A welcome gesture, and there is no reason to doubt its sincerity whatsoever. I hope the demonstrators follow this up by renouncing the jihad ideology and Islamic supremacism, and working to establish a basis upon which Muslims can coexist peacefully with non-Muslims as equals on an indefinite basis, without seeking by any means to impose Sharia in whole or part upon those non-Muslims.
"Muslims in India Put Aside Grievances to Repudiate Terrorism," by Robert F. Worth for the New York Times, December 8 (thanks to all who sent this in):
MUMBAI, India — Throngs of Indian Muslims, ranging from Bollywood actors to skullcap-wearing seminary students, marched through the heart of Mumbai and several other cities on Sunday, holding up banners proclaiming their condemnation of terrorism and loyalty to the Indian state.The protests, though relatively small, were the latest in a series of striking public gestures by Muslims — who have often come under suspicion after past attacks — to defensively dissociate their own grievances as a minority here from any sort of sympathy for terrorism or radical politics in the wake of the deadly assault here that ended Nov. 29.
Muslim leaders have refused to allow the bodies of the nine militants killed in the attacks to be buried in Islamic cemeteries, saying the men were not true Muslims. They also suspended the annual Dec. 6 commemoration of a 1992 riot in which Hindus destroyed a mosque, in an effort to avert communal tension. Muslim religious scholars and public figures have issued strongly worded condemnations of the attacks.
So far, their approach appears to have worked: the response has been remarkably unified, with little of the suspicion and fear that followed some previous attacks. [...]
“It’s a pity we have to prove ourselves as Indians,” said Mohammed Siddique, a young accountant who was marching in the protest here on Sunday afternoon with his wife and mother. “But the fact is, we need to speak louder than others, to make clear that those people do not speak for our religion — and that we are not Pakistanis.”
The cluster of banners all around him, held aloft by marchers, seemed to bear out his point. Some read “Our Country’s Enemies are Our Enemies,” others, “Killers of Innocents are Enemies of Islam.” A few declared, in uncertain grammar, “Pakistan Be Declared Terrorist State.”
There were also slogans defending against the charge often made by right-wing Hindus that Muslims constitute a fifth column, easily exploited by terrorists. “Communalist and Terrorist are Cousins,” one sign read. Some of the marchers held up a sign with lines drawn through the names of various terrorist or extremist groups, including, notably, the acronym S.I.M.I.
That stands for the Students’ Islamic Movement of India, a radical group, now banned, that has come under suspicion after recent attacks. One of the men arrested earlier this year in what appears to have been a similar plot against Mumbai landmarks used to belong to the group. Unlike the most recent attackers, who are all believed to be Pakistani, four of six members of the earlier plot were Indian.
There is little doubt that jihadists — including Lashkar-e-Taiba, the Pakistani militant group believed to be responsible for the Nov. 26-29 attacks — are seeking Indian recruits. Although such groups are rooted in the ideology of global jihad, many people fear that the Indians who join them may be motivated in part by essentially Indian grievances, like the 2002 mass killings of Muslims in the state of Gujarat that left 1,100 dead.
One of the gunmen in last month’s attacks referred to the Gujarat riots before he shot and killed a hostage at the Taj Mahal Palace & Tower hotel, apparently in an effort to identify his own cause with that of Indian Muslims.
He seems to have failed. The brutality of the attacks and the fact that many Muslims died have strengthened a sense of outrage among ordinary Muslims here, and even some sense of communal harmony, however precarious.
“After this attack, everything has changed; people now see the realities,” said Saeed Ahmed, 45, as he stood outside his stationery shop on Muhammad Ali Road, a working-class Muslim area. “This is something different from what we had before, it’s like your American 9/11. It is not about Hindus and Muslims; it is about the nation being attacked.”
Certainly, the violence has prompted many Muslims, including religious scholars, Bollywood figures and politicians, to speak out more urgently than they had in the past.
“Indian Muslims have often suffered twice: first from the terror, and then from the accusations afterward,” said Javed Akhtar, a Muslim poet and lyricist. “Perhaps because of that, they have been much more articulate and more unconditionally clear about condemning this attack.”
But many remain anxious that foreign jihadists could take advantage of the divisions in Indian society to wreak more havoc here. India’s 140 million Muslims are generally much poorer and less educated than Hindus....
Not that poverty or lack of education has ever been linked to jihad activity -- study after study has shown that jihadists are generally wealthier and better educated than their peers. But when has that ever stopped the New York Times?
"there is no reason to doubt its sincerity whatsoever"
Perhaps some of them are sincere. But overall no reason to get exited, read this:
Bollywood Actor Khan: “Islam does not in any which way tell you to be violent”
”I think the whole concept of jihad, the whole concept of warring needs to be explained as Allah meant it to be in the Koran,” Khan said.
http://sheikyermami.com/2008/12/07/bollywood-actor-khan-islam-does-not-in-any-which-way-tell-you-to-be-violent/
MALACCA, Malaysia (AFP) — India’s top Bollywood actor Shah Rukh Khan will star in a new movie exploring the issue of Islam in the post 9/11 world and the misperception that all Muslims are terrorists.
“My Name is Khan” tells the story of six people with Muslim surnames who suffer suspicion and prejudice years after the September 11 terrorist attacks in the United States.
I'm genuinely glad to see this--but there are a number of points in the article that rather weaken this denunciation of terror.
from above:
The protests, though relatively small, were the latest in a series of striking public gestures by Muslims — who have often come under suspicion after past attacks — to *defensively dissociate* their own grievances as a minority here from any sort of sympathy for terrorism or radical politics. [emphasis added]
......
You can't help but wonder at this "defensive dissociation"--how sincere is this condemnation, and how much is it meant to take pressure off the Muslim community?
more:
“Communalist and Terrorist are Cousins” one sign read.
......
Can't pass up an opportunity for moral equivalency, can you?
more:
The brutality of the attacks and *the fact that many Muslims died* have strengthened a sense of outrage among ordinary Muslims here... [emphasis added]
......
This may be the most salient point. Often Muslims *will* condemn terror, if fellow Muslims are among the victims. Does anyone at this march care about the Hindus, Jews, and Christians who were the specifically targetted victims?
more:
“Indian Muslims have often suffered twice: first from the terror, and then from the accusations afterward,” said Javed Akhtar...
......
We heard this after 9/11, and after 7/7, and after the riots in the Paris banlieues. Even though Muslims were the perpetrators, they also manage to be the "real victims".
more:
There is little doubt that jihadists — including Lashkar-e-Taiba, the Pakistani militant group believed to be responsible for the Nov. 26-29 attacks — are seeking Indian recruits. Although such groups are rooted in the ideology of global jihad, many people fear that the Indians who join them may be motivated in part by essentially Indian grievances...
......
Hey, the NYT used the term "global jihad" in print. There may be hope for us yet.
I was appalled when I glanced at a local newspaper's coverage of a Muslim rally in support of India following the terrorist attck. There was a large banner behind a Muslim speaker (who looked Deobandi) which said something like "we grieve the deaths of martyrs and innocent people".
Of course by using the term "martyr" the Muslim group was expressing its support of the jihadis, and by using the term "innocent" it was pointing out that no non-Muslim is innocent in the eyes of classical Islam.
Same old story, by using certain words in a certain way they appear to give a message against "terrorism" while still supporting classical Islamic orthodoxy.
"there is no reason to doubt its sincerity whatsoever"
not familiar with the word "taquiya", are they?
Mumbai was Muslims doing what Muslims do best.
It's like the IUB MSU attending a protest in favor of human rights. This from the Hamas front group which tries to undermine Brown vs. the Board of Education and which held a huge party in public in celebration of 9/11. I'll believe 'em when they apostacize.
people, you should not get too excited about this. They only started this protest because they know that the eyes of the entire non muslim world are watching their every move. this is nothing more than the latest form of Al Taqiyya.
In public in front of the non muslims they will condemn the islamic terrorist acts in Mumbai but when they are amongst each other in private they are singing a whole different tune (i am sure about that)
NON MUSLIMS BEWARE OF AL TAQIYYA !!!!!!!!!!!!
I am impressed to see that they have reported a figure that is closer to actual final estimates (900), with relation to the Godhra incident (quote: mass killings of Muslims in the state of Gujarat that left 1,100 dead), as compared to the exaggerated figure most often reported of 2,000 deaths. Lets not forget that the Muslim terrorists excuse for most recent terror attacks on India has been Godhra, an incident that was incited by Muslims' burning alive innocent Hindu pilgrims while they traveled to a Hindu pilgrimage site by train.
They cry afterwards, but forget why Hindus retaliated.
They come into Hindu (vegetarian) neighbourhoods and kill goats and sheep in public squares, and then wonder why no one wants to live with them.
They send their young to MADrassas, aka brainwashing schools, and then wonder why no one hires them for competitive jobs, that require up-to-date scientific know-how.
