Archive for June, 2008

Further comments posted on Pipes article: The enemy has a name

June 21, 2008

FURTHER COMMENTS ON GM POSTING:

 

 

Thank you, Ghulam

 

Reader comment on article: The Enemy Has a Name

in response to reader comment: Two different world views

 

Submitted by Anne Julienne (Australia), Jun 20, 2008 at 18:12

 

 

You’ve expressed the truth as seen by a Muslim in a few well chosen words.

 

To me, as a non-Muslim, your view fails to explain sep 11 and fails to acknowledge that Bush’s wars were a response to that unprovoked attack. Through incidents like the Rushdie novel and the Danish cartoons, we now know that Muslims feel threatened or “subjected to stress and trauma” at the very slightest of slights.

 

We in the West will not continue to tread carefully as if on egg shells. We in the West might be more capable of uniting against Islam than you give us credit for. Good clear statements disclosing the Muslim mentality are useful to us.

 

So, thank you for your comment.

 

 

 

 

 

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Comments are screened for relevance, substance, and tone, and in some cases edited, before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome, but not hostile, libelous, or otherwise objectionable statements. Original writing only, please.

 

 

 

GM responds to the comments of Anne Julienne (Australia):

 

Dear Julienne, You are correct when you write that I have completely ignored 9/11.

 

Personally, I with other millions across the globe and across the great divide of communities are yet to be convinced that any organised Muslim group had the capacity to carry out such a scale of terror act and that too on US soil, and without internal help. There are any numbers of discrepancies and the debate on technical level is still on.

 

On a personal basis, I found two events reported while I watched the live telecast of 9/11 attack, that were completely ignored by media and investigating agencies.

 

One: dancing of some Jewish persons on the terrace of a building overlooking the twin towers while the carnage was in progress. Second, the possibility of advance knowledge of the attack by Israeli sources, who were able to caution Jewish people working in different firms in the Twin Towers and make sure they do not report for their duties on that fateful days.

 

As for Bush’s war on terrorism, on the pretext of 9/11, Bush has undertaken so many aggressive steps, that have clearly focused more on controlling and holding territories to exploit them for their resources (IRAQ) or their strategic position on world map (AFGHANISTAN), rather than to address the possible dangers of 9/11.

 

For Bush himself, in fact, 9/11 and even Osama is just a sideshow. So, I should be excused for taking up the lead from Bush over 9/11 and Osama.

 

Your contention: “We in the West might be more capable of uniting against Islam than you give us credit for” — is not tenable in the present context, as Bush had to invade Iraq, without UN, much less other Christian countries’ support for his illegal invasion. Even though the world mourned the death of innocents in 9/11 terror attack, Bush could not convince them to unite against Iraq or Afghanistan, much less against Islam. Media propaganda is just that.

Good clear thinking and good clear actions based on good clear thinking is welcome by all sides in the global conflict scenario.

 

Ghulam Muhammed, Mumbai

 

ghulammuhammed3@gmail.com

www.ghulammuhammed.wordpress.com

 

 

 

 

 

Advertisements

Posting on Pipes article: The enemy has a name

June 20, 2008

 

Posting on Pipes article: The enemy has a name.

 

Dr. Pipe could be trying to pinpoint the enemy, Islamism, but would be missing the wood for the trees.

 

Radicals are acting like an army committed to protect the civilians, the moderates.

 

Both have their roles cut out. And still both are part of one society.

 

When the chips are down, Muslim world unites at different levels with remarkable speed and unity of mind and purpose. The more Muslim world is subjected to stress and trauma, the more it reacts out of a sense of self-preservation.

 

Bush’s war on terror was more of an imperialist campaign to conquer the world that remained to be conquered. So there was no reason to restrict its focus to one face. For Bush, the enemy has many faces. Under the circumstance, Dr. Pipes’ analysis is reduced to a narrow self-serving proposition.

 

Ghulam Muhammed, Mumbai

————————————————–

http://www.danielpipes.org/article/5629

 

The Enemy Has a Name

by Daniel Pipes

Jerusalem Post

June 19, 2008

 

If you cannot name your enemy, how can you defeat it? Just as a physician must identify a disease before curing a patient, so a strategist must identify the foe before winning a war. Yet Westerners have proven reluctant to identify the opponent in the conflict the U.S. government variously (and euphemistically) calls the “global war on terror,” the “long war,” the “global struggle against violent extremism,” or even the “global struggle for security and progress.”

 

This timidity translates into an inability to define war goals. Two high-level U.S. statements from late 2001 typify the vague and ineffective declarations issued by Western governments. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld defined victory as establishing “an environment where we can in fact fulfill and live [our] freedoms.” In contrast, George W. Bush announced a narrower goal, “the defeat of the global terror network” – whatever that undefined network might be.

 

“Defeating terrorism” has, indeed, remained the basic war goal. By implication, terrorists are the enemy and counterterrorism is the main response.

 

But observers have increasingly concluded that terrorism is just a tactic, not an enemy. Bush effectively admitted this much in mid-2004, acknowledging that “We actually misnamed the war on terror.” Instead, he called the war a “struggle against ideological extremists who do not believe in free societies and who happen to use terror as a weapon to try to shake the conscience of the free world.”

