Did Veer Savarkar cut a deal with British at Kala Paani?

Answer by Omkar Patil:

Our history has been intensely subject to lies, deception and fraud by our 'eminent left wing intellectual historians'.
There is nothing substantial in the claims and so much of hoopla about Savarkar's clemency petitions.
Anyone who has read 'My Transportation for Life' by Savarkar will understand the hollowness of these claims.

Savarkar has never denied that he wrote a clemency petition. Nothing was wrong with that.
This is because Savarkar had no intentions of rotting inside the Andaman jail.
There was no benefit for the country if he had chosen to rot in jail. At least he could do something for the country, if he is able to manage to get out of jail.
When the enemy has his control over you, he has the upper hand. In such case, it is better to think with brain instead of thinking with heart. A wise man never lets his ego prevail over his brain.
So this was rather a strategic move.
Shivaji too had sent similar letters and petitions to deceive the enemy as before the killing of Afzal Khan, during Siddi Johar’s siege and during his imprisonment at Agra. He had also accepted some humiliating conditions during the treaty made at the time of the siege of Purandar fort. However, Shivaji bid his time and avenged all insults when he became powerful enough. This is clever political stratagem.

Those who claim that this makes Savarkar a coward are either foolish or they are spreading some propaganda.
Lets analyse why Savarkar was sentenced. Following are the Savarkar's activities for the independence of India :
  1. Involvement in Jackson Murder Case.
  2. Involvement in Lord Curzon Wyllie's assassination.
  3. Conspiracy of using arms and explosives against the British authorities.
  4. Smuggling of weapons to India.
  5. His book on 1857 : War of Independence was sedition.
Somehow his conspiracy got exposed and he got arrested. While he was being transported through the ship SS Morea, he escaped through the toilet window and swam to France, while dodging the bullets shot towards him!
Could such person be a coward?

It is important to know that he was illegally arrested in France by the British. The British police had no right to arrest Savarkar on the French land, still it was done illegally!

The treatment meted out to political prisoners in Andaman was much more harsher than the VIP treatment given to moderate freedom fighters.
  1. Savarkar was sentenced to TRANSPORTATION FOR LIFE, TWICE to the Andaman Islands. The sentences of Transportation were to be served IN SUCCESSION – a total sentence of 50 years, unparalleled in the history of the British Empire. The badge which he had to wear around his neck stated, date of sentence 24/12/1910, date of release 23/12/1960.
  2. All his property and possessions including his clothes were confiscated and sold at public auctions. Even his spectacles were confiscated.
  3. When Savarkar was in jail, Bombay University withdrew his B.A degree.
  4. Savarkar faced 6 months solitary confinement.
  5. He faced 7 days standing handcuffs.
  6. Absolutely refusing to work, ten days cross bar fetters imposed.
This is the oil mill in Cellular jail. Savarkar was asked to work daily and mill 30 kg of oil daily. Such kind of work is normally done by heavy animals like bulls.
Moreover, prisoners were forced to do this daily, irrespective of health. Add to that, the poor quality of food, with worms.
Such inhumane were the conditions in Andaman.
Are these indicators of a secret understanding with the British?
Far from his spirit being broken by the inhuman prison conditions, Savarkar displayed rare courage. In the absence of resources, Savarkar wrote more than 5000 lines of sublime poetry on the prison walls and memorized them!
This is a unique example in the annals of world literature. Is this the mark of a man whose spirit had been broken?
Defying death in such miserable conditions is more difficult than getting martyred. Suicide was an easier option out than living in such a hell. Many prisoners were tempted to commit suicide, some prisoners had even fasted till death. But Savarkar strongly discouraged his inmates from the idea of suicide, particularly when Bhai Parmanand (another under-rated hero) had stopped eating food. Suicide was not going to contribute the motherland in any way.
The testimonies of the British officials regarding Savarkar indicate that far from being sympathetic to him, they were wary of him and indeed dreaded him.