Muslims seriously need a wake-up call; if they are going to cry about their "grieviences" in India, atleast have a strong enough reason. I see my tax-money going towards Muslims Mecca pilgrimage, whereas being Hindu I have to pay extra and receive no subsidies towards my religious beliefs. I dont even mind paying for their uprise; just that I want my money going to actual scientific modern universities, hospitals and proper educational institutions, not madrassas and mosques. Lets cut the bullshit for once, and lets kick the Muslim appeasing Congress party out in May.
To all Indians: VOTE!!!
By the way, the latest cries by Muslim clerics to the faithful to not kill cows this Eid, are all good; just that its funny they're happening as India awakes to the real Islamic identity. Muslims have been killing cows in public, and fringing on tolerance demonstrated by Hindus over a thousand years; but now when they see that people are really going to shun them (as demonstrated by the many rallies that took place across India with several prominent banners that read "Terrorism has no religion - or does it?") - that is when the Muslim response comes in the form of refual to bury the killers in their cemeteries and plea not to kill cows.
Voices that were in silence for hundreds of years are speaking now. I hope its because they really shun the violence, and that its not just a desperate attempt at protecting their image.
“It’s a pity we have to prove ourselves as Indians,” said Mohammed Siddique, a young accountant who was marching in the protest here on Sunday afternoon with his wife and mother. “But the fact is, we need to speak louder than others, to make clear that those people do not speak for our religion — and that we are not Pakistanis.”
Mohammed Siddique - Have you read the Qur'an? Not simply memorized it in Arabic. Have you read an Urdu translation? Can you explain why the Muslims you deplore quote the Qur'an to justify their actions?
If you say that you are not Pakistanis, does that mean that you are Indians? Or are you just Muslims who live in India?
Are you aware that the reason you are a Muslim is that one of your ancestors had the choice of becoming a Muslim or dying?
Are you aware that the invading Muslim armies killed an estimated 60 to 80 million of your countrymen in the 1200 year history of the Indian jihad?
Do you support the efforts of kuffars to bring attention to the on going jihad around the world?
Are you willing to denounce Islamic terrorist organizations?
Should Islam be reformed?
Can it be reformed?
“It’s a pity we have to prove ourselves as Indians,” said Mohammed Siddique, a young accountant who was marching in the protest here on Sunday afternoon with his wife and mother. “But the fact is, we need to speak louder than others, to make clear that those people do not speak for our religion — and that we are not Pakistanis.”
Mohammed Siddique - Have you read the Qur'an? Not simply memorized it in Arabic. Have you read an Urdu translation? Can you explain why the Muslims you deplore quote the Qur'an to justify their actions?
If you say that you are not Pakistanis, does that mean that you are Indians? Or are you just Muslims who live in India?
Are you aware that the reason you are a Muslim is that one of your ancestors had the choice of becoming a Muslim or dying?
Are you aware that the invading Muslim armies killed an estimated 60 to 80 million of your countrymen in the 1200 year history of the Indian jihad?
Do you support the efforts of kuffars to bring attention to the on going jihad around the world?
Are you willing to denounce Islamic terrorist organizations?
Should Islam be reformed?
Can it be reformed?
“Killers of Innocents are Enemies of Islam.”
From the article.
Here we go again. If you mean noncombatants of all stripes, then we applaud you. But if you are being disingenuous and only mean to include fellow Muslims in your definition of "innocent," as is usually the case in situations like this, then stop blowing smoke at us. And, as noted above, your inclusion of "martyrs," i.e., the Muslim attackers, among the dead to be mourned unmasks you to be the insincere bastards you are. "Sorry" just isn't enough. If you were really sincere, you'd take on and physically eliminate the radical elements in your midst on your own. Why don't you?
I think I'll start giving them benefit of the doubt when they march as much in protest to the nonviolent expansion of shariah in India and against SIMI, MIM in hyderabad, Indain mujadeen who look to Islamize India through endless lawsuits, "equal rights" ammendments, even more affirmative action, stifling debate about muslim culture in universites and other such "civil ways" Basically, stuff that's even more dangerous than terrorism. Denouncing by name Hamas, Indian Mujadeen, Hezbollah and all Pakistani jihad groups-it would probably take forever to list them all, would be great help as well.
Are they really protesting acts of muslim terrorists or are they protesting the suspicion and prejudice that is understandably cast on them as practitioners of islam?
The usual suspects after the heinous and barbaric crimes committed by Jihadi Muslims they always come out in mass to denounce the the very thing they secretly espouse to. Ha... next Jihadi attack and you will see the same thing again. Just another BS and taquiya from the barbaric and violent ideology of Islam.
Look for more killings on non Muslims and more PC and whitewash. The sign of the times. Non Muslim lives are expendable to appease and let the Mohammedans give their blood offerings to Allah. Human sacrifice for their blood god Allah still practiced in the modern era.
I'm highly unimpressed. How noble of the Muhammadans of India to separate their "grievances" from those of the Land of the Pure. How noble not to recognize the anniversary of a mosques destruction this year to avoid local Indian Muslim revenge attacks. All Muslims are Islam, Islam is all Muslims, there are no unicorns.
This is yet another example of the "good mo/bad mo" weapon of jihad.
Bad mo blows up a train and good mo runs to the cameras to say all mos aren't like that.
Bad mo flies airplanes into buildings and good mo shows up at the White House to let everyone know that bad mo was bad.
Bad mo kills 200 people in India and good mo runs to tv station to make sure that world sees lots of pictures of little boys and girls with big dark eyes to say, "How can these be bad"?
The function of the good mo/bad mo weapon is to confuse and paralyze the "Others" while the fidels kill them.
And make no mistake, the sincerity of the little fidel marchers with their little "Killing innocents is Bad" signs is absolutely neccessary.
If they appeared anything less than 100% sincere the good mo/bad mo tool wouldn't work and even the stupidest of the "Others" would see that islam is the problem. A thing is what it does and does what it is. islam IS EVIL.
I agree with all the comments above. Gravenimage, good point about the moral equivalencies between the terrorists and 'communalists', as well as Javed Akhtar invoking the Mohammedans as the 'real victims', which, as Debbie Schlussel pointed out in another case is ridiculous. It's also interesting how it took Mohammedan deaths in this incident to highlight their anger, but on this one, I actually believe that the reason Mohammedans are doing it is because said or unsaid, an increasing number of Indians look at them with suspicion.
Desigyrl (are you a Priyanka Chopra fan?) had it perfectly right: the Jihadis cited the Godhra killings as the reason for their actions, but conveniently omitted the fact that that whole incident was started by the Mohammedans burning the train. Also, the reason Hindus don't want to live next to Mohammedans is not just the food habits (many Hindus actually are non-Vegetarian): it's that Mohammedan majority neighborhoods are also notorious for being crime ridden neighborhoods. In fact, after the last terror attack in Delhi, there was a shoot-out between the cops and and some jihadis in a Mohammedan locality in Delhi called Jamianagar. In the days after that incident, during which the chief cop in that operation got killed, an article in a local paper cited residents of the place complaining that services such as telephone lines, pizza deliveries, and other things were not provided to them when asked. But that's common sense: who in their right mind wants to risk their lives in a crime-infested neighborhood?
Desigyrl is also right about the jiziya that's paid for Mohammedans to visit Mecca, even though there's no way if she or I wanted to visit Varanasi, Haridwar, Ujjain, Ayodhya or any of the other 3 main Hindu holy cities, we'd be subsidized. But as far as voting goes, looks like results would be mixed. In election results out today, the BJP won 2 states where the Hindutva faction was not marginalized, but lost power in 1 and failed to capitalize on terrorism in Delhi, which re-elected the Congress. So the question of how much the Indians have gotten the message is still an open one.
Oh, and Mohammedans avoided protesting on December 6th on the anniversary of the demolition of a mosque that was built by demolishing a temple? Or de-linking their grievances from the jihad attacks? Touching.
NOT!!!
This is way OT, but what is up with the riots in Greece? Why is this not being reported on JW? If you guys watch the footage, it's hoods dressed as homicide bombers. The media are really, really avoiding any mention of Islam, but it's the second time in just over 2 months, when you count the outbreaks of immigrant street battles at the beginning of October. And now JW can't post the story because there isn't a single media report that will even give the ethnic background of those involved. Who do you think would riot over the death of a Nigerian youth who was vandalizing cars?
Here's the story from September: http://www.google.com/url?sa=U&start=1&q=http://islamineurope.blogspot.com/2008/10/athens-immigrant-street-battles.html&ei=iZg9ScjPH5zUMPHO-KMF&usg=AFQjCNG5Kasp-4X2BgKo51mOk9dIKeIVoA
Y'all can google the new story.
Joseph of Carpentry
Your post reminds me of an article written by a former poster on a more insidious form of taquiyya. In fact, this story itself should have reminded me of it, but yours did. It's called stealth taqiyya, which, as he points out, may seem redundant, but here is how it works:
Read it all.Here in the U.S., THEY DON'T EVEN FEEL THE NEED TO DO THIS.
The only reason these Muslims do this is because they know the world has almost had enough of this death cult of theirs. Nobody wants Islam as a part of their cultural matrix, the hollow assurances that Islam is a "religion of peace" is beyond just getting old. People are starting to tune out the empty rhetoric, we only see your evil deeds. Action speaks louder than words.
If you want your skin to crawl check out these seriously disturbing pictures of the Hajj.
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2008-12/08/content_10472651_1.htm
as usual...not one word against JIHAD...
"...what is up with the riots in Greece?"
Jdamn
Good question.
http://www.onelawforall.org/
just thought I'd spread the word about this for folks in the UK. Check it out.
Infidelpride and Desigyri: How can this be, their pilgrimage to Mecca being sudsidized by Hindus? India is not a "Muslim" country, for a start. Is the government really so kind to Muslims? How does it work? What is the amount given to them? How many times can they claim this benefit? Why are Hindus not given an equivalent benefit? How long has this been going on? Or simply, what should I read to find all this out?
India having lost so much territory during partition, I am surprised at its subsequent history, and its tolerance of even the Deobandist madrassas.
Lots of stuff on the web about the Greece riots. One that talks about rioting in Thessaloniki is http://www.monstersandcritics.com/news/europe/news/article_1344928.php/Riots_in_Thessaloniki_following_death_of_Nigerian_migrant
Joseph of Carpentry
I think you've nailed it.
For a good example of the same fiendishly clever strategy at work, look at these news reports from the UK in 2006 - which may be neatly summarised as Muslims demanding (in the wake of the bus and train bombings in London) "change your foreign policies to conform with the world Muslim agenda; give us sharia; or we'll blow you up". "Do what Muslims want...OR ELSE".
http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/012683.php
http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/012683.php
(make sure to scroll down and read the comments)
http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/012703.php
http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/012713.php
The Muslim 'enforcers' apply the terrorising actions while the 'nice Muslims' press the demands...maintaining plausible deniability, and pretending that the attacks are 'caused' by this or that, and if the Muslims are only given whatever they want, the attacks will stop.
Wherever it has to do with kafir who are still numerous and potentially more powerful, the Ummah will play this dirty double game. The smiler with the knife under the cloak...
But as soon as they are powerful enough, the mask will rip off and the knife will come out: they will do what they do, and have always done, when they have the upper hand: kill, in vast numbers and with endlessly inventive cruelties; rob, on the grand scale; destroy, on the grand scale; rape, on the grand scale; and then enslave, as dhimmis, anything that survives the blood-orgy of the jihad.
It's nice that they now share part of the collective outrage , but I'm really getting sick of the "Backlash" B.S. as if the deafening Silence by 1.2 Billion Muslim has nothing to do with the perception by Infidels to see a tacid approval for mass Slaughter as a favour to Allah.
Muslims have only themselves to blame for their fear of "backlash" , but for the wrong reason.
A thief is usually the first one to accuse others of stealing because they assume everyone else thinks just like them...ERGO....once the Muslim denial is over we see the next phase of assuming everyone else is a hate-filled animals wanting revenge and a Global riot will happen to murder Muslims and fire-bomb Mosques.
Just ask yourself what would Muhammad do (WWMD)if Hijackers took over a fully fueled 747 and crashed it into the Big Rock during Haaj and slaughtered thousands of worshippers ?
Would CAIR and Fib-brahim Hooper ask Muslims to not look for a scapegoat to blame until the evidence shows who did it, would CAIR endorse Infidel-Sensitivity teaching in Maddrassa's and Mosques in America, would CAIR endorse Lawsuits against Muslim medias that "Allege" the jews did it or militant Christians??????
We all know the answers, but if we express them will all risk being victims of Financial-Jihad
to bankrupt people via the Courts by those claiming to follow a Peaceful faith that teaches foregiveness and tolerance.
There are over 5 billion non-Muslims on earth that should not have to live in fear of being murdered by a small group of "Misunderstanders" of islam who only have their "Action" of violence denounce but not themselves because the Quran forebids Muslims from Judging other Muslims.
Dda: Yes, this is what sweet Waleed Aly did; he said the Mumbai attacks were directly related to the Kashmir situation ("grievances") and then politely pointed out that if Kashmir is not given to Pakistan, well, basically we are all in the firing line, ALL OF US, things will only get worse,etc etc. And everyone adores him here - they seem to admire him for his smiling, well-mannered, three-days-growth-handsome, cool style of threatening us, inviting abject dhimmitude. You CANNOT criticize him.
"Good Mo/Bad Mo"
Joseph of Carpentry
Nice analogy with the "Good cop/Bad cop" strategy. Everyone should be able to recognize it now. Thanks.
Infidel Pride:
Im not particularly a Priyanka Chopra fan, but I have nothing against her. She's a good enough actress I guess. Who I cannot tolerate for a second is Shah Rukh Khan. He owes his debts to Dawood Ibrahim and cares more for his box office returns than condemning the massacre, or maybe offending his Godfather sitting in Karachi.
PG:
Thank you for asking about why Indians (Hindus/non-Muslims) have to forcefully pay for subsidies that enable Muslims' Mecca pilgrimage, via taxes.
Alas, this is a long, very long, and tragic story. I will look up the concrete answers to your questions and post again. Meanwhile, I recommend you to Koenraad Elst's Negationism in India - Concealing the record of Islam, to be found here - http://koenraadelst.bharatvani.org/books/negaind/index.htm
To give you a quick summary, you are absolutely right: the Indian government is very very kind to the Muslims. The government currently in place - the UPA, ie a coalition of the Congress Party, and other left-wing parties, is a government that basically comes into power thanks to the Muslim vote. As a result, they give them very very special benefits that other parties don't. They have scrapped off India's only ever effective anti-terror law, which the BJP ratified (POTA). They also cannot be "strong" or offensive about cracking down on terror, because that means "minorities are unfairly being targeted" or "innocents are being criminalized" etc, and I dont have to spell out who these "innocents" are. As such, they have practically left the countries borders, especially the one along Bangladesh, practically open. They turn a blind eye, while millions of Muslims/Bangladeshis flood India every year. They are immediately registered in the constituencies where they decide to settle, mainly Bombay slums, and become part of what may be the largest vote bank on the planet. The Congress leader Sonia Gandhi is carrying on the age-old Nehruvian legacy of criminalizing anyone who even insinuates that Islam could be the reason for crime in Muslims neighbourhoods, that the reasono for Muslims' backwardness could have anything to do with faith, that the Quran can be at all questioned. It is disgusting to watch how Hindu scholars who have in the past questioned certain shuras of the Quran, have been silenced. Their cases have been dismissed by courts.... the story just goes on and on. I will let you read Koenraad Elst yourself, an Indologist who perfectly captures the bloody history of Islam on the Indian subcontinent.
In my opinion, India is probably the greatest victim of the Islamic ideology. I won't talk much here, as you will see on Elst's website, exactly how the largest genocide was not the Jewish genocide by the Nazis, but the genocide of the Hindus by the Muslims over a thousand years, and their effectiveness to effectively erase, curb, avoid any such mention in the history books of India.
Tragic, very very tragic, for what it was, and for how unknown it remains. Please take a look.
Regards,
DesiGyrl.
PG: Here is an excerpt from Negationism in India, Chapter 2, Koenraad Elst http://koenraadelst.bharatvani.org/books/negaind/ch2.htm
"The Muslim conquests, down to the 16th century, were for the Hindus a pure struggle of life and death. Entire cities were burnt down and the populations massacred, with hundreds of thousands killed in every campaign, and similar numbers deported as slaves. Every new invader made (often literally) his hills of Hindus skulls. Thus, the conquest of Afghanistan in the year 1000 was followed by the annihilation of the Hindu population; the region is still called the Hindu Kush, i.e. Hindu slaughter. The Bahmani sultans (1347-1480) in central India made it a rule to kill 100,000 captives in a single day, and many more on other occasions. The conquest of the Vijayanagar empire in 1564 left the capital plus large areas of Karnataka depopulated. And so on.
As a contribution to research on the quantity of the Islamic crimes against humanity, we may mention Prof. K.S.Lal's estimates about the population figures in medieval India (Growth of Muslim Population in India). According to his calculations, the Indian (subcontinent) population decreased by 80 million between 1000 (conquest of Afghanistan) and 1525 (end of Delhi Sultanate). More research is needed before we can settle for a quantitatively accurate evaluation of Muslim rule in India, but at least we know for sure that the term crime against humanity is not exaggerated.