 

A year later, in the aftermath of the 7/7 London transport bombings, British prime minister Tony Blair advanced the discussion by speaking of the enemy as “a religious ideology, a strain within the world-wide religion of Islam.” Soon after, Bush himself used the terms “Islamic radicalism,” “militant Jihadism,” and “Islamo-fascism.” But these words prompted much criticism and he backtracked.

 

By mid-2007, Bush had reverted to speaking about “the great struggle against extremism that is now playing out across the broader Middle East.” That is where things now stand, with U.S. government agencies being advised to refer to the enemy with such nebulous terms as “death cult,” “cult-like,” “sectarian cult,” and “violent cultists.”

 

In fact, that enemy has a precise and concise name: Islamism, a radical utopian version of Islam. Islamists, adherents of this well funded, widespread, totalitarian ideology, are attempting to create a global Islamic order that fully applies the Islamic law (Shari’a).

 

Thus defined, the needed response becomes clear. It is two-fold: vanquish Islamism and help Muslims develop an alternative form of Islam. Not coincidentally, this approach roughly parallels what the allied powers accomplished vis-à-vis the two prior radical utopian movements, fascism and communism.

 

First comes the burden of defeating an ideological enemy. As in 1945 and 1991, the goal must be to marginalize and weaken a coherent and aggressive ideological movement, so that it no longer attracts followers nor poses a world-shaking threat. World War II, won through blood, steel, and atomic bombs, offers one model for victory, the Cold War, with its deterrence, complexity, and nearly-peaceful collapse, offers quite another.

 

Victory against Islamism, presumably, will draw on both these legacies and mix them into a novel brew of conventional war, counterterrorism, counterpropaganda, and many other strategies. At one end, the war effort led to the overthrow of the Taliban government in Afghanistan; at the other, it requires repelling the lawful Islamists who work legitimately within the educational, religious, media, legal, and political arenas.

 

The second goal involves helping Muslims who oppose Islamist goals and wish to offer an alternative to Islamism’s depravities by reconciling Islam with the best of modern ways. But such Muslims are weak, being but fractured individuals who have only just begun the hard work of researching, communicating, organizing, funding, and mobilizing.

 

To do all this more quickly and effectively, these moderates need non-Muslim encouragement and sponsorship. However unimpressive they may be at present, moderates, with Western support, alone hold the potential to modernize Islam, and thereby to terminate the threat of Islamism.

 

In the final analysis, Islamism presents two main challenges to Westerners: To speak frankly and to aim for victory. Neither comes naturally to the modern person, who tends to prefer political correctness and conflict resolution, or even appeasement. But once these hurdles are overcome, the Islamist enemy’s objective weakness in terms of arsenal, economy, and resources means it can readily be defeated.

 

 

 

TIMES OF INDIA DOES IT AGAIN – V

June 19, 2008

Thursday, June 19, 2008

 

 

TIMES OF INDIA

DOES IT AGAIN – V

 

 

On the day, when India’s foremost fascist politician, the 80+ aging Shiv Sena Supremo, Bal Thackeray, called on ‘Hindus’ to produce suicide bombers to confront the Muslim suicide bombers, Times of India has chosen to publish a four column size colour photo of the rabble-rouser, that shows him without his current growth of unkempt craggy beard and looking much younger than his years. It is anybody’s guess, what is Time of India trying to project by publishing such a publicity oriented file photo with the story about how people have adversely reacted to Thackeray’s new fascist salvo. The gesture takes out all the sincerity of the supposed condemnation of Thackeray’s virulent communal outpouring that any law abiding entity from any walk of life, should have for Thackeray’s brand of open terrorism call. This reflects Thackeray’s own deep frustration over the democratic process that has failed to back his brand of fascist ideological underpinning of his political ambitions. 

 

Times of India, as a primer opinion maker of India, should have forcefully come out for the law of the land and roundly condemned any such threat to India’s internal and external security, its communal harmony and the national integrity. Times of India, seems to be running with the hares and hunting with the hounds. This brinkmanship is harmful not only for the credibility of a widely circulated mainstream national newspaper, but would spread the contagion of doublespeak to further polarize the nation on communal lines.

 

In fact, it should better be noted that all the communal clap-trap and propaganda against Muslims is fake and contrived to counter the fissiparous tendencies due to caste divisions in Hindu society. The fraudulent and fake nature of communal propaganda that is essentially criminal in nature, should be exposed by the media, if India has to enjoy peace within its borders and beyond. There is every possibility that the communal propaganda against Muslims may entangle our country to some international interventions of unsavoury kind. It is therefore incumbent on media to size up its responsibility not only towards its owners and investors, but its readers as well as the community at large.

 

 

Ghulam Muhammed, Mumbai

 

ghulammuhammed3@gmail.com

www.ghulammuhammed.wordpress.com

 

 

June 19, 2008

ViaMedia.MumbaiNews

 

 http://www.viamedianews.com

 

FRONT-PAGE AND EDIT PAGE NEWS AND ANALYSIS FROM MUMBAI’S URDU NEWSPAPERS – TRANSLATION FROM URDU – FREE SERVICE FOR WORLD MEDIA

 

URDU TIMES Urdu Daily Mumbai

 

30th May 2008

 

Friday Edition

 

A Lesson from History

 

By Irshad Haqqani 

 

In 1973 the war between Arabs and Israel was about to start. Meanwhile an American Senator visited Israel on a special mission. He was chief of the Senate Arms Committee. A meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir was arranged immediately. Golda Meir welcomed him into her home, like any common housewife welcoming a family guest. She took him to the kitchen. While seating him at the kitchen dining table, she went over to prepare tea for the guest. As the water was kept for boiling, she came over and sat on a chair near the dining table. She opened the discussion regarding planes, missiles, and guns. In the course of negotiations, she got the aroma of the brew. She prepared two cups of tea, and offered one cup to the Senator, and another to an American guard who was standing at the gate. On returning, she came back, continued talking with the Senator. After a discussion they settled the arms deal. In the meantime, she stood up, collected all the cups, and turned to senator and said “I agree to this deal. You can send your secretary to my secretary for written deal”.

 

It may be remembered that Israel at that time was facing a serious economic crisis, but the huge arms deal was settled by Meir with the greatest of ease in the history of Israel. It was quite astonishing that earlier, the Israeli cabinet had rejected the same deal, because they thought it would be so costly, that the whole nation would have to make do with a single meal a day, for years to come.

 

Meir knew about their stand, and said, “Your doubt are well founded, but if we win this war, and defeat the Arabs, history will remember us as the victors, and in history, once a community is know as the victor, it forgets how many eggs they ate and how many times they had food. Whether there was jam, honey, butter on the table, and how many holes they had in their shoes. Or whether the sheaths of their swords were new or old! A conqueror is a conqueror.” 

 

Based on Meir’s solid logic, the Israeli cabinet approved the deal. Later it was proved that the decision taken by Meir was right, and the whole world witnessed the Jews knocking on the doors of the Arabs with this artillery. A war took place, and the Arabs faced a shameful defeat at the hands of an old lady. 

 

After a gap of one decade after the war, a reporter of the Washington Post interviewed Meir, asking “Was the logic you had in your mind for the arms was spur of the moment decision or you had had an advance strategy?”

 

Meir’s reply was very surprising.

 

She answered, “I got this logic from the prophet (of the Muslims) Mohammed (peace be upon him). When I was a student, my favorite topic was comparative study of religions. Those days I studied the life of Mohammed (PBUH). One author stated that when Prophet Mohammed (PBUH) died, there was not enough money to buy oil for a lamp, his wife (Ayesha Siddiqua) mortgaged his battle shield to buy oil, yet there were nine swords hung on the wall of his house. When I read this account, it occurred to me- how many people in the world would have known about the worst economic condition of Islamic state? But everyone recognizes them as conquerors of half the world. So I decided that I would buy arms at any cost; even if we would have to starve or to live in camps instead of buildings, but we would prove ourselves as the victor”.

Meir revealed this secret, but requested the interviewer to keep it “off the record”, and refrain from publishing it, because if she referred to Prophet Mohammed, the Jews would have revolted against her and the Muslim position would have strengthened.

 

Over the time, world situation changed. Golda Meir died. By this time the interviewer had given up the profession of journalism. Meanwhile another correspondent was busy interviewing 20 famous American journalists. In connection with this, he met the journalist who had interviewed Meir as a representative of the Washington Post.

 

In this interview, he recounted the story of Meir that drew on the life of Prophet Mohammed (PBUH).

 

He said he was not ashamed to tell the story. Further, he said, “After this incident I studied the history of Islam, and was astonished to know about the savoir-faire of Arabs. Because I learnt that Tariq bin Ziyad conquered Spain through Gibraltar, while more than half his army did not have complete suit of clothes. They subsisted for 72 hours at time on water and dried bread.

 

It was then that the interviewer agreed with Meir’s view that history counts victory; it does not count the eggs, jams and butter on the table.”

 

When the interview with Meir was published, the whole world learned of this entire story.

 

This astonishing incident is history’s wake-up call to the Muslims of the world. It teaches them a lesson; it reveals how 14 centuries ago, a shepherd, clad in a cloak and worn-out shoes became the leader of the world, and conquered four continents.

 

 Could enormous castles, grand palaces, magnificent gardens, splendid clothes, adorned rest places of silk and sleepless, gold silver, boxes, gems and jewels, spread of savory dishes and the jingle of coins save them? The locust-swarm of Tartar forces did not reach the palace of Musta’sim Billah by trampling over Baghdad. What a terrible and astonishing scene it was in the history of Islam, when Musta’sim Billah was bound in chains, standing like a prisoner before Halaku Khan (grandson of Changiz Khan). And at mealtime, Halaku Khan ate in simple plates, but offered plates of gems and precious metals to Caliph Musta’sim Billah, mocking “Eat from these diamonds, gems, gold and precious metals you have collected!” There stood the Sovereign of Baghdad, helplessness, powerless, lonely, destitute, saying, “How can I eat gold?”  Halaku Khan replied, “Then why you have collected all this silver and gold?”