Moreover, it should be noted that Savarkar was NOT supposed to be kept in prison for 50 years. Normally after 3 years the prisoners were sent outside the prison to work and later to settle and even bring their families from India. If they were not married they could do so.
Savarkar was kept inside the prison for more than 10 years in flagrant violation of government's own policy.
Public outcry in India forced the British to release Savarkar from prison. But if he was to be kept in Andamans, he had to be allowed to settle OUTSIDE THE PRISON.
So, the British administration in Bombay called him back. Many people still think that it was an act of mercy.
On the contrary, it made it possible for them to keep him in prison in India. Once again mounting public pressure forced the British to release Savarkar from jail. But they asked him to stay in an obscure place called Ratnagiri – so that people could not see him.
Ratnagiri had no railway and no telephones. Savarkar was also forbidden to take part in political activities.
Restrictions on Savarkar were meant only for 5 years. But British Authorities extended their duration by 2 years in succession – to a total of 13 years internment.
This means Savarkar faced total 27 years of imprisonment : 10 years in Cellular Jail, 4 years in Ratnagiri, 13 years under house arrest. No other freedom fighter has been imprisoned for so long. The closest person to such a long imprisonent is Babarao Savarkar(Veer Savarkar's elder brother).

Moreover, the Andaman prison had a policy of allowing prisoners to apply for clemency.
In many cases it was accepted too. During the World War time, many prisoners were released.
But Savarkar brothers were still kept there, in spite of poor health. This is because the British were better at character judgement than our left wing liars.
Savarkar's badge in Cellular Jail had the symbol 'D' which was to be applied only on dangerous criminals.
Savarkar brothers were later sent back to mainland India not because of failing health but because Government had decided to close down the prison settlement in Andaman, after several years of mounting public pressure in India.

Savarkar never apologised for his deeds to seek release.
He just promised to abstain from political activity – "for a reasonable period of time" and preferred to do social work and literary work till then.
He didn't remain loyal to the British afterwards too. He used to write articles against the British authorities with the use of pseudonyms till then.
He resumed his political activity in 1937. He was then elected as the president of Hindu Mahasabha. The Hindu Mahasabha's official stand was always for India's freedom.
He was very well aware that India won't gain independence unless the people are armed. He always promoted militarisation and opened several rifle houses.
This too went in India's favour, as the British had to worry that India had a significant number of armed men and any kind of revolt/mutiny would have made their work difficult. Naval Mutiny is a case in point.

Today's left wingers should learn something from Bhagat Singh. Even when he was a communist and was obviously at disagreement with Savarkar's Hindu nationalism, he had tremendous respect for Savarkar. This is evident from the fact that he published the 3rd edition of Savarkar's book on 1857 : War of Independence.
You may disagree with Savarkar's Hindu nationalism, but still you must admit that he was a great patriot.
But unfortunately, our left wingers and secularists choose to malign Savarkar with lies, just to prove their political point. Political vendetta, it is.

PS : As far the claim about Savarkar's role in Gandhi's assassination is concerned, this answer will clarify : Omkar Patil's answer to Was Savarkar involved in the killing of Gandhi?

Did Veer Savarkar cut a deal with British at Kala Paani?


Is banning beef unconstitutional in a secular country like India?

Answer by Omkar Patil:

