Connecting Indians :: View topic - Terror is Terror Mumbai
Welcome to Connecting Indians     
User name
Password  
Remember 
Main Menu  

Tools/ Services  

CI-Users  
Members:  Members:
Newest Member:  New Today: 0
Newest Member:  New Yesterday: 1
Newest Member:  Total: 7685
Newest Member:  Newest Member:
alptransfers

Partners...  


Online  
There are 24 unlogged users and 0 registered users online.

You can log-in or register for a user account here.

  
Post new topic   Reply to topic
View previous topic Printable version Log in to check your private messages View next topic
Author Message
MRehanOffline
Post subject: Terror is Terror Mumbai  PostPosted: Nov 27, 2008 - 10:16 AM


Joined: Aug 03, 2006
Posts: 268

Status: Offline

-------------------------------------



I am not an expert on these subjects. The question which came up in my mind was: who is going to gain most from this Mumbai terror: Pakistan, China, Bangladesh, Nepal, Sri-Lanka? Or all big players like USA due to job/financial crises in homeground? This we all should ask our self: It would be very stupid if Pakistan is involved because they will have big problems on Afghan boarder and now from Indian side. If Pakistan will do so then it will certainly not help world's second largest muslim community (Indian muslims). Indian muslims are certainly not in a position to create such thing against their own country. The result will be simalar to 6 Dec 1992 Babari Masjid era. China can gain from this conflict or not?

According to media reports EU Deligation members Daniel Kaspary/CDU and Erika Mann/SPD are safe and now at German consulate general in Mumbai.
http://mediathek.daserste.de/daserste/servlet/content/1165152?pageId=487872&moduleId=443668&categoryId=&goto=1&show=

Some of my German friends sent me emails asking to comment on this sad event.
In my personal openion Indians should learn to be first Indian and then to a relegion/group/state. Relegion should be more private matter.
Relegious people never ask one simple logic behind all relegions is:
"to polish our own character" So Our charactor is our relegion or not
?

I am sure if a person perhaps innocent as well was kept in Guantanomo prison then he will hate USA for rest of his life. As the terrorist were looking for US/UK citizens this shows that they had some very bad experience with US/UK.
One question came up in my mind: perhaps some secret services create such attacks in the name of Islam? Unfortunately India is not having good relations with any nabours. How strange Pakistan will support India in this matter for Mumbai. So far Some person Abu Ismail from Faridkot/Pakistan ist said to be one of the terrorist. They spoke in Punjabi language (language spoken in India and in Pakistan.)
Now to the question about Indian muslim group which is new for me. I can just see some roots into the cases like Malegaoun, Godra and other cases.I just now read few articles in this connection:
"Hindus in power have little personal engagement with Muslims: Kavita Srivastava"

http://www.twocircles.net/2008nov25/hindus_power_have_little_personal_engagement_muslims_kavita_srivastava.html

Terror is Terror
"I am both amused and terrified as the "Hindu Terror" and "Muslim Terror" debate rages on. By Sadia Dehlvi
http://www.twocircles.net/2008nov26/terror_terror.html?t=1227778426#comment-16070

Mumbai: It is somehow surprising to learn that the terrorists in Cama hospital in Mumbai were fluently speaking Marathi. The terrorists who are said to have fired in Cama hospital talked to an employee clad in civil dress in Marathi, reports a Marathi daily 'Maharashtra Times'.

The newspaper said the terrorists who targeted ATS chief Hemant Karkare, police commissioner Ashok Kamte and encounter specialist Vijay Salaskar were speaking Marathi fluently.

The newspaper claims the terrorists having fired at two watchmen in uniform asked the other beside them on gunpoint in Marathi, 'You are here an employee?' The employee caught the legs of the terrorist and said, 'I am not working here. My wife has suffered from heart attack and I have come here to admit her.' The terrorist asked him again in Marathi, 'You are speaking true or false?' The employee answered, 'No, by God I am speaking true.'

On this the terrorist let him go.

http://www.twocircles.net/2008nov29/mumbai_attack_terrorists_spoke_marathi.html

Terrorists should learn from Gandhiji. Once Gandhiji said that "no culture can survive if attempts to be exclusive"

Can Maharashtra live without others like north Indians?

Is it o.k for us to criticise Germans when they beat 8 Indians but on the other hand we kill and rape Christian nuns in India.

To see live TV coverage:

http://www.ndtv.com/convergence/ndtv/video/video_live.aspx?id=0

http://www.in.com/videos/watchvideo-cnn-ibn-1626373.html
Latest news in German:
Deutscher unter den Toten
Derweil wurde bekannt, dass bei den Anschlägen auch ein Deutscher ums Leben kam: Der Münchner Medienunternehmer Ralph Burkei sei unter den Toten, teilte am Donnerstag sein Mitgesellschafter Ralph Piller in München mit. Er bestätigte damit einen Bericht der Münchner "Abendzeitung". Burkei sei bei dem Versuch, sich aus dem Hotel Taj Mahal zu retten, abgestürzt und auf dem Weg ins Krankenhaus gestorben. Burkei war ehemaliger Vizepräsident des Fußball-Zweitligisten TSV 1860 München und ehemaliger Schatzmeister der Münchner CSU. Mehrere Bundesbürger laut Auswärtigem Amt verletzt.

"Ich habe mir alle Knochen gebrochen"
Piller sagte der Zeitung: "Der Ralph wollte über die Hotel-Fassade flüchten und ist dann abgestürzt. Burkei hat dann noch auf dem Vordach liegend (einen Freund in München) angerufen und ihm gesagt: "Ich habe mir alle Knochen gebrochen. Wenn mir jetzt keiner hilft, dann schaffe ich es nicht mehr." "

Viele Tote noch nicht identifiziert
Ein Polizeisprecher teilte mit, die Zahl der Getöteten sei auf 101 gestiegen, 287 Menschen seien verletzt worden. Unter den Toten seien mehrere Ausländer, die aber noch nicht identifiziert seien. Die Nachrichtenagentur PTI meldete, ein Japaner und ein Australier seien ums Leben gekommen. Im Taj- und im Trident-Hotel steigen zahlreiche Ausländer ab.
http://nachrichten.t-online.de/c/16/98/73/40/16987340.html

By TwoCircles.net news desk

New Delhi: The toll in the bloodiest ever terrorist attacks in India reached 160 around 10 pm on November 28, two days after around two dozen terrorists attacked some 5-star hotels and public places in Mumbai including Taj and Trident hotels. Around 400 people are injured.
(This official list does not include the names of many unknown people in hospitals across Mumbai.)

JJ Hospital
• M L Chaudhari
• Malpesh Manvendre Banerji
• Mastan Qureshi
• Meera Cattherjee
• Mehnabi Salim Ali
• Michal Stuvert (Australian)
• Monira
• Muktar Shikh
• Nibma Shyampuri Gosavi
• Nivruthi B Gawane
• Phadore Jayaprskash
• Prabhukumar Laldev
• Prakash Surve
• Ramchandra Morya
• Rekha Rathod
• Sahabudin Adbul
• Samdhan More
• Sarika Kripashankar Updadhyay
• Satyanand Bebra
• Shashank Shinde
• Shirish Chavla Chari
• Sitaram S Sagar
• Subhash Vanmali Vaghela
• Sudam Aba Pandarkar
• Sulochana Lokhande
• Sushant Patil
• Trosssa Maria (Spanish)
• Tukaram Omal
• Uttam Saruskar
• Vijay Khadekar
• Vijay Pilot
• Vijay T Pawar
• Wilson Mandlik (grp)
• Yogesh Shivaji Patil
• Zahed (Jordanian)
• Abas Rajab Ansari
• Ambadas Ramchandra Pawar
• Andes Don Tivera
• Arun Chitte (police)
• Ashfar Ali Sheikh
• Ashok Kamte
• Ashokshivram Poulke
• Aziz Nabilath Ramkhure
• Baban Babu Hugde
• Babasaheb Chandrakant Bhosle
• Bapusaheb Durgude
• Bret Gilbert Taylor (Australian)
• Fakir Mohmad
• Farukh Denaya Italia
• Gaurav Walchandra Jain
• Goutam
• Haji Izaz Bhai
• Hemant Karakare
• Izazbhai Haji
• Imamsahab Dalal
• Jaywant Hanumant Patil
• Jurgarn Hetraz Rudalf
• Kainad Naugar
• Kamarudhin
• Kamal N Motwani

Harkishandas Hospital
• Uguarinni (Italian)

Bombay
Hospital
• Hisa Si Tsuda (Japanese)
• Ravi Rajangiri
• Sareena Sasudhhin Shaikh

Breach Candy Hospital
• Berkei Ralph (German)

G T Hospital
• Bhagan Shinde
• Bhanudev Navkar
• Jasmin
• P. Powalgaj
• Sanjay Yadav
• Shantthi Mayur Ransheri
• Thaomus Vergis

Nair Hospital
• Utsala Kurahde

St George Hospital
• Haribai Godil
• Jashin Matin
• Mishralal Morya
• Pappukumar Laldev
• Shiawanath Chandulkar
• Sourabh Mishra

K.E.M Hospital
• Aditya Ashok Yadav
• Amina Hamid Shaikh
• Deepali Jagannath Chittekar
• Harool Azahar Mulla
• Mohd Parwar Diwar
• Raju Pandurang Mane
• Shital Yadav

Here is a list of those who got injured.

St George
Hospital
• Nirmala Ponnadurai
• Pandurang Patil
• Panjiz Nabilal
• Peer Pasha Mahebubali Shekh
• Rajan Ishwar Kamble
• Raju Jagannath Chhittekar
• Ramjivan Napti
• Ramstey Santhya Kumar
• Ranjeet Jadhav
• Rasika Krushna Sawant
• Ravi Jaman Kulas
• Reema Sheikh
• Rohinton Irani
• Sachin Tilekar
• Sajid Ashraphit
• Sanjay Govilka (inspector)
• Santosh Yadav
• Sarikha Upadyay
• Shivram Sawant
• Shubhangi Rahekar
• Shweta Yadav
• Sobiezsiki
• Suddaji Laji
• Surendra
• Surendra Kumar Kanojia
• Suryakant Gaikwad
• Sushma Yadav
• Tayan Merappy
• Tejas Anand Anungi
• Vijay R Khot

