Why is Israel betraying India?

Dear Misters Pundit, Raghubeer, and Someshwar-

You have a valid point to make. Pakistan is at best a dubious ally. It is not worth permanently alienating India over. (Although we suggest Indians consider the strategic reasons in the war on terrorism for Israel and the USA's overtures to this nation).

But we have a similar comment to make concerning India's national government: why is India betraying its own people by cutting petroleum deals with Iran, a government known to be at least as dangerously fanatical as Pakistan? Imagine the dangers posed by an oil pipeline flowing from Iran to India and increased oil revenues for Tehran. But it could happen--soon. Is it worth the risks of India's increased exposure to jihad warfare?

We think not.

India and Israel are natural allies.
Pakistan is irrelevant.
Both India and Israel will make the appropriate noises re Pakistan.
Does anyone really think Musharaf has the power to buck the islamic 'powers that be' in his country. I'm amazed that he's still alive.

Q: Why is Israel betraying India?

A: Because they're smart and they know what a fickle friend India can be.

India wants military know-how from the best foreign sources, so who do they go to? The Republic of Equatorial Guinea? Brazil? Italy? - No, obviously they go to the best, viz the USA and Israel, in order to teach their troops how to shoot straight and gain the best weaponry. To view India sniffing around the superb US and Israeli armies for ideas and equipment, as nothing less than self interest, is somewhat naive. With 180 million Muslims to worry about within their borders, they simply can't vote for Israeli interests - ever. India is the world's 2nd largest Muslim country for Pete's sake.

Indeed, far from being hard on Islam, they have quite happily allowed the northeast to be swamped with Bangladeshi immigrants simply because they vote Congress and water down the racially and culturally distinct (hence troublesome) tribal nature of the area. Assam, a once staunch Hindu stronghold which valiantly fought off the Moguls, now has the largest growing Muslim populace in India! It's up to about 40% Muslim now. Meghalaya, a once Christian stronghold, now sees that 1 in 5 babies born in the state are Muslim. This demographic shift is caused by illegal Bangladeshi immigration which the Indian government has done NOTHING about for 50 years, and they have done nothing because it suited them to do nothing.

India has always had a somewhat childish foreign policy. It seems incapable of understanding that foreign nations can be equally friendly towards Pakistan AND India. Yet they always see any friendliness towards Pakistan as a direct affront to themselves, as if the whole world must take sides in their sordid little border issue.

Kashmir was given over to a puppet Hindu Maharaja so that the local people and government would never unite against the British. It was cynical and very artificial, but from the British point of view it was cost effective and a good short term-fix. For Nehru to have taken this puppet ruler as the legitimate voice of Kashmir was incredibly hypocritical considering everything he had said about feudalism and British gubernatorial institutions. Anyway, to cut a long story short, despite Kashmir being majority Muslim, and despite it having already been agreed that the majority Muslim areas would be integrated into the new Pakistan, India suddenly (and conveniently) recognizes the local quisling as being the legitimate political voice of Kashmir and annexed half of it at his whim! A guaranteed recipe for future strife! They made their bed, now they whine because they have to lie in it.

To be quite honest, I cry no tears for Muslims, they have heaped so much misery on the world that they deserve much of what they get, but it amazes me that India did this very underhanded deed some sixty years ago, something that was bound to cause them future problems, and then, when it goes wrong (as was always going to be the case) they expect, nay, demand, that the rest of the world remain in a permanent sulk with Pakistan.

As an interesting aside, at around about the same time, the Muslim maharaja of Hyderabad did not want to join the Republic of India; indeed his state was so big that it would have been viable as an independent nation. I do not think that India was wrong in crushing his separatist aspirations, but what is quite funny is that their main argument was that he did not represent his people, and it was up to the people to decide their fate. If that was good for Hyderabad, why wasn't it good for Kashmir?
The answer is that they didn't give a damn about rules; they just wanted to grab as much land as possible, as the Christian Nagas were also to find out.

Look at their invasion of the sovereign independent state Sikkim in the 70's. Nepali immigrants (who were in the majority) were rioting, so the Indian Army moved in, and gave the outsiders the vote, who of course voted to be part of India so they would get some local power and recognition. Then they lowered the Sikkimese flag forever. The invasion was a disgrace.

There are other examples of Indian imperialism, but needless to say, it's a big mistake to buy into this Gandhian myth of Indian pacifism and generous good will - they are as bad as the Chinese, Russians, or anybody else, and should be treated with great caution. (The main difference being that the average Russian or Chinaman doesn't have 6 children).