 

The Muslim, whose religion calls on him to make arms and rear horses, had no reply. Halaku Khan glanced at the palace doors and windows, asking, “Why did you not make iron arrows by melting these iron nets? Why did you collect these diamonds instead of paying money to your soldiers, so they could fight bravely against my forces?”

 

“It was the will of Allah”, replied the grieved Caliph.

 

The arrogant Halaku shot back, “Whatever is now going to happen with you is also God’s wish”.

 

Then Halaku covered Musta’sim Billah in a cloak and crushed him under the hooves of horses, and proceeded to make a graveyard of Baghdad.

 

 

June 15, 2008

 

Sunday, June 15, 2008

 

How MJ Akbar humours the Brahminical leadership over the small mercies of partition!

 

In his article: ‘How Pakistan insulates India from terror’, published in The Times of India’s Sunday Edition of today, June 15, 2008, author M. J. Akbar, bents over backward to convince India’s Brahmin leadership, that after all, given Pakistan’s existential dilemma with the more boisterous Muslim fundamentalists and extremists, India should count its blessings, that the partition, which was used by the Hindu establishment, against Indian Muslims, as their eternal sin, has turned out to be a blessing in disguise, as Pakistan has become a buffer state between India and the menace called Afghanistan/Pakhtunistan (the Taliban/Al Qaida country).

 

M. J. Akbar, however, correctly points out another blessing that the creation of Pakistan indirectly had gifted to India. British army, comprised of 50% Muslims, overwhelmingly the ‘martial race’ from the North, which, in undivided India would have been difficult to handle, if the Brahmins had mistreated Indian Muslims, as their record of last 60 years has anything to go by.

 

I would say, M. J, Akbar is rather hasty in his judgment. The menace from the north is yet to fully unfold and India cannot remain insulated from the storm, if and when it envelops Pakistan. Treatment of Indian Muslim should be taken up on its own merit, with due dispatch.

 

 

For Indian Muslims, another blessing of the sort should be evident. They will not have to fight a Brahminical or American war, as they are the neo-dhimmis in India, being kept out of the fighting forces.

 

Ghulam Muhammed, Mumbai

 

 

http://epaper.timesofindia.com/Daily/skins/TOI/navigator.asp?Daily=TOIM&login=default

 

 

How Pakistan insulates India from terror

 

By  M. J. Akbar

 

   A few days ago, the government of Pakistan abandoned a ceasefire pact with insurgents operating across the tribal Pakistan-Afghanistan border, reached by Pervez Musharraf but reasserted by his successors in power. On June 11, Admiral Michael Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff of the United States, said in Washington that any future terrorist attack on his country would probably originate in this region, known by its acronym, FATA (Federally Administered Tribal Areas). This had become the most secure base of al-Qaida, he added, after the fall of the Taliban in Kabul.

 

   Why has al-Qaida become a cancerous bone in Pakistan’s throat, with the country neither able to digest it or spit it out? There is general agreement across different elements of the Pakistan establishment that swallowing this bone will infect the body politic beyond cure. But instead of surgery, there is a paralytic helplessness as al-Qaida and Taliban beliefs and prescriptions seep into street, village and towards the foot soldiers that form the core of any armed force.

 

   Both the army and newly elected democrats fumble when faced with a basic, if provocative, query: Why is Islamabad fighting America’s war against fellow Muslims? The overlap between Pakistan’s ‘national’ interest and the interests of the ‘Muslim Ummah’ has been further blurred in the northwest frontier by a shared ethnicity that has never recognized the Durand Line as a barrier between Pakistan and Afghanistan.

 

   Islamabad’s dilemma revives a question that raged on the sidelines of the Partition debate between 1940 and 1947: Could united India ever have a secure border on its northwest frontier? The Khyber Pass was the traditional “gate” to Delhi. Would the Muslims of the region, and their brethren in the united Indian Army, secure the gate or open it for any Muslim invaders? The British, it is commonly known, regretted the division of the British Indian Army much more than they regretted the partition of British India. Others were not so sure. Among them was Dr Babasaheb Ambedkar, the great Dalit hero who considered himself neither Hindu nor Muslim and was thus above the growing bitterness between the two.

 

   The Secretary of State for India revealed a trifle reluctantly, the ethnic composition of the British Indian Army in the House of Commons on July 8, 1943: Muslims were 34%, Hindus 50%, Sikhs 10% and the rest 6%. But these were wartime statistics, when emergency recruitment had altered the traditional balance, or imbalance. It was believed that the Muslim proportion of the peacetime British Indian Army, driven by the “martial races” theory and the belief that Frontier Muslims were superior soldiers, might be as high as 50%. There was no question that the army of a united India would retain a high percentage of Muslims, largely recruited from the frontier; political pressure from Muslims would ensure as much.