JJ hospital
• Abdul Rashid
• Abdul Razak
• Abdul salam
• Abdul sheikh sohel
• Adhikrao Kale
• Afroj Abbas Ansiri
• Akhilesh
• Akshay Tanaji Supekar
• Alok Gupra
• Anamika Gupta
• Anand Arjungi
• Anil Mahadev Nirmal
• Anil Sakharam Varal
• Anilkumar Danojee Hadkulkar
• Anish Patel
• Annasaheb A Waghamode
• Asha Borade
• Ashok Babu Sunappa
• Ashok Mohanlal Rathode
• Ashok Patil
• Ashok Kumar
• Asir Babubhai Menan
• Asif Mohamad
• Bajrandi
• Balaji Baburao Khatmole
• Bebi Ashok Yadav
• Betty Alafoso
• Bharat R Bhosle
• Bharat Satu Prasad
• Bharat Shyam Naodiya
• Chandrakant Lokhande
• Dadarao Jadhav
• Devika Natwarlal Rotawan
• Dilsad B Ismail Patekar
• Ebran S Bhagwan
• Farookin N Khaliluddin
• Fhakir Mohmad
• Fhiroz Khan
• Ganpat G Shigvan
• Giriraj Louis
• Habbibul Raheman Khan
• Haseena Sheikh
• Hawa Begam Abdul Shekh
• Heena sheikh
• Hemant Shadulkar
• Ibrahim Abdul Raheman
• Jairam Chouhan
• Kale
• Kanya Shahane
• Lalji Pande
• Mahadev Petkar
• Maltidevi Madangupta
• Manoj Kanojia
• Manoj Thakur
• Manora Begum
• Manwara Alisheikh
• Minakshi Sada Dani
• Miraj Alam
• Mohamad Farvez Aslam
• Mohan Sawle
• Mohd Ayub Ansari
• Mohd Ayyas
• Mohmad Eliaz Ansari
• Murlidhar
• Nazir Peer Sanjana
• Nilesh Gandhi
• Nish Yadav
• Nordmeier Axel (Germany)
• Pappukumar Laldi
• Prakash Bhagvani
• Pravin Sawant
• Puppu Singh
• Rahim Tulla
• Rajan Sharif
• Rajendra Prasad
• Rajesh Nair
• Rajwardhan
• Ramchandra Nair
• Ramesh Chervotu
• Rameshwar Shah
• Rasika sawant
• Reema Mohd Shaikh
• Rohan More
• Sameer Chadhari
• Sandesh Bhuriya
• Sangita Bharat
• Sanjay S Surve
• Sanju Husain Ghorpade
• Santosh Berta Kanojia
• Santosh Lal Deora
• Santtapalli Rahematulla
• Sarita Harkulkar
• Sawnath Chemburkar
• Narayani
• Shabaz Zakir Khan
• Shabira Majid Shaikh
• Shahabuddin Shamsuddin Khan
• Shivcahndra Patil
• Shivram Vijay Sawant
• Shyamsundar Choudhari
• Sunita Upendra Jadhav
• Simon (UK)
• Suryabhan Gupta
• Shashantkumar Pandey
• Thakur Budhe Waghela
• Vaogta Andolina (US)
• Vibha Singh
• Vijay A Palake
• Vijay A Shinde
• Virendra Semwam
• Williyam P K (UK)

Jaslok Hospital
• Bablu Eliya
• Dian Murphy (British)
• Hanifa Gilachia
• Harish Patel (British)
• K R Ramamurthy
• Michael Murphy
• Prajapati Raju
• Prakash More
• Rahila Abas Ansari

K E M Hospital
• Arvind Bhalekar
• Chandrakant Dike
• Sachin Dadasaheb Tilekar
• Sadanand Patil
• Sushant Panda

Cooper Hospital
• Balkrushna R Bare
• Siddhiki Sheikh

Breach Candy Hospital
• Benjamin Mattigs (German)
• Bornade Lite (German)
• Dariues
• Deepak Tiku
• Sohel Ahmad Shaikh
• Miss Dinaz Sharma

Nair Hospital
• H.K Asif
• Mohammad M Ansari

Parsi Hospital
• Neeta Khurade

Saifiya Hospital
• Aasma
• Faizal
• Mukesh Agarwal
• Shabbir A Salam Dalal

Bombay Hospital
• Amit Raghunath Khetle
• Anil Kolhe
• Anil Yadav
• Appa Patil
• Ashish Patil
• Bandu b More
• CM Puri
• Chen Shih Fung (Chinese)
• Dadasaheb Terkar
• Deepak Dhole
• Devis John
• Eugene S Tan (Philipino)
• Faruq Dinshw
• Gangaram Suryakant Berde
• Hellen Conolly
• Imran Merchant
• Instee Kathering
• Iqbal Khan
• Jagan Bokarde
• Jagdish V Gujram
• Joy Joseph
• Jyoti N Thakur
• Kamal C
• Kinger Rounk
• Kunal Thukral
• Meeta Vijay Waghela
• Mickele Alison
• Mukesh Bhikaji Yadav
• Nabisa Kurraishi
• Naresh Jumani
• Niranjan Sadashiv Sardar
• Nitesh Vijay Kumar Sharma
• Orchiatala Lind (UK)
• P K Gopalakrishna
• Pandurang Shivram Patil
• Polcho Oskari (Finland)
• Poonam Santosh Singh
• Pragati Gupta
• Priyanka Chitaranjan Giri
• Raghunath Ketale
• Raheman Ali Sheikh
• Rajiya Begum Shaikh
• Ramjan Sharib
• Ranjeet Jaganaath Jadhav
• Ransley Santhee Mayur
• Rasika
• Rudder Michal (Canadian)
• S H Wardhankar
• Sachin Singh
• Salim Ali
• Sandresh H Vyas
• Santosh Vit
• Shankar Gupta
• Sisla Sandhya Dhananjay
• Sitaram Mallapa Sakhre
• Studdar Daphne (Australia)
• Sudam Pandarkar
• Tukaram Gopal Ombale
• Vatsala Kurade
• Vijay Chintaman
• Vijay Katkar (Police)
• Vijaya Rajkal Khushwah
• Vishnu Ramane
• Wilson Baburao Mandlik

