Foreign Policy Under a Possible NDA
Elections are around the corner here in India and with analysts predicting a hung parliament, it can be expected that there would be mad political scrambling and unexpected formations might come together to form the next government. One of the possibilities is that a BJP led alliance might be calling the shots at South Block in a few month’s time. The BJP has been spending a good deal of rhetoric criticising the UPA’s foreign and security policy. I found a well-written piece bringing to light the well known position of BJP hawk Arun Shourie to do to Pakistan what Pakistan does to us.
Arun Shourie will have a major say in any BJP government of the future. I don’t have any doubts that many within the BJP support his line and that it would be the foreign policy of choice of any future BJP government. I hope people remember that the Taliban was a creation of the USA carried out by Pakistan. I hope they remember the role Rajiv Gandhi played for the LTTE. Look who they’ve turned their backs to now. And to what effect.
The world that existed during NDA’s rule is very different to what it is today. BJP’s foreign policy then canbe used as a directional indicator, but not much else. The BJP has been thumping its chest about how it could conduct a ‘better’ foreign policy than the current government (whose policies I disagree with too). With their policy prescriptions being spelt out randomly and un-comprehensively at various conferences and summits, I believe the foreign policy expected of a possible BJP-led government would:
1) assist Balochistan rebels who are fighting the Pakistani government in order to create a “Kashmir-like situation in Pakistan”. [Follow link above].
2) ally even more strongly with the USA to the point that India would begin to look like it’s poodle in the region. Manmohan Singh successfully followed up the trend set by Atal Vajpayee. There’s nothing quite wrong with allying with a democratic nation, but to do out of turn favours, overiding our own concerns is a totally different ballgame.
3) give increasing support to the new Israel government (which in all likelihood looks like it is going to be a neo-conservative right wing anti-Arab party led government). An excellent argument on this in Mearshmeir’s, “The Israel Lobby”. [What do Americans think about Israel, given that the USA is Israel's biggest ally? An indicator here. Note that this website attracts a liberal biased readership].
4) have an unsure strategy on how to deal with the LTTE issue, as differing opinions have been heard within the BJP over this. This might work in favour of the BJP though. BJP’s Tamilian allies will dictate this.
For a host of reasons, people around the region would resent a right-wing Hindu nationalist government in India (apart from it being intrinsically a sad turn of events too), and this can never be a good thing given that there are plenty of breeding grounds for terrorists in the region. (That elements within the BJP haven’t been brought to the book for their crimes in Gujarat and after Babri, would give them another reason to resent a BJP-led India). On this, read, “Identity and Violence- The Illusion of destiny” by Sen. India would increasingly become a petty neighbourhood bully and a neo-con nation stuck up on ideology rather than rationale.
Note that while none of the policies have been ‘officially’ declared by the BJP, it is expected that they would tow this line as some of their most prominent leaders have taken stances in line with what I have written above. I fully realize that I could be totally wrong in retrospect. But I have strong reasons to believe I wont be.
—————————————————————————————————————–
There are many saner ways to fight terrorism in India. A few can be found here.
—————————————————————————————————————–
[Hindu and Muslim fundamentalism reaches India's villages.
Advani is obsessed with the Ram Mandir. I say make toilets instead.
Ever wondered why you see ghosts?]
a. “assist Balochistan rebels who are fighting the Pakistani government in order to create a “Kashmir-like situation in Pakistan”. India would never do that after the LTTE experience. If you can’t tell political bluff from policy declaration, that’s your problem.
b. “ally even more strongly with the USA to the point that India would begin to look like it’s poodle in the region.” I detect a certain lack of self confidence. After WWII, UK was a nation whose prestige was in free FALL and it clung to the US for succour. India, on the other hand, is a nation on the upswing. Why would India become America’s poodle?
c. “give increasing support to the new Israel government” I hope they do. And “neo-con anti Arab”… what is that? I think, by anti-Arab you mean “anti the group of despotic Arab dictatorships”. What is so wrong with supporting a democracy over a bunch of murderous dictatorships?
d. “For a host of reasons, people around the region would resent a right-wing Hindu nationalist government in India, and this can never be a good thing given that there are plenty of breeding grounds for terrorists in the region.” You have let the cat out of the bag here, my friend. So you would rather have our country, which is a beacon of democracy in Asia, become subject to the approval of the thuggish despots that surround us?
e. “India would increasingly be seen as a petty neighbourhood bully and a neo-con nation stuck up on ideology rather than rationale.” You’re right. Maybe we should stick to the Gandhian tactics of our friends in the Islamic world? Who can ever accuse the Muslim world of being stuck up on ideology?
f. “elements within the BJP haven’t been brought to the book for their crimes in Gujarat” That’s disgusting. You want rioting BJP leaders to be projected by the media as national heroes like Afzal who was “brought to book”? Unlike you, I believe that the Gujarat riots were despicable. Why do you want to give the rioteers Bharat Ratna like Mohd Afzal?
g. “There are many saner ways to fight terrorism in India” I agree. Giving Islam an honest reality check would be my suggestion. Giving undeserved respect to Islam qualifies as flattery.
a. Unfortunately, India has been doing so already, although monetarily. There have been enough reports by neutral international media, foreign policy magazines and human rights organisations to confirm this. I don’t doubt that there would be hindrance in assistance for the same, especially when it has been brought up at various so called ‘leadership’ conferences and academic events across institutions in India. If Pakistan could do it to us without sweat, I doubt India would really need to do anything more than wish it. However, I do hope you are right and it being just a political bluff. In case it is political bluff, then I must say it is indeed a very sad and pathetic one.
b. I would love to ask that to Manmohan, Advani and co. Why do they wish to pursue policies that toe the line if the USA, especially in cases where they are wrong (rationally and ethically)? I am no commie and have no problems with the USA in general, but there are plenty of times India has toed the line of the USA on flawed policies. I’ll get to some in a future post.
c. So you think Arab means “the group of despotic Arab dictatorships”? When “Arab” is discussed in the Israel-Palestine context, it means “Palestinians who have been living in the land of ‘Israel’ ever since history remembers it”. It’s a UNIVERSAL CONNOTATION to the civilians if the region that has nothing to do with the Saudi Arabian and other dictatorships and in fact, even terrorist organisations such as the Hamas. And I would not ever support a democratic government that lives on hatred of innocent civilians. The parties that have grown in prominence in Israel lately thrive on reverse-xenophobia. The liberal world (including that within Israel) has condemned it. I don’t need right wing ideology to justify hatred of a populace for the crimes of the few. Because then, by your logic, a ‘hindu’ would mean a Bajrang Dal member and “leftist” would mean Naxalite. The absurdity of this is obvious. And a democracy has always meant the dictatorship of the majority. If the majority view is built on hatred, I would not support it.
d. So you mean it is ok to put a party that has in the past involved itself in acts that have led to the killings of people of a certain religion (here, Islam) to power as long as it is democratic? So social justice can take a back seat simply because it is a democracy?
