or to struggle. For example. if a student strives to pass in the examination he is doing jihad. In the Islamic context, ‘Jihad’ means to strive against one’s own evil inclination. It also means to strive to make the society better. It also includes the right to fight in self-defence or to fight in the battlefield against oppression and against aggression..,.,,

  5. Muddassir

    Harsha – Can you please let me know which verse of the Quran speaks about hate? You might have misunderstood the verse or did not understand it correctly. Quran never speaks about hate.

  6. Sanjeev Sabhlok


    It will be naive to suggest that the Quoran is “perfect”. That’s a futile line of thought. Terrorists regularly use the Quoran to impose their view of the world on others.

    Instead, it is important to show that Islam MAINLY stands for reason – and Muslim societies were the world leader in science and reason for hundreds of years. The problem is that there are many Islamic societies, and what some fools in Afghanistan do, also rebounds on Indian Muslims. I think Muslims have to take a different approach – of reason; and not argue the Quoran.


  7. A

    Sanjeev, you appeal to reason, but probably knowing very well that fundamentally and deep down, the appeal of reason is very limited (unfortunately so). When frenzy comes into play the window of opportunity for reason has already passed.

    Also, the fundamental nature of “faith” is to give reason the second place. Usually faiths are OK with reason for utilitarian applications (such as science, mathematics, trade, technology, medicine etc) give and take some. But when there is a conflict with reason, faiths are very clear as to who is the master !

    We must also acknowledge the inherent limits to rational processes (Popper, Bertley, Kurt Goedel ..etc) which is why faith still has a place in human life.

    Specific to Muddassir’s question, I understand that some “twenty-four Ayats of the Quran Majid” were examined by the metropolitan magistrate of Delhi in a case against two publishers Indra Sain Sharma and Rajkumar Arya. See also the Calcutta Quran petition. That may lead you to the technical answer but this is again a matter of faith vs reason, so it is unlikely to deliver reason to the faithful !

    For a society to be functional, it requires peaceful co-existence of differing faiths (assuming that it is possible to have such co-existence!). I believe it can only come about by increased relationships and interactions in the secular sphere across people of different faiths. Interfaith dialogues hardly ever reach any point of having a useful impact.

    I think, if the Johns, Jaanis, Janardans and others converse with each other, use each other’s services or trade or otherwise interact a lot, they are less likely to go at each others throat when a crisis comes up. I think this is a kind of simple wisdom that used to exist in our country and which all our leaders have chosen to forget.

  8. Younus

    Actually many non-muslims who clearly trying to cherry-pick a verse of the Quran out of context in order to stoke anti-Muslim fears amongst ordinary non-muslims…

    //Terrorists regularly use the Quoran to impose their view of the world on others.//
    Rightly said by Mehdi hasan in an oxford union debate —

    ” There is little connection between suicide terrorism in Islamic fundamentalism or any of the world’s religions, rather nearly all suicide terrorist attacks have in common is a specific secular and strategic goal to compel modern democracies to withdraw military forces from territory but the terrorist consider to be their homeland,” and the irony is when we talk about terrorism, the irony is that the opposition and the Muslim terrorist al-Qaeda types actually have one thing in common because they both believe that Islam is a war-like violent religion, but I will not they have everything in common. Osma Bin Laden will be …….. along He agrees with them. The Problems is that mainstream Muslims don’t, the majority of the Muslims around the world don’t, and in fact the gentleman quoted the poll Gallup carried out the biggest poll of Muslims around the world. Fifty thousand Muslims in thirty five countries ninety three percent of Muslims rejected nine eleven in suicide attacks and the seven percent who didn’t that they all went polled and focus groups sited political reasons for their support for violence not religious reasons. “

  9. Sanjeev Sabhlok

    Younus, as I mentioned, this line of rebuttal is unlikely to work with the VHP types.

    They need to be told only this: that India needs the rule of law and ALL those who are guilty should be punished, regardless of religion. And that we should stop this distinction between one good Indian and another just because SOME criminals exist who take the shelter of religion.



Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *