UK

Looking back on “Assadfall” and the future of Middle East

Posted on March 10, 2017. Filed under: Afghanistan, Arab, India, Iran, Islam, Islamic propaganda, Israel, Jew, Jihad, Left, Pakistan, Palestine, Politics, Russia, Shia, Sunni, Syria, Taleban, Turkey, UK, USA |

About six years ago, when the Syrian “civil war” started off, I had already been used to frequently writing and debating on an online forum. There was a poster apparently from India, but claiming intimate knowledge of the Gulf states and having access to “higher levels” of policy-making and decision makers in both Gulf Saudi allied regimes and in India. He often gave out timelines for fall of Assad, overthrow of the Syrian regime, or even sometimes how Saudi forces were preparing for the final assault that will annihilate Syrian government, and occasionally the imminent victorious or successful battle plans of Israel, USA and others against Assad. Sometimes it was about how in the following weeks the Russians were going to abandon Assad to his fate.

I had already clashed with him on his whitewashing of the history of Palestine in favour of Islamic occupation of the Levant following Byzantine withdrawal, or the legitimacy of the claims of the Jews on their current lands (leading to the series I wrote on this blog on Palestine and Islamo-Judaic relations). So when he declared that Assad was going to “fall” in the “next two weeks”, I thought I would have some fun by contradicting him on his “sure” predictions on Syria, (this led me to coin the term “Assadfall” – something that is promised to happen the next day or next week but never happens even in years) and proposed,

(1) If Assad could  hold onto the narrow ridge highland that separated coasts from the eastern trough before the vast eastern plateau he was not going to fall. Not in two weeks. Not in two years.

(2) Syria was going to be partitioned one way or the other and the Kurds were going to get their independent homeland.

(3) Russia was not going to abandon Assad, and Israel was not going to move against Syria.

I was of course laughed at just like the time when I had predicted that the US forces will be withdrawing from Afghanistan, that the British forces would make no headway against the Taleban, and that the Taleban were going to re-emerge as the main power in Afghanistan. My reasons for predicting the resurgence of the Taleban is perhaps material for another post, so skipping it now.

Returning to this six-year old issue, I can see that my reasons for predicting the outcome of the Syrian adventure by Sunni-Saudi-West have not really changed. But the fallout needs to be fleshed out in further predictions. So what will be the major trends for the future for the region?

(a) I find that there is a remarkable lack of awareness of the historical reality of the Kurds among western audiences and perhaps even so-called think-tanks. The Kurds, after Islamization, were at the vanguard of Islamic expansionism, with the most famous example perhaps being the forces around Salahuddin the expeller of crusaders. Kurdis were also implicated as the main forces used by the Ottomans to “manage” the Armenians which later came to be seen by non-Turkish scholarship as the Armenian genocide. Ironically, it was this cooperation with Ottoman regimes that helped coalesce military strength around family, clan and regional lines among the Kurds. The Kurds were not free of Islamist theological-political admixture with leadership held within pseudo-dynastic frameworks.

(b) With the break up of the Ottoman empire, this Kurdi nucleus of state formation around charismatic and pseudo-dynastic clan leadership in one particular remote terrain among all the regions inhabited by the Kurdis, began to pursue political independence more vigorously. Like with Saudis, western powers toyed with but dashed their hopes of political sovereignty. But Ottoman failure also led to soul-searching by new generation of Middle East’s muslims, and one section of Kurdis, like all over both Arabs and non-Arab population in the zone, began to explore “Left” approach. This tendency eventually led to the modern PKK.

(c) The current Kurdi assertion is split between the “Leftists” in PKK and its armed wings, which have fought alongside the more “mainstream” Peshmarga, the forces around the “clan”. The Peshmarga will compromise on independent state-formation as its leadership will be more interested in keeping their personal control over Kurds, which might be less assured at current stages if the dissenting factions come into a sovereign state where other national governments cannot be tasked with reducing this opposition.

(d) Given that Turkey, Syria, Iraq, and even Iran would not like an independent Kurdi nation being carved out as it would bite into each of their current territories, at this stage, its Turkey which stands to lose most and the other countries involved may concede a little just so that the major portion of the new Kurdi territory is taken out of Turkey.

(e) Since the forces around Peshmarga are likely to be softer on independent state formation, and the balance of forces would like to see Turkey being cut down a bit, it’s the PKK led faction and its forces which are likely to gain increasing political support from within Kurdi populations, and they will gradually replace the political predominance of the current clan based framework that Kurdis have.

(f) Turkey, Saudis and Qataris or Kuwaitis, who most likely supplied and deemed the ISIS as deniable assets of an army of expansion, will seek to carve out a territory for the ISIS assets. This Turkey, European powers, are going to try to do by overtly representing it as an autonomous or independent region of “Sunni” “moderate rebels” just south of Turkish borders. In fact this could also be a part of a deal in which both Kurdis and ISIS re-packaged as “moderate rebels”  have each their adjacent “independent states”. Turkey may accept this as a check against Kurdis and as temporary compromise to protect its jihadi assets. Saudi money might also work behind the scenes in western corridors of power to create pressure to accept this model.

However in the long run, this will just be an interim redrawing of Middle Easts borders. The main objective of Europe, and Saudis will be to transfer the jihadi assets developed in the plains of Iraq and Syria into two directions – east and north against Russia and Iran, and further east towards Afghanistan, Pakistan and India. We may already see the beginnings of this policy in increased activities of claimed ISIS operations in Afghanistan and Pakistan. However, even within that, its India’s north that is the target.

Enticing them into India is the thing to do. As I have been projecting for years, any such jihadi incursion will create the conditions for eventual erasure of Islam and jihadism.

 

 

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

CounterThoughts – 4: Bharatya nationhood and Yogendra Yadav’s neo-Stracheyism

Posted on March 3, 2015. Filed under: Buddhists, Hindu, Historians with political agenda, History, India, Indian National Congress, Islam, Islamic propaganda, Israel, Left, neoimperialism, Pakistan, religion, Russia, terrorism, UK, Uncategorized | Tags: , |

John Strachey, the iconic colonial administrator and so-called liberal theoretician posed the question “What is India? What does the name India really signify?” and answered it as

“The answer that I have sometimes given sounds paradoxical, but it is true. There is no such country, and this is the first and most essential fact about India that can be learned….India is a name which we give to a great region…there is not, and never was an India, or even a country of India, possessing, according to European ideas, any sort of unity, physical, political, social, or religious; no Indian nation, no “people of India,” of which we hear so much” [John Strachey, India: Its Administration and Progress, 4th ed. London, 1911, 1-5.]

Yogendra Yadav, http://ibnlive.in.com/news/india-is-a-statenation-not-a-nationstate-yogendra-yadav/417588-55.html uses Strachey in a dangerous game of justifying the centrifugal forces generated by persistent imperialist religions and ideologies which have remained foreign to Bharat by their own declared identification with politic-military-cultural centres of power and transnational intrigue situated outside the subcontinent’s geography.

Yadav’s article itself is a textbook illustration as to how Indian anti-Hindu humanities academics spin their fantastic narratives of Bharat’s past and even history of whatever period of whatever part of the world they cite to support their hidden political agenda. But refuting and showing up the fallacies, misrepresentations and gross suppression of historical realities in Yadav’s article will itself need another blog post. So here I will concentrate on giving the positive counter-arguments rather than the negative ones to simply refute him. During the course of these arguments one should be able to see the hilarious contradictions of Yadav’s pompous statements about India’s past, and even his lack of knowledge of the supposed “diversity-worshiper Congress leadership of the freedom movement”.

Briefly, Yadav’s tactics lies in mischievous and rather academically dubious silence on why the Brit Isles, or Spain, or Italy remained unified while Yugoslavia, USSR splintered, even though sociologically all had comparable “deep” identity diversities. Yadava’s mischief also lies in completely avoiding the role of religion behind state and unity and inter-religious rivalry in the disintegrations he blames the idea of nation-states on. However lets leave Yadav behind for a moment and look into the issues involved.

For John Seeley “the fundamental fact then is that India had no jealousy of the foreigner because India had no sense whatever of national unity, because there was no India and therefore, properly speaking, no foreigner” [John Seeley, The Expansion of England, London, 1882, 161.]

The same Seeley however saw in Brahmanism the seed of Indian nationalism ” After this victory [over Buddhism] Brahmanism had to resist the assault of another powerful aggressive religion, before which Zoroastrianism had already fallen and even Christianity… had to retreat some steps, Mohammedanism. Here again it held its own…Now religion seems to me to be the strongest and most important of all the elements which  go to constitute nationality, and this element exists in India” [Expansion of England, 1882, p.15].

However, the viewpoint of the new nationalist thinking in India was radically different with an insight either not available or unpalatable for the imperialist and racist European mind.

Gandhiji, then still in South Africa in 1909, wrote in “Hind Swaraj”: “The English have taught us that we were not a nation before and it will require centuries before we became one nation. This is without foundation. We were one nation before they came to India. One thought inspired us. Our mode of life was the same. It was because we were one nation that they were able to establish one kingdom.” [M. K. Gandhi-Hindu Dharma, Ahmedabad, 1950, p. 56].

The same year, Bengali historian Radha Kumud Mukerji read a paper before the Dawn Society, Calcutta, presenting his “scientific” findings on the “Fundamental Unity of India”. An expanded form of this essay was published from London in 1913. Bipin Chandra Pal wrote on his own interpretation of “nationalism” in 1912, in his monthly journal, ‘The Hindu Review’ under the title ‘Hindu Nationalism: What It Stands For’ followed by another article ‘Nationalism and Politics’ in May 1913.  His thesis was that European nationalism, being isolationist and materialist in nature was anti-humanity, while the Indian nationalism represented a higher stage of group consciousness and was a positive step towards human brotherhood and spirituality. In his own words, Hindu nationalism stood for – “God, Humanity and the Motherland” [B.C. Pal, Nationality and Empire, Calcutta, 1916.  22-48, 73-112].

