Rahul Gandhi

Rahul, Roemer allegedly and Wikipee : who is conning whom?

Posted on December 21, 2010. Filed under: Ayodhya, China, Christians, Hindu, Historians with political agenda, History, India, Islam, Islamic propaganda, Jihad, Kashmir, Kashmiri Pundit, Muslims, Rahul Gandhi, USA |

Recently, the net and the news media has been abuzz with a certain founder of a certain website that claims to release into the public domain supposed secret communications between American diplomats and Washington. Using some journalistic license in lampooning I will use the keyword “Wikipee” – since in some casually polite English circles “taking a leak” is an euphemism for a natural and essential mammalian act. Apologies in advance if anyone feels offended – both from the supporting or the opposing side.

Having said that, there is no alternative verification possible about the truth, reality or reliability of the information posted, so we can neither accept them at face value, nor reject them at face value. There are wild speculations about the possibility of these being a selected list of items which have been manufactured to create a certain opinion in favour of US foreign policy itself or help the US attain specific foreign policy objectives. Attacking the apparent source in public could then be seen as increasing the credibility of the source. On the other hand, it could also be simply a random act of omission, carelessness, negligence combined with various personal grievances and ideological dissent from among American personnel at various levels. It could even be an act of penetration and sabotage by opposing international forces like China which has been alleged many times as behind hacking attempts against national governments.

But whoever has selected the items to be released must have selected it out of some purpose, some aim at creating some impression. Here I will look at one item that has raised a huge storm in India : the alleged quote of Rahul Gandhi alleging much greater threat of supposed “Hindu Terror” compared to Pakistani or Islamist terror. The concerned text can be found here : http://cablesearch.org/cable/view.php?id=09NEWDELHI1624

5. (C) Responding to the Ambassador’s query about Lashkar-e-Taiba’s activities in the region and immediate threat to India, Gandhi said there was evidence of some support for the group among certain elements in India’s indigenous Muslim community. However, Gandhi warned, the bigger threat may be the growth of radicalized Hindu groups, which create religious tensions and political confrontations with the Muslim community. (Comment: Gandhi was referring to the tensions created by some of the more polarizing figures in the BJP such as Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi.) The risk of a “home-grown” extremist front, reacting to terror attacks coming from Pakistan or from Islamist groups in India, was a growing concern and one that demanded constant attention.
Comment

If true, Rahul is actually causing some severe logical problems for both himself as well as his party.

(a) Alleged “Hindu terrorists”—who are so completely penetrated, rounded up and cases put up in a jiffy by the Indian anti-terror organizations currently under the Congress led government in contrast to the lackadaisical pursuit of cases, penetration and rounding up or even absence of proper cases by the same government agencies if a single Indian Muslim name appears in connection with any terror atrocity — are accused of bomb blasts in 2007 and 2008 in Andhra Pradesh, Rajasthan and Maharashtra that killed 17 people. According to the South Asia Terrorism Portal, the toll in India from about two dozen radical Islamic terrorist attacks since 9/11 stands at more than 950 dead and many hundreds more injured.

The principal Hindu groups accused have little or no international presence – no theological support within Hinduism similar to the doctrine of violent Jihad (yes violent, as amply borne out by the core texts of Islam, where one ambiguous citing for “conditional peaceful treatment of people of the book” is propagandized by modern hagiographers compared to numerous references where Jihad is only mentioned in the context of violence). But those alleged to have a hand behind incidents like the 26/11 Mumbai attacks, have a wide ranging support network and connections of Islamist Jihad.

No Islamist government whose territories have been used to perpetrate terror on India has seriously taken any steps at all to try and book the culprits or even properly investigate the organizations. India under the Congress on the other hand jumps up and down ardently to pin the blame on its majority community.

Nowhere in the alleged report by Roemer, Rahul Gandhi is quoted as saying similar things about Jihadi terror. Significantly there is no hint of any importance being given to the Maoist terror or Left wing radicalism, which has consistently claimed lives and property damages. No mention either of outfits in the North East with open affiliations to Christian beliefs or who appear to tout their religious affiliation as a means of attracting obvious international interest and support.

(b) Rahul is a shame on his “historian” great-grandfather, who at least selectively quoted histories existing at his time and predominantly created by colonial historians with their own imperialist agenda in mind.

He tries to blame all Islamist Jihadi reaction against India as a reaction to supposed Hindu atrocities or provocations. But then can he answer what Hindu provocation in Jammu and Kashmir provoked the violent rapes and massacres and ethnic cleansing of Kashmiri pundits in 1989 – a full three years before the supposed incident over the disputed structure at Ayodhya?

Moreover, if Islamist reaction has only started as reaction to Hindu provocation, then did his great-grandfather Jwaharlal Nehru – who became the sole and supreme leaders of the Congress, its legislative wing, and key figure in the transitional government for independence of India – provoke the Muslims so much so that they went into Direct Action (rather Direct Rape and Genocide Action) Day leading to the Partition in 1947? The majority of Hindus made up the Congress at the time.