GT Hospital
• A B More
• Ajay V Korgaonkar
• Ajhmal Ali
• Akshay T Shinde
• Anil Nitram (Nirmal)
• Ansar Alarakha
• Ansar Allahbaksh
• Bharat Koshti
• Harshada Harkulkar
• Hemant Tamil
• Hirabai Vilas Gadha
• Izaz Abdullah
• Kailas G Dani
• Kalpanath Singh
• Maruti Fad
• Murlidhar Zole
• Nathuni Yadav
• Neeta Prakash Gaikwad
• Nitin Minucha
• Prashant
• Rafles
• Sadanand Date
• Sajid Mohmad
• Sarjerao Sadashiv Bhosle
• Vijay K Kuntwala

Harkishandas Hospital
• Sanjay L Katar
• Vishweshwar Pachame

http://www.twocircles.net/2008nov28/mumbai_terror_attacks_updated_list_dead_injured.html

Mumbai terror attack IANS
No place for terrorists’ bodies in ‘sacred India’: Muslim group

Monday, 01 December , 2008, 17:13

Mumbai: The terrorists behind the Mumbai strike should not get a "final resting place anywhere in sacred Mother India", because Islam does not permit the killing of innocent people, a prominent Muslim organisation said on Monday.
Muslim Council president Ibrahim Tai said he has written to the trustees of Bada Kabrastan in south Mumbai, the biggest graveyard in the city close to the JJ Hospital where the autopsies of the slain terrorists were conducted, as well as to the Mumbai Police and the Maharashtra Government.

Mumbai’s 60 hours of ordeal

"As per Islamic tenets, killing of innocent persons is not permitted whatever may be the cause. What these terrorists have done is anti-Islam and shames all followers of Islam," Tai said.

He added that even wasting a drop of water was considered a grave sin in Islam. "These terrorists have killed so many innocents and shed streams of blood. They cannot be Muslims or followers of Islam. So they cannot have a final resting place anywhere on sacred Mother India," Tai said.

He said the authorities could dispose of the bodies in any manner, but not inter them on Indian land or Indian waters.
http://sify.com/news/fullstory.php?id=14809374

We should not go soft on terror, it has no religion: Muslim cleric
Submitted by admin4 on 1 December 2008 - 5:38am. Crime/Terrorism India News Indian Muslim
By Sharat Pradhan, IANS,

Lucknow : Going soft on terror will not make Muslims happy as the perpetrators of such acts do not segregate their targets by religion, the cleric who heads Lucknow's oldest Islamic seminary has said after the daring Mumbai attack.

"If the politicians of this country think that by shying away from taking on terrorists directly and by going soft on terror they will get kudos from Muslims, they are sadly mistaken," said Lucknow's Naib Imam Maulana Khalid Rasheed, who also heads the Firangi Mahal seminary.

"It is quite clear now that Indian politicians of all shades were somehow living under an illusion that if they were to turn harsh against acts of terror, they would alienate the Muslims of this country," Maulana Rasheed told IANS in an interview.

"They ought to realise that the perpetrators of terror do not segregate their targets in terms of religion, and the victims of terror too cut across religious lines. When you count dead bodies, the first thing that hits you is the horror, not the religion of those killed."

Over 180 lives were lost in the Mumbai attack in which terrorists struck at 10 prominent locations in the city Nov 26 night and carried on for nearly 60 hours.

Maulana Rasheed, who wondered "when will these politicians change their mindset, said: "I could see fear and apprehension in the utterances and eyes of each of the leaders - cutting across party lines - as they appeared on various TV channels throughout the three-day-long ordeal in Mumbai".

He is surprised that some parties thought Muslims in India did not appreciate any criticism of Pakistan.

"What is worse is that leaders of some parties have even begun to think that any criticism of Pakistan would not be relished by this country's Muslims," he lamented.

"When will they ever realise that by doing so they are clearly reflecting their perverted psyche of labelling all Indian Muslims as pro-Pakistanis, which is the worst abuse for any Indian Muslim."Maulana Rasheed is also irked about the centre's move to invite the chief of the Pakistani espionage agency Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) to assist India in tackling terror. Pakistan has responded by saying it is willing to send an ISI representative.

"India's bid to invite the ISI chief after the Mumbai attack is like asking a criminal to help the police contain crime," quipped the Maulana. He said "the move has only undermined India's strength and reflects the total lack of self-confidence in the leaders of this country".

