Date: 2/18/2004
............WATCH OUT! AFTER INDIA IT IS EUROPE.
Muslims had NO complaint about life in India under the British. That secularism was ENFORCED by British guns.
After Independence, Secularism had to be accepted VOLUNTARILY. That is where the Muslim "donkey" bolted and demanded an ISLAMIC STATE of their own in preference to Secularism of United India.
Surprise O surprise, TWENTY FIVE YEARS after Independence, the Muslims of EAST BENGAL in 1972, despite liberation by SECULAR TROOPS, did not opt for India but WENT THEIR SEPARATE WAYS.
They got away because of one reason: The Prime Minister of India was "MERA DILL HAI PAKISTANI", Musalmaani Indira Gandhi.
Earlier ONE THIRD OF INDIA vanished from the map of India because the top leader, JAWAHARLAL NEHRU was begotten by a man withe MOHAMMED in his name. The fact that Nehru's father was a MUSLIM, has been a top secret in India.
Had Nehru's daughter (who behaved exactrly like her father in letting go of territory so easily) been a true patriot, she would have told Grand Shaikh Mujiburrahman, "Shaikh Sahib, if YOU accept Secularism the Muslims of South KSHMIR, too, will accept it and so wil the Sikhs of EAST Punjab. But if you don't, then I will SMASH YOUR HEAD." At least that is how Prime Ministers and Supreme Commanders of a country are supposed to talk to the enemy.
So, what is happening in Europe? Please read on:
....................================
The Sunday Times London - February 15, 2004
Friends, Muslims countrymen, lend us your ears. Our freedoms, built on loyalty to a shared nationality, are under threat from incomers who don't want to join in, writes Roger Scruton
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,176-1001393,00.html
A generation ago it would have been inconceivable that the French legislature should expressly forbid Muslim dress in schools, or that this issue should throw the nation into crisis. The principle of laïcité, which removes religion from all state educational institutions, while covertly making room for the old Catholic culture of France, had been entrenched since Napoleonic times.
State schools were in the business of producing French citizens, and citizenship was supposed to make no reference to religion, but only to the nation and the state of France.
A generation ago it would have been equally inconceivable that anti-semitism should be rife in France, or that it should display itself in the desecration of Jewish cemeteries and the burning of synagogues.
And had these crimes been committed by some immigrant community, the police would have openly said so and would not have referred to a national rather than an ethnic disorder, as they are now obliged to do.
Yet those who commit these crimes are contemptuous of their assumed nationality, and define their loyalty in opposition to the surrounding secular culture. The new anti-semitism is not a French phenomenon at all.
A generation ago it would have been equally inconceivable that a distinguished French novelist should have been put on trial for describing Islam as a stupid religion, that he should have come close to being jailed for religious incitement and that he should feel advised, on being acquitted, to emigrate to Ireland. Yet such is the case of Michel Houellebecq, author of the much praised novel Atomised, who remains one of the few public voices who will not bow to the prevailing censorship.
The French story could be told of the other nation states of Europe. The secular order of the nation state is under threat. Freedom of speech is disappearing and the ordinary citizens of European states are deeply anxious about the long-term consequences.
Nationhood was the great European achievement, the social fact that made Enlightenment possible, and which underpins the secular rule of law.
Thanks to national loyalty it has been possible for people to accept a common allegiance and a shared sense of community, and put old ethnic and religious conflicts behind them.
It is not only Europeans who appreciate this fact. Never in the history of the world have there been so many migrants. And almost all of them are migrating from regions where nationality is weak or non-existent, to the established nation states of the West. They are not migrating because they have discovered some previously dormant feeling of love or loyalty towards the nations in whose territory they seek a home. They are migrating in search of citizenship - the relation that arises between the state and the individual when each is fully accountable to the other.
Citizenship consists of a web of reciprocal rights and duties, upheld by a rule of law which stands higher than either party. Although the state enforces the law, it enforces it equally against itself and the citizen.
The citizen has rights which the state is duty-bound to uphold, and also duties which the state has a right to enforce. Because these rights and duties are defined and limited by the law, citizens have a clear conception of where their freedoms end.
