Atanu Dey On India's Development

Geert Wilders is a Maladjusted Person

February 6, 2010 by Atanu Dey | 19 Comments

Geert Wilders is a totally maladjusted person. He is profoundly out of step with the rest of society. And therefore he is being dragged into court and the honorable judges of the Netherlands will no doubt punish him for it.

J. Krishnamurti’s diagnosis appears to apply here. “It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society.” Geert Wilders is facing the wrath of a profoundly sick society. As Pat Condell points out, Wilders is under attack because they are unable to attack the truth that Wilders is expressing. Condell says, “Fear of free speech is at the center of a profoundly neurotic and dishonest society — which is what we got now.”

Free speech is antithetical to Islam. Free speech undermines the very foundation of Islam which depends on unquestioned submission to tyrannical authority. Societies that succumb to that ideology end up being barbaric. Witness what is going on in India’s neighborhood. Islam brainwashes people from an early age to become terrorists and suicide killers, as the report from Islamabad reveals. It turns people into killing machines. Humanity is lost and often to a degree that parents bury their children alive for such trivialities as talking. A Turkish 16-year old girl was buried alive by her father.

Societies that fall victim to Islam become neurotic and paranoid. The Netherlands is committing suicide. But who knows, perhaps Wilders’ trial may wake up the Westerners to the reality of their suicidal tendencies.

[Hat tip to Oldtimer for the links to Wilders and Condell.]

  • Venkat

    Hi Atanu.. is it really a problem with the society or with the so-called intellectuals (judges, left-liberals, govt etc)

    Society when asked to decide, say in the form of vote against minarets in Switzerland, chose what is more rational – ban on minarets, while it’s the useful idiots who want to appease the fundamentalists who oppose such bans as well as oppose the likes of Wilders.

  • Sriram

    Hi Atanu

    I appreciate your insightful articles related to economics.

    >>Islam brainwashes people from an early age to become terrorists and suicide killers, as the report from Islamabad reveals.
    >>It turns people into killing machines.
    These kind of statements are quite not upto the bars you raised otherwise.

    I can easily counter this with so many instances: how about the music maestros such as Ustat Bade Ghulam Ali Khan, Amir Khan, Abdul Karim Khan, Bismillah khan not to touch even other spheres of human intellect? Not many devout muslims are turning out to such Killing machines.

    I see ALL religions served a purpose in the evolutionary phase of a society from barbarism to orderliness. All religions have flaws and could be anachronistic in today’s world for a few elite. Some religions have longer history (due to hospitable climate in such regions) and hence have evolved to more tolerant/accepting/receptive to other nomadic tribes.

    Its the poverty and the rampant consumerism set by the west as the culprit than Islam or Christianity or Hinduism. Impoverishment is the breeding ground for the religious fanaticism. Only folks who do not have *tomorrow* can easily succumb to the calls of few opportunists.

    BTW I do not subscribe to any religion. Yet I do not like the hate mongering as it only leads to conflict. Does any one like a direct negation of their basic existence by others? At same time, how can we think of abolishing 30% humans overnight? Intolerance about intolerance is what i see in your posts. Something is not right. Is it my articulation?

  • Kedar

    Hi Atanu,
    I would love to see your response to Sriram :)

    • http://www.deeshaa.org Atanu Dey

      Kedar:

      Precisely my thought — when I read Sriram’s comment, I thought that it deserves a response. In fact, it deserves a reply on the blog and not just as a comment to this post. I will do that today.

  • Sahir

    Hi Atanu,

    I really enjoy reading your posts on India’s development, education and economic situation. However, when you write about religion, especially Islam, you come across as being anti-muslim and anti-islam. I don’t think you are not a racist or an extremist, and I do think your point here is not “Islam is bad”, maybe your point is all religion is bad, or more along the lines of how freedom of speech is being eroded in the west, but it does not come across as this.