If every violence is due to historical trauma, why cannot Hindus have a similar justification and only Muslims are allowed to use such an excuse? If every historical atrocity event has a precursor provocation  event, why does not Rahul try to apply the same logic to alleged Hindu violence?


¶6. (C) Gandhi was forthright in describing the challenges faced by the Congress Party and the UPA government in the months ahead. Over the past four years, he was an elusive contact, but he could be interested in reaching out to the United States, given a thoughtful, politically sensitive and strategic approach on our part. We will seek other opportunities to engage with him and with other promising young members of the new generation of parliamentarians. Gandhi mentioned that in the recent election 60 members of the new Parliament were 45 or younger. In a system long viewed as relatively static, the influx of new faces and the rising profile of young leaders like Rahul Gandhi provides us an opening to expand the constituency in support of the strategic partnership with a long term horizon.

What is however more seriously damaging for Rahul Gandhi and the US itself is however here. If the US feels that reaching out to Rahul will ensure securing US strategic interests, that damns both Rahul and the US and their mutual strategic interest.

(1) Rahul’s desirability for the US makes him rather dubious as a candidate to win the future trust of Muslims.

(2) For India’s Hindus, US approach to enlist Rahul on their side is discomforting. His religious affiliations have been publicly ambiguous, unlike her illustrious grandmother Indira Gandhi who at least had no discomfort in display her Hindu affiliation, and there are increasing concerns in many quarters of India about the aggressive proselytization and conversion activities of Christian missionaries funded by Evangelicals from the USA – activities often seemingly protected by state machinery whereas any attempt at reconversion back into Hinduism is treated as “violence”.

USA forgets that the record of Christian missionaries and the Churches have often been actions in favour of colonial and imperialist designs, and that perception remains in the general Hindu society although it always does not come out in the Abrahamic violent intolerance of the “other” because of the inherent pluralistic nature of Hinduism.

(3) USA also should keep in mind that if the majority Hindu is sought to be disempowered and its faith undermined or attacked, then there are two fallouts that the USA will not be able to control.

First, removal of the Hindu from India will mean that there will be no moderating influence to mediate between the Islamists and the Christians, and these two have never been able to flourish together. No country exists today where this has been so. The only known example where it comes close to co-existence is Lebanon, which however speaks for itself. Removal or weakening or attacking the Hindu will mean civil war between Islamist Jihadis and Christian Jihadis – and who will ultimately win that war – Chinese or the Russians or it will become all a part of the grand Islamic Caliphate.

Second, Hindus have never proven easily digestible. They have not always gone the Abrahamic sectarian, non-pluralistic way – but neither have they always succumbed to onslaughts. Islamics made the error of treating the Hindu as a single category to be wiped off, and the Sikhs and the Marathas were the result who practically made the Mughals their slaves. Timely intervention of British saved the Muslims to an extent, but if US lends a hand to a similar attack against the “Hindu” – will it not do the opposite of what USA or its Evangelists want? What if it only consolidates the moderates and the conservative Hindu together more?

USA has often proved its shortsightedness in dealing with nations by concentrating on individual apparently pliable fanbois. Most of the time they turned out at the head of corrupt and unpopular regimes, supporting which even the US became ultimately unpopular in that country. It would be better sense to look at the national fabric, its majority culture and framework – which in case of India will provide a much better long term security for US strategic interests in Asia.

I hope there is more sense in one of the few remaining hopes for democracy and freedom of thought and words – that is the American “conscience”.

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

Indian concession at Sharm-el-Sheik : breathing time for Jihad

Posted on August 10, 2009. Filed under: Afghanistan, Army, China, India, Islam, Islamic propaganda, Muslims, Pakistan, Politics, Rahul Gandhi, Taleban, terrorism, USA |

Manmohan Singh (MMS), the economist PM of India is being buffeted from both sides of the political divide about the mysterious origins of the supposed joint statement in Egypt at Sharm-el-Sheik (S-e-S). He has apparently conceded a lot to his Pakistani counterpart.

Any strengthening of the hands of the semi-feudal elite at the head of Pakistani regime and military, means strengthening of Jihadi Islam. For only by propagating Jihad, Pakistan has been able to ransom the world, and particularly the West, to survive on a state which was, right from its paranoid conception, unsustainable.

So what really could have been the run-up to the supposed concession by the Indian Prime minister?

Suppose we have the following hypothesis :

The inner echelons of decision making within the Congress hierarchy decides in tandem with (or is persuaded by) USA and UK, that, in the short term – stabilization of the Gilani government is necessary. If the Gilani government falls, and the unreliable Pakitani Army (PA)  is left with government powers, or Musharraf makes a comeback, or the PA teams up with the Talebs, or atleast some sort of  Terrorist State of Pakistan (TSP) government pressure is not mounted against the Talebs until the Afghanistan elections are over, USA will lose all its bases in TSP although TSP will still carry on with support of China.

