Communist

United States of Elite versus Donald Trump : Sunni-Saudi-Anglo-Euro-Jihadi axis towards war.

Posted on August 23, 2017. Filed under: Afghanistan, Arab, Army, China, Communist, economics, economy, Egypt, Hindu, History, India, Iran, Islam, Islamic propaganda, Jihad, Muslims, Pakistan, religion, Roman, Russia, Saudi, Shia, Sunni, Syria, Taleban, terrorism, Trump, UK, Ulema, US Presidential elections, USA, Wahabi |

Postulate One: European consumption levels could historically be only maintained by exploiting resources and productivity outside the self-defined territory of Europe (as in Roman expansion dependent on Egyptian grain and “barbarian” slave labour and fecundity).

Postulate Two: USA is an extension of western Europe as shaped in British state form revised under imagined and reconstructed Roman Republic with perceptions and constructions of both what is “European” and what is not – based on cumulative claims of history, both regional and global.

Postulate Three: Europe prioritizes consumption of its elite over ideology.

Most of what is happening now in the USA, in its politics, its legislative bodies, its government and state institutions – all the way to its attitudes towards and handling of or engagement with Islam, Middle East, and Asia can be deduced from the three postulates.

The Roman Republic generated several interesting phenomena that is rarely put in perspective when analyzing modern-day politics of the “western” world. The contest between the Plebs and the Patricians was a contest for power and say in state affairs between the increasingly self-aware Plebs (stemming from their co-option into the armies under people like Marius the uncle of Caesar in turn driven by elite hunger for land and slaves in the ever-expanding “periphery”) and the “Patri-cians” claiming descent from leading founding fathers of the historical Roman colony in Italy and who thereby had hogged the material and monetary benefits of the state formation exercise over the centuries. The Romans went through a phase of submission to non-Roman “rule” as well as “kingship” to finally overthrow “dynastic royalty” but evolving or recasting a new form of authoritarianism legitimized by representative bodies of people – closely followed in essence in the process of formation of USA.

All these are pretty well-known in standard history lessons: what is less discussed is how Roman institutions also institutionalized politico-financial corruption together with formation of well-organized coteries that infiltrated, and manipulated the Roman state institutions for combined business, political and power benefits – running almost as “organized crime”. In fact the model of “mafia” now popularized by Hollywood, typically labeled as originating in remnants of old Roman empire in the medieval such as “Sicily” or “Naples”, had their roots in the system of Roman knights/captains put in charge of various zones/districts of historical Rome. The blurred lines between ambitions of impoverished Patricians like that of the Caesars or the still wealthy Patrician Sulla, the stinking rich Crassus, or the yuppie military genius of a country bumpkin-from-peasant-north maternal uncle of Julius – Marius : they all formed a politically-financially-incestuous vicious competition of various groups of “mafia”.

Thus it is crucial to drop the Hollywood imagery of the “Godfather” and expand it in the reality of US politics on the more historical Roman “mafia” of the Republic and transition-to-empire phase of Rome. Such an “extended” mafia can be both “criminally organized” and “patriotic” or more “transnationally minded” just like the ancient Roman “mafia”.

The current phase can be thus understood as a phase of competition between two domestic groups of “mafia” (in the extended “Roman” sense I am using) where one side has grown close to the Sunni-Saudi interests over a cold-war, and inheritance of Indian Ocean geostrategic burdens of defunct British “political” empire (as in every mature and jaded “empire”, the formal fall of empire-state leaves behind a network of transnational finance and elite of ex-colonies connected firmly to an integrated shared “interests” with the ex-empires successor). This means this side shares the political and hence even religious biases of the Saudi Sunni axis which grew up under British imperial patronage as a supposed barrier to restrict the Ottoman grasp over the “passage” to India. This in turn led to panic scramble by then Russia and Europeans powers wary of the British to try and gain access to Indian Ocean aligning a veritable rivalry between “western” (France/UK) and “eastern” (Germany/Russia) Europe to push to the Persian Gulf. However the ancient contest for supremacy between the west and east of Euphrates that had once ended the Greeks and Cyrus’s house allowing Rome to grow, and similarly exhausted Byzantines and Parthians to allow Islamic jihad to flourish in the “frontier” no-mans land between the two sides – continued in the Arab versus Iran contest, and was used by the completely emasculated remnants of Arab tribes to reassert claims against the “east” and try to repeat their 7th century success using the British and French need to secure the Gulf.

Discovery of oil has gradually shifted the balance of power within the front of  Sunni-Saudi-“western” axis, and WWII drew up an extended “frontier” of two hostile “fronts” running roughly North-East – South-West from Balkans through Syria-Iraq into Persian gulf.

The “western” Anglo fear of Russian breakthroughs in this sector combined with Arab jealousy of the more pre-Islamic nationhood retaining Iran with all consequent better human capital not destroyed as much as in Saudis under mullahcracy – drove the US attempt at wooing Communist China away from USSR, in return China extracting economic entry into global capitalist flow, and an attempt to ring-fence Iran and central-Asian routes from Russia down south by encouraging Islamism in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

However even if this strategy largely succeeded in weakening USSR and led to its overthrow, two problems had been created for US “mafia”: the immensely financially networked with US Saudi lobby’s growing influence among the “mafia” and China’s capture of the US consumer market using its totalitarian state economy and control over Chinese labour. After US had to necessarily engage in the mop-up operations consequent to fall of USSR and Sunni-Saudi lobby’s grasping the opportunity to expand its long-held jihadi ambitions to revive Caliphate style re-conquest of the Middle East, and beyond, parts of US mafia must have realized the growing threat of China’s economy.

However during the long cold-war era, Sunni-Saudi axis had been allowed to become politically entrenched in influencing US foreign policy and thus in the US state institutions and its political class as well as in the instruments of ideological hegemony of modern states – like the media, academics of “humanities”. The faction of US mafia that realizes the supreme importance of China as a threat to their interests (by disrupting the mafia’s finger in the global – “outside of territory” economic exploitation) was the force that allowed someone like Donal Trump to come through. Looking from this perspective, it becomes clear why he had to be “promoted” – they needed an “outsider” or “outcast” or deemed “dilettante” political actor, therefore less likely to have been compromised by the existing pro-Sunni-Saudi pro-China cliques.

That the majority of US state institutions are waging a virtual but desperate war to remove “Trump” from power is simply a manifestation of the failure of the “cold-war” legacy portion of the administration and ideological establishment to grasp the drive and perhaps even realpolitik “sense/pragmatism” of the anti-China “patriotic mafia” as the need of the hour for “US” interests just as overthrow of USSR was in then US interests.

So Trump is being driven to make superficial “compromises” while he is trying to protect the underlying agenda of cutting China down to size. However the pro-Sunni-Saudi US mafia does not want China to be cut down to size as both the Saudis and the Chinese favour each other as hedges for their respective geostrategic ambitions. Saudis do not really want Pakistan to be cut down to size as Pakistan is most helpful in delegating tasks of wahabization and radicalization that serves Saudi geo-strategic ambitions while China does not want Pakistan to be harmed as Pakistan provides a corridor to Indian ocean as well as a useful jihadi counter-balance to India whose territory and population the Chinese see as an obstacle to their own imperial ambitions.

So even if Trump announces a troop increase in Afghanistan, the reality of the situation will simply help Saudi strategy for the zone. The Sunni jihadi assets were first tested on Syria – seen as a rival Shiite state, and on Iraq – but it quickly spiraled out of control revealing the extent of jihadism that Saudis have unleashed which even they can no longer fully control. Russian backing stalled overthrow of the Syrian regime, so that means the “western/European” and Saudi-Sunni jihadi assets need to be “saved” and protected by the pro-Saudi-mafia/European elite from total destruction so they can be unleashed against the real intended targets – Iran and Russia. This means there will be an attempt to carve out a “sovereign” protectorate style enclave for those dubbed “free Syrian army” on the eastern parts of Syria, thereby giving them breathing space and regrouping recouping as well as a Sunni buffer which in turn faces a Kurdi enclave on the east – thereby balancing each other and buffering each other. However the jihadis will be most effective in the greater anonymity of northern Afghanistan and even frontiers of Pakistan to be effective against Iran and Russia. Hence the bulk of the ISIS jihadis will be “helped” by “west” and Saudi-Sunni lobby to “escape” to northern Afghanistan.

US boots on the ground , in the hands of local networks of politics remaining from British imperial days – will effectively be a force that facilitates – willingly or unwillingly – the fall of the “north” to jihadis, while a “progressive” regime will gradually shrink to the south and east of the country around the big cities in the south even while under US “protection”.

The Saudi-Sunni penetration of the US state implies that Trumps “threat” to Pakistan will in effect have little impact. The Sunni-Saudi lobby has slightly different geo-political ambitions compared to what even the pro-Saudi lobby thinks it has. The Sunnis want a repeat of their seventh century jihadi performance – they want one sweep of continuous jihadi territory from Arabia through India into Indonesia in the east, and all the way to Gibraltar in North and Sub-Saharan Africa.

For myself, I see benefit in the expansion of Sunni jihad across Afghanistan and Pakistan and towards India. Jihad destroys pre-existing nationalisms – even the artificial and opportunistically foisted ones like that of Pakistan. It will also weaken the part of the modern Indian state that is ideologically and for other reasons, similar to the pro-Saudi lobby within US “mafia” and which can use state coercive resources to protect the Islamist interests against the non-Muslim majority of the country.  Any genuine resistance to jihad can only come from the vast non-Muslim populations of India but only when their state power actively is no longer able to protect the Islamic infrastructure and allows new state forces to come up that can resist and roll back jihadis back to where it started – in the deserts of Saudis. Jihadis expanding in north Pakistan and Afghanistan will also finally roll-back Chinese presence and effectiveness in this zone.

So the future is bleak and bright.

 

 

 

Advertisements
Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Taharrush, Cologne, EU – why Islamic Rights come before Women’s Rights

Posted on January 17, 2016. Filed under: Arab, Christians, Communist, Egypt, feminism, Gaza, Historians with political agenda, History, Hosni Mubarak, Islam, Islamic propaganda, Israel, Jew, Jihad, Left, Marxism, Muslims, neoimperialism, Palestine, Politics, rape, religion, Salafi, Saudi, slavery, Sunni, Syria, Taleban, terrorism, USA, Wahabi |

The new years eve assaults on women in Cologne,  Germany, came apparently as a shock to many [France24_report]. When the first allegations began to crop up on social media, the state bodies responded with pacifiers and reassurances. The standard state tactic of repeating “be calm, be happy, nothing is wrong, everything has been taken care of, everything is as it always has been” line whenever it deems acknowledging the reality can jeopardise its control and domination over the population [State_attempt_at_coverup]. The response to this was a flurry of accusations on social media where individual women came forward to complain of their experiences of that night.

The political authority’s response to this bypass of and challenge to the state attempt to manage social perceptions through the media, and state spokespersons, was typical. The mayor of Cologne, who happens to be a woman, urged women to keep away from men “at an arms length” in public, and not “provoke” cultural sentiments of men from “other” cultures [keep_men_at_arms_length]. State complicity in delaying, or trying to suppress news on assault was exposed in the German public broadcaster, ZDF, apologising for delays. “The news situation was clear enough. It was a mistake of the 7pm ‘heute’ show not to at least report the incidents,” wrote deputy chief editor Elmar Thevessen on the show’s Facebook page.

The common European state, party politics, position seems to be arguing that

  1. Assaults were one-off, localised, not necessarily by men from particular national and religious identities.
  2. Even if assaults took place, they were cover for theft – not sexual but economic motives.
  3. Even if sexual, it was the women’s responsibility not to “invite” such attacks, by not provoking religious cultures which saw European women’s public appearance in dress or styles as provocative and justification for such attacks.
  4. If assaults were acknowledged openly by state bodies, it would strengthen the political “far-right”. Hence they should not be acknowledged.
  5. Maximum effort to delink assaults to Islam’s core cultural attitudes towards women, and if impossible to do – then try to emphasise ethnic, or national, or country origins of assaulters, and make it country or region specific, hoping to suppress the Islamic connection.

Interestingly, each of these positions expose much more about what is really going on than their proponents would like to expose.

It seems that the assaults were reported by women specifically to be by men of particular ethnic, national identities. It seems, assaults were not one-off, with similar incidents reported from Hamburg and other German cities, as well as from Finland and Sweden and Austria [pan-European_sex_attacks] and the attacks were explicitly sexual. The testimony of women at the receiving end, shows explicitly the hostile, angry, sexual aggression [explicit_sexual_nature_of attacks]. That snatchings, lootings, muggings accompanied sexual assaults, only adds to a viewpoint that sees the woman in public as free “property” who has no right to be with any valuables of her own: that is she herself is a “property” and a possession and belongs to the strongest man or men who can possess her and everything that she carries with her.

The attempt to pass this off as just  strange new, one off, only first time this year, phenomenon – is also jeopardised by the revelations of an obvious attempt at suppression of reports of similar persistent events in Sweden in the past – actually in summer 2015 [Swedish_media_suppression_of_reports].

The Islamic connection should have been transparent even if one did not study Islamic social history in details. There were reports of women demonstrators and journalists being asexually assaulted in Tahrir square in Egypt in the heady days of “revolution”. At the time most of these reports were suppressed, and the women concerned, even if from the “west”, characteristically shut up their mouths. The majority of women in western media or women’s rights activism appear to be very outspoken and “brutally and unflinchingly honest” when reporting, or investigating sexual assaults, sex-slavery, alleged on non-Muslim cultures, but their eloquence dries up when reporting on Muslim atrocities on women. In the past the meme of Israel, “Zionism” being the bigger, badder enemy seems to have been a persistent excuse used by senior, or “powerful” female voices in the anti-Israel, pro-Palestinian lobby to suppress dissemination of incidents of sexual assault, torture or slavery practised by revolutionary and heroic Palestinian society under “siege” as pointed out by Phyllis Chessler [feminism_as_protector_of_jihadi_violence_on_women’s_rights]. The following news will be sought to be dismissed as “Zionist” propaganda [Israeli_Muslim_teen_trafficked_into_sex_slavery_in_Palestine]. As Shmuley points out, western “liberal” feminism itself is often becoming an instrument for eventual ideological subversion of western women to acceptance of the attitudes encoded in Islam where a whole lot of political ideologies converge towards submission to Islam by non-Muslim societies [Shmuley_vs_Naomi]. In the words of Phyllis, [Feminist_silence_on_Islamic_assault_on_women’s_rights],

Feminists are, typically, leftists who view “Amerika” and white Christian men as their most dangerous enemies, while remaining silent about Islamist barbarians such as ISIS.

Feminists strongly criticize Christianity and Judaism, but they’re strangely reluctant to oppose Islam — as if doing so would be “racist.” They fail to understand that a religion is a belief or an ideology, not a skin color.

The new pseudo-feminists are more concerned with racism than with sexism, and disproportionately focused on Western imperialism, colonialism and capitalism than on Islam’s long and ongoing history of imperialism, colonialism, anti-black racism, slavery, forced conversion and gender and religious apartheid.

“Taharrush”, the rape-gauntlet “game”  [Taharrush_Islamic_spatial_strategy_to_isolate_and_rape_in_public] that surfaced in Tahrir square was a direct product of Muslim attitudes towards women in public, especially those less strictly dressed as per Islamic expectations and who were somehow therefore deemed to be declaring themselves as publicly sexually available women. The source of these attitudes lies in Arab Muslim ancient Islamic penchant for taking sex-slaves of women in raids, publicly strip them, rape them before husbands and male relatives to emphasise Islamic superiority even reported to be happening under the founder of Islam [surviving edited and abridged biography originally by Ishaq], and the much later codified Hidaya which stipulates the woman’s entire body and its complete use-right to have been bought either by nikaah rites or “right hand possession” war booty, or simply the woman in “hand” or possession. What happened in Cologne, was the same “Tahharush”, and both women and police would have been better equipped mentally and physically to deal with the situation had “Tahharush” – the dark side of the reality of the majority in the so-called Arab Spring was allowed to be openly discussed and noted in western media – when it happened almost 3-4 years ago.

What emerged at Tahrir square should have told the west and the world clearly, that what was being portrayed as a “revolution”, was in reality an Islamist reaction, which retained and in some sense enhanced acutely all the attitudes in classical jihadi Islam nurtured carefully over the years by the mullahcracy with whom the west compromised during the Cold War and ensured their protected continuance in preaching and preserving the jihadi core memes of Islam as an useful ally and antidote against spread of Communist ideas in Muslim world. West intervened specifically against any regime in any Muslim majority country that seemed to be incorporating deemed socialist elements in governance or society and thus made common cause with the most reactionary of elements among the mullahcracy. Each “socialist” regime experiment, however brief, in the Islamist countries did somewhat try to combat the mullah’s imposition of sex-slavery like conditions on women, tried to liberalize access to education, health, professional and economic avenues and opportunities to women. But just as now, western “political” theory of suppressing everyone else’s rights, or all humanitarian rights to the cause of defeating and crushing the “biggest/baddest” enemy – the mullahcracy and its Islam was deemed a less dangerous and less important threat – even if it was crushing women future and preparing whole generations of men in the sex-slaver mindset.

All the above reports throws up some key common observations,

  1. not only men in authority – but women who would be considered professionally empowered, with recognised public voice, either try to shift the burden of being safe on the women. Sometimes this involves de-facto urging to submit to cultural religious norms of “outside” cultures which clash with the native one on perception of women’s rights. Sometimes this is combined and bolstered by the bogey of not strengthening the far-right.
  2. thus the underlying value system of modern Europe is exposed in its subconscious, perhaps unintended, acknowledgement that all its so-called humanitarian universalist values are subject to preference orderings. The preference orderings are unstated, to allow maximum possible flexibility in contextually and opportunistically applying the officially touted formal values.
  3. for those in power in Europe,  staying in power or preserving their peer group’s political dominance over the state and society comes above any other humanitarian values shouted about. Thus a domestic political power struggle with the “right” is justification enough to relegate women’s rights as below that of Islamic cultural rights.
  4. empowerment of women, professionally, economically, and in political ranks or positions or hierarchies has no relevance for women’s rights as a social segment. Female activists themselves have taken on the generic authority structure attitudes they lambast as patriarchal and male chauvinism, in urging women to submit to cultural values that denigrate and sexually humiliate women.
  5. Europe’s liberalism has actually protected and nurtured a submissive urge towards Islam, and protection of the image and covering up of the reality of Islam. [State_complicity_in_Islamization_in_Germany].

Making women’s rights an exclusive women-only preserve, refusing to face the reality of Islamic connection to attitudes towards women, may not only jeopardise the future liberties of women, but also subvert the wider civil liberties of the freer world. The ideological strategy in the pro-Islamic has to be fought by calling their bluff and exposing the underlying dishonesty and subversion covered up by tactical dissimulation.

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

CounterThoughts-3: A Call for Counter-Jihad

Posted on August 30, 2014. Filed under: Christians, Communist, economics, Hindu, India, Islam, Islamic propaganda, Israel, Jew, Jihad, Left, Marxism, Muslims, Pakistan, Politics, rape, religion, Saudi, slavery, Sunni, Syria, Taleban, terrorism, UK, USA, Wahabi |

The discourse on ISIS, the iconic Islamic jihadist movement that illustrates all aspects of the core of Islam as a social and state meme – has been mired with the strange but expected confusions of  non-Islamic civilizations which try to model and understand the “other” on their own world-views and expectations of what it means to be human.

The stories of ISIS activities that make it to the media, are there for everyone to see and draw their own conclusions from. Problem is that we are either never told, or we don’t manage to realize ourselves, that what we make of a described event, is coloured and shaped by our pre-existing views on related and not so related elements. For a liberal, non-Muslim, “modernized”, educated mind, the very ideas of torture, sadism, rape, sex-slavery, is so far removed from daily contemplation – that the response is either a denial or disbelief that such a thing could really have taken place.

But the situation here is more complicated by possibly two factors in why we fail to grapple with the reality of Islam.

The west has difficulty in going after deconstructing Islam as it clearly recognizes that undermining the basics of Islam would need undermining the Judaic roots of Abrahamic religions and that undermines Christianity too. So it consistently tries to represent the challenge from Islam as a merely real-politik one, as conflicts between this or that factions over power, politics, and economic factors. So the real problems posed by Islam, its core of genocidic, civilization-erasing and often sadistically brutalizing corrupting memes are ignored, bypassed, whitewashed or even denied and constructed as temporary political/social conflicts that have no long-term relation to Islam as an idea. Thus Islamic jihad is always misrepresented as being driven by contests that have nothing to do with Islam per se.

There is also the post-Christian but still “Christian” west’s fears and loathing of what it deems “pagan” and “non-Abrahamic” which it fears will gain from a retreat of Islam as in places like India, where Hindus had proven a repository of civilizational memes too complex and resourceful to submit to colonial attempts at replacement.

The second and deeper problem with the non-Muslim failure to understand and deal with Jihad comes from the very fact of its liberal, and non-closed or non-exclusive world-view. The built in components of exploratory, doubtful, non-stationary in most modernized non-Muslim civilizational frameworks makes them necessarily accepting of diversity and dissent, which in turn make it impossible to reject exclusive claims.

The diversified interests of modern non-Muslim societies, problematizing as “narrow” and “primitive” and therefore denigrated, the obsessive, biologically focused memes of Islam that revolves round the capture, possession and control of natural resources, agriculture, irrigated land, women. Trying to make sense of the horrors of these fundamental drives in Islam, the non-Muslim mindset tries to hang on to modern Islamic society’s use of products of western consumer products (including cultural ones)  as signs of “normality” and eventual hoped for convergence with their own non-islamic ones. In the process they fail to realize that the primary attraction and interest within islamic societies remain the time-tested method of ordering societies on biological relationships, “natural orderings” of power and force and physical domination, coercion – that between men and women, between the military and the civilian, between the theologian and the politician. Whatever is absorbed from the non-Muslim is filtered through the lens of utility and non-challenging of the fundamental drives of Islam : gaining military technologies, and pure consumption that doesn’t upset Islam’s core power relations. Thus better guns and ammunition or nuclear bombs, missiles, are welcome as are women’s lingerie and cosmetic products or porn which are welcome if it enhances the male pleasure in the privacy of homes or brothels or harems of sex-slavery. Ideas that clash with such core obsessions of Islam, as sex-slavery – are not absorbed even in contact or immersion within non-Muslim societies, as shown by European participants of jihad in Iraq.

Once the confusion is cleared, the next step is an uncompromising exposure and deconstruction of Islamic attempts at camouflaging or whitewashing and misrepresenting both the term “Jihad” as well as its usage, not only now but also in history. Plenty of works now accumulated over the overwhelmingly and consistently violent interpretations of “jihad” and not the “personal-internal-peaceful” struggle that it is often whitewashed as when exposed in non-Muslim societies. When the Muslim knows there is not going to be annihilating retaliation, he/she will justify the violence, genocide, rape, massacre, slavery as being solidly supported by precedence and cryptic injunctions of the founder of their religion. When the Muslim is yet to gain numerical or military strength to carry his/her agenda out without facing negative consequences, he/she will cry about how jihad means peaceful-personal “struggle” and only turns “defensive” when “attacked”: not clarifying that this attack could be and has been taken merely even as non-Muslim existence in the neighbourhood, or non-Muslims practising their own culture.

The second step and need for the hour is a clear, unemotional recognition of this confusion over Islam and Jihad and declare a counter-jihad. There are two basic components to counter-Jihad: ideological and politico-military.

In ideology, ruthlessly challenge and call out the intellectual fraud often perpetrated by Islamists, their spokespersons or whitewashers – both Muslim as well as non-muslim, in defending, misrepresenting, or confusing their audiences over the term “jihad” and its usage.

In politico-military, attack every assertion of Islamist symbols, terms, politics wherever they try to make inroads. Militarily destroy their supporting geographical bases, political entities which seek their recognition and protection as respectable and equivalent to non-muslim entities.

In the military side, recognize that jihad is based on a shrewd psychological understanding of sadistic terror and sexuality. Jihad uses terror and sex to psychologically weaken and destroy its target populations, before any actual large-scale retaliation can take place. They count on non-Muslim liberal hesitation to strike back with forms of counter terror that matches the Islamic. What to learn from the Islamic is the clever use of deniability and “plausible deniability” to extract psychological and political  advantages by both practicing terror and denying practicing it. Islamics represent any concession from non-Muslim side as weakness of the non-Muslims and as proof of strength of their god and their theology.

Islamists crucially think that non-Muslim reluctance to use the sadism that muslims use on non-Muslims – is a sign of Muslim strength and non-Muslim weakness, and the weakness of the non-Muslim god/gods. Only when the Islamic will face terror of  higher sadism than his own, will he finally acknowledge defeat, as he will see his “god” weak and unable to protect him.

Islamics use provocation to invite retaliation which they can then pretend to be defending while actually having prepared for aggression before. They also don’t take chances after conquest by executing those who already have or are liable to resist. Provoking Islamists to take up arms makes them combatants and no-longer civilians. If anonymous groups and militants carry out counter-terror as the west allegedly arranged for to deal with leftist insurgency, then there is plausible deniability. There are many methods which have already been tried out both by the “west” and the “Islamics”.

Let the “struggle” begin.

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 2 so far )

On academics and their open letters : neo-imperialism from afar

Posted on April 22, 2014. Filed under: Bangladesh, China, Christians, Communist, diaspora, economics, economy, Egypt, financial crisis, Gaza, Hindu, Historians with political agenda, History, India, Indian National Congress, Islam, Islamic propaganda, Israel, Jew, Jihad, Kashmiri Pundit, Left, Maoism, Marxism, Muslims, neoimperialism, Pakistan, Palestine, Politics, rape, religion, Salafi, Saudi, Shia, slavery, Sunni, Syria, Taleban, terrorism, Turkey, UK, USA, Wahabi |

 

A group of sixty odd academics in various UK institutions have decided to join the Indian electoral fray by posting an open letter to the “left” leaning Independent under the headline:

Letters: The idea of Modi in power fills us with dread

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/letters/letters-the-idea-of-modi-in-power-fills-us-with-dread-9273298.html

“As the people of India vote to elect their next government, we are deeply concerned at the implications of a Narendra Modi-led BJP government for democracy, pluralism and human rights in India.”

Concern is always nice. Concern about democracy, pluralism, and human rights are particularly nice to hear about. But when these concerns are raised by voice which are only selectively concerned, that troubles us. These academics are not concerned about continued Saudi rule and its impact on the middle East’s prospects for democracy, pluralism and human rights. They are completely silent about Palestinian ruling junta (that is what it is – because each one of them come solidly from military outfits, and once-dubbed-terrorist groups), or for China, or for Pakistan, or Afghanistan. But more of this at the end.

“Narendra Modi is embedded in the Hindu Nationalist movement, namely the RSS and other Sangh Parivar groups, with their history of inciting violence against minorities. Some of these groups stand accused in recent terrorist attacks against civilians.”

The slyness of academic evasiveness starts to reveal itself now. It is the same method by which so-called professional historians create new impressions of truth by weaving propositions into a narrative and creating a new narrative where propositions become blended into certainties. Note the smooth blending of “some” “stand accused”. At one smooth stroke, these academics of high integrity have made an “accusation” appear as “convicted”, and “some” is used to taint the “whole”.

By their logic, the Congress parivar (family) is embedded in a politics which has had very dubious roles, and sometimes outright bias in defacto protecting Muslim violence from Nehru’s time at power during the Partition, with selective targeting of alleged Hindu violence. Usually the Congress hides behind the legalistic excuse – again first used by Nehru to allow the Islamic violence in Noakhali, Bengal to continue while he personally and immediately intervened in Bihar where Muslims were at the receiving end – that when the Congress sees the victims as non-Muslim, non-Christians, it mumbles about law and order being a state prerogative. Whereas, when Muslims appear to be the target, Congress sees it as a union/federal/central issue. This was the cover under which Congress did not intervene in the genocide of Hindus of Jammu and Kashmir in the late 80’s because in this case it was the Muslims who were the perpetrators. The helplessness of the Hindu surviving refugees, was perhaps the root cause of the revival of the Hindutva” movement these academics so lambast – because many Hindus in the wider arena of India began to realize the selective bias of the Indian state under the Nehrus and the Congress in favour of whitewashing and allowing Islamist violence to thrive, especially if such violence was directed against Hindus.

The Congress is therefore imbedded in a movement, that has always protected Islamism and Islamist pretensions, and have at various times carried elements in its governments who are connected to or stand accused of rioting and communal hatred which amount to acts of terrorism.

“We recall the extreme violence by the Hindu Right in Gujarat in 2002 which resulted in the deaths of at least 1,000 people, mostly Muslims. This violence occurred under Modi’s rule, and senior government and police officials have provided testimony of his alleged role in encouraging or permitting it to occur.”

Recalling is a good thing, but if what happened before under a regime historically is proof of repeating the same then the Congress should be even more in the dock – for the Partition riots happened under the government of Jawaharlal Nehru, and ant-Sikh pogroms happened under Rajiv-Gandhi/Congress, and all the riots that happened before the BJP came first to power, with such spectacular ones as in Bhagalpur, were also under various Congress governments.

The academics think that by adding the word “extreme” to “violence” they can make a special case against Modi -as they perhaps feel, and rightly so, that “violence” has been the norm for anti-Hindu attacks by Islamists or Christianists too. Maybe for them those “other” violence are genuine expressions of grievances,

“Some of his close aides have been convicted for their involvement, and legal proceedings are ongoing in the Gujarat High Court which may result in Modi being indicted for his role. He has never apologised for hate speech or contemptuous comments about various groups – including Muslims, Christians, women and Dalits. His closest aide has been censured recently by India’s Election Commission for hate speech used in this election campaign.

