In the academic year 2014-15 I did my pre-doctoral course in Dept. of Defence and strategic studies in University of Madras. My Head of the Dept. used to take me to all inter-department seminars and talks. There was once a lecture organized by Ambedkar center for Economic Studies, I think. One guy (a teacher) from MIDS – Madras institute of Development studies was giving his talk. You should know that University of Madras is another leftwing bastion in South. In every discussion there will be abuses hurled at Hindus on some pretension or the other. And at least for 5 times as a rule they would utter Modi’s name for some more abuse in the name of academic freedom. In that lecture the speaker was lamenting about how social sciences students were not aware of even the basic text books in their field and complained that no one knows leading scholars in their field etc., He listed some names, including Gail Omvedt. I have read about her in Rajiv Malhotra’s book – Breaking India. After the talk a question came from the audience, who asked “sir, what is the definition of the word in secularism?” I was surprised by the response of the speaker, who said what he said without a shame. Response: “Indian secularism is different from the other ones, in India it means protection of Minorities and Dalits, that is secularism”. Wait a minute! That is not secularism, then what about the protection of non-Muslims and others? Secularism should actually mean state should remain aloof from religion. So, if it is in the case of minorities (Muslims implied) state should side with them. That was his explanation. And then he lamented Hindus for opposing the Hindu Code bill, which allowed free consensual sex for Hindu Women. Then I looked at my HOD with whom I have accompanied for that discussion. Once all was done, I asked my HOD if he agrees with what that guy was saying, forget about others, will the speaker allow his 18-year-old daughter (if had one) to have sex with some random guy because she is fine with that? He was already furious, and responded “I would chop off his head and go to jail rather”, then asked him to chill.
I was reminded about the episode mentioned above as I was recently reading an Essay by A.G. Noorani on triple talaq. Where the author mildly chiding the Jihadis that triple talaq was not sanctioned by Quran. Noorani – The Marxist has claimed all his life that he is a dedicated Secularist, not only him but every other dishonest left-wing crook claims that he is a secularist. The essayist talks about every other thing from Islamic Jurisprudence, but not quoting Article: 14 and Article: 15 of the India Constitution which provides for the equality before law and specific provisions for Women. And he wants Sharia law in India. As always it proves that Communist crooks are bloody Islamists in disguise. Imagine an Indian politician uses a Hindu scripture like Gita or a Veda to prove a point, he would be drowned amidst the chorus “Communal”. And that is exactly why I say Communists are more dangerous than Al-Queda or ISIS.