For Sukumar Dutt “A mind free from western conception of nationality is absolutely necessary to comprehend the problems of Indian Nationality” (p.18) because “it is difficult for a western mind to grasp the order of the ideas, unknown in European history, which has evolved this unique conception of the spiritual unity of India.” [Sukumar Dutt, Problems of Indian Nationality, Calcutta, 1926, p.17]

For those who do not believe in the existence of any “nation” of Indians in the past and  throw all these into the “garbage heap” as “Hindu fundamentalists” living in their “dream world”, there are people who cannot fit the bill of “Hindu revivalism” by any stretch of imagination, holding similar views on nationalism.

However, already in the backdrop of experiences of WWI, in the 1920’s the three theoreticians, Ramsay Muir, G.P. Gooch, and MacDougall rejected the old definition based on five unities. MacDougall defined it as a ‘group consciousness’ [The Group Mind, London, 1920, p.100]. G.P Gooch [Nationalism, London 1920] was explicit, “The core of nationalism is group consciousness[….]. neither the occupation of a well defined area, nor community of race, language, religion, government or economic interests are indispensable to national self-consciousness” (p. 5-6). Ramsay Muir wrote “Nationality, then, is an elusive idea, difficult to define[….] Its essence is a sentiment”. [Nationalism and Internationalism, London, 1919].

In “Nationalism: A religion” [C.J.H Hayes, New York, 1960], Carlton Hayes concludes  “In simplest terms nationalism may be defined as a fusion of patriotism with a consciousness of nationality” (p. 2) and that “A nationality receives its impress, its character, its individuality from cultural and historical forces (p. 3)….historical tradition means an accumulation of remembered or imagined experiences of the past” (p. 4). Hayes defines patriotism “as a peoples’ territorial past, its ancestral soil, involving a popular, sentimental regard for a homeland where one’s forefathers lived and are buried or cremated” (p. 4).

Rejecting the nineteenth Century belief that nationalism was a political phenomenon and the existence of State was a prerequisite in nation-formation, Hayes writes, “If we are to grasp what a nationality is, we must avoid confusing it with state or nation” (p. 6). Accepting the idea of cultural nationalism, Hayes writes, “Cultural nationalism may exist with or without political nationalism. For, nationalities can do and exist for fairly long periods without political unity and independence.”

Hans Kohn, [The Idea of Nationalism, 1944] concludes that the nature of the processes of nation formation in Europe and Asia was not the same. In Europe ‘state’ was mainly instrumental in nation formation, while in Asia nationalism had cultural origins. Even political unity of Germany and Italy was preceded by vigorous intellectual and cultural movements led by Herder, Goethe and Kant, and Mazzini. Regarding patriotism, Hayes writes, “Loyalty to familiar places is relatively natural, but it requires artificial effort-purposeful conscious education and training to render men loyal to the sum total of places unfamiliar as well as familiar in an entire country inhabited by his nationality” (p. 9). That means that the spirit of patriotism and national consciousness does not permeate all sections of the population in the same degree at a given point of time. To quote Hayes again, “only through an intensive and extensive educational process will a local group of people become thoroughly aware of their entire nationality and supremely loyal to it” (p. 10).

Every Purana text contains a section called Bhuvan Kosh, in which the boundaries of the land called Bharatavarsha are clearly defined and its progeny is given a common name Bharati. A list of all the Janapadas scattered all over the country is given along with the lists of rivers and mountains. A smaller list of seven holy rivers, mountains and cities symbolizing the unity of the land are given there. These slokas were meant for daily recital. List of “punyasthan” or tirthas are explicitly given in the Puranas as well as Mahabharata. These pilgrim centers cover the whole land.

This devotion to the land is not confined to its physical or material aspect only. Vishnu Purana states that the gods in heaven also feel envious of those who are born in the land of Bharatavarsha because the gods after the expiry of their merits will have to take rebirth on the earth while those born in Bharata will be able to transcend the cycle of rebirth. Chapter 9 of the Bhishmaparva in Mahabharata describes Bharatavarsha. While describing the greatness of Bharatavarsha the narrator gives a long list of ancient kings who loved this land – combining the very modern elements of “patriotism, love of the land”.

Thus, we find that all the ingredients of the group consciousness called nationalism are present here. This consciousness of the geographical unity exists in the Samkalpa mantra meant to be part of daily prayers and was recited at the beginning of every sacred act or ritual. Dr. Radha Kumud Mookerji goes to the extent “India was preaching the gospel of nationalism when Europe was passing through what has been aptly called the Dark Age of her history, and was labouring under the travails of a new birth”. [Nationalism in Hindu Culture, London 1921, 2nd Edition 1957, p. 47]

Asokan inscriptions use a common dialect and script with minor regional variations addressed to the subjects. They use the term Jambudvipa. The Samkalpa mantra treats Bharat Khande or Varsh as a part of Jambudvipa. Kautilya’s Arthashastra, usually thought to be composed in the 4th Century B.C., in defining the territory to be conquered by a Chakravarti King defines it as the land between the Himalayas and the ocean from north to south and equivalent in span of eight thousand miles from east to west. [Book 9, Chapter 1, Prakarana 135-136 -R.D.Shyamasastry]. Mukherji was of the opinion that the conception of a single power dominating the whole country had not originated with Chandragupta Maurya or Kautilya but must have preexisted. Aitreya Brahmana (VIII 15) repeats the dictum that there should be only one ruler of this Prithvi up to the ocean.

In both the above references the word Prithvi has been used as the name of the country. In Mahagovindsutta of Diggha Nikaya (currently held to be the oldest portion of Buddhist Tripitakakas) “Maha Prithvi” name has been given to the land whose shape has been compared with that of a bullock cart which happens to be rectangular in the north and conical in the south. (Rahul Sankrityayana identifies this with Bharat). Therefore the word Prithvi could not have been used for the whole earth beyond Bharatavarsha.

The Prithvi Sukta of Atharva Veda (XII.I) uses the common word Bhumi for land, but uses Prithvi for that particular territory which was later called Jambudivpa or Bharatavarsha. Here, Prithvi is clearly identified with the Vedic history and culture. This Sukta states that this is the land where our ancestors displayed their valour, where gods defeated the Asuras; where our gods Ashwinis, Vishnu and Indra, the husband of Sachi performed their divine feats; it is the land where sacrifices are performed, for them altars are established, where our sacrificial posts stand erect where five classes of men (four varnas and fifth the Nishad) live; this land which is sustained by Dharma where we are protected by god Indra himself; where we offer ghee to the Agni, who acts as our messenger to the gods. It is the land where men offer their oblations to the gods in sacrifices and relish the remains of the sacrificial offerings. Here Indra destroys the enemies of gods, the Asuras and the demon Vrtra. This is the land where pillars (Yupas) are erected for the Sacrifices and where the Rishis chant the mantras of Rigveda Samaveda and Yajurveda, where Indra is offered Somarasa. The land, where ancient Rishis sang divine songs, where they performed seven sattras with Yajnas and Tapas. This is the land where men move in their chariots and bullock carts on the roads where Sabhas and Samitis function in the villages.

Although the Prithvi Sukta does not give exact boundaries of the land, but its citing Himalayas, Sindhu, the six seasons, the flora and fauna, agriculture and crafts all point to a geographical  entity identified as “Bharatavarsha”. Prithvi Sukta uses the word “bhumi” to denote ‘land’ while the word Prithvi denotes its name and expresses a deep sense of affiliation and identification with all the living and non-living attributes of this “land”. It repeatedly reminds us that this “motherland” sustains, feeds and gives refuge even after death. Therefore, this land is our mother and “we are her sons” (12th stanza), because it feeds us just like a “mother” (10-th stanza). Prithvi Sukta acknowledges different dialects and different norms of behaviour according to their own regions, but this motherland just like a “cow”, “feeds them all with her milk without any distinction” (45-th stanza).

The opening verse of the Prithvi Sukta mentions those values and ideals which sustain this land called Prithvi : Truth, Cosmic Law, Initiation, Penance, Veda and Sacrifice. The name Prithvi, itself could have originated from king Prithu (supposed to have started agriculture on the land) indicating a conscious connection of civilization and culture.

Was there a concept of early geographical core? Manu Smriti gives four increasing spheres of influence. As the core, Manu Smriti (II. 18-19) states that the land between the divine rivers Saraswati and Drishadvati was created by the gods themselves and was known by the name Brahmavarta. In this land the code of conduct transmitted by the tradition in regular succession from generation to generation was seen as the noble code of conduct for all varnas”.

As the next circle of expansion, Manusmriti mentions (II. 20-21) the name of Brahmarshi Desh which included the Janapadas of Matsya, Kurukshetra, Panchala and Shurasena. Manusmriti declares that the people born in this land were the torch bearers in the realm of human conduct and therefore all the inhabitants of Prithvi should learn the lessons in character and conduct from them (Manu II. 20-21).

The next expansion circle is named Madhyadesa in Manusmriti (II. 22), covering the land between Himalaya and Vindhya mountains from north to south and to the west of Prayag in the east and to the east of Vinsana in the west, (the place where river Saraswati is believed to have disappeared).

The fourth and the last expansion circle mentioned by Manu Smriti was called Aryavarta, i.e. the land of the Aryas. It was spread from eastern sea to the western sea and from Himalaya Mountain in the north upto river Narmada in the south. This pure land is worthy of performing sacrifices (yajna) and the black antelope, the symbol of sacrifice, could roam there freely. The lands beyond Aryavarta are impure, i.e. not yet part of the cultural stream. (Manu II. 22-23).