“There is widespread agreement about the authoritarian nature of Modi’s rule in Gujarat, further evidenced by the recent sidelining of other senior figures within the BJP. This style of governance can only weaken Indian democracy. “

Different groups of people agree among themselves about different things. Concepts like “authoritarian” are so abstract, and inconcretizable, that tons of academic papers have tried to make academic careers out of hair-splitting over the very definition of “authoritarian”. Many communists are still dewy eyed over Stalin or Mao, and have “widespread agreement” among themselves over their most fortunate appearance on earth. Same goes for Hitler. Jews have “widespread agreement” in spite of a portion of Jewish origin academics hosted by various UK universities to the contrary – that existence of Israel is perfectly justified even at the cost of Palestinians. There is widespread agreement among large swathes of Muslims about the necessity and justifiability of historical violent genocidic jihad, and significant groups have “widespread agreement” among themselves about the benevolence of sex-slavery of the non-Muslim as part of jihad.

Typically when groups do not want to spell out the membership of the group, or are unsure about their numerical strength in proportion to the wider population – they turn to vagueness, or unpinnable conjectures -so that they can never be called out for lying or pretending, and claiming “widespread agreement” is one way of doing that.

The “widespread agreement” is among this tiny coterie of Indian origin academics – probably groomed and selected in the early days of their studenthood and careers by previous generations and peer groups of British interest serving academics, like the Marxist academics who desperately denied any role of triangular Atlantic slave trade in the kickstart of the British industrial revolution.

The curious bit is about somehow Modi being guilty of sidelining “senior” party members as proof of exceptional authoritarianism. All the Nehru-family members have sidelined senior party members to come to power. Does it not make them even more authoritarian already?

“Additionally, the Modi-BJP model of economic growth involves close linking of government with big business, generous transfer of public resources to the wealthy and powerful, and measures harmful to the poor.”

This is actually hilarious. For this is what actually has been happening since Margaret Thatcher in Britain, happened too even under Tony Blair, and has accelerated under Cameron. Do they want to say that all that has led UK down the drain? Or do they have not the courage to spell out those pearls of wisdom to the masters of their souls? It happens at even grander scale in China, where party-apparatchiks and their minions or progeny ruling over millions in their regional satrapys hog investments from a financial sector which is still centrally and nationally owned as well as managed. No, these academic’s can only open their mouth against the “Hindu” India, and the BJP and Narendra Modi. They have not open lettered even on the very entertaining case of Ukraine, where “right wing nationalists” have been on the rampage with alleged support of big biz and oligarchs who grew into tycoons with diversion of state investments. Naturally – since doing so is not in the current interests of the British ruling interests.

“A Modi victory would likely mean greater moral policing, especially of women, increased censorship and vigilantism, and more tensions with India’s neighbours.”

These academics never protested Muslim censorship, moral policing of women, vigilanteism in Indian Kerala, or Uttar Pradesh, or Bihar, or West Bengal, or Assam, or Christians doing exactly the same in Nagaland and Mizoram, and attempting to do the same in Manipur. They cannot mention anything about those other communities or religions or states, because they cannot afford to show these other ones in the same or worse light than the “Hindus” – then they lose the affection of the system.

Overall, then what does it show about such concerted concerns from such groups?

Let us go back to the very beginning again of their open letter. They are claiming that democracy, pluralism, human rights in a one specific distant nation, is going to be trumped if one man and his party or political alliance gets elected in a plural democracy which as yet respects human rights. One can see why they have been allowed to succeed as academics, because they can pretend an intellect which can be used to legitimize the complete lack of any logical capacity on issues that are of interest to a post-imperialist neo-imperialist state.

The west-European political dogma of the political class has now run into a fatal dilemma. They either have to accept that democracy and pluralism can be used, to subvert, overturn, or cover anti-democracy and non-pluralism – which makes themselves open to analysis as tow whether they had been doing and continue to do so themselves.

Or they have to find escape clauses that can be used selectively to target nations and regimes that they see as obstacles in the way of their agenda of global domination, within their dogma that still allows some mantle of legitimacy for their own systems.

The method being tried out in general for a couple of decades, is trying to enforce a so-called consensus or “widespread agreement”, on very vague and often duplicitous or contradictory criteria to judge if the “consensus” value system is being subverted or not. The west-European dogma thinks it has found an escape clause that can cover their selective neo-imperialist agenda – claim that a certain vague outline of democracy, pluralism and human rights exists – whose identification and verification lies solely in their own hands, which then justifies imperialist intervention in other nations, to overturn regimes, assassinate significant individuals, or economically and militarily destroy the fundamentals of that nation.

In order to find out in whose interests any self-proclaimed group of experts, academics, humanitarians, activists actually are acting for – we just need to check out what they remain silent on in contrast to what they choose to pick on. These open-letter academics do not criticize Hamas or Palestinian authority parts for their Jew-cleansing hate campaigns, torture, rape, murder, or that by the so-called freedom-fighters in Syria, or those in Kosovo and Croatia against Serbs in the 90’s, or the Bahraini state, or the Saudis, or Pakistan, or China, or western Ukraine, or Turkey, or Egypt, or even in their own backyard where the state ruthlessly cracks down with full state violence on peaceful protesters against economic destruction of the commoner.

Just compare their stances on these “other” stuff – and you can identify whom they work for, in whose interests.

 

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 2 so far )

Studying Priyamvada Gopal : how to promote imperialism under an anti-fascist mask.

Posted on April 21, 2014. Filed under: Antisemitism, Arab, Buddhists, Christians, Communist, diaspora, Gaza, Hindu, Historians with political agenda, History, India, Indian National Congress, Islam, Islamic propaganda, Israel, Jew, Jihad, Kashmir, Kashmiri Pundit, Left, Macaulay, Marxism, Muslims, neoimperialism, Pakistan, Palestine, Politics, rape, religion, Salafi, Saudi, slavery, Sunni, Syria, Taleban, terrorism, UK, Uncategorized, USA, Wahabi |

 

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/apr/14/narendra-modi-extremism-india

Priymavada Gopal’s opening piece in Guardian runs as follows:

Imagine this. A pogrom takes place in a foreign country targeting a minority group, say Christians, with hundreds brutally killed by rampaging mobs, many mutilated and raped, and foetuses removed from pregnant women. Thousands flee destroyed homes. The provincial leader on whose watch these events take place is a politician with open links to extremist Islamist organisations. Three holidaying British citizens are among the massacred. Allegations emerge that this politician’s language helped foment the massacres. With one of his cabinet jailed for her role in the pogroms he becomes the frontrunner to lead this increasingly powerful country. Would you worry?

Yes, is the likely answer, and so you should. In reality, the country is India, the extremists are Hindus, the 2002 Gujarat pogroms targeted Muslims, and the leader in question is Narendra Modi.

It is highly revealing to see how Gopal’s use of English carefully transforms, transmutes and transfers guilt and horror from a widely obvious violent religious movement to another with which she would otherwise have failed to establish any comparative basis. The violent scenario becomes her equation between two religious communities by which she can serve her dual purpose of reducing Jihadi guilt and responsibility on one hand, and raise the other community to the same violent status. “Removing foetuses” is an allegation that is typically dismissed by Indian “Thaparite” historians when they appear historically, as being carried out by Islamist mobs – as in the Moplah rebellion of the 1920’s or thr Partition riots.

In her hypothetical Islamic scenario, she does not equate “muslim” with “extremist”. In her follow on comment she makes that jump, subtly, and glibly – casually bracketing “Hindu” with “extremist”. But the most insidious and devious part of her argument lies in noting that she paints the “victim” in her scenario – as “Christian minority”. She did not say just any minority – for example Buddhist minorities, Sikh minorities and Hindu minorities are – and continue to be targets of Islamist attacks. But Gopal must only mention “Christian minorities”. She knows she is actually appealing to the Christian majoritarian audience of UK, trying to tickle their own underlying religiosity and religious anger and transfer it against the “Hindu”.

“As the candidate of the far-right Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), in current elections he does not dispute his or its links to the extremist Hindu network known as the Sangh Parivar.”

It is interesting to note the casual application of adjectives, which do not need to be, and are never qualified. Gopal thinks that extremist is such a well-defined term, that mere slapping it on anyone from such a high and undisputed authority as herself – is enough. Extremist in one school, one religion, one nation – become moderates, average, centrist in another school, religion, nation. Again Gopal is very careful in disjuncting “Muslim” from “extremist” – she reserves such joining to Muslim only by adding an “ist”, creating the linguistic illusion of the two being separate. No such kindnesses for the “Hindu” though. In the eyes of enemies of the Hindu, any assertiveness or protest or attempt at defining itself independently of self-appointed experts form outside – who however carry their own hidden religious agenda by criticizing religions/cultures selectively – is a criminal offense.

“Modi was a leading activist for its secretive and militaristic arm, the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) – whose founder expressed admiration for Hitler, ideologies of racial purity and the virtues of fascism. It is an organisation that, on a good day, looks like the British National party but can operate more like Nazi militias. Known for an authoritarian leadership style, Modi’s only expression of regret for the pogroms compared them to a car running over a puppy, while he labelled Muslim relief camps “baby-making factories”.”

Interestingly, the roots of the current Palestinian movement against Israel, and Jews – has its roots in a certain Grand Mufti of Palestine, who became a close associate, admirer of Hitler, and collaborator of the Nazis. This Grand Mufti had however been helped to get selected to his post by the dubious role of the then British administrator of Palestine. Does this make the British, Christians, current Palestinian movements, any better than the RSS? The Palestinian groups still express admiration for Hitler, for example  http://www.palwatch.org/main.aspx?fi=655

“Hitler awaited me. I said, ‘You’re the one who killed the Jews?’
He [Hitler] said: ‘Yes. I killed them so you would all know that they are a nation which spreads destruction all over the world. And what I ask of you is to be resilient and patient, concerning the suffering that Palestine is experiencing at their hands.’
I said [to Hitler]: ‘Thanks for the advice.’ “ http://www.palwatch.org/main.aspx?fi=655&doc_id=6029

“Had Hitler won, Nazism would be an honor that people would be competing to belong to, and not a disgrace punishable by law. Churchill and Roosevelt were alcoholics, and in their youth were questioned more than once about brawls they started in bars, while Hitler hated alcohol and was not addicted to it. He used to go to sleep early and wake up early, and was very organized. These facts have been turned upside down as well, and Satan has been dressed with angels’ wings…”

“Palestinians whose first name is “Hitler”: Hitler Salah [Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, Sept. 28, 2005], Hitler Abu-Alrab [Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, Jan. 27, 2005], Hitler Mahmud Abu-Libda [Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, Dec.18, 2000.] Articles reflecting admiration for Hitler have appeared in both Fatah and Hamas newspapers.”

Millions go as aid and funds diverted for Palestinian movements from UK. Does Gopal lambast them similarly? no. Why not? Because doing so would not be in the interests of the core of the British establishment thinking– which still has its pro-Sunni, Wahabi, anti-Semitic bent of the early 20th century.

“Hindu extremism is rooted in a macho 20th-century response to British colonialism which mocked Hindu “effeminacy”. It is rarely scrutinised in the west, partly because Hinduism is stereotyped as gentle and non-violent in the image of Gandhi – who, ironically, was assassinated by an RSS activist – and benefits from the disproportionate attention given to Islamist violence, which enables other pernicious extremisms to slip under the radar.”

Gopal obviosuly covers up her glee at supposed “hindu effiminacy” just as newly enslaved woman in Islamic hands were often reported to be over-zealous to show her devotion to new masters by sharing in the mocking or humiliation of her own kin. Actually, Gopal’s shoddy scholarship and very poor or rather dishonest understanding of colonial history shows in her lack of reference to studies of militancy within the Hindu long before the British arrived, as in Warrior Ascetics and Indian Empires By William R. Pinch published from within the very Cambridge that Gopal struts about.

“For all its anti-British rhetoric, Hindu nationalism played no significant role in either the freedom struggle or in creating the secular constitution of independent India. But over recent decades, the notion of Hindutva (Hindu-ness) has grown in force along with the unfettered capitalism it espouses: it is responsible for vicious attacks on Christians, murdering missionaries and calling for Muslims to choose between Pakistan and the graveyard. And any victory for a proponent of a nuclearised Hindu India where homosexuality remains criminalised will have consequences that will be felt well beyond the subcontinent, not least in multicultural Britain.”

As for pontificating on who played no significant role in freedom struggle : Gopal follows the cue of Congress favoured so-called professional historians who see political agenda in everyone else other than themselves. The latter served the dual purpose of reassuring the British that the threat of militancy or militancy itself among the Hindu having any role in the removal of the Brits – because the Brits have always been mortally scared of appearing to have been militarily or violently thrashed. It fed into their ancient paranoia of appearing weak before continental brothers. The other purpose was legitimizing the dynastic continuity of British Raj through the Nehruvian one, by projecting Nehru and Gandhi as the sole harbingers of Indian freedom – erasing and denigrating all other threads of Indian freedom struggle and its success. Such an agitprop and construction of the colonial-anti-colonial story served the purposes of all three players in that game – British imperialism, the north-Indian mullah-Hindu-elite collaborator class developing within the Sultanate-Mughal spectrum represented by Motilal and Jawaharlal, and the mercantile fledgling capitalists of India. Making Gandhi the sole victor, then was strategy of redefining the Hindu as passively accepting of all that is thrown against, tolerant of everything and everyone so that the extreme exclusivism, culture erasure memes of Christianity and Islam could continue unhindered even after their British patrons were gone from direct power. Gopal simply parrots the line.

Interestingly, and expectedly, Gopal shows her lack of integrity by not mentioning that the anti-homosexual laws were actually British laws imposed on Hindus – in deference to Islamic and Christian demands when the laws were being formalized for the Raj, and that the current strongest opposition against decriminalizing homosexuality comes from Muslim leadership in India. It is Hindus who have some traditional space for the third “gender”, not Muslims – some of whose voice have already promised alternatives under Islamic law for India. Gopal slyly makes an Islamic and Christian problem into a Hindu one, and then pitched it on her chosen target. When mentioning “vicious attacks” on Christian missionaries, she quietly avoids the role and effect of such missionaries on simple believing communities, the fraud and financial promises used to manipulate and win converts, and the attacks on and exclusion of Hindus by missionaries. When Hindu “missionaries” go for similar work – they are murdered too, and their activity is touted by the likes of Gopal as disruptive and therefore their murder somehow legitimate. Gopal has absorbed British ruling classes’ traditional duplicity rather well.

“The Gujarat pogroms took place after an unexplained fire on a train, which killed Hindu activists and was swiftly attributed by Modi to Islamic forces and Pakistan. Allegations remain that he deliberately prevented authorities from intervening. Contrary to claims, India’s supreme court has not issued him a “clean chit” but criticised him as a “modern-day Nero”.”

For Gopal – the “fire” is “unexplained”, not even unfortunate – or no commiseration expressed for those burned. Notwithstanding that the commission reports did not declare the fire “unexplained”, but rather suspicious. However, the suspicious reports were generated to make it appear that the burned passengers set fire to themselves – so that arson was so strongly suspected and secretly acknowledged by the anti-Hindu forces in the country and abroad – that they swung into action to pitch the blame on the “hindu” themselves. Gopal mentions allegations in a neat weave to create the impression that they were somehow not mere allegations but truths.

“Modi’s moral culpability was recognised by both Britain and the US in denying him a travel visa for several years. Britain has also been attempting, without success, to get justice for the three Britons – Saeed and Sakil Dawood, and Mohammed Aswat – who were chased, cornered and brutally killed, their bodies burned beyond recognition. Now, disgracefully, trumped by British corporate interests in India, many owned by British Indians, governmental links with Modi have been re-established. This rehabilitation is the result of hard lobbying by some Hindutva-friendly politicians and the many front organisations that operate in Britain. We are urged to focus on corporate-friendly Modi, the pogroms being a little mishap to be shrugged off.”

Gopal is at her ridiculous shamelessness best : the US/UK’s rejection of Modi somehow reinforces the guilt of Modi. Is she prepared to do the same for US/UK’s virtual rejection of Palestinian demands and accept that it proves Palestinian guilt? Or UK’s virtual clean chit to allow South American genocide criminals to move freely in UK shows their lack of guilt? Gopal claims to have been at the forefront of fighting fascism – but fails to recognize the reach, spread and power of fascism in the form of Islamism. She want to equate Islamism with Hindu reassertion – and this is where she reveals her secret agenda.

“We should note with concern that some charitable funds raised in Britain, including for the 2001 Gujarat earthquake, went to charities run by Hindu extremists who systematically foment hate. So too must we care about the “saffron pound” sent by long-distance Hindu “patriots” to fund extremism. But investigating Britain’s Hindu zealots doesn’t have the same political currency as pronouncements about getting “tough” on Islamic extremism.

A Modi victory will strengthen the arm of chauvinist forces in Britain, which have already had successes such as shutting down exhibitions, quashing caste discrimination laws, and withdrawing Royal Mail stamps. Under Modi there will be no progress on Kashmir, which will also have far-reaching violent consequences. In the face of a global resurgence of the right we must be alert to all its extremist forms. Britons committed to anti-fascism must not allow their country to abdicate morality.”

The weakest part of Gopals’ argument is however her failure to establish any strong connection between a Modi victory and negative consequences for UK home territories. Shutting down of exhibitions and withdrawal of stamps is far behind the political exigencies by which the London series bombings are related to the global fascist Islamist agenda. Hindu India has little to gain out of blackmailing a puny world player like the UK whose only influence can be exercised through its big-brother the USA. Islamists on the other hand have a lot depending on the UK and vice versa. Her most concrete argument is that of Modi will stall progress on “Kashmir”. Interestingly again, Gopal shows her real affiliations and commitments by dropping the word Jammu – and making one cause with the Islamist agenda of erasing the reality of Hindu and Buddhist Jammu and Ladakh. Since she thinks “Hindu” is against “Kashmir” she is already subscribed to the idea of an Islamist Kashmir – the dream of islamists, many of whom find a niche in her very UK – and against whom she has nothing to say. Not to speak of no Guardian article from her pen about the fascism unleashed by the valley Muslims on Hindu “Kashmiris”.

Gopals’ anti-fascism is very very selective – it only finds it in Hindu reassertion, not in Islamics, or christians, or in the actions of states in the west and its Islamist allies like the Saudis, around the globe and sometimes on their own home territories – which have amounted to and continue to be so – as fascist. So at the end of the day, her shrill cry of sky-is-falling and frantic appeal to the UK to intervene in Indian politics reveals her real motivations – serve the cause of imperialism under cover of anti-fascism – the same face used in Europe and the world since the end of WWII.

 

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 1 so far )

Counter Thoughts -2: Pakistan should be dissolved as a nation and absorbed into India.

Posted on February 24, 2014. Filed under: Afghanistan, Antisemitism, Arab, Army, China, Christians, Communist, economics, financial crisis, Hindu, History, India, Islam, Islamic propaganda, Jihad, Kashmir, Muslims, neoimperialism, Pakistan, Politics, religion, slavery, Taleban, terrorism, UK, USA, Wahabi |

[First written almost 4 years ago: updated!]

How many nations of our times are based purely on a religion and recognized by other nations as independent nations? Only two – the Vatican City and Pakistan. Ironically they share in common some traits. Both have helped in the unravelling of the USSR but not of Communism – for it still survives behind the People’s Republic of China and is still working towards global dominance. In spite of the UK and West’s blatant support for Pakistani sadism on both Afghans and Indians, for its supposed role in overthrow of USSR – Pakistan is desperately grabbing the Chinese communist hands in gratitude for having benefited from Chinese nuclear proliferation. Pakistan showed that gratitude by dealing in stolen or robbed property – so typical of Islamism, by gifting China territory Pakistan received from its British facilitated deceptive raid mounted on Indian territories in 1948.

Both the Vatican and Pakistan have been courted by the USA in its Cold War struggles. Neither has disappointed. Both exert influence on the global politics disproportionate to their actual size, economy, military capabilities, and the capacity to contribute in any meaningful way towards a modern, knowledge based, technological and information society. Both manage to do so by manipulating their historical images as projections into the future.

But there the similarities end. The Vatican’s leadership has made amends to its historical victims, and has shown its flexibility and readiness to change with the times. It has steadfastly refused to underwrite radicalism of the theological variety [the severe castigation of the Liberation Theology for example].  This may change in the future. But the leadership of the Vatican have proved themselves consummate statesmen in the concessions and compromises that they have made while never abandoning the fundamental objective of total global ideological domination. This is an objective that would have been a crime if not from the “one and only true message”, for any other “religion” in the times when the Church ruled supreme. But now in the days of “total religious tolerance”, there is nothing wrong in having a declared agenda of “harvesting all souls” and poaching on the following of looked-down-upon religious cultures. In fact, legal and state coercive machinery in liberal states can be used to guarantee protection of any proselytizer – even someone swearing by texts that recommend putting the unrepentant unbeliever to the sword, while raising no questions as to the right of the followers of those very same religions – where they are a majority – to deny exactly those very same rights to non-co-religionsists. How tolerant Christianity can be with regards to cohabiting with Islamists, and vice versa – especially where Christians have sufficient numerical strength – was and is being shown in Sudan. But no great talk is being thrown about in the liberal western media about what is going on in Sudan and why.

Where Pakistan differs is not in its protection of organizations claiming the right to practice “Dawa” or spreading of the Islamist beliefs -in parallel to Christianist demands for the right to badmouth non-Christian religions and beliefs and “spread the light” – by any and all means possible, and where even “charity” as concrete monetary benefits is kosher in a process of buying religious allegiance that in the corporate world would be condemned as criminal bribing –  but in its total lack of statesmanship. Unlike the Vatican, the Pakistani leadership never apologizes to the victims of its Islamists, never acknowledges that it has nurtured Jihadis in its madrassahs, never concedes to modernization in education and social practices, never really allows any land reforms or dismantling of feudal exploitation in its backyard.

Pakistan is basically an anachronism, a nation whose only foundational claim for identity is a religion – in a historical period where the world is leaving behind, exclusive and historical claim based religions. Moreover, that religion is not even unique to the country – it is shared by a host of other nations, some of whom have louder and more well established claims of being the centre for that religion. So Pakistan is based on a type of ideology increasingly irrelevant globally as national foundation, and moreover on an ideology based identity shared with other “nations” – and therefore has no real claims of distinction from other nations. It cannot look at history and culture, for in spite of the best sadistic efforts of generations of  “mullahs” – elements of pre-Islamic cultures lie firmly interwoven in the national fabric, and those elements are shared by its imagined nemesis – India. In fact the pre-Islamic cultural element proved so strong that a part of it broke away in reaction in 1971 as Bangladesh.

So now Pakistan finds itself in a terrible dilemma. To strengthen and give uniqueness to its national foundation, it has to become more Islamic than “others”. Becoming more Islamic means more and more unquestioning obedience to a strict and literal interpretation of the core texts. That in turns means more Jihad with violent means which accelerates the competition between the ruling feudal elite, the army, the mullahs, the commons, the militants – to become “purer” than the others. That means an almost perpetual state of national Jihad. Purer Islam can only be maintained by preventing modernization – in education, productivity, technology and above all the questing mindset. Which means Pakistan will become more and more dependent on largesse from interested external sources and be a drain on the global economy as the sources would spread the cost around.

So the West and the global community should perhaps start thinking of dissolving the entity called Pakistan. Here are the brief reasons :

(1) Dissolving Pakistan saves the West (and therefore the world economy )a huge amount of money and resources needed to keep the state afloat, and a total drain, because none of that capital goes into productive capacities.

(2) Even though the Chinese are now playing second fiddle to the West, it is uncannily similar to the Ribbentrop-Molotov handshake where both sides appear to be buying time. Eventually, Russia and China could come together with Iran (or whatever is left of it even if a so-called revolutionary liberalization and democratization takes place there under non-theologians) to which the CAR will lean. As long as Pakistan remains an independent entity, it can play the prostitute and threaten to kiss the higher bidder or the one more willing to pay.  That is both a security risk and a potential disaster, if everything given to Pakistan lands up in Russian, Iranian or Chinese hands and the West’s presence is virtually terminated in the Afghan-Pakistan frontier. Dissolving Pakistan takes away this worry.

(3)  Dissolving Pakistan and putting up new independent states in its place actually creates new multiple centres where Jihad can be protected and nurtured. One Pakistan becomes many and the western problem multiplies. One of the best bets is to allow India to absorb the populations and the territories.   India is a growing economy which can absorb the costs. It has the capability and the will to manage multicultural groups and religious animosities. Culturally Indians of the western part of the country will be closer to the Pakistanis across the border [Punjab for example shares the language across the border in spite of the state sponsorship of Urdu] compared to any other external ethnicity or country. Moreover the costs of developing infrastructure and the economy or carrying out necessary social reforms will be borne on Indian shoulders and not on the west.

(4) As the price for non-intervention in the absorption, the West could extract concessions from India that it will have assured access and facilities to reach the CAR through channels and routes maintained and developed through Pakistani territories connecting the Karakorum Highway and other CAR approach routes.

(5) The Taliban lose their foster home, and are buffered off from the crucial supply routes of Karakorums and the Arabian Sea. The so-called Kashmir problem vanishes as the Pakistani military and ISI mechanism to foment terrorists inside India vanishes.  So one of the greatest excuses for maintaining Jihad from the Pakistani side, vanishes. With dissolution of Pakistan, one of the persistent Pakistani revivalist jihad trends that periodically and insistently reappears in Bangladesh, gets cut from its roots – leaving only Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states and elements from Malaysia as remnant patrons.

(6) India can and should promise land reforms, and redistribution of concentrated big-landholding from Pakistan’s obnoxious feudal lords and the military upper echelons who are either created landlords as rewards or come from the feudal network itself – to landless and marginal farmers of Pakistan. These are the same people who are exploited ruthlessly, often sexually and through slavery, by the Pakistani elite in an obvious extension of the worst aspects of casteism, but on which no Christian or western liberal intelligentsia will comment upon as it shows Islam in a bad-light compared to eminently much more bashable “Hindu”.

If it is any consolation, MacArthur broke the Japanese feudal class’s back to an extent through land-reforms, in post war Japan. Moreover all the off-shore money laundering units that UK maintains for complete deniability from its colonial days can still harness and will definitely attract Pakistani Islamist and feudal military elite’s looted capital for parking on the prospect of imminent fall before Indian troops, and to play with for financial speculative profits and bonuses by the “city” bosses. That in itself should convince the UK and its ally across the pond, to allow the “fall” to happen.

India, because of linguistic and unique cultural history, will remain firmly in western and specifically the Anglo-Saxon or Atlanticist orbit for generations to come. There are sufficient fissures in the Indian ruling class for the west to exploit and protect western interests.

It is worth a try – at least the largest source for generating terror of the Jihadi and allied kind (through international crime and other non-religious or ethnic militancy) will be effectively liquidated. At one stroke West no longer has to face Islamist terror, pay for upkeep of Jihad, and instead can profit from a growing economy which bears all the costs, together with an alternate route to get closer to tantalizing natural resources to be looted in Central Asia and keep a nervous eye to the age-old threat – Russia! After all, the greatest threats come from those shared common ideological roots, and who are well-versed as brothers from the same family school in the tactics of robber imperialism that originated in “greater” Europe!

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 4 so far )

CounterThoughts-1 : India’s failure in Bangladesh is a failure to understand Islam.

Posted on January 18, 2014. Filed under: Afghanistan, Arab, Bangladesh, Bengal, China, Communist, Delhi, Hindu, History, India, Indian National Congress, Islam, Islamic propaganda, Jihad, Kashmir, Left, Maoism, Muslims, neoimperialism, Nuclear, Pakistan, Politics, rape, religion, Russia, Salafi, Saudi, Sunni, Taleban, terrorism, UK, USA, Wahabi |

It is almost six years since I started writing on this blog. As with most of my intellectual forays, it was to search for root causes to phenomena on which people seem to be talking from belief, bias, preconception and conscious or subconscious agenda, and on which I seemed to find no answers of my own yet.

Six years later, and a myriad interactions with ideological friends and foes or the merely non-committed, desperately trying to appear neutral middle-roaders, I feel that the task is not only to understand but also to try and share what I have felt to be the way forward while trying to understand.

However, I should stress that I do not support the idea of final answers and incontrovertible truths. More of that later, and I will try to explain why I think so. I am not demanding or claiming that others should think like me, or that what I say or think is important. But it is a deep seated, slowly maturing urge over the years to think aloud, to borrow the cliché. What do I expect out of it? A myriad small sparks, not the incinerating brilliance of a nuclear device, but the small, fragile, light of the primitive oil lamps, or the hopeful glowing embers of the evening fires of cooking of the first human settlements.

I am starting off this sequence with a topic that appears to hog the Indian subcontinental discourse for some time (apart from supposed uniqueness of Indian propensity to rape, or supposed waiting global disaster of a Modi led “saffron” resurgence, or the glowing future of a post NATO Afghanistan, and the continuously improving civilizational status of Pakistan) – namely, the recent elections in Bangladesh.

My thoughts on Bangladesh and its society has been laid out on this blog before. So I will only briefly touch and summarize.

Bangladesh was formed in 1971 as a result of an intra-elite factional contest for power over the Islamist movement that had managed in 1947 to use tactical violence, British covert support, and Delhi-Uttar-Pradesh-Gujarat based axis of the Indian Congress’s fear of the more populous two ends of the Gangetic plains – Punjab and Bengal’s long tradition of independent counter-Delhi political undercurrent.

For the Islamist, they needed a base in which they could nurture jihad and hopefully accumulate the resources for a future “final solution” of getting rid of all Kaffir on the subcontinent, and as many mullahs openly express – more openly in Taliban land fertilized by decades of Saudi funding and tacit support from the UK and the USA through their islamist allies in power in Pakistan. Pakistan was a good starting point for their agenda, as they felt that the liberalizing, modernizing, educating world of the Indian Hindu would eventually open up Islamic society beyond mullah sadistic control.

For the British, smarting under the loss of their global dominance to the Americans, Pakistan would be boots on the ground for British interests. Such interests would include long term hope of reviving sole control over Indian Ocean ring, use American fear of Soviet expansion to simultaneously get the USA involved in regional wars of attrition so over the that long term Americans would be weakened and hated sufficiently to leave the field open again for the British, while at the same time prevent modernization, liberalization and resurgence of cultural identities that the British had hated out of racial, religious and perhaps a bit of underlying twisted obsession with the darker side of human nature.  One of the foremost targets of British hatred was anything to do with the “Hindu”. It was the “Hindu” they saw as the elusive system which sourced resistance to imperialist subjugation where as the supposedly more virulent and “martial” Islam quickly turned bootlickers. For the British – the Congress was “Hindu”, “Sanskrit” was Hindu, Hindu temple and architecture was ugly compared to the seductive feminine curves of the “domes” of Islam, Hindu texts, knowledge base and culture represented the apotheosis of all that was supposedly, pure, Christian and “white”.  The rump state of India that was left after 1947, was still “Hindu” and the galling reminder that the Hindu failed to “convert” to submission to British claims of supremacy. Thus Pakistan, in its western and eastern ends would remain the best chance to gall India into the future, and be hopefully bases of jihadism if not outright British comeback – that will continue to bleed “Hindu” India. At least that was perhaps the hope anyway.

Where the British failed was their belief in their own propaganda, invented out of a necessity to play intra-Islam factionalism to subdue the Ottomans by raising the Wahabi-Saud jihad – that somehow intra-Islamic factional fight for dominance represented the non-monolithic nature of Islam. Islam being actually a cover for blatant imperialism, every regional power within a broader spectrum of Islamic following, will try to become the centre of that imperialist claim – so that they can then use the religious imperialist authority enshrined within Islam – to mobilize the total resources of global reach of Islam for their own individual regional power centre benefit. This has been the history of the Islamic politics right from its inception.

 

Contrary to western misrepresentation, this internal drive to become the supreme imperialist claiming the loyalty and support of all Muslims behind their power hunger, leading to inter-regional fights, does not represent any actual deviation from the core genocidic, culture erasing, enslaving agenda of Islam – where it concerns the as yet non-Muslim.

Now to understand Bangladeshi politics, this above understanding is crucial. The Awami League split from the Muslim League of Jinnah, not out of secular or non-Islamist core drives – but as power seeking movement that wanted the fruits of the partition of 1947, the control over the land and in more mundane terms, the wealth, property and women of the Hindu’s of eastern Pakistan and dominance over the whole of Pakistani state structure.  The greater contiguity and inter-mingling of non-Muslim motifs and memes and the relatively later entry of Islam into the area historically, compared to the western end of India, implied a difficult task ahead for “eastern” Islamists. There were spontaneous popular movements influenced by the remnant secular, liberal and modernizing influences of pre-Partition Hindu-presence [the relative strengths were roughly 45/50-55/50 at the end of a disputed and allegedly biased-in-favour-of-the-Muslim in the last census  before Partition], which was seized upon shrewdly and tactically by the Awami League leadership under Mujibur Rehman. But the fact is often forgotten that Mujibur started his political life as a student activist for the Muslim League in Calcutta, under patronage of Suhrawardy – the architect of government supervised and protected pogrom on Calcutta Hindus that led to the notorious pre-Partition massacres.

Independence for Bangladesh was therefore just a manifestation of the intra-Islamic fight within Islamic imperialism for monopoly of the imperialist claim, it no way represents any compromise at any fundamental level with the commitment to jihadist clearing of non-Muslim cultures, seizing their property and resources and enslaving their women. It would be natural to expect that after the formal separation of power and independence for Bangladesh was obtained by necessary tactical pretension by future leadership of Bangladesh to get Indian and global support – that the core of this political movement would quickly reassert its fundamental drive by getting rid of all symbols and structures that they saw as being tainted by the need to compromise even tactically to “Hindus” or non-muslim sympathetic powers. Mujibur was the most blatant symbol of this and therefore he had to be  made an example of. Note that elements of the core of Awami League and the military which had apparently sided with the “liberation movement” collaborated in the bloodshed.

Since, Bangladesh has consistently seen expulsion and genocide of remnant Hindus, looting of their property, rape and abduction and forced conversion of their women. Islamic atrocities are also typical in the deliberate psychological cruelty or sado-masochistic practices involved – for example it is not enough to simply kill the kaffir, but make it horrific by torture of the most inventive imagination, not only rape but rape before a father or a husband and forcing them to watch – intended to not only cause psychological trauma, but also to burn into the helpless men their emasculation and ineffectiveness. This is an extremely sophisticated grasp over the psychology of coercion, ans shows that the mullah is a highly trained and conditioned psychological warrior who has almost no sense of guilt or empathy where it concerns unleashing the more twisted form of sado-masochistic tendencies in the human.

The recent elections, showing widespread torture, rape, genocide of Hindus as an aftermath, in which elements of both the supposedly winning “secular” Awami League, as well as the BNP and Jamaat combination participated – shows that nothing really has changed from the early days of Islam in that zone. Mymensingh Gitika, a collection of medieval folk tales in verse forms from a region in Bangladesh – tells the story of a Hindu housewife being forced to pleasure a Qazi. Whether a faction loses or wins, be it Awami League or BNP or Jamaat – Islamists would go out to rape Hindu women, torch their houses, and loot their belongings, be it to celebrate a win , or to grieve over a loss.

Bangladeshi core thinking is reflected in the blatant statement of academics of Jehangirnagar university (a deliberate naming done to emphasize the Mughal association, from the Mughal name given to the then town, over the more ancient Dhaka-Vikramanipur – having therefore Hindu connotations) aspiring for an unbroken new Mughalistan carved out of Northern India stretching from Punjab and Pakistan over the Gangetic Valley all he way to Bangladesh and hopefully even what is now North-Eastern India.  Academics and “intelligentsia” of Bangladesh, openly discuss on media and TV shows, the desirability of destabilizing the North-East India so that eventually it gets detached from India and become ripe for Bangladeshi and “Islamic” expansion.

It is in the interest of the core drivers of Bangladeshi society – to preserve elements of Islamist jihadism. Over the years, Saudi and UK based funding sources have developed an extensive network of madrasshas and other institutional means of preaching the Arabic, Sunni-Wahabi views, and the result has been the increasing mass-presence of younger people in extremism, and obvious support enjoyed by the organizations like Hifazat whose members have played an increasingly visibly public as well as militant role.

Indira Gandhi scored a tactical brilliance in 1971, but a strategic blunder when she helped an independent Bangladesh to form. This independent nation immediately showed its fangs of islamism, has continued to expel Hindus, abduct rape and enslave Hindu women, and welcomed all possible transnational anti-India and anti-Hindu forces. As and when Pakistan falls, this nation will provide an alternative base for jihadis to retsart their movement.

I know that many have disagreed with me on this, but I still think, that in 1971, India should have raised the stakes by tantalizing the “west” with supporting Bangladeshi independence, but prepared to compromise if allowed to conquer and re-incorporate the northern “Pakistani occupied Kashmir”, hold on to the thin corridor to Rawalpindi up to the hills of the Swat, and extract a land corridor through Chittagong in the east to the sea. Impose demilitarization of east Pakistan on the formal logic of ensuring that Bengalis were not going to be subjected to Pakistani military atrocities, and guarantee autonomy within Pakistan.  End of all manipulations by China, USA and the UK and their support for the violently sadistic societies and mullahs of jihad in both ends of Pakistan. The Indian naval presence on both sides of the mouth of the delta and demilitarization would ensure the prevention of Pakistani military presence for ever to repeat the type sex-alavery and torture camps that they ran in 1971, and end of Chinese imperialist expansion schemes and their consequent inputs in genocide on subcontinental soil. End of Karakorum highway being lucrative for geo-political sadism and an alternative and peaceful land network to central Asia, connecting to India the more liberalizable northern Afghanistan, Central Asian Republics bypassing the Pakistani/Gulf/Saudi proximity and mullahfied jihadi societies of Southern Afghanistan and starving them of the economic flow that they now hog and use to support jihad.

It sounds too cynical, too “reverse-imperialist”, “safffron-revivalist”? We have seen most of the previous liberalizing conquests. They have only enhanced the blatantly cynical, racist, and sadistic existing imperialistic implementations of the Abrahamic cults. Why not a counter offensive that has proven its secular, liberal and modernizing credentials?

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 2 so far )

Why a terror blast at inner-city Hyderabad : Owaisi’s Caliphate? Possible green on green Sunni Wahabi/Salafi jihad against Shias and Ahmedyyas.

Posted on February 22, 2013. Filed under: Ahmedyya, Arab, Bangladesh, Christians, Communist, Egypt, Hindu, History, Hyderabad, India, Islam, Islamic propaganda, Jihad, Maoism, Muslims, Pakistan, Politics, religion, Roman, Salafi, Saudi, Shia, Sunni, terrorism, Wahabi |

Indian and international media will have a field day speculating on the twin blasts killing many and injuring even more in the Indian city of Hyderabad, India. The security agencies of India, perhaps under proper political correctness imposed by “secular” regimes, will discover “saffron” hands behind the blast.

However, I would like to speculate on another possibility. That of “green on green” jihad by one sect of Muslims against others. The bane of all monotheistic, organized, textual and doctrinaire religions is the need for evermore apparent perfection and purity. That in turn almost always leads to hyperfine distinctions in interpretation of fixed ancient texts, based on which each new faction derides and when feasible, tries to eliminate the other factions if necessary by violent means. The reason as to why strictly textual religions almost surely land up in such political struggles for power is an entirely different issue, and not for this post.

The fact of the matter is however, that all three of Judaism, Christianism, and Islamism – would have fared far better had they not bled each other and themselves, in fratricidal and internecine bloodshed sourced from this contest over who is the “purest” within the family -so to speak. The Byzantine and Italian Roman church’s murderous jealousy of Arrianism had no small role in the eventual fall of Gothic Christian power in Spain to yield place to  Al Andalus. In the end the “Roman” calculation paid off through the Reconquista -but meanwhile almost 800 years of Islamic rule had to be endured (how “glorious” or “civilizing” it was – is issue of another debate).

The Byzantine iconodule versus iconoclast violence, and the three-cornered fight with the Coptic brotherhood, led to possibly quick capitulation of Coptic Egypt before Arab Muslim armies, and the roll-back of Byzantine power from south of the Bosphorus before the early pious Caliph armies.

The violent iconodule versus iconoclast Christian contest again perhaps had a significant influence on how early Islam shaped itself and placed itself as, with similar intra-faith conflicts starting up within Islam from its earliest days.

Most of the world has become aware of the intolerance of the most influential, (because of oil and “western” connections) faction of Islam – that of Sunni Wahabism, and in another direction also Salafism. However what is often overlooked is that as much as the Ummah theological leadership is looking to subvert the non-Muslim world for eventual conquest and enslavement, they reserve an equal violence for those they deem “less pure” than themselves in doctrinal interpretation of the unchanging text.

Recently Hyderabad was in the news – because a scion of the wealthy Islamic clan of the Owaisis of Hyderabad, had made typical Islamist speeches warning of violence towards Hindus. Owaisis have old family connections to pre-Independence reactionary regimes of the Nizam.  The Nizam was a key figure of Islamism in pre-Independence India, and had many close and influential friends among the planners and plotters of the British ruling circles. Nizam was a reluctant joiner of the Republic, and as a last ditch effort had unleashed his genocidic jihadi Razakars on the majority Hindus of his state, in looting, raping and massacres as per true jihadi legacy prior to the Indian army marching into the capital. In fact a certain ancestral clan relative of the current Owaisi’s had been very active in the Islamist movement that turned violent, and had been imprisoned by the Indian government after accession of the state.

It has been suggested by some researchers that he was “released” and quietly allowed to emigrate to Pakistan and his Islamist party under its new avatar MIM allowed to “revive” post-Independence because the Congress got increasingly worried at the resurgence of the Communists in the state and the city.

Subsequent Congress governments, appear to have coincided with the increasingly sharp religious identity politics among competing factions of both Christianism and Islamism that in a lop-sided but indirect way also involves the Maoists. The pulse of this three-cornered and very murky religious politics can be estimated from under the heavy fog of media and regime protection of so-called “minority” sentiments in the periodic and too stinky to be entirely suppressed scandals involving financial and other sorts of corruption that also reach into religious halos.

But what perhaps has gone under the radar for a long time, is the observation that more Sunni influence appears to be showing up in Andhra Pradesh – and its capital city Hyderabad – mainly though the tell-tale signs of spread – the mosques and “dawa” institutions. With such growth, and a possible Gulf connection behind providing the material means to sponsor such institutional growth – has come the inevitable signs of Saudi-esque  Wahabi intolerance – against other Muslim factions deemed “less pure”.

These less pure factions are those of the Shia and the Ahemedyya. Orthodox Sunnis berate the Ahemedyyas verbally when they are militarily powerless, and behead or torture to death when they have state protection – as in Pakistan and in some cases even in Indonesia or Bangladesh. Hyderabad is actually a significant centre for the Ahmedyyas and the Shias.  In fact , just the previous year there were reports headlined :

India: Ahmadiyya Muslim Mosque Attacked by Militant Clerics and Mob in Hyderabad

Source: http://ahmadiyyatimes.blogspot.ie/2012/03/india-ahmadiyya-muslim-mosque-attacked.html

The new angle to be looked into Islamic terror on the subcontinent is the added Sunni Wahabi and Salafist trend of also cleaning up their intra-Islamic rivals, especially Shias and Ahmedyyas.

 

 

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 1 so far )

Salute to the youth at Shahbag, Dhaka, Bangladesh.

Posted on February 16, 2013. Filed under: Arab, Army, Bangladesh, Bengal, Christians, Communist, Egypt, Hosni Mubarak, Islam, Islamic propaganda, Left, Marxism, Muslims, neoimperialism, Pakistan, Palestine, Politics, religion, Taleban, terrorism |

I should have written this a long time ago, and only I am to blame for the lapse. The youth of Bangladesh, at least the significant portion of the youth of the country worth calling “the youth” at all – have “occupied” Shahbag, a spot of spring sunshine and resurgence and hope – in the country’s capital Dhaka.

They have been calling for the execution by hanging of the war-criminals, those Razakar or Jamaat-e-Islami or Islamists accused and convicted of war crimes, or crimes against humanity – of rape, genocide, murder, massacres, tortures during the nine month long direct struggle against Pakistani occupation in 1971.

Quite some time ago, on the eve of the Egyptian youth uprising – I had posted on this blog about the two stage and perhaps three stage struggle that the youth of Egypt would have to undertake. In Islamic societies at the level of Egypt, which had just come out of the phase of pseudo-secular dictatorships in cahoots with Islamist clergy under the carpet and a semi-religious alliance between the dictator, clergy, and western powers – the struggle is two phased.

In the first phase, leftists and liberals are unleashed to lead the overthrow of the autocrat. Underneath, the mullahcracy is prepared for action by their foreign handlers. Once popular anger is publicly poured out to justify withdrawal of support from the erstwhile “western” ally, the mullahcracy is unleashed as a legitimate alternative “government” to prevent “chaos” [whenever that word is unleashed on the public – it implies specific imperialist terminology perfected during European colonial enterprises], and the innate sadism latent in all mullahcracy can be used to eliminate the liberals as well as the radical portion of the youth. Peace of the graveyard then adorns both the religion of peace and the mullahcracy’s handlers in western capitals.

This was the pattern that emerged in Iraq of post WWII, in Shah’s Iran, in Nasser and Sadat’s Egypt, and even in Bangladesh.  The popular anger against the Pakistani sadism that started even as early as 1948 through the continued repression on peasant movements of the Tebhaga phase, was focused primarily by youth and student activists leaning towards the Left through the Language movement. It was this radical section of the youth that drew the politics of Bangladesh (then East Pakistan) towards complete independence and was also used by a section of the Awami League which had already started on a separate path from the old Muslim League.

The liberals and the leftists saw the Liberation struggle as militant revolutionary movement, and the west saw their opportunity in that if the military sadists in their pay in Pakistan failed to properly control the populace, the liberals could be allowed to overthrow the regional junta. Meanwhile the mullahcracy could be prepared for a helpful coup and back-to-Islamism new dictatorship. So Mujib’s entire family was wiped off, including kids (a sign that Islamists were set the task of assassination – typically modern Christian “western” thinking on assassinations go along more targeted individual elimination to serve as a lesson for the descendants) and a new dictatorship came under which the mullahcracy could come to power again . The process of elimination of the youth force and the liberals or left started even during Sk. Mujib’s tenure – indicating that the real militant force in the country, the coercive parts of the state and significant portions of the military – were connected to the mullahcracy and the latter’s supporters in foreign nations.

So as in Egypt, I would have expected at least one generation needing to go by – the youth that rose up in the first overthrow – to fail, to see their hopes dashed in the revival of the mullahcracy who revive all the older repressive forms and even roll back some of the modernizing windows provided by the old dictators. It would be their descendants – who would therefore rebel against the sop provided by the Islamist+western axis, against the mullahcracy itself.

This is what awaits Iran, Egypt or Bangladesh. It will be another cycle to even  the start of the process in Palestine or Saudi Arabia because the Islamist authoritarians that will be or are now in power are yet to reveal their inner sadism fully.

But Shabag in Dhaka is a flicker, a hope of eventual liberation, the first steps to the long walk to freedom from totalitarianism.

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Who’s afraid of Afzal Guru’s hanging and “damaging consequences”? The thin shell of India’s self-appointed secularists.

Posted on February 9, 2013. Filed under: Ayodhya, Bangladesh, Bengal, Christians, Communist, Delhi, Egypt, exile, Hindu, Historians with political agenda, History, India, Islam, Islamic propaganda, Jihad, Kashmir, Kashmiri Pundit, Left, Maoism, Muslims, neoimperialism, Pakistan, Politics, rape, religion, Taleban, terrorism |

Seema Mustafa, a noted journalist, wrote a piece on Rediff  http://www.rediff.com/news/column/hanging-could-have-damaging-repercussions/20130209.htm– about the possibly “damaging” consequences of the rather quiet hanging of Afzal Guru – an Indian from the Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir, and an accused as well as convicted of a murderous terrorist attack on the Indian Parliament.

Mustafa’s primary concerns can be summarized as

(1) supposed signs of “bias” in a section of Indian journalists over questions of “nationalism”

(2) supposed allegation that Afzal did not have a fair trial or adequate representation

(3) supposed fear of “damaging consequences” of the hanging.

Mustafa brings out everything that is wrong with the Indian media’s long history of playing and pretending “secularism” which effectively became Hindu/Saffron bashing while selectively whitewashing, even protecting the image of so-called “minority” religions by clamping down on anything negative motivated by such religions. She writes in such frank tones of a sense of betrayal, that she possibly does not realize how she has exposed the underlying religious politics of selective favouritism that plagues her profession.

A television news anchor, shortly after Parliament terror attack accused Afzal Guru was hung by the government in Tihar jail, declared, ‘All nationalist, secular and progressive people support this.’

That was just one statement amidst a cacophony of euphoric reactions to the hanging, but stood out as many of us who have been opposing the death penalty and questioning the fairness of the Afzal Guru trial certainly do not regard ourselves as communal and reactionary or for that matter anti-national.

Quite the contrary really, and so it did sound strange when journalists supporting death by hanging, refusing to question the fact that Guru did not get a capable lawyer through the trial, and blocking out the responses of those raising such issues, so easily put large segments of the Indian population into their self-defined ‘anti-national’ frame.

And so before analysing the possibly disastrous consequences of this hanging, it is imperative to understand the mindset of television news anchors who have successfully managed to convert personal beliefs into news, and trash all voices of sanity and sobriety that seek answers to complex questions. News channels are supposed to report the news and not give their editorial comments to a point where contrary voices are restricted from giving their views.

Most interesting to read! Now did the colleagues of Mustafa, only report the “news” and not give their editorial comments to the point of restricting contrary voices from giving their views when it came to talking about the rape, eviction, enforced migration – each and every element of genocide by most current standards of definition of a genocide – on the Kashmiri pundits? How many of Seema Mustafa’s colleagues practised what she wants them to – when the targets were Hindus from Kashmir Valley, or did they care to give space to view from the “other” side of what is alleged to have happened in the burning of returning Hindu pilgrims in a locked train compartment at Godhra, that is supposed to have led to the inter-community clashes in Gujarat which has been mad einto an international issue. I remember watching a news report from a well-known “secular” channel of India based in New Delhi – during the heyday of the Kandhmal (Orissa) conflict, when Hindu tribals hiding out in the forests express their fear of being lynched by Christian mobs or their Maoist collaborators – but the news-anchor comments before them along the lines of “look how much they have been threatened so that they they lie out of fear”.  What reports have ever been covered by Mustafa’s secular colleagues on the atrocities carried out by Muslim gangs in Kerala, or West Bengal, or Assam? Did they go and ever give any space to any views on the “other” side, if that other side did not happen to be Muslim or Christian? It is exactly these sort of biased behaviour that strengthens the more radical among the Hindu!

There was a time when reporters followed the news, reporting it as it was, communicating and informing the public, without wearing their prejudice, bias or for that matter, views on their sleeves.

How many times have details of religiously motivated atrocities been ever objectively and impartially reported by the media – without considering the supreme objective of not allowing the tarnishing or exposure of the on-ground modus operandi of extremist religious movements if and only if those movements happen not to be “Hindu”? Riots have been frequent in the state of Uttar Pradesh, atrocities by organized muslim gangs in Kerala, or Bengal – but Mustafa’s colleagues never find the space to report them. By accusing her colleagues of biased and ideologically motivated reporting, Mustafa confirms that Indian media can be and does operate on religious and ideological bias in reporting. In fact many like us draw the inference that it must have been this or that Muslim gang that started a riot – if the media reports it as a violent clash between “two communities”. One way or the other, if the responsibility can be or needed to be – put on “Hindus”, the names or details will be leaked to the sufficient degree to make sure that the conclusion or impression holds.

Afzal Guru has been hung. And apart from the main story the news media has a responsibility to:

one, trace his story with the facts of the case highlighted;

two, review the trial through important voices to see whether he had the best legal advice at hand or whether he was virtually left unrepresented;

three, to find out (and not just from official quotes) whether his family was informed in time, and were asked to meet him as per the humane provisions of law;

four, to seek answers to the commonly asked questions as to why the rush now, has it been prompted by political considerations;

five, to look at the possible political consequences of the hanging at this point in time and analyse whether the death of one man was worth what might follow.

This constitutes responsible reporting. As for the beating of the drums, this can be safely left to the political parties and the government who have held innumerable press conferences to applaud the act.

Has this ever been done by Mustafa’s colleagues when the victims of religiously motivated violence were non-Muslims or non-Christians? Even Sikhs were not always given the benefit of “unbiasedness”! Recently unusually (for Indian courts in such cases) harsh sentences were passed on BJP political leader for her alleged complicity in riot violence against Muslims – and a woman to boot – in Gujarat, on a peculiar legalistic claim that her “crimes” deserved exemplary punishments (I thought law was usually claimed to be about “fairness” and not about “examples”). Did Mustafa and her colleagues go and research the “other” side’s views? Did they report allegations of one “victim” having been in the habit of pulling out his firearm on previous occasions to threaten non-muslims or even use the firearm [I did not see any follow-ups, even debunking attempts, of this by any of Mustafas  secular colleagues]. Significantly, she uses an expression that has often been used in the past by the Indian state, predominantly the Congress and the Leftists, and in some cases – ideology-less regional charismatics, to clamp down on protests against Islamic claims of immunity from even verbal criticism. The ubiquitious claim is that “any crackdown on Islamic violence, protests, or outrage, or even protest or criticism of an Islamic gang coercive street rampage behaviour – is going to lead to a deterioration of law and order problem”. On this excuse Indian state regimes often pre-emptively strike on opposition to Islamic claims, and such an attitude has been primarily responsible for the threats and attacks on writers the Islamic shariacracy in India think of as damaging to their agenda of Islamization of India – like the banning of Salman Rushdie’s book, or the hounding out of the exiled woman author from Bangladesh – Tasleema Nasreen.

Journalists are supposed to play the devil’s advocate, be on the other side of the fence as it were, and review the story in all its dimensions. Indian democracy has many views, and a media that insists only on one view as ‘nationalist’ promotes a monolith that is in contradiction to the pluralism and diversity of this country..

Unfortunately, Mustafa’s case seems to rest on having all these benefits as privileges of the Islamic only – and her voice comes out when she effectively sees these privileges being taken away from the Islamic. Mustafa even does not realize that “nationalism” has its boundaries and terms of debate that cannot be allowed to be infinitely stretched. Otherwise, no attack on the “nation” can be opposed logically, for there will always be a “diversified” view that supports exactly such attacks as valid becausee they do not agree to “our” definition of  “our nationhood”. One day, the presence of non-Muslims will become problematic for “nation-hood” – the argument used by the jihadis of Muslim League and Jamaatis to unleash the partition genocide and carve out “Muslim” nations.

The terror attack on Parliament was heinous. And could have been far more disastrous had the terrorists been able to enter the building.

But Mustafa fails to say that 12 people were killed in that attack. Is this part of merely factual reporting too?Is not “heinous” a qualitative expression and not an objective one?

It was clear at the onset that the police had no clue about the attackers. Finally, Delhi [ Images ] university lecturer S A R Geelani was arrested, and then Afzal Guru was picked up. Geelani’s trial took a chequered course, but because of the support in Delhi and the involvement of wellknown lawyers, he was finally released.

Guru was from Kashmir and unable to afford a decent lawyer. He did not have the money and as senior advocate Kamini Jaiswal managed to say hastily on a news channel, he went virtually unrepresented.

Geelani, contacted by Rediff.com, one of the news sites doing its job professionally, said, “Afzal Guru was denied a fair trial. This has been proved in his last moments. I do not understand the attitude of the government. They have done nothing but play to the gallery.”

“Do you know there is a case pending in the Supreme Court of India ? The court has been looking into the delay into this case, arguments are going on and the matter is pending justice.”

‘Do you think it was right to hurry up the matter?’

“The due process of law has not been followed. This is nothing but a flawed process.”

But somehow we have becomes so blood thirsty as a nation, so wedded to war and violence (largely because of TRP ratings) that we do not like to ask any questions. After all, even a death row convict has rights, or is the case now that all these chaps should be shown no mercy and hung the moment they are convicted by the courts?

As wellknown women rights lawyer Indira Jaising said, while arguing against the death penalty, is there not a right to reform, and if even reform for some is seen as impossible, is there not a right to remorse? And should not it be the job of the sane voice of journalism to ensure that at least the rule of law is respected, and the rights of an individual acknowledged?

The interesting piece about Indian journalism is revealed in the way the “facts” are presented here. Somehow the Indian “police” are seen to be “obviously” not having a clue “right from the beginning”. I am not sure how many police forces of the world have clues to crimes being committed “right from the beginning” – for such details in prior knowledge would in most case lead to prevention of the crime actually being committed. From this “obviousness” in the eyes of the journalist, an ominous silence hangs to the onset of the next statement about Afzal being picked up after the arrest of another. The insinuation perhaps intended is that somehow this allegation of “obvious lack of clue” should encourage the reader to suspect that the police arrested Afzal without any proof or evidence.  If the evidence gathering process was so good and reliable in passing sentences on Kandhmal and Gujarat riot accused after long delays and twists and turns that could have raised even more serious concerns about police “capabilities or intentions” – why is it suddenly so unreliable when the accused is implicated in a violent terrorist attack on the very symbolic seat of Indian democracy?

The impact of the hanging can have damaging repercussions at different levels, and far more than this government will be able to handle. The media informs us, through the usual sources, that the decision was taken after top-level meetings and discussions. So one is led to believe it was a considered decision.

Instead of instilling confidence, this actually evokes fear, fear of being led by a government that clearly is unable to make the right assessments and basically does not care if parts of the country go up in flames.

The government has bitten the bullet as channels screamed with joy, but there is every possibility of the bullet exploding in its mouth. And this is what makes one wonder at a political leadership that willfully invites trouble.

Aspects of the case, as has been pointed out by lawyers as well, were before the Supreme Court and the government could have easily ridden the issue out instead of converting it into a storm that will hit it, in all likelihood, in Kashmir.

The military has clamped down in Jammu and Kashmir. As a resident there said, “Not even a leaf is fluttering here.” But while the state can be confident of maintaining control in normal circumstances, and beating down demonstrations, it also realises that one civilian death will snowball into a major uprising.

The February 11, 1984 hanging of Jammu and Kashmir Liberation Front leader Maqbool Bhatt led to a decade of the worst violence that India has ever seen. It is true that Afzal Guru does not have the same stature in terms of a leadership profile, but in terms of sympathy and support he was probably far ahead.

Besides, the alienation and anger in Kashmir is in a heightened stage, more so after the death of the young boys in the 2010 stone pelting incidents. A Facebook post by this columnist on Afzal Guru’s hanging has elicited a volley of responses reflecting this anger and alienation and asking why those responsible for the death of the boys have not met with similar punishment.

Now that sounds like a threat, isn’t it? It is time that the pretenders of secularism who actually effectively, on the ground, promote and protect Islamism by their selective reporting or campaigns at manufacture of social consensus in favour of Islamist agenda – realize, that a new generation is coming up. They are seeking to search out the reality of religious politics, especially of the medievalist brand of religiosity represented by modern Islamism. Even a Morsi cannot easily take an Egypt back to the 7th century one-sided propaganda that targeted all other cultures and human freedoms or civilizational achievements for erasure.If Mustafa is so concerned about the Kashmiri boys trained to give a Intifada style uprising – is she also concerned about the Kashmiri Hindus murdered, raped, looted at the start of the Shariafication drive of the Valley in the late 80’s – long before the excuse of all Muslim reaction stemming from the destruction of the disputed structure at Ayodhya could be given ?

The only logical explanation, thus, for the sudden hanging of Afzal Guru is the fact that general elections are around the corner.

And the Congress in its usual cynical manipulation of the votes is trying to eat into the majority constituency with this action. As for the Kashmiris they do not figure in Delhi’s plans. As for the secular forces, the argument voiced by Congress leaders is: ‘Where will you go. If there is Modi as prime minister you will have to be with us.’

So the minorities do not figure either, as they are the bechaara who can easily be made to run into Congress arms while fleeing from communal shadows. The secularists too, in the Congress analysis, will not be far behind as there is no Left and hence no Third Front alternative that could attract them in the polls.

So all in all a cozy scenario, except for the fact that the dynamics of India and the aspirations of the people cannot be controlled and tend to upset the most careful calibrations.

