But India itself has 180 million Allah's Kids and their growth rate is explosive. I wonder when the Muslim Bomb which India has within itself will explode destroying the country. It should have been made compulsary during partition that all Allah's kid should move to LAND OF PURE(Pakistan) and find peace with their brothers & sisters. Gandhi made a blunder by allowing so many of them to stay and India is paying the price now. Further Indian govt is wasting tax payers money on talks with Pakistan on Kashmir and operating daily bus services to Pakistan for easy movement of Jihadist's.

All the muslims in India & Pakistan are still in 11th century basking in the glory of Afghan thief Mohammad Ghazni's looting & destruction of Hindu temples. They are waiting for that day to come again.Indeed Muslim occupation of India is a failed one. Many Hindus didn't accepted that evil cult Islam despite so much cruelty & pressure imposed on them by Moguls & other sultans. If that could have happened imagine a country with 1.4 billion muslims(including Pakistan & Bangladesh).

Posted by: infidel4ever at September 2, 2005 7:54 AM

An interesting article that warrants a full read:

`the fighting in Kashmir obscure the core issue of South Asia: the institutional meltdown of Pakistan…" And this is due to the "accumulation of disorder and irrationality" that is yet to be understood. And the jihad in Kashmir is a consequence of this fear of a crumbling state — in the hope of providing a unifying theme to unite forces of the frontier that are implacably hostile to the Punjabi ruling establishment.

Of course border problems are nothing new, but in the case of Pakistan it is of an altogether different dimension. The reason is simple: Pakistan is made up mostly of border regions with a small Punjabi core. As Kaplan puts it: "PAKISTAN covers the desert frontier of the Subcontinent. British civil administration extended only to Lahore, in the fertile Punjab, near Pakistan's eastern border with India; its Mogul architecture, gardens, and rich bazaars give Lahore a closer resemblance to the Indian cities of New Delhi and Calcutta than to any other place in Pakistan. But the rest of Pakistan— the rugged Afghan-border regions of Baluchistan and the North-West Frontier Province, the alkaline wasteland of Sind, and the Hindu Kush and Karakoram Mountains embracing Kashmir — has never been subdued by the British or anyone else." It is a small chunk of India latched on to a huge and hostile border region. It is a total mismatch.`
http://voi.org/books/cpak/ch1.html

Posted by: leavingtheleft at September 2, 2005 8:03 AM

Robert,

I have been a tireless advocate of improving strategic ties with India. Doing so makes such obvious sense because:

1) Shared values and culture; India is a successful Federal Democracy where English is widely spoken

2) An effective counterweight to the geo-political challenge of a rising China

3) A natural ally in the struggle against global Islamism

My only problem with the article is your stated desire to write-off Pakistan as an ally. While there is certainly room for improvement in terms of Pakistani anti-terror policy, it should be noted that Pakistan has turned over more Al Qaeda to the USA than any country in the world. The list includes Khalid Sheik Muhammad, the mastermind of the attack.

Musharraf is under enormous domestic pressure to abandon his co-operation with the USA. He's been the target of two assassination attempts. Not to mention the fact that where the most of the camps Afghan intelligence has identified are in the NWFP, a historical no-go area for the central gov't.

I conceed that Musharraf could be doing more. I'm mearly suggesting that the factors constraining him are genuine; domestic opposition to his policies are extensive, encompassing not only public opinion but elements extending to the highest levels of the gov't, military and ISI.

Unlike the Saudis, his is not a game of willful duplicity but rather political and physical survival.

Improving and deepening ties with India is a strategic imperative in today's global environment. But Pakistan need not be punished in the process. We could do a lot worse than having Musharraf as the head of that nuclear-armed, poverty-stricken, dysfunctional excuse-for-a-country.

Posted by: Cornelius at September 2, 2005 8:48 AM

Eeveryone has a valid concern about the Islamic problem within India as so many of us are very concerned about the issue, however India has survived from becoming an Islamic country not because of the many Hindus who promote the image of the cowardly Hindu, instead there are many martial fighting groups among the Hindus some o which gained fame during WW1 and WW2.

From the North to the South you Have Rajputs, Bhils, Gondas, Jats, Gurkhas, Tamils, Marathas and many others as you go to the southern states of India, even in the very Southern tips of India are Hindus who are willing to fight the Muslims and defend their nation and the world against Islam. You also have fierce warriors in Assam and Manipur bordering Burma (recall that Burma was part of India until 1936 and was seperated by Lord Curzon).

The problem is India's government, Mahatma Gandhi, Jawarharlal Nehru and Sardar Patel are to blame for (1) the creation of Pakistan and (2) the suppression of Martial Groups in India.

Although you will find many Hindus in the west having really messed up ideas about the realities of the world or even Hindu history for that matter, while I was in India from 2001 to the end of 2003 I witnessed that many areas of India (in the North where I was) were itching to settle the score with Islam, the only fear was Government retaliation, as well many feel that the Congress Party of India is Anti-Hindu and Pro-Islamic.

The Congress Party is ruled by Sonia Gandhi, who is an Italian and widow of former Prime minister Rajiv Gandhi. Although she is Catholic, she is very Anti-Hindu and Pro-Islamic. If America redifines its alliances and becomes a friend to India, this could eventually help tip the scale in favor of the Hindus so that they may save their nation without the constant feeling of persecution they feel by their own government.

One must also remember that the British preferred the Hindu Martial Groups in their military over the Muslim groups, there were many reasons for it including basics charateristics such as bravery, courage but one of the key statements the British made was loyalty, they simply could not trust the Muslim soldiers, but they had full faith in the Hindus. Its sad the British forgot all this when they allowed all those Pakistanis to set up shop in England.

Pakistan is waiting for its chance to one day stand up against America as a leader for the Islamic world.

Posted by: Gorkhali at September 2, 2005 9:14 AM

Cornelius

"Musharraf is under enormous domestic pressure to abandon his co-operation with the USA. He's been the target of two assassination attempts".

Why cant you acknowledge that Pakistani military dictator Mr.Pervez Musharaff is GREAT ACTOR. I pity no one is nominating him for Oscar award. In movies actors act according to story written by someone but this guy is acting for a real story and he has done a great job in convincing you people about innocence of Pakistani people.

Posted by: infidel4ever at September 2, 2005 9:38 AM

I absolutely agree with Robert. To keep Pakistan one of our main allies in the region is not going to help us defeat jihadism. Pakistan is a deeply Islamicised country swarming with hate-spreading madrassas and mosques, which are extremely influential on the national scale.

So far, not a single madrassa responded to Gov't registration initiative, and president Musharraf doesn't seem to an idea on how to deal with this immense opposition he is facing.

He in fact tacitly reaffirmed he powerlessness in a recent statement, where he ruled out the military solution to extremism and instead made vague offers about projecting the 'true image of Islam' in order to tackle extremism. Laughable. Those madrassas are doing exactly that, and I didn't extremism waning recently.

-----------------------------
dolphin, CAGE co-founder.
http://www.acage.org

Posted by: dolphin at September 2, 2005 10:01 AM

The only hope for Pakistan is for a sufficient number of its people to jettison Islam altogether. This requires protection for non-Muslims. It starts with unhappiness growing out of a recognition of the mess that is everywhere to be seen in Pakistan -- the political mess, the economic mess, the social mess, the intellectual mess. The generals and zamindars rule; the generals who supported the Taliban and Dr. A. Q. Khan, who massacred people all over East Pakistan during the 1971 war for independence, who keep the masses in thrall. The mess of Sunni attacks on Shi'a, the mess of Muslim attacks on Christians and Hindus. The mess of the active support by successive Pakistani governments for terrorist attacks on Hindus in Kashmir, and in India. The mess of a country kept alive through the jizya of foreign aid, and textiles (and if Western consumers were to cease to buy goods produced by child labor, a good many respectable Pakistani rug merchants in the West would go out of business).

Ever since Pakistan was a member of the useless and comical CENTO (along with Iran, Iraq, Turkey, the U.K., and the U.S. , the last two providing all the military equipment, training, and money), ever since the 1954 Treaty with the Americans, that country -- on a steady downward course, especiallly after General Zia intensified the "Muslimness" of Pakistan -- has been coccolato, spoiled silly, by the Americans, so impressed with those straight-backed mustachioed Sandhurst-trained generals, so unimpressed with Krishna Menon and Bandung-conferencing Jawaharlal Nehru -- both a bit too Marxist, or at least Fabian, for the taste of John Foster Dulles and those who followed him.

But Pakistan is not a friend. It cannot be a friend. No Muslim state can be a friend or ally of an Infidel state. It can, upon occasion, and out of fear of punishment, or out of hope of gain, cooperate with the Americans. The Turks cooperated with America because Russia was their historic enemy, and of course they did not like Communism either. But they would not cooperate in measures that might be necessary to constrain or contain Islam, and the power of Muslims to infliect damage on Infidels.

Pakistan is far worse. It is a country created, by someone who himself would drink alcohol and was even rumored to have consumed pork (Mohammed Ali Jinnah), to be "pak" or pure because it would be of, by, and for Muslims. The steady pressure on Hindus to leave has worked; they have gone from 15% of the Pakistani population to 1.5% -- one-tenth of what they were at independence.

It is a country where primitive mobs gather at a moment's notice; where rumor can prompt those mobs; where anything that takes place in the outer world can lead to immediate action taken against the local symbols of Infidel power. Did some Muslims take over the Great Mosque in Mecca in November, 1979? Very well, then, Pakistani mobs would attack the American embassy. And attacks on symbols of Infidel (Western) power are a common occurrence.

Meanwhile members of the Pakistani elite carefully send their children to be educated, or even better, to be educated and to remain in, that Infidel West. Pinky Bhutto attends Radcliffe; Musharraf's son lives quietly as an accountant in Canton, Massachusetts. Some, abroad, begin to see that Islam needs -- well, needs something. Most prefer not to inquire too closely into the theory, or history, of Islam, for fear of what they might find out, and what that would do to their intellectual coherence and even emotional equilibrium.

But Pakistan a friend along with India? Can't happen. No can do. It can be a useful collaborator in some limited ways. It can be made to behave. Those are different things. Not friendship. Not part of the same intellectual or moral universe, or capable of being so. Muslims have been taught that there is a divide between Believers and Infidels. And they are right -- their teaching that makes for that divide. And it cannot have a bridge, not even a temporary pontoon bridge, built across that divide.

It won't work. But for any individual born into Islam who can see his way to jettisoning it -- then all sorts of mental possiblities open up.

Posted by: Hugh at September 2, 2005 10:04 AM

I agree with Robert that India and US should
strengthen their ties. The relationship between two large nations will remain complex but there is no reason why sincere attempts to strengthen should not be made.

US will stay involved in the middle east for a very long time because Jihad is a sophisticated institution and not a passing phenomenon of angry people. India simply cannot wish away it geography.

However, the relationship stalls when people want to actually move beyond rhetoric.

What India wants ?
1. Nuclear issue. Some solid progress but doubts remain on both sides.
2. Permanent seat in UN. Not getting US support in near term. Will dilute US power and it is not known if India will support US resolutions.
3. Atleast not supply sophisticated weapons to
Pakistan like F16 or P3 orion ( and that too for
free !). I have no clue what US gains out of this.
If it gets out of hand, India will tilt towards
China and Russia.
4. Call pakistani terrorism for what it is :- terrorism . This is already happening after September 11.

What US wants ?
1. Indian troops. Very unlikely. But this should
be tried and be taken one step at a time. And more defense treaties between India and US should be signed.

2. Opening up of Indian economy. This is actually
in India's favour. However, Indian communists just want to destroy the economic miracle. No idea if communist will continue to stall economic reforms.

3. Less anti-US rhetoric in UN and WTO. This is already happening.

Still, lets hope that saner heads prevail and the alliance gains strength.

Posted by: Naresh C. at September 2, 2005 10:21 AM

Good to see guys like Mr.Spencer who cant be dismissed as "Communal" or Hindutva apologists.. as for Paki jehadi camps, world, especially American administration is to b blamed for their continued existance. World looked the other way when India cried hoarse over those camps, now they're not only an Indian problem but they've evovlved in to a worldwide problem.

BTW i'm amazed at how many ppl here buy the Mush's taquiyya. Mush is an ISI guy the organisation that imslamified Pakistan in the first place. Daniel Pearl wasnt killed by some wierdo jehadi. He was killed because he learnt too much abt Pakistani State complicity in the global jehad network.

Posted by: Vikrant_Camberleykar at September 2, 2005 11:36 AM

One good way to get around nay sayers in both countries (and there are enough in both countries e.g. Indian communists)
is to sign a series of smaller treaties instead of one
big treaty and ratchet up the pressure on the other side. Let democracy not become an excuse for inaction and neither side will get a free ride. See how far the other side is willing to progress with each small treaty. Wait for other side to progress before committing to the next set of goodies. This may have already been set in motion with Bush and Manmohan a couple of months ago. How far it will go is unknown but it should be tried.
If the game is played well, both sides may be able to get want they want most. Otherwise, we can wait
for a more dangerous world and a younger wiser generation.

