Criticism of "God is not great by Eastern View"

This is one of the burning books which I always wanted to read. International bestseller which challenge directly to the god and laid the path of rationality in front of young generation to think beyond the box of religious teaching and fairly land. Question of God is one of the debatable subject in realm of philosopher and intellectuals. Its an debate which has taken thousand bloody bath and taken many lives to reach at the age of reasoning where we can ask this question without slaughtering and burning anyone .
The Question which is most mysterious and unpleasant to many theist “Does God Exist?”
In Line with Book, Hitchens start the book his early experience of church and religious teaching. he also tried to “Drill” that he was trying hard to understand the relation between ever loving God and diversity of nature. But the clicking thought in his mind comes when he has been understand the scientific reason of diversity and nature.
“Religion Poison everything” The Motto of this book. Hitchens was bacon of atheism for young’s and he lived for his cause to prove that religion certainly poison everything around him. In chapter two, Hitchens says, religion kills Kafirs and heathens. I am 100% agree with him, the most felonious crime is done by religion is killing of other faith under establishment of world wise single religion. He mentioned the example of Jews killing in middle age by roman catholic, muslims killed jews and Christ follower during Islamic conquest to the Europe and Africa. An approximate calculation of killing  by Islamic invaders in India is more than +400 Millions Hindus in time of 600 years.He has given example of Mother Teresa (Recently awarded as saint by Vatican Pope) who converted thousands of poor Bengalis in name of social service. she was famous to say this to Hindus “If you need health you must consider Jesus is only savior , another wise you can died under your filthy idol gods”. She was once flew to Irish for propagating that divorce shall not be consider under state law (while she herself was victim of abusing husband). Hitchens explain how Saddam Hessian used religion to kill Kurdish and Shia of Iran’s. How Iran’s killed Sunni Minorities in Tehran and Pakistan who declare ahamdia is Kefir’s by Law and ethnical killed them with Hindus, Christen and Sikhs.
Why Hitchens is so apologetic about Islam? Why he has given intellectual feed to aggression under this religion?
In chapter “Koran is Borrowed by Christens and Judaism”, Hitchens describe one of the talk with an christen group who were talking about aggressive Islamic attitude towards other faith. Suddenly, Hitches gave an excuse that “Islam is comparatively young religion hence tends to be aggressive to other faith”. No !! I don’t agree with Hitchens, the most young religion is “Sikhism” and Trust me they are most respected and open minded people on Earth. They are not aggressive. I don’t like that idea of that kind of  intellectual feed. In this chapter, Hitchens look soft on people of Middle east faith but rhetorically bashed christen again and again. I know, the history of christen is full of murder and killings but I think now their aggression in decline (except some institute who support Christen terrorism in Africa and South Asia Including GOA).
Criticism on “The God is not Great”
Things which are factually wrong in “God is not Great “about India and Hinduism
1) Krishna is born by virgin Devaki –
This is one of the fact which mentioned in Book and utterly wrong. Krishna was born by Vashudev and Devaki, they both were married that time. Even prophecy of Kansa death by Devaki eight child is professed by Sages on day of her marriage with Vashudev.
2) Buddha was born side of her mother’s flank What I have understand with that line, writer tried to say, Buddha was also result of virgin birth.
This is also factually wrong, he was born like normal human name Rajkumar Siddhartha and the day he born her mother seen a dream that Aravatas (Indra’s white elephant or symbols of Vishnu) is entering her womb.
3) Hindus refrain to Cow for hate of that animal and they have some jingoism about Cow.
This is true, Hindu refrain to eat beef and cow but the reason behind is not hate for that animal. Cow is most respected animal in India . India was land of agriculture, there is festival in every state where cow has given special importance because of Her nature of Non Violence or usefulness . However, still India export largest quantity of beef all around the world.
4) Indian Congress was lead by pious Hindus, That was become reason of Muslim dominant Pakistan (Page 20) –
No !! Indian congress was lead by Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs and Dalit leaders. Indian congress at his time of formation was not lead by Gandhi, But a Punjabi Sindhi who later forget by INC. INC (Indian National Congress) get movement under Gandhi and Nehru which is closely linked with Mullana and Ambedkar and Patel. The reason behind Pakistan formation was religious rather than Hindus leadership of India. Mohammad Jinnah (who certainly famous for eating beef and un-Islamic activities) who was that time a close allied to Gandhi betrayed him and taken fees for supporting him by Khilafat movement (which was against British Army capturing of Turky Khalifa or attack on Ottoman empire). Jinnah called a Mass election in which almost 85% Muslim voted for a new state which shall be under Dar-ul-Islam (State power under Islamic law) but India was Dar-Ul-Harab (State power under Kafirs). Hitchens assumption that India was split due to Hindu leadership is wrong.
5) Mr. Bal Thakray (Hindu Nationalist) run the government and change the name of Bombay to Mumbai –
This is also partially true. Mr. Bal Thakray was Hindu nationalist but not Hindu fanatic. His emergence in Bombay as political  power and Goons in reaction of Muslim dominant and ransacking of Underworld run by Dawood Ibrahim. Dawood played a demonic role in mid 1983’s in Bombay. he opened many drug cartels and ammunition gang to destabilized the state and center government of India. This leads some people to take shelter under Bal Thakray who eradicate the drug cartels and ammunition gang of Dawood in Bombay. His popularity attract many political party and he elected as MP for the state and control things around him. He never offended Muslims of Mumbai and Mumbra except after Dawood planned 1993 Bomb blast. The proposal of changing name of state come along with Madras to Chennai and Calcutta to Kolkata by secular Indian National congress not by Hindu nationalist.
6) Why Christopher Hitchens is Wrong about Gandhi- Example of extreme atheism?
Moreover, I am a sharp critics of Gandhi policy about India and his manic thinking of alone Non Violence can save a human against atrocities. But I have to disagree with Hitchens when he fictionally think about Gandhi which is utterly inaccurate fact.

