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 )

Only Muslims can burn holy texts : Kashmiri Muslims are simply being faithful

Posted on September 18, 2010. Filed under: Christians, Hindu, History, India, Islam, Islamic propaganda, Jihad, Kashmir, Kashmiri Pundit, Muslims, Nuclear, Pakistan, religion, terrorism, USA |

A couple of days ago, Kashmiri Muslims burnt down a school run by Anglicans in supposed retaliation for proposal to burn the Quran in the USA. Parvez Samuel Kaul, the prinicpal of the erstwhile school, opens up on this

Parvez’s name itself is a compact history of Kashmir which is suppressed by interested forces in the West keen to tag along to Islamic bandwagon – a history of pre-Islamic Indians desperately searching for ways to survive against a murderous and sadistically fanatic belief system. Kaul is a Kashmiri Pundit surname – indicator that the person descended from Kashmiri “Hindu” Brahmins. His ancestor probably converted and became a Muslim and hence his name of Parvez. Finally he or his ancestor became a Christian given his middle name of Samuel [ the Islamic form would have been Ishmael/Ismail]. But no matter what the Kashmiri tries out – nothing saves him from the sadism that originated from the deserts of 7th century Arabia.

Islamists worldwide claim repression on them and justify atrocities on Kashmiri Hindus or Sikhs by Kashmiri and other infiltrator Islamic terrorists, and many in the West take up their refrain – without caring to know the other side of the story.

Burning books of non-Muslims has always been a standard practice of muslims everywhere in their militant phase – when they are no longer militarily weak and capable of Jihad. They of course copy non-Muslim books and sources of knowledge when they are weak [as the Pakistani nuclear scientist AQ Khan copied and stole nuke tech while studying in the West] using the liberal values of the non-Muslim. But they neither have the gratitude nor the conscience to acknowledge this debt or extend protection when they win militarily. “Cordoba” is now often cited as a paragon of tolerance and academic cooperation , but its foundational history is now suppressed. Interested people can do some research on their own on the created myths of these “tolerant Moors” of “Al-Andalus”.

Muslims use the knowledge gained by non-Muslims if it helps in war, and they will steal, loot, and preserve such knowledge. But it is all for destruction of anything that reminds humanity of its real civilization – for to Islam anything other than what the early Islamic militants said was Jahilya – darkness. They will seek to erase all other human civilization’s histories and cultures and components as long as the last Muslim survives.

Book burning is core Islamic tactics – and they claim the right to protect their own “holy text” while burning the “holy texts” of all others.

Futûhãt-i-Fîrûz Shãhî This small history was written by the Delhi Sultanate period Islamist ruler  Sultãn Fîrûz Shãh Tughlaq (AD 1351-1388) himself. The writer of Tabqãt-i-Akbarî, Nizãm’ud-Dîn Ahmad, a 16th century historian, says that the Sultãn had got the eight chapters of his work inscribed on eight slabs of stone which were fixed on eight sides of the octagonal dome of a building near the Jãmi‘ Masjid at Fîrûzãbãd.

[At Gohana, located in the modern Indian state of Haryana]

“Some Hindûs had erected a new idol-temple in the village of Kohãna, and the idolaters used to assemble there and perform their idolatrous rites. These people were seized and brought before me. I ordered that the perverse conduct of the leaders of this wickedness should be publicly proclaimed, and that they should be put to death before the gate of the palace. I also ordered that the infidel books, the idols, and the vessels used in their worship, which had been taken with them, should all be publicly burnt. The others were restrained by threats and punishments, as a warning to all men, that no zimmî could follow such wicked practices in a Musulmãn country.” [Elliot and Dowson, History of India. Vol. III, pp. 380-81.]

Now let us come to Kashmir proper.

Writes Srivar, “The erudites of that period witnessing the en masse destruction of books by Muslims fled their land with some books through mountain routes.” Sikander Bushtikan organized state administration to get the houses of Pandits ransacked and looted and the choicest books retrieved were thrown into rivers, lakes and wells and hurled into deep ditches and ravines.

Walter Lawrence states that ” All books of Hindu Learning which he (Sikander) could find were sunk in the legal lake and after some time Sikander flattered himself that he had extirpated Hinduism from the valley.” An Islamic chronicler, Hassan, writes, ” All the Hindu books of learning were collected and thrown into Dal Lake and were buried beneath stones and earth.”

Jia Lal Kilam records, “Even in their miserable plight they (Pandits) did not forget their rich treasures which linked them with their past. They felt that they were custodians of their past cultural heritage-the illuminating treatises on the stupendous Shaiva philosophy and other great works on literature, art, music, grammar, and medicine-works which have excited the wonder of an admiring world and wherever they went they carried these treasures with themselves. Judging from the depth of thought displayed in these works that have been preserved, their high literary merit, their insight into the depth of nature, their poetical flights, their emotional Devour coupled with an incisive logical treatment of the subjects dealt with in them, one can easily imagine the colossal loss the world has been subjected to by the acts of vandalism which resulted in the destruction of hundreds of works which contained the labours of more than two thousand years.”

Mohan Lal Koul writes

“The destruction of books as leitmotifs of Hindu worldview, Hindu philosophical probes into supra-sensible realms, Hindu historiography, Hindu aesthetics did not diminish in its fury even in the comparatively peaceful times of Zain-ul-Abidin popularly known as Budshah. It is surprising that before his conversion to Shriya Bhat he is said to have constructed a cause-way from Naidkhai to Sopore with the temple stones and pillars along with invaluable stock of books that were looted from the temples, libraries and Pandit houses. He is the same king that rehabilitated the Pandits after their first forcible and massive exodus from their natural homes to unknown destinations.

The prolific and high calibre Kashmiri pandit scholars and intellectuals having scaled heights in creative drinking based on an all-embracing outlook and psychical diversity w ere reviled, humiliated and tortured to death. Bhuvaneshwar who had tremendous reputation all over the country for his amazing levels of scholarship in Vedic lore and learning was harassed and put to an orgy of plunder and loot (lotri-dand). Ultimately under motivations of infinite bigotry he was butchered in a merciless Muslim manner. His severed head smeared with tilak as a caste-mark was hurled away on a road-side with a view to instilling fear and trepidation among the intellectuals who had not renounced their religion and continued contributing to the indigenous expressions of learning and scholarship. All the Brahmans who were learned and had mastery over theology were exterminated. The fanatical intolerance and inveterate hatred that was exhibited against Hindu lore and learning and especially scholars irrigating them led to the demise of an ethos that had fostered plenitude and plenteousness of scholarship and learning.

Nona Dev, Jaya and Bhima Brahman with their depth of knowledge and breadth of vision were forced to commit suicide by leaping into the rivers. The Kashmiri Pandit scholars who were highly venerated for their varied contributions to learning and aesthetics were subjected to the mutilation of body-parts and gruesome killings. Nirmal Kanth who had mobilised resistance against Muslim holocaust was physically eliminated not for encouraging apostasy but for his attainments in the annals of learning and scholarship. Men of letters were put to a whole-sale massacre and the books which they had authored were looted, torn and burnt.

Records Shuka, “Khwaja Mir Mohammad on the other hand induced Kak Chakra (Kaji Chak) who was alarmed at the work of Nirmal Kanth and others to give him permission to act against them, and actuated by malice caused them to be killed.” Sukha again laments, “O Brah,nans, where in this Kali Yug are your Brahmanical spirit and practice? It was for want of these that the sorrowful and the affrighted Nirmal Kanth and others were killed. The oppression of the Mausalas (Muslims) which began in the times of Saidas (Sayyids) was perfected by Kaka Chakra (Kaji Chak).”

Now has this tendency of the Muslim stopped in modern times? No, long before the so-called Babri-Mosque demolition incident that is claimed by Islamophiles as the root cause of all Islamic violence on India – in 1989, The Muslims had started their core Islamic practice – ethnic cleansing of non-Muslims, complete erasure of non-Muslim literature, books and cultural icons, and abduction and looting of non-Muslim women to simultaneously swell the Islamic army with unbounded reproduction and denying the same route to the non-Muslim.

Koul further writes :

With the motive of destroying Sanskrit learning and its vestiges in Kashmir the invaluable treasure of Sanskrit manuscripts in Sharda script that was preserved in the Research Library, Srinagar was shifted to the Department of Central Asian Studies where it is said to have been dumped in gunny bags left to the care of hostile moths. The manuscripts are a veritable treasuretrove dilating on mind-body disciplines, recondite philosophical doctrines, arcane fortune telling systems, integrated theoretical systems from aesthetics to rhetoric and complexities of language nuances.

The books looted from Pandit clusters prior to their total decimation have been contemptuously torn, mutilated and scattered over the interiors of the houses. There are marauders who have collected numerous books on varied subjects, and have been selling them by weight. There is a special class of Muslim marauders who have dumped a huge stock of invaluable books in their residential quarters and have been selling them to retailers who in turn tear them page by page and convert them into cones and other geometrical shapes to vend off their retail items like tea, sugar, salt, spices et al. There are Muslim fanatics of the Jammaat-i-Islami breed who make a pile of the looted books in the isolated corner of a lane and set it afire chanting “death to Pandit Kaisers.” A few more cunning among them harness the services of Kashmiri Pandit hostages staffing back in the valley and despatch them to Jammu and other metropolises to mobilise the sale of old manuscripts in Shardascript at a lucrative price. The horoscopes looted from Kashmiri Pandit houses are also a saleable item with the looters.

An officer in the state government, a literattucr by all standards, at the time of “office move” from Jammu to Srinagar way back in 1992, was shocked and dismayed to learn about the sale of the looted books at a particular shop in a down-town locality. Camouflaging his real identity he made a foray into the Muslim den and succeeded in locating the shop. While accosting to the Muslim shopkeeper putting on a well-cut beard he was plainly informed that he had been selling books looted from the houses of Pandit Kafirs who had fled the land thus rendering a damage to the on-going movement. On enquiry he was told that he himself had been looting books from the Pandit houses and then he had contacts who have been pursuing it as a profession at the behest of respectable Muslims. “Who are the persons at whose behest they pursue it as a profession?” asked the officer. “That I cannot tell”, was the reply. Ultimately the officer was led into the interior of the shop where he purchased 5 kgs of books for fifty rupees. When back home he was surprised and vexed to find that the books he had purchased included Stein’s Rajtarangini and two volumes of Nilmat Puran. On perusal he discovered that all the books he had fetched home bore the signatures of the Pandits who had purchased them with the moneys that they had earned with the sweat of their brow. For the officer it was a shock, but for the Muslim looter it vas a religious act as he was vending off booty legitimised by the Textual injunctions.

It is rather interesting to see that the strongest Western power has now bowed down to this Islamic demand to protect its own texts while burning non-Islamic books. This is a very interesting following in the footsteps of what the Congress led governments in India have consistently done. So USA has now learned to follow India! Those grumbling in America about what happened should perhaps have the beginning glimmers of understanding how the most powerful elite of powerful and prosperous people – like Indians in the 7th or 12th or 16th century – start becoming dhimmi – or literally conditionally and whimsically protected trembling bootlickers of Islamism.

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 6 so far )

Terrorist Blast kills child in India while Markey demands we all shake in fear of Pakistan and stop the N-deal – fools of the world unite to preserve Islam, you have nothing but your shame and the blood and tears of non-Muslims to lose

Posted on September 27, 2008. Filed under: Hindu, India, Islam, Islamic propaganda, Muslims, Nuclear, Pakistan, Politics, religion, terrorism, USA |

Two young men on a bike were riding through a busy market in the Mehrauli area of South Delhi. A black polythene wrapped box dropped off from the bike. A young girl called after the bikers, to tell them that they had dropped a package, and picked it up  and gave a young boy to return it to the bikers. The bikers however sped away. And then the box exploded killing the boy on the spot, injuring three others seriously, and in all injuring 17 people. These were perhaps terrorists on the way to planting explosives to catch maximum population densities over the weekend markets leading up to the festive season in Northern India. These were perhaps terrorists simply carrying explosives in small packets from one storage to another. Several pointers indicate the stamp of Islam in this – this is a Muslim dominated area, with most traders and clients belonging to the Muslim community, with a “prestigious” mosque nearby, and the time of the day was not the point at which Hindus from outside the area would be likely to be in sufficient number, which makes it unlikely that the blast was pre-planned. Secondly, it would be typically Islamic ethics as in historical practice [and not as per lofty claims in the modern sanitized reconstructions of the history and practice of Islam] which considers preservation of the life of the Muslim soldier or raider to be much more important than show the courage or chivalry of saving the innocent child by accepting the package back. Especially as I have pointed out many times in my posts here before, the Quran as well as the Hadiths indicated that the life of children of non-Muslims was not really important for Muhammad – “they[children and women of “pagans”] are from them[“pagans”]” in the context of possibility of danger to the children and women of non-Muslims when Muslims attack at night.

While we have this in the capital of India, we have the eminent wisdom of Eddy Markey whose argument against the Indo-US civil N-deal  in the last desperate attempt by the Islamophile lobby in the US to block the deal in the House and the Congress, is simply that Pakistan “warned of arms race” if the N-deal with India went through. No wonder that Islam gains converts in the USA, if such asinine statesmanship is voted to represent the American people in the legislature.

India is strategically crucial in the defence of non-Muslims against the last scourge of 21st century human civilization – Islam. Christianity has not proved to be a strong antidote to Islam. The reason lies in the very origins and nature of both the aggressive proselytizing branches of the revealed traditions. The Jews had long decided in favour of a restriction of their faith to ethnicity and strictly by biological descent, for various possible reasons, perhaps not excluding the severe political and military repression they apparently went through in the final stages of their theological development [however, by the logic of the Thaparite School of Indian History applied to prove absence of historical Islamic terror in India, we have little record of “trauma” at the hands of the Romans from the side of the Jewish victims, and therefore the “trauma” theory should normally be suspect as per “professional” historian’s standards – copying the logic of Thaparites, we could say that Romans including the “Romanized” Josephus, after all always had boasted and prized military ruthlessness and therefore could have written in all the gory details of the liquidation of the Jews as propaganda for self-glorification]. Hindus have no formal mechanism for conversion, and for a non-hindu to become a “Hindu”, they also have to take the socio-biological route – either getting married to a Hindu or getting “adopted” by a Hindu. Hindus are not congregational, and do not insist on collective religious action under a centralized religious organization. Both Islam as well as the more radical offshoots of Christianity starting from the medieval period have been on the other hand distinctly aggressively proselytizing – this is the characteristic of minority ideologies without strong social roots desperately struggling to increase following and power in competition with established ideologies. Both Islam and Christianity could significantly expand only through military imposition of the faith – as in their original forms they represented a simplification of the world view that was far less complex and sophisticated compared to some of the cultures they were in conflict with. It is usually not remembered that Christianity really expanded in Europe only two significant phases – the first under the aggressive military imposition under Constantine and second under the Frank Charles [Charlemagne]  who reputedly chopped off thousands of Saxon chief’s heads to establish acceptance of Christianity but himself showed just like Constantine many persistent departures from the Ten Commandments.

As I have pointed out earlier, such minority ideologies would be attractive to (1) those who have not been able to keep up with increasing technological and therefore socio-economic superstructural complexities of a given civilization (2) those who are insecure and feel bewildered faced before the increasing number of multiple and myriad choices and decisions (3) low sense of self and self-esteem who need the esteem of a group to compensate (4) to men if these ideologies promise the sexual and social subjugation of women especially if such men feel threatened by the independence and control of women over their own sexuality and are only reassured if the entire activity of women are restricted to reproductive and physically submissive sexual roles only (5) to the economically and politically disadvantaged if such ideologies promise to legitimize the transfer ownership of wealth, power and women from the current elite irrespective of qualifications of the “neo-converts”.  This is indeed the attraction of Islam, and it remains true for those Americans who satisfy the criteria mentioned above.

Europe is actively allowing the main organizational units for aggressive Islamic proselytization, the mosques where theologians inevitably having training and connections to the Sunni Wahabi orthodoxy safely operating out of Saudi Arabia and definitely benefiting from the price of oil, carry out the real agenda of Islam – the brainwashing and preparing of future adult Muslims to undertake violent military Jihad to capture the lands, wealth and women of non-Muslims.

Islam actively and openly promotes the destruction of or taking over of as well as prevention of the construction of new cultural centres of non-Muslims, including shrines, temples, or holy sites, and therefore it has no ethical right to protection of its own cultural centres. Attitude towards any ideology should be based on reciprocal basis – and new constructions of mosques or Islamic cultural or religious  centres should not be allowed unless the Islamic countries allow the construction of non-Muslim centres. Further, since Muslims have and continue to destroy non-Muslim cultural icons or religious places wherever they have military and political authority or so called “land of Islam”, no protection should any longer be  given to Muslim centres in “non-Muslim lands”. Every terrorist activity by Muslims should actually be made to be responded with an actual reduction in number of practising Muslims, not the Islamic method of reducing non-Muslims by chopping off the head of anyone who refuses to follow Islam, but by either disenfranchising, expelling, or exchanging populations, if the Muslims refuse to give up their religion publicly. It is Islam as a practising religion which must go – it will not be the first time a religion has bitten the dust because people leave it in droves.

Both in India and the USA, the non-Muslims should now decide on and identify the forces in their respective countries that are Islamophiles – and are trying to bring in Islam for various personal, political and economic tie-ups with the Islamic establishment as well as a mistaken perspective of the strategic importance of Islamic oil and Islamic markets. Pressure should be mounted for more self-sustainable energy sourcing within their own national boundaries, and develop internal markets rather than depend on the easier route of enjoying excessive profits from trade with the Islamic markets. Economic activity of non-Muslim countries should try to bypass the Islamic countries as much as possible.  The thorny issue of conversion into Christianity in India can be tackled easily, if the Christian and Hindu groups come to an understanding that they will not proselytize on each other’s existing following, but coordiante or concentrate on converting Muslims. Also in India, it is important to delink religion or ethnicity from social opportunities and benefits but which will be hotly resisted by the Congress as its management of political power at the centre is crucially dependent on the maintenance of these social fractures.

The world will never know peace from the threat of Islam, unless the last practising Muslim is no more, for as long as the practise of Islam remains, its Jihadist violent greed for the Sadistic enjoyment of the pain of the non-muslim under its power, its continuing agenda of promoting war on non-Muslims [just type in Google “ghazwa-e-Hind”  -literally translating as the Arabic tribal style raid to loot wealth, and women of another tribe to be launched on/in India] , and its fundamental driving force of greed for the lands, wealth and women of non-Muslims, will plague the human civilization – as it crystallizes, sanitizes and gives suprahuman “divine” justification for all the most biologically powerful and dark motivations  in humans.

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 1 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 )

India gets NSG waiver – looking beyond the drama

Posted on September 6, 2008. Filed under: China, India, Muslims, Nuclear, Politics |

It was high drama and almost the typical unnaturally concocted Hollywood thriller at the NSG meeting that finally saw through a waiver specific for India, mainly under possibly a lot of arm-twisting led by the USA and also perhaps a good deal of contribution to this arm-twisting on a much more subtle level by the UK, France, Russia. The Indian Foreign Minister’s statement that this will solve India’s energy requirement problem, can at best be dubbed hogwash. Any new proposed nuclear reactor design takes around one and half years to be approved by the IAEA, and around five years to set up. So India is unlikely to get direct benefits in the power sector from this NSG agreement until about seven years from the present. The last significant opposition will now be coming from within the USA, by representatives of interests both within the country as well as from outside ranged against India. The reason these attempts will only perhaps be able to delay the final ratification of this agreement but not prevent its eventual clearance through the US Congress, is because of the political realization of the ruling elite in the Western circles of the importance of bringing India under its strategic control.

What does India gain after all? It does not gain much in terms of nuclear power or nuclear weapons technology. India had already developed quite sophisticated technology of its own during the first tentative engagement by the USA of India after the 1998 tests by India. Current projections of India’s power supply sources assign only around 3-4% of total production capacity, compared to almost half being produced by hydel, and nearly half being produced by coal. India has one of the largest publicly known reserves of Thorium, which can be reprocessed to bring it to usable fissile forms. On its own India would perhaps have needed a much longer time to achieve this, which may, just may be shortened using technological collaboration from some NSG countries. Apart from this India can only benefit from multilateral trade of nuclear substances and technologies, as an exporter and processing hub. There will be some cosmetic benefits perhaps too in the areas of dual processing technologies and access to space technologies, and perhaps some cascading effect in subsidiary technology such as computer chips etc., but it has to be remembered that in many of these latter areas, India is quite advanced on its own.

India now has accepted serious virtual limitations on its weapons programme. The 1954 Acts of the US Congress and the Hyde Act is binding on all US administrations until a future Congress repeals or reforms these acts – and it has to be remembered, that non-proliferation  concerns appear to come along only when India is seen to be gaining in weapons technology – such as the formation of the NSG specifically after India’s first tests, and not after the first tests by China, UK, or France, or the passage of the Hyde Act specifically targeting India.

India’s main benefits will be strategic. India is now firmly in the Western camp, and is going to be a virtual ally of the USA in the latter’s strategic concerns in Asia. India will probably play a balancing role between Russia and the USA, its already well-known concerns about China making it a blocker of Chinese imperialism, and serve as a strategic heavyweight in the extremely volatile current climate of Jihadi Islamic aggression  in the entire Middle and South Asian region. But it is China and Pakistan who have been primarily responsible in pushing India to ally itself with the USA. In Pakistan’s sole national project of destabilizing India and spread Islam, with tacit and sometimes not so secret help from China, and both country’s continuing aggressive actions against the territories of India – lies the main reason for what has ultimately led to the NSG meeting. But to take India beyond this meeting, and on its own feet, requires a superhuman effort on the part of its leaders and its people – as nothing will come out of even the strategic aspects of this agreement unless India outpaces the Chinese economy, modernizes its society and comes out of the influence of retrogressive religions like Islam, and becomes a fully capable military establishment able to take on China, a country which will now help the Islamic aggressors against India much more surreptitiously and at an increased rate, if necessary.

Postscript: Apparently the Indian government will convey its “disappointment” with Chinese “behaviour” to China!! The various spokespersons acted so surprised on media, as if they never expected such “behaviour” from China! I simply find it unbelievable that such “intelligent” people pretend so much ignorance. Did they think that by simply doing everything to gag the Dalai Lama and the Tibetan refugee protesters, India will have given enough sops to China to please it? Politicians and diplomats who are “surprised” should not at least be given the responsibility for security of a nation. On my post dated 1st August, I had clearly written

“USA’s diplomatic efforts ably seconded by India, almost had made it a foregone conclusion that IAEA would pass this safeguards by consensus. More difficult will be getting consensus at NSG, where some EU countries as well as China can cause significant trouble for India. It will be USA’s networks and dependence of these countries on the USA that can only see India through. Passage of the 123 agreement through the Congress may also hold some hiccups as there can be strong last-ditch lobbying by Pakistan as well as other interest groups within USA who from various considerations of race, religion, etc as hidden motivations can try to put restrictive conditions in the hope that India will be sufficiently provoked to reject the whole agreement altogether.”

What, I, not-a-politician, not-a-diplomat could see more than a month ago, surely these “professionals” cannot pretend not to have seen! Who are they trying to hoodwink – the Indian people?

