Saugato Banerjee’s writings show that he has a perfect understanding of the social, cultural, religious and political future of India. His knowledge of the demographic history of India and his forecast of the future demographic characteristics is accurate except with slight difference. My conclusion is that his forecast is a fait accompli. I can cite several reasons for that conclusion.

Indian conditions and way of life has taught peaceful coexistence from the beginning of history. The idea of peace, non violence, non interference with the lives of their neighbors, respect for surroundings and environment, etc. are embedded in their personal and collective philosophy. However, successive generations of people who follow native religions learn these value systems without systematic guidance or supervision. Indian conditions and way of life has a built in contentment because of various geographical and environmental reasons, which make people less selfish and aggressive in respect of resource sharing. Therefore, their philosophy does not include forceful and violent acquisition of what belong to other people. The same applied to people of all parts of the world who were invaded and conquered. On the contrary, those teachings are absent in other religions developed in resource poor societies and geographic regions. Among the so conquered people, Islamic teachings compulsorily inculcated the alien philosophy in their successive generations from childhood. Teachings based on the need for survival in harsh conditions in the Arabian Peninsula, have replaced the philosophy of peaceful coexistence and generous resource sharing found in the Indian sub continent.

Muslims, not only of the Indian sub continent, but other regions which were conquered have a pyramid like society. It has motivation to expand because there is economic opportunity in forceful acquisition of resources, enslaving of helpless people and opportunity for forceful sexual gratification. People converted are the slaves of people superior in social hierarchy. That is what has made the Muslims of South Asian sub continent, as Saugato has rightly described as “no where muslims r so jealous, greedy, cruel, arrogant, adamant, intolerant, unhealthy behaviour, unethical & immoral than south asian muslim!” Honorable Dr. Nelson Mandela once said that “apartheid” subjected people to harsher treatment based on their color. The skin pigmentation is what identifies native people. People who are different from that identity, treat people closer to native people in the wicked ways. Do all Muslims have the same characteristics? Not at all! Native Muslims in resources rich countries who follow life of peace and contentment are kind and generous people. In those countries strict rules of Islam are followed, which makes people not to rebel or interfere with the life of others.

Whereas half breed native Muslims in those countries where Islam entered by way of violence, like the Muslims in the Indian subcontinent, have learned that they can easily improve their quality of life by killing or enslaving their neighbors. This is not an isolated case with the Indian sub continent. It applies to every country in to which not only Islam, but also Christianity went. It has more to do with the economic greed of the people than the philosophical content of their religions. What is happening in Sudan, Nigeria, Ethiopia, Somalia, Chechnya, Philippines, Malaysia, and in every nation where Muslims resort to violence is because of that greed. Besides, it is not just the Muslim practice and it is not of recent origin. Immigrants from West European nations went to various parts of the world. Wherever they met with resistance, they did less killing, but used their connivance for economic exploitation. However, among less advanced people like the Native people of Americas, the aborigines of Australia, in Africa and various isolated Asian territories, they unleashed incredible violence. They virtually eliminated the native people in those habitats. Unlike Spaniards and Portuguese, the British and French did little intermingling with the native people. One can find the same characteristics which Saugato mentioned among Anglo Indians, Indo French and Indo Portugese people in India and similar people of European and native mix in various countries. They are as much jealous, greedy, cruel, arrogant, adamant, intolerant, unhealthy in behavior, unethical and immoral South Asian Muslims.

Chengiz Khan, Timur, the Mughals, Gazni, Ghori, the Nizams, Hyder Ali, Tipu Sultan etc. were not Arabs, but people of such half breeds. The Brahmins, Kshatriyas and the so called higher castes of India exhibit similar characteristics too. They abhor native population and look at them with contempt and their jealousy, greed, cruelty, arrogance and intolerance nature is an accepted part of the Indian culture. In Sanskrit, there is a word “Mlechha.” That is the word for the native people. Why blame the authors of “Qurran? Saugato, in a different way, scriptures of various Religion, including the Hindu religion promote these traits of prejudice and hatred. Native converts to Christianity do the same thing with other natives, but they are conscious of international public opinion. So they rarely kill, but do everything else to economically exploit.

Native people who have always lived in their habitat rarely put up resistance against invaders who massacred or enslaved them. Throughout history people of Indian sub continent have suffered violent take over of their resources and displacement. One only needs to study the history of Indian civilization from the time of Harappa and Mohen-je-Daro.” Hungry nomads came from North West through Kyber and Bolan passes, set fire to dwellings, places of worships and buildings for social gatherings, massacred native people, drove them away in to jungles, made them out casts and rewrote history. Some would say that history repeats.