The etymology of the word Arya also includes the meaning ‘agriculture’ as well as its use as a qualitative meaning “noble, respectable, higher” in classical Sanskrit and Praakrit texts. Rigvedic “Aryanise the whole world”, could there have meant a civilizational process leading to the spread of an advanced culture and this is also reflected in the early Buddhist and Jain texts. The story of Mathav Videgh following the march of Sacrificial fire from the bank of the river Saraswati to the banks of the river Sadanira (Satapath Brahman) also indicates that it was a cultural process and not a racial one.

Gandhiji wrote in Hind Swaraj (1909). “Our leading men traveled throughout India either on foot or in bullock-carts………. what do you think could have been the intention of those farseeing ancestors of ours who established Setuabandh  in the south, Jagannath in the East and Hardwar in the North as places of pilgrimage? You will admit they were no fools. They knew that worship of God could have been performed just as well at home. They taught us that those whose hearts were aglow with righteousness had the Ganga in their own homes….But they saw that India was one undivided land so made by nature. They, therefore, argued that it must be one nation. Arguing thus, they established holy places in various parts of India, and fired the people with idea of nationality in a manner unknown in other parts of the world”. (M.K. Gandhi. Hind Swaraj, Chap. 9, Hindu Dharma, Ahmedabad 1950, p. 56).

If we are looking for “historical awareness of the need to defend borders as sign of awareness of nationhood” we are looking for something that will be hard to find not only in India but even across the world.

Start with UK. Apparently one tribal king invited the Romans in, and even left his inheritance to them, while his queen led other tribes against the Romans. Lots of English Breton tribal chiefs joined in with the Romans, and “aristocracy’s” habits were “Romanized”. But then, Hadrian built a wall cutting off Scots and Picts. When Saxons came in, they had been invited in as mercenaries by English kings who had risen up after the departure of the Romans. When they took land for themselves and tried to expand, the Welsh – predominantly perhaps Romano-Breton tried to fight them at their border – which was where Wales ended. And the distinction of Welsh, Scottish and Irish identities continued with bloody fanfare well into the early modern. So parts of UK were not conscious of their modern “borders” well into the early modern. But do we find strands of commonality – yes, starting from Bede’s narrative – monks and Christianity crossed “borders”, and were accepted as part of a “national” awareness distinguishing the “islanders” from that of the mainland or from the “Irish”.

Think of the Germans. At least six different tribes are mentioned by Tacitus, and we know mostly of their early history from their “enemies”. We have explicit references to sections of German tribes collaborating with the Romans against other German tribes, and not always defending their modern “borders”. Until modern German unification, the constituents of “German nation” existed in “elusive” mistiness of literature, myth and legends.

All through Europe, even in the Russia under the Golden Horde and then under the early Tsars, we do not always see a consciousness of “borders to be defended” in the modern sense. Whole groups, fought to defend themselves and survive, or migrated en-masse to preserve themselves. What was more important was survival of their “way of life”, their culture, and their “civilization” – whatever that “civilization” could be.

We dont even see that “defending the border” as part of “national/civilizational” awareness even in the Islamic regimes of Arabia, Iraq and Iran.

What is today our official “border” need not be our border in the future. If in the past that “border” had shrunk inwards, in the future it can expand. The crucial point was preservation of the core in times of adversity and expansion in favourable times – or when situation could be made “favourable”.

When hard-pressed in the north, it became a choice of “fight/flight”, and at some point they had to decide painfully what took priority – pride and annihilation, or “slinking away” to preserve your texts and the best continuing mechanism of “culture” – living, practicing humans. No wonder, so many of the Sanskrit texts were recovered from the “South”.

Borders should be taken as temporary compromises in space-time, to keep identities in equilibrium. When needed “borders” should be changed, even expanded – not “identities”.

 

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

CounterThoughts-3: A Call for Counter-Jihad

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Let the “struggle” begin.

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

[First written almost 4 years ago: updated!]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sayedee’s Jamaat-e-Islami shows how Islam actually spread in India or for that matter in Arabia too

Posted on March 3, 2013. Filed under: Arab, Bangladesh, Bengal, Hindu, Historians with political agenda, History, India, Islam, Islamic propaganda, Jihad, Left, Pakistan, Politics, rape, religion, Saudi, Shahbag, Sunni, Taleban, terrorism, UK, Wahabi |

 What Jamaat-e-Islami of Bangladesh is doing in collaboration with other sharia-fascist Islamist groups is being dubbed by the media as merely being Pakistani agents, or trying to complete what Pakistan failed to do in 1971. There are two reasons or rather compulsions behind this media or even mainstream “secular”
political parties.

The first one is the fear in parties like Awami League stemming from the uncertainty of not really knowing how much of covert Islamist sympathy lies within their own ranks, or in the state machinery, or in the police and armed wings. Then there is also the fear of what pressures might be applied by external forces which no regime of Bangladesh can afford to displease.  A possible spectrum of such forces can perhaps be hypothesized as the covert state wings of UK, USA and KSA. Islamic leaders, or political  and military leaders from Islamic nations on the subcontinent – typically get immediate shelter in one of three countries when things get too hot in their native land and in anticipation of placing them back in their proper “roles” once things cool down – UK and KSA primarily, and USA secondarily. The eldest son of the current opposition leader has been “recuperating” quietly in UK ever since he went there for treatment after suffering health problems while in custody in Bangladesh under corruption charges. We can hear nothing, not even a murmur, from the anti-corruption agencies in Bangladesh over this – even though we do hear murmurs about the other son who is sheltered in Singapore. Another leader of the “interim-caretaker-government” is sheltered on the island too, and nothing is heard of him even though the opposition makes noises from time to time (not very loudly though). Musharraf has sheltered on the island too.

United Kingdom was instrumental in creating the Islamist problem on the subcontinent as part of a consistent and premeditated political programme of subverting Indian society, and there is some indication that the British state machinery had set the task of outlining separatist Islam based territorial and political units – to Islamic civil servants in the Indian administrative services as early as 1934.  Then the remarkably successful British Indian intelligence service, which penetrated almost each and every anti-Britsh peaceful or covert political groups, apparently failed completely in anticipating how demobilized Muslim soldiers of British Indian Army were being recruited by the Muslim League to train jihadi gangs as part of a planned pogrom and genocide move to be unleashed in the infamous “Direct Action Day”. The Partition violence was orchestrated to a very large extent from within resources ultimately traceable to the British Indian army (demobilized soldiers) and administration.

Thus it might actually be in the interest of sections of political and covert intelligence wings of both UK and KSA, not to allow the violent Islamist factions in Bangladesh (and in Pakistan) to be completely destroyed, as these may appear to be valuable destabilizing assets for future manipulation of subcontinental politics. If Awami League moves to the extent of destroying these assets, their leaders may suddenly find themselves assassinated or coups mounted.

The other reason, potentially, is the awareness that what Jamaat is doing – is actually consistently within the ambit of Islamism, and very much practised and used as precedence from the founding days of Islam. Thus countering the Jamaat is not possible from the Islamic religious angle. For every supposed “peaceful conversion” verse in the Quran, there are many more in the ahadith that makes deceptive, violent and genocidic jihad on the non-Muslim the norm.

That Jamaat is carrying out an Islamic programme is clear in the way it is actually repeating the Islamic jihadi meme for non-muslims on each and every excuse on which violence can be mounted, even if officially the call by them was simply to protest against the hanging order on Sayedee.

(1) In Chittagong, Jamaati Islamists attacked Hindu majority localities at Jaldi union of Banshkhali upazila and set fire to a Buddhist temple.(2) Jamaat members also burned houses at Dhopapara and Mohajonpara and attacked people with sticks, iron rods and sharp weapons.

(3) The rioters also burned three shops belonging to Hindus at Kaliash union of Satkania upazila.

(4) Members of Jamaat-e-Islami and its student wing Islami Chhatra Shibir attacked a temple and business establishments belonging to Hindus at Bhelkobazar in Sundarganj upazila of Gaibandha district.

(5) Rioters also vandalised some houses in Shovaganj union.

(6) Vandalism, arson and looting took place in temples, houses and business establishments of Hindus in Sylhet, Rangpur, Thakurgaon, Laxmipur and Chapainawabganj.

(7) Attackers had vandalised the central Kali temple at Mithapukur upazila in Rangpur and another at Kansat in Chapainawabganj.

Jamaat is indeed following in the same order of politics of violent provocation, and using legitimate retribution from the victim side as the excuse to increase the level of violence in a bid to extract totalitarian state power – that was laid down in the early battles and campaigns of the founding of the religion in northern Arabia, targeting deceptively, by ambush, by flouting of all then prevalent code of conduct of war,  by rape, genocide, and again betrayal of the basic human values.

As expected, while Islamist march in violent demand of action against the Shahbag youth in Kolkata, the “progressiveness” capital of India under watchful protection of the state police [that which also maintains watchful protection of Islamist and jihadi campaigns in Hindu villages along the border with Bangladesh on the Indian side], no protests or marches or sit-ins have happened from the left and secular brandholders of the state. After all, there could be much higher than allowed to be known – electoral and financial benefits from the Muslim population in the state.

What is happening in India and the neighbouring Muslim states – is a repeat, and therefore revealing of actual totalitarianist strategies by which Islam originally spread on the subcontinent. It is just a renewed attempt after gathering the strength that was needed to make the move – recovering from the losses of defeat at the hands of European imperialism, and pretension of submission and alliance with the west.

Ending with a full list of  the 20 charges against Sayedee for a sample of those activities reported and could be supported by witnesses : many others could not make it to the courts because of the successful delay in the trial for 40 years, by which time many witnesses had died or “vanished” when the Jamaat was rehabilitated under international and military-dictatorship patronage.

1. On May 4, 1971, Delawar Hossain Sayedee as a member of Peace (Shanti) Committee carried secret information to the Pakistan army about a gathering of a group of people behind the Madhya Masimpur bus-stand under Pirojpur Sadar and took the army to the spot. The army killed 20 unnamed people by firing.