Tut -tut! why such a frustration? Is it so bad to be on the receiving end of the religious politics which had been so good for so many decades in expanding the network of madrassahs and Islamism spreading structures fueled by Gulf money and complicity by Islamophile regimes of the Left and Congress? If the Congress is really the supreme popularists they are made out to be, if saffron is really the outcast of Indian politics, and yet the Congress feels the pressure to need to appease the “majority” of the populations of India – that appeasement politics has run its steam off? That no longer should any population be hostage to the type of totalitariansim represented by Islamism – under excuses or threats of “potential damage”?

Take Islamist threats of damaging more liberal societies, and the tactics of emasculating entire societies by trying to raise apocalyptic visions of destruction and “damages” if terrorists are not pampered – with yourselves away from the public space! Nay! Better – speak more about this – because by doing so, the cozy arrangement to manipulate public opinion through clever manipulation of appeal to liberal values to progress non-liberal agenda  and veiled threats of violence otherwise – gets more and more exposed.

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 1 so far )

Why the Indian Left fails to understand religious extremism

Posted on August 25, 2012. Filed under: Ayodhya, Bangladesh, Christians, Communist, Hindu, Historians with political agenda, History, India, Islam, Islamic propaganda, Jihad, Kashmir, Kashmiri Pundit, Left, Macaulay, Maoism, Marxism, Muslims, neoimperialism, Pakistan, Politics, religion, terrorism, Uncategorized |

For some time now, the Indian state of Assam has been on the news due to its large-scale civilian strife and internal displacement of communities. But even more spectacularly, the internet and the media to an extent – has been ablaze with the issue of alleged threat mails and texts that perhaps forced a lot of migrant labour and students from the North Eastern ends of India. Following up, the government of India apparently has moved on in its bid to control the net, just like almost any other government on the planet, on the formal platform of protecting vulnerable people.

I will not go into the details of the Assam ethnicity, migration, religious divide problem that is essential to get a perspective of what is happening there and why. But in this Kafkaesque world of interest groups, doublespeak, hidden motivations shaped in their outward expression by complicated legacies of history and concocted morality, what is much more revealing is what the intellectuals and the self-acknowledged voices of nations and communities say on the issue.

I will pick on a very interesting voice pointed out to me by a friend, that of Amaresh Mishra in his timesofIndia blog. Mishra gives a good clue to his ideological lens in the very beginning lines

Before joining the Times of India in 1993 as a roving correspondent, I was part of the radical Left movement led then by the CPI-ML (Liberation). However, sufferings of dalits, adivasis and the working classes—natural Left constituencies—did not contribute to my early, personal radicalization. Still a student leader in the Allahabad University, I took active part in debates, discussions concerning national-international topics—and agitations mainly—on student issues.

In 1984, the day our Prime Minister Indira Gandhi was assassinated, I was in Calcutta. I had gone there to take part in the national conference of the Indian Peoples Front—the only attempt of its kind—of a Communist Party sponsoring  a democratic-peoples party in India—made under the leadership of late comrade Vinod Mishra—the then general secretary of the CPI-ML (Liberation).

Mishra, says much more about where his mindset comes from – that of the Maoist strand within Indian communism, which typically frantically tries to distinguish itself from the second attempt at puritanism within Indian Marxism – that of CPI(M=Marxist), by adding the claim to be closer to Lenin in the L of its CPI(ML). In so many ways, the communists seem to uncannily reflect the classical search for ever more purity and a return to the golden mythical pure origins of all totalitarian and monoiconic ideologies including totalitarian religions – through evermore stringent factional and sectarian schisms.

Eric Hoffer writes : “Whence comes the impulse to proselytize? Intensity of conviction is not the main factor which impels a movement to spread its faith to the four corners of the earth. …Nor is the impulse to proselytize an expression of an overabundance of power. …The missionary zeal seems rather an expression of some deep misgiving, some pressing feeling of insufficiency at the center. Proselytizing is more a passionate search for something not yet found than a desire to bestow upon the world something we already have. It is a search for a final and irrefutable demonstration that our absolute truth is indeed the one and only truth. The proselytizing fanatic strengthens his own faith by converting others. …It is also plausible that those movements with the greatest inner contradiction between profession and practice – that is to say with a strong feeling of guilt – are likely to be the most fervent in imposing their faith on others.”  (The True Believer, Psychology of Mass Movements, 1948, p. 110-111)

This sense of inadequacy and insufficiency, minus the humility of spirituality, leads to a constant instability and inequilibrium that leads the communist radical as much as a religious one, into a permanent search for something to feel guilty about and atone for that guilt by extreme action on a focused enemy, the “other”, the devil of his instantaneous ideology. Note that Mishra is perhaps subconsciously aware of this – in that he claims that his radicalism did not stem from communism per se but had existed even before – that his innate fanaticism and radicalism perhaps only found an appropriate vehicle to express itself.

Mishra explains his “anti-right wing” radical thoughts based on his glimpse of communal violence in 1984, when according to him he witnesses an atrocity:

Back then, I was only 18 years of age; the incident traumatized me so deeply that after I got back to Allahabad I fought with everyone—including my close relatives—who—as per the norm those days—were abusing Sikhs incessantly.

For several days, I was unable to sleep; I was full of rage; it was good that I did not have access to a gun those days—I would certainly have used it on some right-wing, communal/anti-Sikh element in Allahabad, Uttar Pradesh.

I am expressing my inner most urges to make a point—that during desperate/unjust times—a sensitive human being—belonging to the majority community—can be driven to anti right-wing violence. Being a ruling class  brahmin—whose family had protected Muslims during the 1947 riots—and who took any violence against minorities as a challenge to his sense of honour directly—also must have contributed  a lot to my aggressive stance.     

So, imagine the plight/mindset of minority communities who saw unspeakable crimes—raping of daughters and mauling of children—being committed on their kith and kin.

It is most illuminating that Mishra always thinks of the “majority” in the context of the “Hindu”, and never ever expresses similar thoughts about the plight of the “minority” Hindu or Buddhist in Muslim majority areas or societies. In his memory and narrative, the “majority” member Hindu-Brahmin ancestor of his, is and does what is expected of the “majority” in any society. However, he conspicuously avoids the issue of duty of similar muslim majorities to protect the humanity and dignity of minorities in Muslim majority countries – even on the subcontinent and as neighbours, as in Pakistan and Bangladesh, where minorities have been systematically targeted for elimination and have been constantly dwindling from the time of Partition. Mishra of course needs to be completely silent about similar trauma and reaction in the “Hindus” seeing similar action during the Partition – when a future luminary of Pakistan, and icon of Bangladesh , Hussein Suhrawardy allowed a planned pogrom of Hindus to go through in Noakhali and Calcutta. Mishra cannot cite Liaqat Khan’s role in organizing a pogrom of Sindhi Hindus and what effect such memories should have had on Hindu survivors!

Amaresh Mishra then goes on to list the long tale of alleged woes of Muslims in India and allegations of state connivance in supposed “right-wing” torture. For Mishra’s deracinated guilt-ridden conscience, however, it does not pay to remember the case of the Kashmir Valley and the state sponsored “Muslim” “right-wing” atrocity on the Kashmir Valley Hindus from as early as late 60’s and early 70’s.  Mishra has never heard of a certain Kashmiri Pundit girl who was abducted and the consequences thereof – long, long before the destruction of the disputed structure at Ayodhya.

Mishra accepts that in India, it was possible to flourish as an “upper-caste” “ex-Naxalite”. He fails to realize, that in his clever self-pity, he shows that even after passing through “Naxalism”, it was impossible for someone to leave behind his awareness of privileged birth. Or therein lies the tragedy and the real failure of the Indian leftist, the failure to realize that his leftist radicalism often has its roots in an imperfect digestion of his Hindu cultural roots. The reason that the ranks of leftism are dominated by “upper castes” and Hindus, but not Muslims or Christians – who only make rare appearances, lie in Hindu threads of a pervasive universal humanism that has remained alive through texts and folk belief in spite of the louder voices of so-called elitism of caste or jaati-varna hierarchies. Islamic culture theologically endorses property, and the imperialism shaped later Christianity similarly endorses authoritarianism and property, and discourage rebellions against the theologically approved regimes which protect those very things that the Left seeks to destroy.

The remainder of Mishras’ article goes on to repeat the allegations in the current Congress led Indian regime’s attempts at sticking the blame for almost each and every terrorist atrocity on Indian soil at the door of Congress’s hated “other”, the apotheosis, the “devil” – of the saffron, or the “Hindu”. Mishra’s political project therefore does not wait to mention the fact that many of these alleged cases against the so-called saffron terror themselves suffer from allegations of torture, political witchhunts, use of state machinery to serve electoral calculations, and that some of the accused could very well be agents provocateurs sent deliberately by the state – like a certain Col Purohit.

Is it so that Mishra perhaps needs a devil, a satan, on whom he can put the sense of all his inadequacies, and transfer all his guilt to? The underlying Hindu memes of equality of all mankind – amritasya putra of the Upanishads, the persistent and recurring post-Vedic Indian thinkers who repeatedly fought with the elite against claims of hierarchy and superiority, prepare him to expect social justice for all humanity- something a predominantly Muslim society never, ever feels towards the non-Muslims. But the established social hierarchy that gave birth to him practices differently from the underlying memes, and this contributes part of the guilt.

But the major part of the guilt comes from the colonial project of Macaulay, prompted by his dear friend Sir William Jones, and other missionaries aligned to the imperialist project on British India. Jones’s favourite textual representation of “Hinduism” was the work attributed to Manu, even though at the time, there was ample evidence that in India, various other Hindu texts were actually followed – like the various grihya sutras of Apastambha, Baudhayana, or Gautama – many far more liberal than that of Manu. In fact modern scholarship excavates increasingly the reality of 18th and 19th century Indian “Hindu”legal practice as far more heterodox and non-Manu like than the British colonial project wanted it to be. For the British empire, demonizing the “Brahmin” was a primary necessity – just as it was for the centuries of Muslim invaders before them. The cultural and intellectual legitimacy of the “Hindu” needed to be undermined and associated with guilt before the colonial project could succeed fully. The source of Mishraic guilt lies in that colonial project. Even the very fact of his “Brahmin” upper-caste ancestor behaving very un-Brahmin-like during 1947 fails to stir him to question the Islamist and British colonial stereotype of the evil caste-repressive “Brahmin” exploiter.

The intellectual limitations that lead to Mishra’s feverish imagination of conspiracy theories could have been overcome had he allowed himself to look at news items like the following:

Hindu Bengali Muslim refugees in Myanmar moved for protection away from Bengali Muslim refugees in Myanmar.

Khine Myo Min: Myanmar government authority in Sittwe evacuated ninety eight Hindu refugees from Bengali Muslim dominated refugee camps to downtown Sittwe on Wednesday.

98 people from 18 Hindu families were moved from their current shelter of Thae Chaung and Thak Kay Pron camps to Sittwe city due to increased threats by Bengali Muslim extremists after many reported rapes and attempted rapes and tortures committed by the Bengali Muslims who are majority in the camp.

A mind more used to logical dissection without ideological preoccupations, would have immediately noted the peculiarity by which even the horrors of a common refugee existence fails to suppress the Islamic urge for genocide or repression/exploitation of the non-Muslim.

In constructing grand saffron conspiracies, Mishra ignores news items that come from his trusted “secular” side of the narrative construction business :

Rogue sms’s traced to Kerala and Bangladesh

Cyber security agencies have apparently detected the hand of radical groups, such as the Popular Front of India (PFI) in Kerala and Bangladesh-based Harkat-ul-Jehad al Islami (HuJI), while tracking SMSs that led to the exodus of Northeast people[…] they have been successful in detecting forwarding of bulk messages going viral from Bangladesh groups and PFI activists. Some of the messages hold out communal threats of retribution for alleged atrocities on Rohingya Muslims in Myanmar, a community in the Arakan state linked with Bangladesh, traditionally backed by Islamist and jihadist groups, such as the HuJI.

The Arakan state, in west Myanmar, lies on the route for supplying guns to Northeast insurgents through Cox’s Bazaar, in Chittagong in the past. The HuJI, formed by former Bangladeshi jihadists who took part in the Afghan civil war, was involved in the attack on Sheikh Hasina, now Bangladesh PM, in 2004.

The agencies, monitoring Facebook and Twitter, are also examining the possible role of the Hindu radical groups and the underworld.

Mishra, if he had retained his critical intellectual faculties, would have noticed that the “security” agencies could give much greater details in case of Islamist outfits, and could only add the “possibility” of “Hindu radicals” too being involved. Such equating of Islamism with saffronism seems to have become a requirement of Indian political correctness, often resulting in hilarious columns. Actually, such perspectives should have led to exploring the “possible role” of “Christian” groups in the North East too, with some prominent insurgent groups in the past having paraded their Christian identity a lot possibly in the hope attracting international sympathies from appropriate corners.

It is understandable as to why Mishra cannot quote the following items, or even dismiss them as concoctions of a right-wing state. His devil then has to be extended to icons he needs to clutch on to as the last remaining helpless wronged victims of his limitless guilt. If he has to acknowledge the reality, he loses the fulcrum of his life.

http://www.hindustantimes.com/India-news/Guwahati/Assam-refugees-head-for-West-Bengal-Meghalaya/Article1-917351.aspx

When armed communities are at each other’s throats in the three violence-hit western districts in Assam, the unarmed and unorganised are fleeing the state — mostly to West Bengal and Meghalaya. The fear factor has gripped Bengali Hindus — the softest target whenever violence takes over the state’s fragile peace — and Koch-Rajbonsi tribals are fleeing the Muslim-dominated Dhubri district over the last one month since the Bodo-Muslim clashes broke out on July 20.

 Curfew in Allahabad

Curfew was today clamped in an Allahabad locality as a precautionary measure while stray incidents took place in Lucknow during a street protest against the ongoing ethnic strife in Assam.

“The curfew was imposed in Kotwali police station area from 7 P.M. And will remain in force till midnight when further decision will be taken after reviewing the situation,” Additional District Magistrate (City), D P Giri told PTI. Trouble began this afternoon when a procession was being taken out by some members of a minority community in localities falling under Kotwali police station.

However, policemen deployed in the area objected to the procession pointing out that no prior permission had been obtained and that order had to be maintained in view of large crowds expected at places of worship on the occasion of the last Friday prayers of Ramzan.
The agitators allegedly reacted strongly and tried to proceed with the procession with some of them indulging in heavy stone-pelting which left several persons, including some policemen, injured and caused damage to a number of shops in the vicinity and vehicles parked nearby.
[…]
Earlier, the protest march in Lucknow after the Friday prayers turned violent here as a group of people, shouting slogans against alleged atrocities on minorities in Assam and Myanmar, resorted to stone pelting and vandalism. The protest march which started from near the Tile Wali Masjid created a ruckus on its way forcing business establishments to close down and vandalising parks and vehicles, a senior police official said.

When the RAF and PAC tried to stop them they indulged in brick batting damaging public properties and vehicles. The protesters also took offence to the presence of media covering the event and damaged their vehicles and equipments, police said.

Later police resorted to baton charge as the protesters tried to march towards Vidhan Sabha.

With such a single-track focus, Mishra therefore shows no grasp of the longer social processes of history and reconstruction of history by both the colonial forces as well as those to whom the colonialists handed over power. He shows in exemplary detail, why the Indian Left had long stopped thinking and questioning themselves, their very own belief systems and values – to check for how those very concepts and values were shaped. In thinking how others wanted them to think for their own geo-strategic purposes and projects, projects which themselves are now defunct – there might still have been a way out.

But indulging in such conspiracy theories actually helps the neo-imperialist strategies to succeed. Mishra will be nowhere to defend whatever is left of his society when the time comes, a society which people of his ideology have helped undo out of unthinking and politically created guilt.

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 1 so far )

Why there cannot be any news of Islamist provocation in India?

Posted on July 24, 2010. Filed under: Bangladesh, Bengal, Christians, Communist, Hindu, India, Islam, Islamic propaganda, Jihad, Kashmir, Left, Muslims |

A friend from India has just now let me know that apparently 25 cows were slaughtered by alleged Islamists on the Hindu festival of Ashadhi Ekadashi in Malegaon, Maharashtra on 23/07/2010. There had been allegedly a “lathicharge” (liberal use of sticks and batons by police and paramilitary forces – in Indian parlance) on protesting Hindus. The Muslim MLA was taken into “custody” (or as my friend says, protected from public retribution) and the Central Reserve Police Force deployed in Northern Maharashtra. Police protection has apparently been extended to every mosque in Western Maharashtra. But nothing on this, even so called “factual reporting” to denounce “rumour mongering” against a “forever peaceful  and repressed community” has not been undertaken by the Indian media.

Same has been the case with a certain Christian lecturer in the so-called “socialist republic of Kerala” where leftists and Islamists are two sides of the same political coin. This lecturer allegedly earned Islamist wrath by giving the name of the prophet of Islam to a character quoted from a play in one of his question papers, and he was ambushed and his hands chopped off. Not much has been heard of this in the world news papers and no discussion at all from Islamophiles in the west who jump and down on the slightest wind passed by any critique of the ideology. Not much is being heard even from the Christian denominations and Church organizations who were so loudly present in all forms of the media regarding alleged atrocities on Christians in the Indian state of Orissa. Then of course the alleged perpetrators were “Hindu”, but with any Islamic perpetrator – apparently atrocities are sweeter and the true forgiving and forgetting principles of Christianity are to be stringently applied.

These are not uncommon news for most parts of India.  Some time ago, this year, a certain town in Uttar Pradesh, one of the electorally key political provinces of India,   was engulfed in violent riots. The source of the riot was apparently another trivial incident in the increasingly bitter fights beteen the Barelvi and Deobandi schools of Indian Islam. These two have been fighting a sometimes violent and sometimes polemical battle for centuries now – in rhetoric over the “true” interpretation of Islamic doctrine. In reality, as many locals observe, it is about a fight to posses the mosques, Islamic institutions and financial networks – and in this recently the Deobandis have been winning. [the factors of external monetary inputs, the success of Deobandis in both Pakistani Punjab and Indian Gangetic Valley as well as Kerala, role of Islamic charities and their global networks of raising money in non-Muslim lands and transferring it to other places to expand Islamism is a much larger issue to be touched on perhaps in another post].However, the known victims of this Islamic factional rioting turned out to be Hindus.

The provincial government, led by one of the stalwarts of the abstract and twentieth century created Indian category of “Dalits”, clamped down on all information regarding the rioting to come out into the media. Apparently this censorship, imposed by the administration or voluntarily adhered to by Indian media – who typically suppress anything that may show the Islamic in bad light, but who are quite eager to report anything that will show the non-Muslim except Christians in bad light – was quite successful.

So the outside world does not come to know of the constant attrition or provocation faced by the “Hindus” spread over India from over-zealous factions or leaders of Indian Islam. The world does not come to know of fanatical Indian Muslim mobs in southern and eastern India rioting to banish the Bangladeshi female author, Tasleema Nasreen – who writes in Bengali – one of the national languages of India, and was hosted by India after her virtual exile from Bangladesh at the behest of equally fanatical Bangladeshi Islamists. The primary crime of Tasleema was of course that she had dared to write about the rape, and abuse of Hindus and other non-Muslims in Bangladesh by Islamists, as well as the abuse and torture of women by the Fatwaists.

Both the Marxist provincial government of Indian West Bengal, as well as the superbly “secular” central government at New Delhi, quickly succumbed to Islamist pressure and Tasleema was forced to come under virtual house arrest in the name of “safe house” and then bundled out of the country.

The Indian system is ruthless only if there appears the possibility or imagination of a  “law and order” deterioration. However the state’s reaction is entirely dependent on who can “cause” the deterioration of ‘law and order”. If it is the “Muslim”, then of course all their demands are to be met in the name of “communal harmony”, whose maintenance in India apparently is the responsibility of only one community. This is why even the media cooperates to prevent any news of any atrocity by any Muslim or Islamic group of Indian origin, from being spread around or known globally. This was why, the rape and genocidic ethnic cleansing of Indian hindu Kashmiri pundits from the Valley portion of Jammu and Kashmir was never allowed to be publicized, and the Indian government simply keeps shut as if the Pundits never existed in the province. But all the while Islamophiles in the West and in Indian cry themselves hoarse about supposed repression on muslims in “Kashmir”.

Why do I write this? Because one day, all this one sided propaganda in favour of Islamism and total suppression of all information about its continual atrocious behaviour on Hindus and other non-Muslims of India, will come to haunt the world. Just as north Europe and the USA conveniently forgot the atrocities by Islamists and the Ottomans on Balkan society, and ignored the careful planning by Islamist organizations to use this weakness to create a beachhead for an Islamist state in Europe and moved against the Serbs – they may have to try and do the same in India. Because the anger and frustration will accumulate and burst one day. Yes with external help from Christian West, Islamism can perhaps win the day using the shared deep-lying hatred of the “pagan” – but then the West should not be surprised.

It is the price of suppression of any information that does not suit a desired world-view. Once of course the Islamists win in India in any major way, the Christian “white”, “non-mud-race” West will enjoy the Islamist attention fully! Cheers to that future!

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 4 so far )

Is it time for the West to plan for dissolving Pakistan?

Posted on March 12, 2010. Filed under: Afghanistan, Bangladesh, China, Communist, economy, India, Iran, Islam, Muslims, Pakistan, Russia, Taleban, terrorism, USA |

How many nations of our times are based purely on a religion and recognized by other nations as independent nations? Only two – the Vatican City and Pakistan. Ironically they share in common some traits. Both have helped in the unravelling of the USSR but not of Communism – for it still survives behind the People’s Republic of China and is working towards global dominance. Both have been courted by the USA in its Cold War struggles. Neither has disappointed. Both exert influence on the global politics disproportionate to their actual size, economy, military capabilities, and the capacity to contribute in any meaningful way towards a modern, knowledge based, technological and information society. Both manage to do so by manipulating their historical images as projections into the future.

But there the similarities end. The Vatican’s leadership has made amends to its historical victims, and has shown its flexibility and readiness to change with the times. It has steadfastly refused to underwrite radicalism of the theological variety [the severe castigation of the Liberation Theology for example].  This may change in the future. But the leadership of the Vatican have proved themselves consummate statesmen in the concessions and compromises that they have made while never abandoning the fundamental objective of total global ideological domination. This is an objective that would have been a crime if not from the “one and only true message” for any other “religion” in the times when the Church ruled supreme. But now in the days of “total religious tolerance”, there is nothing wrong in having a declared agenda of “harvesting all souls”. In fact, legal and state coercive machinery can be used to guarantee protection of any proselytizer – even someone swearing by texts that recommend putting the unrepentant unbeliever to the sword.

Where Pakistan differs is not in its protection of organizations claiming the right to practice “Dawa” or spreading of the Islamist beliefs – but in its total lack of statesmanship. Unlike the Vatican, the Pakistani leadership never apologizes to the victims of its Islamists, never acknowledges that it has nurtured Jihadis in its madrassahs, never concedes to modernization in education and social practices, never really allows any land reforms or dismantling of feudal exploitation in its backyard.

Pakistan is basically an anachronism, a nation whose only foundational claim for identity is a religion – in a historical period where the world is leaving behind, exclusive and historical claim based religions. Moreover, that religion is not even unique to the country – it is shared by a host of other nations, some of whom have louder and more well established claims of being the centre for that religion. So Pakistan is based on a type of ideology increasingly irrelevant globally as national foundation, and moreover on an ideology based identity shared with other “nations” – and therefore has no real claims of distinction from other nations. It cannot look at history and culture, for in spite of the best sadistic efforts of generations of  “mullahs” – elements of pre-Islamic cultures lie firmly interwoven in the national fabric, and those elements are shared by its imagined nemesis – India. In fact the pre-Islamic cultural element proved so strong that a part of it broke away in reaction in 1971 as Bangladesh.

So now Pakistan finds itself in a terrible dilemma. To strengthen and give uniqueness to its national foundation, it has to become more Islamic than “others”. Becoming more Islamic means more and more unquestioning obedience to a strict and literal interpretation of the core texts. That in turns means more Jihad with violent means which accelerates the competition between the ruling feudal elite, the army, the mullahs, the commons, the militants – to become “purer” than the others. That means an almost perpetual state of national Jihad. Purer Islam can only be maintained by preventing modernization – in education, productivity, technology and above all the questing mindset. Which means Pakistan will become more and more dependent on largesse from interested external sources and be a drain on the global economy as the sources would spread the cost around.

So the West and the global community should perhaps start thinking of dissolving the entity called Pakistan. Here are the brief reasons :

(1) Dissolving Pakistan saves the West (and therefore the world economy )a huge amount of money and resources needed to keep the state afloat, and a total drain, because none of that capital goes into productive capacities.

(2) Even though the Chinese are now playing second fiddle to the West, it is uncannily similar to the Ribbentrop-Molotov handshake where both sides appear to be buying time. Eventually, Russia and China could come together with Iran (or whatever is left of it even if a so-called revolutionary liberalization and democratization takes place there under non-theologians) to which the CAR will lean. As long as Pakistan remains an independent entity, it can play the prostitute and threaten to kiss the higher bidder or the one more willing to pay.  That is both a security risk and a potential disaster, if everything given to Pakistan lands up in Russian, Iranian or Chinese hands and the West’s presence is virtually terminated in the Afghan-Pakistan frontier. Dissolving Pakistan takes away this worry.

(3)  Dissolving Pakistan and putting up new independent states actually creates new multiple centres where Jihad can be protected and nurtured. One Pakistan becomes many and the western problem multiplies. One of the best bets is to allow India to absorb the populations and the territories.   India is a growing economy which can absorb the costs. It has the capability and the will to manage multicultural groups and religious animosities. Culturally Indians of the western part of the country will be closer to the Pakistanis across the border [Punjab for example shares the language across the border in spite of the state sponsorship of Urdu] compared to any other external ethnicity or country. Moreover the costs of developing infrastructure and the economy or carrying out necessary social reforms will be borne on Indian shoulders and not on the west.

(4) As the price for non-intervention in the absorption, the West could extract concessions from India that it will have assured access and facilities to reach the CAR through channels and routes maintained and developed through Pakistani territories connecting the Karakorum Highway and other CAR approach routes.

(5) The Taliban lose their foster home, and are buffered off from the crucial supply routes of Karakorums and the Arabian Sea. The so-called Kashmir problem vanishes as the Pakistani military and ISI mechanism to foment terrorists inside India vanishes.  So one of the greatest excuses for maintaining Jihad from the Pakistani side vanishes.

India, because of linguistic and unique cultural history, will remain firmly in western and specifically the Anglo-Saxon or Atlanticist orbit for generations to come. There are sufficient fissures in the Indian ruling class for the west to exploit and protect western interests.

It is worth a try – at least the largest source for generating terror of the Jihadi and allied kind (through international crime and other non-religious or ethnic militancy) will be effectively liquidated. At one stroke West no longer has to face Islamist terror, pay for upkeep of Jihad, and instead can profit from a growing economy which bears all the costs!

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 5 so far )

Yemen – turning point of Islamism in the Middle East

Posted on January 30, 2010. Filed under: Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Communist, India, Iran, Islam, Islamic propaganda, Muslims, Pakistan, USA |

The Yemeni geo-politics is becoming most interesting, It is a mini cold war being played out to secure on the one hand resources, and on the other, ownership of the “hearts and minds’ of the Ummah. Whichever of the two contestants among the self-styled “original/pure” Islamic “ashrafs” – Saudi Arabia or Iran, gains Yemen, ceases the economic flow between the East and the West, through controlling the mouth of the Red Sea into Indian Ocean Region. So it becomes imperative for Saudi Arabia to prevent Iranian ascendancy in Yemen.

Whereas if Iran gains Yemen, it can stretch out and outflank the USA+Saudi Arabia strategic presence on the western side of the Gulf. Both sides are therefore likely to accuse the other of carrying out a proxy war in Yemen. What is strange is the supposed existence of the Al Qaeda in Yemen, with solid origins from Saudi Arabia and one-time collaboration with USA (Osama’s connections during the anti-USSR AFG war), and the simultaneous supposed Iranian sponsoring of the Shi-ite Houthi’s. But no reports of conflict between Qaeda and the Houthis.

Added complication is the often missed problem of the Al Ahwaz area under Iran. This is claimed to be a primarily “Arab” area and population with the greatest concentration of natural gas/petrol resources of Iran. There is a separatist movement based on this claim, and their spokespersosn find sympathetic ears in Yemen.  It is possible that USA+Saudi Arabia allows Al-Ahwaz separatists to function to pick at Iran, while Iran allows the Shia tribes in north Yemen to function to pick at USA+Saudi Arabia. But a connection between Qaeda and Iran is interesting to the point of absurdity. They obviously can have common purpose – overthrow of the Saudi Royal regime and then wiping off Israel. But how far will this Shia-Sunni collaboration go? Iran can very well think of sponsoring Osama, as an antidote to Israel+USA. But how much will the Arabian Sunnis accept Shi-ite domination? They have accepted “non-Arabic” Islamic over-lordship before though – Ottoman Turks for example. Or is it entirely a representation to tar and feather Iran and Qaeda together? It will be important to see how far Iran digests attacks against Shias in Pakistan and still does nothing against Pakistan.

Being seen as “sympathetic” to theologians in the various Islam dominated countries can appear sweet as a strategy for the moment – but it is much better to think of the future in these countries in the long run. The best bet lies in holding out the hope for a liberal democracy in today’s youth in these countries. If we have to choose sides, lets choose it on the side of the future of these countries. Assuming a blanket trend towards extremism could be realistic but does not help us to divide up these societies so that the theologians do not get all the advantages of a united society behind them!

Interestingly Yemen had a Marxist party almost in power (in a part before unification) just like a similar party in Iran whose antics were hijacked by the Ayatollahs – may with blessings from the anti-communist leaguers of the Cold War days. But a reformed “leftism” could be a good tool to spoil the fun in both Iran and Yemen.