Before I answer, let me clarify that I have staunch Hindu nationalist views.
If the logic provided to justify the ban on cow slaughter is that to avoid religious sentiments of Hindus from being hurt, then it weakens the case for beef ban. We should rather focus on other reasons to justify it. So the debate should be about whether cattle slaughter is to be banned or not, rather than limiting the discussion only on cows.
Now, coming to constitutionality of beef ban, the article 48 of our constitution says:
Article 48.
Organisation of agriculture and animal husbandry:
The State shall endeavour to organise agriculture and animal husbandry on modern and scientific lines and shall, in particular, take steps for preserving and improving the breeds, and prohibiting the slaughter, of cows and calves and other milch and draught cattle.
Agreed that directive principles are not binding and are just optional. But how does that mean cow slaughter is unconstitutional? Our constitution is not enforcing beef ban, but its suggesting the state to ban it. Each person is entitled to his/her own views, so do different parties can have their own view. A party can choose to ban cow slaughter or not, but in no way is it unconstitutional. Its very naive to just say that we are secular, so banning cow slaughter is unconstitutional. Things are very well defined in the constitution, and it can't be judged in one-liners.
24 out of 29 states in India currently have various regulations prohibiting either the slaughter or sale of cows. Most of these were brought by the secular Congress, not the communal BJP
Economic reasons
The most common economic argument made against cattle slaughter ban is : "What is the point in keeping old, defunct cows? The cow was useful when it was young, but since it is old now, won't the farmer benefit if he sells the cow? Hence banning beef is anti-farmer."
But this argument doesn't hold true, because the above described event has a lower probability. The price of an old defunct cow is much lesser than a young, fresh, healthy cow. Plus, I don't think anyone would like to eat the beef of a malnutritioned, sick, old, diseased, defunct cow. Even if few people prefer that, the lesser preference itself means more decrease in the price. Any farmer would make just a negligible amount of money out of that. Add to that, farmers generally don't prefer selling their animals for meat, because of their love for their pets. This itself makes the above event a less probable event.
Compare that with the event of a farmer buying a new, young, healthy cow. It is highly probable, most farmers do so. As far as I know, at least in Maharashtra, the cost of a cow is 40,000 to 50,000. Might be even higher. If the total number of cows in market increase, the cost of each cow will obviously reduce. But if the number of cows decrease, the cost of cows will increase. So obviously, more number of cows is pro-farmer.
Cattle have a large number of uses for farmers, as it provides milk, milch products etc. Modern progressive liberals would laugh at this, but still a large number of villagers use cow dung as fuel. It doesn't matter whether it is modern or not, cow dung still has economic value. Same goes for cow urine.
According to the census, population of India’s livestock has declined by 3.33 per cent. India's livestock population drops by 3.33 per cent . It is important to protect them in such conditions.
There are a lot of liberals, who are very unhappy about cow slaughter ban. Generally, I support economic liberty, but we need to understand that complete liberty doesn't exist, its only theoretical. Most countries, whether liberal or conservative ban some or the other kind of animal slaughter.
It is true that not everyone benefits from banning beef. Those who own slaughter houses are going to suffer after cattle slaughter is completely banned. So this ban can't be said to be completely correct.  But then, it is a democracy, and the interest of the majority of interest group is going to prevail. Since India is primarily an agrarian economy, the interest of farmers prevails.
Environmental reasons
1. The amount of water consumed to produce 1 kg of beef is 15,415 litres. Check out the below table.
2. 27 kg of CO2 is produced per kg of production of beef. Giving up beef will reduce carbon footprint more than cars, says expert
So these are enough of environmental reasons too.
Hindu Nationalism
Though it may help in uniting Hindus, it should be realised that banning cow slaughter has nothing to do with Hindutva or Hindu nationalism. Hindutva is just Hindu-ness or the Hindu national identity.
To explain this, I will quote what Veer Savarkar, the man who coined the Hindutva ideology said:
Animals such as the cow and buffalo and trees such as banyan and peepal are useful to man, hence we are fond of them; to that extent we might even consider them worthy of worship; their protection, sustenance and well-being is our duty, in that sense alone it is also our dharma! Does it not follow then that when under certain circumstances, that animal or tree becomes a source of trouble to mankind, it ceases to be worthy of sustenance or protection and as such its destruction is in humanitarian or national interests and becomes a human or national dharma?
(Samaj Chitre or portraits of society, Samagra Savarkar vangmaya, Vol. 2, p.678)
When humanitarian interests are not served and in fact harmed by the cow and when humanism is shamed, self-defeating extreme cow protection should be rejected
