Dealing with Islamic Terror : Indian subcontinent

Introduction

The latest SAARC summit ended with two concerns, food security and security from terror. The Indian PM tried to engage with his Pakistani counterpart, and tried to bring up the issue of possible involvement of the ISI (the so-called secret services of Pakistan) in the Kabul blasts as well as being the masterminds behind the continuing sequence of blasts in India. This has been an old story in the Indian subcontinent. The reason this appears to be such a stubborn and shocking or new phenomenon, is because the history of the Indian subcontinent has been carefully and meticulously reconstructed to suppress and edit out all references to the violence, ruthlessness and greed of Islamic behaviour on the subcontinent.

The primary requirement to deal with Islam inspired terrorism is to understand the sources of inspiration and ideological motivations for acts of terror. Economic motivations supposed to be originating from deprivation, are not sufficient to explain Islamic terrorism, as we will show later, since the available data shows there are segments of Indian sub-identities which are even worse off than the Muslims as a group. That the focus is more cultural subjugation of non-Muslims together with initial enforced resource transfer from non-Muslims to Muslims, is revealed in the cultural agenda of the terrorists – targeting secular schools to force Muslim children into Madrassahs for brainwashing, targeting non-Muslim cultural icons, trying to impose the cultural aspects of the Sunni-Wahabi Sahriat in the supreme obsession with the imposition of the dress-code on women, etc.

Both Pakistan and Bangladesh were faces of the search for Muslim pre-emergence as the dominant force on the subcontinent. The founders of both countries have deep roots in the Islamic orthodoxy that took root under military patronage on the subcontinent. These countries took the form of nationalism since the period was otherwise not conducive to religious fundamentalism and revivalism. Islam had not yet reorganized itself around its two principal inspirational strongholds, Saudi Arabia and Iran (we will discuss why its most radical forms developed from apparently isolated individuals in the fringe countries with a long history of strong civilizational pre-Islamic traditions – Egypt and India), as these were under quite tight colonial control. Nationalism was the only cover to make the first tentative steps towards Islamic resurgence.

These were never founded by their founders as modern, post religious nation-states, even if that was the formal face of their constitutional declarations. We have to compare and analyze their actual actions and practical affair-related statements and policy declarations rather than what they said for international and non-Muslim consumption. We have to understand and analyze the forces within Pakistani society that pushed up the relatively more orthodox groups around the Punjabi and Sindhi elite on the Western side, and the fanatically anti-Hindu during the partition riots within the Muslim League who later on became th face of Bangladeshi nationalism with the suppression of the more Left leaning, and socialist groups like those around Maulana Bhasani.

Islam needed and used the rising sentiments of nationalism, which were a fruit of a variety of complex factors including overthrow of old style direct military imperialism, as well as the competition that the successors of imperialism faced against the socialists and Communists for the control over the world. This was the primary reason that Islam found a natural ally in the post imperialist European realignment to combat Communism for world dominance. The successors of imperialism, in their blindness to tackle Communism, made a series of epic blunders, for which now not only itself, but the rest of the world having no part in this blunder, also has to suffer.

One of the major blunders was the compromise with Islamic retrogression and fundamentalism. Islam was seen as a good immunization against any Left leaning tendency anywhere – the more retrogressive and primitive and ruthless, the better. Islamic leadership were never fools. The whole history of Islam, in its theocracy, in its practical historical behaviour, in its core texts, has always shown flexibility in its tactical and strategic moves. The West’s monumental blunder was allowing the Islamists to get away with the liquidation of any modernizing or progressive force, ranging from women’s rights to educational reform and not to mention any group or force that clashed with the Islamic clergy’s medieval grasp over its community. Islamic leadership realized this weakness in the West, and utilized it to full advantage, and eliminated all modernizing, democratic forces all over the Islam majority areas of the world with the exception of Turkey, where the forces were more evenly balanced, and the authoritarian, pro-Western regime there was already more reliable as a bulwark against Communism.

After this long lasting post-imperialist Islamic consolidation, Islam was finally ready to launch its hidden long term agenda once the USSR weakened. Weakening of the USSR, removed two strategic obstacles in the rise of Islam as the sole dominant force on Asia at one stroke, it removed the West’s dominant interest in Asia and therefore led to a period of withdrawal of both Western and Soviet interventions. This was the turn around needed by Islam in its long term strategy. It did not feel strong enough to take on China, and so manipulated China’s own ambitions and shortsight in the classic Islamic pattern of using one “hated” unbeliever against another.

What we are seeing on the Indian subcontinent is an expansive phase of this strategic move by Islamic leaders.

To be continued…

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

7 Responses to “Dealing with Islamic Terror : Indian subcontinent”

RSS Feed for Dikgaj’s Weblog Comments RSS Feed

If we start counting in this world how many real bad people are there .It will not be difficult to name and count them . Question we have more good then bad .Then why bad is prevailing. Looks like Bad are united and Good are not. It should be not be difficult to eliminate bad when good are ready to unite and finish bad.