But the Indian Pagans were far too numerous and never fully surrendered. What some call the Muslim period in Indian history, was in reality a continuous war of occupiers against resisters, in which the Muslim rulers were finally defeated in the 18th century. Against these rebellious Pagans the Muslim rulers preferred to avoid total confrontation, and to accept the compromise which the (in India dominant) Hanifite school of Islamic law made possible. Alone among the four Islamic law schools, the school of Hanifa gave Muslim rulers the right not to offer the Pagans the sole choice between death and conversion, but to allow them toleration as zimmis (protected ones) living under 20 humiliating conditions, and to collect the jizya (toleration tax) from them. Normally the zimmi status was only open to Jews and Christians (and even that concession was condemned by jurists of the Hanbalite school like lbn Taymiya), which explains why these communities have survived in Muslim countries while most other religions have not. On these conditions some of the higher Hindu castes could be found willing to collaborate, so that a more or less stable polity could be set up. Even then, the collaboration of the Rajputs with the Moghul rulers, or of the Kayasthas with the Nawab dynasty, one became a smooth arrangement when enlightened rulers like Akbar (whom orthodox Muslims consider an apostate) cancelled these humiliating conditions and the jizya tax."
and
"The last jihad against the Hindus before the full establishment of British rule was waged by Tipu Sultan at the end of the 18th century. In the rebellion of 1857, the near-defunct Muslim dynasties (Moghuls, Nawabs) tried to curry favour with their Hindu subjects and neighbours, in order to launch a joint effort to re-establish their rule. For instance, the Nawab promised to give the Hindus the Ram Janmabhoomi/Babri Masjid site back, in an effort to quench their anti-Muslim animosity and redirect their attention towards the new common enemy from Britain. This is the only instance in modern history when Muslims offered concessions to the Hindus; after that, all the concessions made for the sake of communal harmony were a one-way traffic from Hindu to Muslim."
and
"After the British had crushed the rebellion of 1857, the Indian Muslims fell into a state of depression, increasing backwardness due to their refusal of British education, and nostalgia for the past. While the Hindu elites took to Western notions like secular nationalism, the Muslims remained locked up in their communal separateness. As soon as the British drew them into the political process (founding of Muslim League in 1906) in order to use them as a counter-weight against the Indian National Congress, they immediately made heavy and hurtful demands on the Hindus, such as the unlimited right to slaughter cows, and they started working for political separation. First they obtained separate electorates where Muslim candidates would only have to please Muslim voters, and later they would succeed in separating a Muslim state from India.
By the twenties, they took to the unscrupled use of muscle power in a big way, creating street riots and outright pogroms. If Hindus retaliated in kind, it was a welcome help in instilling the separate communal identity into the ordinary Muslim, who would have preferred to coexist with his Hindu neighbours in peace. By creating riots and provoking relatiatory violence, the Muslim League managed to swing the vast majority of the Muslim electorate towards supporting its demand for the partition of India. The roughly 600,000 victims of the violence accompanying the Partition were the price which the Muslim League was willing to pay for its Islamic state of Pakistan. While every Hindu and Muslim who took part in the violence is responsible for his own excesses, the over-all responsibility for this mass- slaughter lies squarely with the Muslim leadership."
and
"In the first months of 1990, the entire Hindu population (about 2 lakhs) was forcibly driven from the Kashmir Valley, which used to be advertised as a showpiece of communal harmony. Muslim newspapers and mosque loudspeakers had warned the Hindus to leave the valley or face bullets. After the Islamic conquest of Kabul in April 1992, 50,000 Hindus had to flee Afghanistan (with the Indian government unwilling to extend help, and Inder Kumar Gujral denying that the expulsion of Indians had a communal motive). The pogroms in Pakistan and Bangladesh after the demolition of the Babri Masjid left 50,000 Hindus homeless in Bangladesh and triggered another wave of refugees from both countries towards India. In Pakistan, 245 Hindu temples were demolished, in Bangladesh a similar number was attacked, and even in England some temples were set on fire by Muslim mobs. And then we haven't even mentioned the recurrent attacks on Hindu processions and on police stations."
This is followed by a chapter on Negationism and the Indian National Congress (the party currently in power in India), which is followed by the Negationism followed by the various left-wing (which rule the media) schools of thought, eg. the Marxists, etc., to foreign support for Indian negationism, Banning of several hundreds of books critical of Islam and its atrocities...and I will conclude with this excerpt:
"India has its own full-fledged brand of negationism: a movement to deny the large-scale and long-term crimes against humanity committed by Islam. This movement is led by Islamic apologists and Marxist academics, and followed by all the politicians, journalists and intellectuals who call themselves secularists. In contrast to the European negationism regarding the Nazi acts of genocide, but similar to the Turkish negationism regarding the Armenian genocide, the Indian negationism regarding the terrible record of Islam is fully supported by the establishment. It has nearly full control of the media and dictates all state and government parlance concerning the communal problem (more properly to be called the Islam problem)."
For DesiGyrl,
I noticed you mentioned some things about the history of Islam in India and the current state of Muslims for India. As for the history of Islam in India, while I'm no expert, I've always known that the Muslims' rule in India was for the most part ugly, rivaled only by the Spanish and Portugese in terms of its horror. And also that while some muslim kings- i.e. Akbar the Mughal, Ibrahim II and other Adil Shahs in Bijapur and Qutub Shahs in Golconda made India a better, more enlightened place, India often ended up with murderous assholes like Mahmud of Ghazni, Mohammad Ghori, Allaudin Khilji, Qutb-ud-din Aybak and the Mamluks, Firuz Shah Tughluq, Tammerlane, Aurangzeb, Nadir Shah and Shah Abdali. Are there any scholars or universities that even try to give a balanced view of Islamic rule in India, like K.S. Lal, Sam Goel, the link you mentioned etc? Or is the norm in India that only "white people" have anything to be ashamed of in India.
And for you along with any other Indian/Hindu posters as well, I was also wondering what the current political situation with Muslims in India is. I had previously thought Muslims in India were much more civilized and peaceful than their counterparts in pakiland and Bangladesh. Of course, I realize a. that may not really be the case b. "civilized" and "peaceful" when referenced to pakis and bangladeshis is a VERY relative term and so that might not be saying too much about Indian muslims c. if it is true, it is likely because Islam in India is effectively diluted and Indian muslims don't take their Islam as seriously as pakis and Bangladeshis.
So I was wondering, what would you say is true. That Indian Muslims are about as bad as pakis or more civilized due to Islam having less of a stranglehold on them or some other reason. You mentioned that really bad religious tensions between Muslims and Hindus along with the economic backwardness and terrorist sympathies of muslims. Is that true with Muslims in all Indian states? I had thought that it was true in places like Kashmir, Uttar Pradesh and parts of New Delhi and Mumbai where paki influence is strongest. But that there were places where Muslims had integrated better, were not as backwards and did not sympathize as much with Jihadis, i.e. Mumbai, South india, (except for Old hyderabad) and East Bengal-not including of course the Bangladeshi illegals of course. Is that true or is my understanding too optimistic, i.e. it's a catastrophy everywhere in India.
DesiGyri: Thankyou very much. I have started to read it and will read all of it.
Often the truth can only be gleaned from "odd" books which are not widely read, such as old personal memoirs. I have one such book, called "Kashmir in Sunlight and Shade" which I bought in India over twenty years ago. It is by an English missionary called C. E. Tyndale Biscoe, and has most interesting details, including a fairly brief - but clear - history of Kashmir, which reveals the brutality of the Muslim invasions. Of course, visitors, enthusiasts of Indian culture and even many historians see Islam in India in terms of gardens and architecture and the imposition of a "grand" culture.
The details of that imposition are not what anyone would like to live through, yet Muslims themselves are in denial of their own history. "Believing" is everything, more than truth or love or life.
Sadly, democracy is not only no deterrent to the disaster unfolding, it is proving to be an enabler. Even though Muslims are a minority in all democratic countries, their votes are seen as essential.
Somehow, democracy has to be made to work in our favour. Overcoming fear seems to be the solution - fear of Muslims is our biggest weakness.
Desigyrl,
Great posts. Thanks for the link. Bookmarked.
"there is no reason to doubt its sincerity [the "gesture" of those Muslims who in Mumbai cam e out to "denounce" terrorism, or some aspect of it] whatsoever."
-- from Robert's comment on the article above
"No reason"? Was there any reason to doubt the "sincerity" of all those Arabs who so quickly and so ostentatiously put up those big American flags in the windows of their gas stations and convenience stores after the 9/11/2001 attacks? I knew some of those who put out those flags, had managed to get some of them talking, even in unguarded moments confiding, their thoughts on America, and there is always, when you are at the counter, the possibility of eavesdropping. Do I doubt the "sincerity" of the sudden flag-displays of those sudden patriots? Did I take them as symbols of newly-felt patriotism and a sense of true solidarity? I did not. I understood them for what they were: the equivalent of apotropaic amulets, worn to ward off harm.