    I am a relatively new reader to blog, so I may not have read your previous posts which probably clarify your position more on all this, but this post, taken as a standalone (which many people might come across on search engines) makes you seem irrational and might label you as “just another extremist”. This is because your spend more time on this post attacking the religion than making your point on freedom of speech.

    Since this is your blog, you have every right to write what you want, whether it be an article about Indian entrance exams or a diatribe about Islam. However, the articles like this discredit you and might turn away potential blog followers. In addition, a blog post like this does not really add positively to the collective discussion about religion and freedom of speech, rather it would serve to make muslims defensive or angry, even the liberal or moderate ones, who are open to more discussion and rational thought .

    Regards,
    Sahir

    • http://www.deeshaa.org Atanu Dey

      Sahir:

      I will respond to your comment in the same post that I reply to Sriram’s points.

  • nag

    Sriram,

    Did you note the context in which Atanu made the statement you highlight at the beginning of your response? It may be worth revisiting the photograph in the link provided to the article in “The Hindu”.

    Sahir,

    Atanu can clarify this, but I think he does not write to increase his fan following. Your point about even moderate muslims getting defensive or angry after reading Atanu’s post is telling. You may want to ponder about this.

  • Sahir

    Hi Nag,

    Couple points:

    1) He might not want to write to increase fan following, but if his point of writing is to effect change and provide people with different ideas or new ways of thinking (ie to make the world a better place), this style of writing may not be the best way to reach this goal. I guess it depends on what his goal for this article or this blog is.

    2) My point about moderate muslims getting defensive or angry is more focused on the “moderate” than the “muslim”. I think any moderate religious person would get defensive or angry if such sweeping statements were made about their religion. As Sriram rightly asks “Does any one like a direct negation of their (perceived) basic existence by others?”

    Thanks,

    Sahir

  • http://www.deeshaa.org Atanu Dey

    I note the exchange between Nag and Sahir. Thanks for taking the trouble to express your viewpoints. I will get back to you shortly later today. Thanks.

  • Oldtimer

    In the responses by the Hindu-named gentlemen above who gallantly jumped to Islam’s defence (it’s always a Hindu-named gentleman, isn’t it? :) never a Catholic ;) ), I see a certain desperation: a desperation to label you. The pattern is old hat. First, he tells you he admires your blog, for purely ‘secular’ reasons. Then, he gives you a few sophisticated gaalis: “hate-peddler” etc (this is how they generally peddle hate themselves). Finally, he gives you some gratuitous advice on how you can become a good boy in their books. :) Also, often it is not one person: suddenly — overnight in fact — several people are crawling out of wherever expressing the same opinion! Some times, the response takes on a demonstratively “academic” tone. At other times, it is demonstratively aggressive. But the pattern is more or less the same, and the outcome is also fairly predictable: the handle is unlikely to be seen again on the blog after the “debate” ends. I’ve seen this sort of “debate” play out on Acorn, SandeepWeb and similar blogs.

    Reasoned debate is one thing; but lending respectability to very determined (and crooked-natured) thought police is another. The idea-cop’s objective is to create the same sort of environment on blogosphere as exists in the “mainstream” media (check out http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704094304575028502518091976.html), wherein certain ideas/subjects become ‘taboo’ and are never discussed. Should a newcomer or a courageous person broach the topic, the group pounces on him and mauls him, so he learns his lesson, kind of like monkeys-in-a-cage story.

    Just expressing my thoughts. :)

  • Oldtimer

    Hello Sahir,

    >>you come across as being anti-muslim and anti-islam

    You and Sriram and Lakshman and a host of others on this blog are raising some very important points and I hope Atanu would respond to them. But I’d advice caution before needlessly labeling people and making them a target of hate. I admire Atanu’s courage. He doesn’t fake multiple handles. In fact, he doesn’t even write anonymously. I know you don’t mean any harm, but I’d urge you to think of the potential consequence of your labeling nevertheless. The Dutch media demonized Pim Fortuyn as “anti-Islam”. A leftwing nutjob believed all the propaganda and killed him. He probably thought he was doing a favor to the world. Good intention for X doesn’t have to translate into hate for Y. That’s the point I hope you will keep in mind.

  • Sahir

    Hi Oldtimer,

    I understand your point. So just to make sure my views are understood, I do not think Atanu is racist, anti-muslim or anti-islam. I think the post comes across or seems like these things, due to the seemingly general statements made about the religion. in terms of “Good intention for X doesn’t have to translate into hate for Y”, I completely agree, but the blog post, to the layman, might seem more about “hate for Y”, than “good intention for X”. I think Atanu, in his next post, plans to tell us why this tone and method of writing was used, and I eagerly await.

    Thanks,

    Sahir

  • Oldtimer

    Hello Sahir,

    I’m very happy you’ve cleared things up, and from my side I’d like to clarify *once again* that I do not think you are a leftwing loon or are trying to whip up hate against those you want to silence. I’m pretty clear that that’s not your intent. However, your intervention might come across as what you are not intending. If a person is perceived as described by loaded labels, negative characterizations and insinuations, he becomes a target of the fanatics. It is in this context that I mentioned the name of Volkert van der Graaf, the leftwing killer who murdered Pim Fortuyn. And of course, there are any number of people looking out for Islam’s “enemies”, so one must avoid methods that incite these people and provide them excuses.

    Best wishes.

  • Sriram

    Hi folks
    I am not in support of Islam. I have been reading the blog for a few months for now. I really appreciate the trenchant reviews. I even exchanged a coulple of emails with Atanu on IITs and he can check is mail box and confirm if i am lying.

    As someone pointed out correctly about relevance of my comment for this article:
    The quoted statements are sweeping and not pert to this Geert Wilders article.

    I think I have not in particular responded to this article but to express the general take on a community. I wanted to point out the correlation between religion and terrorism could be incorrect and the underlying economics could be more apt.

    Once we agree that there is an iota of possibility of my reasoning, my objective is fulfilled. I can always get myself corrected.

    Till we get the root cause correctly, we may not be able to arrive at a correct solution.

    To further establish my secular outlook:
    I fully endorse the Atanu’s question of Hajj travel being subsidized by India’s (socalled) secular government (cant dig out the article, sigh!). Many a times our govt. is miority appeasing and most often uncalled for.

    I am NOT masquerading with a hindu name and that can only be proven if someone is ready to get in touch with me in person :-)

    enuf said

    Cheers
    Sriram

  • amar

    I wanted to point out the correlation between religion and terrorism could be incorrect and the underlying economics could be more apt.

    Do you know how many of 9/11 perpetrators are from the stinkingly rich Saudi Arabia?

    I rest my case.

  • Oldtimer

    Hello Sriram,

    I’m surprised you got so defensive about my comment on your Hindu name! No offence meant! In fact, I like Hindu brahmin guys like you. Oh maybe you are not a brahmin and you’d like to correct me now, but nevertheless, for the record: I have nothing against Hindu brahmin guys who exchange emails with Atanu!

    Every religion has some core tenets. Abrahamic faiths — Islam, Christianity, Judaism and Communism — have very clearly defined and codified set of beliefs. For example, Muslims must believe that there is no god but Allah and Mohammed is his last prophet. Christians must believe that Jesus died on the cross for all of humanity. Such beliefs are foundational beliefs of respective faiths. Believers will generally be incensed if you ask for evidence supporting their beliefs, because the truth value of their claim is self-evident to them. They heard it repeated ad nauseum from childhood, so any challenge to it makes them feel defensive and insecure. If you miss to see what they see in belief, and pester instead for some gobbledygook evidence, there is something wrong with you, you must be satan’s agent, is the conclusion.

    Comrade Marx’s Communist Manifesto starts bang with this core belief: “The history of society is the history of class struggles”. This belief led to a great deal of reinvention of history to fit the belief, but more importantly, it also led to a great deal of bloodbath to fit the society to the belief. Communists had to eliminate millions of class enemies. Modern variants of this “classical” communist doctrine keep cropping up in various forms. “Terrorism is class struggle” is one version.