Would you support an organisation that kills hindus, like say LeT, to come to power VIA DEMOCRATIC MEANS in Pakistan? By your logic, as long as it’s a democracy, it’s okay. (note I am not comparing the BJP with the LeT, I am merely drawing a parallel).
It’s not just thuggish despots. What would you do about peace-loving liberal ‘bigots’ like me?
e. Oh, so now that I have contradicted your beliefs, it means I am “with them”? So it is pretty much “my way or the highway” then? What makes you think I support the ideology of the conservative Islamic world? I could go on about how irrational and stuck-up it is, but that wouldn’t make it a conversation starter, especially since we are on the same page about it, now would it?
It is incredible how so very often people put you in the other camp if you disagree with them. Pathetic in fact.
Also, if you don’t support their ways, how do you justify us behaving the same way as them?
f. Afzal hasn’t yet been brought to the book. Certain politicians have used him to stir certain muslims against the Indian justice system. So just because he was eventually glorified by certain sections, and because you presume the same would happen to the Gujarat rioters, that would mean that justice should not be served? The ones who raped and killed many in the name of religion (from both sides) roam about free, some moving up the political ladder. No amount of floral language like “…Bharat Ratna….” can take away the need for justice.
“Why do you want to give the rioteers Bharat Ratna like Mohd Afzal?”. Seriously? That was an argument?
“Unlike you, I believe that the Gujarat riots were despicable”- Oh so you know me so very well don’t you? The arrogance, ignorance, and self-congratulation of the statement is appalling and insulting.
g. “Giving undeserved respect to Islam qualifies as flattery”. I would love to see one statement where I have given ‘respect’ to Islam. One statement.
—————————————————-
Delusion, however, feels a lot like ego.
a. All countries pursue some amount of shadow boxing against one another. I meant to say India’s assistance to Baloch rebels would never amount to full scale proxy war, like the Pakis tried in Kashmir.
b. Yes, both Manmohan and Advani toe the US line sometimes when the latter is wrong, rationally and ethically. That is called being “diplomatically right”. Yes, self interest matters. National interest matters.
c. “Palestinians living in the land of Israel forever”, eh? In that case, I would presume you also support India invading across the borders to retake and rebuild the “Akhand Bharat” that has forever been ours.
d. Absolutely! 100% ! That is because I think democracy is a panacea, a self correcting process, somewhat like science. Just because science has been wrong before does not mean you turn your back on science. And as for “killing people of a certain religion is concerned”, I suggest you shed a few tears for the Sikhs as well. Both major parties in India are guilty of sponsoring riots; if the BJP was behind Gujarat and Babri, the Congress sponsored the Sikh massacre. No messiah will descend from heaven to create a new political party of self sacrificing leaders. We have to work with what we have got. We have the means to purify the parties and the leaders we have by means of the democratic process. You remember what the Congress did to counter Modi in 2002? Their plan was to revive “KHAM”: Kshatriya Harijan Adivasi Muslim. Is that divisive? When Maya said “Tilak Taraazoo aur Talwar, inko maaro joote chaar”, was that divisive? When SP called SIMI a social organisation, was that a crime against our nation? We have to work with what we have. When you focus on the crimes of ONE party out of the whole rot, it makes you look like…guess what… a bigot!
e. As I said in part d., when you pick out the crimes of ONE out of a million others and condemn it as the sole offender out of a million others, it makes you a bigot … yes you never said explicitly the others were holy, but why then would a normal person, with a basic sense of fairness, so blatantly forget to talk about the Congress sponsored massacre of 1984? Or completely forget that the Congress party stole India’s democracy and imposed dictatorship for a short time? please suggest an alternative explanation.. For my part, I plead guilty to running with the “most plausible explanation”.
f. I will put parts f. and g . together. As before, if you give a free pass to the crimes of Islam, or if you forget completely the essentially reactionary nature of the Gujarat riots, if you forget that, time and again, it is Muslims who have refused to show the slightest bit of respect for the freedom of others, you ARE giving them a lot of respect.
A “few” Muslims. How many of the 57 members of the Islamic World are functioning democracies? Everywhere in the Muslim world, I guess the “few” are winning. Why do dictators have this staggering 100% success rate in the Muslim world? What are Muslims, retarded?
a. Just because all countries engage in political ‘shadow boxing’, it doesn’t make it right. Or even practical. Many countries have kept away from such rhetoric, and have moved forward. (I don’t want to name any, as you would then point out that the geo-political conditions differ. I personally believe that the political conditions differ significantly on account of such ‘shadow boxing’.)
b. National interest, like you rightly said, is a driving force for a lot foreign policy decisions. I personally don’t believe as much in identity on the basis of nationality, as much as I do on status of involvement in the society. What I mean is I would not support a policy/stance that benefits 1 Indian at the cost of 10 innocent residents of country X. I understand this might seem naive, unrealistic and idealistic, but only such idealism by certain quarters will help society to overshoot in the direction that is relatively ‘ethical’.
c. I am afraid you have compared apples to oranges. I say this because Jews (who were even genetically/racially different from the arabs, and spoke a different language) came in hoards from abroad after the World Wars and displaced arabs and drove them to two tiny strips of land and over a period of years, destroyed the ‘economy’ by walling the regions in. I am not surprised that these jobless people (who had a decent livelihood before the Zionist ‘experiment’ began), cornered and socially and economically killed, fed by certain-fiery scriptures of their holy book, have resorted to what they have. (you somehow have the habit of putting me in the ‘opposing’ camp just because I don’t support your thinking. I think it’s safe to mention here that I am not justifying Hamas/etc; I’m merely putting reason to situation).