The Indian government are just corrupt scum bags, they always have been. The self same Congress Party used to pander to the Soviet Union - have you all forgotten this?

Jihad vs. appeasement

So here is what India will be faced with in the not too distant future. The state we now call Pakistan will be whittled down to Punjab and the regions east of the Indus River, struggling to protect itself from the forces of unruly frontiers controlled by warlords great and small in search of loot. This is what institutional meltdown will amount to. By one of those coincidences of history, this institutional meltdown in Pakistan is paralleled by a meltdown in the Indian intellectual establishment. It is a sobering reminder of the bankruptcy of the Indian (Leftist) intellectual establishment that this fundamental analysis of the problem of Pakistan and its consequences comes from a Western reporter in far off America and not anyone in India.

The behavior of the Indian intelligentsia may be compared to Nero fiddling when Rome was burning; they would rather carry candles to the Wagah border and ask for appeasing the Pakistani establishment than inform the public with a realistic appraisal of the primal nature of the forces of fear and hatred that are burning across the border. It is an unhappy fact that the Indian intelligentsia has offered little more than appeasement of hostile forces in one guise or another. It is worth recalling that Gandhiji himself failed with his appeasement policy, not once but repeatedly, beginning with the Khilafat Movement and ending with the Partition. Kuldip Nayar, for example, who has become the leading spokesman for appeasement, is unlikely to succeed where Gandhiji failed. The breakdown of reason in Pakistan is paralleled by a similar breakdown in India. The dogma of Jihad has its counterpart in the dogma of appeasement. Fortunately their days are numbered. The meltdown in Pakistan will consume its advocates in India also. What is needed therefore is a new way of looking at the problem— one rooted in ground realities rather than fantasy.

http://voi.org/books/cpak/ch1.html

The meeting between a single Pakistani diplomat, and a single Israeli diplomat -- both pushed to it, no doubt, by the American government, that allows itself to believe that this act "means something," should be seen as what it was -- nothing at all. The meeting was not "the start of something"; the Pakistanis feel they have earned a point from the Americans, and have no intention of recognizing Israel, ever, even if they now state that they will think about doing so but only once "the West Bank, Jerusalem, etc." are surrendered to the "Palestinian" Arabs -- i.e. to the shock troops of the Arab and Muslim jihad against Israel.

As for the Israelis, they have never wished to, never been able to, recognize the nature of the opposition to them. This was as true for the clear-headed Jabotinsky, who recognized that only an "Iron Wall" of resistance would cause the Arabs, implacably opposed to a Jewish state, not to cease to oppose it but to cease to make violent war upon it.

But Jabotsinky wrote of "Arabs" and "Jews" not of "Muslims" opposed for perfectly comprehensible Muslim reasons, to an Infidel nation-state. And the European-born elite that ran Israel had no experience of, and failed to inquire into, the nature of Islam and the treatment of non-Muslims under Muslim rule. So many Israelis were busy fighting, or busy creating a state, or busy rescuing and integrating a gigantic in-gathering of completely wretched, dispossessed, and from such Arab countries as Yemen, quite primitive and illiterate refugees, that they did not stop to study Islam.

And during the 1960s and 1970s, there were alliances of mutual interest and shared antipathies (to the Arabs) with Iran and then, a bit later, with Turkey. The Shah of Iran was willing to ignore the Shari'a stipulations as to the treatment of non-Muslims; he was hardly influenced by Islam, being little more than a "Muslim-for-identification-purposes-only" Muslim, which helped to explain both his virtues, from our point of view, and his inability to recognize that in the villages, Khomeini's appeal was great; it was good that the Shah was secular, unfortunate that he was also vain and weak. In the end, the monstrous Khomeini and his monsrous regime replaced him, and while this was mainly an internal disaster, it also had its effects in foreign policy. The nascent alliance with Israel came to an abrupt end; the alliance with the PLO (Arafat had been instrumental in putting Khomeini on the throne, and he was the first visitor to Khomeini welcomed in Teheran).

The "alliance" with Turkey, which was such a fixed idea just a few years ago, has also suffered as Islam itself reconquers Turkey -- reconquers because the army has been prevented from stepping in to smash it, and because Erdogan and his Justice Party have been clever in how they have gone about reversing or limiting the Kemalist measures undertaken to constrain Islam as a political and social force. And here too, while the main victims have been within Turkey, that "alliance" with Israel has been damaged, even ended -- by the new attitude of the Turksih government and, more surpisingly, the attitudes expressed all over the Turksih press, not only about Israel, but about the United States and Europe. Those who expected something better from secular Turks may be a s shocked as was the Pentagon (which had no excuse, unlike the rest of us who are mere citizens) when the Turkish government refused to allow a fourth American division to enter Iraq from bases in Turkey.

