Most of them do not even recall their ancestors vigilence and especially the Rajputs vigilence against Bin Qasim and his hordes starting from 15 years after Mohammed's death.

There's one major voice in islam that drowns out all others and it chants the Verse of the Sword.

Posted by: asmodai at March 20, 2006 9:34 AM

Hindus do not fear Muslim mob violence. It's Muslims who fear Hindu mob violence. India's Muslim population is only 13.4%.

Indo-US nuclear treaty is mutually benefial. India have never shared it's nuclear technology with any rogue nation.

Posted by: Sandracottus at March 20, 2006 9:39 AM

Why did US turn a blind eye when a rogue nation like Pakistan acquired nuclear bomb?

Posted by: Sandracottus at March 20, 2006 9:53 AM

"Hindus do not fear Muslim mob violence. It's Muslims who fear Hindu mob violence. India's Muslim population is only 13.4%."
-- from a posting above

Don't be silly. Who set fire to the trainload of returning Hindus? Who controls much of Mumbai, and its underworld? Who has conducted attacks on Hindus and other non-Muslims within Indian-controlled Kashmir? Who drove 300-400,000 Kashmiri Pandits out of their homes?

And who, with far less than "13.4%" of the population, has no trouble setting off nation-wide riots directed at the forces of Infidel order, at the Infidel nation-state, at individual Infidels (at least two of them beaten to death) in France?

Don't start on this. And don't try to distract us from security concerns about this nudclear deal, not worries generated by the behavior of Hindu India, nor by the behavior and attitudes of Sikhs, and Jains, and Buddhists, and Christians, in India, but about a specific and permanent problem for Infidels inside, and outside India: the Muslim presence, unapologetic, unyielding, ever demanding, and not to be judged on the basis of that unrepresentative upper-class of largely unobservant or lax Muslims, some of them even "Muslim-for-identification-purposes-only" Muslims, who are not a guide to anything, and cannot be relied on as indicators of the feelings, attitudes, behavior of the Muslim masses. That mistake was made by those who fashioned American policy in Iraq based on their personal encounters with Chalabi, Allawi, Makiya, Rend al-Rahim. It's the worst way to make policy for Muslim states, or states with large Muslim populations.

This cannot, I'm afraid, be overlooked. If the Indian government can assure us that Muslims will be kept well away from any knowhow that might result from this plan to share nuclear technology, that would be some relief. But it is going to have to do so. It cannot prevent Americans from worrying about this, and it cannot avoid giving assurances that will require it to recognize the security problem that Infidels everywhere are now going to be far more vigilant about -- or should be.

Posted by: Hugh at March 20, 2006 10:06 AM

Sandracottus... Indian muslims are spread thinly across the country but they make up for more than 13.4%, probably close to 20% because the census of 2001 you might be referring to does not include Jammu & Kashmir which is a majority muslim state and may not be fully accurate.

Hugh: Supporting Hindutva is bad. I can vouch for its dangers even though I am a Hindu. It has been turned into a fascist idea and they are against all religions except Hinduism in the Indian sub-continent. What they are proposing is a Hindu version of dhimmi for followers of other faiths, which is not really an alternative to islamofascism, but just another evil to deal with. That is my opinion anyway.

But Indians don't play dhimmi, not yet. It is most Indian politicians who do that, but the muslims get their backs turned to pink if they behave bad.

But there are extremely progressive secular muslims in India. Azim Premji, the top guy of Wipro, the richest Indian and one of the few Indian billionaires, is a muslim. Too bad he is likely to be seen as an infidel because he is probably too busy to offer 5 prayers a day on time and sports no beard. Same goes for the Indian president Kalam, who Rafiq Zakaria questions as follows, "What is muslim about Kalam?". These two really dont matter, since as Wafa Sultan put it, "You can believe in a stone if you want, as long as you dont throw it at me.".

The problem is Pakistan whose sponsoring of terror across the border is the biggest security issue in South Asia. One of the few governments that recognized Taliban but is an ally in war on terror. I dont believe that Musharraf will survive attempts on his life forever and once he is gone, it is going to be a big mess for everybody around. But on the one hand, if that happens, China will hesitate providing nuclear technology to them and will prevent them from building more nukes without any kind of inspections at all. On the other hand, Pakistan is likely to descend into a civil war. It already is lawless near the Afghan border. They are as big a threat as Iran is, even great, because already have nukes and will become a theocracy in the next few years if things dont improve worldwide.

Posted by: csa bill at March 20, 2006 10:17 AM

Who set fire to the trainload of returning Hindus? Who controls much of Mumbai, and its underworld?

It was Muslims who set fire.But the repercussion were severe.

Muslims do not control Mumbai! Muslims even do not have a majority share Mumbai's underworld. Mumbai underworld has been cut down to size through fake police encounters. Mumbai aspires to become the financial capital of Asia in the manner of Shanghai.

csa bil J&K is a sparsely populated state compared to the rest of the nation. And Hindus in Jammu consist of 30% of J&K population. Even when Jammu and Kashmir is included Muslim population wont cross 15%.

Most of the Muslim population is concentrated in three States UP Bihar and Bengal. Southern India (except urban pockets,Kerala and the old city of Hyderabad)is largely Muslim free.

And who, with far less than "13.4%" of the population, has no trouble setting off nation-wide riots directed at the forces of Infidel order, at the Infidel nation-state, at individual Infidels (at least two of them beaten to death) in France?

Muslims will not dare to do anything like France in India! It they acted like French Muslims the backlash from Hindus would be severe. Riots in India are not riots. It's mass slaughter.

Posted by: Sandracottus at March 20, 2006 11:04 AM

Sandracottus says:" Hindus do not fear Muslim mob violance. It is Muslims,who fear Hindu Mob violance. India's Muslim fopulation is only 13.3 percent".
But Hindus are naturally a meek set of people,where in their' hindu Dharma' teaches them to be more a people of 'Ahimsa' (Non violant),than of rebellious nature. On the contrary, the Muslims are trained to be warriers of their religion,and be prepared to kill,or get killed for the sake of Islam.
regarding population,not long ago,the Muslim population was 3 percent. within a short span of time,it has climbed to around 14 percent.There is no unity amoung Hindus. The main reason being,the Brhamins-the so called high class. They classify themself as comming from the head of God Brahma,where as other castes come form the lower parts of the Brahma,and the least-Unktouchable Hindu-the Paraya -comes from the feet of Brahma.
The Brahmins ,for centuries ,never allowed the lower cast Hindus inside their temples. They will not enter their houses,and even the shadow of the untouchable should not fall on a brahmin. This lead a lot of low cast Hindus to drift away to Islam,where they are treated as equals.Some Hindus prefered to embrace Christianity. After Mahathma Ghandi(Western educated) led a crusade and led the untouchables inside the Hindu temples,the Brahmins were infuriated.That led to the murder of Mahathma Ghandi,by Ramnath Ghodsay,a Brahmin fanatic.
Now the Muslims are holding sway in every field-in film production,leading actors,business,and in politics. When it comes to mob violance,one fanatic Muslim will be equal to twenty knee trembling brahmins .
These Brahmins will target only the meek Indian Christians,who do all social work to the Hindus, like education,health care ,and in hospitals. But they target and kill the Christians,as they are easy prey. These Brahmins will never attack the Muslim as all of them are afraid to their bones.

Posted by: rafia at March 20, 2006 12:02 PM

csa bill says: "Supporting Hindutva is bad. I can vouch for its dangers even though I am a Hindu."
Unfortunately, the word "Hindutva" has now only become a smear-word like "communal" to be thrown at everybody who criticizes Islam. Most of the cases when somebody is called "Hindutva" is because he criticized Islam. I would even say because of this, you can't trust an Indian on Islam-related subjects unless the Dhimmis have called him "Hindutva". The word "Hindutva" may have had once a meaning, it has been lost. India's political vocabulary is a very strange thing. Another example is the word Secularism: In the West it means the separation of Church and State, in India it means supporting anything Islamic. Nationalism, like any other -isms, is a bad thing, but to compare or even equal Hindutva to Islamism like "csa bill" is absurd to the highest degree.

Posted by: benetton at March 20, 2006 12:37 PM

I agree with Hugh that there should have been requirements from India that such technology does not fall into the hands of Muslims. While that would have been a hard one given President Abdul Kalaam's role in getting India to where it is, I doubt that it is something India would have refused. Given that there was a lot more arm-twisting involved in getting India to separate its civilian and military facilities (something that is a good idea, even for India, since nuclear plants then become civilian targets rather than military, and therefore less legitimate; dual-use plants wouldn't do well for India.)

That said, one thing that this deal does do is make India less dependent on Islamic oil for its commercial energy needs. However, it still has the Iran-Pak-India pipeline still on for transportation needs. Given the US administration ignorance of the threat of Islam, the least they could have tried to do was to put the kabash on that deal, for India, and instead work on alternative fuels (ethanol, etc). However, India is less dependent than most on Islamic oil; the only problem with such pressure is that it would have threatened the stability of this government, which relies heavily on Marxist support for its parliamentary majority.

Only caveat to what Hugh proposed above - the US should do something about Pakistan's nukes before it ties in any conditions to what India does.