India was very different on the other hand. Read any ‘neutral’ book on Islam’s beginnings in India (eg. Inside Islam), and it dawns that Islam came to India through cultural exchanges and trade. Indians converted to Islam (as opposed to the Israel situation where Jews were complete outsides) and were later even made to forcefully convert by Islamic emperors (like Aurangzeb) who took to style of Islam as we know today. Hindus INITIALLY converted to Islam as they found Hinduism unequal and discriminating. The mughals did not bring Islam into India. Islam was there for hundreds of years before they first came (a fact supported by most scholars). In fact, read Babar-nama and you’ll realize that Babur was hardly a muslim in practice. He was muslim by birth and hardly anything more. He was an outcaste of the Turko-Mongol empire (from his father’s side), and the Khans (from his mother’s side;Khan was a title then, and had nothing to do with Islam at that time) was a mix of local-costumed, Buddhist and Christian empire. His grandson, Akbar, even tried to create his own religion. It was the later emperors who took to Islam (as we know it today) and brought it into the forefront by forceful conversions etc etc. Those who converted (or were made to convert) were lower caste and poor Indians itself, not outsiders.
The Israel situation is a case of immigrants taking over a state and reducing the original inhabitants to beggars and vagabonds (and terrorists). The India-Pakistan-Islam situation is of an outside culture that came in freely (through trade) but later took the behemothic form FROM WITHIN, over a period of hundreds of years.
It is for this I say this is like comparing apples to oranges. I am not surprised that you chose to compare the situations.
d. Dear friend, I fully agree that a democratic process is a self correcting one. But what are the agents of this system that lead to this self-correcting nature? Among others, it is justice. Specifically, social justice. It is this important aspect that is inherent in a democracy that makes it the most superior system. To have democracy without justice is like having a car without wheels.
“And as for ‘killing people of a certain religion is concerned’, I suggest you shed a few tears for the Sikhs as well.” What makes you think I don’t? The Congress is a much at fault with what happened to the Sikhs as the BJP is with the muslims. In fact, (you will be surprised I’m sure) I believe that justice should be served to the Hindus who lost their lives to fanatic muslims too. When I ask for social justice, it goes for all religions/section, but somehow, you presume I am some sort of “muslim-sympathiser”.
“When you focus on the crimes of ONE party out of the whole rot, it makes you look like…guess what… a bigot!”- But I am a ‘bigot’! In the eyes of all those who disagree with me, that is exactly what I am- a bigot (it works well both ways, friend). And that’s where the name of the blog has come from. Getting to the point you mentioned, well I do focus on the crimes of one party (even though the Congress, SP, BSP etc are no less guilty of crimes against our society and nation). I do so because this is one party whose ideology I MOST strongly differ with. In politics, I’m afraid, one really chooses the “least-bad” rather than the “best”. I am merely pointing out who I think is the “most-bad”. If I did have the time and energy, I’d go after the others too. And I invite you to ‘focus on the crimes’ of any party you wish. It’s a free country after all. We are not Saudi Arabia (which I repeat, I do not support. I just have to keep mentioning it as you might just put me ‘with them’ for disagreeing with you, as you have repeatedly done).
e. “For my part, I plead guilty to running with the ‘most plausible explanation’.”- We all often jump to the most plausible explanation rather quickly. I have learnt from experience that this is undesirable, and often irrational.
For the rest of the reply, refer d.
f. I don’t give a free pass to the crimes of anyone. Do you expect me to point out the crimes of every party and organisation in the world? I just choose the one I dislike most among the ones that are running for office. If SIMI (not a party that ‘proclaims’ it supports it) was running for office, you can be rest assured I’d come out all guns blazing against it too.
“…forget completely the essentially reactionary nature of the Gujarat riots…”- First, different committees have come out with differing reports on the causes of the riots. Both committees have been politically motivated. I refuse to come to a conclusion on the issue before a verdict has been reached and it is comprehensively proven what led to what. (However, previous cases of BJP excesses like post-Babri riots, Kanpur riots etc are well documented. I also blame muslim organisations for the same, of course. But they are not running for office). Secondly, again, if you think I only blame Hindu organisations for such riots that have taken place in our country, you are sadly mistaken. Fringe elements exist on both sides, and I wouldn’t stop criticising either.
Do I really need to mention the outrages committed by fundamentalist muslims in India and the world, when almost everyone agrees to the same and little dispute exists on it? We both agree on it, don’t we? I prefer talking about the outrages committed by some hindu elements and organisations as they tend to be less criticised as they mask their wrong-doings under the veil of nationalism and “protecting cultures”.
“…you ARE giving them a lot of respect.” Again, this is your my-side-or-my-opponents-side philosophy. I’m sorry, but I disagree with both.
“A ‘few’ Muslims? How many of the 57 members of the Islamic World are functioning democracies?”- You answered the question yourself. A dictatorship is run by the few, not the many. Also, how many ‘fanatic’ muslims, or terrorists, or dictators, or fundamentalist mullahs, or ‘islamic-armies’ do you think there are? 5 million? 10 million? That’s still less than 10% of the muslim population. Let’s say I am wrong and as high as 30% of all muslims are are fundamentalist. Is it then fair to blame the rest of the 1.3 billion muslims(70%) for crimes they didn’t commit? Yes, I agree that Islamic philosophy has inherent flaws, is close minded to other cultures and is oppressive. But it is not right to blame common people (who happen to be muslim) for the excesses of the FEW who use such philosophy for their political and social goals.
——————————
Also, as you probably noticed, I am against all organised religion. They are the cause of most problems in the world. Such outcomes are masked by their “function” of spreading ‘goodness’, ‘morality’, ‘moksha’ etc.
a. “What I mean is I would not support a policy/stance that benefits 1 Indian at the cost of 10 innocent residents of country X.” I understand. This is something that can only be decided on a case by case basis.
b. “I say this because Jews (who were even genetically/racially different from the arabs, and spoke a different language) came in hoards from abroad after the World Wars and displaced arabs and drove them to two tiny strips of land and over a period of years”
I have never heard of someone actually forgetting the holocaust. You make it sound as though the rampaging Jews arrived triumphantly in Israel. True, the Muslims may not have had anything to do with the holocaust, but the Jews needed a homeland after WWII and areawise, the strip given to them was extremely small. After the holocaust, I can understand the Jews developing an intense demand for their own homeland. Your remark about “Jews fed by certain fiery passages” is ridiculously insensitive.
How do I know your remark is misleading and insensitive? Suppose that you have a person who has never read history. If he reads your comment, do you think he will be able to even suspect that the Jews had just come out of a calamity so terrible as the holocaust? And do you agree that this person might have tempered his view of the Jews had the holocaust been mentioned? So you see that you actually omitted an essential piece of the context, which is why I have called you misleading.
c. I get it. So you are saying that with Jews and Arabs it is a case of an outsider doing evil to a group of people. In the case of India and Pakistan, it was the case of a treacherous enemy within. So, you are questioning the loyalty of (current) India’s Muslim population, right? As you point out, Islam mixed deeply into India and then became an enemy of India. Is there reason to assume that all this evil of Islam, mixed into the grassroots, left India wholesale when Pakistan was created? The more you think Islam became entwined with India, the more reason there is to believe Indian Muslims are “suspect”. Let’s mention that you are entering the Modi zone with that kind of thinking, not that I want to discourage you.
d. “I do so because this is one party whose ideology I MOST strongly differ with.” Fair enough, but I am unable to see why you think your ideology is farthest from BJP. So what is it that you find more palatable about killing 3000 Sikhs versus 3000 Muslims? Why is it more forgivable to try and throw away the Constitution and form a dictatorship than it is to play Hindu-Muslim divisive politics? Why is it better that a leader be chosen by birth than nominated by the RSS?
Of course, if you disagree with the BJP due to some personal dislike, there is nothing wrong about it…technically. But I do think intelligent people should do more than form opinions based on a random coin toss in their heads.
e. “A dictatorship is run by the few, not the many. Also, how many ‘fanatic’ muslims, or terrorists, or dictators, or fundamentalist mullahs, or ‘islamic-armies’ do you think there are? 5 million? 10 million? That’s still less than 10% of the muslim population.”
Friend, I am afraid you completely missed my point. My point is: Don’t you find it curious that dictatorship should succeed all the time in the Islamic World? Why is dictatorship not so successful elsewhere? Does this not suggest the existence of something about Islam that makes people way more prone to agreeing with dictatorship than people in other cultures? It would be great if we could isolate the fundamentalists and eliminate them. But isn’t there a continuum, from the ordinary Muslim to the rabid fundamentalist? Nazi Germany had to be bombed, even though there must have been closeted people who disagreed with Hitler living in Germany at that time. We can’t accommodate everybody. And, if fundamentalists are the minority, one would expect the general population to celebrate whenever a dictator is uprooted. I would love to see you hail America and George Bush as the liberator of Iraq.
As such, I daresay a statement like “There are fringe elements on both sides” is unhelpful, unless you also mention the relative threat posed by those fringes.
b. “I have never heard of someone actually forgetting the holocaust.” I didn’t feel the need to mention the holocaust as I have always believed the two can be separated without doing injustice to either case. I’ll get down to explaining what I mean. Firstly, to explain with an example: in case group X kills my entire family, it doesn’t give me the right to kill innocent members of group Y.
What I mean is, the jews have had a history of violence against them. Specifically, the holocaust was a result of a flawed philosophy of the Nazis which led to the massacre of millions of jews. In fact, they have been mistreated wherever they have lived. I thus understand the rationale of the Zionist movement which asked for a homeland for jews. But which land should have been the homeland? Israel comes at the forefront as that was the only land that the jews ever were a majority in. But that was hundreds and hundreds of years (if my memory doesn’t fail me, it was more than 900 years) prior to 1948. In fact, Christian and Muslim rule each has individually been longer (much longer) in Jerusalem than Judaic. Arabs were in majority in the land of Palestine ever since they could ever remember it for all practical purposes. But they had to pay the price of the Nazis misadventures with jews. While the international community now had to safeguard the jew community, it was flawed to literally push arabs out of their sweat-land (I mean the land which they worked and grew food on) and confine them to a walled city and turn them into jobless beggars. All I am saying is, even if there was no alternative to Palestine getting divided into Israel and Palestine, there should have been a saner way to do it. They chose the path of coercion. This is what I have a problem with. The Palestinians paid a price for someone else’s outrages. It has really nothing to do with the holocaust, except that the concept Zionism grew out of it.
In other words, I mean to say that the holocaust has been used as an excuse for the excesses of Israel far more than actually applicable. The Zionist movement began in the universities of the USA by some socio-political scientists rather than by the people themselves. The holocaust is deplorable, as are many of the actions of Israel (the degree not being the same of course).
c. It is incredible how you jump to conclusions so very quickly, often generalising one statement for the entire issue.
“So, you are questioning the loyalty of (current) India’s Muslim population, right?” I wonder where “loyalty” has come into the picture. Loyalty to whom? The issue is of a clash of cultures (read religion), both within (though Islamic philosophy came from outside, it’s practiced by locals, not outsiders). Both consider the land of India as their own. Both are in a turf-war like situation.
“As you point out, Islam mixed deeply into India and then became an enemy of India.” While I did mention that Islam is now mixed into India, I never implied that it is an enemy of India. Islam (like Hinduism, Christianity, or any other religion) is an enemy of progress of every society, every country.
“Let’s mention that you are entering the Modi zone with that kind of thinking, not that I want to discourage you.” Stands invalid as you wrongly generalised and wrongly interpreted my statements, as I mentioned earlier.
d. “Fair enough, but I am unable to see why you think your ideology is farthest from BJP”. The reason is this: I differ most strongly with the philosophy of nationalism, cultural-chavaunism and religion-in-governance. When we talk about Indian parties, BJP, Shiv Sena etc practice and follow such philosophies to a much much greater degree than say, Congress, BSP etc. All are equally corrupt; all have a list of crimes against the people etc. But such an ideology is followed (and used as a benchmark) very strongly in the so-called right wing parties. I target BJP as it is the largest of them. I would target Congress etc too, but to me personally, that would be an opportunity wasted to target what according to me is the greater of the evils.