The death sentences against the condemned army- personnel indicted for the assassination of  Sk. Mujibur Rehman in Bangladesh, are most likely to be carried out early this morning. There may not be any immediate backlash against the hangings. But the hangings are likely to convert the executed into icons for the militant Islamists  and their supporters in the Islamic world. The trial and execution already generated several threats against state personnel and politicians, but nothing concrete has yet taken place.  There was a substantial proportion of voters who voted for candidates not belong the Awami League led alliance, and a proportion of this vote would overlap with the “Islamist” vote. The move towards de-religionization of politics in Bangladesh has already brought out the Islamists in protest especially against any move aimed at weakening or delegetimizing “Islamic poilitics”.

Militant, hegemonic Islamism has now managed to manipulate “western powers” into getting trapped into a war of attrition which the western mind is bungling because it has failed to understand “Islamism”. The greatest factor in this bungling has been the dominant academic sociological schools of thought – led by various shades of the Marxists – that overemphasized the role of economics as primary motivations for violence and hegemony. This extremely biased and narrow view of societal dynamics that almost completely downplayed the role of “ideologies”, forced public and foreign policies that were completely unrealistic and inappropriate – especially in dealing with Islamic radicalism.

The result has now been an extension of the “west” versus “Islamism” war – from a small zone in Afghanistan-Pakistan and Sudan, into all of Afghanistan and Pakistan, into the Horn of Africa – Mauritania, sub-Saharan Africa, Somalia, Sudan, Iraq, and Yemen, with branches leading into Bangladesh, Malaysia, southern Thailand, Indonesia, parts of Philipines, almost the entirety of Saharan and sub-Saharan Africa, Egypt, and spreading into Central Asia.

For Bangladesh, the executions will probably be used by the Islamists as an indication of the Awami League government’s connections and alleged “dependence” on countries like India and the USA – deemed to be among the “enemies” of Islam – (in spite of the zealous protestations to the contrary from the most vocal sections of Indian society and polity). If Islamism gains in sentiments in Bangladesh, the Awami League government will be forced to depend more and more on India and this will push the polarization further. Such a polarization in itself is not bad for India, if India can see a clear policy towards Islamic radicalism. However, so far Indian reaction has been self-contradictory – as it still mostly holds on to the Marxists myths of  “all radicalsim comes from lack of economic development”. So this part remains uncertain for the future.

The dynamic of the “Islamist politics” is changing. Regimes like the “royal” house in Saudi Arabia will become increasingly identified with and dependent on the “west”. Looking carefully as to how USA is being forced to shift its military attention, from Iraq, to Afghanistan, to Pakistan, back to Afghanistan, back to Iraq, to Yemen – all the while the militancy is gaining recruits across north and central Africa – spanning the two oceans is illustrative. Increasingly the Islamist militancy is taking on its traditional twin front struggle. On the one hand it is the struggle between theologians and temporal rulers for ultimate dominance of the Islamist movement. On the other it is the dream of conquering the whole world in the name of Islam.

In time, the “royal houses” in Saudi Arabia/Jordan or the emirates – will lose their prestige and position if the Islamist movement continues under the radical theologians. On the one hand – there is the exclusivist strand of claims of bloodline/clan connections to the Qureyish. On the other there is the urge to gain popular representation and empowerment irrespective of bloodlines within the “greater” Islamic identity – this is the Iranian trend. Over the long run, the ideals of “democracy” and empowerment prevalent in non-islamic societies will reinforce and strengthen its twisting into Iranian style theocracy dominated “populist” Islamic rule.

The “life span” of the Saudi royal house will be short if the “house” does not make tactical compromises with the “populist Islamism”.

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Future scenario for the Indian subcontinent – 4 : India’s long term drift towards the Right

Posted on November 12, 2008. Filed under: Bangladesh, Communist, Hindu, History, India, Islam, Islamic propaganda, Kashmir, Muslims, Pakistan, Politics, religion, terrorism |

Before I continue with my series on the “immensely significant periphery” of the Indian subcontinent, I would like to touch here briefly on the “heartland” India itself, as its fundamental trends are going to have an impact on the developments in the periphery. India is crucially and deeply involved in almost all the countries of the “periphery”.

The recent investigations and attempts by the Mumbai ATS to implicate the so-called “Hindu Right Wing” in the blasts in the predominantly Muslim areas of Nanded and Malegaon in Maharashtra is significant for more reasons than the obvious immediate ones in the minds of the investigators or in their political “motivators” within the Congress led government both at the state as well as the national level as suggested by the political detractors of the Congress. Any speculation as to the political motivations to paint the “Hindu” as terrorist and equate with the “Islamic” terrorists with the next general elections in sight is good food for the “political” media. So far all the “brain mapping” and “modern” techniques of extraction of truth has failed to provide any basis for the speculative allegations against the so called “Hindu Right”. Scanning the media reaction and media trial by “secular” forces of the security apparatus’ attempts at “nailing” Islamic terrorists we can find a deep suspicion and derision of any “identification” of Islam with “terrorism” and where it becomes really indefensible – we hear loud protests that we should all actually look into the real “provocations” behind such “Muslim reactions”. The same voices appear to be instantly convinced about the legitimacy of the Mumbai ATS’s claims, and leads us to realize the real political affiliations of this “progressive” “neutral and objective” voices which are allowed solely to be voiced on the media. In any case these are all processes of short term duration played out in the immediate future.  We should look at the real significance of this phenomenon for the longer term.

The fact that some “Hindus” could decide to take matters into their own hands, was always a possibility, and I have repeatedly stressed this out here in my blog.  The root of this phenomenon goes back a long way into the history of the Indian subcontinent and how that history has been reconstructed in the modern period under the British and its successor regimes for their own hegemonistic purposes. The fundamental problem is that of the complete denial by regime dependent historians of the Nehruvian and post Nehruvian Congress-(pro-Soviet)-Leftist schools of Indian history of Islamic atrocities on the non-Muslims of India throughout the numerous invasions and conquests and the various Islamic state authorities, and the struggle carried on by the non-Muslims against such Islamic behaviour. The fact is that the memory of Muslim torture, rape, abduction and forced marriage of women, enslavement, extreme economic exploitation with religious justifications, carries on in non-Muslim groups who have strong traditions of intergenerational transfer of knowledge and experiences. The handing down of this memory, a basic distrust of all things Islamic, runs deep in most strongly bonded “Hindu” clans and communities that have faced Islamic onslaught and survived still maintaining their “Hindu” identity, and does not need the “official” vehicle of “historical education” under the watchful reconstructive eyes of the Thaparite school of Indian history.

Just as Islam failed to completely convert all Indians because of the intensive and long drawn out struggle against Islam – an aspect completely suppressed by the Thaparites as it would jeopardize their “idyllic” myth of peaceful conversions and perfect communal amity – the Thaparites failed to completely brainwash all Hindus and rewrite the history of Islam in India in their minds. The Hindu appears docile, compromising, philosophical, “other-worldly” etc., but this is a deceptive impression – for the story of their struggle and their survival against the ruthless barbarities of Islam have been edited out of public representation through the media or education. This long struggle, which preserved their culture to a great extent (although traumatized and showing the cultural effects of such trauma in “self-repression”) if studied properly and honestly, will show that this is a community which appears “loose”, divided, ritualistic and carrying a lot of baggage like “caste” which can mostly be traced surprisingly to modern colonial regimes of Islam and the British – but all these are mere superficial features, the social veneer hiding their actual strategic flexibility and determination that have continuously produced characters like the legendary founders of the Vijaynagar empire, or Shivaji and Ranjit Singh.

The transition to “independence” in India followed the general subcontinental pattern of elite mobilization to get control of state power and machinery established by a colonial regime for the elites’ monopolistic hegemonistic enjoyment. This meant that the British actually handed over power to a regime that was likely to remain in the British sphere of influence and carry out policies in favour of British interests. The British helped liquidate opposition to Nehru within India by using discriminatory repression against likely alternative popular candidates, because Nehru showed significant psychological disjunction from the majority culture on the one hand and great affinity for the British “taste” or Islam on the other- thereby ensuring continuation of long term British imperialist design on the subcontinent.

The apparatus of state control under colonial regimes depended on the apparatus of personal power, and this structure was retained essentially even after transition. This implies retention of personnel and systems faithful to the previous colonial masters, with direct and indirect structures of ideological and cultural hegemony of the British continuing through various mechanisms like education (the current Prime Minister proudly reminded his British audience once that he was an “Oxonian” himself and that “many Oxonians” have in the past gone forth to rule India). This regime embarked on the project of redoctrinating the forthcoming generations of Indians into a soporific mythical history of India where everything “Hindu” was retrogressive and evil, and only those aspects of Hinduism which tried to be syncretic with the revealed traditions were worth treating without disdain – and all the revealed traditions as practised or introduced in India as paragons of virtue and as liberating for Indian society (The Thaparites actually manage to “confess” this agenda in their public posturings).   Such indoctrination programs could be maintained only as long as the generation represented in the state apparatus derived from colonial affiliations, remained active. Natural causes progressively diminish the proportion of such elements in the apparatus of social control, and it was a matter of time only that newer generations of Indians from the majority community would reassert their deep cultural affiliations to their own community.

All this will lead to a gradual strengthening of the “Hindu” community bonds, and cultural affinities. Modern generations of professionals or intellectuals will gradually erode or eliminate practises that are seen as retrogressive or obstructive towards reassertion of “Hindu” hegemony.  This cultural consolidation would not have taken a political turn, if the Indian regimes did not try to denigrate or delegitimize this “Hindu” cultural identity. Blatant whitewashing and patronizing of religions like Islam, in complete contradiction to social historical memory of the “Hindus”, alienated the community from political forces that supported such regimes. We have to remember, that there are concrete case studies of how Islamic forces were encouraged by such regimes when faced with possible electoral defeat at the hands of “leftists”, beginning in the 60’s – long before the rise of the BJP.  Similarly the Kashmiri Islamic aggression, the atrocities and ethnic cleansing of non-Muslim Kashmiris, continued without hindrance under these very same regimes beginning in the 70’s and intensifying into the late 80’s, long before the BJP became a significant electoral force. Early 70’s also showed that the essential character of Islam on the subcontinent had remained unchanged from its first appearance through the Arab raids into Sindh – through the brutal massacre, organized rape, and destruction of cultural icons of the “Hindus” in the then East Pakistan, now Bangladesh. All these factors combined with the relentless terrorist activities of Islamic groups supported by Pakistan, forced the “Hindu” cultural consolidation process to take a political turn -as Hindus probably came to realize that they would need to control the apparatus of state power to ensure survival against violently retrogressive Jihadi Islam whose sole aim is to completely liquidate all traces of non-Muslim cultures.

The more the “Hindu” is demonized, and Islam raised sky-high in praise, the greater will be the politicization of this essentially cultural reassertion. Retaliation against atrocities that appear to continue under state “non-chalance” has been found to be effective – and is romantically praised in many circles both in the West and India – take the case of the Palestine “Liberation” movement for example. The Indian state has not been able to stop Kashmiri Jihadi Islami atrocity nor has it been able to prevent explosions at huge human costs sourced by Islamic militants. It was only a matter of time before some “Hindu” thought of retaliation seeing in the government’s consistent failure  and indirect “encouragement” and protection of Islam – the root ideological cause and motivation for such violence (and not the humans who are brainwashed at madrassah’s from childhood in hatred of the Qafir). Just as in Palestine, or Algeria, such retaliation will unfortunately prove quite effective – and the “villains” of today have every likelihood of turning “heroes” or “liberators” of the future. A long term side-effect of continued demonization of the “Hindu” will be an increasing acceleration of the community towards the “Right”, and I feel that the process has now become irreversible. The next general elections may not reflect this, but over a longer span of 10-20 years the trend will be evident.

This Right-wing tendency will not necessarily be characterized by a dominance of “Brahmins” (as its opponents hopefully try to prophecy). The leadership is more likely to come from the “middle/upper middle” order of the social hierarchy, and surprisingly or in complete contradiction to “social wisdom” could even contain so-called “backward castes”. This wil be a defensive consolidation initially, and then turn increasingly aggressive towards all forces it sees as potentially hazardous for its cultural survival. Once this trend takes political shape, there is hardly any force left in the subcontinent that will be able to survive against it without huge foreign intervention. This Right wing consolidation also has effects on the periphery. Its immediate beneficial effects will perhaps be first felt by Sri Lanka and Nepal. But more of this later!

part 5

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 1 so far )

If Obama wins Islamic regimes have every reason to celebrate

Posted on November 4, 2008. Filed under: China, Communist, economics, financial crisis, Islam, Islamic propaganda, Muslims, Politics, terrorism, US Presidential elections, USA |

Obama’s rather rash remark about Pakistan should not be held against him by the Islamic Jihadist world. Democrats usually make such statements on the heat of the moment, but they have almost always turned out to be the greatest patrons and protectors of Islamic fundamentalism, alongside Republican manipulations in favour of strategic utilization of Islamic Jihad to settle international and domestic political scores – like that by Reagan in the case of Iran. In fact some of the greatest friends of Islamic Jihadi progress have come from the most vociferous of their “expected” ideological enemies – like Kissinger of Jewish origin, the friend of Turkey, Indonesia, Pakistan, and one who claims to have even “opposed” his own administration over its support to Israel in the Yom Kippur war. Similarly the communist Soviet Union, or the socialists and leftists of various shades where Islam is non-dominant, in spite of posturing about themselves being the only legitimate “progressives” of the world, (except in the Islam dominated countries like that of the middle-East, in Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran, or Indonesia, Pakistan, Bangladesh where the leftists were dealt with in true Islamic style – Sadistic enjoyment of physical torture and liquidation of ideological opponents) turn out to be staunchest of friends and protectors of Islamic Jihad until they are themselves wiped clean off by Islam.

If he wins, he will scale down US military involvement against Islamic Jihad to a certain extent, although the traditional military-industrial-business complex’s interests will oppose this scaling down if it threatens their existence.  Also I have a feeling that the financial situation will suddenly “ease up” if Obama wins, and a short term miraculous return of “confidence” will take place, with loosening up of apparent financial flows. The restriction of financial flows coincided with a timeline that is intimately connected with the US presidential elections, and without going into a lot of technical discussion about international capital flows from “hot sources” like the oil-profit flush mainly Islamic countries or trade-surplus flush China, we can apply a very old principle in crime detection – who benefits from the “crime”, in this case who benefits from the “financial crisis”? The immediate tying up of the “crisis” with “Bush” and the “Republicans”  is perhaps an important pointer. This will become more obvious, if “confidence” and financial flows “return” on the election of Obama. In that case this “high” will continue for some time, probably for the next financial year, and then the western economy will be in for another shock. The reason for this short term recovery and subsequent further damage and financial mayhem, is the essentially political motivation behind capital that is generated and controlled under state regimes with strong ideological leanings and commitments. Capital from such regimes will be used for political purposes, and it is in both the oil-rich OPEC and China’s interests that the financial system of the West is weakened sufficiently for their initial targets of removing western penetration into Asia.  For these forces, a short term revival of the financial situation will be conducive to ensuring that the west turns its attention inwards and relieves the military pressure on Islamic Jihad. The rolling back of US pressure on the middle east will give time to the Jihadis to recuperate and recapture “lost” ground both in a military and ideological sense – a situation similar to the one following the withdrawal of US helpers of Mujahideen after withdrawal of Soviet forces from Afghanistan – paving the way clear for PakistanI and Saudi Jihadi takeover of the region.

In the long run however, it is not in the interests of Islam and China to continue to allow the west to flourish “financially” as strengthening of the economy of the west will in its turn revive Western interests in blocking Jihadi takeover of Asia. So eventually the financial crisis will return to the west.

What are the ways out?

(1) The west has to make its single societal obsession to be self-sufficiency in energy, and food.

(2) Be “patriotic” in spending – buy “local” and produce, produce, produce – all the basic necessities of life, food, clothing, shelter. Stop buying products sourced from Islamic countries or China – this will at least partly address the huge trade gap problem. Rather cooperate and take community initiatives to “produce” locally and develop local economies and markets, and not depend on international trade and exports for prosperity.

(3) Address problems of racial, ethnic and other forms of discrimination within western societies that provide opportunities for propaganda and misrepresentation of ulterior motives and agenda of aggressive and retrogressive ideologies like Islam.

(4) force governments to make “capitalism” social – bring the real “free market” conditions of Hayek by preventing concentration of capital in the hands of the few, and instead of socialist largesse or benefit, provide access and capability to use capital to the “lowest of the low” and encourage individual initiative.

(5) Reject and boycott politicians or political forces that compromise with or protect Islamic or Chinese propaganda and interests out of greed for profit from otherwise non-productive huge accumulated capital of the small elite groups that support such political entities, or out of greed of capital from middle eastern oil profits.

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

The US bailout – was Hayek and Friedman wrong afterall?

Posted on September 26, 2008. Filed under: China, Communist, economics, USA |

A frustrated and dejected Hayek had once returned to his home country of Austria, leaving the Chicago school of economics alone to fight for the acceptance of their theory of the superiority of “free market forces” over that of centralized or planned/controlled economies which were constantly being intervened in or needed intervention by the Government or financial regulatory authorities. Hayek’s eventual rehabilitation started with the fascination that the Iron Lady had for his interpretations, and of course the Iron Lady’s success [perhaps with a heavy dose of Lady Luck smiling through the success in the Falklands war – or was it not so much an “accidental” war after all?] in deregulating most of the UK’s economic sectors. Friedman was the face of “free market” in the USA, the focus of intense vilification as the “devil’s advocate” who thought nothing of the heavy human cost of “reforms”, and the man who visibly flinched at the abuse hurled at him from the galleries while even receiving the Nobel Prize.

The association of the Latin American dictatorships with these reforms were not a help to the Hayekists. The Chilean example would be a permanent blot on the Hayekists, because of the fascist methods of torture and liquidation of political opposition, especially those who could be  represented by the authorities as “leftist”. European countries who recently appear to pander to “leftist” demands to “equate anti-Islam” with “fascism”, never uttered a single word of censure against the Chilean regime in defense of the Chilean “Left” then.  This was consistent with their behaviour when similar barbarities were being carried out on “Leftists” in the middle-Eastern Islamic countries. The only European country to have opened its mouth on humanitarian concerns about the atrocities in Latin America, appears to be the post-post-Franco Spain, still too deeply agonized and guilt-ridden over its spectacular achievements on the human-rights front under Franco. However, utilization of or experiments with spontaneous market forces to revive stagnating economies had started not only in the USA under Reagan following Thatcher, but unknown and unpublicized in the western media, had been going on in the “Communist” world surreptitiously. Communist China had never really fully given up on markets, with records showing existence and encouragement of local markets from the beginning of Communist power. With the admirable strategic and tactical flexibility shown by the Chinese communists as always,  the CCP showed its grasp of economics quite early – when it used a combination of markets and hedging against real commodities to slash down on inflation. Subsequently it retreated quickly as and when necessary from disastrous experiments with centralization, and did not believe in continuing on an error because of pride or ideological commitment.

In contrast to Keynesian theory, which at least gave a crucial importance to the role of the Government spending in jump-starting a stagnant or crisis ridden economy, and was taken up with enthusiasm by FDR leading definitely to the recovery from the Great Depression of the 30’s in the USA, a simplistic reading of Hayek indeed gives the impression that Government intervention only leads to further chaos.  There are two important objections to this simplistic reading of Hayek.  When Hayek is talking of leaving markets forces to adjust themselves, he is talking of small departures from equilibrium – this is the reason, where there had already been cumulative large departures from equilibrium, the adjustments were extremely costly in human terms. The US case is the case of a large departure. But then inevitably the question arises as to how large is “large”?  And this is where the second objection comes in.  Hayek was essentially formulating his theory in the framework of national economies, and to a certain extent we still cannot completely come out of the implicit conditions in Hayek’s theory. The fundamental problem is because our mechanisms of financial and economic accountability is still tied primarily with the political boundaries and institutions of the nation state, whereas financial capital is no longer national.  Global capital now flies where it senses profit, with very little of the actual market forces being integrated between the source and sink of this capital.

Taking the very simple example of the US mortgage crisis, which probably resulted at least partly from the ruthless exploitation of endemic vulnerability of non-dominant racial and ethnic and social groups in having access to resources, to pump up prices and profit rates. This not only creates a fictitious commodity in economic terms, [a value which cannot be supported in reality by a real commodity of utility – especially peculiar commodities like land or buildings which do not generate new buildings or lands on their own, unlike other material input into industrial processes] but also definitely needs increased money supply. Now in the older framework of national economies, this increased money supply and therefore inflationary pressures could have been controlled by tightening the national money supply itself. However in the strange modern world economy, money supply itself cannot be controlled within the national economy itself, as finance capital flows constantly in and out  of the national economy. The nations have no real control over the global money supply, and the crucial equilibrium factors of a tight money supply, free movement of labour and other factors of production [as would have more or less naturally been obtained for a “free market” system within a single “national economy”] are practically absent in the international economic exchanges between national economies.

Exceptionally high prices for basic housing could only be sustained if there was unusually large financial capital on the money supply side not really balanced against the productive capacity of the national economy and  development of monopolies and cartels in the housing provider market also with the help of excessive accumulation of finance capital in the hands of a few – both conditions not conducive to a Hayekian “free market” self correcting mechanisms.

There are two components to solving this problem over the long run – (1) go for a solid, international fully integrated monetary regime not constrained by national boundaries, but subject to overall control of money supply, backed up by a freeing of the crucial market forces of free movement of labour and technology (2) include a basic social security net that still is consistent with encouragement of performance and the role of incentives. Even in the USA, the land of “opportunities”, the ideas of “microcredit” or “community land trusts” should not be “untouchable”!

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Germany edges close to India – countries where anti-Islam means pro-Nazi

Posted on September 23, 2008. Filed under: Communist, History, India, Islam, Islamic propaganda, Muslims, Politics, religion, terrorism |

A proposed demonstration against the proposed construction of a mosque at Cologne, Germany, which was supposed to be raising “stop Islam” slogan, was banned – ostensibly in the face of “communist” or other “leftist” counter demonstration. I wonder why Germans do not burst out laughing at the sheer absurdity and farce of it all! (I am holding back my temptation to make a very politically incorrect joke about why we should not expect them to laugh at all about this). Germany’s weakness for Islam seriously started with the realpolitik of a Kaiser who played a pivotal role in the initiation of the trans-Syrian “holy rail” to Mecca in the 1890’s, that ultimately connected all the way through to Baghdad. This is the rail line which probably significantly fuelled the industrial demand and market for steel in Germany, as the whole railway, with all its supporting infrastructure was manufactured in Germany and shipped to the building site. This is also the rail line which served as the iconic backdrop to the fictionalized hagiographies of “Lawrence of Arabia”. Germany’s relationship deepened with the Ottoman Turkish empire, perhaps not only as a strategic and tactical countermove to the British Empire’s hogging of all of the world’s colonial “goodies” and British Imperialism’s persistent refusal to “share” markets – a position it now has strongly reversed and demands all the world’s markets to open up after losing imperial dominance. German scholars have left us some important translations of works from the middle east, which perhaps in the hands of the likes of some of the British “scholars” who plastered up “obscene” ancient figurines on Indian temples, would have been destroyed forever. But Germany’s fascination with the “Orient” and especially Islam took a much more serious turn during the march of Nazism – the anglicized shortened form of the original in Deutsche meaning “National Socialism”.

We have the following gems about how intensely antagonistic the Nazis and Muslim leadership of the Middle East were to each other: the first is a message from  Himmler to The Grand Mufti Haj Amin al Husseini, [“GrossMufti” in Deutsche]  dated November 2, 1943,

[message from Heinrich Himmler to an anti-Balfour Declaration meeting]:

To the Grand Mufti:
The National Socialist Movement of Greater Germany has, since its beginning,  inscribed upon its flag the fight against world Jewry. It has, therefore, followed with particular sympathy the struggle of the freedom-loving Arabians, especially in Palestine, against the Jewish interlopers. It is in the recognition of this enemy and of the common struggle against him that lies the firm foundation of the natural alliance that exists between National-Socialist-Greater Germany and the freedom-loving Moslems of the whole world. In this spirit I am sending you on the anniversary of the infamous Balfour Declaration my hearty greetings and wishes for the successful pursuit of your struggle until the certain final victory.
Signed: Reichsfuehrer-S.S. Heinrich Himmler

Better still is the following recording by Haj Amin al Husseini, the Grand Mufti [“GrossMufti”] in Berlin, November 21, 1941, in his own handwriting about his meeting with Hitler in his diary:

The words of the Fuehrer on the 6th of Zul Qaada 1360 of the Hejira (which falls on the 21st of November 1941) Berlin, Friday, from 4:30 P.M. till a few minutes after 6. The objectives of my fight are clear. Primarily, I am fighting the Jews without respite, and this fight includes the fight against the so-called Jewish National Home in Palestine because the Jews want to establish there a central government for their own pernicious purposes, and to undertake a devastating and ruinous expansion at the expense of the governments of the world and of other peoples.
It is clear that the Jews have accomplished nothing in Palestine and their claims are lies. All the accomplishments in Palestine are due to the Arabs and not to the Jews. I am resolved to find a solution for the Jewish problem, progressing step by step without cessation. With regard to this I am making the necessary and right appeal, first to all the European countries and then to countries outside of Europe.
It is true that our common enemies are Great Britain and the Soviets whose principles are opposed to ours. But behind them stands hidden Jewry which drives them both. Jewry has but one aim in both these countries. We are now in the midst of a life and death struggle against both these nations. This fight will not only determine the outcome of the struggle between National Socialism and Jewry, but the whole conduct of this successful war will be of great and positive help to the Arabs who are engaged in the same struggle.
This is not only an abstract assurance. A mere promise would be of no value whatsoever. But assurance which rests upon a conquering force is the only one which has real value. In the Iraqi campaign, for instance, the sympathy of the whole German people was for Iraq. It was our aim to help Iraq, but circumstances prevented us from furnishing actual help. The German people saw in them (in the Iraqis-Ed.) comrades in suffering because the German people too have suffered as they have. All the help we gave Iraq was not sufficient to save Iraq from the British forces. For this reason it is necessary to underscore one thing: in this struggle which will decide the fate of the Arabs I can now speak as a man dedicated to an ideal and as a military leader and a soldier. Everyone united in this great struggle who helps to bring about its successful outcome, serves the common cause and thus serves the Arab cause. Any other view means weakening the military situation and thus offers no help to the Arab cause. Therefore it is necessary for us to decide the steps which can help us against world Jewry, against Communist Russia and England, and which among them can be most useful. Only if we win the war will the hour of deliverance also be the hour of fulfillment of Arab aspirations.
The situation is as follows: We are conducting the great struggle to open the way to the North of the Caucasus. The difficulties involved are more than transportation because of the demolished railways and roads and because of winter weather. And if I venture in these circumstances to issue a declaration with regard to Syria, then the pro-de Gaulle elements in France will be strengthened and this might cause a revolt in France. These men (the French) will be convinced then that joining Britain is more advantageous and the detachment of Syria is a pattern to be followed in the remainder of the French Empire. This will strengthen de Gaulle’s stand in the colonies. If the declaration is issued now, difficulties will arise in Western Europe which will cause the diversion of some (German-Ed.) forces for defensive purposes, thus preventing us from sending all our forces to the East.
Now I am going to tell you something I would like you to keep secret. First, I will keep up my fight until the complete destruction of the Judeo-Bolshevik rule has been accomplished.
Second, during the struggle (and we don’t know when victory will come, but probably not in the far future) we will reach the Southern Caucasus.
Third, then I would like to issue a declaration; for then the hour of the liberation of the Arabs will have arrived. Germany has no ambitions in this area but cares only to annihilate the power which produces the Jews.
Fourth, I am happy that you have escaped and that you are now with the Axis powers. The hour will strike when you will be the lord of the supreme word and not only the conveyer of our declarations. You will be the man to direct the Arab force and at that moment I cannot imagine what would happen to the Western peoples.
Fifth, I think that with this Arab advance begins the dismemberment of the British world. The road from Rostov to Iran and Iraq is shorter than the distance from Berlin to Rostov. We hope next year to smash this barrier. It is better then and not now that a declaration should be issued as (now) we cannot help in anything.   I understand the Arab desire for this (declaration-Ed.), but His Excellency the Mufti must understand that only five years after I became President of the German government and Fuehrer of the German people, was I able to get such a declaration (the Austrian Union-Ed.), and this because military forces prevented me from issuing such a declaration. But when the German Panzer tanks and the German air squadrons reach the Southern Caucasus, then will be the time to issue the declaration.
He said (in reply to a request that a secret declaration or a treaty be made) that a declaration known to a number of persons cannot remain secret but will become public. I (Hitler) have made very few declarations in my life, unlike the British who have made many declarations. If I issue a declaration, I will uphold it. Once I promised the Finnish Marshal that I would help his country if the enemy attacks again. This word of mine made a stronger impression than any written declaration. Recapitulating, I want to state the following to you: When we shall have arrived in the Southern Caucasus, then the time of the liberation of the Arabs will have arrived. And you can rely on my word.
We were troubled about you. I know your life history. I followed with interest your long and dangerous journey. I was very concerned about you. I am happy that you are with us now and that you are now in a position to add your strength to the common cause.” [Source: The Arab Higher Committee. Its Origins, Personnel and Purposes. Documentary Record Submitted to the United Nations, May 1947, by the Nation Associates].

Huseini, was after all, being consistent with the core teachings of Islam in his fanatical anti-semitism. The Quran does not give direct incitement to massacre of Jews, but gives hints and references consistent with the more gory details supported by all the principal Hadiths. There was only one significant difference between the teachings of the Quran and the Hadiths on one side and the Nazi philosophy on the other side, the Prophet of Islam categorized the Jews as “people of the book” and hence at least in the Quran, they should be allowed to survive only on condition they pay a “survival tax” or Jiziya or they convert to Islam, whereas in the Hadiths of course, their males are declared to be fit to be “killed”, their lands to be “appropriated by Muslims”, and especially their women to be taken over by the Muslims. Although there are some allegations of sexual contact between the Jewish captive women and Nazi soldiers or officers, formally there were severe laws against such practices, and there are known instances of convictions and sentences carried out.