This could panic the Congress leadership, if they do not have much faith in the fighting ability of the Indian people. The current Congress-top-think is probably geared towards equating survival with the proximity of USA. USA could convince the Congress leadership that, it was more important to increase the prestige of Gilani in the eyes of the “commons” of TSP, since Gilani was actually on amuch weaker political basis and is only being propped up because of USA. The Congress on the other hand has been given a strong electoral mandate recently to do as they please. So some concessions, to Gilani, would be important.

As is usual in such cases, MMS might have been reassured that it would all only be verbal, and not meant concretely and as a commitment. The coterie around the dynasty however were not sure of the political fallout, and hence the “future leader” was solidly kept out of any association with this. If any negative thing comes out of S-e-S, it will be blamed on the benign ego of a well-meaning but elderly gentleman inching towards senility (no MMS is not senile – but I am saying it could be passed off as such).

I also think of  him as amenable to “persuasion”. Of course he is subject to “influence”. But he is too weak politically to take such decisions all alone. Such decisions have to come from a more protected and better hidden core. The script is definitely there – and I had been worrying for quite some time that the new Government of India seemed too “eager” and over-ambitious and was in a hurry, and for me that was a possible indication that they knew they had little time before something quite negative was possible.

My worry is that the phenomenon that happened around Sanjay, is repeating itself around Rahul Gandhi. A so-called young gun think-tank could be forming. But this time around, the interested “outsiders” will not take the risk, and will ensure that at least some of their controllers belong to this circle. Likely candidates will be those who have had long “foreign” stints – I have a certain gentleman from “God’s own” in mind.

A Bharatyia society that takes the decision to reincorporate territories currently under Government of  TSP occupation, will only do it after it has come to certain decisions about TSP and the people under it. People are not born with genes for Islamic Jihad and universal hatred for the Quafir. Children born in TSP and Afghanistan are not born with a gene for Jihad either. These are people, who are  kin of the Indic (in spite of their tall-claims of having Arabic descent) – they have almost entirely Indic roots. I, for one think of them simply as blood brothers and sisters of Indians who are forced into a crucible of hatred from birth and not given any other options to even think of other options. Incorporation under a liberal, democratic and modernizing nation of India gives them that option to be otherwise – to be different from the rabid pack of animals they seem to be headed towards.

I would consider it a civilizational duty of Bharat to create conditions under which branches of the Bharatyia civilizational family, however distant they might have become, and however wayward they might have become, are brought back to the family hold – by the ears, if need be, kicking and screaming if needs be. To be thrashed if they want to go back to the lawless streets, and loved if they behave. This is to ensure that we do not have a vicious bandit on the loose whom we could have easily controlled and made otherwise useful.

It will also be much safer for the “neighbours”.

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

Rahul Gandhi to “learn” microcredit from Bangladesh : start building the “future leader” image

Posted on August 3, 2008. Filed under: economics, India, microcredit, Politics, Rahul Gandhi |

Rahul Gandhi has found out from his two day tour, that on an average, the levels of rural poverty in Bangladesh is much lower than in India. He has tasted tea from a roadside tea-stall giving his “Z” security minders the slip. These are two significant observations that indicate what this visit was all about.

From a realistic viewpoint, it is impossible to get an idea of how microcredit runs in Bangladesh, in two days, talking through interpreters without knowing the local dialect and almost nothing of the local culture, surrounded by conscpicuous heavy security, and guided by officials of the organization that leads the program, and a very small sample size of cases.

Rahul Gandhi could have learnt more from experiments going on in his own backyard in India, and would have gained more socially relevant experience – as there are specific social conditions that substantially differ between Bangladesh and India. The only excuse that perhaps Rahul can give is that he will try to apply his “learning” to “uplifting” the state of Muslim women in UP.

But what were the real reasons behind this visit. This is an indication that the Congress old-guard has started the long drawn process of building up the image of Rahul as the future “benevolent despot” from the Nehru dynasty. The visit portrays Rahul as a sympathetic towards Muslims, towards a “small neighbour”, towards the “rural poor” (who dominate the Indian Ocean rim), and a “gracious big brother” who can manage to give the right amount of diplomatic flattery. Rahul’s spontaneity towards tea, showcased by the media, gives the proper “human/one of us” touch. I have to give it to the Congress bosses – it was a well managed show! We can hope to see more of Rahul in such visits, whose frequency will gradually increase.

It would be good to see him break out of his North Indian shell, learn a few of the Indian languages other than Hindi (which he doesn’t speak like a native speaker – amazing, given the degree of  chauvinism shown by some native Hindi-speakers to all other Indian languages as well as anyone who does not speak Hindi “properly”), show depth and understanding of Indian history and culture like his great grandparent (but not share the latter’s penchant for spontaneous blunders such as the unilateral declaration of accepting a referendum for Kashmir in 1948 – what about referendums for other disputed territories like Balochistan, Sind or regions ceded in the east to Pakistan- which then had substantial populations reluctant to join Pakistan but subsequently ethnically cleansed by the “peaceful towards non-Muslims” Islamic elite of Pakistan?) – and hopefully restrict his spontaneity to tea only.

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

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