Also, while I will continue to blame the Congress for what they did to Sikhs, I understand that they don’t continue to spew venom over Sikhs and now even have a Sikh PM – even if as a token. It would be akin to the BJP dropping its Hindutva ideology and even installing a token muslim PM. While in practice this might seem cosmetic and even futile, it would bring the two parties to a level playing field for my criticisms. (I repeat, strongly, that I still haven’t forgotten the misdeeds of the Congress and will support any attempts to bring justice).
“Why is it better that a leader be chosen by birth than nominated by the RSS?” It is not better. Not at all. But as I mentioned, I differ with the RSS ideology very strongly. More than I differ with birth being the determinant of a political position. Because the latter affects people indirectly (most people don’t feel the impact of this in day to day life). However, the former divides people and affects the psyche of the society and breeds prejudice against opposing communities affecting the daily lives of people who could be called “innocent”. This again, goes both ways. I would speak out strongly if some major party comes up with a philosophy to rival RSS’ but if a different religion. It breeds hatred in the society of a country we both love very much.
“But I do think intelligent people should do more than form opinions based on a random coin toss in their heads.” Not true. I would never hold a prejudice against something without understanding all sides of the story clearly and fairly. It’s safe to say I have read my bit about different sides of the story and form my judgements based on the same. (I might add that I have grown up watching injustices against the rural poor and hence always look at issues from their point of view).
e. “Don’t you find it curious that dictatorship should succeed all the time in the Islamic World? Why is dictatorship not so successful elsewhere?” It is for this reason why I say (and have said multiple times in my previous replies) that the Islamic philosophy is flawed. It however, has nothing to do with a majority of the PEOPLE who live in that region (most are muslims by birth, not choice. Most of them don’t want violence or terrorism. Most don’t even bother to think about Islamic philosophy. Most are just taken for a ride by the ones who do. ) It is for this reason I say that it is unfair to hold the PEOPLE at large responsible of the excursions of the fringe.
“Nazi Germany had to be bombed, even though there must have been closeted people who disagreed with Hitler living in Germany at that time.” While Nazi Germany was bombed, and innocent Germans were killed, it was never in the design to kill innocent Germans. But when you say, “We can’t accommodate everybody”, it sounds like you WANT it to be that way. And most importantly, you can’t really finish the ‘exploiters’ (I use the word to include all dictators, terrorists, etc) and expect that Islamic fundamentalism or dictatorships will end. The way Nazis were taken out cannot be replicated here as even if the ‘exploiters’ (along with a lot of collateral) were taken out, the problem would prevail as the problem is inherent within Islam itself, not the people who follow it. You could eliminate one ‘batch’ and another will replace it, because the ideology is still there.
On this, and the issue you have raised later, if you can, read “The Future of Freedom” (Penguin), “Why a League of Democracies Won’t Work” in Foreign Affairs Sept 08 edition and “Full Employment” M. Kalecki (1943) in case you could get a hand on any. In fact, an e-edition might just be available online. I wished I could present the argument in brief, but unfortunately, it is way too comprehensive to put it in a comment or article. I hope you understand my predicament.
“As such, I daresay a statement like ‘There are fringe elements on both sides’, is unhelpful, unless you also mention the relative threat posed by those fringes.” When I say this, I only imply that I wish not to take either side and I wish not to defend either. I oppose both sides, and to a degree that I deem fit for the threat they pose.
—————————-
I might not be able to reply to any comment for the next few days as I have a few excursions to make myself…Cheers!
a. “Arun Shourie will have a major say in any BJP government of the future. I don’t have any doubts that many within the BJP support his line and that it would be the foreign policy of choice of any future BJP government.”
I just want to remind you that here you are taking the remarks of ONE BJP leader and basing your whole argument on it. Don’t you think that, in evaluating the possible foreign policy of the BJP, you should at least MENTION the record of the BJP’s six years in power? Is it that insignificant that the BJP made major efforts to actually establish a lasting peace with Pakistan, both before AND after the Kargil War? A six year record of the BJP in power is given a complete miss and a whole argument is made on the basis of Arun Shourie’s opinions? Are you sure you are being fair?
b. I can’t believe anyone would think of the Muslims as innocent victims of Jewish/Western occupation. Palestine was partitioned, just like India was. Why then, may I ask, were Indian Hindus deprived of their land, the land they had inhabited for thousands of years? Note that while Pakistan became a Muslim state, India did not become a Hindu state, which proves that Indian Muslims were not asked to forgo rights to their homeland in India in return. So, why did Muslims just receive this free gift? I will tell you why… because Muslims went for “Direct Action”, they swore to turn the Hind into a graveyard if they didn’t get what they wanted. Thanks to patriots like Nehru, Indian Hindus obliged. Tell me, dear friend, why I do not have a right to Lahore, if a Palestinian has a right to what is Israel today?
c. Please dismiss your beautiful fantasy about Hindus falling in love with the egalitarian nature of Islam and converting willingly in droves. Why is it so hard for you to accept that thousands must have converted simply to appease the ruling class? What about Ghazni and Ghori? They started out by raining death and destruction, didn’t they? Islam arrived in every single nation through war and sword. That is a documented fact. You should read the chapter in Indian history called “Rise of Islam and the Arab conquest of Sind”.
d. The BJP brings religion into governance, eh? Actually, the right wing Hindu movement in India was all about achieving EQUALITY with Muslims, not superiority.
—>What is the “secular” position on Uniform Civil Code?
—> What is the “secular” position on minority status for Muslims in UP, without giving Hindus minority status in J&K?
—> What is the “secular” position on triple talaq?
—> What is the “secular” position on special status for minority institutions which receive govt aid?
—> What is the “secular” position on reservation for Muslims (didn’t Andhra govt recommend 5%, which was later kicked out by the courts?)
e. You seem to be worried about BJP “still spewing venom against Muslims”.