Thus, in its desire for alliances that came to naught, and out of the ignorance of its ruling elites, and out of the desperate desire to believe that the conflict with the "Palestinians" really is not about the rleigiously-inspired requirement that no Infidel sovereign state be permitted anywhere within dar al-Islam (or, ultimately, anywhere in the world), Israel has failed, adn continues to fail, to analyze its own (permanent, but manageable) problem and the ill-considered policies that recognition of this Jihad, what might be called the Lesser Jihad (the Greater Jihad being that against the entire Infidel world), might have avoided.

And what is more, had the Israelis from the beginning, from the late 1940s and early 1950s, understood and articulated the reasons for Arab opposition to their country -- long before the "Palestinian" people were invented after 1967 - they would have received far more sympathy, as the permanent underdog facing an implacable enemy, but pressure on them to give up territory in an impossible attempt to placate (the Qur'an, the Hadith, the Sira do NOT say "accept the Infidels and their states when they are willing to give up some territory" or anything like it).

And what is more, had the European elites, had their press and television, instead of forgetting that Israel was in the right, instead of ignoring the terms and purpose of the Mandate for Palestine, instead of being completely unaware of the mistreatment of all non-Muslims and especially the Jews (nearly a million of whom fled Arab lands from 1948-1960, with more coming from Iran after Khomeini's resistible rise, they might not only have refused to succumb so easily to the anti-Israel propaganda which is both supported by, and in turn helps to promote, antisemitism (antisemitism and anti-Israel sentiments are mutually reinforcing -- each helps promote the other), but just as important, would have been sufficiently alerted as to the nature of Islam itself to be careful not to permit, as they have for the last three decades, virtually unopposed, undiscussed, uncontroversial, the migration to Western Europe of millions of Muslims who now, in their attitudes (which arise naturally out of the teachings of Islam) represent a clear, and permanent threat to the wellbeing of all Infidels in their own lands.

That could have been stopped. But the failure of the Israelis to grasp the nature of their enemy, and hence to articulate positions, and policies, that would be based on a realistic assessment of Islam, has had terrible consequences for Israel, and for the rest of the Infidel world. Had the Lesser Jihad been properly identified as such, and the Western media become educated as to the nature of Islam in time, then the Greater Jihad, now funded by OPEC trillions, and aided by two other developments -- the Muslims permitted to settle behind what they regard, and treat, as enemy lines, and the technological developments that help the diffusion of Muslim tenets beyond the Five Pillars of individual worship, to the lowliest Muslim villager in the remotest Muslim village.

Does India's diplomatic ties with Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iran and Egypt threaten Israel?

This article is very immature - the Israelis are no dupes and they should be free to pursue diplomatic relations with any regime they choose to - India and Israel are both democracies and understand that - I am yet to see an article by a Jewish leader calling for India to please dont upset Israeli feelings by having ties with those enemies of Israel.

Israel knows how the game is played - and an Israeli diplomatic presence in Pakistan strengthens Israel - not least of all because of the scope it provides for intelligence and security and Mossad to get a base right in the middle of the nest of Islamist vipers.

Israel cannot be duped - it is playing the game - let it play.

"warlords great and small in search of loot"

Kinda like a whole slew of little mohammuds.

Timbo i believe ur hatred of India stems from its step motherly handling of North Eastern states. Thats another matter. But you simply cant draw parallels between Kashmir and Hyderabad. Hyderabad was a state as big as South Africa right in the Heart of India. It had abt 90% Hindu majority. The ppl of Hyderabad didnt relate to themselves as Hyderabadis but as Indians. Muslim terrorist organisation called Razakars started a campaign of violence against Hindus to beat them into submission hecne Hyderabad was taken by force. Kashmir did not become Indian state in 1947 it has been Indian since eternity. Kashmir houses some of the most important pilgrimage centres of Hinduism. In 1947 only 56% Kashmiris were Muslims. The state also included Hindu majority Jammu and Buddhist majority Ladakh. India was never built upon Hinduism. It is a union of states each with its own unique culture who've have been related to each other since past 2500 years. As for the Bangladeshi problem, its not a northeastern problem, whole of India suffers from it. Blame the Indian government not the Indians. North-Eastern states may have a credible right for independence. But it is not viable considering their size. Moreover Nagas,Kashis,Manipuris etc all tend to fight with each other.