2. On May 4, 1971, Sayedee along with his accomplices accompanied by the Pakistan army looted belongings of members of the Hindu community living in Masimpur Hindu Para under Pirojpur Sadar. They also set the houses of Hindus alight and opened fire on the scared people, who started fleeing the scene, killing 13 people.

3. On May 4, 1971, Sayedee led a team of the Pakistan army to Masimpur Hindu Para, where the team looted goods from the houses of two members of the Hindu community — Monindra Nath Mistri and Suresh Chandra Mondol — and destroyed their houses by setting them on fire. Sayedee also directlytook part in the large-scale destruction by setting fire to the roadside houses of villages Kalibari, Masimpur, Palpara, Sikarpur, Razarhat, Kukarpara, Dumur Tola, Kalamtola, Nawabpur, Alamkuthi, Dhukigathi, Parerha and Chinrakhali.

4. On May 4, 1971, Sayedee and his accomplices, accompanied by the Pakistani army looted the houses of members of the Hindu community and opened fire indiscriminately on them in front of Dhopa Bari and behind the LGED Building in Pirojpur, leaving four persons killed.

5. Sayedee declared publicly to arrest Saif Mizanur Rahman, then deputy magistrate of Pirojpur Sub-division, when the magistrate organised a Sarbo Dalio Sangram Parishad to inspire people to join the Liberation War. On May 5, 1971, Sayedee along with his associate Monnaf (now deceased), a member of Peace (Shanti) Committee, accompanied by the Pakistan army picked up Saif from the hospital where he was hiding and took him to the bank of the Baleshwar river. On the same date and time, Foyezur Rahman Ahmed, sub-divisional police officer, and Abdur Razzak (SDO in charge of Pirojpur), were also arrested from their workplaces and taken to the river bank. Sayedee as a member of the killer squad was present there and all three government officials were gunned down. Their bodies were thrown into the river Baleshwar. Sayedee directly participated and abetted in the acts of abduction and killing of those three officers.

6. On May 7, 1971, Sayedee identified the houses and shops of Bangalees belonging to the Awami League, Hindu community and supporters of the Liberation War at Parerhat Bazar under Pirojpur Sadar. Sayedee as one of the perpetrators raided those shops and houses and looted valuables, including 22 seers of gold and silver from the shop of one Makhanlal Saha.

7. On May 8, 1971, Sayedee led a team of the Pakistan army to the house of Nurul Islam Khan, where he identified Nurul Islam as an Awami League leader and his son Shahidul Islam Selim as a freedom-fighter to the army. Sayedee then detained Nurul Islam and handed him to the army, which tortured Nurul Islam. His house was then looted and finally set on fire.

8. On May 8, 1971, Sayedee and his accomplices accompanied by the Pakistan army raided the house of one Manik Posari at Chitholia under Pirojpur Sadar and caught his brother Mofizuddin and one Ibrahim. Sayedee’s accomplices then burnt five houses there. On the way to the Pakistani army’s camp, Sayedee instigated the members of the occupation force to kill Ibrahim by gunshot and dump his body near a bridge. On the other hand, Mofiz was taken to the army camp and tortured. Sayedee directly participated in the abduction, murder and persecution of the victims.

9. On June 2, 1971, armed associates of Sayedee under his leadership and accompanied by the Pakistani army raided the house of one Abdul Halim Babul at Nolbunia under Indurkani Police Station and looted valuables from Halim’s house. The team then reduced the house to ashes.

10. On June 2, 1971, Sayedee’s armed associates under his leadership and accompanied by the Pakistan army burnt 25 houses of a Hindu Para in Umedpur village under Indurkani Police Station. At one stage, a victim, Bisabali, was tied to a coconut tree and was shot dead by Sayedee’s accomplice.

11. On June 2, 1971, Sayedee led a team of Peace (Shanti) Committee members, accompanied by the Pakistani army, to raid the house of Mahbubul Alam Howlader (freedom-fighter) of Tengra Khali village under Indurkani Police Station. Sayedee and the team then detained Mahbubul’s elder brother Abdul Mazid Howlader and tortured him, and looted cash money, jewellery and other valuables from the house.

12. One day a group comprising 15-20 armed accomplices of Sayedee under his leadership entered the Hindu Para of Parerh at Bazar under Pirojpur Sadar and captured 14 Hindus, who were all supporters of Bangladesh’s independence. The fourteen were then tied with a single rope and dragged to Pirojpur and handed over to Pakistani soldiers, who killed them. Their bodies were thrown into the river.

13. One night, about 2 to 3 months after the war commenced, some members of Peace Committee under Sayedee’s leadership accompanied by the Pakistan army raided the house of Azhar Ali of Nalbunia village under Pirojpur Sadar Police Station. They then caught and tortured Azahar Ali and his son Shaheb Ali. The team then abducted Shaheb Ali and ultimately he was taken to Pirojpur and killed.

14. During the final stages of the war, Sayedee one morning led a team of Razakar Bahini consisting of 50 to 60 Razakars, into attacking the Hindu Para of Hoglabunia under Pirojpur Sadar. Seeing the attackers, the Hindus managed to flee but one Shefali Gharami failed to do that. Some members of Razakar Bahini entered her room and raped her. Being the leader of the team, Sayedee did not prevent them from committing rape upon her. Sayedee and the members of his team also set fire to the dwelling houses of the Hindu Para.

15. During the last part of the war, Sayedee led 15 to 20 armed Razakars who entered the Hoglabunia village under Pirojpur Sadar Police Station and caught 10 members of the Hindu faith. The attackers then tied all the members of Hindu community with a single rope, dragged them to Pirojpur and handed them over to the Pakistani army. They were all killed and their bodies were dumped into the river.

16. In the course of the Liberation War, Sayedee led a group of 10-12 armed Razakars and Peace Committee members, which surrounded the house of Gouranga Saha of Parerhat Bandar under Pirojpur Sadar. Subsequently, Sayedee and the others abducted three women and handed them over to the Pakistan army at Pirojpur where they were confined and raped for three days before being released.

17. During the Liberation War, Sayedee along with other armed Razakars kept Bipod Saha’s daughter Vanu Saha confined to Bipod Saha’s house at Parerhat under Pirojpur Sadar Police Station and regularly used to go there to rape her.

18. During the Liberation War, one Bhagirothi used to work in the camp of the Pakistan army. One day, after a fight with the freedom fighters, and at the instance of Sayedee, Bhagirothi was charged with passing information to the freedom fighters and killed.

19. During the war, Sayedee, being a member of Razakar Bahini and exercising his influence over the Hindu community of Pirojpur, converted 100-150 Hindus of Parerhat and other villages and compelled them to go to the mosque to offer prayers.

20. On a day at the end of November 1971, Sayedee got information that thousands of people were fleeing to India in order to save their lives. A group of 10-12 armed members of the Razakar Bahini, under Sayedee’s leadership, then attacked the houses of Talukdar Bari at Indurkani village and detained a total of 85 persons and looted goods from there. Of them, all but 10-12 persons were released in exchange for bribes negotiated by Fazlul Huq, a member of the Razakar Bahini. Male persons were tortured and female persons were raped by Pakistan soldiers deployed in the camp.

[Source : http://www.thedailystar.net/suppliments/charges_sayedee.pdf ]

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

Delwar Hussein Sayedi found guilty as war-criminal Dilu Razakar : to be hanged for murder, genocide and rape.

Posted on February 28, 2013. Filed under: Army, Bangladesh, Bengal, Egypt, Hindu, History, Hosni Mubarak, Islam, Islamic propaganda, Jihad, Muslims, neoimperialism, Pakistan, Politics, rape, religion, Salafi, Saudi, Shahbag, Taleban, terrorism, UK, Wahabi |

Is it time to celebrate? Perhaps at least the hope that an Islamist war criminal – who explicitly used Islamic memes long existing and preached and propagandized to the faithful brainwashed of mullahcracy subjugated and terrorized societies, to rape, loot, forcefully convert, murder, and commit genocide in collaboration with the jihadist army of Pakistan in 1971 – might, just might be hanged. Why is that unique? Because even the famously just International Court of Justice and the International Criminal Tribunal for Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) could not find any Muslim guilty of any war crimes or crimes against humanity  in the Balkan civil war, even though allegations existed against organizations like the Kosovo Liberation Army, but found almost all the Serbs accused – guilty.

Rarely have the international pretenses of justice ever found a Muslim war-criminal guilty and worthy of passing sentences of execution. Even more importantly, no mullah, no Muslim theologian – self-proclaimed or actually graduating through any of the Islamist educational networks, have been found guilty of war-crimes and crimes against humanity in spite of allegations. No one wants to talk about the Afghan Taliban leadership as fit for trials for war-crimes and crimes against humanity. No one talks of Hafeez Sayid or other Islamist Ulema leading, and producing the doctrines as well as the jihad factories nourished by the dawa system in Pakistan, as a criminal against humanity.

In that sense, the Bangladeshi youth at Shahbag have scored a first. They show a glimmer of hope – that one day the totalitarianism represented by Islamism will be forced to modernize and come out of its terror tactic of maintaining power by violently opposing and crushing all dissent and any criticism.

That the Jamaat leadership and the entire spectrum of Islamist parties and movements in Bangladesh are actually  Fascist totalitarian dictatorship aspirants, is shown by the following revealing Islamist mindset:

(a) they declare criticism of their leader’s past activities as equal to criticism of “Islam”. Criticism of Islam is “atheism”.

(b) they declare that atheism deserves the punishment of killing. “Atheists” must be killed as per Islamists.

(c) Jamaat not only targets their critics at Shahbag who are predominantly Muslims by birth, but Jamaat has targeted non-Muslim communities, both people and temples of Hindus and Buddhists in its programme of violent confrontation that is going on for more than a week.