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 1 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 )

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 )

N-deal’s greatest hurdle to be crossed on US shoulders and Gujarat, Jammu shows Hindu political maturity

Posted on August 20, 2008. Filed under: India, Kashmir, Muslims, Nuclear, Pakistan, Politics, religion, terrorism |

As I had discussed before, the IAEA episode was actually a very small and rather the easier step compared to the current hurdles of unanimous passage through the NSG. The non-proliferation lobby is led by countries strongly dependent economically on NWS’s – the Nuclear Weapons States – US, UK, France, Russia and China. Therefore, their greatest pressure will be on countries like India. These countries will deliberately ignore that they are protected by the presence of NATO (even if not members always themselves of NATO) and NWS’s themselves in the event of military aggression from “enemies”, whereas India practically has no defence against military aggression from powerful and aggressive NWS like China, and the unofficial NWS Pakistan. It is possible that the Islam lobby as well as indirect Chinese pressure has effects on the NPT lobby’s stance. Some of the NPT lobbyists have important markets in the Muslim world, and India should perhaps consider this in its diplomatic efforts. India’s only hope of passing through the NSG with all it wants is based on riding on US shoulders as the NPT lobby will only be forced to accept India under US pressure. India’s nuclear weapons capabilities are crucial for India’s existence as a nation remembering that given half a chance the Muslim forces arrayed against India will try to overrun it with passive or active help from China – and India is the last homeland that the non-Muslim Indic cultures like Hinduism, Buddhism or Jainism can call its own.

Meanwhile it is a positive sign to see the first visible indications of the growth of a mature non-Muslim political identity in India. The current elite dependent on a fractured Indian society for their continuance in power will of course try to portray this as a “communal” development. But if one looks at the faces of the agitation in Jammu, where in addition to a jail-filling agitation participated in by large numbers of women, and the declaration of a civil disobedience  movement, one can see the Sikh headgear mingling in the forefront, and there are indications that Buddhists from the eastern part of the state have also participated. Islam is one of the factors responsible for the economic decline of India in the medieval ages, and the stagnation of its educational, academic and technological progress – compared to the brilliance of its intellectual achievements in the pre-Islamic period. Islam in a way has been the single largest factor in forcing modern India to involve a large proportion of its resources into defending itself against aggressors aligned along an Islamic axis (including China). Islam is still an expenditure for India on at least three major counts – (1) need to defend against Pakistan (2) need to tackle Islamic terror sponsored from within Pakistan and Bangladesh and probably financed and resources by a much wider network which may also involve petro-dollars. (3) subsidies needed to support Islamic religious  activities and  the social costs of backwardness imposed specifically by retrogressive and medieval Islamic practices.  Being the second largest population group in India, this imposes  substantial  resource diversion  for India.  It is a very very positive sign that the non-Muslims in Gujarat and Jammu are finally realizing what a truly mature political strategy that benefits the non-Muslim majority both in the short term as well as in the long term means. Instead of breaking up the Babari Mosque, the current strategy aimed at isolating Islam politically, and raising political consciousness of the dangers of continued existence of Islam on the subcontinent is a much better strategy. It is most important to emphasize and keep in mind that “Muslims” are Indians, that they are derived from pre-Islamic and non-Islamic cultures,  that they mostly converted under ruthless physical and economic duress, that everything should be done to encourage them and create conditions facilitating their return to the “fold”.

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

IAEA approves India-specific safeguards by consensus – inflated importance

Posted on August 1, 2008. Filed under: India, Nuclear, Politics |

The IAEA approved the India specific safeguards by consensus- subject to grumbles of “concerns” from Ireland, and Switzerland. (What happened to Finland – an important  co-founder of the  NPT  movement with  Ireland ?).  Ireland’s concerns as the leading  member of the NPT  movement was expected. It is a pity that Ireland has not pressed for complete disarmament by the nuclear weapons states (NPT recognizes these states to be NWS – a recognition that almost enshrines a pantheon of nuclear “gods” who possess an exclusive range of “superweapons” to vaporize the subject poor mortals and who are supposed to use such powers for the benefit of mortals – even if mythology says otherwise : gods usually use weapons out of jealousy and for their own benefits ).

USA’s diplomatic efforts ably seconded by India, almost had made it a foregone conclusion that IAEA would pass this safeguards by consensus. More difficult will be getting consensus at NSG, where some EU countries as well as China can cause significant trouble for India. It will be USA’s networks and dependence of these countries on the USA that can only see India through. Passgae of the 123 agreement through the Congress may also hold some hiccups as there can be strong last-ditch lobbying by Pakistan as well as other interest groups within USA who from various considerations of race, religion, etc as hidden motivations can try to put restrictive conditions in the hope that India will be sufficiently provoked to reject the whole agreement altogether.

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

Trust Vote – finale : “Singh is King” – at what price my lord?

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

UPA survives by 19 votes and Dr. Manmohan Singh smiles widely at the camera. The outcomes and consequences of this voting have been discussed before in this blog. For the moment let us turn our attention to the man who symbolically took up Left’s challenge.

The Prime Minister of India’s debate speech has been put up on his website His speech contains some very interesting points (but it’s a pity that this self-acknowledged “Oxonian” [his acceptance speech at Oxford] had to prepare his speech in a hurry leaving some strange expressions in the body of the text). Let us analyze these points :

For Dr. Singh, the “priority areas of national concern are” :

(i) “Tackling the imported inflation caused by steep increase in oil prices. Our effort is to control inflation without hurting the rate of growth and employment.” Coming from an economist of the “Oxon” school, this is a bit of a surprise. The link between inflation and growth and employment is a highly debated one from the time of Keynes. It strongly depends on the particular historical trajectory of the economy concerned.

(ii) “To revitalize agriculture. We have decisively reversed the declining trend of investment and resource flow in agriculture[…] We have achieved a record foodgrain production of 231 million tones.” That sounds excellent, but does not quite tally with persistent droughts, the need to import the second of the staples of the country, wheat, the sever pressure on grain growers to undersell to the government and hence their abandonment of grain production, endemic suicide of farmers in several regions, and persistent famine like conditions in others.

(iii) “To improve the effectiveness of our flagship pro poor programmes such as National Rural Employment Programme, Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan, Nation-wide Mid day meal programme, Bharat Nirman to improve the quality of rural infrastructure of roads, electricity, safe drinking water, sanitation, irrigation, National Rural Health Mission and the Jawaharlal Nehru National Urban Renewal Mission. These programmes are yielding solid results.” We are yet to see any significant public sector urban development, (the major de-slum-ization programmes such as in Mumbai are being financed by private capital), and it is unlikely that the other programmes mentioned have had any significant real impact given the endemic apathy, insincerity and corruption of the implementors at various levels of the government. If the schemes were actually working thousands of NGO’s funded internally and internationally would have gone completely out of business.

(iv) “We have initiated a major thrust in expanding higher education. The objective is to expand the gross enrolment ratio in higher education from 11.6 per cent to 15 per cent by the end of the 11th Plan and to 21% by the end of 12th Plan. To meet these goals, we have an ambitious programme which seeks to create 30 new universities, of which 14 will be world class, 8 new IITs, 7 new IIMs, 20 new IIITs, 5 new IISERs, 2 Schools of planning and Architecture, 10 NITs, 373 new degree colleges and 1000 new polytechnics. And these are not just plans. Three new IISERs are already operational and the remaining two will become operational from the 2008-09 academic session. Two SPAs will be starting this year. Six of the new IITs start their classes this year. The establishment of the new universities is at an advanced stage of planning.” This is all most promising, but is looking at the apex of the educational pyramid. To successfully utilize such higher education opportunities, kids first have to have a solid primary and secondary education and almost surely a good grounding in the English language. Can the PM give any details of the state of the primary and secondary sector, state of English language education, and the state of education and opportunities given to 50% of the population – girls? Even now parents send the boys to better schools and the girls even if more talented will have to be satisfied with non-English medium or non-science education.

(v) “A nation wide Skill Development Programme and the enactment of the Right to Education Act,” Ambitious, ambitious indeed, and perhaps too vague to be ever reasonably implemented.