However, as Hugh has pointed out several times in various threads, the US administration has been totally ignorant about the threat of Islam. In India's case, when CM Narendra Modi was to visit the US on the meeting of a Gujarati NRI group, his visa was denied due to the Indian Human Rights Commission upbraiding him for doing nothing about the riots set off by the train attack referred to above. Also, when the BJP led NDA government was in power, it was deliberately snubbed, while a less pro-US, more pro-Islamic govenrment in India gets the favored treatment. As a result, the US is not showing itself to the Hindutva crowd to be a force against Jihad, this deal notwithstanding.

Sandracottus, while 13% may not sound like much, 13% of 1 billion definitely is! As you pointed out, they are big enough to sway elections in the 3 states above. What's more important is that you do not have a well defined Infidel population, (by which, I mean a vote bank that has anti-Islam as its #1 priority) except in Gujarat. As a result, don't look at it as a 13% vs 87%; it's more a fractious 13% vs 5%, at best.

csa_bill, I agree that the Shiv Sena (now split, with Thackeray's influence on the wane) is fascist, but that's not true of Hindutva as a whole. Hindutva organizations, be they RSS, VHP, Bajrang Dal, have never been anti-Sikh, anti-Jain, anti-Jew or anti-Buddhist. They have not even been anti-Christian - their activities have been focussed at Christian missionaries perceived - some rightly, some wrongly - to be bribing people to convert. I'm not commenting on whether that's the right thing to do or not, but just pointing out that they have not been taking on Christians the way they have been on Muslims.

The mistake Hindutva organizations have made is to let the movement be perceived - rightly or wrongly - as Hindu supremacist, rather than anti-Islamic. If they were wise, they would have tried to close ranks with non-Muslim minorities, like Christians, Parsis, etc, so that the overall perception of them would have been anti-Islamic, rather than a Hindu supremacist entity. That would have improved their standing with at least that section of secular Hindus who have no illusions about the evil of Islam. By allowing Christians to fall into an alliance with Muslims, they have done themselves a lot of PR damage, not only abroad, where otherwise anti-Islamic Christian organizations might sympathize with them (but don't due to their anti-Christian belligerance), but also in India, where their stridency on things like Valentine's Day, has made them more of a pariah than they otherwise would (or should) be.

Posted by: Infidel Pride at March 20, 2006 12:38 PM

I agree that the Hindutva organisations have a PR problem in India and even abroad to an extent. Not playing dhimmi can take many forms in India. There is a push for job & education reservations for muslims in India and that is rubbish in my view. They are not oppressed nor backward. But there are poor among them just as there are among Hindus, Christians & every other community in India. If we can just stop the "minority appeasement" of the not so minority and "not at all oppressed" muslims and just let them be equal to everyone else, we have solved our problem with islamic extremism.

Still we have a problem as an ideology that we need to face all over the world, but I believe that it is only a matter of 2-3 decades until we put an end to oil-terror link thru what we consider as our strengths; freedom, creativity, genius & innovation. I think our ideology of freedom & innovation is more powerful and compared to that Islam is a non-alternative.

Given that islamic banking is really rubbish in a modern world and will never give the kind of returns like typical stocks, derivatives & other risk related instruments can give... I dont think they can ever beat us with their brains stifled by their faith and that is where we can sharpen our edge.

And I believe in our system, where the individual counts and is empowered (even if flawed, but not incorrigibly) thru the market, politics etc that we practice... I have no doubt that islamofascism is just a passing nonsense that will fail to keep pace with our more decentralised ideology and lose the race, rather pathetically. But I dont have much hope for Western Europe welfare states though.

Posted by: csa bill at March 20, 2006 1:07 PM

Hugh, the political correctness is a reality, but the reason is not fear per se. The story in India is not as simple as Hindu-Muslim, but there are multiple identities and friction points : religion yes, but also caste, language and region. This is why when there are riots in India (caste riots, or religious riots, or whatever) the newspapers carefully avoid attributing death tolls, for example. The overriding concern is not so much to keep one group happy as much as to prevent the whole enterprise from coming loose.

Indians are very well aware (even if the school texts try to paper it over) that Muslims from outside the region invaded lands that used to be Hindu. But if you are at all familiar with the history of the region that is now India, you know that it was settled by different people at different times. Some were absorbed into Hinduism as specific castes, some were not. So, it is a historical fact that Islamic aggression occurred, but not against "India" because there was no such thing.

It is a mistake to stretch the Indian situation too much to fit the fight against global Islamism. It is valid to the extent that terrorists in India draw inspiration from the recent upsurge in Islamic fundamentalism, or as Arab jihadists drift into the region. But to the extent that terrorism is funded by Pakistan as a proxy war, it is a regional issue. I agree with an earlier message here that it will blow over in a few years, not least because India has no intention of backing down.

What you're seeing as a result of India's economic growth and self-confidence is a questioning of some western academic stereotypes, especially of the entrenched leftist kind. Some of this energy also goes into poking into the neglected corners of Indian history, such as Muslim invasions. Some of it goes into dalit ("lower" caste) issues, or regional pride issues. I'd be disappointed to read into this that as India expands economically, it should take the opportunity to "settle scores" with Muslims. Also, by the way, to suggest that India should not allow Indian Muslims to be part of its nuclear program is lunacy.

Posted by: Sreekanth at March 20, 2006 3:26 PM

Hindutva is essentially a positive ideology. It involves more than anti-dhimmitude. It seeks to empower Hindus economically and politically. It has to do with the protection of Hindu rights including their right to live and practice their faith Islamaniacs and their liberal friends notwithstanding.

This notion that hindutva=fascism or hidutva=bad and 'secularism'=good is a politically correct response borne out of ignorance. As far as PR is concerned all that the opponents of hindutva groups have is dubious linkages with their members' participation in rioting, although records of riots exist in the subcontinent going back to the 1700's long before any of the hindutva groups were even conceived. I don't see why people are surprised or upset when Hindus follow the 'Golden Rule' unless they think that Hindus should just allow themselves to be killed by Muslims mobs.

An alliance between Hindus and other non-muslims is a joke. The Marxists (who have distorted the history in favor of muslims) have their own alliance with the Muslims going back to 1920's. The Parsis are too insignificant. The Jains and Buddhists already cooperate in some instances. In India the Christians and Muslims are allied against the common pagan enemy based on their common Abhrhamic affinity. Their goals are similar but only the tactics differ (one talks of jihad the other talks about harvesting the souls). In the west Christianity has largely been reinterpreted to exist in the framework of a liberal western democracy. But in India many intolerant verses of the Bible are not de emphasized and the quest of eliminating the 'heathen' culture is pursued with the zeal of a neo-convert.

By the way Hugh, I love your articles but would like to correct an error. By the time British arrived, most of India had already been reconquered by Hindus and the Mughal emperor had been reduced to a titular head. The Maratthas had liberated most of north India, part of western India an the Deccan. The Sikhs ruled United Punjab, Northwest Frontier, Sind, and Kashmir. There Rajputs controlled Rajputana (Rajasthan). In addition there were many kingdoms in Hindu hands. In other words large bulk of Hindu India and its population had fallen under Hindu rule. Had this process been allowed to complete, all of India would have once again been in Hindu hands. The British interrupted this process so they saved the Muslims in addition to pampering them.

Posted by: kafir citizen at March 20, 2006 3:45 PM

Sreekanth... As always Indian pluralism defies understanding just as it did to Winston Churchill. But to depend on the pluralism to help us ride the tough tides is futile.

We have serious problems with muslim extremists; however limited & minor, they are still dangerous and can cause unimaginable destruction. just think of 9/11, 7/7, Madrid, Coimbatore, IISc, Varanasi... and the list is endless. They are a minority, but the destruction and mayhem (excluding the long term trauma and economic costs associated with it) they cause is enormous. That is why they are a big risk and threat and need to be dealt with all over the world. Can we sue the arab governments around the world for compensation for the 9/11 disaster???

While I believe that our system of democracy & brain power fuelled growth to be superior and to win; when these systems are threatened, I no longer will hold back and defend my values but will not hesitate to reply in kind. If that means nuking or terrorizing, so be it. Bothering about human rights when you are dealing with people who dont know what they mean is plain idiocy. I think it is easy to make a progressive Japan after Hiroshima than to hold dialogue with the Japanese.

The violence during Bush visit should have woken up most PC people, because the idiots in the rally were supporting Osama... which has nothing to do with Indian pluralism. Despite everything that is said and done, Indian muslims used to be PC people too, but this shows that they are changing and we need to correct he problem as early as possible.

Otherwise, unfortunately as Hugh said, we may have to keep muslims out of the nuclear programs out of fear. Once Pakistan is taken care of, terror in India, hopefully should die down due to lack of foreign funds. Right now though, I believe that we have enough patriotic & progressive muslims in India to depend on. And our nuclear program was fully headed by Kalam, who happens to be a non-practising muslim and jokingly was called Kalam Iyer during his early career.

Posted by: csa bill at March 20, 2006 4:03 PM

csa bill,

>>>we need to correct he problem as early as possible.

>>>believe that we have enough patriotic & progressive muslims in India to depend on.

I agree with both these statements. A poisonous ideology has been let loose and allowed to grow for many years now. We need to stamp it out, but guilt by association will just cause more trouble, and make the second statement not true any more.

Posted by: Sreekanth at March 20, 2006 4:52 PM

Hugh,

With all due respect, the scenario you worry about - Indian nukes falling under jihadi control- is too remote to ignite suspicion.

Ask yourselves, 'Who controls India's nukes'? Its the upper crust of polity, the bureucracy, the military and law enforcement - all of which have disproportionately low muzlim representation. And thats not changing anytime soon.