(d) Islamists outside Muslim-dominated countries, have been organizing to demand that “Shahbag atheists” be punished,  and not unsurprisingly – they have shown their loudest presence in the United Kingdom, which appears to have grown into a haven for pockets of primarily Pakistani led Islamism and Islamist propaganda aimed at establishing Islamic totalitarianism in Europe as part of a wider programme of islamization.

What should the Shabag youth be aware of ?

(1) They should remember, that Fascists always triumph when a more liberal, critical, popular movement with progressive aspirations starts and shows promise of almost nearing success, but cannot or is prevented from succeeding to gain a decisive share of power. This was how Russian Bolsheviks, French Jacobins, German Nazis gained power.

(2) Bangladeshi society as a whole is tilted towards youth – age wise – demographically. But the entire society is a continuous demographic relic of past times and social as well as religious fossils. The hold of mullahcracy runs deep – fostered by decades of dictators, sections of the army, and international Islamist forces as well as their cold-war patrons in the west.

(3) In a confrontation like this, Bangladeshi society is likely to split into roughly a 40-40-10-10 split. This is based on a rough estimate from past few elections, where, 40% go for what I dub the covert Islamists, represented within the Awami League, 40% go for the overt Islamists, represented within the BNP+Jamaat spectrum, 10% are really seculars, and 10% are undecided – who swing elections in the first past the post system.

(4) The Shabag youth probably represent around 15-20% –  the more educated, more urbanized, sections of the overall youth population. This does not mean that they are going to be defeated. Determined and audacious minorities have always been the one and only harbinger of change of societies and political systems. However, the dangers they must be aware of is that of complacency. There is a portion of rural youth kept carefully away from modernization by the collaborative structure of feudal remnants, land-grabbers (the primary motivation for supporting Pakistan was the hope in the middle and upper-middle level of rural Muslim gentry to gain the land and women and wealth of Hindus), virulent Islamists, collaborators and rapists and genociders of ’71 protected under pressure subsequently by the international Islamist networks, and the network of predominantly Saudi funded (and funded by charities working from western nations like UK) dawa-madrassa net.

(5) the state structure of Bangladesh will necessarily carry Islamist elements in its armed wings, intelligence, and administration.  These have been carefully nurtured from even the Liberation war times. There is a genuine possibility of a covert call to arms by the jihadists against the Shahbag movement.

(6) the youth should form an organizational structure, while keeping leadership in a group – so that individuals targeted for elimination will not stop the movement. They should remember that Islamist strategy of terror is “total terror”. From the time of the founder, verbal dissenters or critics were targeted for elimination – as in a female poetess accused of lampooning the leader of the early Islamics – and whose assassination was called for from within the early mosque. Families, loved ones, are targeted too – for the Fascist Islamist mullahcracy’s mind is a sadist one. It seeks not only to give pain, but it enjoys the very act of giving pain and that its victim is suffering mentally as well as physically.

The Egyptian youth have had trouble because they trusted the more established political parties pretending sympathy and failed to create a political structure of their own. The Shahbag youth should not make this error. They should understand that even the Awami League represents primarily an aging generation – and who therefore have greater identification with Islamist undercurrents. They will show this in signs of conciliatory tone towards Islamism, and try to prove themselves as “proper Muslims”. In turn this shows the inner ideological affiliations which even if weaker than that of BNP – is still an affiliation to the Islamists.

The Shahbag youth resistance will be sought to be controlled by both the major power elite factions in Bangladeshi politics. If they can manage to control, they will eventually dismantle this movement – for they do see it as a threat to their own established power structures.

Islamists have however made a blunder. By equating criticism of war-crimes and war-criminal Islamists as anti-Islam, and therefore equivalent to atheism, and therefore fit to be killed – they have revealed what Islamism is really all about. They have managed to show that Islamism is equal to war-crimes, and that atheism by criticizing such depravity – proves itself pro-humanity and not anti-humanity as Islamism does in contrast.

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

The Fascist Mullahcracy strikes in Bangladesh : blogger knifed and hacked to death for demanding justice for war-crimes.

Posted on February 16, 2013. Filed under: Arab, Bangladesh, Bengal, Delhi, Hindu, History, India, Islam, Islamic propaganda, Jihad, Muslims, neoimperialism, Pakistan, Palestine, Politics, religion, terrorism, UK |

Rajiv Haider, an activist young blogger from Bangladesh was stabbed and hacked with clovers, to death. His crime : his demand for justice for the war-crimes committed in 1971, by the so-called Razakars, Al-Bdrs, Al-shams, and various Islamist collaborators of the Pakistani occupation forces – running sex-slavery camps, torture chambers, and systematic genocide, massacres, forced conversion of Hindus.

While bloggers of the world seem to have come out in support of the “occupy Shahbag” movement and condemned the murder of Rajiv, Pakistani websites have been reported to have celebrated Rajiv’s murder.

The intolerance of any criticism is a common feature of all Islamists, and whenever a voice protesting any of the genocidic aspects of Islamism is cut off by the assassin’s hand, it is a call-sign of the mullah and his fascism. Pakistan was created by a fascist movement that used the tacit support of British intelligence and post-war demobilization policy of the British Indian army to employ Muslim ex-soldiers go out to train and lead armed Muslim gangs in preparation for jihad – which was given the spin of “direct action” by Jinnah and his Islamist advisors.

The then Congress leadership, in which Gandhiji had been sidelined, and Bose expelled [perhaps suitably “advised” to be lured into “escaping” so that the more amenable sections of the Congress leadership could be played into accepting a separatist Islamist homeland] – seems to have thought of the distant extremes of Punjab, North West Frontier Provinces, Balochs, and Bengalis as peripheral. Perhaps they also remembered that these were the regions which were the earliest militant dissenters against British imperialism – and hence likely to be rebellious against the Delhi/Uttar-Pradesh based “core” they were basing their new empire about. So it would be good riddance in a political sense, to allow these areas to be decimated by jihadis, and the non-Muslims/Hindus of these regions to be broken for generations so that they could not strike back politically against the new dynastic system fashioned along the British system.

In the process, they left the liberal and modernizing forces among the Muslims, decimated and cornered too – and left to the tender mercy of the mullah, who represent the darkest caverns of sadomasochistic evil in the human mind. Now, not only the Pakistanis or the Bangladeshis themselves, but the world suffers from the consequence of what happened in a power sharing game played by British imperialism, Sunni-Wahabi jihadism, and an immature and entirely devoid of statesmanship section of the Congress leadership keen for personal power.

We are facing a resurgent totalitarianism. This time its the totalitarianism of the mullahcracy.

Note: it is fascinating to see that the Bengali intelligentsia, and the Muslim rioting hordes that took over the streets of Kolkata – the supposed capital city of everything progressive, to hound Tasleema Nasreen out  – is not to be seen on the streets protesting Haider’s murder.  Tasleema was a Bangladeshi – so it was okay for  Indian Muslims and mullahcracy to come out into the streets against her. If she could be demonstrated against and rioted against even as a foreigner and for alleged insults she heaped on Islam by exposing the role of Islamists in raping or committing genocide on non-Muslims in Bangladesh – why is it so difficult to come out now similarly to condemn the murder of another Bangladeshi?

And, Indian intellectuals, especially of the Leftist variety from West Bengal – are nowhere to be found with their shrill cries of indignation. Isn’t that funny!

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

Islamo-Judaic Relations : politically correct mythology – 5: late-Medieval to the modern.

Posted on April 7, 2012. Filed under: Arab, Christians, diaspora, Egypt, exile, Gaza, Historians with political agenda, History, Islam, Islamic propaganda, Israel, Jew, Jihad, Muslims, Ottoman, Palestine, religion, Syria, terrorism, Turkey, UK |

Maimonides (1135-1204), was a famous Jewish philosopher and author who fled Spain from a murderous Muslim persecution and took up the job of a physician to Saladin. However over time his experiences come out in his “Letter to Yemen” [1]

“[as punishment] God has hurled us into the midst of this people, the Arabs, who have persecuted us severely, and passed baneful and discriminatory legislation against us… Never did a nation molest, degrade, debase, and hate us as much as they.”

Maimonides had correspondence with Jews over a large area (yes, including India), and was therefore in a position to compare.

The 9th century Muslim writer al-Jahiz (an Arab settled in Baghdad) wrote: “…the hearts of the Muslims are hardened toward the Jews but inclined toward the Christians.”[2] He pointed out that “in his time the Christians were both socially and economically better off than the Jews.”[3] He explained this by the political resistance of the Jews of Medina to Muhammad.

In this contemporary chronicle from Baghdad by Obadyah the Proselyte, in 1100 C.E.: [7: …the Caliph of Baghdad, al—Muqtadi [1075—1094], had given power to his vizier, Abu Shuja… [who] imposed that each male Jew should wear a yellow badge on his headgear. This was one distinctive sign on the head and the other was on the neck— a piece of lead of the weight of a silver dinar hanging round the neck of every Jew and inscribed with the word dhimmi to signify that the Jew had to pay poll—tax. Jews also had to wear girdles round their wastes. Abu Shuja further imposed two signs on Jewish women. They had to wear a black and a red shoe, and each woman had to have a small brass bell on her neck or shoe, which would tinkle and thus announce the separation of Jewish from Gentile [Muslim] women. He assigned cruel Muslim men to spy upon Jewish women, in order to oppress them with all kinds of curses, humiliation, and spite. The Gentile population used to mock all the Jews, and the mob and their children used to beat up the Jews in all the streets of Baghdad…When a Jew died, who had not paid up the poll—tax [jizya] to the full and was in debt for a small or large amount, the Gentiles did not permit burial until the poll—tax was paid. If the deceased left nothing of value, the Gentiles demanded that other Jews should, with their own money, meet the debt owed by the deceased in poll—tax; otherwise they [threatened] they would burn the body.”

