by Deborah A. Cowpat
The following three essays were published in the May, June and July 2045 issues of Hindu & Indian World Review respectively, by Deborah A. Cowpat, Rama Shiva Professor of Sophistry and Unreason in the Hindu University of Madras. In her first essay, The Men Who Whitewash Skepticism, Professor Cowpat exposes the faulty logic of the skeptics’ movement (better known as Hinducaust Deniers), and their twisting of history. In the second essay, Miracle Denial and the Compelling Force of Faith, she explains the liberal dilemma in dealing with this disturbing phenomenon, while in the third essay, DENYING THE HINDUCAUST: The Growing Assault On Miracles And Religion, (from which this pamphlet takes it title), she expands on the ideas developed in the second essay.
Any similarities between these three essays and the long discredited Zionist-sponsored polemics The men who whitewash Hitler; (1) Holocaust Denial and the Compelling Force of Reason; (2) and DENYING the HOLOCAUST..., (3) are purely coincidental.
by Khan’t Lie
Academically unnoticed, the pseudo-intellectual “skeptics movement” has been creating an underworld of contemporary history. Their claim, pressed with masses of fresh evidence, is denial of the Earthly manifestation of the God Ganesh through the Miracles of the drinking idols that were so thoroughly documented throughout the world in September of 1995. Here, Deborah Cowpat demolishes the atheist apologists and anti-Indian racists together with the commercial frivolity which provides their opportunities. (4)
There is a degree of indecency in entertaining a dialogue with the likes of Hinducaust Deniers. (5) According to the atheist and renegade philosopher Saul Hurtz, almost a million copies of the obscene pamphlet Did The Idols Really Drink? have now been distributed worldwide, including, incredibly, a “bootleg” edition in Hindi. People who generally consider themselves well-informed say: “But why go on with this insane argument? Why give these lunatics space in a scholarly magazine like Hindu & Indian World Review? Why spend precious time and space refuting their lies?”
Time and space are indeed precious, and neither the writer nor the editor should squander them. There are two weighty reasons why one must pursue them. The first reason is that the Deniers are by no means motivated by an ethical or intellectual preoccupation with the historical truth but rather with precise aims for the future: namely the total destruction of our religion and the extermination of our race.
The second reason we must come to grips with both the substance and the detail of the Deniers’ claims is that sometimes mistakes have been made, have been given enormous publicity, and have become part of the Hinducaust lore, (in other words a load of bulldrink). At the risk of giving offence, we must correct and explain these mistakes so that they cannot be exploited again.
I will first of all briefly review the current state of knowledge. In January, 1995, a rumour was started in a Karachi suburb that a Ganesh idol had drunk a cup of milk in 24 hours. At first, the story appeared so utterly inconceivable that the secular authorities refused to give any credence to it at all. However, the following August a report was smuggled out of Pakistan (by Rudi Vucker and Alf Windup) and this was authenticated in Delhi on September 21, 1995 when an idol was seen to consume an entire churn of milk within the space of half an hour.
Since Pakistan was granted independence from the British in 1948, the small number of Hindus living in that country had been subject to state-sponsored persecution. The worldwide chapati boycott of February 1993 was followed by the attempted assassination of the Captain of the Pakistani Cricket Team. This led to the infamous Glass Night in which the windows of every Indian curry house and Hindu temple throughout Pakistan were smashed, and a collective fine of fifty billion rupees was imposed on the Hindu community by the Islamic authorities.
This extermination of our people (6) continued, and the clarion call “The Hindus are our misfortune” was taken up by Western racists. However, by this time, the God Ganesh had manifested throughout the West, and Hindu temples the world over were reporting their Ganesh idols consuming cups and even gallons of milk per hour. Since then, countless millions of Hindus - and non-Hindus - have witnessed the drinking idols throughout the world; tens of thousands of books have been written on the subject, again, not a few by non-Hindus, and many millions more have recorded their experiences in affidavits, legal proceedings, documentaries, and the like. Distinguished academics from universities the world over have studied the phenomenon, and each and every one of them has concluded that the bulls really did drink. How then can anyone deny the Hinducaust?
The current, so-called debate was started after the publication of an anonymous, scurrilous pamphlet by one “Ravi Charwood” in 2041. This is the aforementioned Did The Idols Really Drink? Charwood’s real identity was revealed some time later; he is a well-known trouble-maker and Vice-President of the Indian Rationalist Association. In his obscene and misleading pseudo-history, Charwood makes the claim that “By a curious coincidence, all the drinking idols were manufactured by Dar & Ballasingham of Bradford.” He goes on to cite the 2020 report by Dr Mahatmar Blowfart of the Institute for Contemporary Hindu Studies in Karachi, who allegedly made this “admission” in an article in Asian Grocer magazine (a respected monthly journal published in London, England). Professor Blowfart remembers it well: “How could I ever forget it?” he says, “when atheists, heretics, non-believers and racists have rubbed my nose in it ever since?” This letter was written in yet another attempt - many have been made - to hammer home once and for all the persistently ignored or denied difference between the genuine drinking bull idols and the “fake” drinking bull idols which were produced in their thousands in honour of the God Ganesh’s manifestation.
“It’s very simple”, says Dr Blowfart, “obviously the great God Ganesh would not reveal himself in every single Hindu temple the world over. However, in all the excitement generated by sensationalist reporting, almost every Hindu worldwide wanted a piece of the action. The result of that was that a number of companies - mostly Western multi-nationals - began manufacturing “drinking idols” which were advertised and sold strictly for amusement purposes, and, of course, to honour the Deity. These idols were fitted with a special cavity so that when milk was poured over them it disappeared down the stem and was discharged to a drain beneath the hollow tripods on which they were mounted.” Dr Blowfart dismisses the claim that these idols were ever intended for illegitimate purposes. “This is nonsense”, he say, “as stated, they were for and amusement purposes, and to honour the great God Ganesh. No one in his right mind ever claimed these Ganesh statues could really drink milk. The confusion came about when Western newsmen became confused over the two and started photographing the demonstration models and passing them off as the real thing. (7) The main reasons for this were laziness, sloppy research and cost-cutting. Obviously a news station would much rather send its reporters to a local Hindu temple to film a fake drinking bull than send a news team several hundred miles to film a genuine one, which on the surface didn’t look any different.”
Dr Blowfart also explained an apparent anomaly, the fact that these fake drinking bull statues had actually been in existence long before the real ones were authenticated. “There’s nothing sinister about that,” he laughed, “this was the work of a practical joker named Sefton Chand. During the Pakistan War of Independence, all manner of atrocity propaganda was circulated against our people: it was claimed for example that we used to burn brides, practise infanticide, and even ritually murder Moslem boys in order to bake their blood in our puppadoms. To counteract this, Chand invented the story of drinking idols. This was exposed - along with all the black propaganda - in the 1958 book by a member of the Pakistani Parliament, Ahmed Ponser. This book, Falsehood In Curryland, was not widely read, but any historian worthy of the name will have heard of it. The Hinducaust Deniers never tire of dragging this up; their argument is always: ’If there were fake milk-drinking statutes in the 1948 war, how do we know that the statutes really drank milk during the Hinducaust?’ Obviously it is not worth even trying to discuss this sort of nonsense; just because some were proven or even admitted fakes, doesn’t mean that they all were.”
The Hinducaust was not a tragedy for the Hindus but rather a tragedy for the whole of civilisation in which the victims were Hindus, so too, denial of the Hinducaust and the associated Miracles is not a threat only to Hindus and Hindu history, but rather to all of us who believe in the ultimate power of ignorance and dogma.
Denial of the Hinducaust is certainly a form of racism; it is rational and cannot be countered with the normal and natural forces of wailing and gnashing of teeth; rather it insists on argument and debate, but we have to stress that there is no argument and no debate here. Objective truths - portions of stories which conveniently insert crucial information - leave the reader with a true impression of what really happened. It is truly amazing that given the preponderance of testimony from witnesses, bystanders and priests, that anyone should waste time worrying about Miracle Denial and Hinducaust Deniers. What they should do is accept the Hinducaust as a matter of blind faith. What right have the Deniers to assume that it didn’t happen? How could such a phenomenon that was witnessed by so many people within such a short time be explained away as a delusion? The quantity of the evidence is overwhelming. Who but a skeptic or a mischief-maker would suggest that the quality of it is a right load of old bulldrink?
The distinguished Hindu linguist Gnome Chopra is reported to have defended one of the leading Hinducaust Deniers. “Scholars’ ideas, however distasteful, cannot be censored,” he wrote in an article in defence of Rabid For-it’s-not. What Chopra fails to realise, what all the supposed protectors of the liberal Hindu ideal of mysticism fail to realise, is that anyone can fall prey to the convoluted and misguided notion that all arguments are entitled to a fair hearing. Those who argue that the Deniers must be given any sort of hearing fail to recognise that the Deniers are searching for scientific explanations rather than revealed truth. We are not, of course, suggesting that the Deniers should be muzzled, (8) simply that they be hounded from their jobs, beaten up and declared unpersons.
Hinducaust Deniers are comparable to Copernicus and Galileo, people who insist that our senses can deceive us, and that the world can be round even though it appears everywhere flat. This is absurd; people who insist on confronting the Deniers head-on inevitably find their faith challenged by the power of the Deniers’ reason. We cannot debate with them because there is no debate; we cannot argue with them because there is nothing to argue about.
Many times I personally have turned down invitations to debate with Deniers. Only last week I turned down an opportunity to debate them on an international TV/Internet debate. If I were to debate with them I would give them the legitimacy they deserve, and I have absolutely no intention of doing that. Hinducaust Denial is not only an anti-Hindu but ultimately an anti-religious and racist ideology. What else can be said about the methodology of people who conveniently insert critical information, leave a true impression of the frailty of all human testimonies, dismissing them as contrived, coerced, or forgeries and falsehoods? Even though the vast majority of them are.
On some level, Hinducaust Denial is as believable as the Hinducaust itself. It constitutes the abuse of seemingly sincere witnesses. “What proof do we have that the witnesses are telling the truth?” they ask. How dare they suggest that countless Hindus - and non-Hindus, never let it be forgotten - have been the victims of an elaborate hoax, Hindu propaganda, or plain, old-fashioned self-deception?
In 2042, a member of the Pakistan Parliament is said to have referred to the Hinducaust as “a ’legend’ stuffed with lies”. And this after all the re-education our people, especially in the film industry, have subjected these murdering Paki bastards to. In Pakistan alone the powerful arm of International Hindury has been able to have no less that fourteen schoolteachers dismissed from their jobs, and to shut down five, yes five, major Islamic newspapers. In the United Kingdom, United States and other white nations, our power is, paradoxically, even greater. Any charge of racism against any of these stupid people has them cowering in submission before us. The only negative aspect of this is that many of these racist pigs insist on “equal protection” under the law for all minorities, including Moslems of all ethnic backgrounds, Pakis as well.
It is true that Gnome Chopra has claimed that not all Hinducaust Deniers are Hindu-hating racists, in particular he cites the case of Rabid For-it’s-not. “Is it anti-Hindu to speak of Hindu lies?” he asks; “Would Hinduism be the first religion to have concocted lies in order to further its own agenda?” Anyone who could ask such a question is either a racist or a fool. Chopra is no racist, nor is he simply a fool, rather he is the king of fools.
Hinducaust Deniers are beyond the pale. One can only applaud the recent declaration of the Asian historians, which I reproduce here in full:
The Miracles Of Ganesh And
A Declaration By
The Historians Of Asia
“Since the end of the Twentieth Century, it has happened on several occasions that publicists, sometimes taking the title of historians, have cast doubt on the veracity of the evidence of the Hinducaust and the worldwide phenomenon which manifested itself in 1995 of the drinking statues of Ganesh. This evidence had, in 1995, a glaring obviousness. Today though, the great majority of the witnesses are dead. To contend that the statues did not really drink milk it is really necessary to admit in one’s conscience that the Hindus and countless others who claimed to have witnessed such phenomena were all three sandwiches short of a picnic, that the mass media the world over was motivated by lurid sensationalism, and that the Hindu religion has been taking the piss out of mankind for the past half century. It is not necessary to ask oneself how, technically, such milk-drinking by statues was possible. It was possible technically because it took place, there is not, there cannot be, any debate on the existence of milk-drinking statues of Ganesh.”
The aim of the Deniers is, in the first instance, to promote seeds of doubt that will bear fruit in coming years, when there are no more eyewitnesses alive to attest to the truth of the Miracles.
Unreason must be free to promote dogma. One of the ways of promoting dogma is by fudging the distinctions between scholarship and myth. Hinducaust Deniers are people who consciously separate these categories.
Hinducaust Deniers always distinguish between fact and fiction, as if not only faith were not enough, but as if it had no place whatsoever in recording the annals of history. It is true that there have, at certain times in history, particularly wars, been campaigns of lying propaganda in which Hindus have participated. But just because we have lied through our teeth in the past doesn’t give people the right to suggest that we lied during the Hinducaust.
Two of the vilest canards directed against Hindus are that they control the retail trade, and that international Hindury has effected a stranglehold on the film industry. It is certainly true that over 60% of small retail outlets in the United Kingdom, United States and selected European nations are owned by persons of Asian extraction, but in the first instance, many of them are our sworn enemies: the Moslems - and in the second instance, it is a total myth that those shops which are controlled by Hindus are part of a megalithic conspiracy.
As to our alleged control of the mass media, it is common knowledge that in the 1940s this charge was levelled at the Jews and was routinely denounced by Jewish organisations as anti-Semitism. If Jews are entitled to denounce their detractors as anti-Semites then it follows that Hindus must have the same right. Furthermore, it is only really in the past thirty years that Bollywood has taken over from Hollywood. If Hindus controlled the media in the 1990s, why did so many newspapers, radio stations and TV channels pour scorn on the Hinducaust at the time the first Miracle was reported?
Another persistent and wilful misrepresentation the Deniers are fond of throwing at us is the so-called admission by the Had Cashem Archive that more than half of its testimonies are unreliable. For Deniers this is further evidence of a colossal hoax. Yet the truth is that the very fact that so many of these testimonies are of doubtful value is further proof of the veracity of the Hinducaust. Why else would the Archive make such an admission? Isn’t it obvious that if half the testimonies are admittedly unreliable that the remainder must, by definition, be one hundred per cent authentic?
It is correct that in recent years newly revealed documentation has allowed scholars to assess more precisely the number of genuine manifestations of the God Ganesh. It is also accurate that scholars have long written that despite Hinducaust rumours to the contrary, the British National Party did not build a gas chamber in their Welling Bunker. It is though manifestly not true that Court Historians - as the Deniers persist on calling them - are revising their ideas in response to the Deniers. If Hinducaust Denial has demonstrated anything, it is the fragility of unreason and dogma, and the necessity for even stronger and even more repressive anti-racist legislation to put Hindus above criticism, not only in Pakistan and the West, but throughout the entire world. (9) Who but a racist would suggest otherwise?
To Notes And References
Back To Short Stories Index