part time jobs for 6th form students

date: 09 dec 2008


in reality the terrorists came to mumbai last month (26-29 november 2008) due to india's own rulers, who, if uncovered, are the nefarious nexus of italyu & islam with the subservient timid brainwashed hindu "camp follower".


lashkar-e-taiba is a kashmiri outfit. kashmiris are angry and want to get out of partitioned indian secular state (p.i.s.s.). but how and why did kashmir become an object of dispute? 

here is the reason which no media in today's subjugated hindustan will touch:

why jawaharlal nehru was desperate to see kashmir invaded 


high treason is of two kinds. one, where a traitor betrays the location of a small military unit to the enemy and has it wiped out. the other is of strategic nature with devastating consequences for the whole nation, as a result of which the entire country would be enslaved for centuries, or vast chunks of her territory are surrendered unconditionally to the enemy, to hold in perpetuity. 

but whatever the kind of high treason is committed, the traitor is at extreme pains to hide his crime. he will go to any length to make sure that his crime is not discovered. india? jawaharlal nehru was no different.


nehru's high treason fell into second category, i.e., strategic. it was extremely ingenious. as a result, he not only escaped being lynched or shot dead but, on the contrary, was hailed as the architect of modern india, the greatest patriot and liberator, and the best politician that hindustan ever produced.

let us examine the act of treason that smashed india's integrity and wiped out her cherished secularism in five provinces overnight without a single traitor being caught. 

why was it so? because nehru himself was that criminal who had to be exposed and then either lynched by patriots or stood before the firing squad. how did he manage to escape?


having readily agreed to the unconditional surrender of  five provinces to his bosom friend mohammed ali jinnah and leaning heavily on mk gandhi? anesthetic chants of ?indu muslim bhai bhai? he devised the idea of getting kashmir invaded in order to lock the nation's full attention to that state while completely forgetting the fate of five others.

nehru had signed history? worst ever unconditional surrender without demanding referendum or insisting on transfer of population. he feared for his life. that is why he did not put an end to that aggression within days when the indian troops were advancing rapidly, wiping out the invaders. he took the case to uno where, to his great satisfaction, it stalled for years, if not for decades. 

nehru died in glory, passing on the autocratic rule to his daughter indira who loved the flattery in the phrase, "indira is india", coined by world's most slavish media who had no time and interest to expose her as a muslim (mrs. khan) and an enemy of the hindus. 

consider this:  even today the subservient hindu nation has no interest whatsoever in discovering  the core loyalty of the italian-born sonia maino who is called ?ashtramata?(mother of hindu nation) and given front seat in the indian parliament. 

no wonder or surprise then, that to this day the ignorant indians (mp?, mla?, governors, ministers, scholars, priests and soldiers, all included) are more locked on to the kashmir dispute than concerned over the unconditional surrender of lahore, karachi, peshawar, quetta and dhaka, for which not only the congress party had to be disbanded, even put behind bars promptly, but also the koran banned and the transfer of population accomplished immediately.

nehru dynasty, that still holds partitioned india in their tight grip, is stuck to the original high treason that also trapped kashmir in permanent death and destruction, turning this tourists?paradise into hell.

nehru had thrown a gauntlet to the indian muslims after rewarding them amply with vast territory, ? will give you lahore but not srinagar!?

the invasion of kashmir took place within days of partition in accordance with nehru? desperate desire.

indians overlooked another betrayal with the ease of breathing and forgave the culprit. it was the return of the captured territory to islam in 1972. 

indira, true to her father? anti indian and pro islamic ideology, did not commend secularism to shaikh mujiburrahman, the bengali leader.

indira was a secret convert to islam at the time of marrying feroze khan of allahabad in 1942 who became ?andhi?for political expediency. as a muslim she could not lift a finger to bring any gain to hindu india, leave aside bringing back captured east bengal to hindustan.

after the indian army smashed east pakistan, mujiburrahman, the bengali leader, was keen to unite bengal by joining india. he was a liberal musalman. 

indira was shocked at the very idea and advised him to accept sovereignty, saying, ? separate islamic state will act as the formidable barrier between hindu india and buddhist burma.?

she was true to her father? islamic roots  and loyalties but was equally adored and admired by the ignorant hindus who, even today, see none more suitable to lead and guide hindustan than sonia, the catholic ?hite elephant?from italy. waiting in the wings to continue this strategic doom of hindus in bharat is rahul ?andhi?with future spouse waiting in catholic colombia.

it is in this direction that we see the native indian (hindu) leaders?unfinished task.

5 dec 2008.


Service Unavailable

Service Unavailable

HTTP Error 503. The service is unavailable.