(Sharat Pradhan can be contacted at sharatpradhan@rediffmail.com

http://www.twocircles.net/2008nov30/we_should_not_go_soft_terror_it_has_no_religion_muslim_cleric.html


Mumbai Terror Attack: Further Evidence Of The Anglo-American-Mossad-RSS Nexus
By Amaresh Misra

03 December, 2008
Countercurrents.org

Now who has the last laugh? That is the question; I only have pity for those who cannot see reality and who were so glib to buy into what the media and political troubleshooters were saying about the Mumbai terrorist attacks.

Consider this:

As a BBC report notes, at least some of the Mumbai attackers were not Indian and certainly not Muslim.Pappu Mishra, a cafe proprietor at the gothic Victorian Chattrapati Shivaji Terminus railway station, described "two sprightly young men dressed in black" with AK47s who were "foreign looking, fair skinned."Gaffar Abdul Amir, an Iraqi tourist from Baghdad, saw at least two men who started the firing outside the Leopold Cafe. "They did not look Indian, they looked foreign. One of them, I thought, had blonde hair. The other had a punkish hairstyle. They were neatly dressed," Amir told the BBC.

According to Andrew G. Marshall, the ISI "has long been referred to as Pakistan's 'secret government' or 'shadow state.' It's long-standing ties and reliance upon American and British intelligence have not let up, therefore actions taken by the ISI should be viewed in the context of being a Central Asian outpost of Anglo-American covert intelligence operations."The presence of "foreign looking, fair skinned" commandos who calmly gunned down dozens of people after drinking a few beers indicates that the Mumbai attacks were likely the work of the Anglo-American covert intelligence operatives, not indigenous Indian Muslims or for that matter Arab al-Qaeda terrorists. The attacks prepare the ground for the break-up of Pakistan and the furtherance of destabilizing terrorism in the Middle East and Asia. The Mumbai attacks had little to do with India or the relationship between Muslim Pakistanis and Hindu Indians."Pakistan's position as a strategic focal point cannot be underestimated. It borders India, Afghanistan, China and Iran," concludes Marshall. "Destabilizing and ultimately breaking Pakistan up into several countries or regions will naturally spread chaos and destabilization into neighboring countries. This is also true of Iraq on the other side of Iran, as the Anglo-American have undertaken, primarily through Iraq, a strategy of balkanizing the entire Middle East in a new imperial project." (See Marshall's Divide and Conquer: The Anglo-American Imperial Project.)

Now I ask specifically: WHO HAS EGG ON THE FACE? MY DETRACTORS OR ME?

Andrew Marshall is a respected author; he is clearly saying here that terrorists looked like Anglo-American covert operatives and that the entire Mumbai operation was an attempt by Anglo-American forces to destabilize India and push it further into the Israel-US orbit. Marshall also says that Americans are keen to dismember Pakistan--it is clear that in this project, America needs India as a firm ally--it cannot afford Indo-Pak friendship at least on a long-term basis. The Mumbai attack thus was multi-layered--and one of the reasons could be to warn India that the Anglo-American elite has the power to penetrate India, with the help of its own people. Clearly, the attackers would not have come from the sea route without some kind of a connivance of Gujarat and Maharashtra Governments with the terrorists, and the connivance of RSS type Hindutva elements as I will prove later in the piece.
This afore-mentioned report appeared on the BBC, a news agency which pro-west, Muslim-haters and all NRIs love to see. NOW I ASK THESE PEOPLE: why are you adopting double standards? Now a BBC report is incovenient because it militates against your idea of what happened in Mumbai?

Even the Indian Government is aware of this reality. That is why it is not issuing statements in a hurry and that is why the kind of Islamo-phobia seen earlier after Bomb Blasts is not being seen now.

A second report is more shocking--some news channels captured it but then it went off air:

One Police officer who encountered the gunmen as they entered the Jewish Center (Nariman House) said the attackers were white. "I went into the building late last night" he said. "I got a shock because they were white. I was expecting them to look like us. They fired three shots. I fired 10 back".

The Nariman House affair brings the Mossad angle to the fore. Two of the `hostages' killed in the Narimam House were identified as Rabbi Gabreil Holtzberg and his wife Rivka. They ran the center as spokespersons of the Chabad Lubavitch movement.

Now the Chabad movement is one of the many sects within Israel and Judaism. But of late it has come under the Zionist influence. Now what is Zionism? A brief digression would suffice: Zionism is the political ideology of racist Jews, just like Hindutva is the political ideology of a section of `race conscious' Hindus. Just as a majority of Sanatani Hindus have opposed Hindutva, a majority of Jews oppose Zionism and its fascist-anti-religious tone.

In opposition to the teachings of Judaism, the orthodox Jew religion, Zionists want to dominate the world; they see the `Jewish race' as the most important, almost divine, race in the world. Zionists are opposed to democracy and even the concept of naitonhood. Zionists believe in creating murder and mayhem as a matter of policy.

In America, Zionists have entered into an alliance with the American elites--the White-Anglo-Saxon Protestant (WASP) forces--which rule America. The reasons for this alliance lie in the way the Zionist agenda matches with that of the American corporate and WASP elite and is beyind the scope of this article.

People who do not understand Zionism will never be able to understand what happened in Mumbai.