As for US willingness to buy Musharraf's double game, informed people cannot be informed further.
Not about madrassas. Not about Pakistan military's plan to export nukes (Dismissed as AQ Khan affair).
Not about terrorism.
(By the way, Musharraf did not even know about
Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. It was completely an FBI
operation. Khalid Sheikh was living in Rawalpindi with the top brass of Pakistani military when he was arrested.)
Willingness to process information comes when
people themselves feel the pain. As Ariel Sharon
famously said, Europeans will not understand terrorism as long as London Bridge and Eiffel tower continue to stand. Well now that the London bridge has fallen, the British may have a greater
willingness to the process the information they always had. Sooner or later the truth comes out.

Posted by: Naresh C. at September 2, 2005 12:20 PM

Naresh the ppl of India are to blame. You guys put 43 commies in parliament. These commies are hell bent on reviving the license raj. Guys like Karat still havent got out from their cold war hangover. I just hope they pull the plugs on UPA, thereby giving a chance for an NDA govt. btw dont dissappoint us (the Indian diaspora) in 2009.

Posted by: Vikrant_Camberleykar at September 2, 2005 1:37 PM

Yes, an alliance with India, it would be good.

Posted by: Franze at September 2, 2005 2:00 PM

WORLD'S LARGEST MUSLIM POPULATIONS:

1. INDONESIA
2. INDIA
3. PAKISTAN

India is the USA's new partner against jihad?

Good luck!

Naresh makes some interesting points. India is just playing America to attain some short term goals.

The Communists of West Bengal (and elsewhere) are a powerful and reprehensible set of people, the CPI(M) etc. combined with the huge Muslim voting block (and, let's not forget, a Muslim president) are NEVER going to allow the nation to do anything concrete for the West - ever! They will just pay the West lip service to get what they want - and alas, you seem to be buying it.

I can't believe how lucky America is to have a leader like Musharraf in Pakistan - yes he's imperfect, but you're never going to do any better, that's for sure. India knows this, and wishes to woo America away from his sphere of influence with kind words and empty gestures. Pakistan has always been in a state of semi-anarchy and I think you do not fully comprehend the constraints on his power.

India is wilfully letting millions of Muslims flood into Christian and Animist tribal areas of northeast India because Muzzies traditionally vote Congress, whereas the tribal communities set up their own local political structures that often oppose the Congress party - so they have simply let Muslims settle en-masse on tribal lands so they can re-establish Congress party dominance.

The statistics of Muslim growth within the 7 sisters region is shocking. The British stopped Bengali immigration into the area by giving it inner line status. The colonial inner and outer lines are too complex an issue to explain here, but in effect, Muslims (and other outsiders) not on British government business were not allowed to cross into British Assam (bigger than the modern Indian state of Assam). By declaring that all of India was for all Indians, the Republic of India demolished the non-Muslim tribal integrity of many areas. Tripura (formerly a semi-independent principality) was 80% tribal in 1947, now it's 80% Bengali!

Any Bangladeshi can leave their nation to live in India - since 1971 10 MILLION have - and India considered it politically expedient to let it happen. To prove residence all a Bangladeshi needs is an Indian ration card - which can be purchased on the black market for less than $5.

Posted by: Timbo at September 2, 2005 2:08 PM

Unlike the Saudis, his is not a game of willful duplicity but rather political and physical survival.

Cornelius, I would like you to have a look at Musharraf's speech to his nation made after he decided to join hands with the USA in this 'war against terrorism"; one week after the US was hit by the 9/11 attacks.

http://www.un.int/pakistan/14010919.html

Please have a look at this speech carefully and tell me whether you still believe that Musharraf isn't playing a duplicitous role. Please note that Musharraf even evokes the infamous Hudaibiya treaty in which Muhammad signed a treaty of peace with his enemy (the Jewish Quraish tribe) only to revoke it and attack this tribe under false pretexes. (see for example: http://www.historyofjihad.org/). The mere fact that Musharraf invoked the Hudaibiya treaty shows that his support for the USA was purely an act of political expediency. After all, what choice did he have but to grudgingly support the USA, having been read the riot act by Gen. Powell and others in the US military? As infidel4ever said, Musharraf deserves an Oscar for his performance.

Posted by: Razdan at September 2, 2005 2:42 PM

Timbo:

You make some very perceptive comments.

On the face of it, it would seem that India is a natural partner in the war against Jihad, but India is a growing power and has its own intersts, which are unlikely to be in accord with the US or the West.

Pakistan though is a failing or failed nation. It survives on handouts from the West, and as such, is likely to do America's bidding.