—> Do you remember when Lalu campaigned in Bihar with an Osama look alike (in 2005)?
—> Do you remember that after President’s rule, this lookalike joined Paswan?
They are both UPA allies, aren’t they?
—> Doesn’t the Congress have an alliance with the Muslim League in Kerala?
Well, the BJP did not give the country a Muslim PM, but it did give the country a Muslim President, right? In fact, the president that the BJP gave to India stands out as a golden example…
And of course, I have never seen someone satisfactorily explain the following simple situation to me:
If Muslims in ALL the 57 countries have been victimized by a radical “few”:
a. Most countries in this current world were ruled by dictators at some point or the other. A lot many have wiggled out through protest and fighting…causes to which many brave people devoted their lives and became heroes. Many a time people had to fight with oppressive govts and lose their lives …often en masse. Why doesn’t this happen in the Muslim world, at least once?
b. Now that many Muslim nations are getting attacked, why don’t I see people in those countries and the Muslim populace in others come out and welcome the Americans as liberators? The French welcomed the end of the Nazi occupation, so did the Germans themselves, Mussolini was hung upside down in Milan when Italian patriots got half a chance, when the Soviet dictatorship was dismantled, people were ecstatic, when the Berlin wall was broken down… people drank and sang night after night. Why don’t I see any of this in the Muslim world?
On the contrary, when Saddam Hussein was hanged, I remember Muslims spilling out and rioting on the streets of Bangalore. What’s going on here?
Maybe there are people who oppose the way America dealt with Iraq. But, surely people cannot feel good about Saddam Hussein, if they believe in freedom, that is. Remember the gassing of Kurds in Halabja? Imagine if a bunch of people had spilled out on the streets protesting the executions after the Nuremberg trial…what would you have said to them?
c. As for questioning the “loyalty” of Muslims, notice that I just said that Muslims were “suspect” and not guilty. Why?
Remember when you wrote “Firstly, to explain with an example: in case group X kills my entire family, it doesn’t give me the right to kill innocent members of group Y.”
Something like that. Imagine if a woman showed up at your door ALL 57 known members of whose family were child molesters, would you be ready to hire her as your child’s nanny?
Same with Islam. I look elsewhere in the world and I see Islam enjoying a 100% correlation with dictatorship and destruction. Can you really blame me for thinking Muslims are “suspect”?
d. Islam is provoked over the smallest things: Remember the protests over the Danish cartoons? A lot of those protests weren’t exactly peaceful, were they? Muslims are up in arms against Holland (the Fitna thing). Why? How many Muslim countries has Holland invaded? Muslims want the Jylllands-Posten Cartoonists killed..why? How many Muslims have the cartoonists killed? How many Muslims did Theo van Gogh kill? How many Muslims did Geert Wilders, who produced Fitna, kill? How many Muslims did Ayan Hirsi Ali, the Somali woman who escaped a forced marriage, kill?
And now, you will ask, why the Hindus of Gujarat were provoked when 50 people were burned alive (I know it is risky to question the report prepared by a person of integrity so high as Laloo Yadav, but I will take the risk)
a. “A six year record of the BJP in power is given a complete miss and a whole argument is made on the basis of Arun Shourie’s opinions? Are you sure you are being fair?” The point of this was to not be fair. If fairness was what I was looking at, I would have written about the pluses and minuses of foreign policy of all possible governments. My aim was to bring about the flipside of the party that I disagree with most often. Arun Shourie’s opinions are echoed very strongly by a lot of the right wing quarters. Besides, this is not something that he came up with out of thin air. This has been a foreign policy of India before. With India looking at options of how to deal with Pakistan, and the military option looking on weak ground, I have no doubt that this would be looked into seriously, and even furthered.
b. “I can’t believe anyone would think of the Muslims as innocent victims of Jewish/Western occupation.” It might surprise you, but the world predominantly supports this view. And with reasons, not propaganda. No nation supports the idea of Israel as much as the USA does, and other than FOX, all other media houses have come up with damning editorials on Israel’s actions. No one’s being anti-Semitic though.
“Palestine was partitioned, just like India was.” Again, you come up with false comparisons. It’s apples and oranges all over again. It’s almost like you didn’t read my reply. And my reply was not based on some personal view. It is accepted historical account. False view, fed by false knowledge.
“Why then, may I ask, were Indian Hindus deprived of their land, the land they had inhabited for thousands of years?” Muslims in India are Hindu converts. Again, cannot be compared to Israel. Israel is about local arabs and foreign jews. India-Pak is about the same people, divided by religion. As to why hindus in India who were from what is now Pakistan are being deprived of their land: that’s a valid question to ask. I have never supported a nation formed on religion. I have never supported the coercion of people on basis of race/religion/etc. Why do you presume I’d support Pakistan? Again, do you think that because I oppose BJP and hindutva, I am “with them”?
In fact, I am against nationalism for the very point you mentioned. The creation of Pak deprived many Indian Hindus of their land. Vice-versa. A flawed philosophy from the word go.
“I will tell you why… because Muslims went for “Direct Action”, they swore to turn the Hind into a graveyard if they didn’t get what they wanted.” Sure, am I not saying enough that the Islamic philosophy (esp. of nationhood) is flawed? There are plenty of examples how muslims have done this around the world.
“Tell me, dear friend, why I do not have a right to Lahore, if a Palestinian has a right to what is Israel today?” While the comparison is, like I have been saying, not on sound historical accounts, I will deal with the first part of the question on its own merit. Yes, a hindu in India who probably lived in what is now Pakistan must have a right to his/her land. It goes both ways. You keep strengthening my argument of the flawed philosophy of nationalism. While a state is in itself not on unsound philosophical principles, necessarily if the ethos that bind it are the principles of humanism and democracy, nationalism necessarily involves chauvinism of the state. This is what is one of the guiding philosophy of BJP and other right wing parties, and hence the starting point of me understanding their theoretical principles would be left on weak ground.
c. “Please dismiss your beautiful fantasy about Hindus falling in love with the egalitarian nature of Islam and converting willingly in droves.” A classical example of how this has worked is the case of Bangladesh. East Bengal saw a huge surge in the muslim population, which went on become the majority, even though at the time, there was no islamic leader in power at that point in history. What could have caused this then? Calcutta was a major trading town and hence, a cultural exchange centre. For this, read ‘Inside Islam’ (Penguin India). You have to get inside the mind of a dalit in rural India to understand what it means to be discriminated. Read “Periyar on Islam and Buddhism” (Critical Quest) for the same. Please dismiss your beautiful fantasy about Hindus being in love with the egalitarian nature of Hinduism. The muslim population in India are statistically as down trodden as dalits in India, a pointer of the cohort they formerly represented. (This is not to say that Islam has no role to play in their backwardness. Of course it does, but it’s not the only reason. Everything, my friend, is not in black and white, as youre making it out to be). Also, you say “…converting willingly in droves”. For this, see “Social Conformism”, D. Ray to understand the ripple-effect of social culture. Again, IMPORTANTLY, there is a need to understand that at no time have I implied that this was the only cause. Forced conversion was a MAJOR cause. You make it seem to be the only. It’s not all black-and-white, friend.
“Why is it so hard for you to accept that thousands must have converted simply to appease the ruling class?” I request you to re-read my replies to you. EVERY time I mentioned conversion, I mentioned that the initial impetus was natural, and later forced. So “hard to accept” part here is not of me on forced conversion, but you on the fact that you are mis-reading, mis-interpreting and mis-generalising my statements time and again.
“What about Ghazni and Ghori? They started out by raining death and destruction, didn’t they? Islam arrived in every single nation through war and sword. That is a documented fact.” That is an accepted fact, I never challenged it, in case you didn’t notice. Why do you presume I support Islam? You keep replying like you do. It is something I have repeated a dozen times so far.
d. “The BJP brings religion into governance, eh?” Yes. A close look at the administration of Gujarat, MP, Karnataka, the-then Rajasthan etc will confirm this. I see BJP CMs “palling up” with sadhus and swamis all the times. I see Hinduism enter the equation for most policy decisions. I see “gau mantralays” being formed. I see small Hindu shrines inside the Administrative blocks being set up. I see “astrology (Hindu based)” being commissioned into academic courses. I see Bajrang Dal and similr organisations given a relatively free hand and political support (of course, NSUI etc get a free hand when Congress is in power, and I oppose that too. But the NSUI etc are in a different league to Bajrang Dal etc). The list is endless.
“Actually, the right wing Hindu movement in India was all about achieving EQUALITY with Muslims, not superiority.” This is precisely what supporters of BJP keep harping, but their actions show that’s hardly the case.
”What is the “secular” position on Uniform Civil Code?” The secular position would be one where human rights and humanism should be the guiding principle of formation of all civil laws. Unfortunately, while the BJP position sounds good, fine print shows that the civil code they support is guided by Hindu cultural dictions. I would support a civil code that is not biased to any one religion.
“What is the “secular” position on minority status for Muslims in UP”. Statistically, they are as down trodden as dalits (yes, Islam itself is to blame for their condition). So as a cohort, if they are collectively declared a “minority”, it is not out of line of economic theory. Don’t forget that various tribes have a minority status, and they are not hindus and don’t follow any hindu customs. Are you against most STs getting such a status too? This has nothing to do with “religious superiority”. This is administrative convenience to target an economically backward group. The day this becomes about social hegemony, I’d speak out against this.
“without giving Hindus minority status in J&K?” Hindus (as an economic cohort) are a well-off group compared to muslims in J&K. This has less to do with religion than it does with economic targeting. There are many economic theories that give credence to such practice. The day this becomes about religion, again, I would speak out. Within Hindus SCs etc get minority status. This is cohort targeting using castes as within Hindus there is much income inequality. This is about the economic condition, friend. Not religion. Not religious hegemony. Not “sucking up to Muslims”. This is poverty alleviation supported by economic theory. It is for this reason that Jains will never get a minority status.
“What is the “secular” position on triple talaq?” A secular position would not recognise it.
“What is the “secular” position on special status for minority institutions which receive govt aid?” Sikh, Christian, and now even Jain institutions receive aid. I have always opposed this practice. But just because the BJP opposes such practices, it does not mean they do it for secular reasons. They do so to establish Hindu superiority. I have heard enough BJP leaders personally who have explicitly said this. Yes, I have heard, with my own ears, this being said, a number of times. In fact, I have never heard a BJP leader speak out against this citing secular reasons. What happens at the grass-roots is very different to what is said in front of the media.
e. “Do you remember when Lalu campaigned in Bihar with an Osama look alike (in 2005)?” I am neither a spokesperson for Lalu, nor am I a supporter. However, BJP uses Praveen Togaria and the likes to campaign. Now Osama and Togaria might not be in the same league, but it’s between a real Togaria and fake Osama. I condemn both. But to use this argument to support BJP is absurd.
“Do you remember that after President’s rule, this lookalike joined Paswan?” I don’t. And it doesn’t matter.
“They are both UPA allies, aren’t they?” I don’t support UPA. I oppose the BJP more than I oppose any other major party. I hope that’s not too difficult to understand.
“Doesn’t the Congress have an alliance with the Muslim League in Kerala?” Yes, and the day Congress SUPPORTS BJP-like activities by the Muslim League against Hindus, you can be rest assured I would rally against both (Congress and BJP). BJP supports Shiv Sena. BJP created Bajrang Dal. How can this argument be used to support BJP, is out of my understanding. The activities of the Keralite Muslim League is microscopic when compared to Shiv Sena and Bajrang Dal.
Your arguments have been on weak ground as you have supported BJP by opposing other parties for doing exactly what the BJP, albeit in the opposing direction.
“Well, the BJP did not give the country a Muslim PM, but it did give the country a Muslim President, right?”. This is the one thing I profoundly thank the BJP for (not because Kalam was Muslim, but because he was worthy to be President). However, I used to Manmohan Singh example to highlight how the Congress’ Sikh-Hating days are behind them. (Not that I don’t want justice for those in the Congress who were involved. I don’t support the Congress). However, the BJP is “still spewing venom against Muslims”. I have seen enough of the same personally to believe otherwise.