At the time of his death, Hitler’s official place of residence was in Munich, which led to all rights to Mein Kampf, coming under the ownership of the state of Bavaria. The government of Bavaria, in agreement with the federal government of Germany, does not allow any copying or printing of the book in Germany [and opposed it also in Sweden without success]. Owning and buying the book is legal. Trading in old copies is legal as well unless it is done in such a fashion as to “promote hatred or war”, which is, under anti-revisionist laws, generally illegal.   In Austria, the possession and/or trading of Mein Kampf is illegal. In France, the selling of the book is forbidden unless the transaction concerns a historical version including commentaries from specialists and states the law allowing its special historical edition.  In the Netherlands, selling the book, even an old copy, can be illegal as “promoting hatred”, but possession and lending is not. The Dutch states treats this as claims of copyright infringement (as acclaimed owner of the translation) and does not allow any publishing. In 1997, the government explained to the parliament that selling a “scientifically annotated version” might escape prosecution, and the debate was repeated in 2007 with similar conclusions. In Indonesia the book is available in Indonesian language, in Lebanon, an Arabic edition of Mein Kampf was published in 1995 by Bisan/Beisan.  In Turkey, the book is freely available and a Turkish edition was reported to be a bestseller in Turkey in March 2005, and claimed to have sold over 100,000 copies in two months. Note that the European nations which had significant collaborators with the Nazi ideology during the war, have turned the strongest protectors of the European populations who are considered to be completely immature, from the possible insidious infection in contact with the words of a “demented fanatic” by trying to ban these words, whereas these very same words are not deemed to be “antagonistic” or “revisionist” in the Muslim countries.

If the European populations are so intellectually immature that they cannot handle “Mein Kampf”, how can they handle the Quran, which says in the context of the first successful looting and massacre mission by the Prophet of Islam after six earlier unsuccessful ones on his relatives from Mecca engaged in their traditional trading journeys [and after having been allowed to leave and “migrate” from Mecca with full life, limb and liberty, and with indications of having abused profusely the beliefs, sentiments, as well as the hospitality of the Meccan Qureysh with his associates sometimes having also shed blood of those who had refused to submit to their ideology] – the “famous” Nakhla raid:

022.039 To those against whom war is made, permission is given (to fight), because they are wronged;- and verily, Allah is most powerful for their aid;-
022.040 (They are) those who have been expelled from their homes in defiance of right,- (for no cause) except that they say, “our Lord is Allah”. Did not Allah check one set of people by means of another, there would surely have been pulled down monasteries, churches, synagogues, and mosques, in which the name of Allah is commemorated in abundant measure. Allah will certainly aid those who aid his (cause);- for verily Allah is full of Strength, Exalted in Might, (able to enforce His Will).
022.041 (They are) those who, if We establish them in the land, establish regular prayer and give regular charity, enjoin the right and forbid wrong: with Allah rests the end (and decision) of (all) affairs.
022.042 If they treat thy (mission) as false, so did the peoples before them (with their Prophets),- the People of Noah, and ‘Ad and Thamud;

002.190 Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for Allah loveth not transgressors.
002.191 And slay them wherever ye catch them, and turn them out from where they have Turned you out; for tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter; but fight them not at the Sacred Mosque, unless they (first) fight you there; but if they fight you, slay them. Such is the reward of those who suppress faith.
002.192 But if they cease, Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.
002.193 And fight them on until there is no more Tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah; but if they cease, Let there be no hostility except to those who practise oppression.
002.194 The prohibited month for the prohibited month,- and so for all things prohibited,- there is the law of equality. If then any one transgresses the prohibition against you, Transgress ye likewise against him. But fear Allah, and know that Allah is with those who restrain themselves.

Those who were reluctant to join in the war of plunder were reproved. Allah’s revelation on this came down in verses 47:20-21. These verses granted paradise to those who fight (or terrorize and plunder) for Islam i.e., Jihad and are killed.

047.020 Those who believe say, “Why is not a sura sent down (for us)?” But when a sura of basic or categorical meaning is revealed, and fighting is mentioned therein, thou wilt see those in whose hearts is a disease looking at thee with a look of one in swoon at the approach of death. But more fitting for them-
047.021 Were it to obey and say what is just, and when a matter is resolved on, it were best for them if they were true to Allah.

Allah then asked the Jihadis to “strike off the heads of the unbelievers; to make a great slaughter and bind them fast in bonds” in verse 47:3-4

047.003 This because those who reject Allah follow vanities, while those who believe follow the Truth from their Lord: Thus does Allah set forth for men their lessons by similitudes.
047.004 Therefore, when ye meet the Unbelievers (in fight), smite at their necks; At length, when ye have thoroughly subdued them, bind a bond firmly (on them): thereafter (is the time for) either generosity or ransom: Until the war lays down its burdens. Thus (are ye commanded): but if it had been Allah’s Will, He could certainly have exacted retribution from them (Himself); but (He lets you fight) in order to test you, some with others. But those who are slain in the Way of Allah,- He will never let their deeds be lost.

Furthermore, the true believers were expected not only to fight but also to contribute materially towards the cost of war (4:66-67, 9:88, 9:111), to kill and be killed. Those who did this were promised a higher rank in paradise (4:74, 4:95). The believers were asked to prepare with whatever force in their ability, troops, horses, etc. to strike terror into the hearts of the unbelievers.

004.066 If We had ordered them to sacrifice their lives or to leave their homes, very few of them would have done it: But if they had done what they were (actually) told, it would have been best for them, and would have gone farthest to strengthen their (faith);
004.067 And We should then have given them from our presence a great reward;

009.088 But the Messenger, and those who believe with him, strive and fight with their wealth and their persons: for them are (all) good things: and it is they who will prosper.
009.111 Allah hath purchased of the believers their persons and their goods; for theirs (in return) is the garden (of Paradise): they fight in His cause, and slay and are slain: a promise binding on Him in truth, through the Law, the Gospel, and the Quran: and who is more faithful to his covenant than Allah? then rejoice in the bargain which ye have concluded: that is the achievement supreme.

004.074 Let those fight in the cause of Allah Who sell the life of this world for the hereafter. To him who fighteth in the cause of Allah,- whether he is slain or gets victory – Soon shall We give him a reward of great (value).
004.095 Not equal are those believers who sit (at home) and receive no hurt, and those who strive and fight in the cause of Allah with their goods and their persons. Allah hath granted a grade higher to those who strive and fight with their goods and persons than to those who sit (at home). Unto all (in Faith) Hath Allah promised good: But those who strive and fight Hath He distinguished above those who sit (at home) by a special reward,-

009.073 O Prophet! strive hard against the unbelievers and the Hypocrites, and be firm against them. Their abode is Hell,- an evil refuge indeed.
009.123 O ye who believe! fight the unbelievers who gird you about, and let them find firmness in you: and know that Allah is with those who fear Him.
008.060 Against them make ready your strength to the utmost of your power, including steeds of war, to strike terror into (the hearts of) the enemies, of Allah and your enemies, and others besides, whom ye may not know, but whom Allah doth know. Whatever ye shall spend in the cause of Allah, shall be repaid unto you, and ye shall not be treated unjustly.

This does not seem to promote “hatred” or “war”? Or the Hadithic description of ethnic cleansing of the Jews which have an uncanny resemblance to what happened to the Jewish areas or ghettos under the Nazis? -for example the genocide of Bani Qurayzah Jews by Muhammad-February-March, 627 : The Muslim soldiers marched toward the fortress of Bani Qurayza that lay two or three miles to the south-east of Medina. Muhammad rode an ass, while an army of three thousand Muslims, with thirty-six horses followed him. After twenty-five days of siege, the Jews grew desperate, exhausted and terrified at their future. They were on the verge of starvation.

Tabari writes: ‘When they saw him (i.e Abu Lubabah), [ A Muslim from a friendly tribe whom the Jews hoped to intercede on behalf of them] the men rose to meet him, and the women and children rushed to grab hold of him, weeping before him, so that he felt pity for them. They said to him, “Abu Lubabah, do you think that we should submit to Muhammad’s judgment”? “Yes”, he said, but he pointed with his hand to his throat, that it would be slaughter.”’ Haykal writes that the Jews thought that the former allies from al-Aws tribe would give them protection if they migrated to Adhriat in al Sham, and that Muhammad would allow them. Muhammad rejected their proposal and insisted on their waiting for his judgment.

In the morning, B. Qurayzah Jews surrendered. The male Jews were chained and kept in the fortress till a decision was made about their fate. The B. Aws were friendly with the B. Qurayzah Jews and pleaded with Muhammad for mercy and a fair judgment for their Jewish allies. On this, Muhammad proposed that the judgment be passed by Sa’d b Muadh who was the B. Aws leader, trying to recuperate from his eventually fatal wound in a tent at Medina. B. Aws and the B. Qurayzah both agreed on this proposal of Muhammad, hoping to have some mercy from Sa’d b. Muadh. Muhammad dispatched some B. Aws men to bring Sa’d to deliver his judgment. Many B. Aws people requested Sa’d to deal with the Jews with leniency and mercy. Sa’d then asked his people if they would accept whatever judgment he pronounced. The assemblage agreed.

On being asked by Muhammad Sa’d b. Muadh replied, “I pass judgment on them that the men shall be killed, the property divided, and the children and women made captives.” Muhammad praised Sa’d for proclaiming a solemn judgment of the Almighty and termed Sa’d’s judgment as fair and said, “You have passed judgment on them with the judgment of God and the judgment of His Messenger.” Sahih Bukhari records:

Volume 5, Book 58, Number 148: Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri: Some people (i.e. the Jews of Bani bin Quraiza) agreed to accept the verdict of Sad bin Muadh so the Prophet sent for him (i.e. Sad bin Muadh). He came riding a donkey, and when he approached the Mosque, the Prophet said, “Get up for the best amongst you.” or said, “Get up for your chief.” Then the Prophet said, “O Sad! These people have agreed to accept your verdict.” Sad said, “I judge that their warriors should be killed and their children and women should be taken as captives.” The Prophet said, “You have given a judgment similar to Allah’s Judgment (or the King’s judgment).”

[Original Sahih Al-Bukhari] The women and children were then separated from their husbands, others were put under the care of Abdullah, a renegade Jew. All the goods and possessions of the B. Qurayzah Jews, their camels and flocks were all brought as spoils of war. The B. Qurayzah Jewish men were handcuffed behind their backs with their women and children having already been separated. They were placed under the charge of Mohammad ibn Maslama, the assassin of Ka’b ibn Ashraf, to be sent to Medina before their execution in batches. A long trench was dug in the marketplace of Medina. The Prisoners were then taken there, made to kneel down and beheaded in a group of five or six. Muhammad was personally present to witness this slaughter. Ali and Zubayr cut off the heads of the Jews in front of Muhammad. Sourcing from Al-Waqidi, Tabari writes:

“…the messenger of God commanded that furrows should be dug in the ground for the B. Qurayzah. Then he sat down, and Ali and al-Zubayr began cutting off their heads in his presence.” Ibn Ishaq writes that they were taken in groups to Muhammad for beheading in front of him.

Tabari further writes: ‘The messenger of God went out into the marketplace of Medina and had trenches dug in it; then he sent for them and had them beheaded in those trenches. They were brought out to him in groups. Among them were the enemy of God, Huyayy b. Akhtab, and Ka’b b. Asad, the head of the tribe. They numbered 600 or 700-the largest estimate says they were between 800 and 900. As they were being taken in groups to the Messenger of God, they said to Ka’b b. Asad, “Ka’b, what do you understand. Do you not see that the summoner does not discharge [anyone] and that those of you who are taken away do not come back? By God, it is death!” the affair continued until the Messenger of God had finished with them.’

Sir William Muir describes: ‘The men were penned up in a closed yard, while graves or trenches were being dug for them in the chief marketplace of the city. When these were ready, Mahomet, himself a spectator of the tragedy, gave command that the captives should be brought forth in companies of five or six at a time. Each company was made to sit down by the brink of the trench destined for its grave, and there beheaded. Party by party they were thus led out, and butchered in cold blood, till the whole were slain. One woman alone was put to death; it was she who threw the millstone from the battlements.’

Huyayy b. Akhtab, the banished B. Nadir Jewish leader was taken to the execution field. Tabari describes his execution:

‘Huyayy b. Akhtab, the enemy of God, was brought. He was wearing a rose-colored suit of clothes that had torn all over with fingertip-sized holes so that it would not be taken as booty from him, and his hands were bound to his neck with a rope. When he looked at the Messenger of God, he said, “By God, I do not blame myself for being hostile to you, but whomever God forsakes is forsaken.” Then he turned to the people and said: “People, there is no injury in God’s command. It is the book of God, His decree, and a battlefield of great slaughter ordained against the Children of Israel. Then he sat down and was beheaded.’

Only one woman of the B. Qurayzah, the wife of Hasan al-Qurazi and a friend of Aisha, was killed. Aisha’s narrated her story of beheading thus:‘Only one of their women was killed. By God, she was by me, talking with me and laughing unrestraintedly while the Messenger of God was killing their men in the marketplace, when suddenly a mysterious voice called out her name, saying, “Where is so and so?” She said, “I shall be killed.” “Why?” I asked. She said, A misdeed that I committed.” She was taken away and beheaded. (Aisha used to say: I shall never forget my wonder at her cheerfulness and much laughter, even when she knew that she would be killed.).’

The Sahi (authentic) Hadith of Abu Dawud: Book 14, Number 2665: Narrated Aisha, Ummul Mu’minin: No woman of Banu Qurayzah was killed except one. She was with me, talking and laughing on her back and belly (extremely), while the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) was killing her people with the swords. Suddenly a man called her name: Where is so-and-so? She said: I I asked: What is the matter with you? She said: I did a new act. She said: The man took her and beheaded her. She said: I will not forget that she was laughing extremely although she knew that she would be killed.”

Ther very old Jewish man Az-Zabir had saved the life of a Muslim convert, Thabit b. Qays in the Bu’ath war. When Az-Zabir was about to be beheaded Thabit requested Muhammad to save the life of Az-Zabir and his family as a return to his favor. Muhammad agreed. Az-Zabir then asked Thabit b. Qays about the Jewish leaders such as Ka’b b. Asad and Huayy b. Akhtab, as he preferred to die rather than to live without them. Az-Zabir replied, “Then I ask you for the sake of the favor I once did for you to join me to my kinsmen, for by God there is no good in living after them. I will not wait patiently for God, not even [the time needed] to take the bucket of a watering trough, until I meet my dear ones.” So Thabit brought him forward, and he was beheaded. Abu Bakr commented “He will meet them, by God, in the Gehenna, there to dwell forever and forever.”

Muhammad commanded that all those Jewish men with pubic hair were to be executed. Hadith from Sunaan Abu Dawud:

Book 38, Number 4390: Narrated Atiyyah al-Qurazi: I was among the captives of Banu Qurayzah. They (the Companions) examined us, and those who had begun to grow hair (pubes) were killed, and those who had not were not killed. I was among those who had not grown hair.
After executing all the adult male Jews, Muhammad sent Sa’d b. Zayd al-Ansari with some captive women and children from the B. Qurayzah to Najd to sell them in the slave market. While we do not have an accurate price of a female slave during that time, Ibn Sa’d writes that Khadijah, Muhammad’s first wife, bought her slave, Zayd b. Haritha, (who would later become Muuhammad’s adopted son), for four hundred Dirhams at the slave market of Ukaz, Mecca. [the price of young slave varied from five hundred dirhams to eight hundred dirhams – Sunaan Abu Dawud hadith numbers, 3946 and 4563]. Among the captive was a young woman called Rayhanh bt. ‘Amr b. Khunafah and took her as his concubine. It is said that when Muhammad offered to make her his wife by embracing Islam, she declined. She preferred to remain a concubine to becoming a Muslim and said, “Messenger of God, rather leave me in your possession [as a concubine], for it is easier for me and for you.”

I have not heard of the Quran or the Hadiths being banned in Europe. As for the communists or the leftists, they need simply to look for a functioning leftist, socialist or communist party working in any of the core Islamic countries in Asia – other than a few intellectuals tolerated here and there – with two notable exceptions, one without a country among the Kurds, and the other in Turkey where the nationalist modernization started by the army under Ataturk is still battling it out with headscarfs and explosions. The communists can also ponder the fate of the communists at the hands of Muslims in Afghanistan, or the “Marxist” army commander in Iraq who took over from the boy-king and was then replaced by the mentor of Saddam. Forgetting history is a serious lapse, but selective percolation of politically motivated reconstructions or “scientifically annotated” histories in favour of a particular group or ideology and against others is a “criminal” offence against freedom of thought and speech – for ultimately it always leads to the most pernicious of ideologies to take over our lives by not revealing to us the real agenda behind the sugar-coated pills provided by the “ideologues”.

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Of Lipsticks, pigs, Presidents, and south Asia – the Right way forward?

Posted on September 12, 2008. Filed under: China, Christians, Communist, Hindu, India, Kashmir, Muslims, Nuclear, Pakistan, Politics, religion, terrorism, USA |

The American electorate is being fabulously entertained. It is fascinating to watch what the movers and shakers of American opinion demand that the American mind should think – lipsticks and pigs dominate proceedings – and with all adult-o-teens and perhaps half the unborn population deemed trained Freudian psychiatrists – lipsticks and pigs are just two words that spawn a billion networks of interpretations and interpretations of interpretations. But no one has told them that what the therapist interprets is also a revelation of the therapist’s own obsessions and paranoias, and in the patterns and passions of your looking for “others” secrets, your own secrets come out – especially about secret pleasures. Why should it matter whether a woman Vice-Presidential candidate has an affair or not or whether her daughter is pregnant or not? What should have been more relevant is whether she is good for what she is being asked to do – play the role of a deputy leader to the highest executive post in the country – if having an affair or her daughter’s supposed pregnancy doesn’t interfere with her state responsibilities  why should we bother? It is ridiculous to accept the pseudo-logic that her daughter if pregnant  represents her lack of control and leadership, given the fact that Americans champion personal freedoms and individual responsibilities especially in the realm of sex. And as for affairs, should we forget the two illustrious White Christian examples of ladies at the top seats of their realms – Queen Elizabeth I of England, and Tsarina Catherine the Great?  By most historical accounts, both ladies had their fill of affairs while proving themselves to be some of the best things that could have  happened to their nations in the very practical terms of statesmanship. Isn’t it time that opinion builders of America decide to grow up a bit? What should concern Americans more is what is happening in South Asia and the middle East. The Indo-US nuclear deal has drawn a lot of attention, and it comes as no surprise to me that the Democrats failed to send a woman as a Presidential candidate, and that all Democrat Presidents have gone against strategic strengthening of India at the cost of India’s Muslim neighbours. If we analyze the regimes that have put up women for the top post, they have invariably been leaning towards the Right, whereas the Left, from the Communists to the “Democrats” in spite of all their libertarian rhetoric always shy of women for the top posts and always land up ultimately in the camp of Muslims. Ex President Carter while in the USA is vehemently anti-Indian as far as nuclear strengthening of India is concerned, and frankly ridicules both India’s nuclear capabilities as well as its security concerns which he dubs “ambitions”. The same President Carter while in India however feels no shame in associating his name with remote Indian villages claiming that the Indian connection had been “good for him”.  Ex President Clinton, on his visit to India, demanded that both “India and Pakistan” respect the LOC, and pointedly refused to acknowledge Pakistani responsibility for the typically Islam recommended “deceptive” war of killing 35 Kashmiri Sikhs -one of many massacres of non-Muslims of Kashmir towards the ethnic/religious cleansing by the Kashmiri Muslim militants wearing Indian army uniform. Obama is aware of this pattern perhaps and has already consciously tried to neutralize the edge gained by the Republicans through the Indo-US nuclear deal, by highlighting Indo-“phile” Biden  and accusing Pakistan of diverting funds meant to fight “terror” towards preparing for war with India.

The coalition forces are not having a very good time in Iraq, or in Afghanistan, and the west should now realize that the centre of power of the Islamic Jihad is firmly in the middle East, with financial and ideological support maintained by the wealth of oil, and Wahabi Islamic fundamentalist clergy, and at least one unsupervised strategically important military establishment that has dubious attitudes to the Taleban – and has already come to an understanding with this patron of Al-Qaeda in the North Western Frontier Province of Pakistan – the corridor that connects Muslim Jihadi insurgents in Afghanistan through northern Pakistan right into Pakistan occupied Kashmir. Fall of India to Islam, either by cooperation or weakness from some of its Islamo-phile centre-left political parties or by outright aggression facilitated or spearheaded by Pakistan with tacit help from China, would mean the establishment of a continuous band of Jihadi Islam from Egypt, and Sudan through Arabia, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, India, Bangladesh, Malaysia, Indonesia (the smaller non-Muslim majority nations of Myanmar or Thailand may not prove a strong bulwark against Islam because of their Buddhism) establishing a stranglehold over the Indian Ocean and virtually over Asia itself, making American presence and control in the middle East virtually impossible..

It is crucial, that no weakness of the “leftist” sort comes in the way of consolidation of all non-Muslim ideologies and forces. Christians and Hindus have the potential of forming an effective alliance in this game of survival. The Right way forward…?

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 3 so far )

The fascinating case of religious Maoists in Orissa : especially Maoists who find only one religion evil and all others worth protecting

Posted on September 4, 2008. Filed under: Christians, Communist, Hindu, India, Politics, terrorism |

As I had proposed in my earlier post on the Kandhmal incident in Orissa, India,  after long speculation in the media about the stunning silence of the Maoists  about their “role in the assassination of Laxmananda Saraswati”, one week after the assassination suddenly a statement has appeared out of thin air – supposedly coming from the Maoists : The Central Committee of the Communist Party of India-Maoist (?)  declares “The Sangh Parivar leaders like Praveen Togadia have been trying to divert the people by uttering lies that it is not the Maoists but Christian organizations that had carried out the attack on the VHP leader…Saraswati was a rabid anti-Christian ideologue and persecutor of innocent Christians who was responsible for the burning
down of over 400 churches in Kandhamal district alone.” This “Maoist” statement warned the VHP of “more such punishments if it continued violence against religious minorities in the country” and called for a ban on groups linked to the Sangh Parivar, such as the VHP, its youth wing Bajrang Dal, right-wing Hindu political party Shiv Sena and the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). This is a most unusual Maoist group indeed! A Maoist group that finds only one particular religion as the “persecutor”, finds all “Christians” innocent, deplores “rabid anti-Christianism”, and most significantly is absolutely against “burning down Churches” – and still calls itself “Maoist” – unbelievable!

The statement which uncannily resembles standard Marxist harangue from the Left leaning section of the Thaparite School of Indian History, and those that daily shout about the “danger of Hindu Right Wing” in mainstream Indian politics, became necessary as the involvement of “real” Maoists became suspect, and the Government was probably quite desperate. A section of the “well-wisher”s of the Christian leadership might also have thought that it was important to reinforce the arrow of suspicion towards the Maoists. This only shows that the statement originated from people who have never seriously studied or observed Maoist strategic thinking and their ideological framework. Even if local “Maoists” were involved, it is now more obvious that it was far from actual Maoism. For most authentic Maoist groups in India and abroad, their ideology requires them to treat all religions as “opiates of the people” – the Indian Maoists have traditionally been in fact more “Maoist” than Mao himself. In certain parts of the world, there have been attempts from within the Christian groups to align with radical movements – the radical Liberation Theology in the Latin American nations for example. But Church authorities have moved quickly enough to expel these elements whom they thought were getting too close to Communism.

What could have really happened? There are three possible scenarios :

(1) The major Maoist recruits could have initially come from the minority Panas group from which also a large number of conversions into Christianity took place. But the clan ties were stronger than both Maoism or Christianity and hence when it became crucial for the Panas community to try and regain their Scheduled status to get various State benefits [which they lost under the Indian constitution as in general just like the Majority caste Hindus or Muslims, for Christians too, reservation is not available based on religion, and these religions are not considered to be so “backward” as to need reservation]  the entire community pitched in and the “Maoist” clan brothers helped their non-Maoist brothers out.

(2) The Maoists have had a deal with suppliers of arms and ammunition, either from the Jihadi networks or from other foreign religious movements which have promised or delivered sophisticated arms and ammunition, in return for collaboration in elimination of their common threat – the Hindu organizations in the state. The dense forest cover allows the real identity of these “Maoists” and their alliances to be hidden.

(3) Or what could be most dangerous, that those who are operating in the guise of Maoists are no Maoists at all but simply an extension of various foreign interests. If a section of the Church has played into this, it will be most unfortunate, as I don’t think they realize the real processes of change in the “Hindu” attitude in India.

Suppose now a serious military campaign is unleashed against the Maoists whose main strategy has always been to use “inaccessibility of terrain” to “live like fish among the water of people” and expand fluid “base areas”, and have always failed in the face of determined “encirclement campaigns”, so that the Maoists face extinction in the state. My prediction is that there will be an immediate huge media campaign to denounce the “persecution of Christians in the name of tackling Maoist extremists”. But having started this game now, whoever wished well for the Christians did a great disservice to Christianity – first it has associated Christians with Maoist Communists, and second, they in reality will have no defence in case a strong Indian government at the centre decides to liquidate the Maoist threat forever, thereby also eliminating those the well-wishers are lobbying for.

On August 30 the Delhi based private news channel NDTV 24X7 quoted “unnamed government sources” as saying that their assessment was that Christians had no role in the killing of Saraswati, and that the probe was leading to Maoist culprits. I find it highly amusing that both bloggers as well as Indian media usually reports this statement from NDTV, and the Christian organizations reports of an “estimated 50,000 Christians” living in the jungles abandoning their homes in fear of attacks, while they remain completely silent that this same channel also showed a documentary, where they also showed violent attacks on “Hindu” tribals, destruction of their villages, and their women and children hiding out in open jungle to escape from fear of attacks by “Christians”. The documentary makers tried their best not to appear “pro-Hindu”, which implies that the evidence of attacks on Hindu villagers were too numerous to ignore completely and liable to show up NDTV as completely biased later on if not at least partially represented.

Wherever I have gone in India, I have almost always observed genuine respect and tolerance for Christians by Hindus – but I do not think that Christians in the West would show the same tolerance towards the Hindus if the Hindus practised items of their culture that the Christian West thought obnoxious [the issue of public slaughter of cows for festivals and eating beef nad hence also the related issue of illegal beef trade- which is not favoured by the Hindu tribals] or react most favourably to disparagement of Christian practices and beliefs by the Hindus. The role of Christian missionaries in education and healthcare in India is acknowledged by the Hindus with great warmth and genuine gratitude. But I think the modern Christian missions in India have to think carefully before they get involved in the fractures of Indian society. Many Hindus celebrate Christmas as their own festival, and many of the Bhakti sects of Hinduism in India have no problem in displaying Jesus as a manifestation of their “supreme lord”. The stereotypical portrayal of the Christian Missionary as a “benevolent father”  was and continues to be common in popular movies. I have never seen a similar religious accommodation of the “Hindu” within Christianity – where typically the best representation of the Hindu is that of a “poor ignorant bewildered fallen soul” “mired in darkness” and needing “salvation”.

This is a misunderstanding between Hindus and Christians, and is being exploited by forces that have their own designs on controlling India. A strong government that was determined in liquidating Maoism could actually ultimately prove beneficial for the image of Christianity in India, as otherwise these sort of media campaigns will only ultimately consolidate the so much “feared” “Hindu Right”.

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

India’s N-deal shenanigans : US congressman’s leak – brinkmanship or utter lunacy?

Posted on September 3, 2008. Filed under: China, Christians, Communist, Hindu, India, Muslims, Nuclear, Pakistan, Politics |

Indian and US media have flashed the news of the leak of a “secret letter” by a senior US-Congressman, that reportedly promises (1) to stop all N-trade with India if India ever tests (2) to force other countries in NSG also to stop N-trade with India if India ever tests (3) there is no guarantee of perpetual N-fuel supply to India. If true, coming from a senior US-Congressman, this is wonderful news about the maturity and statesmanship of US politicians. If it was a “secret letter” which had apparently been sent 9 months ago from the Presidential administration, the Congressman or his sucessors and associates have broken several clauses of the confidentiality regulations, and in a country which often jails people for 5 lifetimes or more for “treason”, he should be liable for some penalties.  If the politicians were hoping to provide some fuel for the murmurs of dissent within NSG, then it is not of much help as the only way it can work in favour of the Congressman is if the “promises” in the “secret letter” are now taken up by the “dissenters” within NSG as a demand to be publicly declared and included by the USA in the revised draft proposal for N-trade with India.

In reality what mostl likely happened was that the Bush administartion deliberately kept the draft agreement “vague” in full knowledge and consultation with its Indian counterpart, so that both administrations could “explain” away and satisfy their respective detractors in their countries and politics. Having  seen that the N-deal was being hotly pressed forward, this Congress-lobby panicked and wanted to play up the opposition he hoped would arise against India. It is also possible that the State Department itself leaked the document in the hope of reassuring the dissenters that it will indirectly take stern “action” against India if the latter departs from “Western control”.

Why would a senior US-Congressman or his successors be so obsessed with preventing India’s maintaining and upgrading its nuclear weapons capability by testing as and when required in the face of nuclear weapons capable hostile countries like Pakistan and China? There are two sources of opposition and hatred for India within the USA. The first comes from a very narrow interpretation of Christianity aligned and meant to support and justify racial supremacy concepts, which associates the “best form” of Christianity with a certain “skin colour” and inverts historical quirks such as the success of European colonial land-grabbing as a justification for megalomania. The danger in such logic for Americans themselves is that it masks the real factors that led to European success, and the short term historically specific nature of these factors, which are most unlikely to recur in the future. As the history of warfare amply shows, no society could monopolize and maintain its “military” success forever after using “surprise” once – either a technological “surprise” or a “strategic surprise” – once used these are known to others. Europeans can never again hope to dominate the world on their own as they had done during the colonial period, when they could use the complacency and philosophically sophisticated relaxed attitude of more advanced civilizations, to extract capital from them. The second comes from strong lobbying by and commercial connections with China, as well as the influence of heavy capital investments circulating in the US economy from oil-rich Islamic countries.

The anti-India [anti-Hindu pro-Islam??] lobby in the USA is showing its ignorance of Indian society by not realizing that what it is trying to do is only consolidating the position of its hated foe which it so fondly dubs “the Hindu Right” – the BJP for example, which has consistently claimed that the N-deal as negotiated by the UPA government is a sell-out of crucial national strategic interests of India. The question will obviously arise as to why a senior US-Congressman is obsessed and paranoid with India maintaining its nuclear weapons capabilities – and is determined to abort its crucial defense capabilities in the face of known militarily aggressive and nuclear weapons capable hostile neighbour countries – is this a first stage in the grand eventual Islamo-Chinese coalition to finish off non-Muslim India? India should stick to its right to test at most under the concession that testing of nuclear weapons delivery systems or any nuclear testing by neighbours will immediately prompt India to test both delivery systems as well as nuclear warheads. No European country came to India’s defence when Pakistan attacked it or China invaded it, and even in the future they will only express their “righteous indignation” if the Islamo-Chinese alliance invaded India, but never come to preserve India’s non-Muslim cultures [as for a strong driving force within the European elites, commercial interests come first and Islam would still be preferable to the “hated” pagans].  In the end, in the greater interests of preservation of non-Muslim cultures all over the world, preservation of India as primarily and distinctly non-Muslim and non-Communist is of utmost importance – Christianity may prove unable or unwilling to tackle Islam, the West’s dependence on and greed for Islamic-oil and capital can make it rather soft to any aggression on India from Islamic or Chinese sources.

previous post on N-deal

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

India’s NSG fever : the China-Islam-Europe axis

Posted on September 2, 2008. Filed under: Bangladesh, China, Communist, India, Islam, Muslims, Nuclear, Pakistan, Politics, Russia |

In my previous posts on this subject, I had repeatedly tried to dampen the apparent euphoria in Indian circles about the passage of the Indo-US N-deal through the IAEA. Like many others, I had tried to point out that the greatest difficulty would be at the NSG. This was predictable from at least two different angles: the first was that at that time China was preparing for the Beijing Olympics, and needed all possible cooperation from the international powers to suppress the Tibetan protests, secondly the powers that are most likely to be opposed to any significant increase in India’s strategic defence capabilities because of their own designs on Indian territories would be misled by their ignorance of how far India has changed in recent years to hope that internal dissent would prove sufficiently strong to scuttle the process anyway from within India. Once the IAEA passage went off relatively smoothly, these powers were likely to be panicking, and would begin lobbying in earnest to delay the passage through the NSG if not scuttle it altogether. The three natural allies in this game against India would be the forces represented by China, the Islamic expansion movement within Asia, and the smaller countries in EU. Each has its reasons, and we can analyze them one by one.

China has yesterday come out with a statement in its official mouthpiece [ and therefore of the state and therefore of the Communist Party of China] that passage of the N-deal with India would represent “a blow to non-proliferation”. This coincides uncannily with the apparent views of the leading non-proliferation groups within the EU. This could be a calculated move on the part of China to utilize the dissent from within EU, or a coordinated move. China’s real reasons for opposing this deal has as much to do with the “geo-strategic” interests it accuses India of – China was the aggressor in 1962, and invaded Indian territories without warning or a formal declaration of war – a-la-Islam. China knows that even historically they have had to fight with indigenous Tibetans for control over Tibetan territories – we have concrete evidence for this at least from the 1st millenium CE. China occupied Tibet by force and desperately wants to push through to the Indian Ocean. It sees India as the largest obstacle to its dominance in South Asia. After Mao’s split with the USSR mainly due to Russia’s formal split with Stalinism, Mao was quite worried at the growing ties between the Russia he did not understand or thought a betrayer to the “Stalinist cause” and India, as well as the protection nd asylum given to the Dalai Lama by India and decided to bring in pressure on India. China still holds on to Indian territory in the East and the North, and its main objective is to isolate Tibet from Indian reach [thus it helped the Nepali communists to come to power]  and sever any strategic land connection that India can possibly have with Russia.  China very possibly helped Pakistan with Nuclear and missile technology, as Pakistan has not shown any other independent parallel comprehensive development in indigenous technology and scientific research in other areas that could justify its “sudden” and “miraculous” nuclear weapons capability. China has also consistently tried to cultivate the Muslim nations, and especially Pakistan and Bangladesh who it knows to be vehemently opposed to the existence of a “non-Muslim” India. Chinese communists encourage Islamic movements against India since in the limitations of Communist ideology they think that they can “manage” Islam, whereas the Islamic forces use China according to their successful tactic as revealed in the Quran and in the Sunnah of the prophet – ally and use one “unbeliever” against another, until they are all weakened and ripe for subjugation. By China’s statement against India, China shows that it is now a completely blinded fool driven only by its imperialist ambitions and blind also to the growing Islamic insurgency in its own backyard. China also knows its economic importance for the smaller countries of the EU. so it may be more than a coincidence that these countries and China appear to speak in the same language as regards India.

For the smaller EU countries, their considerable markets in both the Islamic world as well as China, for dairy and meat products, as well as other manufactured exports [as so aptly evidenced by the retreat of certain North European countries over “freedom of expression” as applied to Islam, because of a boycott of products from that country in the Middle East], it is understandable that the non-proliferation argument will appear to be strongly appealing and most important. In this it will not be convenient for them to remember that many of them as a part of  NATO are installing a missile defence system in anticipation of attacks from a country which has had no history of attacking them and is much farther away geographically compared to both Pakistan and China from India – two countries which are both nuclear missile-delivery capable and have already militarily attacked India and still hold on to Indian territories. Their economic dependence on the oil from Islamic countries, and Chinese markets will obscure them to the real defence needs of India in possible future testing and upgrading of nuclear weapons capabilities  as deterrent and strategic neutralization of danger from aggressive Chinese imperialism and Jihadi Islamic aggression.

As for the Muslim countries, their theologians are always baying for non-Muslim blood and non-Muslim lands and women. With immense physical coercion this theocracy has managed to indoctrinate its subjects in an atmosphere of physical violence which is used to root out physically any alternative idea, of science, of modernization, of liberal modern humane ideas of equality between genders or of freedom of speech and thought. India’s vibrant much freer culture is a thorn on the sides of the Alims and the Ulemas of Islam whose flock are being constantly tempted by the visions in the neighbouring country of the “pagans”. In this their natural allies are “sympathetic” admirers of Islam in EU countries and business or governmental strategic interests, as well as the extreme paranoid jealousy of the Chinese communists who like Muslims do not like ideological competitors who can tempt their flock and therefore undermine their narrow selfish megalomania.

In the end, I personally feel that Europe with its classic shortsightedness that gifted the world with the horrors of colonial looting and destruction of civilizations, will only be concerned with the Islamic horror as and when it threatens its own gates, and not otherwise. Thus they may even help indirectly the Islamic cause by proving mostly a reluctant ally of the USA in the latter’s bid to neutralize  the Jihadists, and may even decide to oppose strengthening India in order to preserve their commercial and strategic interests with the Islamic countries and China. It is already known that the EU exports to the Islamic middle East is three times that of the USA to the same region.

It is important for Europe to realize that China’s rise to importance started with its formal role in tying up a large Japanese occupation force in the Pacific theatre during WWII. However this importance was simply formal as the internationally recognized Chinese government and an ally of the Western allies, was the so-called Nationalist government under Chiang-Kai-shek and the Kuomindang – a government which consistently failed in preventing the Japanese advance, but consumed a huge amount of resources as supplied by the USA. Even the Communists in the North were not much of a success although they at least managed to carry on a guerrilla fight against the Japanese near the coastal areas of occupation. There was a time towards the close of the Pacific war, when USA toyed with the idea of supporting the Communist Red Army and suddenly Mao waxed eloquent about US friends. Turn of political climate in Washington removed the pro-Chinese element in US state policy, and Mao went back to his “anti-imperialist” stance. It is significant to note that Chinese success in recovering their country only gained momentum after the surrender of the Japanese, and Stalin did not initially allow the Communists to occupy Manchuria  which surrendered to the Russians and not to the Chinese. The Communists could only make their major moves to occupy the whole of China after 1948, when Soviet support turned in their favour due to Stalin’s realization of the process of Cold War. Throughout the war, the Chinese were more an absorber of military resources and money from the Allies rather than an effective contributor. Contrast this with the tremendous amount in men and material supplied by India, and its contribution to winning the war for the Allied forces, which remains rarely acknowledged.

Not India’s current policy-makers, but the future generations should start thinking of who they can really rely on in their strategic plans to exist in the face of determined Islamic expansion programmes.

a related post

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 4 so far )

Kandhmal-indictment of India’s reservation politics

Posted on August 31, 2008. Filed under: Christians, Communist, Hindu, India, Politics, religion, terrorism |

Swami Laxmanananda was actively involved in a contest to preserve indigenous tribal traditions from aggressive Christian evangelists in the state’s tribal belt since 1966. He was killed in his crowded ashram at Jalespata, Kandhmal district, while performing Janmastami prayers. The murder followed a threat letter warning he would suffer for preventing Hindus from converting to Christianity. As the Swami had been previously attacked on 25 December 2007 [he escaped four attempts on his life before falling to the last attack] for the same reason, he personally lodged a complaint with the police and enclosed the threatening letter along with the FIR. He sought police protection, but on Saturday, around 9.35 pm as the ashram was celebrating Janmashtami, when around dinner time, a group of 30-40 armed assailants surrounded the place.  Eyewitnesses reported that about four of the assailants carried AK-47s and many others had country made revolvers. Two of the four home guards stationed for security had gone to eat and only two of them were guarding the premises. The assailants tied down the two guards, and gagged them. They then searched out the Swamiji within the premises, lobbed a hand-grenade at the gathering of devotees, and fired indiscriminately with sophisticated weapons, killing Swami Laxmanananda and four ashram inmates, including Mata Bhaktimayee, on the spot. The recovered bullets show they were from an AK-47, the police said. The assailants then warned the guards not to raise an alarm and fled the scene. Within minutes of the reaching the crime scene, the district authorities declared that Maoists had carried out assassination of the Swami.

Orissa does have a “Maoist” problem. Recently, a boat-load of security forces combing the area for Naxalites [a local name for Maoist armed insurrectionists in India, originating from the name of a small town in Northern Bengal, where the first symbolic act of Maoist “agrarian violence” took place] were blown up. However assigning responsibility to the Maoists could be a typical tactical administrative ploy as in December 2007, the area suffered some of the bloodiest violence Orissa has even seen after the Swami was attacked by Christians. Although Indian media tried its best not to highlight violence on Hindu villagers in the ongoing conflict where both sides obviously targeted each other, and Christians had no less responsibility than the Hindus for atrocities, reports of Christian violence did leak out from time to time. The Christian inspired violence could be partially sought to be justified as reactions and defensive action against expressions of anger by Hindus retaliating indiscriminately for the violent attack on a man who has become their iconic representative. However even now the state has not been able to come out with a clear and credible report on how much the involvement of Christian militant action was in defense, on only the Hindus who had attacked them and not on innocent Hindu villagers, and how much of this action had been pre-planned to utilize the expected violent reaction by the Hindus.

Elections are due soon in the state and the administration has proved unwilling, or unable to curb the Maoist insurgency. The government could be hoping to get the Hindu majority involved in the hunting down and liquidation of the Maoists on a social scale and therefore the most effective one [as proved in Punjab]. There are severe problems with the Maoist theory.  Typically the central committee for the relevant Maoist group authorises the killings and the outfit issues statements owning up to the murders they commit – as they pick targets who they believe would in general be unpopular with the “repressed class” whose support they wish to obtain. Strangely the Maoists are keeping mum, and no statements have been forthcoming [although after this point is raised in the media, some statement may drop out of thin air]. The five attackers who the locals caught and handed over to the police are not Maoists and they are locals from the region.

Orissa police arrested one Pradesh Kumar Das, an employee of the Christian organisation, World Vision, from Khadagpur, while trying to leave Kandhmal at Buguda. Two other converts, Vikram Digal and William Digal were arrested from the house of Lal Digal, a local Christian, from Nuasahi at Gunjibadi, Nuagaan. They apparently admitted having joined a group of 28 other assailants.

The Maoists spared the policemen on duty when they usually execute any representative of the security forces present in their attacks.  The Maoists are usually quite disciplined and they try to avoid firing at women and children or lob grenades at them. An AK-47 is quite a costly weapon, and are more numerous among well-funded terrorist groups with possible access to hostile foreign governmental support such as the Islamic Jihadi terrorists. In uncanny parallels with Islamic terrorists, the assailants were wearing masks and hoods, whereas Marxists usually make such attacks high profile with faces kept uncovered. The indiscriminate firing and throwing grenades on children in an orphanage over and above killing the target, is one of the strongest possible indications that the order to assassinate could not have come from any  “central committee” and even if carried out by or with the help of Maoists were initiated from sources outside the Maoist movement.

Who had a reason to be angry with the Swami, or had sufficient reasons to benefit from his removal?  The Swami’s activities in the jungle were essentially based around the welfare of the tribals and the only way this could be problematic for the Maoists is if it prevented the tribals from joining the Communist struggle by partially satisfying their urgent problems. But by similar arguments leaders of Christian missionaries should have been the target of the Maoists too, and why is never a thought given to the possibility that the Maoists could be involved in the violence against Christian villages?  The Maoists have long claimed that most of Orissa falls under the ‘liberated zone’ and the  Kandhamal district with its dense forest cover is a haven for them. The Swami received an anonymous threat only a week before he was killed. The local SP did not even register a case after the Swami lodged a formal complaint. Would the government have gained from the removal of the Swami? The BJD would then lose votes to the BJP.  Would the Conrgress which has weakened in the state, have gained from it – only if it was foolish enough to think of hoping to gain Christian votes as defender and protector of Christian minorities, once communal tensions could be flamed up either voluntarily from angry Hindu reaction to the assassination or a little discreet and pre-planned prompting.

For a die-hard Maoist, all religions are equally suspect, and if these religions are providing “cosmetic relief” to the “oppressed” and saturating them with “religious opiates” then they are all equally to be attacked. The Christians know this very well in China. For some strange reason they do not appear to attack the Christian missionaries at Kandhmal! [Historically the only religion that the Chinese Maoists have been partial to was Islam and Mao’s love affair with Islam in his early struggling days at Yenan. Security forces are said to have seized 20 guns from 47 Maoists arrested in connection with the burning of villages inhabited by Hindus. In this respect, the murder of Swami Laxmanananda may be said to closely resemble the murder of Swami Shanti Kali ji Maharaj in Tripura in August 2000; he too was shot in his own ashram by gun-wielding assassins after several dire warnings for anti-conversion activities in the state’s tribal belt. Subsequently, Tripura Chief Minister Manik Sarkar admitted the involvement of a certain church-movement with the insurgency in the state. There has been reports suggesting that Swami Laxmanananda was also active in the movement against illegal beef trading, and was demanding a high level probe into an alleged illegal beef trading racket in Kandhamal.

The major reason behind this conflict in Kandhamal is actually due to India’s notorious reservation regime and politics. At the moment, almost half of desirable “social opportunities” are reserved one way or the other in India, resulting in a perpetuation and reconfirmation of social fractures, and the demand for their continuation and extension shows that reservations are self-defeating in their declared purpose – they never “uplift” and “empower” in concrete, socially tangible terms, for such empowerment actually weakens the case for “reservation” of the beneficiaries. The majority Kandha (Kondh) tribe which has Scheduled Tribe status was obviously alarmed at the second local group, the Scheduled Caste Panas [who by converting to Christianity lost the reservation benefits due to Scheduled Caste status under the constitution]  beginning to agitate for Scheduled Tribe status on the plea that they also spoke Kui, the mother tongue of the Kondhs, which is also the principal language of the district. The Hindus’ fears of lowered benefits due to competition deepened when the UPA-appointed Justice Ranganath Mishra Commission recommended extension of all reservation facilities to converts among the “Dalits”, which would include the Panas in Orissa.

Only if belonging to a special subgroup of Indians does not bring “special favours” over and above that of other Indians, will proselytizing religions or political parties cease to encourage and utilize the existing fractures within Indian society. What is needed is an all-inclusive developmental plan for all Indians that includes compulsory, uniform education, basic health-care, and economic opportunity irrespective of origin – combined with a clear recognition of a reward system of incentives to perform at all levels of society. Are Indians mature enough now to give and face the call “opportunities will be given unbiasedly – but you have to perform”?

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

The N-Deal in a Mess, Left in West Bengal in a mess, Congress in Kashmir in a Mess

Posted on August 22, 2008. Filed under: Bengal, China, Communist, India, Kashmir, Muslims, Nuclear, Politics |

The N-Deal is in a Mess now, and as I had predicted the greatest difficulty would be getting agreement at the NSG. The strongest opposition will come from EU member states who have strong economic ties with the Middle East and China. Europe’s extensive economic ties with the Middle East have been seen as a key reason for differing U.S.-European approaches. The EU is the primary trading partner of the Middle Eastern Islamic countries and overall European economic interests are more integrated with the region than the US. EU exports to the Middle East were roughly three times the size of U.S. exports. Some analysts think that many European countries are primarily motivated by the need to protect these commercial ties with the region, and often do so at the expense of security concerns.  Most experts agree that European countries’ extensive trade and economic ties with the Islamic heartland heighten their desires to maintain good relations with Arab governments and makes them wary about policies that could disrupt the normal flow of trade and oil.  Recent overtures to China from some of these strong protesters could also be indirectly related to their opposition to the passage of the deal. All these countries are either members of or virtually protected by the NATO, they do not hesitate to intervene and use overwhelming military force in their neighbourhood as in Yugoslavia, or put up long range missile attack/defence systems in Poland. These are countries who never protested the Chinese invasion into India in the 60’s or Pakistan’s invasions in 65 and 71, and choose to ignore the fact that at least two Nuclear weapons states are also antagonistic neighbours of India, and EU will never come to India’s defence in a military emergency – for a variety of racial, religious, economic, political and strategic reasons. The very possibly nuclear weapons capable country against whom the NATO is deploying missiles in Poland is actually far closer to India than to Europe. India should take lessons about where Europe’s sympathies will lie if it is forced to choose between India and the Islamic heartland or China. India should expect a delaying tactic so that the key passage through the US Congress can be successfully jeopardized.

In West Bengal the Left Front government is in a mess as its Chief Minister is at a complete loss as to what to say about the premier industrial house of India, the Tatas’s intention to pull out their Nano operation from the disputed site of Singur. I had discussed a long time ago that Mamata Bannerjee in her eagerness to put herself forward as the new and real power centre in West Bengal will adopt exactly the strategies the Left had used almost 30-35 years ago to come to power and want the Tatas to negotiate with her directly. At that time it was the Left which had championed crippling strikes, and its consistent slogan was that “Tatas and the Birlas” were the enemies of the people, against whom the agrarian labour and workers of the weakened industry should fight.  Combined with the arrogance and reliance on sycophants that the Left leadership has practised in West Bengal for a long time, it was a matter of time before the upcoming generations got psychologically detached from the “Left”. The Tatas have little to do but pull out, unless Mamata Bannerjee is prepared to swallow her pride, which in her impatience to get a piece of the cake seems most unlikely. By insisting on her conditions Mamata will also prove that she is just a small politician like Buddhadev and not a statesperson.

Some bloggers who criticize armchair politicians think holding free and fair elections is necessary and sufficient to solve the Kashmir problem and isolate the separatist Hurriyat. This sort of daydreaming comes out of a complete failure to understand what Islam is all about – its is a complete system of politics, and it is shrewd enough to realize that wherever it manages a foothold it has to completely erase all traces of pre-Islamic identities, cultures and independent or rational thought not dictated by the theologians. The basic social institution through which a new born citizen learns social and political behaviour is the education system. This made the Islamic leadership target the secular schools established under the general Indian pattern in Kashmir, but the Madrassahs were left intact, so that children would be forced to get only Islamic brainwashing and nothing else. A whole generation in the Kashmir valley has grown up indoctrinated in the most primitive and violent aspects of Islamic ideology, that of pretending “peace” as long as weak in numbers and launch violent expansion against non-Muslims as soon as sufficient numerical strength is reached. By allowing this to happen and protecting Islamic erasure of the pre-Islamic cultural roots of the Kashmiri’s the Congress has now brought India to a point where separatist support is widespread. Just as the British left no longer capable of coping with the mess they created in India the Congress too will retreat, leaving the non-Muslim people of India to suffer the brunt of their mismanagement.

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Leftist Islam or Islamic Left : Rizwanur properly vindicated and Tasleema properly exiled

Posted on August 16, 2008. Filed under: Bangladesh, Communist, India, Muslims, Politics, religion |

The CBI has recommended chargesheets to be drawn against suspected abettors of the “suicide” of Rizwanur, husband of a daughter of an influential and prosperous Hindu Todi “business” family currently residing in Kolkata. The case  was initially  tried  by the media, with  widespread  public anger expressed against the Todi family  which  stopped just short of  calling the father-in-law of Rizwanur as the killer or hirer of assassins of Rizwanur. A high ranking police officer in Kolkata was also indirectly implicated, and the net widened daily in the public discourse like a modern who-dun-it – with the “usual suspects” – “upper class” “business house” “elite”. The case was a high profile one, and it took the form of a trial of “hindu right wing” fundamentalism that was so anti-liberal that it could not tolerate the pure love that broke religious barriers – with the underlying implication as apparently in this particular case, that barriers are always put up by “Hindus”.

For a long time the Hindu-Muslim marriage or love-affairs have intrigued me and I found some of the most interesting stories or a majority of the stories were never brought up by the media or were in public discourse. Only those stories are widely publicized that shows Hindu resistance to marriages or romantic connections between Hindu girls and Muslim boys. I will discuss this in a subsequent series of posts. However in this case, what is more interesting is the fact that a Muslim agitation was successful in panicking the bastion of the Left in India – the West Bengal Government  led  by the  CPI(M)  to quietly and quickly banish Tasleema Nasreen –  the exiled Bangladeshi  lady  and writer  from the city of  “joy” and all things “progressive”. Tasleema  has long been at the centre of two controversies – (1) her apparently candid and not necessarily “authenticated” writings about sexual intrigue and sexual harassment of women at all levels of Bangladeshi society and by all sections of the male population – from the “most sophisticated and educated” to the least (2) her criticism and description of atrocities on minority Hindus of Bangladesh  by Muslims.

It was primarily the second controversy, that intensified after the publication of her book “Lajja” (Shame) which explicitly describes atrocities by Muslims on Hindus, that fatwas (Islamic diktats) poured forth from the liberal Islamic society and leadership of Bangladesh. With open threats on life in typical Islamic fashion (of beheading or declaring “murtad”) which were not protested by the liberal and progressive government of a “people’s republic” of Bangladesh, Tasleema decided to leave Bangladesh. After travelling widely in the West, Tasleema had tried to return to the subcontinent. For a writer in Bengali, Tasleema’s natural choice would be West Bengal and the city of Kolkata.

However, the Muslim population of West Bengal promptly began to react against the presence of Tasleema. They ultimately managed to burst out in rioting processions through the streets of Kolkata, and the brave custodians of revolutionary fervour, the Communists of West Bengal promptly buckled  under the pressure. Tasleema was quietly removed to Rajasthan and placed under semi-virtual house arrest. Tasleema has since gone out of the country to the West and returned again, trying wistfully to return to her friends and well-wishers in Kolkata. The governments both at the centre and the state have opened their  mouths saturated with infinite wisdom – she is a guest , should behave as a guest , and not do anything that disturbs the “peace”  of the country.  Apparently if Islam in India sneezes the whole country catches cold. The guardians of principle, and morality who flaunted their “principled stand” in the runup to the trust vote in the parliament on the N-deal, those very people who claim to stand above narrow communal feelings and stand for the forces of freedom, liberation, justice and progress find Islam’s inherent murderous hatred of its critics worth supporting or giving in to – but Tasleemas right to freely speak about what she felt were injustices done to a minority under the guidance of a religion were not worth supporting.

So Rizwanur gets justice in India, and Tasleema who spoke about atrocities on minority Hindus  across the border  is a  persona-non-grata  or a gagged “guest” in India. Maybe Hindus will learn from the success of this Islamic strategy of manipulation as they have learnt from Kashmiri Muslims in Jammu. Any Indian government with any spine left should have offered Tasleema Indian citizenship, and therefore with automatic rights of protection from the Indian establishment. That would have completed the partial attempt at pretending to be impartial by recommending “abettors” to be chargesheeted.

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Musharraf’s departure will signal increased Pakistani support of terror in India, and Jammu agitators will be disappointed.

Posted on August 9, 2008. Filed under: China, Communist, India, Kashmir, Muslims, Pakistan, Politics, terrorism |

It is possible that Kiani can decide to “divorce” his patron, Musharraf. Kiani rose through handling the ISI at a period when ISI had been the key inspiration, motivator, and maintainer of terror in India through Islamic militants as well as indirect connections to other separatist and insurgent groups. At the moment, Musharraf is perhaps just one man to be sacrificed and offered on a plate to the politicians in return for a free hand in “dealing” with India, with sufficient resources diverted from the tight domestic budget to support any expensive cross-border terror activity.

If Musharraf goes, it will only be a signal for further escalation of terror in India.

Why is the conquering of the Indian part of Kashmir so important for the Muslim elite of Pakistan?

The main reason is of course the geo-strategic importance of Kashmir for the jealous regional superpower China. Getting this region out of India’s hands allows China a a wider base and corridor through Pakistan to the Indian Ocean, cuts off India from the proximity to the Central Asian Republics, Afghanistan and Russia. For Pakistan this also means fertile river valleys with agricultural land, since Islam needs agrarian economy as the preferable mode which reduces the risk of “contamination” from modern science. China’s backpatting of India for its role in keeping the Tibetans under tight wraps should not be taken as sincere. China will negotiate and put pressure on India more to gain recognition of the Indian territories it had militarily occupied, as well as liquidation of the Tibetan independence movement – these could be secret conditions for China’s non-opposition at the NSG.

Kashmiri Muslims who now shout of Kashmiri nationalism, will quickly shut their mouths up once Pakistan manages to conquer the rest of Kashmir – since it is not nationalism but Islam, and a recent 20th century version of Wahabi/Sunni Islam and not the diverse historical and “diffuse” versions of Kashmiri Islam, that the Kashmiri Muslims want to establish. It is so significant to note that in none of emotional speeches of the Hurryiat leader’s mouths we hear anything about the “demographics” of “Muslim” Kashmir before the Islamic militancy, no mention of the Hindus living among Muslims forced to leave. It is the modern post-cleansing “demographics” that they are so “concerned” about “preserving” – obviously, it pays to be silent about “pre-Islamic” history as everywhere in modern Islam (or at most concede, that it was all a period of “absolute darkness”).

Once Indian Kashmir is occupied with Chinese help, Pakistan’s Muslim elite will promote Islamic militancy in adjacent areas of China, probably already even started secretly promoting militancy in Mao’s and CCP’s beloved Muslim tribal allies of Yunnan during the “Hunan” days. It will be great fun to watch the stolid beaming faces of the Chinese leadership as Islamic militancy increases in North-West China. Tibetans were easy to crush as they were spiritually motivated and tamed by Buddhism gaining respect for the human rights of “non-followers” of their religion. But these will be Muslim militants, who are exhorted to adopt any terror tactic they can think of in their core texts and not shy away from any relentless sadistic activity that can subjugate a “non-believer” with desirable resources – land, property, women. Communists have never managed to fight off Islam – let us see the “Sinification of Marxism” try and do it!

The “peace conference”, with the Amarnath Sangharsh Samity will probably end inconclusively. The UPA has strong components of pro-Islamic forces, but with the classic detachment of Indian non-Muslim elite from their own underclasses, which had always prompted them to rely on foreign powers more than their own communities, the UPA leaders will fail to understand the phenomenon in Jammu. They will now try the “ABCD” of management, “Avoid, Bypass, Confuse, Delay”, as they will be too scared in their fear that any concession to the Samity will go against the UPA prospects in elections – by appearing to strengthen the “Hindu” and by “alienating” the Muslims.

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

The never ending saga of Nandigram : communist chickens coming home to roost

Posted on August 7, 2008. Filed under: Bengal, Communist, economics, India, Politics |

The communist program of an agrarian revolution both in economic as well as political sense, started after the apparent success of Mao and Chu Teh’s peasant army in China. In contrast to the Bolshevik revolution which was almost entirely launched and brought to completion by non-communist Cronstadt sailors and army units won over by Bolshevik agitators, with help from armed workers in the key cities of Petrograd and Moscow, the Chinese revolution was a long drawn process. Starting with the then classic communist model of “proletariat” led revolutions, the pragmatists of the nascent Chinese communist movement soon realized, that the numbers needed to capture power could only come from the underclass of China – the peasants. The changeover in policy took decades, with the Comintern under Stalin creating considerable damages in its ideological diktats from afar. Only after the Shanghai massacre, and unsuccessful “city uprisings”, did Mao and Chu Teh defied “party line” and retreated to the central highlands. There they regrouped, rethought strategy, and created the concept of “fluid base areas” and “fluid warfare”. However this policy ultimately faced its greatest difficulty in the encirclement campaigns of Chiang Kai Shek, and is a critical point in understanding dealing with “Naxal” violence in India. To avoid complete annihilation, the 8th Route Army of CCP broke out of this encirclement and declared to go to the north to fight “invading Japanese” – the romantic and arduous Long March. It was a brilliant strategic move to use the remoteness of western China from penetration of Kuo Min Tang forces, rally nationalist sentiments while preserving the core of Red Army strength, and most importantly recruit the peasantry and agricultural labourers into the communist cause by carrying out land reforms.

In south Asia, and especially in India, this programme of land reforms with land redistribution in favour of the landless, became an attractive strategy for the Communist parties, and a strong component of their official polemical battles were aligned along the degree and nature of this “land reforms”. The CPI(M)’s strongest support base after its electoral success (which probably started as a city based electoral revolution with the powerful influential sections of Indian society’s opinion mobilizers deciding to switchover from the Congress which had helped decimate this class’s younger next generation in the “Naxal” annihilation campaigns) was from the grateful rural poor benefiting from the CPI(M) led Left Front’s land reforms and local self government (Panchayat) activation strategies.