“To state the matter shortly: he wanted India to revert to a village dominated and primitive spiritual society, he made power sharing with Muslim much harder, and he was quite prepared to make hypocritical use of violence when he thought it might suit them.”  page 182

The idea purpose by Gandhi “Ram-Rajya” was not spiritual idea of a village. Little knowledge of Hitchens about Ramayana lead writer to this conculsion that Gandhi was talking about some village of pagon with high spirituality. while, Ram-Rajya mentioned in Ramayana is consider as a mythical state where no one will be above and below in social order in terms of wealth, health and education. its also consider by Gandhi to eradicate the cast systems in India. Muslims never participated in movement till the time British try to eliminate the kalifa of turkey. They only helped against British for revenge of their kalifa and took payback in form of a religious state. This accusation is blind and biased because Gandhi can purpose anything but not violence.

“…Muslims enjoyed protection under British Raj, not a privilege one but they are not willing to give this protection to a large Hindu societies…..”  Page 182
“The wheel-which still appears as the symbols on Indian constitution party flag-was emblem of Gandhi’s rejection of modernity…” page 183
“…Nehru was secular…” Page 183

The above mentioned line again shows the little knowledge of subject is very dangerous. Muslims never enjoyed protection from British because never care about Hindu-Muslims rights and protection ever. This divide was helpful them to took control from Hindu kings and Muslims kings in diff area. Most of the time they propagate the riots as blocking Gandhi non violence protest. Second, the track records of Hindus was never dominating, example when Mugals controlled India, they were only 10% of Hindu population but No Hindus majority even bother Muslims that time. After Independence of 1947, its also clear that in majority of Hindus area Muslims growth rate was 32% while in Islamic nation its reduced to 2% after 60 years.
Again the conception is wrong of hitches when he said, emblem of Gandhi was rejection of modernity. The real reason of that emblem was “self manufacturing”. This emblem was created when Gandhi call for rejection of British made cloths which was big part of their loot. British banned the Local manufacturer to create cloths and forced them to sell raw material in marginal rate so they can resell Indians cloths is higher rate. which cause problem to a large community known as “Julaha” or “Fabric maker”. Against this banned Gandhi told people to use this emblem at every home. He also did same for himself all of his life.
Last. Nehru was secular…No !! Nehru was communist (which is inline with Hitchens Ideology, so he never mentioned how Nehru policy create a loosen damage to India in name of “Act 370 of India” and his decision of Loosing claim from “Akshay Chin”. Gandhi introduce the reservation politics and give special rights to minority for vote bank tact’s. He abolish Hindu law in name of secularism but forget to abolish Muhammad Law (Shariya) and Christen law. Wow !! What a secularism.
7) There is No eastern Solution
Ironically, again this chapter Hitchens tried to use the European analogy on Buddhist and Hindus. He literally take any word which is talking about disagreement with others as radical. which I don’t find the right analogy.
First he state that, Shri means -Holy “No” its not, its mean “Respected” like “Sir” in English. He wrote “Bhagwan” means “God”, Again a Big “No”, its means something equal to divine. This is most general misconception amongst scholar to consider Bhagwan or Dev as God because in daily non scholarly hindu life its used as  “God”. While if Hitchens took some help from traditional they can easily told him that,
Iswara/Brahman is God in Hinduism
while Avatar/Dev/Bhagwan/Sur/Devta/Prabhu/Arya is simple means either Nobel or partial divine. The reason its become common because of destruction of Vedic schools. Although I am 100% agree on his assessment on “Osho” life and acts.
The Second point which made by Hitchens, He tried to conceptualized that Second world war atrocities was result of Buddhists neo fascism about Shinto ideology. I must say, I am not agree with Hitchens his assessment in this section. In Page 199, Hitchens consider that, The bloody bath of Sinhalese and Tamils was responsible by their religious ideology while  Hitchens ignore all the indological theory which materialized during colonisation as different race and native-oppressive analogy on Sinhalese by Tamils.