If Muslims in ALL the 57 countries have been victimized by a radical “few”:
a. You keep making me repeat the same point over and over again. I have said earlier and I repeat again: it is the very nature of the Islamic philosophy of nationalism that has led to the same. Add this to the socio-political history, and you have your answer. (It is almost like you expect me to jump off my seat and defend Islam. I have repeated many times the flawed nature of Islamic theology). For more on why the Islamic world has not seen democracies (as such a complex issue can never be discussed fully over a blog conversation) read, “Islam and the Challenge of Democracy”, “The Future of Freedom” and “Islam and Democracy”. The last one in particular would be best suited to answer your question.
b. “Now that many Muslim nations are getting attacked, why don’t I see people in those countries and the Muslim populace in others come out and welcome the Americans as liberators?” I think your memory fails you. When Saddam’s rule ended, TV channels were flooded with images of celebrating citizens. A similar response bode in Afghanistan. I was personally told by Afghanis how they celebrated the end of the Taliban rule when US forces took over. But keep in mind, this was only the INITIAL reaction. Over time, 1 million INNOCENT people have lost their lives in the crossfire between USA and Islamic terror organisations. The resentment has thus grown over time, and the US is now hated. BUT IMPORTANTLY, this has NOT caused people to wish for a Saddam to return, or the Taliban to return. This is a well documented fact. Gallup polls and other such organisations have shown over years how people in that region resent the US as much as those fundamentalist organisations. This is a fact, and can’t be refuted unless polls actually begin to show a rising popularity of terror networks. That has not happened my friend.
“I remember Muslims spilling out and rioting on the streets of Bangalore.” The leftist parties have successfully been able to drive public opinion against the USA by rallying people for Saddam. It’s not just Muslims who were on the streets. Hindus (who identify themselves as leftists first) were a major group protesting all over India. This uses the flawed logic that if X is worse than Y, then Y must be good. They were again, misled into such a view by mullahs (who insist on a flawed Islamic philosophy) and leftists (who rally against the USA sometimes irrationally). But to say that all muslims are evil because there were protests, would be as irrational.
“Imagine if a bunch of people had spilled out on the streets protesting the executions after the Nuremberg trial…what would you have said to them?” I would have told then the same thing I would tell muslims and leftists who protested. Again, you act as though I would come out to defend them.
c. “Remember when you wrote “Firstly, to explain with an example: in case group X kills my entire family, it doesn’t give me the right to kill innocent members of group Y.” Something like that. Imagine if a woman showed up at your door ALL 57 known members of whose family were child molesters, would you be ready to hire her as your child’s nanny?” You clearly didn’t understand the logic I used.
“Imagine if a woman showed up at your door ALL 57 known members of whose family were child molesters, would you be ready to hire her as your child’s nanny?” You have just illustrated the logic that drives the right wing ideologies around the world. The logic used to justify prejudice. It is this reason why people historically mistrust blacks in the West, Indians in the west, Muslims everywhere, etc. I’m surprised you used a logic that is used to criticise right wing ideology to justify it.
“Same with Islam. I look elsewhere in the world and I see Islam enjoying a 100% correlation with dictatorship and destruction. Can you really blame me for thinking Muslims are ‘suspect’?” You hit the nail on the head, my friend. People continue to look at all muslims as suspect for the history of their religion. This belief drives right wing ideology.
While I wouldn’t blame someone unintelligent for believing that all muslims are suspect, I would be surprised to find people as smart as you who believes the same.
It’s not all black and white, mate. To solve a problem, one must first completely understand it. You reach half baked conclusions on the basis of one sided information.
d. “Islam is provoked over the smallest things: Remember the protests over the Danish cartoons? A lot of those protests weren’t exactly peaceful, were they? Muslims are up in arms against Holland (the Fitna thing). Why? How many Muslim countries has Holland invaded? Muslims want the Jylllands-Posten Cartoonists killed..why? How many Muslims have the cartoonists killed? How many Muslims did Theo van Gogh kill? How many Muslims did Geert Wilders, who produced Fitna, kill? How many Muslims did Ayan Hirsi Ali, the Somali woman who escaped a forced marriage, kill?”
Do you expect me to defend Islam? Defend a flawed philosophy? Defend those who are deluded by such philosophy?
Don’t forget, though it would be impossible, if someone could, for every muslim murderer/criminal/terrorist you named and explained, it would be possible to name a hundred other muslims who did NOT kill anyone, who in fact might have helped complete strangers, who want nothing more than to have a stable job and happy family, basically live a normal life like I and you presumably do. It would be normal human behaviour to suspect every muslims for the crimes of some, but would be irrational to have a philosophy based on such a belief.
I recommend you read “Identity and Violence: The Illusion of Destiny” for this.
I hope we realise that this debate will never end.
The gravity of the issues we are discussing cannot be resolved over a blog discussion. We have both read a thing or two about this, and will not concede our positions. I will recommend a few books that have helped me reach the positions I have:
“The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy” (Mearshmire), “Inside Islam” (Penguin), “The Future of Freedom” (Penguin), “Why a League of Democracies Won’t Work” in Foreign Affairs Sept 08 edition, “Full Employment” M. Kalecki (1943), “Periyar on Islam and Buddhism” (Critical Quest), “Islam and the Challenge of Democracy”, “The Future of Freedom” (Penguin), “Islam and Democracy”, and “Identity and Violence: The Illusion of Destiny” (Sen).
This list is nowhere close to being comprehensive, but is a good start. Do pick one up if you have the time. I can’t just change my opinions by the logic and reasoning you give me, as that would be intellectual dishonesty and laziness.
If you wish to recommend me some books, you’re invited to do so on my about page.
AB clearly is deluded and speaks like a true ignorant right winger. The party he supports will break India down. I used to live in Bhopal and I have heard our local MLAs and MPs giving hate speeches, making what Varun Gandhi say seem ‘mild’. Is this what AB thinks is ’secular’? Like a typical right winger, his beliefs are based on incorrect understanding of history and the needs of the poor man in our villages. BJP is doing to the states it rules what some of the Paki parties have done to theirs. Does he want India to go the Paki way? I don’t love the congress, but at least it is not spread hatered at the grassroots of India.