Bernard Lewis refers to attempts at reform in the 19th century Ottoman empire by quoting a Turk “… whereas in former times, in the Ottoman state, the communities were ranked, with the Muslims first, then the Greeks [Greek Orthodox], then the Armenians, then the Jews, now all of them were put on the same level. Some Greeks objected to this, saying: “The government has put us together with the Jews. We were content with the supremacy of Islam.”[4] Most likely this refers to the reform decrees that resulted out of the power struggle between Muhammad Ali of Egypt and the Ottomans.

The British envoy, Dr John Bowring was in Lebanon and Syria in the 1830s, and he writes:

The Mussulmans. . . deeply deplore the loss of that sort of superiority which they all & individually exercised over and against the other sects. . . a Mussulman. . . believes and maintains that a Christian — and still more a Jew — is an inferior being to himself.[5] […] The condition of the Jews forms, perhaps, an exception [to the general improvement of non-Muslims] and cannot be said to have improved comparatively with that of the other Sects[6]

Towards the end of Mameluk rule (from the Mongol withdrawal in 1260 to the Ottoman conquest in 1517), a Franciscan monk named Francesco Suriano lived in the monastery in Jerusalem for about a quarter of a century. He served as Custos Terrae Sanctae or Guardian of the Holy Land for his order for some time and therefore the highest ranking Catholic official there, charged by the pope with overseeing Roman Catholic interests in the Christian holy places and Church affairs in the country. He writes about the Jews in Jerusalem:

“I wish you to know how these dogs of Jews are trampled upon, beaten and ill-treated, as they deserve, by every infidel nation, and this is the just decree of God. They live in this country in such subjection that words cannot describe it. . . there in Jerusalem, where they committed the sin for which they are dispersed throughout the world [i.e., the Crucifixion], they are by God more punished and afflicted than in any other part of the world. And over a long time I have witnessed that . . . No infidel [= Muslim] would touch with his hand a Jew lest he be contaminated but when they wish to beat them, they take off their shoes with which they strike them on the mustaches; the greatest wrong and insult to a man is to call him a Jew. And it is a right notable thing that the Moslems do not accept a Jew into their creed unless he first become a Christian. . . And if they were not subsidized by the Jews of Christendom, the Jews who live in Judea would die like dogs of hunger.”[7]

The Ottoman Empire needed the Jewish expertise in various fields including finances so initially after conquest they brought in some of the more outstanding into service. This was vehemently opposed by the local muslims. Therefore, “The Jewish community… paid the jizya at rates somewhat higher than the [Greek] Orthodox.”[8] Now, even under and after such “great” patronage by the Ottomans, Chateaubriand, (a famous French author), visited Jerusalem in 1806, and later wrote:

Special target of all contempt [i.e., of both Muslims and Christians], they lower their heads without complaint; they suffer all insults without demanding justice; they let themselves be crushed by blows… Penetrate the dwellings of these people, you will find them in frightful poverty…

Nothing can prevent them from turning their gaze towards Zion. When one sees the Jews dispersed throughout the world,… one is probably surprised, but, to be struck by supernatural astonishment, it is necessary to find them in Jerusalem.. . to see these legitimate owners of Judea, slaves and strangers in their own land. One must see them under all oppressions, awaiting a king who is to redeem them.[9]

Neophytos was a Greek Orthodox monk belonging to the Brotherhood of the Holy Sepulcher, which governed Orthodox church affairs in Jerusalem. Around 1834, Neophytos writes:

“As we are on the question of repairs, we must say something about the Jewish Synagogue. One year ago only, seeing the liberal dispositions of Mehemet Ali Pasha [Muhammad Ali] and Ibrahim Pasha [his son, general, and deputy], they dared to speak about their Synagogue. They asked that their House of Prayer, being in a ruinous condition and in danger of falling in, might be repaired. So, those who did not even dare to change a tile on the roof of the Synagogue at one time, now received a permit and a decree to build.”[10]

Felix Bovet, a Swiss Protestant minister who visited Jerusalem in 1858, writes “the Jews are still, to this day, the most miserable part of the population of the Holy City.”[11] Bovet quotes a French convert to Islam, who wrote: “the Jerusalem Jew only half lives, scarcely daring to breathe.”[12]

References
1. Maimonides, “Epistle to Yemen,” in David Hartman, ed., Crisis and Leadership: Epistles of Maimonides (tr. A Halkin; Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society 1985), p 126.

2. Quoted in Bernard Lewis, The Jews of Islam (Princeton 1984), pp 59-60.

3. Words of Moshe Sharon, op. cit., p 94; also see Carlo Panella, Il ‘Complotto Ebraico’ — L’antisemitismo islamico da Maometto a Bin Laden (Torino: Lindau 2005), p 89

4. Bernard Lewis, What Went Wrong? (London: Orion House 2002), p 104.

5. Quoted in William R Polk, The Opening of South Lebanon, 1788-1840 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press 1963), p 138. Other 19th century Western observers noted the same Arab-Muslim Judeophobia, as quoted by Saul S Friedman, Land of Dust (Washington, DC: University Press of America 1982), p 136.

6. William R Polk, The Opening of South Lebanon, 1788-1840 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press 1963), p 138.

7. Francesco Suriano, Treatise on the Holy Land (Jerusalem: Franciscan Press, 1949) [in original: Trattato di Terra Santa e dell’Oriente], pp 101-02. For a scholarly view of the Jews in Jerusalem in the late Mamluk period, when Suriano lived there, see Avraham David in “The Mamluk Period” in Israel: People, Land, State (Avigdor Shinan, ed.: Jerusalem: Yad Izhak Ben Zvi, 2005).

8. Amnon Cohen, “On the Realities of the Millet System: Jerusalem in the 16th century,” in B Braude and B Lewis, Christians and Jews in the Ottoman Empire (New York: Holmes & Meier 1982), p 14.

9. Chateaubriand, Itinéraire de Paris à Jérusalem (Paris: Juilliard 1964), pp 426-427.

10. Neophytos, Extracts from Annals of Palestine 1821-1841 (Jerusalem, Ariel Publishing House, 1979; compiled by Eli Schiller), p 78. Originally published in Journal of the Palestine Oriental Society, vol. XVIII (1938; tr S N Spyridon).

11. Felix Bovet, Egypt, Palestine, and Phoenicia (Eng. trans; London: 1872), p 180

12. Ibid., p 181.

Discussion

The more one studies the history of Islamic repression on the Jews, the more one comes up with the stark reality that in many many ways, the Islamic treatment simply picked up and intensified the iconoclastic violence and genocidic tendencies latent within the Churches of east. In many many ways, the appearance of the Islamics provided a tool and a hope in the eastern churches to actually achieve what they had so far failed to do – the complete elimination of the Jews as a physical reality.

From this started a whole lot of processes :

(1) realizing that the Jews will remain strongly resistant to conversion in spite of certain disgruntled Jews switching allegiance and acting against their own origin community (not surprising for Hindus of India!). As long as the Jews remained adamant to conversion, Jews are a problem to the two other claimants of the sole rights to the Abrahamic legacy (which in turn in its proselytizing/converting form is a most effective tool for imperialism).

(2) try and blame all atrocities , or even invent genocide/exile/enslavement on a grand scale and assign it to “Romans” (not the Church primarily)

(3) suppress all references to non-genocidic/encouraging behaviour from “Roman” authorities

(4) when instigating “Roman” authorities as much as possible to eliminate the Jews was not achieving this goal, the Islamists were a “Godsend”. This is shown in the active collaboration of the Eastern Churches leadership with the Islamists and Jihadists to eliminate and repress Jews to an extent they could only rant about but not actually implement under “Roman” rule. The combined effort achieves the target to a much greater degree than ever achieved before in the pre-Islamic period.

(5) jihadis use this eagerness in Church leadership to intensify their dhimma policy – which is not toleration as represented by Islamists and their non-Muslim apologists, neither is it a purely “social discrimination” non-physical-violence non-Jihad thing. It is a double edged sword, by first enforcing a one-sided set of extremely harsh and almost impossible to meet conditions on the Jews, and then systematically and regularly claim that the “covenants” of the dhimma had been broken so jihad was now applicable to the captive population of dhimmis.

(6) gradually Jihadis tighten the noose on Levantine non-Muslims, especially Christians who are increasingly subjected to forced conversions, genocide and enslavement once the Islamists gain a foothold with their leaders’ initial weaknesses, and this in turn makes the Christian leadership more and more eager to please the Islamists. They start suppressing evidence of Jihadi violence on Christians (unfortunately even the most enlightened so-called paragons of tolerance Ottoman behaviour in this regard is also historically documented) and increase their collaboration in persecution of Jews in the hope of achieving their aims of cleansing of the land of the Jews.

(7) this leads to the western churches being ideologically cornered since eastern churches have to justify their collaboration with the Islamics on the “original sin” or so called responsibility of “deicide”. This concept of collective responsibility was taken to its extreme both by the christians as well as the muslim leadership, but finds its perfection under Islamic leadership of christianity. So the major “expulsions” and “genocides” have to be put at the door of the Roman empire BEFORE the acceptance of Christianity as a Roman imperial religion.

“Sado-masochism” – the almost sexual enjoyment of giving and receiving intense pain (mental as well as physical)- is perhaps a key to understand this modern (and not so modern) Christian reaction against the Jews which intensified under Islamic leadership over the greater part of Christian leadership’s mindset. Its intensity and naked expression in Jihadi Islam is simply the next stage of development from Christian attitudes towards the origin – perhaps a generalization of father-son antagonistic dynamic so insightfully discovered by a man of Jewish origins, Sigmund Freud. The Judaic being the father, and Christianity the elder born, and Islam the younger, with the sons having a raging sibling rivalry, a shared hatred of the father who stands between them and the mother – the legacy of the Abrahamic.

Now why should it find expression in some Indians who were born as Hindus? Perhaps the same mindset that led to a few Jewish converts into Islam or Christianity – an unconscious attraction for the possibilities of gratifying their sado-masochastic tendencies!