they always see any friendliness towards Pakistan as a direct affront to themselves

What? Indian government hasnt even commented on this issue. This article has been written by a Canadian. Its not about taking sides Timbo. Most of the people doesnt care about Hindu deaths. India having relations with Iran is unaaceptable whilst America hands over $3 billion to Pakistan which no doubt will be used in Jihad against India. World looks towards self-serving Mush as a reformist quitely ignoring his ISI past. As for the A.Q Khan affair, I still havent figured out how world bought Pakistan's incredible story. Give Pakistan nother decade or two, we'd find Pakistan a bigger menance. Ignore Pakistan's Jihadi credentials & in long term whole world will suffer. Kashmir the very soul of India its fountainhead. Its not abt Religion. India had as many moonbats as Pakistan. If Kashmir's case for independence is separate cultural identity then every other state in Union should have same rights... India is made up of Ppl with conflicting nationalisms which can easily tear it apart. If Kashmir goes so shall India...

Overlooked point:

India's government today is cutting huge petro-deals with Iran.

Second overlooked point (by India):

Iran, of course, is run by dangerously fanatical mullahs, and is India's natural enemy.

Iran currently is believed to be harboring al-Qaeda terrorists (and may actually be employing them). some of you out there may know al-Qaeda was created in Pakistan in 1988 SPECIFICALLY TO DESTROY INDIA!!!!!! And of course, Iran is (or may even now have) THE ATOMIC BOMB.

By doing business with Iran (get this, India is considering building an oil pipeline leading from Iran to India, perhaps cutting across Pakistan), India is visibly playing a game of Russian roulette. And if India finds itself immersed in a catastrophic war with the Islamicized nations, it will be entirely its own doing (to state the obvious). And it will find itself in a mess that even the United States won't be able to extricate it from--India will be on its own. And it could even mean a nuclear showdown with Pakistan or Iran (or whatever other Islamic whackjob of a country gets the bomb next).

India won't be able to say it wasn't warned.

Timbo:

what weaponry...India was offered F16's which are inferior to MIG29's leave alone SU-30MKI's.F22 under-prod^n US wont sell it any country in the near future and rightly so.

Pythagoras, the only reason India is friendly with is Iran is because it is probably the only Muslim country which has supported India on Kashmir. OIC is Pakistan's fiefdom. Pakistan is assured atleast 50 votes in hate-India resolutions at UN. Moreover at that no major country except Russia and Iran have condemned terrorism in Kashmir... I've no love for Iran, especialy since i'm British but India has been really driven up to the wall.

Quote:Iran currently is believed to be harboring al-Qaeda terrorists

Pakistan is also believed to be harbouring world half the population of terrorists. But who cares? Let the Hindus face 'em.

Quote:Iran currently is believed to be harboring al-Qaeda terrorists

Pakistan is also believed to be harbouring world's half the population of terrorists including Uncle Osama himself. But who cares? Let the Hindus face 'em.

Timbo and Hugh, I congratulate you on your reponses to the article. The USA is also another state trying to be friendly with both India and Pakistan at the same time, and there's nothing wrong with it.

Possibly the Pakistani government's willingness to extend feelers to Israel marks as well a willingness to face down the Islamicist uglies at home--but only time will tell.

FTR, I respect India and wish her well.

Vikrant--

Why is it wrong for Pakistan to be harboring al-Qaeda terrorists and not Iran? Essentially, you are giving Iran a free pass for doing the same thing Pakistan is doing.

It doesn't matter whether India has 'been driven up the wall' or not. Iran and other Middle Eastern nations will launch jihad attacks against India as willfully as Pakistan will. To believe anything else is delusional thinking. Islamic ideology operates the same in Pakistan as in Iran, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, etcetera. Islamic ideology is a nemesis of India's wherever it exists. And India is very foolish to be making lucrative (for the Iranian government)deals with islamic governments like Iran's--which in this case most assuredly is NOT due to Iran's backing of India in the Kashmir conflict. India is pursuing industrial growth and Iran is a source of cheap oil supplies. And that is the issue which you have dodged here.