British interest in creating an Islamic state in the Indian subcontinent:

“In his article, Creation of Pakistan – Safeguarding British Strategic Interests, Narendra Singh Sarela, former Indian Ambassador to France wrote to suggest that recently unsealed British top secret documents indicated how Mohammed Ali Jinnah (leader of the Muslim League) articulated his demand for partition in 1940 only after getting the approval of Lord Zetland, then secretary of state for India. The British encouraged the partition proposal in order to safeguard their interests in a post-colonial world. Earlier in 1939, Jinnah had pledged the loyalty of Indian Muslim troops (who comprised over 40% of the British Army in India) and the British expected that this loyal fighting force would come in handy in controlling the oil-wealth of the Middle East, and provide the Western powers with a “reliable ally” that could serve as a foil to the former Soviet Union. (The commentary appeared in the Times of India, March 17, 2000)”

“Asia Times http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/GC23Df04.html
Mar 23, 2005

“[Turkey] had lost her leadership of Islam and Islam might now look to leadership to the Muslims of Russia. This would be a most dangerous attraction. There was therefore much to be said for the introduction of a new Muslim power supported by the science of Britain … It seemed to some of us very necessary to place Islam between Russian communism and Hindustan.
– Sir Francis Tucker, General Officer-Commanding of the British Indian Eastern Command.

A little over half a century on, driven by the forces unleashed by the tragic events of September 11, 2001, imperial Britain’s Pakistan project is being reinvented. It is hard to imagine a more unlikely caliph than Pakistani President General Pervez Musharraf, but that is precisely what the United States seems determined to anoint him.

Pakistan, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice told Musharraf at their recent meeting in Islamabad, is “a model country for the Muslim world”. Among other things, she praised Pakistan’s president and chief of army staff, who came to power in a coup in 1999, for his “bold vision for South Asia and initiatives to promote peace and stability in the region”. “

Thought Dikgaj may be interested in this (I think it is questionable):
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/26/books/review/Mishra-t.html?_r=1&ref=books

Doniger is not saying anything new. This is solidly in the Thaparite tradition – (1) hinduism is heterogenous (2) no unifying structure. This is typically accomplished by a highly selective quoting and interpretations severly limited by the agenda and sometimes illogical or irrational derivations found in the non-exact sciences.

Doniger’s thesis can be demolished quite easily – but it means discussing “hinduism”, which I am not sure I should go into right now. One of the primary contradictions of such works can be seen immediately even in the short summary by Mishra. That very “hinduism” which is “heterogenous”, non-unified, is also somehow strangely “syncretic”, “accommodating” at the same time. Were the “bhakti” cults not part of “hinduism” then? were they themselves homogeneous? (they definitely were not by Abrahaic standards of the West – for they were numerously subdivided into “sects” ) If they themselves were not homogenous, how could they all converge to similar or same ideals of “syncretism” and “accommodation”?

Doniger has a project that supplements the political need in a section of historians to delegitimize existence of underlying concepts of “cultural nationalism” and “unity” in the Bharatyia philosophies, incluidng its lokayata. For example she mentions the acceptance of atheism or agnosticism as part of “Hindu” philosophical tradition but carefully fails to mention that the eraliest proponents of such theories like Kapil in his Sankhyo, actually base their arguments on interpretations of the Vedas. Both atheists, and theists derive support from the same tradition and the very Sanskritic Vedas. Doniger of course cannot afford to highlight this. Doniger’s thesis is a complete failure of perception natural to someone who remains an alien in her outlook to the Bharatyia, and irrational in that inimitable way that only so-called professional historians can usually match.

Doniger sees only Sanskrit as a language of the minority elite. She ignores the linguistic dynamic of the subcontinent, the processes by which Sanskrit (itself meaning “re-edited/purified/cleaned”) was formed, and how it went through or generated prakrit, magdhi, odero-magdhi etc – giving rise to a majority of languages spoken now in India. Doniger’s lack of experience shows in her linguistic claims. Actually, more words of Sanskritic root are used at non-elite level than the elite level. It is at the elite level that loan-words and expresssions from Persian or Arabic or English manifest more, for obvious reasons of gerater interaction with foreign regimes.

Will think of whether this should take up a more elaborate response. Thanks for the ref, Observer!

I really enjoyed reading your blogpost, keep up creating such interesting articles.

First off … correct the title. Sub-continent no longer belongs to india … it is a Sino-Pak land which is now called Chinese sub-continent.

I’ve gone trough the ‘How Islam….Series.Believe me I found what I was in search for!Thank you,Thank You Thank You!!!


Where's The Comment Form?

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

%d bloggers like this: