I just finished watching the Arjun Kapoor movie “India’s most wanted.” It is based on the true-life capture of one of the founders of the terror organization Indian Mujahideen: Yasin Bhatkal. Yasin’s real name is Ahmed Sidibappa, but was called “Bhatkal” since he came from the prosperous town of Bhatkal in Karnataka.
The two main founders of the IM were also from Bhatkal: Riyaz Bhatkal and his brother Iqbal Bhatkal. Like in the case of Yasin, “Bhatkal” is not their real surname, but they are known by it since they hail from the town of Bhatkal.
In addition, some other top operatives of IM also hail from Bhatkal.
So, what exactly is this Bhatkal town all about? Upon some researching, I learned a few interesting facts. Bhatkal has a large Muslim population, highly orthodox and conservative (as you’d expect, giving rise to so many practicing Jihadis). It seems they were originally Jains who converted to Islam (note: now, their ways could not be more anti-Jain; just shows that we must guard our Dharma).
Anyway, here is a very short (only 2:40 minutes) documentary on Bhatkal, made by an overseas Muslim.
It is very short, and I urge readers to watch it. It shows the total Arabization of this coastal town. The Muslims there are Arabs in all but passport. Their passports may be Indian, but in all other ways, they are Arabs. The women are veiled from head to toe, showing only two eyes.
Even then, one Muslim man says that only one eye should be visible because that is how it was during the time of Mohammed (in Arabia’s 7th century Muslim colonies)! This type of retrogressive thinking, where women are the first victims, is a signature of Islamic orthodoxy.
Now after watching the video, I had a few questions, which I list below:
1. Is there ANY chance of Hindus mingling with this culture?
2. Is there ANY chance of a joint, secular, Ganga-Jamuni tehzeeb that can be formed with this culture?
3. If Hindus were to even try to create such a joint culture, they would compromise a lot; but would the Muslims compromise even a single thing? For example, the Muslim elders say a woman must be covered from head to toe starting age 10. Could Hindus ever convince these people to raise that age to 11? I am 100% sure that when it comes to any single matter of sharia law, even getting a 0.1% compromise would be impossible.
Given all the above, who is fooling whom when they talk of Ganga Jamuni tehzeeb? Is there a single instance of such a tehzeeb? Not that I know of. Wherever Muslims live in their enclaves, women are in burkhas, and men grow beards. Mosques spew venom against or denigrate Kafirs (because that is what fundamentalists claim Quran says – they can’t be expected to ignore that, can they? Surely the mosques won’t start chanting “Vasudevam Kutumbakam” in order to support a mythical Ganga Jamuni tehzeeb).
Bottom line is this: this video depicts Muslim culture, plain and simple. And Muslims have, at no point, indicated any willingness to compromise and live according to some hybrid “Ganga-Jamuni tehzeeb” instead of this Arab culture. Why fool Hindus then? Whenever Hindus have fallen prey to this delusion, they have been massacred, like the Hindus of Punjab during partition, or the Hindus of Malabar during the Moplah riots of 1921.
It is time to call the bluff of Ganga-Jamuni tehzeeb. That mythical beast is more non-existent than the abominable snowman. At least the latter is periodically spotted. The former has yet to be spotted.
Did you find this article useful? We’re a non-profit. Make a donation and help pay for our journalism.