Only where people define their social membership in terms of sovereign territory, shared customs and a common history - in other words, the nation - are they able to live in a democratic, law-abiding order. In a nation state people can agree to differ; they can accept being governed by those for whom they did not vote; they can agree equal rights for all religions; they can allow their opponents to speak their minds and influence the political process. But where religion, tribe or family is the dominant form of social membership, despotism is also the political norm.
That is why 70% of the world's refugees are Muslims, fleeing from states where their religion is the official creed. And it is why all of them are fleeing to the West.
However, while the newcomers seek the benefits of citizenship, they do not always accept the costs. The primary cost is the privatisation of religion and the public endorsement of the secular rule of law. The secondary cost is tolerance, which means living with free speech, alien manners, other religions and other tribes, Jews included.
Democracy also means living with strangers on terms that may be, in the short term, disadvantageous; it means being prepared to fight battles and suffer losses on behalf of people whom you neither know nor particularly want to know. It means appropriating the policies that are made in your name and endorsing them as "ours", even when you disagree with them.
Only where people have a strong sense of national identity will they be able to accept these burdens with a willing heart. The Muslim communities of France do not have that sense, and continue to identify their loyalties through a religion that is profoundly hostile to the surrounding secular culture.
This truth is so obvious that only massive censorship prevents it from being expressed. The people of the European nation states know full well they are being exposed to a serious threat of social disintegration, the result of which will be to jeopardise their legal, political and cultural inheritance.
But anybody who gives voice to this knowledge will be silenced, as Robert Kilroy-Silk was recently silenced by the BBC. This censorship is the first sign that national order is crumbling in the face of religious and ethnic tribalism. But it should also be a call to resistance. The correct response to censorship is to speak out more loudly. The freedoms for which so many of our ancestors died are too precious to relinquish at the behest of bigots who don't see their point.
The "we" feeling of the nation underpins the rule of law in Europe, and is responsible for such support as our politicians receive for their increasingly random gestures. This is as true of Britain as it is of France. Tony Blair may or may not have been right to take us into war in Iraq; but his ability to do so was contingent on the fact that, in a crisis, the British generally - and the English in particular - regroup around the old first-person plural.
Even if we go to war reluctantly, we still go to war as "we", obeying our government, and not as subjects ruled by some alien "them". In its attempt to persuade us to accept the current levels of immigration, our government appeals to our traditions of hospitality and asks us to accept the newcomers not as competitors for our territory but as refugees to whom we owe charitable protection. In every serious crisis the government falls back on our historic identity and unaltered loyalty in order to persuade us to accept even the changes that threaten those precious possessions.
This historic identity has entered the same kind of crisis as the historic identity of France. And the response of our elite is not to affirm national identity but to repudiate it. The loyalty that people need in their daily lives, and which they affirm in their unconsidered and spontaneous social actions, is constantly ridiculed or even demonised by the dominant media.
Oikophobia - the repudiation of home - is a stage through which the adolescent mind normally passes. But, as George Orwell pointed out, it is a stage in which intellectuals tend to become arrested. When Sartre and Foucault draw their picture of the "bourgeois" mentality, the mentality of the "other" in his "otherness", they are describing the ordinary decent Frenchman and expressing their contempt for his national culture. When the European Union inveighs against "racism and xenophobia" it is not referring to the Islamist movement in France or Holland, but to those who wish to live by the inherited national loyalties that define the political condition of Europe.
This repudiation of nationality by the elite has been a persistent voice in European culture since the war, and is one of the factors that have made it so difficult to discuss immigration rationally and constructively.
Furthermore, the European Union is actively trying to undermine the authority and identity of the nation state. There are reasons for this, not all of them bad. Nevertheless, the policy is doomed to disaster, since Europe is built upon the nation state as its moral foundation.
Those who really believe in Europe are sensible of this fact, and recognise that the Enlightenment idea of citizenship, which confers such inestimable benefits on all of us, also has a cost, and that this cost is national loyalty.
The Need for Nations by Roger Scruton is published by Civitas this week, £8.50
.......................000000000
[_private/ftarc.htm]