Each of the points (1)-(7) can be supported with documented sources. I have already mentioned once on the modern thinking in a large part “professional historians” on the so-called “greater role” of Romans in the “diaspora”. Apparently many like the one I mentioned have argued for the whole thing being a “myth”(!!) and that there was really no traumatic dispersal at the scales of hundreds of thousands or millions under the Romans [ there are detailed arguments about the 1.1 million being absurd based on actual estimates of food production, archaeological reconstructions of living conditions and settlement estimates, etc.] – according to these “experts”.

Maybe the pro-Islamics of all colours should unite against these very Jewish profs and academics as being part of a Zionist conspiracy with overt pro-Palestinian sympathies but actually undermining the whole Islamist cause!! Denying the key-pivot of Roman role in Diaspora combined with source narrative claims from Islamists themselves about atrocities and genocide perpetrated by Muslims on the Jews is problematic for the Islamist-line of Palestinian “movement”.

Part 4

To be continued.

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

When Iran and Aarb League agree: revolutions are bad if they are not under their control

Posted on March 20, 2011. Filed under: Afghanistan, India, Iran, Islam, Israel, Left, Muslims, Palestine, Russia, UK, USA |

When do we hear the Arab League and Iran agreeing on something? Now both do not like the actions undertaken under the no-fly-zone agreement. One is trying to condemn “indiscriminate” bombing, and the other warning against allowing western dominance. Both groups want the popular uprisings (they are popular, by all indications) to serve their agenda, rise and fall and bark according to the sweet wills and paranoid ambitions of the ayatollahs and sheiks and emirs. They are as much scared of revolutions as Americans or the West are. This is the key to understand the statements being made and potential behaviour from the existing leaders of the Arab world and Iran over the Libyan action.

Americans should not have said that they were leading it but allow UK or France to do the honours. Moreover they have a short window in which to decimate Gaddafi’s forces, and restock the opposition.

As for Russia, India or anyone else mumbling and playing it safe, it is important to realize that historical turning points do not stay on forever. It is a tendency in Indian analysis of situations to be confounded by complex contradictions in political developments and get stuck in an overemphasis on “nothing is entirely black and white” which then becomes the excuse for decision paralysis. On the other hand it is this same “nothing is black and white” mindset to stick to paradigms and never update even with real experiences. Thus it appears that policy-makers of India have a rigid mindset to think that the Islamic regions do not have forces and dynamics of change within themselves that are not entirely mullahcratic.

It is critical to support the non-mullahcratic component against the mullahcratic component in the uprisings or movements that at the moment have converged on the point of common hatred against their ruling regimes. If we don’t support the more modernizing trends within these movements, the elite of Islamic systems will hijack this popular sentiment into their pet agenda – hatred of the “qufr”, wallowing in the Sharia, and erasure of the Jews as a first step towards erasure of all perceived obstacles to their absolute mullahcracy.

The West once made the blunder of encouraging Islamism and authoritarian dynastic or dictatorial regimes in their short-sighted strategy of tackling the so called Red-Menace. As a result the world suffers from the genocidal and totalitarian mindset of the mullahcracy.

The same blunder should not be repeated. It is important for the younger generations within the uprisings to be aware that both the Arab and Iranian leadership, the Islamic organizations, as well as the West, or even say China, (Russia and China are more scared of getting burnt unnecessarily and therefore non-intervention) are scared of independent popular uprisings. They want these revolutions to serve their own desires. Iran wants to paint these revolutions as anti-Israel and will rant and rail and turn against the revolution if that does not happen. Arab league wants to maintain their filthy rich lifestyles of their emirs and their sheikhs and the network of feudal patronage and arbitrary power. The west wants a pliable regime popular or not.

For the West or less-sectarian countries like India, it is crucial to realize that it is in their interest to encourage the modernizing sections within these revolutions. Next time around there will be little opportunity left to correct such errors as made in wiping out modernizers in Afghanistan, Iran or Iraq or even Saudi Arabia.

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

The geopolitics of the Gaza adventure

Posted on June 5, 2010. Filed under: Arab, Gaza, India, Iran, Islam, Islamic propaganda, Israel, Jihad, Kashmir, Left, Marxism, Muslims, Pakistan, Palestine, Politics, Russia, Syria, terrorism, Turkey, UK |

The recent fiasco in the “Gaza adventure” throws up in sharp light the current tomfoolery that is being played on Asia. Since the fall of USSR there was a temporary lull in pandering to Islamist violence from the west. Within that space, the Jihadis consolidated and turned their attention from Russia towards their real objectives in Asia – Israel and India. They intensified their campaign against India with Jammu and Kashmir, and their rocket/bombing campaigns against Israelis, from both within Lebanon and the Gaza strip.

Their real ambitions is for global domination, and the real long term targets for Islam – militant Jihad and Ghazwas to convert, loot, rape and take over non-Muslim majority nations. This became clear to the racially and colour blinded ideology of the west only when the Jihadis turned their attention directly to pricking the west, as part of their global strategy to tie down western forces away from any protective interest the west may develop for Israel and India.

The calculations were quite clear and as consistently seen in the tactics of Islamist groups ranged against their Asian targets.

(1) Carry out terrorist outrages against both military and civilians of Israel and India, so that the military of these nations are forced to react. Use the terror attacks to stimulate survivor instincts within the civilians in the hope that they will create political pressure on their governments not to retaliate. Use the internationally conformed limitations within which national armies have to work as a tactical field advantage.

(2) Pressurize Muslims living within the territory of these nations to take sides, which in the ultimate analysis has always been historically proved to be on the position that “jihad cannot or should not be opposed violently” by Muslims anywhere. In every situation of war or conflict where Islamism has taken up arms to subjugate non-Muslims among them or beside them, the Muslim population has never ever really taken any effective steps to resist such Jihadi outrages on non-Muslims. In Middle East, in now Pakistan occupied western India, or in then East Pakistan now Bangladesh in 1971, large Muslim populations which apparently showed all outward forms of communal amity did not do anything to stop Jihadi outrages on non-Muslims and in many instance took advantage of the situation to possess land, wealth and women of non-Muslims. This practice is consistent with the basic line of Islamist expansion as formulated in their core texts.

(3) Simultaneously carry out a publicity campaign among western nations – especially those in academia and media who for various reasons have had anti-establishment fantasies all the while being sustained by the establishment. There have always been a toying undercurrent with Marxist thinking in the west, especially in the British universities beginning in the post war radicalism phase of 60’s. Probably this was maintained out of two tactical considerations by the authorities – as a honey trap to confine radical intellectuals so that they did not go out to do more damage in the outer world, and at the same time work as a captive experiment where the Leftist thought process could be observed and manipulated. Problem with this game is that it basically creates a reward system for radicalism and anti-establishment sentiments which over time will draw more and more opportunist political activists who will use this legitimacy to carry out their personal political agendas.

The Islamists used this sympathetic base from within the western establishment. It was natural that with the fall of the USSR and an overtly nationalistic and dictatorial redefinition under Putin the western establishment radicals were without a cause to champion. This they now found in championing the cause of supposedly repressed Islamic communities under Israel and India.

(4) To drive home the Islamist representation of reality, Islamists selectively targeted western institutions with violence. Having placed a pro-Islamist radical western sympathy base among the very vocal academia, media, NGO’s, charities etc, such targeting could be used to pretend that all this was because the west was not doing enough to destroy Israel and India or dismember these countries so that the Jihadis could occupy the dismembered portions. The general risk avoidance of the civilian populations of prosperous economies would ensure that there would be a backlash against any government retaliation.

(5) Once the western core of governments or regimes realized the new trends, the policy formulated was perhaps two pronged : give the Jihadis a new target of shifting attention towards Russia in Chechnyia and adjoining Muslim dominated areas sensitive for Russian security, and towards Eastern Turkmenistan currently under Chinese occupation. Simultaneously, overt pressure would be put on both India and Israel to concede more towards Islamist demands. It is possible that the first hesitant and obviously confused (read secret intense debate and therefore indecision) implementation of this policy was in the Balkans with the ultimate creation of a Muslim homeland within Europe.

(6) The success of the Croatian case showed the Jihadis the way forward, and they now know almost all the manipulative strings that they can use to pressurize the west into conceding more and more Islamist homelands carved out of non-Muslim dominated areas, from where they will launch more and more Jihadi campaigns.

The western strategists are losing this game. It is crucial that Israel and Indian people do not get confused by the manipulative propaganda and representations of Islamists and their non-Muslim sympathizers, and see to it that regimes capable of resisting western pressures are put in government.

The national armies and even special intervention forces have to work under international forms and restrictions that will be stringently applied by Islamists and their sympathizers for their ulterior motives. In both countries there should be targeted erasure of the sources of support for Jihad, or all anti-state terror under forces that do not officially exist. Forces which also have strong ideological indoctrination to add that extra armour to manipulation. Forces which do not exist and therefore are free of formal restrictions of so-called one-sided humanitarianism.

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

Jews and outraged world opinion, “remember Khyber” – thus spake humanitarians

Posted on June 2, 2010. Filed under: Hindu, India, Iran, Islam, Islamic propaganda, Israel, Kashmir, Pakistan, UK |

All anti-Israel forces are celebrating today. There were even chants of humanitarians to remind the Jews of Khyber. Khyber – the symbol of Islamic tactic of  shouting that someone somewhere was against them and planning to attack Islam and therefore liable to genocidic erasure.

This “running the blockade” has perhaps been carefully planned for a long long time that shows political planning of the highest order from people who are used to manipulation of international opinions. So if there are claims that there are members of this “delegation” who are trained or qualified in social “sciences”, or maybe even “professional historians”, then almost surely they have been involved from within academia in lobbying for “pro-Palestine” anti-Israel activism.