 

   Would Muslim soldiers be immune to the lure of pan-Islamism? The Muslim League had resolved that the Indian Army should not be used against Muslim powers, conflating Indian and pan-Islamic interests. It was also recalled that during the Khilafat movement (1919-1922), Muslims displayed potentially explosive angularities. Maulana Mohammad Ali had invited the Amir of Afghanistan to invade India and conquer Delhi with the help of an Indian uprising.

 

   Dr Ambedkar argued that India was better off divided, because it could not remain a secure state with such confused loyalties at its porous crown. A new ‘Hindustan’ army, created out of the resources of divided India, would be untroubled by dual loyalties. Given that Pakistan has few answers to the incessant diet of bombs and suicide missions, we need only to pause and consider the havoc that a strong Qaida-Taliban movement would have caused across the cities of the Indian subcontinent if it had not been substantially, though not completely, insulated by the Indo-Pak border. Imagine the nightmare of an undivided India.

 

   Indian Muslims, who consciously opted for their motherland, paid a heavy price: they were not to be fully trusted with the defence of India. No one doubted their patriotism in the 1962 conflict with China, but during the 1965 Indo-Pak war, they were picked up arbitrarily and detained without trial by the Congress government of Lal Bahadur Shastri. The heroism of Havildar Abdul Hamid was treated as an exception. This prejudice was a major reason for minimal Muslim presence in the Indian Army and police services.

 

   The Indian Muslim mind shifted from a pseudo-glorification of the idea of Pakistan in the 1940s to fear, resentment and uncertainty over the next two decades. Bangladesh was the turning point; it was clinching evidence that Pakistan was not a paradise for Muslims, but the preserve of a regional culture and mentality that was not ready to treat every Muslim as an equal. Indian Muslims abandoned, completely, any residual temptation for Pakistan. This is not just my effort to be politically correct. There is evidence: the complete lack of interest that Indian Muslims have displayed towards the Kashmiri insurrection has puzzled and frustrated the self-styled “pan-Islamic jihadi” organizations who expected Indian Muslim support in the effort to terrorize the Indian state and people.

 

   When Indian Muslims get angry, they do so for their own reasons, not for Pakistan’s. Muslims born in free India are not ready to be victimized for the mistakes of their fathers. This is an assertion of equality, part of the confidence gifted to them by the unique democratic values of the Indian Constitution.

 

   The violent Sikh upsurge of the 1980s reminded India that there was more than one potentially hazardous minority, and that the politics of indifference could not be sustained.

 

   The most heartening image of contemporary India, to me, are the slightly funny pictures of young Muslims puffing their chests to meet physical criterion during periodic recruitment drives for the Indian Army or paramilitary forces.

 

   I wish Indian politicians would appreciate that the politics of patronage is no substitute for the politics of indifference. Patronage is essentially demeaning, and serves only small Muslim cliques who enrich themselves at the cost of the community. The Indian Muslim wants to be treated as an equal. He is waiting for the establishment to appreciate the true nuances of the term.

 

 

Maoists, Muslim fundamentalists to fight ‘state terror’ together

June 13, 2008

http://www.indianexpress.com/story/322152.html

 

Maoists, Muslim fundamentalists to fight ‘state terror’ together

 

CITHARA PAUL

 

Posted online: Friday, June 13, 2008 at 2324 hrs

 

 

New Delhi, June 12: Maoists and Muslim fundamentalists ― they may seem to be the most unlikely partners. But in a move which is rife with much internal contradictions and political ramifications, the two are coming together to forge a national platform to combat “state terror”.

 

 

Calling themselves “the victims of state terror”, the two improbable partners had sat together for the first time and called for resistance against all kinds of terror unleashed by the State and Central governments against Maoists and Muslims. The meeting was held in Kerala last month.

 

The main forces behind the move are ― ‘Porattom’, a Maoist group having base in South India, Minority Watch, a human rights organisation suspected of having close links with the banned Students Islamic Movement of India (SIMI) and National Democratic Front (NDF), a radical Muslim group accused of having similar links with the banned Islamic Sevak Sangh (ISS).

 

“Maoists and Muslims share the similar plight of being the victims of the state terror. The best way to eliminate anyone who raises his voice against the wrong doings of the State is to brand him as a Naxalite. Similar is the plight of Muslim brethren. Whenever and wherever there is a terrorist attack, the community as a whole is brought under the eye of suspicion. Every Muslim is being treated as a potential terrorist. It is in this background that we have decided to join hands to combat this state sponsored terrorism,” said Ravunni, general convener of Porattom.

 

Nazaruddeen Elamarom of the NDF also echoed similar views. “The Maoists and the Muslims are the worst affected victims of state terror. We are the favourite whipping boys of the Government as we are clubbed together as anti-nationals. And this is the common thread that connects the two,” he said. According to him, it is for the first time that the Naxalites and Muslim groups are coming together for espousing a similar cause.

 

Nazaruddeen maintained that the fight would be against the upper caste ruling elite forces of Hindutva and imperialism who have the agenda of hunting down Maoists and Muslims. “This is for upholding human rights and to stop the fascists,” he added.

 

The agenda of the Maoist-Muslim joint platform group includes withdrawal of ban on SIMI and a total full stop to encounter killings. They also want the Naxalites to be given the treatment of war prisoners.