This overwhelming reliance on agrarian reforms in the short while ushered in economic growth. But the long term fallouts of their policies, as usual, were not thought out by the communists (probably also inevitable, with the annihilation or export of a generation of brains in the Naxal movement, and as discussed before in this blog, the peculiar organization structure of the Communist parties itself a gradual “thinner” of vision and intellect). Burdened, just like the Old Labour in UK, with an intransigent and semi-independent militant labour union movement which behaved as if it operated already in an imagined dictatorship of the proletariat (in reality all known successful Communist dictatorships ruthlessly liquidated all rebellious labour movements) and therefore need not understand anything about capitalist economics, the CPI(M) long neglected industrialization. The Centre at Delhi carried out its old policy of extracting maximum capital transfer from Bengal to benefit its own upper Indian support base (nothing new, it had been going on from Delhi Sultanate times and quite well recorded in Mughal times), as well as penalizing the Bengalis for supporting a “Communist” regime. To the Communists the “Tatas and Birlas” were replacements of the old devils in religions, since their adherence to prescribed theories from their European, Russian and Chinese “Gurus” had to be forced on to Indian reality. So no private capital, no state capital, no foreign direct investment which meant “licking Imperialist boots”.

Sooner or later, this would have inevitably alienated the urban populations, as unemployment would grow. Many of them had some supplementary income from lands held in the countryside, but now even these had been taken over by the “party” in the localities. [ During a visit to observe the “agrarian reforms process” this author had seen how a Local Committee secretary had absorbed 18 bighas of land to create a private orchard, and established an “unprotected” stone chipping machine which sent stone dust all over adjoining paddy fields and gradually destroyed them for agriculture. The lands were then “bought” by the Secretary at a pittance. Similar acquisitions of property were quite common in many areas this author visited. Many of these Communist leaders were second or third generations of erstwhile “class enemies” and many of the genuine Communist cadre had been gradually eased out of the Party hierarchy].

Now as land and economics gets concentrated again in the hands of a dominant rural elite using and being supported by the party, increasing population pressure [West Bengal has a miraculous population growth rate compared to the rest of the country, which cannot be analyzed as it may anger Muslims and especially Bangladeshi Muslims], means increasing migration to the cities and towns in search of livelihood. This huge unemployed urban poor or marginal populations can swing the votes against CPI(M) just as it did in Congress times against the Congress. This finally forced the state party to wake up and try a volte-face – pretend to “industrialize”.

Reality implies collaborating with the hated enemies – the private capital from “big bourgeoisie”, the state capital from an alliance with the Congress at the Centre, and FDI from “capitalist imperialists”. But here it comes into conflict with the rural economy it has created and its abominably short sighted experiments with education and higher education which did not promote or encourage excellence, originality, awareness of technology driven modern industrialization and the economy. Whoever in the rural economy has survived on a share of the land redistribution, would now hold on to it for dear life. Combining this with a very likely inherently arrogant and dictatorial as well as ruthless “local party hierarchy”, things can very easily reach boiling point. This is what has happened in Nandigram. All forces opposed to the CPI(M) have now concentrated their efforts into this “bridgehead”, and it will be nearly impossible for the CPI(M) to turn this around – the people involved have tasted “blood” in the recent local government elections by winning against the “party”.

Mamata Bannerjee and her friends are probably trying to send a message to the TATAs, that the latter should negotiate directly with them. It is doubtful that the TATAs will listen – even with a small loss, it will be better for them in the long run to move their facilities elsewhere in more “reliable” areas, such as in Uttarakhand. On the other hand simple economic short term calculation may make them appear to give in a bit to Mamata Bannerjee. Some of the CPI(M) leaders have asked the unemployed youth of Bengal to think about what action they need to take about those who are opposing industrialization. But these unemployed youth have no clear direct manifestation before them as to how exactly they will benefit in terms of employment from these few capital intensive modern industries employing few and the skilled. Moreover, there will be the nagging suspicion that only “catches” and references from influential “Party” leadership can see them through to actual employment in the few positions available. There will not be much direct and obvious “mass action” against the opposition at Nandigram.

It is the credibility of the Party as a whole which is at stake. It is hard to see what the Party can do in the short term to really reinvent itself as trustworthy by the urban majority and sections of rural middle. The Left may not immediately lose majority in the Assembly but its lead can get substantially diminished. And over the nexet decade, it may lose its grip .

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Surjeet and Solzhenitsyn passes away – lives coming back in full circles

Posted on August 4, 2008. Filed under: Communist, Politics, Russia, Solzhenitsyn, Surjeet |

Harkishen Singh Surjeet, one of the the architects of centre-left coalition governments in its Indian form has passed away. So has, Alexander Solzhenitsyn, the most intriguing voice of Russian dissidence against the Soviet Government. Surjeet started his political career as a teenage Congress enthusiast who risked being shot by forces under the British to raise a flag, when the flag-raising venture had been virtually abandoned by regular Congress volunteers because of the shoot at sight orders. From this Surjeet graduated to the Socialist faction within the Congress, and finally into the Communist Party of India. But what Surjeet so successfully revived was the early anti-Trotskyte dogma within Stalin dominated post-Lenin Comintern – form national fronts with “progressive national bourgeoisie” against colonial imperialists. As in most Soviet era polemics the primary reason for this dogma was two-fold : (1) take an opposite position to that of Trotsky whose policies appeared to extend revolutionary fervour across the world (2) the more practical reality of Stalin’s illusion that he could get on with the West, particularly the USA, whose industrialist “darling of capitalism” Ford, got involved in early Soviet industrialization. Typically Stalin managed to dump all responsibility for the horrendous consequences that befell the nascent Communists in Asia (like the CCP in China which had 27000 decapitated in a single day in Shanghai, by their erstwhile “progressive national bourgeois” ally – the Kuomindang of Chiang Kai Shek) on “right deviationists” and “party wreckers”. By early 30’s Totskytes had been effectively liquidated, and Stalin felt safe enough to attack the “Right” officially associated with Bukharin and blamed the horrors of the National Front policies (among other “errors”) on “Bukharinites” and removed them from party-power (since the party was the state apparatus itself in the USSR, this meant virtual proscription). National Front policies remained “untouchable” with instruction from the Comintern to the Asian colonies under imperialism to join National liberation struggles with or without “national bourgeoisie”, until the beginning of WWII, when desired alliance with the West led to a sudden switch-over. Most of the Communists in early 1942 India were in favour of and to a certain extent involved in the “Quit India” movement. The Communists in jails had a sudden “change of heart” and realized that the “greatest danger” was that of fascism, and that Communists should immediately start collaborating with the British as part of defending Soviet socialism from Fascists (there is an inexplicable lag in the change of policy between “jailed” and “free” Communists – with the strange case of the “jailed” getting whiff of Comintern winds before their “free” comrades). This was definitely convenient for the British, as they now had access to a small but determined group with native connections who had not only been weaned away from the 1942 struggle which in many places were beginning to show signs of violent overthrow of British Rule, but could also possibly serve as additional eyes and ears of the administration. At this time, Gandhi’s “conscience” bit him badly, and he also decided in favour of helping the British War effort. So a degree of collaboration could develop between Congress and the Communists, although it did not last, just as the similar honeymoon between the Chinese CP and Kuo Min Dang was short lived.

Th collaboration issues resurfaced with the split of the CPI into CPI and CPI(M). At this time initially, CPI(M) was against collaborating with the Congress, while CPI was in favour. Internal factional power struggles got mixed up in polemical battles typical in Communist history, with the classic cyclical patterns of periodic complete reversals of policies and positions. CPI(M) itself got a taste of power, and hence got hooked to coalitional governments after forming state governments in Kerala and West Bengal with rebel factions of Congress, and other left forces whom they had vehemently fought with before over questions of nationalism and interpretations of Marx and Lenin.

Surjeet, together with Jyoti Basu, simply revived the old Comintern idea of a collaborational effort within “non-military” versions of Communist capture of state power. The Communist ideology of action only by precedence within selective strands of “Marxism”, implies that present “forces” have to be identified with “similar” forces in the “glorious battles” of communism in the past. Surjeet was recreating the classic 1942 Soviet position that “everything else” was to be subjugated to the need to “fight fascists”. Perhaps, on a subconscious level this is a cover for the (1) practical political perception that Communism on its own has a very restricted power base (the fact that determined minorities can hijack state power in the face of apathy of society as a whole is a consistent feature of all “glorious revolutions”) (2) the psychological proximity to “class and cultural” origins. Thus Surjeet’s politics came full circle in returning to alliance with the Congress.

Solzhenitsyn was worlds apart from Surjeet. A Russian Red Army officer, who was arrested for allegedly caricaturing Stalin, to be shut up in Gulag internment as part of a general Stalinist suspicion of anyone who did not lick his boots. (totalitarian leaders usually hate most their mockers, from the Prophet of Islam to Stalin) Stalin had decimated the old Bolshevik reconstructed Tsarist and revolutionary armies transformed under Trotsky into the Red Army. The decimation was part of Stalin’s power struggle and his extreme jealousy and intolerance of people intellectually brighter than himself, including Trotsky, who had the single largest contribution in the formation of the Red Army. Stalin’s suspicion of the Red Army continued unabated until Hitler’s attack, and continued even throughout the war. There were some real grounds for Stalin’s suspicions as there had been substantial support for the advancing Germans among the German communities living in south-western Russia from the time of Peter I. Stalin’s extreme brutality and cynical annihilation of large chunks of the Russian population (or his system that allowed “courtiers” to settle personal scores of their own) definitely created conditions under which loyalties could be shaken. However, Solzhenitsyn’s decorated military creer proved that there was a possibility that he was a genuine patriot. He could have been kept under watch, or given non-frontline duties, or assigned to the partisans, but still given a chance to prove himself. This is the basic and fundamental failure of the Communist model of Stalin, it has no concept of redemption, no faith and confidence in the self to inspire and change others, leading to blind and overwhelming reliance on terror. (Eric Hoffer of course thought that terror was a more reliable instrument to ensure loyalty to mass movements than ideology).

Solzhenitsyn is a curious dissident. Born of a Tsarist Army officer dad, and a highly educated mother who was a daughter of a self-made landed gentry, Solzhenitsyn trained to be a mathematician, and by his own admission had no questions about the state ideology he was then taught through his philosophy courses. He is not an avid critic of the authoritarian system as such and his treatment at the hands of the state did not affect his patriotic feelings. However, it appears that he started to explore the origins of the Soviet system, through an analysis of the individuals who led to the formation of the system. His first ever book that I read was “One day in the Life of Ivan Denisovitch”, and I can still quote from memory passages from the book. The most poignant line from the book was the description about how important was the last bite of bread in the daily meal for the Gulag prisoner Ivan – as the piece of bread was crucial in mopping up all remnant traces of the soup in the bowl – crucial for Ivan’s survival as nothing, not even a single drop of soup could be wasted. For literary critics, this book is his high point, and “Lenin in Zurich”, a smaller extract from his much bigger work, “August, 1914”, a documentary devoted to “single-minded deconstruction of the motivations of the Bolsheviks”, with an attempt at painting “Lenin” as a Hofferian “fanatic” bent on imposing his will with absolute contempt for the “masses”, and for other “Bolsheviks” and for anyone else in general. “Gulag Archipelago” is the most scathing of his documentary style, and it takes a lot of determination to force oneself to read through descriptions of deliberately organized rape of the women related to condemned ex-Bolsheviks or Red Army men, while on journey in prison trains through Siberia. Was Solzhenitsyn lying? I do not think so. For the Communist regime in absolute power, like any other totalitarian regime like that of Pinochet or Franco or the ancient and modern religious fanatics, everything is allowed, rape is just another instrument of coercion, the act supremely enjoyable not only for the sense of power it gives to the rapist deputed by the authorities, but also for the authorities themselves who enjoy the pain of the raped.

He described the problems of both East and West as “a disaster” rooted in agnosticism and atheism. He thought it was “the calamity of an autonomous, irreligious humanistic consciousness.”

“It has made man the measure of all things on earth—imperfect man, who is never free of pride, self-interest, envy, vanity, and dozens of other defects. We are now paying for the mistakes which were not properly appraised at the beginning of the journey. On the way from the Renaissance to our days we have enriched our experience, but we have lost the concept of a Supreme Complete Entity which used to restrain our passions and our irresponsibility.”http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/arch/solzhenitsyn/harvard1978.html

Like Surjeet, Solzhenitsyn had returned full circle, in his case to his mystical, spiritual roots of the society he originated in, and the philosophical concerns of the social class he happened to be born in. But being a creative man he probably escaped the fate of being a Bolshevik fanatic almost all of whom had origins in similar social backgrounds.

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Speaker of the Parliament : Somnath the destroyer, Somnath the expelled, Somnath the President?

Posted on July 23, 2008. Filed under: Communist, India, Politics |

In Indian mythology, Somnath is a name for Shiva, the destroyer of worlds. In some sectarian interpretations he is also the “original” (Adi) father of the world. Somnath Chatterjee as the speaker,  presided competently and superbly over the trust vote, which ultimately led to the triumph of the UPA. He did not allow any controversy to derail the voting process. This is in essence the destruction of the momentum being gathered by the Left+Mayavati alliance. I think Somnath’s stature as a mature and independent decision-maker has increased outside the CC and PB of the CPI(M). It is also quite possible, that Somnath Chatterjee will be the next Presidential candidate again (after his chances being scuttled the first time by the PB) indirectly and tacitly supported by both the Congress as well as the BJP.

It was almost a foregone conclusion that the dominant faction in the PB of the CPI(M) will try to expel Somnath Chatterjee. If ever the CPI(M) gets again the chance to nominate a Speaker, they will send the most unimaginative, dull and intellectually incapable member to ensure army-like discipline. Mainstream Left in the Hindi belt will almost never succeed, and the group holding a disproportionate proportion of power in the CPI(M) compared to actual representation in party membership will ultimately drag the Left movement down. If the CPI(M) wants to survive, they should take a page out of the Chinese Communist book, and dump top party leadership who fail to perform.

The CPI(M) follows a party model that developed under repressive autocratic regimes, as discussed in our previous posts, and the model almost always is in trouble within democratic systems. The seeds of this doubt and problem can even be seen as early as in Engels’ plea in favour of the “parliamentary” road (the Kautsky debate). However, the lack of grasp of political reality, as again pointed out many times in my posts, was revealed in a very obvious way in the manner in which the CPI(M) handled the whole issue of the Nuclear Deal and the trust vote.

In the Hindi belt the most enthusiastic supporters within the upcoming generations of the Leftist ideology will veer more and more towards the Naxals, and the latter’s brand of direct military or terrorist intervention in favour of “disempowered” sections will be more and more appealing towards anyone leaning towards the communist way. Such an event would be regrettable, as the previous experience with early Naxalites simply resulted in strengthening of the militant Right, and almost a decimation of an entire generation of intellect – as the state authorities specifically targeted the “brains”.

It is a turning point for the CPI(M). It has to decide quickly which way it should go – continue with unimaginative ideologues without a grasp and feel of the nation’s pulse, and risk reducing in size and influence as with so many other previous ideologues of the communist movement – or become flexible enough to rally around a much more adaptive and realistic policy. They should remember that the major successes of the world communist movements have almost always been based on practical issues – the “bread, land, peace” slogan of Lenin, or “land for the peasant, fight the bad gentry and the Japanese” slogan of Mao, and not on abstruse finer points of “the inversion of the Hegelian dialectic”. We know what happened when the communists became powerful enough to insist on “rigorous discipline” – it led to the trial and execution of Radek in Lenin’s presence, that Radek who had been instrumental in arranging for negotiations between Lenin and the German government to provide safe passage in a covered railway carriage and resources for Lenin and his followers to enter Russia from exile and take up their role in an eventual take-over of power that also ensures the closure of the Russian front. This discipline resulted in Trotsky’s murder and the infamous Moscow trials (and executions) under Vyshinsky and Yagoda – and more importantly almost the entire commanding section of the Red Army – a fact leading to the early reversals (combined with the then General Secretary Stalin’s supreme faith in his own abilities) in WWII. Communist discipline almost always appears to be a cover for incompetent paranoid leadership blues – and perhaps an awareness and jealousy of superior ability in others.

Somnath has been expelled. But it is good for Somnath’s health and the country’s as well.

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Trust Vote 5 – the old order changeth, yielding place to new

Posted on July 22, 2008. Filed under: Communist, India, Nuclear, Politics |

Why do I write this? If Congress wins, isn’t it so that the “old order remains”! If Congress fails today, BJP+Mayavati+Left wins, and all of them are now also part of the old “order”. The BJP now perhaps realizes that the initiative may very well be passing into the hands of Mayavati+Karat’s hands, and postponement of a strategic deal with the West may not only be a reality but in fact it could actually lead to a complete reversal of policy at the hands of BSP+Left.

From a strategic viewpoint, nuclear weapons capability is practically of little use, as a weapon of war to be used in conflicts with neighboring countries. For the long foreseeable future, there are only two nuclear threats for India – China and Pakistan. Both countries share border with India, and any use of nuclear weapons will affect both the user as well as the intended target. China of course has greater flexibility in that it can (foolishly) think of sacrificing Tibet (as contaminated territory) , but Pakistan’s choices are severely limited. The entire subcontinent shares an intimate geo-ecological connection, and to a lesser extent with China. Any military confrontation that India may have to face and participate in for strategic reasons will be fought in the conventional way, will be swift and decisive. Such conflicts will only follow extreme and deliberate provocation, (perhaps even a provocation engineered strategically by the “provoked”) and economic or climatological collapse.

Thus from a practical sense, nitpicking over weapons capabilities are useless. More important consequence of the Nuclear Deal will be the acceptance of India as a responsible, and more importantly as a country strong and confident enough to graciously stoop down a bit in compromise. Territorial and other expansions in the subcontinent will more likely take place through peaceful economic measures and voluntary accretions rather than conquest.

Without invoking Hegel’s “hidden hand of history”, I feel that the overall trend of socio-economic development of forces on the Indian subcontinent given the background processes going on around in the countries surrounding it, is an inexorable movement towards modernization and resurgence towards its natural potential as an extremely productive and innovative society.

The two successful “communist nations” Russia and China were innovative and resourceful societies from way before Marx was born, and their spectacular technological and scientific progress was simply the result of an intensive capital accumulation process under state control utilizing the inherent pre-communist potentials. Communist parties long in state power concentrate “apparatchiks” who are singularly conservative, jealous, and without vision and serve rather as brakes on the economy. In Russia refusal to recognize this fact to the very bitter end led to the dismemberment of the CPSU, and the Chinese saved themselves temporarily by resorting to their legendary strategic flexibility. The Indian communists have been spectacularly resistant to forward looking vision – they vehemently opposed IT and automation, they opposed FDI for industrialization, the “Tata-Birla” epithet was for them synonymous with vile and hated untouchable enemies – and they also have proved remarkably consistent in doing a volte-face on these “non-negotiable, correct Marxist positions” roughly in about 20-25 years down the line.

Mayavati+Left+others may become “king makers” staking claim for kingship. But it will not be a long run. Socio-economic reality will push India towards a greater convergence with the Western world.

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 1 so far )

Karat vs Somnath+Subhash

Posted on July 20, 2008. Filed under: Communist, India, Politics |

Prakash Karat has roared. He has declared that the “decision about the Speaker” will be taken by the Politbureau, and that Subhash Chakraborty – the “bad boy” and maverick of the West Bengal party, (an exceptionally bright student, debater and student leader of his time) is being “officially admonished” (an expression borrowed from the early days of Bolshevism, and applied liberally to enemies of Stalin) for “public disputation and criticism of the Party Line”. As predicted in an earlier post, there would be no spectacular split, as already Subhash Chakraborty has written a letter of apology to the Party Centre. What will Somnath Chatterjee do – in the extreme, he will preside over the trust vote and try his best to preserve the UPA government. On the other extreme, he may decide to conform. Either way the party will have a hard time afterwards convincing him to stay on in active politics.

Prakash Karat’s crusade against the Congress is perhaps more virulent because the initial alliance and support to Congress was also pushed through under the excuse of staving off communal forces over and above the misgivings of its major resource base the West Bengal party. Collaboration with “class enemies” was usually justified during Comintern days almost always by “superior national interests” which in turn was almost always a cover for CPSU or CCP interests.

Compromises with the “wrong” elements, however they are sought to be justified as, inevitably leads in the end to a departure from original objectives. The overwhelming eagerness to make its mark in the Hindi belt, is pushing the Party Centre towards a path that will ultimatley see the weakening and irrelevance of the party.

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Nuclear Deal and Trust Vote – I

Posted on July 18, 2008. Filed under: Communist, India, Muslims, Nuclear, Politics |

The trust vote on the nuclear issue is taking place on the 22nd. It will be an interesting day, with probably punters and bookies having a field day on the betting lines. What does astrology say about this? – the answers will of course depend to a great extent on the personal wishes of the astrologer and/or that of the wishes of the majority of his clients. Empirically, (and I admit, on a very frivolous note) India seems to have gone through 30-year cycles of significant changes – 1917, 1947, 1977, and the missing year is perhaps 2007. Should it happen in 2008! That is the task of the astrologer!

What will happen in case Congress fails the trust vote? It will mean elections earlier than scheduled. What if it wins? All the political groups, both for and against will breathe a sigh of relief. No one other than sections of the BJP are keen on elections. And this is the key mood guiding politicians now – they are completely uncertain about which way the actual population will swing. Either way, democratic partisan politics loses its stature before the electorate. The Left will appear to be bent on scoring ideological points and not above worshipping sectarian or communal boots, the BJP bent on preventing the Congress getting credit for something which in reality was “their baby”, the Congress indulging shamelessly again a la P.V.NaraSimha Rao in Mughal Durbar style politics, where nazranas and favours decided which way the sun would rise on any given day, to buy MP’s.

My hunch is that the coming elections will throw up three major, groupings, – (1) Congress and allies (2) BJP and allies (3) Mayavati+Left+Muslim League (???). This is a highly uncertain and unstable equilibrium. The 3rd group if it at all comes together, will come together only on issues and have serious differences as to ideology and more importantly will have a deadly competition for votes on the same electoral group. The 3rd group may not be able to attain majority in the Parliament, but will prove a significant “king-making” group and may very well stake the claim to form a government with the outside support of Congress (the formal reason given for the rapprochement between the Congress, the Left and Mayavati being “secularism”). If such a government forms it will not last long, by historical experience only until the major groups feel confident of facing another election, probably in about 1-3 years. Left will again not gain ultimately from such an alliance.

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

A split in the Left ? No way!

Posted on July 17, 2008. Filed under: Communist, India, Nuclear, Politics |

There is a huge amount of gossip making the rounds of Indian media – the speculation that Somnath Chatterjee, CPI(M) MP and the Honbl., Speaker of the Indian Parliament has sent an open letter to the party, and probably delivered primarily to the higher committees like the CC and the PB. The letter is supposed to have been written on plain paper and not on the Speaker’s letterhead, and indicated his opposition to voting against the Congress on the floor of the parliament on the nuclear deal. Apparently the PB instructed its members to burn all copies for secrecy.

The gossip could have originated from political quarters hoping to boost the morale of the pro-deal groups. The “burning” makes the authenticity of the news doubtful though. Although Communist political history throughout the globe abounds in stories of intrigue, and the deepest of political skull-duggery, this last flourish in the news item makes all this a bit too dramatic. First, for this last piece to be true, one of the PB members has to tell the outside world about the “secret letter”, which is highly unlikely given the very small size of the group. It could only realistically happen if one or more members of the PB have decided to embarrass their GS, or if the leak took place from someone close to or sympathetic to Somnath Chatterjee as well as having access to the PB. Such incidents were very common in the early days of the Bolsheviks in Soviet power, when “left-deviation” alternated with “right-deviation” almost every other year and definitely from one party congress to the next.

A story about an instruction to burn or destroy potentially embarrassing documents or records is not without precedence in Communist history, and appear in the annals of the Soviet Communist Party – the famous ones being the so-called “request to Stalin to be given poison to commit suicide” by Lenin, and pages of “Lenin’s last will and testament” where Lenin had apparently dubbed Stalin extremely “arrogant”, and a potential threat to the Party with inordinate concentration of power as GS. But even if these were true stories, there were specific factional in-fights at these times which would have justified suppression or destruction of potentially embarrassing leaks to the ruling instantaneous coalition, and in spite of which the cornered faction would still make the leak.

As pointed out in my previous blog, I don’t think that anything resembling the spectacular splits of the past in the Indian Communist movement will take place now. Those were the times when becoming a Communist was dangerous in the face of violent state repression, and it primarily attracted or promoted to leadership members of the intellectual and well connected caste/class elite. These were also dedicated people of fiercely independent intellect and perhaps in an indirect way also looking for recognition, dominance and power. The small party however tried to hold on to them to the very last point when a split became inevitable. The formation of the CPI, its expulsions and purges following the whimsical twists of the Comintern, its first significant splits in 1948 in the Telengana region, split in the 60’s forming CPI(M), and in the early 70’s forming the CPI(ML), and finally into the 14 odd splinter groups of the CPI(ML), all follow this classic struggle for leadership cloaked under abstract polemical debates.

With the electoral success of the CPI(M), however, the Party needed to quickly expand for various reasons. It also attracted people who saw that it was the new regime which would now need to be used for preservation and advancement – a phenomenon as old as the period following Soviet take over of Russia leading to a consolidation of the apparatchik regime sequentially of Lenin, Trotsky and Stalin, and in India, right after Independence, when individuals and sections within Indian society who had actively collaborated and supported the British against the pro-Independence groups suddenly switched their allegiance and in many instances were even given electoral tickets.

The party structure requiring “selection” of committee members by members of “higher” committees, and then within that committee decisions being taken by majority voting, meant that leaders needed majority support from their committee members. It became therefore advantageous to select members who would be loyal in internal power struggles, and as history of organization amply show – weaknesses in the form of lack of independent thought or popularity, or “problems” in the background, make for the best loyalty and dependence. Gradually this will mean replacement of lower committees with members who are dependent on their higher-ups for party positions and influence or stature, and consequently are also increasingly distant from the non-partisan population because of the very lack of qualities that make them attractive as committee members.

This is what usually degenerates a Communist Party long in state power from within, and in this phase spectacular splits are no longer feasible. It will not happen with Somnath Chatterjee either. The maximum that can happen is a scaling down of Prakash Karat’s power in the next Party Congress, with the subtle signals given out in promotions to the PB and CC. Neither will there be any deviation from Prakash Karat’s stated target of punishing the Congress for going forward with the nuclear deal as reflected in the public and parliamentary behaviour of the party.

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Tension within the Left – fireworks for the future

Posted on July 14, 2008. Filed under: Communist, India, Nuclear, Politics |

The CPI(M) general secretary, Prakash Karat, appears to have softened his line about the Honbl. Speaker of the Indian Parliament, Somnath Chatterjee, an MP from the CPI(M), to resign as part of the withdrawal of support from the UPA government. This episode, is an interesting and revealing facet of how the politics of Soviet style leftist parties (not the RSDLP or even the Bolshevik party until about the death of Lenin) get twisted around by the realpolitik of Indian historical reality.

The “communist” party of the Russian Empire (it formally declared itself communist after the revolution) bore the stamps of the peculiar conditions under which it grew up. Without getting too deep into the historical reasons, we can summarize the party structure as that of a tightly controlled organized but small group led by full-time dedicated “professional” revolutionaries, who form an even more tightly homogenized nucleus of leadership. More significantly, the party leadership, unlike that of its frontal organizations, is chosen almost entirely in reality by selection but with the decision making within committees carried out formally by voting. Elsewhere, we will see, how this peculiar organizational structure born out of specific early 20th century Russian conditions, when copied or imposed in other parts of the world because of its apparent success, created both successes and failures.

More relevant for our context is the fact that, this model is also followed by the CPI(M) in India. What were the reasons for consistently and mostly choosing General Secretary’s from middle and northwestern India? Formally of course the leadership will reply, that the communists do not follow regionalism and casteism in the selection of their top leadership. But leadership of the communist top committees have usually been kept in the hands of communists originating from the deep South or from North-Western India, and usually from the middle to upper levels of so-called caste hierarchy.

A hidden practical argument could be the utility of such leaders in projection of the party into areas of India typically left out of the early British missionary-feudal-bashing proselytizing. These are the areas where the upper-castes carried much influence until the 80’s. The problem with the CPI(M) is perhaps because of its ideological blindness, it catches on to realpolitik much later, but always at a time when the conditions have already changed, so that any readjustments to policies always lag behind. Instead of Prakash Karat, realpolitik should have prompted the party to put someone from the “Dalit” background.

A completely different cause is much older than communism in India. The northwestern India enjoys a cultural and linguistic continuity primarily through various dialects of Hindi and caste and community linkages maintained by a strictly and sometimes violently maintained endogamy. However, it remains a fractured society, and historically has usually not been able to defend itself from disastrous foreign invasions and exploitation. Typically , they have only been able to reassert by using the depth and resources of the South and the East. So traditionally it was also important for North-Western Indian leadership to keep, maintain, and intensify divisions existing in the rest of India, (and to a certain extent even in its own backyard) so that small coteries could survive as the only mediating leadership (this is as true of Congress as well) and therefore control the resources of the entire nation, without really being representative of the nation.

As the Left is perhaps getting increasingly worried and uncertain about its absolute dominance on electoral outcomes in its mass-bases in Kerala and West Bengal, with West Bengal providing the largest number of party members and more importantly the financial and material resources important for the all-India Party, the practical fall-outs of the CC and Politbureau’s antics can provoke a rebellious reaction from sections within the Left leadership in the state. However the tradition of discipline, and the way party hierarchies are carefully screened of independent or original minds, after years of intensification during state power, has now practically removed any threat of the spectacular splits of the past. This will be a party which will slowly but surely disintegrate from within, as it happened in the USSR.

The BSP represents and depends as much on fractures within the society as so called communal-parties, and does not also have a wide penetration outside of the most fractured state of all, UP. Alliance with BSP for the CPI(M) will not work out well, as it will lose any support it potentially had from the Hindu middle class and castes in the Hindi belt, and the BSP will not allow its own electoral bases to be eaten into by CPI(M).

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Liked it here?
Why not try sites on the blogroll...