Archive for January 19th, 2009

Muslim leadership condemn Ambani, Mittal for projecting Modi as PM

January 19, 2009

http://www.twocircles.net/2009jan17/muslim_leadership_condemn_ambani_mittal_projecting_modi_pm.html

Muslim leadership condemn Ambani, Mittal for projecting Modi as PM
Submitted by admin2 on 18 January 2009 – 12:05am. Indian Muslim
By Mumtaz Alam Falahi, TwoCircles.net,

New Delhi: Reacting strongly to the statements wherein leading industrialists of the country have described Gujarat Chief Minister as good prime ministerial matter, Muslim organizations have condemned the industrialists for supporting fascist forces.

Muslim leaders have said that it will be unfortunate for the country if it is led by a person who is responsible for massacres and ethnic cleansing in his state. They expressed the need that the industrialists should be involved in dialogue and convinced that they are seeing just one side of the coin.

In a global investors summit that ended on January 13, three top leading industrialists of the country – Anil Ambani, Chairman, ADAG, Sunil Mittal, Chairman, Bharti Group and Rattan Tata, Chairman Tata Motors – appeared supporting Narendra Modi as the next leader of the country because he has brought unprecedented development in Gujarat.

Talking to TwoCircles.net Nusrat Ali, General Secretary, Jamaat-e-Islami Hind said: “Nothing could be more unfortunate for a country if a person who is involved in massacre and ethnic cleansing becomes prime minister.” He said that the thinking of the industrialists and their proposal is absolutely wrong.

He expressed his concern over narrowing gap between industrialists and fascists. “That industrialists and fascists are coming closure is also unfortunate for the country. The government should take notice of the issue and industrialists should also rethink about their own views,” said Nusrat Ali.

Asked if the products of the companies chaired by these industrialists should be boycotted, he said: “People should protest the statement of the industrialists. Rather than boycotting their products there is a need for the society to change the mentality of such businessmen.”

Dr Syed Qasim Rasool Ilyas, Member, Executive Committee, All India Muslim Personal Law Board also describes the statements of the industrialists as “very unfortunate.” Talking to TCN he said: “You cannot see the one side of Narendra Modi – whatever he is doing on developmental issues and investment issues – and on the basis of this you decide that he is the person who is capable of running a country.” Given the fact that India is a plural society with different religions and people, only a person should be at the helm of affairs who respect the diversity of the country, a person who is ready to tolerate all other religions, he said. “As far as Narendra Modi is concerned he is known internationally not for development which is taking place in Gujarat but for the pogrom 2002,” he pointed out.

Dr Ilyas is of the view that these people should be involved in dialogue to help them see the other side of the coin. “We should ask these people to take back their statements. It is not correct that on each and every issue we should come forward and boycott product of a company. These industrialists might be seeing only one side of the coin, not the both sides. We should meet them and engage them in dialogue and convince them that this type of one sided statement is not healthy for the society.”

Abdul Wahab Khilji, General Secretary, All India Milli Council, however, says that people should keep distance from fascists and those supporting the fascists while admitting that in democracy everyone has the right to express his views.

“But it seems that the industrialists have projected Modi as PM just keeping in view their own business interests. But we think that for the sovereignty and security of the country and for democracy and secularism, Narendra Modi can never be a good option,” Khilji says adding that the acts and deeds of Narendra Modi are known to people. Not only Muslims but no peace-loving people will accept him as the leader of the country.

Meanwhile, Hyderabad-based active Musim organization Majlis Bachao Tahreek has given a call for boycott of products of the company chaired by Anil Ambani. In one-page advertisement MBT said Muslims should boycott Reliance phone, petrol and other products. “Anil Ambani’s wish to make Narendra Modi, killer of thousands of Muslims, as prime minister, is like rubbing salt into wounds of Muslims.”

Ex-corporator and MBT leader Muhammad Amjadullah Khan led a protest on Friday in Hyderabad. The protestors burnt the effigy of Anil Ambani for projecting Narender Modi as PM of India. The agitation took place at different places after Friday Namaz at Ujalesha Mosque in Saidabad, Hyderabad. Later another dharna was held at Santosnagar Reliance FRESH and the police arrested all the MBT leaders when they tried to go inside the shop. Speaking on the occasion Amjedullah Khan appealed to all the Muslims and secular Hindus to boycott all the Reliance products.

Advertisements

Comments posted on New York Times site over William Kristol’s article: The Next War President: Ghulam Muhammed

January 19, 2009

Comments posted on New York Times site over William Kristol’s article: The Next War President:

http://community.nytimes.com/article/comments/2009/01/19/opinion/19kristol.html

All Comments – Oldest First
Show:

Oldest FirstNewest FirstReaders’ RecommendationsEditors’ Selections Replies

There are no comments in this view.

Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive. For more information, please see our Comments FAQ.