What you write about the situation in Assam is appalling. Assam is a Christian majority state, and it would'nt surprise me that India is happy to see it overrun by muslims. Given the dhimmi like behaviour of successive Indian governments to Islam and the huge muslim population of India, it would be wise not to put our eggs in one south Asian basket.

Posted by: DP111 at September 2, 2005 4:21 PM

I can't believe how lucky America is to have a leader like Musharraf in Pakistan - yes he's imperfect, but you're never going to do any better, that's for sure. India knows this, and wishes to woo America away from his sphere of influence with kind words and empty gestures. Pakistan has always been in a state of semi-anarchy and I think you do not fully comprehend the constraints on his power.

Timbo, what you fail to take into account is that enlisting the support of a man like Musharraf (who has always been intimately tied with the ISI that propped the Taleban in Afghanistan and has been waging jehad in Kashmir against India) in a country like Pakistan (which sees itself as a center for the revival of the Islamic ummah) to fight against Islamic Jehad is nothing short of a very poor joke! Musharraf has provided very little assistance to the USA; and, more likely than not, has ensured safe passage for Osama Bin Laden and other Islamic terrorists.

As for allying with India, I agree that India has its share of commies and Islamic sympathizers (much like the USA & Britain) and also has a generally dhimmi population that acts oblivious to the threat it faces from Islamic jehad... but there is a large section of the population that is slowly waking up and realizing what's happening. It is these people that form natural allies for the USA. The bottom line is all non-Islamic countries are facing the same threat from this global Islamic jehad; and the only way we can fight it effectively is to unite.

Posted by: Razdan at September 2, 2005 4:37 PM

Timbo posted: India is wilfully letting millions of Muslims flood into Christian and Animist tribal areas of northeast India because Muzzies traditionally vote Congress

Precisely my thesis, that New Labour allowed hundreds of thousands of muslims into Britain, supported them on Benefits, to give New Labour a comfortable voting margin in elections.

By declaring that all of India was for all Indians, the Republic of India demolished the non-Muslim tribal integrity of many areas.

Yet I'm told that the government does not allow Indians to settle in Kashmir, as it would upset the muslim majority in Kashmir.

Posted by: DP111 at September 2, 2005 5:19 PM

DP111, Assam is not a Christian state, it is a Hindu majority state, yes it has a sepratist movement but its a Hindu sepratist movement it is not a tribal state but Assamese language and culture is closely related with Bengali. India has 3 not 7 Christian states. They are Meghalaya,Mizoram and Nagaland. But thats nit the point. Actually those states are far better outside India becoz that way they'll be better equipped to protect their demographics. The government in Delhi is a sell out to muzzies. Moreover Bangladeshis have also flooded Bombay. They constitute abt 15% of Slum Dwelling population of Bombay.

Posted by: Vikrant_Camberleykar at September 2, 2005 7:39 PM

DP111, btw West Bengal is the worst affected state in India. about 7 of its bordering districts harbour more illegals than Indian citizens. The cause is ofcourse the commies who dole out Indian passports to illegals for as lil as $10 in return for votes.

Quote frm Timbo:By declaring that all of India was for all Indians, the Republic of India demolished the non-Muslim tribal integrity of many areas.

Timbo almost all states have been affected not only the tribal ones. The state of my origin, Maharashtra had only about 3% Muslim population but today it stands at 17%. Maharashtra is 2nd biggest state in Union and has a population of abt 90 million making it one of the most popuplous sub-national entities in the world. These Muslims do not speak Marathi and show a lil regard for Marathi culture. Unfortunately thats the price of the Union, which non-Hindi states are paying dearly...

Posted by: Vikrant_Camberleykar at September 2, 2005 7:46 PM

Razdan,

I read the speech in its entirety. I put the appropriate context on it. Musharraf certainly paid lip service to Islamic traditions, to sentimental loyalty to the Taliban, etc.

Whether this was reflective of his genuine sentiments or was an attempt to appease popular opinion at the very time he was preparing the public for unpopular decisions is a matter of opinion. I myself cannot be sure.

All I know is that Musharraf threw his lot in with America. He's killed or arrested (and transferred to US custody) literally hundreds of Al Qaeda. This kind of cooperation far transcends anything the Saudis (or just about anyone else) are doing. This HAS to be taken into account. Actions speak a helluva lot louder than words.

By the way, yesterday a Pakistani diplomat met his Israeli counterpart in a rare display of Islamic-Israeli dialogue. It's mostly just symbolism, put in that region of the world, symbolism speaks volumes. Let's give Musharraf his due. He ain't perfect, but any successor could be alot worse.

Posted by: Cornelius at September 2, 2005 10:56 PM