Similarly, should not not have any reason to "doubt the sincerity" of Muslims now in a city full of mourning and now rage? Why not? A small group turning out for such a protest, without more, and without a clear denunciation not of "terrorism" but of the ideology that naturally gives rise to "terrorism" -- with some kind of declaration about those passages that most need to be done away with -- admits of doubt, invites doubt, practically demands doubt.
To Maxwell46&2:
I don't quite understand your first question. White people have something to be ashamed of in India? Do you mean the British? Yes, I suppose. But thats a whole different story. There was also limited Portuguese and French exposure in India (to stealing mainly)...but Indians are good are forgiving and forgetting (the past...). Although I believe it should be forgiving, but not forgetting the past.
Sita Ram Goel, K.S.Lal, and others of their ilk, unfortunately remain totally and COMPLETELY marginalized in today's Indian press. These days, if you are even slightly critical (openly) of Islamic crimes on Hindus, you are considered a right-wing psycho, which unfortunately retaliatory Hindu groups like RSS and Bajrang Dal are now labelled.
Muslims in India, those that were born in India, whose grandparents were born in India, and whose grandparents' ancestors were born in India, generally tend to be mild Muslims. They may or may not pray, they may or may not eat pork, and they probably most certainly drink alcohol. I grew up (outside India, but in an Indian surrounding) with a few Muslim friends, and the general rule was that their women (as in Muslim girls) are kept under pretty strict control in their interaction with others; and I remember in later high school years one of my close Muslim friend's mum would not allow her daughter to hang out with me, a liberal Hindu. Anyway, for the most part, to answer your question, I have felt that Muslims in India are not stiff about their Islamic views. However, lately, over the last ten years or so, the trend has been for them to align themselves in their little communities, as in those that hung out with non-Muslims a lot more earlier, now limit their social life to their fellow sectarians.
Having said that, I have to mention (again, I dont live in India, only visit from time to time) the recent growth of the "little Pakistans" in India, the illegal immigrant slums, and neighbourhoods formed by the Congress-imported Muslims from Bang and Pak, where religious fervour is always high, "festivals" like Bakra Eid and Muharram are celebrated with rampant bloodshed on the streets (men slashing themselves with swords, I assume you've heard of this festival....) and where generally communal violence in any part of India often begins.
To PG:
I'd like to conclude the previous post with two seperate excerpts from Koenraad Elst's work:
The American historian Will Durant summed it up like this:"The Islamic conquest of India is probably the bloodiest story in history. It is a discouraging tale, for its evident moral is that civilization is a precious good, whose delicate complex of order and freedom, culture and peace, can at any moment be overthrown by barbarians invading from without or multiplying within."
and
"Those who deny history are bound to repeat it": that is what many critics of Holocaust negationism allege. This seems slightly exaggerated, though it is of course the well- wishers of Nazism who practise negationism. In the case of Islam, it is equally true that negationism is practised by the well-wishers of that same doctrine which has led to the crimes against humanity under consideration. While Nazism is simply too stained to get a second chance, Islam is certainly in a position to force unbelievers into the zimmi status (as is happening in dozens of Muslim countries in varying degrees), and even to wage new jihads, this time with weapons of mass-destruction. Those who are trying to close people's eyes to this danger by distorting or concealing the historical record of Islam are effective accomplices in the injustice and destruction which Islam is sure to cause before the time of its dissolution comes. Therefore, I consider it a duty of all intellectuals to expose and denounce the phenomenon of negationism whenever it is practised.
Wow. And I can see those flying pigs from my window right here.
It's a step in the right direction. Let's see if anyone is interested in using it to help forge a peaceful coexistence of equals between Muslims and other faiths.
That will be the true test of whether these people are actually sincere.
To DesiGyrl,
I see my first question was confusing, so I'll rephrase it. I was asking if university professors, school teachers and scholars in India, besides K.S. Lal, Sam Goel and others teach history AS IF "only white people" should be ashamed at their history of colonialism, NOT that "white people" should be ashamed of their colonialism in India but not Arabs, Turks and Afghans. Quite the opposite. I'm well aware that in the West it is taught that British rule was atrocious while the Muslim rule was no big deal by comparision. The West teaches us to be ashamed at what the British did in India and teaches us to ignore the accomplishments of British in India-i.e. ushering in the Age of Industry and post-Enlightment style democracy for India among other things. And of course the pakis and arabs and turks are not taught to feel the same way about the legacy of Arabs, Turkish Delhi Sultanates-and damn, those bastards were the WORST, they made King Leopold look like a pacifist- and Afghan invaders, when they should.
So the question was if India' teachers are anywhere trying to present a clear cut untarnished view of both Western and Islamic colonialism in India instead of an inhibited, orientalist viewpoint. Sorry for the confusion
"the Muslims' rule in India was for the most part ugly, rivaled only by the Spanish and Portugese in terms of its horror."
No disrespect intended but man, are you out of your effin gourd!!!??? The Spanish conquest of Latin America was a picnic compared with what the Muslims did to the Indians (and to the Persians, and to the Africans, and to the Greeks, Armenians, etc.)
In Ibn Warraq's "The Defense of the West" he has a long section contrasting the meticulous and respectful rediscovery of the Indian past by English scholars who formed part of the administrative corps for the English rule in India -- beginning with Sir William or "Oriental" Jones (of the East Bengal Society), and continuing right through to the present, with what the Muslims did during their rule, destroying temples and temple complexes, and artifacts, and ancient manuscripts of every kind. Save for that single early exception, Al-Biryuni, no Muslims showed any sympathetic interest in the civilization of India akin to that shown by the British; for them, anything outside of Islam was contemptible, to be destroyed, and the stones from the temple complexes quarried for mosques, and the statuary smashed to smithereens, for such statuary offended Muhammad, and thus of course offended all subsequent Muslims everywhere.
The following is an excellent piece on the situation from Stratfor:
---------------------------------
Next Steps in the Indo-Pakistani CrisisMilitant Attacks In Mumbai and Their Consequences
In an interview published this Sunday in The New York Times, we laid out a potential scenario for the current Indo-Pakistani crisis. We began with an Indian strike on Pakistan, precipitating a withdrawal of Pakistani troops from the Afghan border, resulting in intensified Taliban activity along the border and a deterioration in the U.S. position in Afghanistan, all culminating in an emboldened Iran. The scenario is not unlikely, assuming India chooses to strike.
Our argument that India is likely to strike focused, among other points, on the weakness of the current Indian government and how it is likely to fall under pressure from the opposition and the public if it does not act decisively. An unnamed Turkish diplomat involved in trying to mediate the dispute has argued that saving a government is not a good reason to go to war. That is a good argument, except that in this case, not saving the government is unlikely to prevent a war, either.
If India’s Congress party government were to fall, its replacement would be even more likely to strike at Pakistan. The Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), Congress’ Hindu nationalist rival, has long charged that Congress is insufficiently aggressive in combating terrorism. The BJP will argue that the Mumbai attack in part resulted from this failing. Therefore, if the Congress government does not strike, and is subsequently forced out or loses India’s upcoming elections, the new government is even more likely to strike.
It is therefore difficult to see a path that avoids Indian retaliation, and thus the emergence of at least a variation on the scenario we laid out. But the problem is not simply political: India must also do something to prevent more Mumbais. This is an issue of Indian national security, and the pressure on India’s government to do something comes from several directions.
Three Indian Views of Pakistan
The question is what an Indian strike against Pakistan, beyond placating domestic public opinion, would achieve. There are three views on this in India.
The first view holds that Pakistani officials aid and abet terrorism — in particular the Pakistani Inter-Service Intelligence (ISI), which serves as Pakistan’s main intelligence service. In this view, the terrorist attacks are the work of Pakistani government officials — perhaps not all of the government, but enough officials of sufficient power that the rest of the government cannot block them, and therefore the entire Pakistani government can be held accountable.
The second view holds that terrorist attacks are being carried out by Kashmiri groups that have long been fostered by the ISI but have grown increasingly autonomous since 2002 — and that the Pakistani government has deliberately failed to suppress anti-Indian operations by these groups. In this view, the ISI and related groups are either aware of these activities or willfully ignorant of them, even if ISI is not in direct control. Under this thinking, the ISI and the Pakistanis are responsible by omission, if not by commission.
The third view holds that the Pakistani government is so fragmented and weak that it has essentially lost control of Pakistan to the extent that it cannot suppress these anti-Indian groups. This view says that the army has lost control of the situation to the point where many from within the military-intelligence establishment are running rogue operations, and groups in various parts of the country simply do what they want. If this argument is pushed to its logical conclusion, Pakistan should be regarded as a state on the verge of failure, and an attack by India might precipitate further weakening, freeing radical Islamist groups from what little control there is.