January 19th, 2009 2:46 pm

William Kristol has already declared that Obama will be a war president, even though Obama has yet to be swearing as US President. The most important member of the Neo-con group has not been satisfied with blood bath and carnage in Bush era. He is once again goading the new president to ‘finish’ the unfinished business. Apparently he believes in perpetual war for ‘perpetual peace- — the peace of the graves. Fortunately, Obama is made of different timber. One hopes he had learned from the plight of Bush, so unabashedly manipulated by Neo-cons, that he will keep these warmongers at double arms lengths. Iraq may be a success for the US, but what about hundreds and thousands civilian dead. As on Israel following its Gaza genocidal invasion, the pressure world over is mounting that all such warmongers should be brought to justice over their war crimes and violations of human rights of millions of world citizens.
— Ghulam Muhammed, Mumbai, India
——————————————————
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/19/opinion/19kristol.html?th&emc=th

Op-Ed Columnist

The Next War President

By WILLIAM KRISTOL

Published: January 18, 2009

In synagogue on Saturday, before saying the customary prayer for our country, the rabbi asked us to reflect on the fact that a new president would be inaugurated on Tuesday, and urged us to focus a little more intently than usual on the prayer. The congregants did so, it seemed to me, as we read, “Our God and God of our ancestors: We ask your blessings for our country — for its government, for its leaders and advisers, and for all who exercise just and rightful authority …”

Barack Obama will assume that just and rightful authority at noon on Tuesday. After a dinner with him that I attended last week, as we said our goodbyes, I overheard one of my fellow conservatives say softly to the president-elect, “Sir, I’ll be praying for you.” Obama seemed to pause as they shook hands, and to thank him more earnestly than he did those of us who simply — and sincerely — wished him well.

The incoming president is the man of the moment. He deserves good wishes and sincere prayers. But I’ve found myself thinking these last few days more about the man who has shouldered the burdens of office for the past eight years, George W. Bush.

He wasn’t my favorite among Republicans in 2000. He has made mistakes as president, and has limitations as a leader. But he has exercised his just and rightful authority in a way — I believe — that deserves recognition and respect.

It will probably be a while before he gets much of either. In synagogue, right after the prayer for our country, there is a prayer for the state of Israel, asking the “rock and redeemer of the people Israel” to “spread over it the shelter of your peace.” As we recited this on Saturday, I couldn’t help but reflect that a distressingly small number of my fellow Jews seem to have given much thought at all to the fact that President Bush is one of the greatest friends the state of Israel — and, yes, the Jewish people — have had in quite a while. Bush stood with Israel when he had no political incentive to do so and received no political benefit from doing so. He was criticized by much of the world. He did it because he thought it the right thing to do.

He has been denounced for this, as Israel has been denounced for doing what it judged necessary to defend itself. The liberal sage Bill Moyers has been a harsh critic of Bush. On Jan. 9, on PBS, he also lambasted Israel for what he called its “state terrorism,” its “waging war on an entire population” in Gaza. He traced this Israeli policy back to the Bible, where “God-soaked violence became genetically coded,” apparently in both Arabs and Jews. I wouldn’t presume to say what is and isn’t “genetically coded” in Moyers’s respectable Protestant genes. But I’m glad it was George W. Bush calling the shots over the last eight years, not someone well-thought of by Moyers.

Many of Bush’s defenders have praised him for keeping the country safe since Sept. 11, 2001. He deserves that praise, and I’m perfectly happy to defend most of his surveillance, interrogation and counterterrorism policies against his critics.

But I don’t think keeping us safe has been Bush’s most impressive achievement. That was winning the war in Iraq, and in particular, his refusal to accept defeat when so many counseled him to do so in late 2006. His ordering the surge of troops to Iraq in January 2007 was an act of personal courage and of presidential leadership. The results have benefited both Iraq and the United States. And the outcome in Iraq is a remarkable gift to the incoming president, who now only has to sustain success, rather than trying to deal with the consequences in the region and around the world of a humiliating withdrawal and a devastating defeat.

The cost of the war in Iraq, and in Afghanistan, has been great. Last Wednesday afternoon, in the midst of all the other activities of the final week of an administration, Bush had 40 or so families of fallen soldiers to the White House. The staff had set aside up to two hours. Bush, a man who normally keeps to schedule, spent over four hours meeting in small groups with the family members of those who had fallen in battle.

This past weekend Barack Obama added to his itinerary a visit to Arlington National Cemetery. Obama knows that he, too, will be a war president. He knows the decisions he makes as commander in chief will be his most consequential. And so on Sunday morning, before going to church, he placed a wreath at the Tomb of the Unknowns and stood silently as taps was sounded. The somber tableau provided quite a contrast to all the hubbub and talk of the last few days. Obama’s silent tribute captured a deeper truth, and — I dare say — a more fundamental hope, than could any speech.