This same thinking usually also pretends that what they are driven by are “pure academic” interests and humanitarian concerns. However any criticism of their historical reconstructions are likely to be immediately, publicly, and very loudly denounced as “politically motivated”. When questions about Palestinian, Arab and Turkish Muslim role of anti-Semitism and typical Islamic Jihadism and riots or genocides in the lead up to 1948, denial of Jewish connection to the land, or the Holocaust by Muslims are raised the immediate redneck reaction is “oh dont give that bull**** of Islamic conspiracy”. This is the same general group think that is also obsessed with trying to prove “assimilative, tolerant and non-militant” Hinduism was in the past and how recently “right-wing Hindu fascists” were “revising Hinduism” for their “sinister political agenda”. In such a discourse typically  the plight of Hindu Kashmiri Pundits is dismissed as mere propaganda, and all records or claims by Islamists of iconoclasm, genocide, enslavement and ghazwas on non-Muslims of the subcontinent as propaganda or exaggeration. In fact I had once a long running debate with someone who dismissed even the extent of atrocities by the Pakistani army and their Muslim accomplices in 1971 in then East Pakistan. He wanted to say that what happened was negligible, dismissed all western historians finding support for factuality of genocide, and all others from the subcontinent finding similar “proof” as being politically motivated.

When I raised the issue as to why, if “others” talking history could be driven by “political motives”, what made themselves – the professional historians – free of similar political agenda or motive, I was dubbed a “right wing” activist too.
People sympathetic towards the “Palestinian cause”, do think of the possibility that – the motivations that drive anti-Israel and pro- Palestinian movements in non-Muslim social groups share a certain common underlying political and ideological agenda. Is it possible that those among such “sympathizers” coming from a Christian, European cultural background probably have a twisted and ancient anti-semitic strain masquerading under “humanitariansim”? Those coming from say Indian, “Hindu” background – are doing so from a hidden and twisted interpretation of Marxism? Early Marxists use Christian, and New-testamental memes widely – especially the “activist” Engels.

Fall of Israel is strategically a disaster for India. Israel absorbs a lot of Islamic attention. Once Islamits are free of that thorn in the side, their full loving hands will move towards India. Now, at this stage, any formation of an independent Palestinian state means one more step in the progress of Islamic Jihad. One more step towards eventual overrunning of Israel. One more point bolstering the confidence and clamour in Pakistanis about “Kashmir”.

The new Islamists of Turkey needed an excuse to part ways with Israel, that is all. Turkey is not going to risk a direct war just now. Because that will scare off some in EU – which is the main kicking point Turkey is jumping on – and tie up the hands of pro-Islamist groupings within the EU. However the Turkish Islamists will encourage Iran to go after Israel covertly. It will probably also facilitate such covert support for Palestine from Iran. But Turkey will want Iran and the Saudis to get involved in a tussle over Palestine and Israel and wear each other out as much as possible. Turkish islamists are definitely looking back towards a pseudo-Ottoman revivalism.

Is it possible that the traditional Anglo-Turkish rivalry could be in some twisted EU minds, to encourage the Turks  when UK has been going after Iran? If any covert European sympathy has been behind the Turkish rise in temperatures, then they should think of the long term consequences for Europe of a fall of Israel and overrunning of Israelites. Europe will be next in line, and this time a much larger horde will be knocking at European gates compared to Sulaiman the Magnificent.

They should see again and again the videos where the humanitarians chant asking Jews to remember Khyber. How many Europeans know what these chanters are talking about? Search out, outraged sympathizers of humanitarian politics!

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

Why is Christianity preparing the ground for Jihadi takeover

Posted on May 3, 2010. Filed under: Buddhists, Christians, Hindu, India, Iran, Islam, Islamic propaganda, Muslims, religion, terrorism, UK, USA |

Significantly unnoticed events have taken place over the last last few months :  at MIT a conference was organized by one Omar Khalidi, a staff member of MIT, who advocates separate laws for Muslims such as polygamy etc, different constituencies for Muslims to elect Muslim lawmakers, apparently has issues with Christian nature of USA and is known even by Muslim scholars as someone who selects his data to paint a picture that suits Islamic agenda. Some people are of opinion he is what one can call ‘soft’ jihadi.

The speaker list is a who’s who of  academics known for their soft corner towards Islamism. The keynote speaker is Paul Brass.  He has written several books on Hinduism whihc has been accepted as standard texts on Hinduism by many western universities. A close collaborator and fellow-traveller of the Thaparite school of Indian history (whose main thrust is to deny atrocity on non-Muslims by Muslim regimes and states in India )- is one of the leading academic activists to paint comparative pictures of Hindus vs Muslims antagonism and is supposed to be an authority on Hindu-Muslim violence. His books show an uncanny association of the word “Hindu/Hinduism” automatically with “right wing/extremists/nationalists” in close proximity or as qualifying adjectives. Read them and you will be inspired!

Read up on the other speakers and contributors mentioned and their sometimes not so much aired political positions and leanings : Angana Chatterji, Meenakshi Ganguly, Parvis Ghassem-Fachandi, Chinnaiah Jangam, Ratna Kapur, Omar Khalidi, Shafeeq R. Mahajir, Manoj Mitta, R.K. Raghavan, Balakrishnan Rajagopal, Haimanti Roy, Srirupa Roy, Bish Sanyal, Ornit Shani, Mukul Sinha, Nirjhari Sinha, Arvind Verma.

They serve ironically as great catalysts for “Hindu consolidation” and acceleration towards “right”.  Moorthy Muthuswamy has studied Khalidi for his apparent influence on political parties within India with an obvious agenda of creating a separate state for Muslims within India. This fits in with perhaps a perception among a section of Jihadis and their backers that  for the next stage of Islamist expansion, resources needed can be gleaned from non-Muslims in India since the Pakistan experiment has failed to provide the resources on its own.

Now why this consistent pattern of western support for elements that bring on Islamic Jihad on non-Muslim civilizations? Maybe the key lies in a fundamental weakness of Christianity towards Islam -specifically to the Arabic Sunni sect of Islam. The problem in fact can be traced back to this weakness after we eliminate all other potential reasons.

It appears that both Islam and Christianity had been in competition over the Judaic legacy and therefore each in its own way saw Judaism proper or the community of Jews as an obstacle to this ideological supremacy.  However, ideologically they cannot go too far away from each other in the fundamentals because of this root foundation in Judaism.  The conflicts bewteen Christendom and Islam in the historical period basically starts over this claim of sole legacy and takes the form of imperialist conflict – because, both the proselytizing versions of Judaism emerged out of a practical imeprialist need for expansion.

The conflict therefore took the form of war for territory and control of productive economies and trade routes of others. To maintain the drive for this imperialist expansion, each side needed to identify the other side as “alien” and the “devil”. The peculiarity of common origins and memes however forced them to find racial divide as an identifier of alien-ness and  the enemy.

To date there has been no solid, logical refutation of Islam by Christianity except the claim that Islamics do not recognize Jesus as the sole way to salvation. Even this is problematic because Islam places Jesus as one of the principal prophets and reserves a special role for Jesus in the “end-times”.   So the Christian-Islam conflict has taken the loose and weaker basis of “race” rather than any concrete and profound difference in ideology.

It is this theoretical confusion that is clearly indicated in the responses that Christian dominated west gives to Islamic moves. Contrary to the propaganda that west’s reaction to Islamism is purely determined by economic motives, it is actually Christianity’s secret attraction for what it perhasp considers the “purity” of the Sunni Arabic extension of Judaism. For example the West has studiously cultivated the Arabs since using them  as tools against the competitors of the British  – the Ottomans.  But there would be no reason to continue preferring them over and above the Iranians long after Ottomans have been finished, and both Arabia and Iran sit over oil wealth.  Not that the west does not dip to deal with Iran when needed – as in the Contra-hostage deal.

Where does this put Christianity and Islam in the eyes of other non-revealed-tradition cultures?

In UK, judicial and executive systems enforce the law  strictly when it comes to the case of say liquidation of the “holy cow” of a Hindu temple becuase, reasonably – the cow was diseased. However the same country and system finds desecration of its prized memorial by a Muslim as not being driven by religious hatred and has allowed a symbolic violent form of expression of hatred in Islam – the throwing of the shoe (typically symbolically used against the devil), as a legitimate form of public expression.

In the USA, the California text book controversy showed that the administration and system would be reluctant to withdraw protection to  attempts to represent the non-Muslim past of India in a way that suits the Islamic agenda aginst Hindus. The same system finds a Chief Minister of an Indian state known for his strong Hindu affiliations persona non grata even though he has not yet been convicted on the charges of complicity in Hindu-Muslim violence – the main excuse given to refuse him visas. However the same administration has no problem with Omar Kahlidi’s claims which as Muthuswamy points out are based on dubious scholarship. So the “Hindu” fall foul of freedom of expression but Islamist views do not.

In India, the Christian proselytizers are not known to target the Indain Muslim communities for conversion, but Hindus. Indian Christians are also not seen as active protesters against Jihadi activities or statements by various sections of Islamists.

Alll this shows up as a secret attraction and weakness towards the Sunni-Wahabi form of Islam within Christianity of the west to the Hindus, among whom the mistrust of Christian missionaries and their motives have been increasing. Moreover the gradually increasing intervention of western states in favour of protecting the primary propaganda mechanisms of Islamists, and prevention of movements or expressions of ideological criticisms of Islam, is bound to alarm Hindus or Buddhists across South Asia.

If  Christianity cannot resolve this fundamental dilemma, it will not be too distant a day, when the Azaan will be heard from Westminster Abbey, the British Monarch may well come out of his Zenana Harem to attend Friday Prayers where the Khutba will be read extolling a new Caliph in the middle East, and the USA rechristens itself the United American Emirates.

Yes, absurd perhaps – but just imagine it for a moment and decide!

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

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