Back to members of the Chabad-Lubavitch movement killed at Nariman House--people have asked how come the Rabbi and his wife were killed if Mossad is involved in the Mumbai terror attack?

The answer to this is being forwarded by Jewish anti-Zionist websites. They also detail the sectarian history of the Chabad-Lubavitch movement:


The attack on Mumbai spotlights the ultra-orthodox (haredi) Chabad-Lubavitch community and its international outreach network. When Chabad outreach (keruv) started in the 1950s, it seemed rather intellectually dishonest because the organization used nostalgia for a never-existent Jewish past as a hook to enmesh secular or secularized Jews in ultra-orthodox (haredi) practice as hozrim bitshuvah (returnees, sometimes improperly called baalei tshuvah), but on the whole the activity was mostly harmless in contrast with current Chabad activities, which long ago crossed the border into dangerous territory.

As the Lubavitcher organization has become larger and wealthier -- partially because mobilization for keruv has brought large contributions, members have shown a propensity for corruption.

Yet, the Lubavitchers have worked closely with Jewish racists like Lawrence Summers and Alan Dershowitz in the ongoing attempt to control discourse on American campuses. The wealthy Russian Lubavitcher hozer bitshuvah Lev Leviev openly supports Zionist terrorism and settlement building in the Palestinan occupied territories. Possibly because of Leviev Chabad-Lubavitch has openly become involved in Putin's struggles with Russian Jewish oligarchs.

Still, there is an even more sinister aspect to the Lubavitcher organization.

Because Lubavitcher outreach offices are located in some of the most important political, corporate and university centers throughout the world, the Lubavitchers have put together a network that is incomparable for corporate and international espionage as well as for the secret exchange of information. Because Chabad Houses could potentially act as safe houses, where there would be no record of a person's stay.

Most people do not take the Lubavitchers seriously, but I have visited Chabad houses and encountered senior Israeli government or military officials (and probably intelligence agents). One can easily imagine that Neocon intelligentsia trying to develop a relationship with Hindutva (?????????) intelligentsia or politicians might have used the Chabad Nariman House as a meeting place.

Here a Jew is saying that he has visited Chabad houses and that he has seen covert operations going on and the involvement of senior Government and military officials of Israel. This Jew writer is also talking openly about a Neo-Con-Chabad-Hindutva tie-up!

The Jew writer mentions the Mossad involvement in Chabad Houses:


Because the Lubavitchers provide an unconditional welcome to all Jews in the hope of bringing them closer to the Lubavitcher way of life, the Lubavitchers have been open to potential subversion by Israeli intelligence organizations. Mossad and Shin Bet found it quite easy to penetrate the haredi community during the Yossele Affair. Jewish politics has often involved infiltration and subversion of one political group by another. The David Project Israel Advocacy organization has used its educational programs as a means to infiltrate more mainstream Jewish communal organizations with radical Islamophobes and Jabotinskian Zionists.

To Zionize haredi groups that practice outreach, the Israeli government need only give encouragement to Zionistically indoctrinated Hebrew-speaking young people to participate in outreach programs, and in a few years the targeted haredi community is thoroughly enmeshed in Zionist thinking while Israeli intelligence organizations have a new crop of saya`nim in place ready to serve in Zionist covert operations.

What is a sayanim? Go to the link

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sayanim and it states that "Sayanim (Hebrew: "helpers") is a term used to describe Jews living outside Israel who volunteer to provide assistance to the Mossad.[1] This assistance includes facilitating medical care, money, logistics, and even overt intelligence gathering, yet sayanim are only paid for their expenses. No official number is known, but estimates put the number of sayanim in the thousands. The existence of this large body of volunteers is one reason why the Mossad operates with fewer case officers than fellow intelligence agencies"

Now back to the link

http://eaazi.blogspot.com/2008/12/
chabad-lubavitch-dangerous-game.html

from which I was quoting the Jewish writer originally. He says that the Lubavitcher shluchim (outreach emissaries) Gavriel Noach and Rivka Holtzberg fit the `sayanim' profile to a "T" -- especially Rivkah.


So the two people killed in Nariman House fit the Sayanim, that is Jews outside Israel who volunteer to provide assistance to Mossad, profile!

NOW WHAT OTHER PROOF DO YOU WANT?

The Jewish writer of the afore-mentioned link himself asks the question: WOULD MOSSAD HAVE KILLED THE RABBI AND HIS WIFE IN NARIMAN HOUSE?
AND HE PROVIDES THE ANSWER:

Zionists have always used dead Jews to build sympathy for Zionist goals and as cover for Zionist crimes against humanity.

Ben-Gurion explicitly stated that he would sacrifice German Jewish children for the sake of Zionism while the Zionist leadership probably learned the benefit of sacrificing Zionist operatives from the 1946 Kielce Pogrom. In this incident (Jewish) Soviet and Zionist agents probably worked together to make sure that surviving Polish Jews chose emigration to Palestine over a return to Poland.

Because the Kielce Zionist recruiters were killed during the pogrom, the events leading up to the pogrom was rendered forever unobtainable.


Some reports of the Mumbai attack indicate that the Holtzbergs rented space to the attack planners over the past few months and thereby helped make the operation far more effective.

An opportunity to interrogate the Holtzbergs would have helped investigators immensely.