 

According to Ravunni, they are in touch with many other Maoist and Muslim groups across the country. “We are planning to hold our next meetings in Bangalore and Calcutta. We would be deciding upon the nature and structure of the joint platform in those meetings and it would have a pan Indian nature,” he said. Ravunni said that the meeting has brought together two victim groups together and the rest of the fight would be fought together.

 

Acknowledging that it was an unlikely alliance, Ravunni said: “A lot of complexities are involved in this coming together.” “But we would unite to fight against the common enemy putting aside differences in their ideologies,” he added.

 

The meeting was also attended by some civil society movements including Confederation of Human Rights Organisation (CHRO) and People’s Union Civil Liberty (PUCL) working against encounter killings and anti-terror laws.

 

 

How can you share name with Nehru? SC asks rapist

June 12, 2008

Thursday, June 12, 2008

 

To: The Editor

 

Afternoon Despatch and Courier, Mumbai

 

 

This has reference to your report: SC asks rapist how he can share name with Nehru?

 

This raises many fundamental questions:

 

1. First an alleged rapist is not a rapist till it is so held by the highest court. Any assumption giving rise to extraneous comments would not be the appropriate course for the esteemed court.

 

2. No person guilty of a crime can be awarded punishment, that does not confirms to prevailing laws. A punishment for changing of a name smacks of feudal times, when the Lords would proclaim arbitrary punishments. Feudals have known to resent high sounding names of their peasants and would even punish them for their audacity to keep such name. It would appear that the same line of reasoning and fall back to feudal practices could be the source of such outburst by the learned justice of the Supreme Court.

 

3. On the face of it, naming children after the names of the famous and sacred are common practice all over the world from times immemorial. A free person is free to have and keep the name that he likes. Though it is a shame that a person with a famous or sacred name should commit acts degrading the very name with which he is known. That should not be a reason to start a precedent to curb individual right to be known by the name one chooses for himself. To strip that right of identity is a very inhuman form of  punishment and in a free society, those in authority should have full respect for the identity of the individuals in the society, be they low or high, rich or poor, innocent of guilty, belonging to any religion, ethnicity, region etc.

 

4. People opting for names of the famous and noteworthy, can be no doubt chastised and counseled to follow the noble acts of their namesake. The person shamed should be given the chance to reform and lead a more exemplary life.

 

5. As not many people will be found in India, with names like Jawaharlal Nehru, one of our towering leaders, a question does arise; why the name had not been so popular with the masses. Is it something to do with caste taboos involved?  It that’s the case, a counter movement should be launched to break the casteist habits of the past.

 

 

Ghulam Muhammed, Mumbai

ghulammuhammed3@gmail.com

www.ghulammuhammed.wordpress.com

 

 

http://www.saharasamay.com/samayhtml/Articles.aspx?NewsId=100554

 

How can you share name with Nehru? SC asks rapist

 

Posted at Wednesday, 11 June 2008 18:06 IST 

 

New Delhi, June 11: A rape convict who shares his name with the late Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru today left the Supreme Court frowning.

 

The apex court observed that such culprits had no right to share names with exalted national leaders.

 

“You have committed a rape and share the name with Jawaharlal Nehru? It is a disgrace for the national ethos,” a vacation bench of Justices Arijit Pasayat and P P Naolekar observed.

 

The apex court which reserved its judgment on the alleged rapist Nehru alias Jawahar, remarked that it was high time that something was done to change the names of criminals who have their names after national icons.

 

“We think it is time we should do something on this issue,” said the bench in an oral observation.

 

The bench also expressed its displeasure over some lapses in a medical report submitted by a doctor in the case.

 

“We feel the Government should proceed departmentally against the doctor for giving such a report,” the bench observed while reserving its judgment.

 

Earlier, Shishir Pinaki, amicus curiae appointed by the apex court filed a report in the court seeking acquittal of Nehru on the ground that there were several discrepancies in the prosecution’s theory.

 

He submitted that there were inaccuracies in the FIR and there was no medical evidence to corroborate the rape charge. Pinaki further told the court that Nehru was implicated by the victim and her mother as he refused to buy firewood from them.

 

The charge of the prosecution was that Nehru had in 1988 raped the 16-year old girl at Rajendra Nand Gaon in Chattisgarh.

 

A Sessions Court sentenced him to seven years RI and the Madhya Pradesh High Court in 2001 reduced the sentence to five years RI. Nehru then filed the appeal in the apex court.

 

 

 

A LETTER TO THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEE FOR FINANCIAL SECTOR REFORMS, PLANNING COMMISSION OF INDIA

June 11, 2008

A LETTER TO THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEE FOR FINANCIAL SECTOR REFORMS, PLANNING COMMISSION OF INDIA

 

 

 

TO:

 

THE CHAIRMAN AND COMMITTEE MEMBERS

 

COMMITTEE FOR FINANCIAL SECTOR REFORMS

 

PLANNING COMMISSION

 

GOVERNMENT OF INDIA

 

NEW DELHI

 

 

RE: FINANCIAL SECTOR REFORMS

 

 

 

PROPOSAL FOR JOINT VENTURES IN ISLAMIC BANKING IN COLLABORATION WITH INTERNATIONAL ISLAMIC BANKS AND/OR INTERNATIONAL BANKS WITH ISLAMIC BANKING OPERATIONAL EXPERTISE

 

 

Financial Sector Reforms are needed, as per Mr. Raghuram G. Rajan’s introductory remarks, to bring into banking fold, all those who are still out of the ambit of Indian banking, either as small and unsecured borrowers that form the bulk of the lower strata of our economy, or to mobilize funds from some sectors, who find current banking service lacking the structural flexibility to meet their special requirements.