(vi) “Approval by Parliament of the new Rehabilitation and Resettlement policy and enactment of legislation to provide social security benefits to workers in the unorganized sector.” Social security benefits to a population without regular identification papers, without the minimum modern education required to successfully use documentation, without any permanent home, without any safety net at all – ambitious indeed!

(vii) “The new 15 Point Programme for Minorities, the effective implementation of empowerment programmes for the scheduled castes, scheduled tribes, paying particular emphasis on implementation of Land Rights for the tribals.” Most of these are beyond any dispute, as they are needed. But retaining and acknowledging sectarian or ethnic identities and linking economic or political empowerment based on such identities almost always simply reinforces them in the most negative way and is a potential for future trauma and tragedy as revealed in Eastern Europe or Central Asia.

(viii) “Equally important is the effective implementation of the Right to Information Act to impart utmost transparency to processes of governance. The Administrative Reforms Commission has made valuable suggestions to streamline the functioning of our public administration.” There is no doubt about the positive impact of this particular one.

(ix) “To deal firmly with terrorist elements, left wing extremism and communal elements that are attempting to undermine the security and stability of the country. We have been and will continue to vigorously pursue investigations in the major terrorist incidents that have taken place. Charge-sheets have been filed in almost all the cases. […]We will take all possible steps to streamline their functioning and strengthen their effectiveness.” This is an administrative solution, Mr. PM. No terrorist containment programme is effective without a co-current socio-economic programme, and the possible need to publicly undermine the ideological basis of terror. Can you ever take such steps, (as has been undertaken over the decades to deconstruct Hinduism in an attempt to show that it never existed), say in deconstructing extremist interpretations of Islam or Sikhism?

“In 1991, while presenting the Budget for 1991-92, as Finance Minister, I[…] outlined a far reaching programme of economic reform[…]Both the Left and the BJP had then opposed the reform. Both had said we had mortgaged the economy to America and that we would bring back the East India Company. Subsequently both these parties have had a hand at running the Government. None of these parties have reversed the direction of economic policy laid down by the Congress Party in 1991.” Not clear Mr. P.M. The left had no hand in running the government at the centre. If you mean their state governments, then they have had a mixed and quite confused policy.

“India needs to grow at the rate of at least ten per cent per annum to get rid of chronic poverty, ignorance and disease which still afflict millions of our people[…]The generation of electricity has to grow at an annual rate of 8 to 10 per cent[…]We have large reserves of coal but even these are inadequate to meet all our needs by 2050. But more use of coal will have an adverse impact on pollution and climate. We can develop hydro-power and we must. But many of these projects hurt the environment and displace large number of people. We must develop renewable sources of energy particularly solar energy. But we must also make full use of atomic energy which is a clean environment friendly source of energy.” Environmental and social impact of conventional sources are well known, and India has faced huge opposition in its bid to develop super hydel projects (“Save” Narmada movement). But nuclear power as environmentally safe? Mr. PM, that definitely is highly debated and contested claim!

“The essence of the matter is that the agreements that we negotiate with USA, Russia, France and other nuclear countries will enable us to enter into international trade for civilian use without any interference with our strategic nuclear programme. The strategic programme will continue to be developed at an autonomous pace determined solely by our own security perceptions. We have not and we will not accept any outside interference or monitoring or supervision of our strategic programme. Our strategic autonomy will never be compromised. We are willing to look at possible amendments to our Atomic Energy Act to reinforce our solemn commitment that our strategic autonomy will never be compromised. I confirm that there is nothing in these agreements which prevents us from further nuclear tests if warranted by our national security concerns. All that we are committed to is a voluntary moratorium on further testing. Thus the nuclear agreements will not in any way affect our strategic autonomy. The cooperation that the international community is now willing to extend to us for trade in nuclear materials, technologies and equipment for civilian use will be available to us without signing the NPT or the CTBT.” That appears not to be clearly supported in the published draft 123 agreements. Especially conducting tests could be delayed by at least 1 year from the time India conveys it’s wish to do so.

“The world wants India to succeed. The obstacles we face are at home, particularly in our processes of domestic governance. I wish to remind the House that in 1998 when the Pokharan II tests were undertaken, the Group of Eight leading developed countries had passed a harsh resolution condemning India and called upon India to sign the NPT and CTBT. Today, at the Hokkaido meeting of the G-8 held recently in Japan, the Chairman’s summary has welcomed cooperation in civilian nuclear energy between India and the international community. This is a measure of the sea change in the perceptions of the international community our[! what are you talking about here Mr. PM?] trading with India for civilian nuclear energy purposes that has come about in less than ten years.” That is being too optimistic. There are many countries and forces in the world who would not like India to succeed – some from religious perceptions, some from territorial ambitions, some from even concepts of race, and many have openly and fervently hoped or declared or tried to ensure that India is an “artificial nation” that “naturally disintegrates”.

This is where our doubts creep in Honbl. Prime Minister – where we are reminded of your Oxford acceptance speech, and we begin to have grave doubts about how far and how deep goes your understanding of Indian history and which culture you really do identify with!

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

Trust Vote 6 : cash, stings, and murder of trust

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

The closing hours of the trust vote has been disrupted by a scene on the floor of the parliament. Packets of cash allegedly offered in bribe to an opposition MP were thrown into the well of the parliament. What could have happened :

(1) it could be a genuine allegation, that money really did pass hands

(2) it could have been a sting operation, well planned by the opposition to trap a briber from the government side – however, if it is shown that the “opposition” enticed or negotiated “prices” as part of the sting operation, then ethically and legally the whole things comes under a cloud

(3) if it was a sting operation then it was not ethically above board completely, as the sting should then have involved vigilance officers, or that if it was “unexpected” then both party and the MP should have gone to the police at the earliest possible opportunity

One crore appears to be way too small for the rumours of 25-30 crores. If it was not a genuine sting, but a staged affair then the persons responsible should be brought to book, and similarly if it was a genuine bribe, then also the persons responsible for it should be brought to book.

The speaker, Somnath Chatterjee, is being vociferously opposed by CPI(M) MP’s, and he almost surely faces suspension and possible expulsion. He has shown himself willing to take the risk, and is the first sign of disillusionment in the gradual decline of the party – but still there are not going to be any spectacular splits.

What has been murdered today in the Parliament is trust – trust about political negotiations between responsible and mature politicians. But there is great hope. It is the “young” MP’s, like the NC representative Omar Abdullah who could speak with great and genuine conviction that he saw no distinction or conflict between being a Muslim and an Indian, or the scion of the Nehru Dynasty who spoke haltingly, poorly but with enthusiasm, and those in the opposition who spoke with equal but genuine conviction, who hold the future of politics in India. At least they appeared to be much less cynical than their elders and were trying to believe what they were saying.

They will make mistakes, will reverse their current positions, and many of them will act like their elders of today. But I think they will learn to look forward and into the future. I do feel confirmation of my belief that the “old order changeth, yielding place to new”.

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 )

Trust Vote 4: Of horses and foxes – the nuclear puny-game hunt in India

Posted on July 21, 2008. Filed under: India, Nuclear, Politics |

Blogger Ashwani Jain ( ) has pointed out that “horse trading” in MP’s are probably fetching 30-50 crores in addition to renaming of airports and berths in hypothetical future governments. A while ago I heard a media commentator talking about the two “old foxes of Indian politics”. Every time I came across the word “horse” and “fox” in connection with MP’s, I literally flinched. Ashwani has quoted Ambedkar, and rightly so. I do wonder – could we even imagine Babasaheb or Sardar as “horses” and “foxes” in spite of all their limitations?