AGAIN WHAT MORE DO YOU WANT?


Another piece of massive evidence: In a telephone interview with CBC News from outside the Center (Nariman House), freelance journalists Arun Asthana said that there are reports that some of the militants had stayed at a guest house there (Nariman House) for upto 15 days before the attack. "They had a huge mass of ammunition, arms and food there", Asthana said.

Now other reports have also confirmed that a huge mass of food was ordered by the residents of the Nariman House. This food was enough for 30-40 people for several days. Why was this amount of food ordered? Also why was Nariman House not assaulted till the very last? A Gujarati Hindu resident of Mumbai came onto TV on CNN-IBN to say at around 3.30 AM or so, that for two months suspicious activities wree going in Nariman House. A lot of foreigners were seen coming in and going out. This matter was reported to the Police. But no one took action.

The CNN-IBN did not repeat the news; then it was only when the common people of Mumbai threatened to storm the Nariman House the NSG commandos were moved in--why this delay in assaulting Nariman House when only two terrorists were holed in there?

This is sheer official complicity and nothing else--AN INVESTIGATION INTO THE WHOLE NARIMAN HOUSE AFFAIR IS A MUST.



Then it was reported that " somehow surprising to learn that the terrorists in Cama hospital in Mumbai were fluently speaking Marathi. The terrorists who are said to have fired in Cama hospital talked to an employee clad in civil dress in Marathi, reports a Marathi daily 'Maharashtra Times'.


The newspaper said the terrorists who targeted ATS chief Hemant Karkare, police commissioner Ashok Kamte and encounter specialist Vijay Salaskar were speaking Marathi fluently.

The newspaper claims the terrorists having fired at two watchmen in uniform asked the other beside them on gunpoint in Marathi, 'You are here an employee?' The employee caught the legs of the terrorist and said, 'I am not working here. My wife has suffered from heart attack and I have come here to admit her.' The terrorist asked him again in Marathi, 'You are speaking true or false?' The employee answered, 'No, by God I am speaking true.'
On this the terrorist let him go.

NOW WHAT DO WE MAKE OF THAT? Another report says that traditional Jews of Mumbai who have migrated to Israel speak fluent Marathi and are known to have been recruited by Mossad!

The death of Hemant Karkare remains a mystery. All official versions are contradictory: some say he was killed near CST, some that he died near Cama hospital, some near Metro cinema, and some that he was killed while in a Police jeep. Also, where did the bullet hit him? Some say on the neck and some near the heart. Karkare was shown on TV wearing a bullet proof vest--he could not have been shot in neck in that case, unless there was a sniper waiting for him.

Also if he was shot near heart, then when did he take out his vest? No one has even bothered to answer this question. Also, another facet is coming to light: that Karkare was killed near Cama--but Kaamte and Salaskar in the Metro shootout!

Intelligent people--what do you have to say now? It is becoming obvious that...


1. Several terrorists might have been white

2. Were they International mercanaries? If yes, then from which country? Who collected them? It is well known that Mossad and CIA have several mercenary organizations, including so-called Jihadi ones on their list. They create Jihad and manipulate Muslims disaffected by the Islamophobia in the world. Some of them might have been used in the Mumbai attack. But why were they carrying American, British, Mauritian and Malaysian passports?
3. Who were the Marathi speaking Karkare killers? The lane next to the Cama Hospital is a deserted one--it goes straight to the backyard of the Mumbai CID Headquarters. Anonymous sources in the Police have revealed that Karkare was taken there, by a joint team of anti-Karkare, pro-Hindutva Mumbai Police officers, and Chota Rajan men. Now Karkare was opposed to Chota Rajan. Salaskar was anti-Pradeep Sharma, another Mumbai senior Police officer now in jail, for working as Rajan's shooter. So the Marathi speaking terrorists could either have been Jews with some connection to Mumbai--or hired killers of the Hindutva brigade or men of Chota Rajan.
4. It seems that several things went on simultaneously--the Mahrashtra Chief Minister Vilas Rao Deshmukh was in Kerala when the Mumbai attack began at 9.30 PM on 26th November. Then by 11PM Deshmukh had informed the Home Minister Shivraj Patil--the latter has started proceedings to send the NSG Commandos. So Deshmukh knew about what was happening by 11PM--then why was there no Mumbai Police on various locations between 9.30 and 1am, the time when Karkare arrived? The Mumbai ATS is a separate organization. it does not lead the Mumbai Police. So the 40,000 strong Mumbai Police was absent from the scene of action between 11pm to 1am and then Karkare arrived and he was killed along with his men!

Isn't there something fishy here? Obviously the Mumbai Police was kept deliberately away between 11pm and 1am, the time period when terrorists were killing people merrily. Then Karkare must have been told--and he went there expecting Mumbai police personals to be there--but there were none or only a few! And he was killed!


Amaresh Misra is a freelance writer, historian and poet. He is the author of Mangal Pandey: The True Story of an Indian Revolutionary; Lucknow: Fire of Grace: The Story of Its Renaissance, Revolution and the Aftermath, and more recently War of Civilizations: The Road to Delhi and The Long Revolution. He can be contacted on misra.amaresh@gmail.com

http://www.countercurrents.org/misra031208.htm


Mumbai and the media war



Thursday, December 04, 2008
By Foqia Sadiq Khan

The Indian as well as the Pakistani media, particularly the electronic one, has been extremely irresponsible in its coverage of the Mumbai carnage. India and Pakistan have dozens of electronic media channels but they seem, by and large, to lack the responsibility that comes with running such channels at times of crisis.