 

In this later category, Indian Muslims, whose aggregate population percentage is around 15 percent of the total population of India, form, by far the bigger chunk that have escaped the services provided by Indian banking industry, be that the nationalized banks, cooperative sectors or other para-banking sectors.

 

Many an attempts by social minded people had failed, with huge losses in community funds, in the last sixty years of India’s independent history, mainly because of the rigid and unbending attitude of the bureaucrats and technocrats that unfortunately characterized the pre-liberalisation phase of the economy.

 

Now, over the years, while India was cut off from sweeping developments in the international banking and investment arena in several financial sectors due to its closed economy, new vistas that were opened and honed to form a highly successful and stable Islamic banking system too was out of bounds for Indians at large and Indian Muslims in particular.

 

Credit must therefore be given to the new spirit of liberalization and a strong commitment to redress any anomalies in banking’s structural rigidities, so that the largely neglected sector of Indian economy should be brought in to thrive with the rest.

 

Islamic Banking world over has become a respectable industry that massively and positively contributes to world economy. India should be ready to tap all resources available to expedite measures to cut out the long gestation period that may hamper early and sure-footed introduction of Islamic Banking into India, by opening the doors to established foreign Islamic Banks in the same manner that it has opened the doors to all manner of foreign investment and expertise, be that of technical or financial nature.

 

I propose that a programme should be thrashed out in consultation with a group or consortium of foreign Islamic banks, to see that special products and services that are the hallmark of Islamic banking, should be expeditiously and safely introduced in India, primarily with a view to cater to the specialized needs of Indian Muslims. Since the word ‘Islamic Banking’ is now a generic name, it should not be seen as something non-secular and against the ethos of Indian constitution. Islamic Banking’s pros and cons should be judged on merits. On the other hand the very brand name of ISLAMIC BANKING is enough to get tremendous response from Muslim depositors, investors, traders and prospective borrowers — even without any expensive marketing effort. The market is already there to be readily tapped.

 

In an open economy like the Arabian Gulf countries, newly established nationalized banks invariably hired the services of reputed international banks, to run their back office operations. The management contracts signed by local banks were merely to ensure that their local lack of expertise in banking and investments may not result in banking failures from the very outset.

 

While in the gulf, my two projects, forming two joint-ventures with Habib Bank Zurich (lasting 25 years) and Canara Bank (lasting 8 years), though of limited nature, where management contracts were given to the outside banks to bring in their own expert staff and take over the full management of the organisations, has encouraged me to visualise such joint-ventures between banks in India and other nations, who can offer their full technical and management expertise to Indian banks, or non-banking financial organisations with joint investments of local and foreign percentages. All manner of combination and permutations can be considered with open mind. Only a right frame of mind to experiment and venture into uncharted fields, with full caution and deliberations, of course, would bring in swift changes in Indian banking and investment sectors. We will not waste valuable time, energies and resources, while trying to reinvent the wheel.

 

I wish you all the best wishes and Godspeed in the committee’s robust search for ways and means to care and nourish all sectors of national economy so that future growth of India may not fall prey to unsavory developments; given the ever-present danger of huge pockets of poverty bedeviling the planners of the nations.

 

Regards

 

GHULAM MUHAMMED SIDDIQUI

More comments posted on Brahmins

June 9, 2008

More comments posted on Brahmins at

IndianMuslims.in blogsite:

 

Manoj George wrote on June 5th, 2008 1:25 pm:

 

“1. Are Brahmins responsible for plight of Muslims in Pakistan and Bangladesh as well? Are they the cause of Muslim poverty in Africa or Muslim emigration into western countries?”

 

GM comments:

 

Of course all the chief conspirators were the Brahmins, who were the collaborators/perpetrators of the division of United India, into Pakistan and Bangladesh? When Pakistan was partitioned, as a state it was born in bankruptcy. Pakistan was sold to Western imperialists, as a military outpost. The day Pakistan was founded; an emissary was sent by Jinnah to the US president to receive a check, to fund the newly born state. Who conspired this state of affairs, other than the towering figure of Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru, A Kashmiri Brahmin. Nahru’s daughter used force to carve another supposedly weak and puppet nation of Bangladesh. The whole community of Muslims which formed 30 percent of United India’s armed forces and other security agencies was systematically destroyed; or they would have certainly made their own space in United India. The British and Jinnah were the front people to have initiated the move to partition India, but India was the biggest beneficiary of this partition. If Muslims in Pakistan, Bangladesh and even in India are backward, exploited and deprived, I will lay the blame on a Brahmin and its Machiavellian conspiracy against Muslims, as Brahmin love for India was merely a cover for the love of Brahmin dreams to rule India exclusively.