Sin of Colonization
In blunt attempt of disowning the religion Hitchens also, suspect the Dalai lama ideology (although he accept he is secular, but don’t like his idea of being heavenly). Hitchens criticized the Dalai lama for calling himself “heavenly king of Tibet”. I agree with him, he shouldn’t call this but Hitchens unable to see the far (may be fabricated) hope give by Dalai lama to the oppressed people of Tibet.
As a propagator of Buddhism I teach “all sentient beings have Buddha nature: and than “within Dharma there is equality with neither superior not inferior”. Further more, I teach all sentient being is my children. having taken these golden words as the basis of my faith, I discovered that they are in complete agreement with principle of socialism. (Page 201)
Gudo, a celebrated Japanese Buddhist
Do you see any thing communal and attacking in above line?
I can not see but Hitchens can see…he see “Buddha”, Hitchens criticism using Buddha as sentient nature is seems his arrogance over socialism. Many Communist-Westerner-Socialist think they have invented the socialism while I don’t think so, socialism is discovered by Buddha and lord Rama also but in foundry of religious and customary boundary. Anyone can disagree because attaching worship with social values is flaw analogy. In Ramayana, Ram Rajya is not about worshiping of Rama but a state where equality and justice is prime motto. Don’t you think its sounds like socialism?
Disclaimer: My criticism doesn’t justified Eastern Solution, because I know, fundamentals of east or west is utterly different. Eastern See Sex, Nature, Womanhood divine and worship able while west see Sex as a taboo, nature as a instrument and Womanhood divinity as a Sin and act of devil (Heathens or Kafirs).
8) Hindus offers human scarifies in form of “Satti”. or strongly suggested “suicide” of widows
This is one of the fake attempt by western Ideologist portrayed Hinduism as bloodiest cult. First “Sati” is only confined to Rajasthan Rajpoot community (which is fraction of whole India population). This customs of self immolation is started by Queen Padamavati who was self immolate her along with another 1600 Rajputana women for saving themselves from being rape by Mugal army. from that day, it has become customs for every self righteous women to take decision of self immolation, in later stage become harsh customs. This is true, widows were second class citizen in India till independence but its everywhere all around the world. Hitchens also wrong in this assumptions.
9) Hitchens says “-most notably Hindu-were limited in time. A sinner, for example might be sentenced to a given of years in hell, where everyday counted as 64,00 human years. if slew a priest, the sentence adjusted would be 1,49,504,000,000 years. (page 219)”
This is another classical example of misinformation of atheist given by so called western Indologist. Let’s see. First Hinduism doesn’t indorse idea of hell till 10 AD, after 13 AD it has been added in Puranas which is almost famous idea of “Dante Alighieri-Inferno”. Hindus doesn’t quantified Heaven and hell but an state of eternal peace called it Nirwana or Moksha. Heaven and hell is western imprint over Hinduism philosophy. Now What mistake Hitches makes is that he co-relate the Hindu Unit of time with hell sentence. which utterly wrong. Hindu Units of Time (in Brahma Purana, which calculate time 1/35 of a second to astronomical age of universe which 3.11 trillion human years) is very different subject from hell of ages. Hindu philosophy clearly suggest that, “there is no hell and heaven but an eternal cycle of birth or rebirth till the humans reach Nirwana by good karma”.
I do not hate atheist because they are pure in heart and conviction but  Western Ideologist is most crooked intellectual ever been in Human history of existence.
10) No reference for chapter 14 “There is Eastern Solution”
I wonder, How Hitchens get all information about the Eastern religion. ironically, I do not find a single reference point about above mentioned comment which Hitchens makes in his book about Hindus and India.