Did it ever occur to you that Iran is playing both sides across the middle with India on the issue of Kashmir? Iran may CLAIM to be supporting India's side in the Kashmir conflict, but how difficult would it be for those mullahs to be secretly backing the jihad in Kashmir and elsewhere in the subcontinent at the same time? India faces jihad fronts elsewhere (as in Assam)besides Kashmir, and it may be possible that Iran backs these much as it does similar conflicts throughout sub-Saharan Africa. After all, Iran is thought by many intelligence agencies to be the largest exporter of Islamic Holy War (terrorism) activities in the world--ahead of Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt. I certainly wouldn't be giving Iran a free pass, much less cutting multi-billion petroleum deals with it (which is what India is doing).

Thus India will likely get exactly the same thing from Iran it gets from Pakistan, although maybe differently.

Had you read my original text carefully you would note that I am saying it is a mistake for India to do business with Iran, which is as notorious for exporting Islamic terror as your much-despised neighbor, Pakistan. And I remain convinced of it.

Pythagoras, I'm not Indian myself, I'm British. My point is that Pakistan is a bigger menance than Iran yet nobody cares... If it is alright for USA to have a "strategic" partnership with Pakistan then whats wrong with India-Iran oil pipe?

Timbo as for Sikkim. The people of Sikkim voted to join Indian Union. Even if many of them were Nepali migrants they lived in Sikkim. China lays claim on Indian states of Sikkim,Arunachal Pradesh, Ladakh (J&K) and Indian Protectorate of Bhutan. India infact preserves the Indo-Tibetean Buddhist culture. Timbo you talk about migrants from other Indian states in North East. Indian govt cant bar its own citizens from setteling in Indian territory. The same way our goverment cant bar us from setteling in Wales or Scotland. Most non-Hindi Indian states have been flooded by Hindi migrants. Govenment cant tell them to go back, can it?

Puting restrictions on internal migrations will simply break India apart.

BTW Pythagoras, by any standards, Pakistan is the biggest exporter of Jihad not Iran. Look at the things they teach in their public schools. All the world is tld abt the "tiny minority" of extremists in NWPF. But the 7/7 bombers got their indoctrination in Lahore which in Punjab the very heart of Pakistan. Pakistan has been allowed to go scot free with whole sale genocides of Hindus & Sikhs in 1947 and 1971 (in Bangladesh). World seems to remember the holocaust. But nobdy seems to remember the mass murder of 300000 Hindus and Sikhs and ethnic cleansing of estimated 12 million Hindus and Sikhs. Pakistan is home to largest no. of terror camps in world. More than 250 at last count. Mush is there to serve himself. Dan Pearl wasnt killed because he was a Jew, but because he learned abt the complicity of Pakistani ISI in terrorism. Read "Who Killed Daniel Pearl?"

Timbo calls India "imperialist" and as bad as Ruskies or Chinese. But by same twisted logic almost all countries are imperialist. US has Hawaii, we've Northern Ireland, French have Corsica and Basque country, Austrialians have "undremined" the tribal integrity of aborigines same way as Indians are supposed to have. The list is endless. Yes indeed many countries do have communities within them who have every right for a sovereign state but no country would willingly allow them to get lose. I'm itrested in knowing about other examples of India "imperialism".

P.S If India'd only wanted to grab land they'd have never cut Pakistan loose.

P.P.S Sorry for multiple posts.

Timbo:

To view India sniffing around the superb US and Israeli armies for ideas and equipment, as nothing less than self interest.

One question? For example, what ideas can US/Israel give us for fighting on Siachen Glacier? Be careful, I have the comments of US troops and airmen who were there on joint Indo-US exercise. You can have an 'idea' to fight on a terrain but it is vastly different from how fighting is done on the ground. Israel/India are a case in point. Israel's defending its borders from Palestinian terrorists is opposite to how India defends her
borders in Kashmir. Reason being, Kashmir is a jungled, mountainous terrain and the same 'idea', applied by Israel, won't work. Not even the equipment is same. e.g. Hand-held thermal imagers are excellent for open terrain in Israel but not reliable in mountains. 'Ideas' cannot be copy-pasted in war-situations. I'm 100% sure
that US strategy in Iraq has evolved by the day/month. Only thing constant is change. Israel and US are excellent armies....yes, they are.

Indian 'imperialism'
We are just like everybody else :)

This demographic shift is caused by illegal Bangladeshi immigration which the Indian Government has done NOTHING about for 50 years, and they have done nothing because it suited them to do nothing....
The Indian government are just corrupt scum bags
Only points in your write-up that make sense. Rest is just venting your 'air' and 'ideas'.

Israel or any other country establishing contacts with other countries is their wish and I've yet to come across Indian govt's criticizing/congratulating Israel. I know how Israel has survived even when surrounded by its enemies and it takes more than weapons to do it.