(Samagra Savarkar vangmaya, Vol. 3, p.341)
A substance is edible to the extent that it is beneficial to man. Attributing religious qualities to it gives it a godly status. Such a superstitious mindset destroys the nation’s intellect.
(1935, Savarkaranchya goshti or tales of Savarkar, Samagra Savarkar vangmaya, Vol. 2, p.559)
Protect the cow, do not merely worship it
I criticized the false notions involved in cow worship with the aim of removing the chaff and preserving the essence so that cow protection may be better achieved. A worshipful attitude is necessary for protection. But it is improper to forget the duty of cow protection and indulging only in worship. The word ‘only’ used here is important. First protect the cow and then worship it if you so desire.
(1938, Swatantryaveer Savarkar: Hindu Mahasabha parva or the phase of the Hindu Mahasabha, p. 173)
Do genuine cow protection
Without spreading religious superstition, let the movement for cow protection be based and popularized on clear-cut and experimental economic and scientific principles. Then alone shall we achieve genuine cow protection like the Americans.
(1934, Samagra Savarkar vangmaya, Vol. 3, p.171)
But, at the same time :
The non-Hindus should discard their hatred for the cow and do genuine cow protection
The religious character that Hindus have given to cow protection howsoever naïve is not symptomatic of cruelty. This is because protecting animals such as cows and buffaloes that are extremely useful to man have an objective of safeguarding human interests. But the religious fanaticism of those non-Hindus whose religion itself is based on hatred for the cow is not only naïve but also cruel. They have no right whatsoever to mock at the Hindus.
There is an overdose of gratitude, compassion, notion of all living beings being one in the cow worship of Hindus. But the cow slaughter indulged in by non-Hindus has an excess of cruelty, ungratefulness and demonic (asuric) taking of life. It is not religious madness but irreligious wickedness. For this reason, these non-Hindus should discard their ‘religious’ cow hatred and consider cow protection done for economic reasons to be their duty. (1935, Ksha kirane or X rays, Samagra Savarkar vangmaya, Vol. 3, p.171-172)
These views seem to be much more rationalist, than those of today's leftists, who are cheered as rationalist just for urinating on idols.
Each person is entitled to his/her opinion and I respect it. While beef ban may not be completely correct, the entire Indian secular brigade tends to strongly oppose and hate beef ban. They tend to claim themselves rational. But there are other reasons for it.  Our secular brigade is composed of the components: Leftists, Islamists, Christian Missionaries. Leftists or pro-dalit parties hate cows, just because cows are deeply revered by Brahmins. This is an outcome of their Brahmin hatred.
It must be noted that reverence for cows in Indian society was a result of an evolution of thoughts. When the Indian society started realising the importance of cattle, cow became very respected and were revered in the society. Brahmins were the intellectual upper class of that era and these intellectuals spread these ideas of reverence to cow.
Now, it is well known that leftists hate Brahmins, because of the class struggle theory and they hate religions too. Islamists and Missionaries hate Hindus due to the religious differences. Hence the secular brigade is strongly opposed to the beef ban.
This kind of opposition to cow slaughter seems to be more out of hatred, than out of ideas.
There is also a false propaganda about beef ban being anti-Muslim. There is no Islamic text which asks muslims to eat beef. Beef production which requires a large amount of water doesn't suit Arabic countries.
But in India, Islamists and Christian missionaries teach to eat beef, just as a sign of hatred towards Hindus. You may not believe me, if I say so.
But check out, what India's secular icon MK Gandhi had said:
Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi has written in his autobiography "My Experiment with Truth" (on page 24) :
Only Christianity was at that time an exception. I developed a sort of dislike for it. And for a reason. In those days Christian missionaries used to stand in a corner near the high school and hold forth, pouring abuse on Hindus and their gods. I could not endure this. I must have stood there to hear them once only, but that was enough to dissuade me from repeating the experiment. About the same time, I heard of a well known Hindu having been converted to Christianity. It was the talk of the town that, when he was baptized, he had to eat beef and drink liquor, that he also had to change his clothes, and that thenceforth he began to go about in European costume, including a hat. These things got on my nerves. Surely, thought I, a religion that compelled one to eat beef, drink liquor, and change one's own clothes did not deserve the name. I also heard that the new convert had already begun abusing the religion of his ancestors, their customs and their country. All these things created in me a dislike for Christianity.
It is politically incorrect to point out these things, but we all know this is the truth. I don't hate any faith, but this kind of attitude is visible from those who proselytize and their vested interest groups.
To conclude, banning cow slaughter isn't unconstitutional.