 

Imagine how India was a closed country aligned with the Soviets, mainly to ward off the West’s imperialist designs on independent India or rather warding off of any ’regime change’ by the West to unseat the uncompromising Brahmin. A Brahmin family was only protecting its own hegemony over India. Later, when India was finally opened, the ‘credit’ went to other Brahmins, now dancing to a different tune, to dethrone the old Brahmin family. Later it was Brajesh Mishra, Vajpayee, both Brahmins, who brought in first the American Jews, and later the Israelis to run the country once again as an enslaved nation.

 

If Muslims were to write future history, they will characterize the 60 years of ’Independent’ India as the Brahmin Age. Let us see, how fast their legacy gets dissipated as their injustices have hit the nadir and there is no redeeming signs on the horizon.

 

Manoj George is bringing into discussions the subject of Muslims of Africa or Muslim emigration to West, which is not the main subject of the present discussion. Mercifully, Brahmins unlike Jews have tangled with Indian Muslim on the Indian subcontinent only. Though lately, they both, Brahmins and Jews seem to find quite fertile common grounds to cooperate and move against not only Indian Muslims, but the entire Muslim world. Nobody can deny that when an Indian American Jindal is introduced into the US election equations in the Republican quarters, against an Afro-American Barack Hussein Obama that is going to be widely demonized as a closet Muslim, a backroom proxy war is already on.

 

Ghulam Muhammed, Mumbai

ghulammuhammed3@gmail.com

http://www.ghulammuhammed.wordpress.com

Further comments posted on IndianMuslims.in blogsite

June 4, 2008

Further comments posted on IndianMuslims.in blogsite

 

http://indianmuslims.in/maulana-maududis-terrifying-vision-for-indian-muslims/

 

 

Wednesday, June 04, 2008

 

Amit wrote:

 

“GM, please take note: Your views on Brahmins are a very racist GENERALIZATION! Generalizations are odious. I would go as far as to say that if India was indeed governed (not ruled) by Brahmins (like Nehru, Indira etc.), Thank God! Why shouldn’t the Brahmins govern? They’re by & large the more educated class in the country. If they’re communal, they have the confidence to express it. You have a choice; don’t vote for them!”

 

My views on Brahmins, even if some kind of alleged racist generalisation, pale in comparison to the whole 2000 year record of racism perpetrated by the Brahmins, cleverly wrapped in Manu’s caste spin doctoring of the supposed birth of Brahmins from the head of the Gods. By the far the vast majority of the so-called Hindus of degraded to lower castes by Manu’s dictates, hold the Brahmins responsible in concocting such myths and exploiting it to subjugate the victims. The kind of apartheid that had been imposed by the Brahmins on the lower caste, that prohibits them to even live in Brahmin villages, pass through their roads, drink from their wells, that had lasted for thousands of years, is more sinister and sadist than the apartheid practiced by the White supremacists of South Africa.

 

The 3% Brahmins should not govern or rule in a democratic country, as they do not have the number. Their so-called slight of hand majority, is a big fraud on gullible voters. Their behind the scene machinations to use their strategic dominance in bureaucracy to favour their own caste brethrens, cannot be appreciated or tolerated by the rest of the 97 percent of the population and a reaction is bound to surface. A storm is long a coming.

 

By the responses that I observe on this site to the grievances against Brahmins, it seems Brahmins are too absorbed in their own ghetto world; completely unaware of the storm gathering and the ripening of crop of deep disenchantment and anger that they have been sowing by their insensitive and relentless onslaught on the just demands of the rest of Indian people.

 

Amit has every right to thank God, that Brahmins had governed India; after all the Brahmin hegemony has served their own kind to the utmost. However, as far as Indian state has discriminated and deliberately resorted to ‘cleanse’ the system of the Malechas, to enjoy their monopoly power, through means fair and foul, those others who are victims of their overzealous and undeserved overlordship over others in a democratic set-up, have every right to put out their cases, their grievances and take all measures at their command, to expose the viciousness of the Brahminical conspiracies and call for collective measures to curb their excesses.

 

Amit feels that since they have confidence to be communal, they have a right to be communal and right to express it. Have gun will shoot.

 

By the same criteria, others if they acquire confidence, they too should and would express themselves and fight the communalism that Brahmins have unleashed on a supposedly secular nation.

 

As for the choices available to non-Brahmins, Amit need not be so gracious as to suggest the Marie Antoinette solution — ‘go eat the cake, if you do not get bread’. Amit should keep an eye on history, how revolutions start with such trigger situations.

 

I will concede one point about generalisation. On a personal level, Brahmins are best of friends and worst of enemies. It takes all to make a community. I salute those who are confident and generous enough to concede and condemn the excesses heaped by their kind on the others. They are not the focus of my grievances, as long as they upheld truth and justice and are ready to make amends.

 

Ghulam Muhammed, Mumbai

ghulammuhammed3@gmail.com

http://www.ghulammuhammed.wordpress.com