Pythagoras:

Iran is thought by many intelligence agencies to be the largest exporter of Islamic Holy War (terrorism) activities

9/11(Al-Qaeda), Madrid(Al-Qaeda), London (Al-Qaeda), Kashmir(Pak) ...All of these point to Pakistan, Saudi, Morocco..where does Iran fit in here? I fail to understand is how can Iran work alongside Saudis who are hellbent on countering Iran's radical Islam with their own two-bit,moth-infested Wahabbi Islam?

India is pursuing industrial growth and Iran is a source of cheap oil supplies.
Absolutely correct. Should we buy oil from Saudis, Kuwait, other ME countries? The price of oil is constant and there is no such thing like cheap oil in todays world. All Oil-producing countries use oil as a weapon with which to achieve political goals.

Iran may CLAIM to be supporting India's side in the Kashmir conflict, but how difficult would it be for those mullahs to be secretly backing the jihad in Kashmir and elsewhere in the subcontinent at the same time?India faces jihad fronts elsewhere (as in Assam)besides Kashmir, and it may be possible that Iran backs these
Kashmir terrorism is funded by Saudis, al-Qaeda through Pakistan and American Muslim organizations.

Vikrant--

I don't know where you got the idea 'nobody cares' that Pakistan is rogue country. That borders on silly. I certainly am worried about it. The US government is concerned about it. What it looks like to ME is that the US government officials are trying to defuse it in their own way. Even though it appears to be a lost cause, the carrot should come before the stick.

But certainly, it doesn't matter to me whether one is a bigger menace than the other.

What matters is that the Iranian government and Pakistan are BOTH menaces to the rest of the world. That is all we should care about. If you wish to prioritize one over the other that is OK by me. But Iran and pakistan are BOTH dangerous.

Quote: I don't know where you got the idea 'nobody cares' that Pakistan is rogue country. That borders on silly. I certainly am worried about it. The US government is concerned about it.

You're tellin this to a guy who lost a substantial part of his family in Pakistan during the partition. If USA had really cared, they wouldnt be giving Pakistan F-16's and $3 billion. If its OK for USA to have friendly relations with a government of country which is the biggest supporter of jihad.

Pakistan has been allowed to get away with the massacres of 1947 and 1971 (when 1 million Hindus were slaughtered in Bangladesh), when India went to rescue of Bangladeshis US rewarded it by sending Fleet 7 in Bay of Bengal to help Pakistan.

Since 1989 the jihad has killed 60000 of my people but no one i repeat no one has ever cared to condemn Pakistan nor cared abt the fact that Pakistan trains and arms nearly 20000 jihadis for Jihad in India and Afghanistan per year. The present govt in Delhi is a sell out to 150 million Indian Muslims who without exceptions vote Congress. This govt makes peace with Pakistan even as Hindus get killed in Kashmir and else where in India.

It has recently come to light that a Pakistani Minister was a mujahid (check June archives here). Even after this Pakistan is a MNNA (Major Non-Nato Ally).

Quote: I don't know where you got the idea 'nobody cares' that Pakistan is rogue country. That borders on silly. I certainly am worried about it. The US government is concerned about it.

You're tellin this to a guy who lost a substantial part of his family in Pakistan during the partition. If USA had really cared, they wouldnt be giving Pakistan F-16's and $3 billion. If its OK for USA to have friendly relations with a government of country which is the biggest supporter of jihad.

Pakistan has been allowed to get away with the massacres of 1947 and 1971 (when 1 million Hindus were slaughtered in Bangladesh), when India went to rescue of Bangladeshis US rewarded it by sending Fleet 7 in Bay of Bengal to help Pakistan.

Since 1989 the jihad has killed 60000 of my people but no one i repeat no one has ever cared to condemn Pakistan nor cared abt the fact that Pakistan trains and arms nearly 20000 jihadis for Jihad in India and Afghanistan per year. The present govt in Delhi is a sell out to 150 million Indian Muslims who without exceptions vote Congress. This govt makes peace with Pakistan even as Hindus get killed in Kashmir and else where in India.

It has recently come to light that a Pakistani Minister was a mujahid (check June archives here). Even after this Pakistan is a MNNA (Major Non-Nato Ally).

I'm no supporter od Iran, but if it is perfectly alright for world to b friendly with Pakistan then why not Iran?