Our elected representatives have reduced in stature to the level of almost vanishing altogether, and are mere shadows of people like Gandhiji, the first two generations of Nehrus, Sardar and Bose, (forget Lal-Bal-Pal). These were people who needed secretaries more for dictating letters to rather than writing speeches for themselves to be read out in broken and halting language. These were people who could write fluently about world and national history and politics from memory in jail, that filled volumes of printed text. These were people who could be dragged out from their railway carriage impromptu, and asked to deliver speeches that moved hearts and minds. In spite of all their limitations and all the wise-cracking that we can now heap onto their heads without going through the situations they had faced, we can see that there was a fundamental difference from modern politicians.

This difference was their absorption of the spirit of India’s millions, and learning to think and feel as they felt, and where necessary to change wrong ways of thinking and feeling to what they felt were the right ones. They were trying to make history against a brutally repressive and ruthless regime, facing a dangerous and potentially lethal future. Significantly, either they knew how to earn, or already had made, sufficient money on their own to maintain themselves if their political involvement forced them to be out of jobs and professions. Almost everyone in this group had a professional qualification and had more or less already proven themselves capable of independent professional earning. Our current crop are survivors of peacetime politics, with long practice in the art of grafts and siphoning off of public funds, or dipping into the pockets of wealth producers in return for favours.

To a certain extent , the common man on the street also has been responsible. We have socially appreciated wealth irrespective of how it was earned. I have heard many times the appreciative quip “oh so and so does not have to spend his salary at all – what he gets through his left palm is sufficient to maintain the flashy car and all the luxuries you see in their house – how lucky his wife is”. But all this remains true for the salaries class, engaged in the pure process of circulation.

The absolute majority of Indians do not even have access to a bribe extraction mechanism – they are honest by default. Where does all the 30-50 crores come from? Through taxes and profits going through many hands, extracted from these very same people. Where will this money from the hunt of puny-game inside the Indian Parliament on the occasion of the Nuclear Deal go? Not circulated within the Indian economy benefiting basic sectors I presume, but converted into gold and precious stones to preserve value and liquidity or surreptitious investments in property in the name of a non-existent 10-th removed cousin perhaps.

The stories about great military commanders like Alexander, Julius Caesar or Napoleon in the West, or Bose during his INA days in the East, of them refusing to eat or drink differently or above the standards of the “lowest” ranked trooper, could be fantasies or myths. But they have remained in people’s memories because they represent an ideal the followers expect from their leaders. I did remember the Bose story of giving up his single hand-made bread because another soldier wanted an additional bread, or that of Alexander throwing away the cup of water scrounged for him only in a particularly dry part of the march, when I read of the enthusiastic throwing of dinner parties and luncheons to do “trade” in “horses and foxes”.

Are the leaders listening, including the Left, whose great guru Lenin shared a lowly potato or thin cabbage soup in the commoner’s canteen, or Mao and most of his army generals and Central Committee members chewed on grass seeds with their army and as per reports by independent (and not communist!) Western journalists, refused to feast on anything more than water melons as the general population could not afford more than that?

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

Trust vote 3 – dinners and lunches to feast on Muslims and Dalits.

Posted on July 21, 2008. Filed under: India, Muslims, Nuclear, Politics |

The BSP, UNPA, and the Left have declared at least one issue they agree on – they want to “topple” the government. This is their “one pointed programme”. Ms. Mayavati officially made the statement that she is against the Nuclear Deal because “it casts a shadow on the Iran gas supply deal, and because it causes Muslim displeasure”. A similar statement from Shahed Siddiqui, to the effect that “Urdu speaking Muslims” put pressure on his conscience. Explicitly the Dalit factor has not been mentioned, but we have to assume that since it is Mayavati’s BSP that is jointly spearheading the “toppling” movement together with Chandrababu Naidu, whose backyard of Andhra Pradesh could have a significant “Dalit” factor, the “Dalits” are against the Nuclear deal too.

Will the prevention of the Nuclear Deal raise the purchasing power of, provide potable water, healthcare, education, access to financial capital or jobs to the average Muslim or Dalit? BSP+UNPA+Left will simply pretend that their capture of central power after the “toppling” will be the magic wand that will benefit the Muslims and the Dalits.

What makes the statesmanship of the leaders so difficult to comprehend is the simple logic , that by repeatedly emphasizing that “Muslims ” or “Dalits” are against the deal, do they want to imply that the non-Muslims or the non-Dalit Indian is for the deal? And if they do, is their opinion simply not important enough to even consider as that of representing a substantial portion of the Indian population?

Is any non-elite Indian noting the plethora of “dinners and lunches” of hundreds of MP’s when there is drought in several parts of the country and many do not have a square meal in days? Why couldn’t it have been merely “tea and coffee”?

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

Trust Vote -2 : It is no longer about the Deal but all about dealing.

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

The Left, UNPA, and BSP are meeting today to work out a possible coordinated motion to defeat the Congress on the floor of the Parliament. Already several leaders of essentially regional parties like the TDP and the TRS, are trying to put up Smt. Mayavati as a future PM. So, quite rapidly, Indian Muslims’ so-called opposition to the nuclear deal has been declared on their behalf by certain leaders, and equally rapidly the Muslims have become the card no longer to be played. Neither is the nuclear deal the chief issue any more. It is all about jockeying for capturing state power in the coming round of elections.

Each and every political party and its leaders are now concerned about its own electoral base, and because they can no longer be certain of the whole population they are concentrating on utilizing and enhancing fissures and fractures within Indian society to produce smaller highly antagonistic groups who would be easier to manipulate and control. “Dalits”, literally meaning “repressed” can not be “uplifted and empowered” as by definition then they will no longer remain “Dalits” and if they no longer remain “Dalits” a party of the “Dalits” can also no longer survive. So for BSP to capture and raise capital in the political-power market, it has to maintain a distinct “Dalit” population. Similarly, for religion based parties like the Muslim League or IUML, maintaining and intensifying sharper and sharper distinctions from non-Muslims would be a necessary aspect to remain in leadership. The Left, has no ideologically motivated support base in the Hindi belt (to a certain extent such Leftist support exists rather for the various flavours of underground Naxalites) and therefore has to ride piggyback on parties like that of BSP or indirectly that of Muslim League, and will also have to maintain and utilize caste based antagonisms. BJP desperately wants to go for early elections, and may try to win over (and in fact could also be encouraging) Mayavati’s efforts.

We should not be surprised if both BJP and the Congress try to woo Mayavati after Tuesday, irrespective of the trust vote outcome. The parties have their own small axes to grind – axes which they understand to a far better degree and which are also much more important to them than the Nuclear Deal or the inclination of the Muslims of India. It is clear now, that the Nuclear Deal and Indian Muslims are just excuses to be bandied about for polemics, and the real motivations are the extremely short-sighted personal ambitions of leaders nervous and unsure about their control over the whole nation.

To a general Muslim or a “Dalit” (perhaps sometimes both at the same time) just as for a non-Muslim, it is unlikely that an abstract item of foreign policy and potential future consequences of the Nuclear Deal in international relations is a matter of huge significance and obsession. The more important issues are getting a reliable health care, a basic modern education, potable water, access to resources for economic development, an affordable modern housing, affordable living costs.

The fact that all the political elite are shouting about is the Nuclear Deal or how it is against “India’s interests” and therefore against Muslim or Dalit interests, immediately shows that this is an obsession and polemical scoring point for an elite as detached from the people as the kings and Nawabs of old, and who speak in the name of the people.

But then why do the people vote them to power? To a large extent Indian electoral process is like a two stage game – where first the voters are forced to choose from a limited set of interested individuals who are one way or the other already well connected to the political establishment and instruments of state power. These establishments therefore form persistent groups, linked by kinship, clan and mutually profitable associations. Thus coteries from around MP’s or organizations putting up MP’s who usurp mediating role between ordinary citizens and the state services that they should have otherwise received automatically. This is the fundamental source of power of elected representatives.

In the second stage of the game, the elected representatives play among themselves for personal benefits including non-material ones such as prestige and power. The system probably runs with very similar features as to Stock Exchanges, where elaborate systems are in place to control “the spontaneity of individual investors” and force them to be herded into playing through agencies whose only guarantee is the constancy of the increasing fees and commissions and not returns to the individual investor. Most of the time these agencies form out of or are in reality extensions of already established big financial organizations, or the working conditions of the exchanges are made so that only such organizations can qualify.