Rafia, before making sweeping declarations that Godse killed gandhi coz of Brahmin supremacism, you'd wanna doublecheck history first. Gandhi started off the baleful tradition of muzlim accomodation and appeasement in modern india, a legacy that the congress party (which inherited the Gandhi name, btw) carries forward to this day. Gandhi was killed by Indian ultra-nationalists because he was percived as being too soft on muzlims and giving up and away too much of India's rightful resources to Pakistan during partition. Gandhi preached nonviolence to Hindus during the bloodbath of partition effectively stopping an overwhelming hindu response tomuzlim massacres.

Anyway, all that is history and is fairly well-documented. Gandhi's efforts to uplift the dalits is commendable and he was ably supported by many congress stalwarts in this endeavour. Godse and the bram class in general don't grudge him that.

Posted by: voletti at March 20, 2006 5:13 PM

While it's true that their are fascist elements in some Hindutva organizations (such as some members of the Siv Sena) it is incorrect to smear the entire movement with this stereotype. After all, the radically secularist independence leader Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose was a fascist but today his followers are far-left Marxists.

Hindutva is a movement that affirms the glory of Indian Civilization and as such can be an effective bulwark against Islamic expansion. Organizations such as the VHP are not fascist at all but are definitely Hindu nationalist. India must unite against Muslim terrorism and mass-murder. This means that Hindus, Buddhists, Sikhs, Jains, Christians, Bahais, Ismailis, and secularists must stand together against Muslim demands for special status.

India has many glorious episodes in its history of great leaders driving out the Muslims loke Ranjit Singh and Sivaji. The question is will any modern Indian leader have the same vision and character.

Posted by: Provoslavni at March 20, 2006 5:48 PM

"I agree with an earlier message here that it [Pakistan's hostility and support of anti-India activity] will blow over in a few years, not least because India has no intention of backing down."

"What you're seeing as a result of India's economic growth and self-confidence is a questioning of some western academic stereotypes, especially of the entrenched leftist kind. Some of this energy also goes into poking into the neglected corners of Indian history, such as Muslim invasions."
- from a posting above

I do not see how the first prediction, though it would be welcome, can come true. The history of both Pakistan (formerly West Pakistan) and Bangladesh (formerly East Pakistan) shows countries that have Islam as the source of their national identity. Pakistan began with a populatin that was 15% Hindu; it is now 1.5% Hindu. Bangladesh began (as East Pakistan) with a population that was 35% non-Muslim (not only Hindu) and is now 8% non-Muslim. Pakistan managed, through deception and theft, to acquire the knowhow to produce, and did produce, nuclear weapons, and not satisfied with that, offered to Libya, and to Iran, and to North Korea, information that proved to the latter two, we are told, most helpful. Why are you so sanguine about the possibility that Muslims in Pakistan, or Bangladesh, or in India itself (where they are best behaved, becuase less likely to have endured the brainwashing of a completely closed society, and where the possibility, especially among the elite (money, and therefore the possibility of travel, education, and other forms of self-enlightnment, always helps) to slough off Islam -- look at the "Muslim-for-identification-purposes-only" Muslim who now heads India's nuclear authority, or for that matter look at Ismail Merchant and others of that sophisticated really-I-have-nothing-much-to-do-with-Islam-at-all-if-you-must-know ilk). Few Muslim in Pakistan would dare to collaborate with Ruth Jhabvala on movie-making. Few Muslims n Pakistan, even the well-travelled and well-eduated chldren of zamindars and generals, are likely to slough off the filial piety, and will continue to identify as Muslims, and there is always the problem of the "reversion" not to Islam itself, for the Islam was there since birth, but a new-found faith, sometimes merely a reaction to personal problems that are exactly like the personal problems (loss of job, girlfriend, status, any number of things) of Infidels, but which can be perceived through the prism of Islam, that available, if not always followed, Complete Regulation of Life and Total Explanation of the Universe, that remains there, on tap, ready when the faucet of filial piety is turned.

I don't think the doctrine of Jihad, the duty of Jihad, will ever "blow over." It may fall into temporary desuetude, as it did during the 19th and 20th centuries, when the encounter with the West showed that that West was too strong, and the Muslim world too weak, militarily and in every other way. But the trillions ($10 trillion since 1973) in OPEC revenues, which will only increase, and the tens of millions of Muslims now settled deep within the Lands of the Infidels in the West, and multiplying, behind those borders which they, not we, regard as enemy lines, and finally, the possession and exploitation of Western technology to disseminate the full message of Islam, both to formerly quiescent villagers whose Islam waas a village Islam, limited in its scope, and to Infidels some of whom may, in their disenchantment with the West's moral and intellectual disarray, and maldistrbituion of wealth, may find the pitch of Da'wa alluring, not least because Islam is now the favored vehicle of protest against Amerika with a "k", Capitalism, "The Sytem," and whatever else one wishes to express one's hatred for, one's alienation froml. There are many psychically and economically marginal people. There are prisoners. There are members of minority groups who feel abused. All of this is grist for the Tablighi mill.

The "poking into neglected corners" of Indian history is a phrase that struck me. Surely the successive Muslim invasions, the conquest of much of India, the tens of millions of victims,the tens of thousands of temples destroyed, the other artifacts of Indian civilzation crushed or defaced or vandalized, the conversion of tens of millions of Hindus and others (including some Buddhists) who were trying to escape either from physical threats or the onerousness, the humiliation and degradation, of the status of dhimmi (which itself was a step up for Hindus, who had to be treated as honorary ahl al-kitab, or People of the Book, when strictly speaking, they weren't), the enslavement or mass murder of Hindus, so casually, even blandly described by Ibn Battuta, the destruction of so much of Hindu India, and for that matter the wars against the Sikhs as well, all suggest something that is not a neglected "corner" of Indian history -- but a neglected floor, or entire wing, of the historical house.

Finally, there is your alarm, and anger, over my suggestion that the presence of Muslims in India is a security worry that the United States and other countries that are interested in nuclear coooperation, and that naturally have a stake in helping India build reactors to derive energy from non-polluting sources, and this is a sitatuion where the more countries share whatever technology they may possess or acquire, that lowers reliance on fossil fuels, the better.

You end with this: "Also, by the way, to suggest that India should not allow Indian Muslims to be part of its nuclear program is lunacy."

Why is it "lunacy"? Is it lunacy because the very idea of holding up this transfer of knowhow is something that alarms you, that it is illegitimate to raise such a question about? Why? Do HIndus in India have any security questions about their Muslim citizens? Yes, I know that the man in charge of then nuclear program is an un-Muslim Muslim, probably an undeclared apostate, who reads the Bhagavad Gita. But that is one example. I would like to know exactly what security arrangements, if any, are made with respect to advanced military technology, or civilian technology that has military uses, and Muslims in India. This is not an illegitimate worry. It is not illegiimate for Hindus and Sikhs to worry about this in India, and it is not illegitimate for Americans, when they consider this matter, to worry about it. Dismissing it, like Mr. Podsnap putting out of his mind all "disagreeables" "for they offended him," is not an argument.

And lest you think -- which would be hard to think given all the postings at this site that show a sympathey for India that is clear -- that this must be directed at India and why am I not equally concerned, say, with Muslims within Europe rising in the military, or otherwise getting into positions of influence where they may acquire certain knowledge of NATO weaponry, and why "do I not make a fuss about that" my answer is simple: I do. I am very worried about the Muslim population in Europe, and about sleeper cells of supposedly loyal Muslims who may get too close, for example, to France's Force de frappe. And French generals are, I assure you, worrying about this. And I think Indian generals are too.

So again I ask you: why do you dismiss this concern as "lunacy"? Are you prepared to say that India's 150 million Muslims are, every man jack of them, loyal to the nation-state of India, Bharat-true, through and through? I'm not. And this matter needs to be thought about, and discussed, behind closed doors, by American and Indian officials.

Not to be dismissed. Not at all.

Posted by: Hugh at March 20, 2006 6:52 PM

It would assume that India's future may be a mirror for Europe and, one day, the US will have to endure. Indians with 13-15 % Muslim population(wonder if the Hindus or Muslims have the fastest population growth). Kashmir and Pakistan setting off clashes in coming years. What will the pacified Indian Muslims do? Will they retain solidarity with their Hindu brothers or their Islamic brothers? As for that Indian beardless, nonprayful billionarie. So what. One guy, but how about his kids or relatives? Doesn't Osama Bin Laden have an attractive, secular niece? As their population grows to 20-25 percent in coming years, as the Kashmir dispute and pakistan flairs up again in the future, what side will the Muslim's take? Or do Indian Muslims defy the reality of Muslims in all other countries of the world? A model of successful integration! Really.

What is needed is leadership that connects the dots b/w Israel, Kashmir, India, Armenia, Darfur, South Africa and France. The jihadist threat is broad and deep.

It's the Jihad, stupid.

Posted by: biorabbi at March 20, 2006 7:25 PM

>>> I do not see how the first prediction, though it would be welcome, can come true.

Things change. You don't hear much about the Baader -Meinhof any more. Two reasons : it proved impossible to achieve the revolution by force. Second, the prime backer, the former Soviet Union, imploded. On the jihad issue, it's a little late in the game, but many countries are catching on and standing firm. Hence I'm cautiously optimistic.

My instinct says that Indian Muslims are not so radicalized that one has to worry about them being part of the police, army, nuclear installations, etc. If you notice, at least some of the writers here who sounded Indian seemed to agree. That's the slippery slope to guilty until proven innocent, and it will achieve exactly the opposite of the desired effect.

More to the point, it's unnecessary. Terrorism in a country like India which is still confident of itself can only be a minor threat, not a civilizational one.

Posted by: Sreekanth at March 20, 2006 7:45 PM

This is O/T, but all those who diss MK Gandhi for breaking India up have to answer this question: is it really preferable that modern India had incorporated the denizens of Pakistan and Bangla Desh. These together today account for over 300 million people. Had they been included the proportion of Muslims in India would be around 35 percent. As it is the Hindutva fellows have a hard time winning elections with the current proportions of 14 per cent; what kind of success would they have with the above numbers?

The man Godse is a traitor to India in the same sense that Yigal Amir, Rabin's assasin is to Israel. Had it not been for the boost that these assasins gave to the forces the appeasement, (which in India's case completely discredited those on the Right) the dangers posed by too much accomodation to the Ummah's demands would have been recognised much earlier and many lives would have been saved.

Posted by: ivan at March 20, 2006 8:59 PM

"Terrorism in a country like India which is still confident of itself can only be a minor threat..."
-- from a posting above

I would have thought that repeated terrorist attacks within Indian-assigned Kashmir, and even attacks deep within India, such as that on the Indian Parliament, would be enough to be consideed more than a "minor threat." If the American Congress were attacked, even if repelled it would hardly make visitors to Washington, or Americans around the country, feel that this represented a "minor threat." Perhaps India is so vast that one has become inured to these attacks, or prefers to make light of them.

Based on the testimony of ex-Muslims I trust, and who keep writing and insisting that Infidels have no idea how deep is the desire to practice taqiyya and to deny what should be obvious, whether out of embarrassment and filial piety (and a refusal to leave Islam) or out of fear. Their stories are so much alike, even though they do not know each other, about the brainwahing of Islam, the hold that Islam retains over otherwise sensible people, the way in which the form fruste of the disease can suddenly flare up to a full-scale version of the thing, all of this leads me to consider your argument that Infidel suspicion will contribute to creating the very attitudes that one has been suspicious of the first place(what you describe as "the slippery slope to guilty until proven innocent, and it will achieve exactly the opposite of the desired effect"), but I am unwilling to risk things on the theory that any display of wariness is likely to cause Muslims to react badly, and begin to think like -- Muslims. .

On that I would take my chances, and still find reasonable the withholding of security clearances from anyone who claiims to be a Muslim and therefore claims that the Qur'an is the uncreated and immutable Word of God. I know what is contained in the Qur'an, what Sura 9 and so many other places tell Muslims they must do, and how they should deal with the Infidel. I can't square that circle. I know that "moderate" Muslims are to be trusted precisely to the extent that they are no longer Believers in Islam, and that if only a "moderate" amount of something is desirable or tolerable, that must mean that that something -- in this case Islam -- is dangerous indeed, for it can be imbibed or approached only in "moderation."

I trust the defectors from Islam, the ex-Muslims, just as forty years ago American officials would have learned much from inteviewing trusted defectors from the KGB. I trust those apostates, and what they say is always disturbing, and sometimes terrifying. Why should I assume they are all lying? They don't know each other; there is nothing they can obtain or have asked for that depends on their concocting a good story. I believe them.

Posted by: Hugh at March 20, 2006 9:05 PM

>>>become inured to these attacks, or prefers to make light of them.

No, that's not what I had in mind. Terrorists can certainly cause a lot of disruption in India, particularly the machine-gunning incident at IISc Bangalore which threatens the high tech economy. But to the extent that it's a proxy battle, it doesn't achieve its purpose and only hardens India's resolve. India is quite capable of playing dirty also; FWIW, Pakistan routinely complains that India is creating trouble in Karachi or Baluchistan.

To put things in perspective, Hugh, I've been reading your site for a long time, and really appreciate the work you're doing in calling attention to the dangers of terrorism, and connecting the dots between various global manifestations of the same ideology. At this level, you'll get a lot of support, either from the American public, or the Indian public. But the further step from there, that all Muslims can potentially "regress" to terrorism, might paint you into a fringe, and may also cause people to tune out the other valuable parts of your message.

Posted by: Sreekanth at March 20, 2006 10:22 PM

I dont believe there is Indian dhimmitude just a corrupt liberal elite that exists in all western countries. But I do fear this elite that controls the media will corrupt the education system and produce the type of idiots our countries produce. India is the key to stopping the spread of Islam I hope the west supports them and their people keep on learning their history. I just hope clowns like Bush stop supporting pakistan.

Posted by: pissedoffcanadian at March 21, 2006 12:53 AM

But the further step from there, that all Muslims can potentially "regress" to terrorism, might paint you into a fringe, and may also cause people to tune out the other valuable parts of your message. Posted by: Sreekanth

The point is not that all Muslims can potentially regress to terrorism, but that any Muslim can, and it is absolutely impossible to tell which ones will, and which ones won't. Granted that one can say that about followers of any faith, but the major difference here is that when one looks at the sum totals of all faiths - Christian, Jew, Hindu, Sikh, Zoroastrian, et al, - one sees essentially peaceful religions with varying philosophies. However, with Islam, one sees a vehicle of Arab supremacy, and an amalgam of racism, sexism, homophobia, religious bigotry, et al. The determinable part of this is that the more fervent a follower of Islam is, the more likely he is to be a murderous activist. That's a leap that one can't make about others.

The other point - Sreekanth - what makes you believe that while Muslims everywhere else have a troglodyte attitude, that Indian Muslims are so enlightened? The anti cartoon demonstrations that were staged by Muslims worldwide was also there in India, including the solicitation of murder by a minister in UP, the demonstrations against President Bush (who, as is pointed out in several threads in this website, is a champion dhimmi or an ignoramus on Islam), and demonstrations against Sharon last year show that they are every bit as vile as the rest.

Hugh is right. If Muslims end up working in the nuke facilities - civilian or military - the world would face the dangers of it going into terrorist hands. Support for India (or any country) should not translate into overlooking its dhimmi policies.

Posted by: Infidel Pride at March 21, 2006 12:58 AM

Sreekanth: But the further step from there, that all Muslims can potentially "regress" to terrorism, might paint you into a fringe, and may also cause people to tune out the other valuable parts of your message.

I find statements like these from fellow Indians (specifically Hindus) extremely distressing. In a sense this posting epitomizes precisely the type of Hindu dhimmitude that Hugh wrote about; especially with its complete disregard of both the past and recent history of the subcontinent. Sreekanth you claim to have been reading JW/DW for quite some time. Obviously you haven't absorbed the key notion that has been expounded here repeatedly, i.e. that it is ISLAM that is the problem (and that terrorism is just a by-product of this ideology). Sreekanth you praise Hugh for connecting the dots... and yet you seem to have missed out the final arrow that these dots point to... i.e. ISLAM.

Posted by: Razdan at March 21, 2006 1:04 AM

Pissed off Canadian: I dont believe there is Indian dhimmitude just a corrupt liberal elite that exists in all western countries.

I disagree! IMHO there is, indeed, a very large segment of the Indian population that is essentially Dhimmi, and who just don't get it. This despite our recent history of having portions of our country sliced off to appease Islam (i.e. in the creation of West and East Pakistan), the Hindu population in both West Pakistan & East Pakistan (now Bangladesh) having been ethnically cleansed, and in the only muslim majority state in India, i.e. Jammu & Kashmir a strong movement for an independent Islamic republic (in which, once again, Hindus were mercilessly killed and driven out). The repeated terrorist attacks on Indian soil are blamed completely on Pakistan, forgetting the fact that while these terrorist attacks were masterminded in Pakistan, they would not be possible without help from Indian muslims as well.

Posted by: Razdan at March 21, 2006 1:18 AM

An alliance between Hindus and other non-muslims is a joke. The Marxists (who have distorted the history in favor of muslims) have their own alliance with the Muslims going back to 1920's. The Parsis are too insignificant. The Jains and Buddhists already cooperate in some instances. In India the Christians and Muslims are allied against the common pagan enemy based on their common Abhrhamic affinity. Their goals are similar but only the tactics differ (one talks of jihad the other talks about harvesting the souls). In the west Christianity has largely been reinterpreted to exist in the framework of a liberal western democracy. But in India many intolerant verses of the Bible are not de emphasized and the quest of eliminating the 'heathen' culture is pursued with the zeal of a neo-convert. Posted by: kafir citizen

By other non-muslims, I wasn't referring to Marxists. I was referring to Sikhs, Jains, Buddhists, Christians, Parsis & Jews. It's a mistake to dismiss any of the groups as insignificant - as it is, the Parsis have distinguished themselves in several fields. The Sikhs know about the Muslims, and given the history of their Gurus, they aren't going to ally with Muslims. The Buddhists in Ladakh, where the bulk of them are, have seen the Kashmiri Muslims up close. The Parsis & Jews are potentially available, whatever their numbers.

It is a mistake for the Hindus to go this alone. By doing it, it sends the message that they are out to convert all Indians to Hinduism, and nothing peeves off the other communities than this perception. The way to avoid doing that is to cast it as an anti-Islamic (note: not anti-Muslim) alliance, and take strong stands against all Dhimmi policies. That's the only way to win over enough secular Hindu support - not all of which is Marxist/Dhimmi.

On the Christians, both sides need to clean up their act. Christians need to stop acting like they need to convert all Hindus, while Hindus need to stop reacting violently to Christians who do manage to bribe people into converting. It costs them support from otherwise anti-Islamic Christians in the West. Emphasizing the differences between different Infidels may be a worthy exercise for some other time. It's a dangerous thing to be indulging in now.

Posted by: Infidel Pride at March 21, 2006 1:28 AM

This is O/T, but all those who diss MK Gandhi for breaking India up have to answer this question: is it really preferable that modern India had incorporated the denizens of Pakistan and Bangla Desh. These together today account for over 300 million people. Had they been included the proportion of Muslims in India would be around 35 percent. As it is the Hindutva fellows have a hard time winning elections with the current proportions of 14 per cent; what kind of success would they have with the above numbers? The man Godse is a traitor to India in the same sense that Yigal Amir, Rabin's assasin is to Israel. Had it not been for the boost that these assasins gave to the forces the appeasement, (which in India's case completely discredited those on the Right) the dangers posed by too much accomodation to the Ummah's demands would have been recognised much earlier and many lives would have been saved. Posted by: ivan

ivan

This is a tough one, since I normally do not support murder as a solution to any political problem. However, in this case, I fail to see how Godse or his associates could have done otherwise.

Gandhi was not assassinated because of his support of partition: he is well known to have oppossed it. However, he was the ultimate Dhimmi. During the partition, he would do what he could to prevent Hindus from killing Muslims, but did nothing to stop Muslims from killing Hindus. He would go on hunger strikes to blackmail those who disagreed with him either on tactics or strategy. A very strong example of this was his demand that India pay Pakistan Rs 550m to compensate all Muslims who were forced to migrate to Pakistan, without any reciprocal action from Pakistan. When Sardar Ballavbhai Patel refused, Gandhi went on a hunger strike to force this issue his way. He was impervious to persuation, and the sufferings of Hindus - be they Hindus fleeing Pakistan, or Hindus within India being at the receiving end of Muslim brutalities.

In 1919, he was a part of the Khilafat movement, which was a campaign to re-install the Turkish sultan as the caliph of Islam. Note that in India (not Pakistan, not Bangladesh), the successor organization of that - the All India Khilafat Movement - still exists. Anybody knows what the POV is of this organization? Erodgan isn't going to be the next caliph, so who do they have in mind? Not President Kalam.

If Gandhi had not been assassinated, the Sikh areas of Punjab and Hindu areas of Bengal would have gone to Pakistan. The Kashmir issue would have been settled with not just Kashmir, but Hindu Jammu & Buddhist Ladakh going to Pakistan. Hyderabad - which was not just the Nizam palace, but a good bit of Hindu Telengana - would have gone to Pakistan, as would have Hindu majority but Nawab run Junagadh. All the paramilitary moves by Patel saved millions of Infidel lives from future slaughter in Pakistan, and so, despite him being from the Congress, infidels in India owe him a big debt.

Given Gandhi's powers to blackmail the entire Congress leadership - he got his way on the Jiziya ransom to Pakistan - his continuation would have ensured the slaughter of millions of more Hindus. To compare Godse to Yigal is therefore unfair. In Rabin's case, Labor was losing support, and Bibi won despite Rabin's assassination. (Had Rabin lived, Bibi would probably have won a more comprehensive victory that would have enabled him to better resist Clinton's armtwisting.) Therefore, despite Rabin's appeasement policy, his assassination was unnecessary.

A more appropriate comparison of Godse would be to the Israeli commandos who took out Sheikh Yassin and Rantisi.

Posted by: Infidel Pride at March 21, 2006 1:58 AM

If we are fighting a losing battle in the west, we've already lost India. The Marxists,Congress, Muslim appeasemnt, "secular media" and eduction system all form a nice lil' web of deception. What can be more greater insult to Hindus than their government creating a separate ministry for Muslims and suggesting reservations for Muslims in army. Indian government has designed specific acts to encourage illegal Muslim immigration from Bagladesh! Whats more even Muslim MP's (Mohd. Sahabuddhin et al.) are being tried to treason still they get to keep their parliament seats.

As for people ready to diss Shiv Sena, a large part of my family resides in Haji Ali (a Muslim majority area of Mumbai). They all owe their lives to one man Bal Thackeray. It WAS Shiv Sena which sood between Muslims and complete obliviation of Mumbai's Hindu community during the 1992 riots. Muslims may constitue only 20-25% but their influence on the life in the city is profound. Whatsmore, Hindus dont seem to care, even with 4 ethnic Hindu communities being exiled by Muslims in past 100 years.

Posted by: Vikrant_Camberleykar at March 21, 2006 3:45 AM

Vikrant

How does glorifying Hitler in a biography, as Bal Thackeray did, and justifying the holocaust of Jews by the Nazis, further the struggle against Jihad?

How does the "Sundar Mumbai Marathi Mumbai" campaign (directed against outsiders i.e. South Indian residents of Mumbai) unite even Hindus, let alone Indian infidels, against the threat that's Islam?

Despite their shortcomings, I support the RSS, VHP and the Bajrang Dal. I do fault them for being against Christians for the reasons I mentioned above, as well as their Valentines antics, but given that the bulk of their activism has been against Muslims, I have few issues with them.

With the Shiv Sena, I can't say the same thing. And I absolutely refuse to condone the slaughter of 6m people who never did a thing to us. Obviously, Thackeray is totally ignorant of Hitler's links to Sheikh Faisal al Husseini, who oversaw Auschwitz, in which case he had no business writing on a subject where he missed a major link between his idol and his supposed enemy. And even the many Marathis that I knew when I lived in Pune, I came across many Hindutva fans - BJP, ABVP, but I never came across any Shiv Sena fan.

I am happy for you that your relatives were saved by the Shiv Sena, but to say that all the Hindu Mumbaikars would have become extinct but for them is hyperbole - the good thing here, though, was the the Muslims got a thrashing similar to the one at Bhiwandi several years earlier. However, in other posts on this site, you have lashed out at the BNP, and one fails to see why a White fascist organization is not okay, but a Brown one is - both of which recognize and stridently oppose the Islamic threat. Do explain.

I agree with you on the separate ministrys for Muslims - in the current government, there are 2 ministers who want to run the haj business, which is India's current Jiziya. When I visited Varanasi, Lakshmanjwala, Hrishikesh, Hardwar several years ago with my relatives, guess who paid for those trips. Hindu, or Sikh, or other pilgrims don't get subsidized the way Muslims do.

However, I disagree that India is lost. In 1984, it looked like the Congress was destined to rule for ever. However, the BJP, which had just 2 seats then, grew in leaps and bounds. And while they had to become more dhimmi to accommodate coalition partners, they read out the riot act to Advani after his tryst with Jinnah. In fact, recently, the BJP president openly stated that Advani was not the automatic BJP candidate for PM should it return to power, and the VHP refused to join his protest yatra against the Varanasi attacks, noting what little he did as the Deputy PM when the NDA was in power.

Posted by: Infidel Pride at March 21, 2006 4:30 AM

Firstly i never agreed with everything Thackeray did. I didnt even know that he'd justified holocaust. I dont support Shiv Sena nor their facist nature, its just Thackeray (even though i may have written shiv sena by mistake in earlier post). Infact being an agnostic i dont even support Hindutva. But you gotta grant the fact that Thackeray by far has been the only politician who has had the guts and balls to speak the sad truth about Islam in India.

http://vikrant.wordpress.com/

See my blog for my thoughts about Shiv Sena and Thackeray's facist tendencies.

Posted by: Vikrant_Camberleykar at March 21, 2006 8:15 AM

Infidel pride >>> The other point - Sreekanth - what makes you believe that while Muslims everywhere else have a troglodyte attitude, that Indian Muslims are so enlightened?

Until the recent internationalization of Islamism, and Saudi funding, and UBL acting as a venture capitalist / franchiser, etc., it was well understood in India that Muslims were comparatively more "backward" : less likely to have a secular education, less likely to have good jobs, etc., but slowly coming into the mainstream. The whole process has been derailed and set back. Pakistan and Bangladesh's slide into fundamentalism don't help either. But I don't think the process is irreversible.

Razdan>>> that it is ISLAM that is the problem (and that terrorism is just a by-product of this ideology).

That's a leap that I'm not prepared to make. If you're consistent with yourself, you'll recognize that that way leads to second-class citizenship, concentration camps, ethnic cleansing, etc.

Posted by: Sreekanth at March 21, 2006 8:31 AM

It's amazing how little people outside of India know of its history and its current affairs. And it's one of the most populous countries in the world. Yet we are constantly bombarded with information, true and false, about Arab history and current sufferings. From the TV --cnn, bbc, sky-- you would think that most poor suffering people in the world are Arabs or at least Muslims. Aren't there any poor people in India? Why don't we hear more about them?

Posted by: Eliyahu at March 21, 2006 9:06 AM

Sreekanth writes: Razdan>>> that it is ISLAM that is the problem (and that terrorism is just a by-product of this ideology).

That's a leap that I'm not prepared to make. If you're consistent with yourself, you'll recognize that that way leads to second-class citizenship, concentration camps, ethnic cleansing, etc.