Is banning beef unconstitutional in a secular country like India?

Does India’s Daughter documentary lower India’s image to the world?

Answer by Omkar Patil:


Here are some stats, you can easily find it on Wikipedia:

Rape per 100,000 population as per 2010:

India: 1.8
USA: 27.3
UK: 28.8
Australia: 28.6
Sweden: 63.5
Botswana: 92.5
South Africa: 132.4

India ranks #94 in rapes!

Rape in India – Why it becomes a worldwide story

Now, some people will be ready to make claims like 90% of the crimes go not reported in India. I don’t know how do they know what amount goes unreported if they are really unreported.

Moreover, I don’t know how people presume that even a single rape doesn’t go unreported in western nations. This bias is basically because we Indians tend to hate ourselves and feel inferior, the same reason why the 1 lakh Britishers ruled for more than 30 crore Indians for about 200 years.

I agree that a huge number of rapes go unreported in India, but I  find 90% an over-hyped number. But this is the number claimed by the most pessimistic social worker.

Anyway, still lets assume 90% goes unreported.

Even then, rate per 100,000 is 18. Yet it is much less than that of other countries mentioned above.

Can you guess what will happen if BBC stereotypes every American male as a crazy rapist? No, it doesn’t have the balls to do so.

Bala Senthil Kumar showed an excellent point in one of his answers.
1/6 th of MIT students are victims of sexual assault.
‘One in six female MIT students victim of sexual assault’
Can you imagine the outrage and the noise levels on Indian media if an IIT were to announce that 15% of their female students were rape victims?

Have a look at these links.

Why Did British Police Ignore Pakistani Gangs Abusing 1,400 Rotherham Children? Political Correctness

Rotherham child sexual exploitation scandal

Britain: Muslim Rape Gangs Run Wild | FrontPage Magazine

Rochdale sex trafficking gang

The BBC’s famous presenter Jimmy Savile is a paedophile. BBC cancelled the investigative reports exposing him.

All the above argument was just for the morons who are very eager to call India a country of rapists.

Now lets talk about BBC’s hidden racist agenda.

So Holi is a ‘filthy festival’ and we stupid Indians are spreading filth. Was this the BBC’s mission of trying educating and informing the world correctly?

Hats off to Akshay Jain for collecting the following link :

Snakecharmer sparks office panic

Indian snake charmers ‘held photographer captive’

The cash machine with a free cobra

The bull whose semen is worth $3,000 a shot

Cow dung burning ban near Taj Mahal

India cow row ‘settled by DNA tests’

India rapist ordered to ‘feed cows’

Indian monkey set to inherit fortune

Thieving monkey hands out money

India monkey ‘wedding ceremony’ held

India probes ID card for monkey god

Indian villagers mourn dead monkey

India hospital tackles rat epidemic

So “Indian society” is a “sick society”.  By this statement, she has directly shown  how she was trying stereotype Indian males as rapists.

BBC disobeyed the court order.

BBC disobeyed the government order.

BBC released the video 4 days prior to the scheduled date.

Now, is it that difficult to predict their real intentions?

Why didn’t BBC see the filth in their own so called developed nations? Why at all do they need to make a documentary from an example from India?

Here is the short and bitter summary of today’s discussions on BBC documentary –
1.We outright reject any stats, incidents, numbers given to prove how Western society is severely suffering from the same disease and probably much more than us. Probably a deep down self hatred.
2. We let go Nirbhaya’s parents rights in our desperation to protect a British film maker’s rights. Probably a colonial mindset.
3. We reject and ignore the law of the land which was openly flouted while filming and release. Probably used to live under banana Republic.
4.We stoop so low that we start sympathising with rapist saying “he only showed society a mirror”. Out of some progressive backward race Battle.
5.We mock and blame those who are sick of this sale of someone’s pain by calling them patriarchal minds. Desperation out of ” we know it better” syndrome.