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

Have Muslims spoken against the Nuclear Deal? A very dark future for India.

Posted on July 19, 2008. Filed under: India, Muslims, Nuclear, Politics |

Shahed Siddiqui, the erstwhile spokesperson of the SP, has left the SP. He is a Rajya Sabha MP, and hence his votes do not count for the trust vote. However what is more significant is his public statement – that his decision to take up a position against the Nuclear Deal comes from pressure by Urdu speaking Muslims that the Nuclear Deal is against India’s interest, therefore against Indian Muslim’s interest, and Indian Muslims are against US domination, and because they think this deal is equivalent to accepting US domination, Indian Muslims are against the deal.

We still have to wait for the coming general elections, which will actually show how Muslims vote. My impression is however that by and large Indian Muslims have accepted the ardent propaganda by a resurgent trend of international Islamic unification and consolidation, originating from and mainly supported by groups essentially based in the Middle East. It is possible that this trend was and is being actively encouraged by autocratic regimes who have always used the most medieval and primitive elements in Islamic faith literature to divert attention away and justify the excesses of their autocracy (consider the use of Wahab and his teachings to consolidate Saudi territorial ambitions and autocracy). From the perspective of the Muslim majority nations around India, India’s large non-Muslim population remains a stumbling block towards a consolidated Muslim block stretching from East Africa to the Phillipines. For the first time, they have a chance of sharing central power by riding with Mayavati and the Left.

I consider it as most unfortunate – as it will only confirm and strengthen the polarization in Indian society. From now on, the non-revealed religions of India will converge and consolidate. In the process they may actually accentuate those features of their society that in the past alienated marginal groups. However, they will perceive this as the ultimate proof that Muslims identify more with their religion than the country, and therefore will always remain a force that serves international Muslim ambitions. From now on, Indian society will increasingly become bipolar, and both the movement represented by Mayavati as well as the Left will ultimately be absorbed into a front that consciously or subconsciously serves Imperialist interests of countries that are in competition with the West over the control of India. This will push the other block increasingly towards the West.

India is in for a rough, a very rough ride indeed.

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 2 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 )

The nuclear game – inevitable end-game in India

Posted on July 11, 2008. Filed under: India, Nuclear, Politics |

Finally, the UPA government in India has taken the plunge. It has decided to go ahead with the deal, after ensuring (or thinks it has ensured) the required number of MP’s support for proving majority on the floor of the parliament. The Left has played its card, and is waiting to see if there is some kind of face saving fall-out of the failure of the Congress and its remaining or new-found allies to prove parliamentary majority.

What are the options and scenario for each of the leading political groupings?

Congress : (1) Gather all possible support to prove majority (2) be prepared to give various undertakings to the allies as price for support, such as a possible joint move against Mayavati in UP with SP in the coming elections thereby sacrificing the efforts made so far by Rahul Gandhi to strike an independent posture in UP. However the embarrassment of having to undo Rahul’s high-profile attempts can be relatively easily compensated for by formally arguing that Rahul is needed at the centre, perhaps even as a young Indian “PM”. (3) Show to the Left that the Congress can manage without them (4) However not be too harsh in criticism of the Left, so that a door is left open for future possible collaboration again in electoral politics, thereby also showing the remaining allies that they should not try to drive too hard a bargain as the Congress could as easily switch over to an alliance or understanding with the Left again in the future (5) the campaign or aspersion by Mayavati and some from the Left that Muslims do not support the deal could now actually prevent any Muslim MP’s to vote against the deal on the floor of the Parliament.

Problems : possible last minute betrayal by some individual members of allies

The Left : (1) wait now and try meanwhile for the failure of Congress’s attempts to prove majority (2) this mobilization to gather support against the N-deal could be seen (or projected to its supporters and workers) by the leadership as a mobilization for realignment for the coming elections and reaching into areas where it did not have significant penetration or presence. (3) success of the Congress could be disastrous in the short term – with fall-outs for elections, as the only party with national presence that could help the Left with an alliance is the Congress, and this separation could mean a huge loss of bargaining power of the Left for future alliances (4) success of the Congress and therefore the passing of the 123-agreement could mean on the long term much closer ties with the Western powers, which in the perception of the Left (and perhaps not without reason) would lead to strengthening of the “Right” within the Indian political spectrum.

Problems : (1) Left’s major mistake of staking so much on the N-deal, where it is a non-issue as regards the overwhelming majority of the population is concerned. It is possible that this mistake stems from Left’s support base and its leaderships’ own ideological prejudices. Left’s dominant component comes from West Bengal and Kerala, both having a substantial college-university educated class. However because of certain peculiarities of the Left organizational structure and its proximity now for a long time with state power, Left probably has less knowledge of the pulse of intellectual elite and professionals in its own backyard compared to its “emerging phase” (1940-1970). The organizational structure, which relies in reality on selection rather than election as leadership choosing process, ensures ideological continuity which need not always reflect ground conditions very accurately (the contradictions come up through the dynamic of changing electoral politics and state government policies). Although electoral success is usually cited as legitimacy for ideological positions taken up by the Left, we have to remember, that the Congress was also mostly hugely successful from immediately after Independence right up to the debacle of 1977. It has never been seriously investigated, as to how much of these successes depend on sudden opportunistic switching over of allegiance of influential elite classes within Indian society when they perceive that the older regime cannot ensure protection of their status any more. In short, the Left leadership perhaps more often hears what it wants to hear than what the reality is. In the case of the N-deal, ironically, even when the Left itself acknowledges that there are much more pertinent issues like inflation, its’ helping to make the N-deal the biggest issue of all, reflects its inability to comprehend that the N-deal after all is really a non-issue to perhaps 80% of Indians, and for the remaining vocal opinion-builder 20% – probably 19% favour the N-deal and may decide in the future to consolidate a single party in power to avoid dilemmas of indecision as in the UPA. The Left is playing on the grounds owned by parties like that of the BJP, and is bound to lose.

BJP : (1) try to consolidate its own umbrella alliance using the nuclear deal as a focus issue – with the significant contrast with the Left that the BJP wants “more” out of the N-deal, compared to the Left’s “less”. (2) BJP carefully avoids also the issue of inflation by focusing on the N-deal, as if they come to power they might also have no quick answers to this problem (3) try to isolate the Congress.

Problems: (1) economics could overtake N-deal as an issue (2) In case Congress succeeds, BJP loses its electoral momentum which it is trying to build up now (3) Regional alliances formed out of mutual dependence like that of Congress+SP could marginalize its own candidates in fractured societies like that of UP.

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

India’s nuclear deal and Indian Muslims

Posted on July 5, 2008. Filed under: India, Muslims, Nuclear, Politics |

NDTV, a leading news channel based in New Delhi, India, reported about two sources claiming that the majority of Indian Muslims were against the nuclear deal. One, from a survey apparently conducted by a newspaper owned by a top ranking leader (and also a Muslim) of the Samajwadi Party, whose leadership have officially indicated favouring the nuclear deal. The survey apparently found 70% of Indian Muslims against the deal. The second was an excerpt from an interview with a representative of a Muslim religious organization who claimed that if the “deal was against” national interest and also with and and in favour of the USA, then Indian Muslims will be against it, and any party who went forward with or favoured the deal would have to face the displeasure (“narazgi”) of Indian Muslims.

As pointed out in an earlier post, all this is playing very nicely into the hands of those who have all along claimed that if not for the majority, at least for the leadership of Indian Muslims, their religion comes before their country, and that their hearts lie outside of India. Further where the question of choosing between India’s growing strategic interests and the strategic interests of Muslim majority countries are concerned, Indian Muslim leadership will choose the latter.