Whoa! That's a big jump to make. In what way does understanding the reality of Islam lead to concentration camps, ethnic cleansing, 2nd class citizenship? Did the understanding the evils of Nazism or a totalitarian communism lead to concentration camps, ethnic cleansing, 2nd class citizenship? Obviously, not! One has to distinguish between Islam as an ideology with muslims who are practicing the faith. Our war is with Islam and not muslims, and specifically not muslims who are peaceful and moderate. As Ibn Warraq puts it: "There may be moderate Muslims, but Islam itself is not moderate." As long as one makes this distinction clear there is no possibility of such dire consequences (such as ethnic cleansing) from resulting. Actually, it is our inability or unwillingness to understand Islam that is more likely to lead to bloodshed and mayhem.

You will find that Islam, if you take the time to study it, is just as totalitarian (if not more) than Nazism or communism. It is Islam that divides the world into Dar-ul-Islam and Dar-ul-Harb (i.e. the World of the believer and the world of the non-believer) and exhorts its adherents to not rest until they have converted the Dar-ul-Harb into Dar-ul-Islam, and to use the sword to do so. The Koran, which muslims consider unalterable, is clear in making the assertion that man-made laws (read , in the Indian context, the secular Indian constitution) are not to be followed and that the Sharia Law MUST be imposed everywhere.

While one can probably find embarassing & intolerant sections within any of the other religions, these generally do not form the basis of these religions. The Koran is unique in the breadth and scope of its intolerance; and reads more like a war manual than a spiritual guide. Islam is an ideology designed to quickly and totally conquer a land and subjugate its population for Arabs. It seeks to root out, and has done so, indigenous ideas and way of life. Its continued focus on jihad betrays its original military intentions -- no surprise, Mohammed was
a successful military commander. Although it does so in the name of God, some of the main attributes one would associate with God, such as kindness, progress, morality, or freedom are rarely seen to be part of Islam's practical structure. Hence, Islam couldn't be considered as a faith on par with other faiths of the world. It must be seen as an ideology, similar to Nazism.

In Khomeini's own words: "Islam makes it incumbent on all adult males, provided they are not disabled or incapacitated, to prepare themselves
for the conquest of countries so that the writ of Islam is obeyed in every country in the world. . . . But those who study Islamic Holy War will understand why Islam wants to conquer the whole world. . . . Those who know nothing of Islam pretend that Islam counsels against war. Those [who say this] are witless. Islam says: Kill all the unbelievers just as they would kill you all! Does this mean that Muslims should sit back until they are devoured by [the unbelievers]? Islam says: Kill them, put them to the sword and scatter [their armies]…. Islam says: Whatever good there is exists thanks to the sword and in the shadow of the sword! People cannot be made obedient except with the sword! The sword is the key to Paradise, which can be opened only for the Holy Warriors! There are hundreds of other [Qur'anic] psalms and Hadiths [sayings of the Prophet] urging Muslims
to value war and to fight. Does all this mean that Islam is a religion that prevents men from waging war? I spit upon those foolish souls who make such a claim."

But you don't have to take Khomeini's words to check up about Islam. There is plenty of open literature on the Koran and the Hadiths that you can educate yourself with. For starters read up the articles by Robert Spenser and Hugh Fitzgerald on JW/DW. Read for example, "The Koran: A New Mein Kampf?" ( http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=10708 ) by Robert Spenser.

You should also be asking yourself
questions like why is it that muslims have been able to carve for themselves separate Islamic countries (from which the Hindus have been literally wiped out) from Indian subcontinent and yet are not satisfied and continually keep asking for more. To put the blame on Pakistan misses the point: after all the Pakistani muslims are ethnically no different from Hindus in India; the only difference is in the ideology that they profess, i.e. Islam. Isn't it interesting that while Indian Hindus have embraced secular values, muslims in India have not (as is so explified by the only muslim-majority state in India, i.e. Kashmir demanding a separate Islamic identity). And this despite our government banding backwards to appease muslims by giving them special minority status and subsidies (such as the Hajj subsidy, which not even muslim nation give to their own muslim populations). Also ask yourself what drives muslims to act in murderous rage across so many different countries (including India) over some obscure cartoons on their prophet and yet feel totally unperturbed by the daily killings/beheadings/bombings by their fellow jehadists who claim they are doing their work in the name of Islam? Why is it that muslims
always claim victimhood but never acknowledge their own heinous crimes (as an example, not one Kashmiri muslim that I know of has ever
apologized for the ethnic cleansing of Kashmiri Hindus from Kashmir, instead they continue to press the most absurd lie that we left Kashmir at the behest of then Governor Jagmohan)? Why is it that muslims are willing to make use of all the freedoms and liberty within India (and the Western world) and yet press to push for an antiquated an unjust Islamic system (Sharia Law) in which all these liberties and freedoms will be usurped? And the absurdity of muslim behavior is not limited to India, Pakistan & Bangladesh alone. Why is it that a muslim in Britain, having lived and enjoyed all the freedoms and education that Britain has to offer, can turn around and bomb the very country of his birth giving Britain's involvement in Iraq as an excuse, (of course, Iraq is a country he has never even visited)? And why is it that muslims who have never ever lived in Iraq, find themselves enraged by US & British forces trying to help out
there, but feel not the slightest bit upset about their own fellow muslims daily setting bombs and killing fellow muslims there? And why is it that muslims, enjoying all the freedoms that liberal Europe and India provide, can use the victimhood card to press for more and more Islamization of their host countries (e.g. forcing the acceptance of Hijab, or clamoring for a separate muslim law)?

It is important to ask these questions if you want to know the truth about Islam. It is also important to educate yourself fully about Islam. Of course, you can always choose to ignore the facts, and keep living under the illusion that Islam is a religion of peace, with the muslim terrorists being a tiny minority that distorts the 'true' Islam. But don't be surprized some day when all your illusions come crashing down and you are thrown out of your own birth place as a result of Islam in action, as has occured to me and my family who were driven out of Kashmir by the supposedly gentle Sufi muslims.

Posted by: Razdan at March 21, 2006 11:11 AM

Quote @ Sreekanth If you're consistent with yourself, you'll recognize that that way leads to second-class citizenship, concentration camps, ethnic cleansing, etc.

Only one word comes to my my mind when i see your posts "Macauly's grandchild"!

If you didnt notice Razdan is a Kashmiri Pandit name. They HAVE become the second class citizens in India, all marginalised to "migrant" camps government doesnt even have balls to call them what they are, "refugees of war" lest it anger Muslims. Hindus dont give a damn for their exiled Kashmiri Hindu brothers.

@Infidel Pride: It may have been a bit naieve and a bit hypocritical on my part to say things i did, but still Thackeray was not all that bad.

Posted by: Vikrant_Camberleykar at March 21, 2006 11:22 AM

Vikrant writes: @Infidel Pride: It may have been a bit naieve and a bit hypocritical on my part to say things i did, but still Thackeray was not all that bad.

I have to agree with Vikrant. The much maligned Bal Thackeray, for all the bad press he gets in India, was probably one of the few Indian politicians who went out of his way to help rehabilitate Kashmiri Hindus (providing them with jobs and housing in Bombay) who had been ethnically cleansed out of Kashmir.

Posted by: Razdan at March 21, 2006 11:46 AM

Vikrant, Razdan, yes, I knew Razdan is a Kashmiri name, and even before the recent post, could speculate on the background to his views. You won't get any argument from me : once the insurgency is quelled, Kashmiri Hindus should get their homes and property back.

We may have a confusion in terminology here : I've seen the term Islamism or Islamist used for a supremacist ideology, and Islam / Muslim is just a description of a religion. The former, no quarter. The latter, just one of the religions.

Posted by: Sreekanth at March 21, 2006 12:04 PM

Sreekanth: We may have a confusion in terminology here : I've seen the term Islamism or Islamist used for a supremacist ideology, and Islam / Muslim is just a description of a religion. The former, no quarter. The latter, just one of the religions.

While some people, to be politically correct, use the term 'Islamism' to describe the extreme version of Islam, there is, in actual fact, no real difference between the two. No muslim recognizes the existence of this artificially created dichotomy, i.e. Islamism and Islam are the same thing.. there is nothing like an extreme form of Islam. The bottom line is that Islam is not here to be equal to all religions but to be the dominant one in the world.

Posted by: Razdan at March 21, 2006 12:20 PM

Razdan frightening post. I have a lot of Hindu friends and they know the threat well. Too bad there are dhimmi in India too. I know a lot of my friends hated Ghandi because they felt he was a dhimmi. I do know a lot of Sikhs in Canada and even though they suffered at the hands of Muslims a lot of them here are pro muslim. I figure its that they either dont know their history and they buy into the PC garbage that is fed to them here. Or possibly as a minority it is easier to root for the guys fighting against whitey. There are a lot of visible minorities who dont have much self esteem in North america who I find root for Islam. Even ones from latin america. I find it frightening. I was wondering what your take was on the sikhs. In India who do they usually side with. You would think their natural allies would be the Hindus.

Posted by: pissedoffcanadian at March 21, 2006 2:17 PM

Pissedoffcanadian writes: I do know a lot of Sikhs in Canada and even though they suffered at the hands of Muslims a lot of them here are pro muslim. I figure its that they either dont know their history and they buy into the PC garbage that is fed to them here. Or possibly as a minority it is easier to root for the guys fighting against whitey.

I'm no expert on this (but I do have a few close cousins married to Sikhs), but here are my thoughts anyway. First, I think the reasons you have given for why many of the Sikhs you meet in Canada root for muslims are quite accurate. I'd add one more possible cause, i.e. a lot of the Sikhs you meet in Canada immigrated there in the early 1960s. Many of them were pissed off with the vote bank politics that occured during Prime Minister Indira Gandhi's time, and quite a few supported the movement for an independent Khalistan. My guess is that if you were to talk to more recent Sikh immigrants from India you are likely to see them have views that more closely mirror their Hindu counterparts.