The rapist was paid 40,000. He demanded 2 lakh for the interview which was later negotiated to 40,000. Might even be tutored. So what happens is, that a roadside goon, who commits such a rape, becomes an overnight filmstar! Is this justice?
India’s Daughter: Rape convict paid Rs.40,000 for interview? | Latest News & Updates at Daily News & Analysis

Nirbhaya’s name was revealed. Is this justice? It isn’t even legal.
December 16 gang-rape victim’s father objects to daughter’s name being made public – The Times of India?

U/s 228A of Indian Penal Code, No person can disclose the name of the rape victim and if anybody discloses the name, he shall be punished with either description for a term which may extend to two years and shall also be liable for fine.

However, the juvenile’s name was chosen not to be revealed, because he was a minor. This is justice at its best! By the way his name was Mohammed Afroze, and as an Indian, I am proud to speak out his name.

Nirbhaya’s friend, who was with her on the fateful night, calls ‘India’s Daughter’ a fake film. This person was with her that night, he fought to save her, but got terribly injured. Whom would you believe, him or that British film-maker?Now that it is fake, every argument supporting the BBC’s documentary stands invalid. Udwin later tried to defend the documentary after saying that he was asking for money. But at the same time she denies giving money to Mukesh, the rapist. So, she means that this brave hero is greedy for money and this
bastard rapist is very honest and didn’t ask for a single rupee! 

Calling this a documentary is an insult to the word ‘documentary’, when it misused special permissions for research, to make a commercial video.

Some people are “shocked” after seeing the mindset of a rapist. They call it an “awareness documentary”.
What at all did you expect him to say?
Did you really think he will feel guilty? Can such an inhumane monster who can insert a rod, ever feel guilty?
Also, how do the controversial statements by the defendant lawyers show the true face of the ‘society’?
The biggest mistake these lawyers do is accept such cases, being greedy. They already know that it is impossible for them to win such cases, so naturally they make controversial statements. They don’t believe in what they speak, but speak it out of greed, for money. That is why, ‘Devil’s Advocate’ is a term for such people.
They also appear to be paid by Udwin, probably much more than Mukesh. So, it is stupid to perceive what they speak as the thoughts of ‘Educated Indian society’.
This is blatant stereotyping, stereotyping a few people to be the face of Indian society.

Mann Jain has shown it snapshot wise in this answer: Mann Jain’s answer to India’s Daughter (2015 movie): Why are some Indians so furious about the BBC documentary ‘India’s Daughter’? Why did the government of India ban this documentary film?

But wait, when was the last time BBC interrogated terrorists for “awareness”?  By that logic, shouldn’t the videos released by ISIS be shown on television for ‘awareness’?
I can also justify showing these beheading videos, by speaking bullshit like “Why the truth should be hidden?”, “It is against freedom of speech”, “Why to hide from the world a video, which is just showing a mirror to the Islamic society”.  Never mind, just an analogy.

This is how the western media reacted:

Delhi gang-rape film: The haunting faces of India’s hidden women were revealed at last

“She should just be silent”: the real roots of India’s rape culture

Why A Film About A Fatal Gang Rape In India Is Drawing So Much Controversy

Rape documentary holds mirror to Indian society | Opinion | DW.DE | 06.03.2015

So congratulations, India has already got defamed.

Have you ever come across this Quora question?

What should an Indian male student do if he is denied an internship opportunity on the basis of India being projected as an unsafe country for women?

Regarding the awareness argument, some say truth should not be hidden. “Is truth really hidden?”   For the awareness of the public, aren’t the newspapers enough?

For those who think that this was the most inhumane rape, just search on google “most inhumane rape”, you will come to know about most inhumane form of rapes, most of which are outside India.

The reason some people are supporting BBC is that they are being too emotional and not logical. They are thinking more with their heart and less with their brain. I have explained enough about BBC’s hidden agenda. Also, showing something racist and controversial is likely to make it a commercial success worldwide.