Most news channels outside of India carried the news of Kashmiris in the western part of the state agitating violently against the land transfer order. Since then, the government of the state has taken over responsibility for arrangements for the annual pilgrimage to the Hindu shrine of Amarnath, and the agitation in the western part has calmed down. However, the eastern part dominated by Hindus, is now up in flames, and this has not seen the light of media interest outside India. Many Hindus who were evicted and forced to flee their homesteads in the western part by violent Islamic militant movements in the past, have taken refuge in the east. It is predictable that this Hindu agitation will learn from the success of their Muslim counterparts in the techniques that can guarantee Indian state protection of religious claims over land, territory and people. However they probably do not have much hope while there are political parties in power at the centre who are dependent or see themselves as dependent on Muslim electoral support.

In the end, it is all leading to a consolidation of the “Hindu”. It will be the height of stupidity to think that the BJP will bring back a mythical regime of “repressive Brahmanical orthodoxy and theocracy”. After all, such a consolidated Hindu polity and regime “never existed” according to “academic historians”, whose myriad papers are devoted to trying to establish that the “Hindu” never existed – it was always a motley and rag-tag collection of confused sects constantly and bitterly fighting each other (a prime example would be the papers by Prof. R. Thapar).

If any in the leadership of BJP has illusions about “returning to Brahmin rule” or continuing to support caste based hierarchies, then such tendencies will be rooted out from practical competitive electoral politics. If BJP can consolidate itself as “nationalist” rather than “Hindu”, it will be virtually assured of very nearly absolute power. It will then only be a matter of time. On the other hand, if it fails to invent itself as a “no-nonsense” nationalist party not recognizing caste or province or language, India has real chances of moving towards a “democratically elected dictatorship” – a la Roman Republic, for most societal transformations of the order required in India, are usually initiated by democratic chaos and completed under dictatorial regimes (my variation on Gramscian theory).

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

The nuclear option for India – the strategic game?

Posted on July 3, 2008. Filed under: India, Nuclear, Politics |

The Congress led UPA alliance at power in the centre is under intense pressure to go forward with the nuclear deal with USA on the one hand and risk losing majority in the Parliament under threat of withdrawal of support by the Left. Let us look at this as a two stage strategic game. In the first stage the game is played by players representing involved political parties within India. In the second stage the game is played among international players representing countries and multi-nation alliances. The nuclear option was prominently taken up during Mrs. Indira Gandhi’s prime minister-ship of a Congress regime. However, it was the BJP which accelerated the process. The Left had an ambivalent position towards nuclear power and a clear opposition to nuclear weapons. However, its weakness in electoral impact, limited its relevance to the question. The three major players currently happen to be these same groups, represented by their respective leaders the Congress, the BJP, and the CPI(M). The Congress wants the deal to go forward, the BJP and CPI(M) does not. Possible stated and unstated reasons for the Congress position are (1) access to nulcear fuel and facilities for civilian power plants (2) strategic alliance with the European/Western bloc led by the USA having potential future regional security benefits (3) the deal although initiated and brokered by the BJP should not be allowed to be “repossessed” by the BJP in case it returned to power in the impending parliamentary elections (4) political fallouts both nationally as well as internationally of being seen as a weak political force dependent on the whims of the “Left”. The possible reasons behind BJP ‘s position are (1) the deal claimed to be “insufficient” with the underlying implication that the BJP could do a better job of the negotiation (2) the Congress is trying to hijack its pet initiative (3) by opposing the deal and using the opportunity in case Left withdraws support, to force early elections by voting against the government in a no-confidence motion. The possible reasons behind the Left’s position (1) the public position that this will bring India closer in strategic military alliance with the USA, and not to be allowed from ideological grounds – USA as the “evil capitalist” (2) coincidence with BJP’s contention that the deal limits India’s nuclear military options by limiting “tests” (3) possible fear of a “resurgent” BJP being strengthened or benefiting from supposedly sympathetic Western interests in case this strategic alliance materialized (4) potential fear or hope that Muslim votes would go against any party that supported the deal.

The last point in the list of Left’s possible reasons is a significant one. This week, the Samajbadi Party led by Mulayam Singh, confined mostly to the politically influential state of UP, was warned by the BSP led by Ms. Mayavati, as well as by a top-level leader of the CPI(M), that it could lose Muslim votes if Mulayam Singh toyed with the idea of bailing out the Congress on the floor of the Parliament in case Left withdrew support.

It seems ironic, that with the exception of the BJP, all the parties in this slanging match, are actually doing more damage to the Indian Muslims by presuming to declare Muslim intentions on their behalf. Why should Indian Muslims in particular be against India’s gaining military strength? If they really do, then this will only strengthen BJP’s contention that groups within Indian Islam are “anti-national”. Why should Indian Muslims oppose any alliance with the USA just because USA was supposedly behaving as an enemy of Islam in countries outside the borders of India? If they really do then it can be interpreted as showing real allegiance to foreign countries and putting such countries’ supposed interests above and before that of India. At the other extreme such inclinations could be interpreted as those of a fifth column serving the interests of countries that have territorial designs on India’s borders – countries that have actively waged wars, seized and held onto Indian territory.

At the other end, it shows the psychological insecurity of the Left, the BSP or the Samajwadi party in their possible perception that their vote bank is actually in the periphery or in the minority within Indian society.

At the international stage of the game, the main players would be the USA and its European allies, Russia, China, India and Pakistan. For the USA, with its involvement in the middle east, and on the borders of Pakistan, India is a key potential ally. The suitability of India as an ally is on several counts, (1) it has a large non-Muslim population with a predominant culture that has (although disputed by a section of historians) strong undercurrents of Islamo-phobia, (2) it has a dominant geo-strategic position on the Indian Ocean with depth for naval, land and air operations, (3) a large skilled and higher educated workforce capable of communicating in English (4) a large expatriate professionally successful Indian community in the USA (5) India’s continuing hostile relations with Pakistan and China who have successfully made military claims on Indian territory (6) traditional alliances and strategic links with Russia continuing into the post Communist nationalist phase and therefore deemed less dangerous and potentially useful as both Russia and India face common threats from Islamic separatist and militant movements, (7) India’s borders on the Muslim majority countries of Pakistan and Bangladesh, communist dominated Nepal, China, and the ethnic violence torn Shri Lanka – thereby providing a potential strategic bridgehead for military operations in case of necessity.

For Russia, the considerations are (1) traditional strategic links surviving the fall of USSR (2) a continued market for military hardware and technology (3) historical and continuing strategic importance of an access to the Indian Ocean (4) the delicate balance of interests with China and the latter’s increasing might (5) competition with the USA for influence in the subcontinent.

For China, the possible considerations are (1) elimination of the threat of independent Tibet by doing everything possible to neutralize Dalai Lama sheltered in India (2) increased accessed to the Indian border through a communist regime in Nepal (3) perception of India as a barrier to geo-strategic dominance of the Indian Ocean, (4) India as competitor for the global market (5) delicate balance between supporting regimes in Pakistan and Bangladesh that coincide with Islamic fundamentalist militant activity aimed aagainst India and the possible repurcussions of similar activities developing on its own borders with Central Asian countries having predominantly muslim populations as well as within its own borders to the north-west.

For Pakistan, the reasons are (1) traditional justification of the sole national project of establishing Islamic dominance in the subcontinent (the so-called “trauma of loss of power”) and India seen as the only obstruction (2) a weak economy hampered by feudal retrogressions (3) a nuclear first strike capability and dominance as the only hope of overcoming the technically superior Indian army (4) proximity of India to the USA as neutralization of the strategic interests enjoyed so far by Pakistan with the West.

What is at stake for India ? (1) As for power generation, the impact will be negligible at present, providing around 3% of the total need. However the potential value of cooperation in the area with other established expertise pools could have long term benefits (2) India stands to gain much more, indirectly from any implied strategic alliance with the USA – this brings the foremost military technology and presence capable of global presence and interception within its reach (3) the psychological proximity of the dominant elite in the two countries as regards perception of common threats (4) the need to balance weapons capable China and Pakistan.

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

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