The first two analyses are essentially the same. They posit that Pakistan could stop attacks on India, but chooses not to. The third is the tricky one. It rests on the premise that the Pakistani government (and in this we include the Pakistani army) is placing some restraint on the attackers. Thus, the government’s collapse would make enough difference that India should restrain itself, especially as any Indian attack would so destabilize Pakistan that it would unleash our scenario and worse. In this view, Pakistan’s civilian government has only as much power in these matters as the army is willing to allow.
The argument against attacking Pakistan therefore rests on a very thin layer of analysis. It requires the belief that Pakistan is not responsible for the attacks, that it is nonetheless restraining radical Islamists to some degree, and that an Indian attack would cause even these modest restraints to disappear. Further, it assumes that these restraints, while modest, are substantial enough to make a difference.
There is a debate in India, and in Washington, as to whether this is the case. This is why New Delhi has demanded that Pakistan turn over 20 individuals wanted by India in connection with attacks. The list doesn’t merely include Islamists, but also Lt. Gen. Hamid Gul, the former head of the ISI who has long been suspected of close ties with Islamists. (The United States apparently added Gul to the list.) Turning those individuals over would be enormously difficult politically for Pakistan. It would create a direct confrontation between Pakistan’s government and the Pakistani Islamist movement, likely sparking violence in Pakistan. Indeed, turning any Pakistani over to India, regardless of ideology, would create a massive crisis in Pakistan.
The Indian government chose to make this demand precisely because complying with it is enormously difficult for Pakistan. New Delhi is not so much demanding the 20 individuals, but rather that Pakistan take steps that will create conflict in Pakistan. If the Pakistani government is in control of the country, it should be able to weather the storm. If it can’t weather the storm, then the government is not in control of Pakistan. And if it could weather the storm but chooses not to incur the costs, then India can reasonably claim that Pakistan is prepared to export terrorism rather than endure it at home. In either event, the demand reveals things about the Pakistani reality.
The View from Islamabad
Pakistan’s evaluation, of course, is different. Islamabad does not regard itself as failed because it cannot control all radical Islamists or the Taliban. The official explanation is that the Pakistanis are doing the best they can. From the Pakistani point of view, while the Islamists ultimately might represent a threat, the threat to Pakistan and its government that would arise from a direct assault on the Islamists is a great danger not only to Pakistan, but also to the region. It is thus better for all to let the matter rest. The Islamist issue aside, Pakistan sees itself as continuing to govern the country effectively, albeit with substantial social and economic problems (as one might expect). The costs of confronting the Islamists, relative to the benefits, are therefore high.
The Pakistanis see themselves as having several effective counters against an Indian attack. The most important of these is the United States. The very first thing Islamabad said after the Mumbai attack was that a buildup of Indian forces along the Pakistani border would force Pakistan to withdraw 100,000 troops from its Afghan border. Events over the weekend, such as the attack on a NATO convoy, showed the vulnerability of NATO’s supply line across Pakistan to Afghanistan.
The Americans are fighting a difficult holding action against the Taliban in Afghanistan. The United States needs the militant base camps in Pakistan and the militants’ lines of supply cut off, but the Americans lack the force to do this themselves. A withdrawal of Pakistani forces from the Afghan border would pose a direct threat to American forces. Therefore, the Pakistanis expect Washington to intervene on their behalf to prevent an Indian attack. They do not believe a major Indian troop buildup will take place, and if it does, the Pakistanis do not think it will lead to substantial conflict.
There has been some talk of an Indian naval blockade against Pakistan, blocking the approaches to Pakistan’s main port of Karachi. This is an attractive strategy for India, as it plays to New Delhi’s relative naval strength. Again, the Pakistanis do not believe the Indians will do this, given that it would cut off the flow of supplies to American troops in Afghanistan. (Karachi is the main port serving U.S. forces in Afghanistan.) The line of supply in Afghanistan runs through Pakistan, and the Americans, the Pakistanis calculate, do not want anything to threaten that.
From the Pakistani point of view, the only potential military action India could take that would not meet U.S. opposition would be airstrikes. There has been talk that the Indians might launch airstrikes against Islamist training camps and bases in Pakistani-administered Kashmir. In Pakistan’s view, this is not a serious problem. Mounting airstrikes against training camps is harder than it might seem. The only way to achieve anything in such a facility is with area destruction weapons — for instance, using B-52s to drop ordnance over very large areas. The targets are not amenable to strike aircraft, because the payload of such aircraft is too small. It would be tough for the Indians, who don’t have strategic bombers, to hit very much. Numerous camps exist, and the Islamists can afford to lose some. As an attack, it would be more symbolic than effective.
Moreover, if the Indians did kill large numbers of radical Islamists, this would hardly pose a problem to the Pakistani government. It might even solve some of Islamabad’s problems, depending on which analysis you accept. Airstrikes would generate massive support among Pakistanis for their government so long as Islamabad remained defiant of India. Pakistan thus might even welcome Indian airstrikes against Islamist training camps.
Islamabad also views the crisis with India with an eye to the Pakistani nuclear arsenal. Any attack by India that might destabilize the Pakistani government opens at least the possibility of a Pakistani nuclear strike or, in the event of state disintegration, of Pakistani nuclear weapons falling into the hands of factional elements. If India presses too hard, New Delhi faces the unknown of Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal — unless, of course, the Indians are preparing a pre-emptive nuclear attack on Pakistan, something the Pakistanis find unlikely.
All of this, of course, depends upon two unknowns. First, what is the current status of Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal? Is it sufficiently reliable for Pakistan to count on? Second, to what extent do the Americans monitor Pakistan’s nuclear capabilities? Ever since the crisis of 2002, when American fears that Pakistani nuclear weapons could fall into al Qaeda’s hands were high, we have assumed that American calm about Pakistan’s nuclear facilities was based on Washington’s having achieved a level of transparency on their status. This might limit Pakistan’s freedom of action with regard to — and hence ability to rely on — its nuclear arsenal.
Notably, much of Pakistan’s analysis of the situation rests on a core assumption — namely, that the United States will choose to limit Indian options, and just as important, that the Indians would listen to Washington. India does not have the same relationship or dependence on the United States as, for example, Israel does. India historically was allied with the Soviet Union; New Delhi moved into a strategic relationship with the United States only in recent years. There is a commonality of interest between India and the United States, but not a dependency. India would not necessarily be blocked from action simply because the Americans didn’t want it to act.
As for the Americans, Pakistan’s assumption that the United States would want to limit India is unclear. Islamabad’s threat to shift 100,000 troops from the Afghan border will not easily be carried out. Pakistan’s logistical capabilities are limited. Moreover, the American objection to Pakistan’s position is that the vast majority of these troops are not engaged in controlling the border anyway, but are actually carefully staying out of the battle. Given that the Americans feel that the Pakistanis are ineffective in controlling the Afghan-Pakistani border, the shift from virtually to utterly ineffective might not constitute a serious deterioration from the United States’ point of view. Indeed, it might open the door for more aggressive operations on — and over — the Afghan-Pakistani border by American forces, perhaps by troops rapidly transferred from Iraq.
The situation of the port of Karachi is more serious, both in the ground and naval scenarios. The United States needs Karachi; it is not in a position to seize the port and the road system out of Karachi. That is a new war the United States can’t fight. At the same time, the United States has been shifting some of its logistical dependency from Pakistan to Central Asia. But this requires a degree of Russian support, which would cost Washington dearly and take time to activate. In short, India’s closing the port of Karachi by blockade, or Pakistan’s doing so as retaliation for Indian action, would hurt the United States badly.
Supply lines aside, Islamabad should not assume that the United States is eager to ensure that the Pakistani state survives. Pakistan also should not assume that the United States is impressed by the absence or presence of Pakistani troops on the Afghan border. Washington has developed severe doubts about Pakistan’s commitment and effectiveness in the Afghan-Pakistani border region, and therefore about Pakistan’s value as an ally.
Pakistan’s strongest card with the United States is the threat to block the port of Karachi. But here, too, there is a counter to Pakistan: If Pakistan closes Karachi to American shipping, either the Indian or American navy also could close it to Pakistani shipping. Karachi is Pakistan’s main export facility, and Pakistan is heavily dependent on it. If Karachi were blocked, particularly while Pakistan is undergoing a massive financial crisis, Pakistan would face disaster. Karachi is thus a double-edged sword. As long as Pakistan keeps it open to the Americans, India probably won’t block it. But should Pakistan ever close the port in response to U.S. action in the Afghan-Pakistani borderland, then Pakistan should not assume that the port will be available for its own use.
India’s Military Challenge
India faces difficulties in all of its military options. Attacks on training camps sound more effective than they are. Concentrating troops on the border is impressive only if India is prepared for a massive land war, and a naval blockade has multiple complications.