Ultra-feminists and liberals will always find an excuse to defend this documentary. I don’t know why they perceive speaking against the documentary as supporting rapes. Rape is a big issue in India, (though not as big as compared to most of the countries), no doubt regarding that a crime as gruesome as rape needs to be addressed. Awareness needs to be spread, but care should be taken that the awareness is positive. Negative form of sensationalism as in this documentary, will only spew hatred. Huge number of people are already angry about the rape problem and this anger is justified.
However, extreme anger will result in incidents like the Dimapur lynching incident.

Anarchists would stupidly justify this by saying, that is what should be done so that men won’t dare to rape.
What about false rape accusations? Should we go out and kill each and everyone accused of rape? There are reports that that this person was innocent. Whatever it may be, but angry mob can’t decide who is a innocent and who is guilty.
That is why we need to believe in judiciary.

Media tries to spread awareness and hopes that the rapes will reduce after it spreads awareness. However, it fails to show the complete picture. A person accused of rape is readily declared as a rapist by the Indian media. But in case he is really innocent and gets acquitted, he still loses all the respect in the society and becomes an outcast. Media doesn’t apologize him, neither do they make a news that this person was innocent.

I won’t have any problem, if documentaries are made positively, aiming at solutions rather than the problem.

Some people would still say, “Agreed it is a poor documentary, but why ban it?”

I have enough explained how the content is objectionable, and freedom of speech doesn’t mean any objectionable content should be allowed.

However, the ban was just because of multiple breach of laws.
Even the court has refused to remove the ban.

Anarchists will still oppose the ban and disrespect the judiciary.

Also read:
Balaji Viswanathan‘s  answer to India in 2015: Why is India having such trouble solving the high prevalence of rape?

Deception, Lies Behind Making of India’s Daughter

If you are a non-Indian reading this, please understand that I am not throwing mud on other countries by showing the stats, but I simply mean that India is not a country of rapists.

Those who still desperately want to find flaws in my arguments, ask yourself are you proud as an Indian.

Thanks for promoting Ankit Srivastava, Soham Desai,Vivek Vaish,Rahul Verma,Ajay Bansod,Manan Gupta,Muthukumaran Venkatachalapathy,Harikrishnan Edayalil,Alen George,Simranjeet Singh Gandhi,Krushna Bhala,Shashank Bhardwaj,Raman Parashar,Manoj Memana Jayakumar,Mohit Soni,Kumar Vineet,Jay Puranik,Nikunj Kothari,Saurav Maheshwary,Amol Tyagi,Palash Siddamsettiwar,Batul Merchant,Ruchi Sharma,Janardhan Kandada,Amol Patil,Akhilesh Gupta,Aditya Garg,Vivek Pareek,Ankit Khandelwal,Harish Jakkamsetti,Alafazam Khan,Aniket Raje,Kriteesh Parashar,Karuna Meranî,Sooraj Chandran,Vipul Deshmukh,Khyati Desai Shah,Manish Roy,Akash Vishnoi,Manav Aggarwal,Sidhartha Vemuri,Saurabh Fegade,Sahil Joshi,Shivam Bhardwaj,Parag Shinde,Samarth Narayan,Raghu Rayachoti,Sriram Manoj,Adarsh Hegde,Vishwaradhya Hiremath,Aditya Ravishankar,Vikash Yadav,Sai Mukund Sagar,Virupaksha Swamy,Manu Mishra, Vivek Bhardwaj, Kunal Anil Wagh,Rahul Bajpai ,
Sunit Prasad , Vibhav Gadre ,Peter Andrews, Hari Srinivasan , Roopali Lalwani ,Harshini Kantharia, Vijay Raj, Sonik Padia, Akshay Oswal, Shail Godiwala, Jaydeep Vekariya, Dhruv Mittal, Harsh Rungta, Harshavardhan Suresh, Vivek Notani, Vaibhav Aggarwal, Nandan Karn, Mridul Malpotra, Prabhanjan Sharma, Chaithanya Ram , Ashish Gaur, Arpit Kubadia , Karan Singh, Vipin Basia , Pooja Ghodke , Swati Kushwaha, Pankaj Sahu , Ganesh PatilJitendra Pathariya, Mark Edburg, Pallavi RakhVinayaki Pillai

Does India’s Daughter documentary lower India’s image to the world?