Vikrant-

The reason is as stated it could be suicide for India. Your moral indignation is blinding you to the fact that ALL Islamic nations behave identically, albeit some are more fanatical about it than others. You refuse to examine the implications of this. And that is why you will not understand that India could be enabling the mullahs in Iran from launching Holy War against india, or accelerating existing ones against it. Does this really make sense? Just so you know, Hezbollah, the world's largest terrorism network, is an Iranian creation and is controlled by the Iranian mullahs. It is not limited in scope to Israel and Lebanon either it is GLOBAL.

You also refuse to understand that VIRTUALLY ALL Islamic nations practice genocide against their native 'infidel' populations. Whether it is Indonesians slaughtering ethnic Chinese (by the way some reports indicate that Muslim Indonesians may have slaughtered more than 2,000,000 ethnic Chinese Christians during the 1960s). In Nigeria during the 1960s, jihadists in Nigeria killed more than a million Biafrans, most of them Christian, currently in SOuthern Sudan we have witnessed the slaughter of over two million five hundred thousand Christians; in Armenia over one million five hundred thousand lost their lives in the early 1900s; in the 1930s, nearly one million Assyrians were murdered by Muslims. Some Greeks claim jihadist invaders murdered tens of millions of their people over the past several centuries. On and on it goes.

The United States cannot overnight stop a pattern that has persisted for over thirteen centuries. It is ideologically entrenched. Condemnations won't stop it either.

The United States is engaging Pakistan for the reason that it and other nations have been exporting jihad worldwide. The United States would know because there have been at least five significant terror attacks on its soil since 1990. Pakistan WAS involved. But so was practically every other Islamic country on earth.
The only thing the United States can really do is effectively limit the Islamic nations' capacity to export jihad warfare.
Whether or not you LIKE the manner in which it is going about it does not matter really. What matters is that this succeed.

What India is doing by cutting petroleum deals with Iran is enabling a terror exporter. We're not saying it's the only one. We're not saying it can't do this. What we're saying is India is handing the Islamic world the rope to hang it with.

If that's what you want. Go for it.

The u

Dear desi_singh-

"Where does Iran fit in" (in the global jihadist) "picture"? Have you heard of the terrorism network Hizbollah? I am serious.

Hizbollah is the world's largest Islamic terrorist organization. It was founded by the Iranian government (Ruhollah Khomeini) and it is controlled by the Iranian mullahs. It operates worldwide.

If you are unaware of Hizbollah it is in your interest to research it thoroughly and immediately. I am not a schoolteacher. But anyone dealing with jihad warfare is advised to understand Hezbollah--from all angles, not merely the mullahs' propaganda--and defend themselves against it. Your letter tells me you truly do not understand the global nature of jihad warfare going on currently.

It is your responsibility to know about Hizbollah. It is everyone's responsibility to do so. And I am not going to read any angry retorts and/or rantings to the contrary on this. Many jihad authorities are convinved Hebollah is MORE dangerous than al-Qaeda. Some call Hizbollah the 'A Team' of Islamic terrorism and al-Qaeda the 'B Team.' Hizbollah is Iranian. And it could attack India if it hasn't already done so. It is possible that at least some terrorism training camps in Pakistan are run by Hizbollah. Hizbollah is also behind a number of jihad wars throughout Africa including Sudan.

Do not write off Iran as a potential enemy of India's. You do not have enough information on Ianian terrorism operations to do so. You may well be wrong.

Incidentally, Hezbollah DOES collaborate with al-Qaeda. If you don't believe me, note Ousamah bin Laden's turban. Now, as you may have noticed. Saudis rarely if ever wear such turbans unless they are Shiites from the northern area of the peninsula. So, why is bin Looney Tunes wearing one? One answer is possibly as an emblem of his association with the Iranians and his being a beneficiary of their largesse....

Lets get it striaght out here. I'm not Indian nor an Iranian supporter. US is not engaging Pakistan, its engaging Mush. My point of contention is that if nations engage with Pakistan out of self-intrest then whats wrong with India engaging Iran. Nations act in self-intrest, if Israel mongers for credibility from Muslim world so does India. World is not going to get rid of this plague at this pace.
Hizbollah and Al-Qaeda may be household names, but do you know after Iraq, India suffered most no. of terror attacks in 2004. Still organisations like Lashkar-e-Toiba and Jaish-e-Mohammed are unheard of outside India. US engages Pakisan becoz it does not view these Pakistani creations as direct threat.

It seems the Anti-Hindu sentiments are alive and well. You go Timbo; tell us how much you hate us.