India needs a military option that demonstrates will and capability and decisively hurts the Pakistani government, all without drawing India into a nuclear exchange or costly ground war. And its response must rise above the symbolic.
We have no idea what India is thinking, but one obvious option is airstrikes directed not against training camps, but against key government installations in Islamabad. The Indian air force increasingly has been regarded as professional and capable by American pilots at Red Flag exercises in Nevada. India has modern Russian fighter jets and probably has the capability, with some losses, to penetrate deep into Pakistani territory.
India also has acquired radar and electronic warfare equipment from Israel and might have obtained some early precision-guided munitions from Russia and/or Israel. While this capability is nascent, untested and very limited, it is nonetheless likely to exist in some form.
The Indians might opt for a drawn-out diplomatic process under the theory that all military action is either ineffective or excessively risky. If it chooses the military route, New Delhi could opt for a buildup of ground troops and some limited artillery exchanges and tactical ground attacks. It also could choose airstrikes against training facilities. Each of these military options would achieve the goal of some substantial action, but none would threaten fundamental Pakistani interests. The naval blockade has complexities that could not be managed. That leaves, as a possible scenario, a significant escalation by India against targets in Pakistan’s capital.
The Indians have made it clear that the ISI is their enemy. The ISI has a building, and buildings can be destroyed, along with files and personnel. Such an aerial attack also would serve to shock the Pakistanis by representing a serious escalation. And Pakistan might find retaliation difficult, given the relative strength of its air force. India has few good choices for retaliation, and while this option is not a likely one, it is undoubtedly one that has to be considered.
It seems to us that India can avoid attacks on Pakistan only if Islamabad makes political concessions that it would find difficult to make. The cost to Pakistan of these concessions might well be greater than the benefit of avoiding conflict with India. All of India’s options are either ineffective or dangerous, but inactivity is politically and strategically the least satisfactory route for New Delhi. This circumstance is the most dangerous aspect of the current situation. In our opinion, the relative quiet at present should not be confused with the final outcome, unless Pakistan makes surprising concessions.
Eastview
something to think about...straws in the wind.
This appeared in the Australian news on 6 December.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/12/06/2439551.htm?section=justin
India signs nuclear deal with Russia
By South Asia correspondent Sally Sara.
Posted 5 hours 22 minutes ago
'India has signed a nuclear cooperation agreement with Russia.
Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh says the deal is a new milestone in the relationship between the two nations.
'Mr Singh and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev signed the agreement in New Delhi.
'Under the deal, Russia will build four new civilian nuclear reactors in the southern Indian state of Tamil Nadu.
'The two nations also signed agreements on defence and space.
Russia has offered to assist India with its space program, including the training of cosmonauts.
'In return, India has agreed to buy up to 80 military helicopters from Russia.
'Mr Medvedev also offered Russia's support in the fight against terrorism, in response to the Mumbai attacks." END ARTICLE.
Take particular note of the final two paragraphs. It would have been perfect if, instead of waffling on about 'the fight against terrorism', Mr Medvedev had said something like 'the fight against the Global Jihad'. (If there's some Russian spy or even just an ordinary Russian leaning over my shoulder reading this - do please take note! The first nation that finds the guts to 'call' this monster by its right name, always and everywhere, will have a very good chance of getting its own name into the history books).
Anywah: it appears that India, if I recall correctly, has now done some kind of nuclear deal with *both* the USA *and* the USSR.
Eastview, Joseph
Did you ever encounter the following cartoon?
In the first panel, there is a pram with a baby in it, and in front of the pram, defending it, are a couple of IDF soldiers.
In the second panel, a group of jihadists are firing..peeking out.from behind a pram with a baby in it.
The most obvious point being made, is the way in which - when fighting a foe that is both physically and morally superior to themselves - the Muslims shamelessly place their civilians in the line of fire, in order either to deter their morally scrupulous opponent from acting, or - if he acts - in order to use the resultant deaths and injuries for propaganda purposes (further confusing and weakening the morally scrupulous foe - who sorrows for dead Muslim children but forgets that the Muslim would not shed even one tear in reciprocal sorrow for dead non-Muslim children... and also forgets that Muslims, the slaves of allah, learn to see all humans as things, tools, means to an end, such that they *will* quite calmly sacrifice their own kids for 'allah').
But it is also possible to see panel #2 - pram with cute baby in front, murderous jihadi assassins lurking behind it - as a diagram or symbolic representation of the very trick that 'Joseph' described in his posting above: the seeming division of Islam into 'good Mo' and 'bad Mo', when it is, in fact, all one thing.
But it can also be read in a different way: as a metaphor for the tactic that you described above.
The more one thinks about the history of Islam, and its conduct when it insinuates itself into a society, the more one realizes how perfectly Islam is symbolised by the veil...which one might as well also refer to as a mask.
Sorry: typo: in my posting above, please ignore second-last sentence, the one beginning 'but it can also be read..'.
"Not that poverty or lack of education has ever been linked to jihad activity -- study after study has shown that jihadists are generally wealthier and better educated than their peers."
Hindus have the lowest per capita income among the major world religions (and much lower than Islam). Even in India, hindus are only slightly better than muslims and only if you exclude the black economy of Dawood Ibrahim. Once, you account for black economy run by Dawood Ibrahim and gang, I am not so sure. But when have facts come in the way of a good story ?
Dumbledore, it looks like India's deal with Russia is a residual carry over from the Nehru era, with power in the country still held by the Congress Party and its cadre of Leftist and Communist intellectuals. But the West has better cards to play than the Russians, especially in terms of economic relations, should we wish to play them. Maybe the Mumbai incident will help clarify their thinking on this point, especially since no matter what happens now the U.S. will inevitably be involved. One might hope that in the larger geopolitical game involving a crisis where India might be played off against Russia and the U.S., she would recognize that her fundamental, long term interests would dictate favoring the West. This is an interesting and largely unanticipated (but in retrospect perhaps not surprising) situation that is unfolding, and I should imagine the India/Pakistan desks in many foreign ministries are burning the midnight oil over it.
It's encouraging to learn that there is a genuinely nationalistic party (the BJP) gaining strength in India that appears to better understand the nature of the Islamic threat to its survival than the present Congress Party. In many ways the ICP appears to be the Indian equivalent of our own Democratic Party.
In the past there have been Indian posters on this site who would have far more knowledgeable things to say about this than me. I hope they please feel free to chime in on this.
The NY Times article seems like completely biased. The writer has only interviewed subjects who are sympathetic to islamic religion. There have been more than dozen Islamic terrorists attack in India this year based on internt search. Where have been the muslim citizens of India in codemning them? The Mumbai attack has attracted high level visibility. Hence the drama.
It is similar to Muslim citizens of U.S. who went to Whitehouse after 9/11 to show solidarity with U.S. but then only for us to find out that those who went to whitehouse had preached in mosques denouncing and co
Pakistan is a failed state. There isn't any central authority that has more than a modicum of control or support of own populace anymore. It appears that most of the country is a lawless no mans land where the people do not trust the government, because it is seen as a puppet of the west. The west pressures the government to controll the jihadist aspects of Islam with its society, which is seen as colonialism by the Pakistanis. This whole war on "terror" has become a reverse positive feedback cycle, and we are stuck in it like Brier Rabbit tangled up with his tar baby. Right now the Mumbai jihadists are probably more popular than the central government. It is only a matter of time before the nation melts down, and needs to be invaded in order to secure its nuclear assets. There had better be a plan for this. That is all I have to say about it, because Pakistan is going to hell in hand basket A.S.A.P.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7023297417003083945 nice little vieo to go along with the Afghanistan/Pakistan theme.
What will happen if dynamism and intellectual assets of Indians - if they are compelled to become muslims to avoid Islamic terrorists inflicted injuries - become part of the Islamic assets?
Creepy and scary..God Save us!
ethoman, good point. Except it would be Brer Rabbit#2. Brer Rabbit #1 is already occupied in Iraq.
Liberty Rain, the author of the NYT article is head of Stratfor, which specializes in geopolitical intelligence. His article didn't really deal with Islam as a distinct factor other than that implied by the political impossibility of Pakistan turning over the Mumbai terrorists to India. Most posters here had already concluded that this would be unlikely to happen. Of course, religion has some bearing on this, but an analysis based solely on religious factors doesn't completely capture the complexity of the situation, and it is this larger complexity Friedman discusses. For example, he discusses the importance of the port city of Karachi. His conclusion is basically that India has no option but to strike Pakistan. The only question is when, where and how hard? Maybe mystichealer could speculate on what is like to happen next.