I was wondering what your take was on the sikhs. In India who do they usually side with. You would think their natural allies would be the Hindus.

My guess is that in contemporary India there is no large difference between the views of the Sikhs and Hindus with respect to the Islamic threat. I think most Sikhs are quite aware that there is much greater commonality between Hinduism and Sikhism than there is with Islam. Most Hindus consider Sikhism as a sister religion, and it was quite common for many Hindu families in Punjab to 'donate' one member of the family to the Sikh faith which was viewed as the protectors of the Hindu faith. (for more on this see: http://www.indpride.com/sikhbrotherhood.html ). I owe my existence, in large part, due to the sacrifices made by some of the Sikh Gurus like Guru Tegh Bhadur who sacrificed his life to save the life of Kashmiri Pandits ( http://allaboutsikhs.com/gurus/guruteghbhadur1.htm )

Unfortunately, there are as many Sikh Dhimmis in India as there are Hindu Dhimmis. One such fellow, a prominent Sikh writer, Khushwant Singh has tried to make the case that the Sikh religion and Islam have much in common... forgetting the fact that the Guru Granth Sahib, the holy book of Sikhs, is full of passages describing the horrors of the Islamic invasion during Babur's time. Guru Nanakji, the founder of the Sikh faith himself claimed that the Kali Yuga (which in Hindu thought is the equivalent of the dark ages) was ushered in into India with the advent of Islam, in the poem "Makke-Madine di Goshti". In the same poem, the Guru refers to the Sufis Moinuddin Chishti (of Ajmer) and Shah Madar (of Makanpur) as imposters who were leading Hindus astray with the intention of converting them. Fortunately, for each Khushwant Singh there is also a Tavleen Singh who is outspoken in their condemnation of Islam (Some of her articles have been fetured here, see for example http://jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/009381.php )

Posted by: Razdan at March 21, 2006 4:12 PM

thanks Razdan for you response.

Posted by: pissedoffcanadian at March 21, 2006 5:33 PM

Sreekanth writes: Razdan>>> that it is ISLAM that is the problem (and that terrorism is just a by-product of this ideology).

That's a leap that I'm not prepared to make. If you're consistent with yourself, you'll recognize that that way leads to second-class citizenship, concentration camps, ethnic cleansing, etc.

Whoa! That's a big jump to make. In what way does understanding the reality of Islam lead to concentration camps, ethnic cleansing, 2nd class citizenship?

Razdan's points apart, the assumption here is that reversing Dhimmi policies towards Muslims must automatically involve something as extreme as the above. However, Sreekanth, there are several things that can and should be done. Here are ten, and if you still happen to be following this thread, let me know which of them you consider fascist:

- Ban madrasas. Anybody who has read the Quran knows that it's a schizophrenic book, and when coupled with the Hadith & Sira, it's even worse. The question here is - what is the goal, the well being of Muslims, or the glory of Islam? If it is the latter, India has no business doing it. If it is the former, banning madrasas in India is good for Muslims. Let them go to normal schools like everybody else, and then they won't be left behind. In fact, the more de-Islamized they become, the less likely they are to live their life under the Inshallah philosophy, and the more likely they are to prosper. And in the absense of such hate filled propaganda, they are less likely to be a threat to Hindus, Sikhs, or anyone else. Also lest you think it's curtailing religious freedom, most Hindus don't go to Ramkrishna Mission or BHU, and they do just fine.

- Teach them Islam, but from the Infidel standpoint about how it is a hate filled ideology, and in their case, how it is a vehicle for Arab supremacy. Teach them how they are really viewed by Arabs, as well as what the status is of non-Arab Muslims (use Kurdistan and Darfur as examples).

- Ban theological movements, like Deobandi, which are a source of inspiration of Islamic fanaticism not only in India, but beyond. Deobandi was an inspiration behind the Taliban - no reason it should even be tolerated in India.

- Ban all Shariah based laws that contradict Indian laws, be it apostacy, talaq-divorce, polygamy, et al. Shariah has no place in India, and Muslims should be able to live without it, just as all Infidels the world over live with secular laws.

- Reduce the ties of Muslims to both Pakistan and Arab countries. Disallow Arab men from their fly by night marriages to Muslim girls. Subject Muslims to not just the same laws, but also the same protections. Just as India wouldn't tolerate Arab men doing such things to Hindu women, they shouldn't tolerate it for Muslim women either.

- Ban pan-Islamic groups, like the All India Khilafat Movement. Who is the candidate for Caliph? Not Erodgan. Not Abdul Kalam. Then who? King Abdullah of KSA? Osama? Musharraf? No matter who it is, just as India wouldn't tolerate any Khalistani organizations in the country, they should not tolerate any organizations that encourage Muslims to have extra-terretorial loyalties.

- Regulate Islam strictly, like is done in Singapore. Monitor what comes out of mosques, and purge Mullahs who preach Jihad. I know that this means de-Islamizing Islam, and totally de-balling what Muslims are allowed to believe. However, since they are required to wage Jihad, dominate and not be dominated, and slaughter infidels, there is no reason that such propaganda out of mosques should be tolerated

- End government sponsored Haj pilgrimage, which is not just Jiziya, but also an indirect financing of the radicalization of Muslims. I don't know whether you've visited faithfreedom.org, but if you have, check out the testimonials of ex-Muslims. You will notice some where after such a pilgrimage, people who were previously agnostic about their faith became fanatics overnight. While Islam may require all Muslims to make at least one trip to Mecca, it's not the responsibility of anybody to foot that bill - least of all infidels. Sikhs living outside Punjab don't get their trips to Amritsar subsidized. Indian catholics don't get free trips to Rome at government expense. Plan a trip to Hardwar or Tirupati, and let me know if the government of India is willing to finance your free exercise of religion.

- Crack down heavily on activities that undermine India's world standing. Like when Muslims demonstrate against the US for Iraq, or Denmark for cartoons, they are not only demonstrating extra-terretorial loyalty, they are also undermining India's potential ties with such partners. Therefore, treat that harshly. People who object to such things can protest by writing letters and articles in newspapers, just as Christian groups in the US do when anti-Christian activities take place.

- Also, as a part of the exercise in demoralizing them in terms of their zeal for conquest, dilute memories of their victories during the Hindu holocaust by undoing some of their work. Restore the names of places that they renamed after their conquests (Allahabad becomes Prayag, Ahmedabad becomes Karnavati, Faizabad becomes Ayodhya, Aurangabad becomes Devagiri, et al. These name changes are far more meaningful than those inane name changes like Calcutta to Kolkata, Madras to Chennai, and now Bangalore to Bengelaru - all of which are essentially vernacular translations akin to Cologne being renamed Koeln, or Vienna Wien.) Demolish the mosques at Mathura and Varanasi, which they want to keep out of spite. Teach them Indian history, remind them who they originally were (no entertaining their fraudulent claims of Arab lineage) and encourage them to be ashamed of Muslim behavior in the past - be it Mahmud of Ghazni, Ala-ud-din Khilji, Timur, Aurangzeb, Ahmad Shah Abdali, et al. Lest you think that is mean, consider how in Scandinavia, for instance, people are taught to be embarrassed about Viking behavior during their conquests. What the Vikings did doesn't come close to what the Muslims did.

Once a generation of Muslims is subjected to the above, the chances are that they themselves will shed their hate filled ideology. Whether they choose to become Hindus or not isn't important. They can be Hindus, Jains, Buddhists, whatever. What is important, however, is that they grow up without the baggage of Islam, and that bereft of the achievements of Inshallah, and the hatred of Jihad, they can become productive citizens just like everyone else. Also, none of the above make them second class citizens - they are always free to convert to anything that lightens their burden.

The same goes for Muslims everywhere else in the world. As for those in the Arab empire, they have other problems, but that's another topic.

Posted by: Infidel Pride at March 22, 2006 2:00 AM

"One such fellow, a prominent Sikh writer, Khushwant Singh has tried to make the case that the Sikh religion and Islam have much in common... forgetting the fact that the Guru Granth Sahib, the holy book of Sikhs"
-- from a posting above

Insomnia, so I thought might show up here, even though the thread is no longer on display, and read what those who in the middle of my night may be posting in the middle of India's day. Besides, I feel at home at this particular thread, among people who write English with care, and when they disagree, do it so politely.

Your comment above, Razdan, leads me to let you know that in a certain most unlikely small American town, where I went last year to a book sale, I bought a copy of the Guru Granth Sahib and when I opened the book, there was Khushwant Singh's bookplate; further investigation convinces me that the "Khushwant Singh" of the book is the same as the writer and journalist on the Times of India, the late Khushwant Singh. Like picking up a Fats Waller record in Beijing.

I just read the to-do list on reasonable, justifiable restrictions on madrasas and mosques in India, posted by Infidel_Pride. It was excellent. I detected a few recognizable thoughts and turns of phrase, such as the business of Islam as the "vehicle of Arab supremacy" and the linking of Darfur and the Kurdish case as an example. At least, I thought I did. Was I right, or am I giving myself too much credit for what may be simply obvious to everyone?