About Kashmir, the princely states, all 638 of them, no matter how large or small, were free to choose which nation to join, regardless of their populations.

However, when people talk about Kashmir, they should keep in mind Ladakh is Buddhist and Jammu is Hindu, which leaves the Kashmir valley, a very small but strategic piece of land with a sizeable Muslim population who is guilty of ethnically cleansing Hindus with the support of Pakistan and its allies during the early 1990’s. The name "Kashmir" also indicates its Hindu origins as a Hindu land from the Hindu sage Kashyap.

Pakistan is an illegal state created by the Cripps mission, Jamaat-i-Islami, Muslim League, and the traitors Nehru and Gandhi. If Muslims wanted not to live peacefully in India among the Hindus, then they should have left like any other invader, they should have got the hell out of Dodge (in this case Dodge being India) and went to one of their desert paradises.

First of all, Kashmir was not "Handed over” to a Puppet Maharaja, just get real, after the second Anglo-Sikh war, before 1857 was even a thought, the British were in the process of carving up the remains of Maharaja Ranjit Singh's empire (namely Afghanistan, Punjab, Sind, Baluchistan, and Kashmir). One of Ranjit Singh's former Generals, one the famous Dogra Rajput brothers, Maharaja Gulab Singh, purchased Kashmir from the British for a hefty sum and became the new Maharaja, and thus began the era of Dogra rule in the valley.

@Timbo:

Even with 180 to 220 million Muslims sitting within the borders of India, India still was able to recognize Israel as a state when a small and very brief Hindu government happened to force the issue during the very brief BJP days (although the BJP is also a bunch of wimps) back in the early 1990's when they came to power for only two weeks.

“Pakistan has never recognised the state of Israel, but its neighbour India opened diplomatic ties with Israel in 1992.”- BBC, Thursday, 1 September 2005.

There are many brave Hindus waiting for the moment to crush Jihadis and deal with the
pseudo-secular government of India. Hindus didn't survive this long on just good looks.

As for Sikkim and Bhutan:

When you discuss the "Imperialistic" nature of India and its "invasion" of neighboring countries, I guess you are better acquainted with the history of India than we Hindus are. Perhaps Hu Shih, the former chancellor of Peking University best sums up the Hindu Imperialist attitude "India ruled China for 20 centuries without sending over even one soldier".

With your statement about Sikkim, I guess we should simply hand it over to China, and since we’re at it, gift wrap Bhutan and ship it by courier to Beijing as well. I heard FedEX is pretty good.

We all know that India has been on a path of Suicide for some time now, thanks to the pseudo-elite of India and its Macaulay educated boys. However, to simply bash us without looking at that Hindus have been pushed into a corner, is sheer nonsense and shows a lack of sense for justice.

We Hindus do not have a nation to support us. We do not even have a nation to call our own, except for Nepal which is under threat right now by both Islamic and Communist Chinese infiltraitors.

India does not support Hindus, and if you think that the appeasement of Muslims is something that many Hindus accept or wish to accept, than you are sadly mistaken.

-Ayo Gorkhali

Ha ha Gorkhali Hinduslloking up to Nepal?? I beg to differ.

Your king is towing to Chinese line man...
Your Indian hatred blinds you to support Pakistan. Many ISI guys get into UP through Nepal, remember IC814 i havent figured out how did the hijackers get inta Indian Airlines plane without help of corrupt Airport officials. Frankly the Maoist problem has been created by the King himself.

Face it even though there are 5-6 Hindu majority countries in the world, Hindus can look up to no country for real...

@Vikrant:

Dude, are you completely on acid? Maybe you haven't read the writings of V. D. Savakar or perhaps the attitude of Nepal during King Mahendra's time, its very different, and the downfall of relations is not because of the present King, its the late King Birendra's fault for the Maoist insurgency.

Many ISI guys don't even need Nepal, they just get on a bus or train and come into to India.

Nepal as a Hindu symbol fell apart in the beginning of 1990's thanks to the late King.

But Vikrant, you shouldn't accuse all of us of being anti-Indian, keep in mind, my forefathers are Rajputs and furthermore, being a part of the Rana family, many of our extended bloodlines/household is in Indian politics (ie Vasundra Rage of Rajasthan, Amarinder Singh of Punjab, the Scindia family, Maharaja of Kashmir, Karan Singh's wife, etc etc).

However, we both know Nepal is screwed, but India doesn't need Nepal as a source of its trouble, it creates its own. If Nepal has corrupt airport officials, that really does not reflect on the failed security at the Parliament attack in 2001.