    When told that communist “teachings” invariably lead to genocide, communists get angry and defensive. They insist that a few believers (like Comrades Stalin and Mao) were the problem, not their ideology itself. See what I mean?

    Just to clarify, I have no issue with people routinely and monomaniacally asserting their beliefs, in the vain hope perhaps that the repetition will keep a discredited idea alive and in the game. I often amuse myself by going to polemical religious sites (“Answering Christianity”, “Answering Islam” etc). Each party sincerely quotes its scripture to “prove” its point, obviously under the impression that scripture is the evidence in itself.

    “Sriram” is a nice name. I believe Sriram is a largely a fictional character based loosely perhaps on the life story of some ancient king who might really have lived.

  • Amit

    I can easily counter this with so many instances: how about the music maestros such as Ustat Bade Ghulam Ali Khan, Amir Khan, Abdul Karim Khan, Bismillah khan not to touch even other spheres of human intellect? Not many devout muslims are turning out to such Killing machines.

    My dear sir, how do you define a devout Muslim? A devout Muslim is someone who follows in the footsteps of Muhammad the Arabian prophet. Now if you wish to learn more about the life of Muhammad, I suggest that you read his biography written by Ibn Ishaq. Plus it would also be suggested that you go through the hadith books of Bukhari and Muslims.
    Comparing Islam and Hinduism is like comparing apples and organges. There is no comparison. Hinduism is not a standard of set beilief system. Quite contrary to Islam.
    I could go on writing on this topic, however I would rather have you read more about Islam. You can begin by reading http://www.faithfreedom.org, which is a website run by an Ex-Muslim from Iran.
    There are several other websites being run by E-Muslims who reveil the truth of Islam.

  • Sriram

    I think we are going through the phase Post-”clash of civilizations”, trying to understand how should we deal with it.

    Could we have stopped the clash of civilizations? Did Mayans stop european incursions? Could our border kings prevented marauding tribes from west Asia? May be. Is it relevant and/or worth getting agitated after 500 yrs? Why now, when we should have acted 1000 yrs ago when Khiljis came to us? Does it spell volumes about our wisdom and/or foresight? Did we EVER have a collective consciousness? were we not selling our mothers to see the neighbor’s peril? Utterly diveded we were, albeit sharing a common lifestyle. Each time an Adi Sankara or Aurobindo or a Vivekananda came along to wake us up but we were just happy building some *maths* (not as in mathematics) and get back to the petty business. We eagerly own the hero’s as our folks without adopting an iota of what they said.

    Now, can we find a root cause for sudden increase of Jihad-ism? People say the root cause lies in Islam. I say, its in impoverishment and mostly caused by colonization. Yet that’s also following a natural law (to plunder), I agree.

    Now, lets say I am proven beyond a doubt that economics has nothing to do with Jihadism and say Islam is the EVIL. Upon this conclusion, how do we take next step? I think its not hard to guess :-)

    So, what does this bring us to? Wage a Dharma Uddha?

    Very much OT (off the topic):
    I see many a times Atanu is anguished that Gandhi/Nehru are utterly wrong. But who let them ? didnt our forefathers? I want to see there should be more of How to move on and make progess, inspite of the legacies we have.

    Discuss some thing that can work in our context and debate what has to be done. Practice and then preach. Lets see the title of the blog *Atanu Dey on India’s Development* indeed is what it implies. To me, or any other visitor. I like to see workable plans for urban planning, mass transportation, efficiencies in markets. Does anyone else out there does? I am sure many of you do. Let us get to some real steps.

  • Anonymous

    People way are too concerned with the opinions of Wilders and is missing the forest for the trees. Using violence or death threats against anybody for verbal criticism of Islam is WRONG regardless of anything else because it is entirely allowed under free speech.

    Anybody in the civilized who disagrees should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves for their willingness to give up their freedom.