Spring equinoctial regards to Pandits and Pundits alike. And to the ghost of the late Khushwant Singh, as well, despite his miscomprehension of Islam (and, it appears, of the religion, and history, of the Sikhs) for leaving his book behind in a small American town, no doubt as a gift to a host in a house where he had been a guest. That initial gift then allowed someone, possibly the son of the original recipient, to donate that book to the sale, which then allowed me to buy it, and to tell you about it tonight.

Insomnia over. And so to bed.

Posted by: Hugh at March 22, 2006 2:44 AM

Hugh

It's 12:50AM where I'm posting - on the left coast. Not insomnia in my case, but I had to work during lunch, so didn't get to catch up on my Jihad Watch, and waiting another 12 hours would mean falling even further behind on the threads. As for the familiar turns of phrases, you aren't giving yourself enough credit - you are the guru (no flattery, no sarcasm, no mockery, - you've simply articulated the inarticulable (assuming the latter word exists).

So are the contest results coming up on the Ides of April?

Posted by: Infidel Pride at March 22, 2006 4:03 AM

Hugh, allow me to echo Infidel Pride in praising your writing on JW/DW. I'm continually amazed by the depth of your knowledge regarding so many different countries, cultures and personalities. I'd be happy if I knew one-hundredth as much. And, that was quite some anecdote regarding finding a Guru Granth Sahib with Khushwant Singh's nameplate on it. Hold on to to this copy, it is likely to be a collector's item. Despite being a day late, here's wishing you and all the folks reading this thread a Happy Spring Equinox.

Posted by: Razdan at March 22, 2006 8:25 AM

InfidelPride, yes, I'm still here. Agree to most of your points, with two caveats :

1. Sequence them in terms of most bang for the buck in terms of tangible results, not just to work off some frustrations. For example, banning madrasas asap is good. Or one-night marriages. Demolishing mosques is a dangerous rathole.

2. The laboriously built up institutions of democracy and rule of law are partly responsible for India's economic success today. We have not reached a danger point where it is necessary to tear them down. Plus, working within the existing framework is quite possible. F.i., define "teaching of religious hatred" as a crime, and find madrasas in violation of it, and shut them down. If a few Christian (or even Hindu) institutions are also in violation, that's noise.

Posted by: Sreekanth at March 22, 2006 11:10 AM

Hugh, yes, there was a rumor a while ago that Khushwant Singh was dead, but as far as I know, he's very much alive ...

Posted by: Sreekanth at March 22, 2006 11:12 AM

Sreekanth writes: define "teaching of religious hatred" as a crime, and find madrasas in violation of it, and shut them down.

In that case all madrasas will have to be shut down since one of the basic teachings of Islam is that all other religions are false and only the writ of Sharia is acceptable as the law of the land.

Posted by: Razdan at March 22, 2006 1:31 PM

Its really too bad that muslims are so violent.

-Imagine if Kashmir were treated as a neutral teritory.

-Imagine if it was used a "special economic zone". Used as a HUGE trade center.

-Imagine a "Belgium" or "Singapore" of the East.

-Imagine a huge air and land freight node.

Everyone could benefit. The Kashmiri citizens could benefit from a strong economy fed by both larger countries. All 3 countries could benefit from a "mending the fence" international policy. They would need a very stong secular government and security force to do this.

Posted by: daveconcerned at March 22, 2006 2:06 PM

http://www.kashmirstudygroup.net/awayforward05/p4_jamukashmir.html

Looking at a map, it looks like 5 countries would benefit from a neutral Kashmir, not just India:

-India
-Pakistan
-China
-Afganistan
-Kashmir proper

We all want to feed our kids. Elites of these countries, please get together, make some money and some happy citizenry.
COMMERCE AND PROSPERITY THROUGH COOPERATION!

Posted by: daveconcerned at March 22, 2006 3:01 PM

Hugh,

Sorry about the hobbyhorse. My hope is that secularization is the way for the people in the area. Making money and fence mending for stability seem to be the logical way to help provide for everyone in that part of Asia. It would be an excercise in leading by example.

Posted by: daveconcerned at March 22, 2006 3:31 PM

Daveconcerned, I wonder if you are aware that the Kashmir Study Group, whose paper "Kashmir a Way Forward" you link to, is the master-work of Farooq Kathwari, chairman, CEO and president of Ethan Allan (a large home furnishings manufacturer and retailer in the USA). While the plan Farooq Kathwari peddles sounds on cursary glance to be quite pragmatic, in actual fact it is anything but. The Kathwari plan is aimed at Islamization of the Kashmir Valley, using American and foreign forces to interfere there (much like they did in Iraq). It is very important to be aware that Kathwari, despite his smiling face and well coiffured looks, is an out-and-out jehadist. In fact, he is quite proud of his son's matyrdom in Afghanistan (see the following link for more info: http://www.militantislammonitor.org/article/id/597 ). It is common for Kashmiri muslims, and Kathwari is one of them, to try to paint themselves as victims and create the impression that the only thing that they are fighting for is freedom, both from India and Pakistan. In actual fact, Kashmiri muslims have complete freedoms under India (in fact, they are thoroughly molly-coddled, with non-Kashmiris not even allowed to buy property there); and their REAL bone of contention is that Kashmir is not yet under Sharia law. The idea of a secular Kashmir is just a ruse by Kathwari's Kashmir Study Group. Kashmir is secular enough under India.

Posted by: Razdan at March 22, 2006 4:11 PM

Demolishing mosques is a dangerous rathole.

Sreekanth

If you noticed, I didn't suggest that any temples be build there. But as symbols of Mohammedan conquests, such mosques are unacceptable, as they embolden supremacist attitudes among Muslims. That is the reason they need to go - not the "Ram ka saugandh..." argument.

Ayodhya was a good first step. A few others need to follow.

Posted by: Infidel Pride at March 22, 2006 4:17 PM

Razdan

Although article 370 is still in place, it is important for Jammu and Ladakh to be safeguarded (the way Sardar Patel safeguarded East Punjab and West Bengal) by separating them from Kashmir, and making them states/union terretories in their own right. I wonder what you think about such an approach? Regardless of whether or not this happens, any solution to the Kashmir issue has to be acceptable to Kashmiri pundits every bit as much as everybody else.

OT: some months ago, in the January 23 issue of India Today, there was a story on Jihadi groups like Hizbul Mujahideen was recruiting Hindus into its ranks. In the story, there were a total of 17 Hindus who were on a wanted list. Is this something you've heard about, or was India Today simply blowing a story like this out of proportion?

Posted by: Infidel Pride at March 22, 2006 4:25 PM

Infidel Pride: Although article 370 is still in place, it is important for Jammu and Ladakh to be safeguarded (the way Sardar Patel safeguarded East Punjab and West Bengal) by separating them from Kashmir, and making them states/union terretories in their own right. I wonder what you think about such an approach?

I fully endorse such an approach. The State of Jammu and Kashmir is a mix of many different religions and ethnic groups. The Jammu region to the west is mainly populated by the Hindu Dogris, and the Ladakh region to the north-east is mainly populated by Buddhists. Though muslims form an overall majority in the State, they are mainly concentrated in a small area called Kashmir Valley. The Kashmir Valley is also home to Kashmiri Pandits (Hindus) such as me, as well as a few other minorities including Sikhs and Christians. For too long the Kashmiri muslims have had complete control over the whole of Jammu and Kashmir, much to the detriment of all the other religious and ethnic groups (none of whom are interested in a separate Kashmir from India). The Kashmiri muslims have become adept at not only milking the Indian government of funds and money (much of it disappearing into the bank accounts of the muslim leaders), but also of using the threat of secession to keep garnering more and more concessions from the central government. Kashmiri muslims currently have complete conbtrol over all the State government legislation, jobs and education.

I believe it is important that, in order that the cancer of Islamic jehad be contained, non-muslims are granted greater autonomy over their own affairs, rather than being held under the whims and machinations of the majority muslim population. Giving Union Territory status to Jammu, Ladakh and Panun Kashmir would be a good first step in strengthening the anti-jehad forces in Kashmir. Of course, this move is opposed by the jehadist muslims and marxist Hindus (from the rest of India) who try to portray this as somehow being anti-national.

OT: some months ago, in the January 23 issue of India Today, there was a story on Jihadi groups like Hizbul Mujahideen was recruiting Hindus into its ranks. In the story, there were a total of 17 Hindus who were on a wanted list. Is this something you've heard about, or was India Today simply blowing a story like this out of proportion?

I read this as well, and, frankly speaking, I find this news very fishy to say the least. I cannot imagine how any Kashmiri Hindu would prefer joining forces with the very terrorists who seek to destroy them. I certainly don't know of even a single Hindu who has joined hands with HM.

Posted by: Razdan at March 22, 2006 5:10 PM

sorry,
no offense intended.. the cia world factbook didn't have a decent map...

Posted by: daveconcerned at March 22, 2006 5:48 PM

Daveconcerned, no offense taken. I think I jumped the gun when I saw your link to the Kashmir Study Group (KSG) site. On re-reading your posts I realize that you aren't really endorsing the KSG position. In any case, I hope the link to Farooq Kathwari's connection with Islamic jehad serves a useful point in showing an example of how high-standing muslims in America can be so intimately tied to the Islamic jehadist movement.

excerpt from the link: http://www.militantislammonitor.org/article/id/597

At his (Farooq's son's) funeral services a Jewish boy who was a childhood friend (of Farooq's son) got up and shouted at his parents that "my friend lies in that box today because YOU filled his head with hatred" No other words were spoken afterwards.

Posted by: Razdan at March 22, 2006 6:17 PM