Liberty Rain, the author of the NYT article is head of , which specializes in geopolitical intelligence. His article didn't really deal with Islam as a distinct factor other than that implied by the political impossibility of Pakistan turning over the Mumbai terrorists to India. Most posters here had already concluded that this would be unlikely to happen. Of course, religion has some bearing on this, but an analysis based solely on religious factors doesn't completely capture the complexity of the situation, and it is this larger complexity Friedman discusses. For example, he discusses the importance of the port city of Karachi. His conclusion is basically that India has no option but to strike Pakistan. The only question is when, where and how hard? Maybe mystichealer could speculate on what is like to happen next.
Apologies for the double post. The linkable text worked in the Preview, but not in the posted version and I tried (unsuccessfully) to fix it. Don't know why it didn't work.
Yes, I agree with you Hugh; except for those few British administrators/scholars who studied and discovered Indian heritage and culture, at the time most stayed out of the realm. Contrary to the way the Spaniards colonised Latin America (mingling with the natives, inter-marrying, and imposing their language, religion, culture and Catholic ideology, eliminating the natives’ languages and cultures altogether), the British pretty much ran their colonies like companies, looking for financial and political gain, and little else. Theirs was a simple but effective policy: divide and rule. Most British officers to the East India Company (military or administrative) knew enough about the people then living in India, to be able to distinguish a Hindu from a Muslim and little more. A few rare cases of greater cultural understanding arose where British men married Indian women, and even fewer of Indian men who married British women. It is true they didn’t destroy Hindu temples and shrines, but then again, their purpose was not to change ideology, it was repressing the masses by dividing them, for maximum financial and political gain.
Which is better? While a smaller evil cannot be used to justify a greater evil, I will have to go with British rule, which did bring certain reforms in Indian psyche, implanted the idea of democracy, reformed infrastructure, transportation and industry and gave us a national identity. What were earlier several hundreds of thousands of King-States, under British rule united to form the Republic of India.
While we are on the topic though, I would like to reiterate that the crimes committed by the British in India were heinous and in no way small; even though they didn’t match up to the much, much bloodier history of their Islamic counterparts. While most British I believe are now repentant of their ancestors’ deeds, not just in India but over all colonized lands, unfortunately, it is still fairly common to encounter those who talk of the “days of the empire” with a melancholic gleam in their eye. On the other hand, Islam works with an almost clean-slate, and Muslims somehow end up being the “scape-goats” and “victims” after most Jihadi attacks by their bretheren.
Finally, while British atrocities and the subsequent Struggle for Indian Independence are detailed in most Indian textbooks, only a paragraph or two may be dedicated to the “conflicts” between Islamic invaders/colonizers in India (against Hindus), completely evading, ignoring, covering, and misinterpreting the mass-genocides committed by the latter over generations. Negationists have effectively managed to eliminate this thousand year old carnage, and as generations move forward, we have reached a stage where it is now taboo to even question such acts.
O.T: I'm about 3/4 way through Roberts excellent P.I.G to Islam ,and am needless to say , flaunting it and quoting it under the pretense of random conversation of current events (as surely as the sun sets in the west , there will be at least one act of islamic violence per day)to workmates at colledge and strangers alike . Even if I only create a slight interest it's a victory (who says we should fight fair ? The muslims don't!). Anyway reading this book has made me realise how much I miss this site , I haven't been on here for ages due to lack of CPU and due to the library CPUs sometimes filtering JW out as a "hate-speech" site.
Anyway back on-topic - I was nauseated while reading Metro the other day (A PC rag free on british public transport) that declared the Mumbai massacre "an attack on people of all religions ; muslims , hindus, sikhs , jews and christians.... blah-blah!!!" .
Why is it people feel the need to mention muslims first ? To detract from the fact that they and their cult are responsible ; or is it to try and make muslims realise that they , more than any other religious or racial group, are the number 1 killer of their own kind ?
Today's Times of India article: Quran now in Nepali. The only Hindu country in the world, now has an official holiday on the occasion of Eid.
"KATHMANDU: As the former Hindu kingdom of Nepal celebrated the holy Muslim festival of Bakr Eid from Tuesday, for thousands of Muslims there was an additional cause to rejoice with the government for the first time announcing a public holiday on the occasion and the first Quran in Nepali language being offered to the faithful. "
Read it here.
The article says....Muslims holding up banners proclaiming their condemnation of terrorism and loyalty to the Indian state.
You have to be joking, if they are loyal to the state they cant be loyal to Islam.. Terrorism is part of Islam, Mohamad demanded it, Mohammad did it, mohammad said to take the whole world for allah even if that means killing all who will not submit... so how can they say that they are against terrorism when it is the terrorists who are their heros...
I just feel compelled to post the entire TOI article:
people who do not know Arabic can comprehend the Prophet's teachings."
Bookshops near the Kashmiri and Jama Masjids said there was a brisk sale of the Nepali Quran. Sales are expected to rise during the three-day celebrations marked by prayers and feasts.
The Kathmandu-based Islami Sangh Nepal took the initiative of getting the entire Quran translated into Nepali. The translated version was launched in May in a bid to spread the message of Islam among the Nepali-speaking people of South and South east Asia.
The five-year project was funded by project Al-Quran Academy in London, an international organisation engaged in Islamic research and publication.
About 2000 copies were printed in New Delhi and are meant to be circulated in Bhutan and Myanmar as well which have a sizeable Nepali-speaking population.
Till 2006, Nepal was a Hindu kingdom where conversion to other religions were a punishable offence.
However, after a pro-democracy movement aided by a 10-year Maoist battle against the nation's Hindu king, parliament proclaimed the country secular. Subsequently, an election this year abolished Nepal's 239-year-old monarchy and paved the way for the first Maoist-led government.
Nepal's first Maoist Prime Minister Pushpa Kamal Dahal Prachanda, who has pledged to form a Muslim Commission for the uplift of the Muslim community who form 4.2 percent of the country's 28 million population, Tuesday issued a message on the occasion.
He called Bakr Eid a source of inspiration and hoped it would cement cultural and social harmony in Nepal. The top leaders of the major parties also publicly greeted the Muslim community.
The government last week provided a state budget to help nearly 400 Muslims go to Saudi Arabia to perform the Haj. >>
Emphasis provided by me.
Eastview
Why did Punjabi-ISI do Mumbai? The reason is because
Punjabi-Army is composed of
66% Punjabis and 33% Pashtuns, but the office core and leadership is 99% Punjabi.
When americans asked pakistan to crush taliban in order to get billions in cash and weapons the Punjabi-ISI sent pashtun soldiers to kill their fellow pashtuns in afghanistan. Pashtuns refused to do this.
So pakistan needed an excuse to move the troops away from "war on terror" which is really "war to exterminate pashtuns" and so they staged mumbai attacks.
India obviosuly responded angrily and so Punjabi_ISI quickly moved the pashtun troops to Indian border and told the americans that India threatens their national security so they must shift troops from afghanistan-Pakistan border to India-Pakistan border.
Punjabi-ISI gets billions every year from CIA to kill minorities ad Indians while young american kids are dying and amputated.
Yes islam is bad but Punjabis are even worse.
What is likely to happen next?
Nothing. India will make some noise and that is it.
Manmohan-Singh is the worst PM of India. He is a traitor.
India cannot Invade Pakistan as the power difference b/w India and Pakistan is not so great as between US and Iraq.
The only thing India can do and should do is wage a covert war to liberate balochis, sindhis and pashtuns from the Punjabi genocide.
India should strike inside Punjab and bleed the Punjabis as long and as much as possible.
Only the former PM Narsimha-Rao of India did that from 1991 to 1996. He helped our freedom struggle.
dumbledoresarmy
I have that illustration on my desktop.
A welcome gesture, and there is no reason to doubt its sincerity whatsoever.
Has Spencer completely lost his mind, or is he "calling a bluff"?
Muslims in India at least are doing something, better than the American Muslims that were dancing in the street in NJ and rejoicing all over the US after Sep11 and don't tell me it is not true I witnessed it.
anonymous
leave Spencer alone . He knows what he is doing.
"When americans asked pakistan to crush taliban in order to get billions in cash and weapons the Punjabi-ISI sent pashtun soldiers to kill their fellow pashtuns in afghanistan. Pashtuns refused to do this."
Mystichealer
Your posts paint a picture of intense tribal loyalties and competition (Pujabis against everyone else) as being the most significant factors in the strife in the region, with little mention of the Taliban other than they are of the Pashtuni victims of the Punjabis. The focus on this site has tended toward the importance of Islam as the most significant factor in the politics of the region, with little mention of tribal forces. So our perspectives are different. I greatly appreciate hearing the views of someone like yourself who comes from there and who obviously has an immediate stake in the outcome.
You still haven't answered my question about how you would like to see the region structured. If by some chance an independent Balochistan and Sindh emerged from the conflict that appears to be building, what kind of states do you think they should be, i.e., would they be a shariah compliant states like most Muslim majority regions seem to insist on, or, more religiously tolerant states like India, or something else?