It was distasteful to see the Indian media and officials implicate Pakistan even before the operation to flush out militants was completed. It was equally distasteful to see the Pakistani electronic media raise emotions against India, rather than showing solidarity at such an hour of crisis.

It seems both India and Pakistan are living in denial of their deeds. India seems to be in denial of its treatment of its minorities, particularly the over 150 million Muslims who live in extreme poverty and deprivation. India also seems to be in denial over its role in suppressing the struggle for independence in Kashmir. As William Dalrymple noted in an article in The Guardian on Nov 30: "If Israel's treatment of the Palestinians is the most emotive issue for Muslims in the Middle East, then India's treatment of the people of Kashmir plays a similar role among South Asian Muslims."

Pakistan seems to be in denial that it has become a hotbed of terrorists from all over the world and that terrorist acts all over the world often have links to outfits in Pakistan. Whether it is the July 7, 2005, bombings in London or the attack on commuter trains in Spain, there is always some kind of connection to Pakistani actors and/or groups. The mastermind behind a plane to bomb trans-Atlantic flights through the use of liquid bombs in 2006, Rashid Rauf, was also allegedly killed in a US drone attack a few weeks ago in Bannu. Pakistan seems to have become a safe haven for terrorist who kill innocent people mostly in Pakistan but also in the rest of the world. This grave realisation was completely missing in any analysis by the electronic media in Pakistan.

Sure, the US has a role to play in all of this. Had America not imposed its proxy war on Pakistan from 1979 onwards, Pakistanis and the rest of the world would have been a much safer place now. It was the CIA-financed war, operationalised by the ISI, that created a network of global jihadis and which has now blown back on America, Pakistan and the rest of the world. American imperialism played a definite role in making Pakistan do its dirty job and Zia-ul-Haq's military government and military top brass was more than willing to receive huge military aid and be an active promoter of jihadi culture that has come to haunt us and the rest of the world today.

But we cannot turn back the clock. We have to deal with the fallout and clear our mess. This cannot be done if both India and Pakistan continue to live in a state of denial and blame each other. Indian security forces have usurped the rights of Kashmiris and have killed them and tortured them mercilessly. Indian groups have burned churches and destroyed mosques and carried out massacres of minority groups – Gujarat 2002 is a case in point. It is a complete failure of the Indian state that something as gruesome as the Gujarat massacre happened, in the first place. It is even a bigger failure that the government of Narendra Modi has not been held accountable for it so far. Having said that, no amount of injustice condones murderous attacks of Mumbai. Violence cannot end violence – it leads to only more violence.

Most of the Pakistani intelligentsia, much like the Indian intelligentsia (barring a few exceptions on both sides), suffers from moral bankruptcy. Watching the coverage of Mumbai attacks, one got the impression that many journalists, opinion-makers, and so-called security and defence "experts" were almost as bad as the Indian hawks and jingoists. Both sides were looking at only the ubiquitous "foreign hand" behind everything, without accepting any responsibility for their own actions – though in the Indians' case this was more pronounced.

To quote an example from Pakistan, Lt-Gen (retired) Salahuddin Tirmizi openly referred to India as "dushman mulk" – and this was while the tragedy was still unfolding in Mumbai, with militants still in a shootout at the Taj. Is this the way neighbours express solidarity at such a delicate moment of mayhem and crisis? One wonders why such a jingoistic commentator was invited, in the first place.

Unfortunately, Pakistanis cannot watch Indian media; otherwise there would have been far more such examples to quote from the Indian side as well. One gets the sense from media coverage and talking to people that Indian media has been extremely jingoistic as well. Just the way, they have made the whole world believe that militants just came off the boats from Pakistan and launched this unprecedented massive assault on the financial heart of India. How could they reach such a conclusion while investigations are still at primary stage? How could people who have just come off the boats launch such a massive attack without being familiar with the city and its environs? Then this changed and one began to hear that the attackers came to the city at least a month before the attacks and a few may have actually stayed at one of the hotels that was attacked.

Equally irresponsible were the statements by Prime Minister Dr Manmohan Singh and Foreign Minister Pranab Mukherjee, as well as a major-general of the Indian Army. All of them directly or indirectly implicated Pakistan while the situation was still developing and it was premature to be sure of the attack's definite links and causes.

At the end, we also have to come clean on the ISI's role once and for all. The agency's political wing has been disbanded but we all know that in the past it has worked closely with jihadi groups, especially as a result of the war against the Soviet presence in Afghanistan. It is also not a hidden secret anymore that the agency was involved in the past in helping groups like the Lashkar-e-Taiba and Jaish-e-Mohammad fight in Kashmir. As a nation, we need to know where the ISI stands in its relationship with jihadi groups now – though we are told time and again that this is now non-existent. If we fail to ascertain that, it would be very hard to refute the label of Pakistan being a haven for terrorists or of it indirectly being behind such attacks.

One can only hope that better sense and sanity will prevail and that the unadulterated blame games and muscle flexing on both sides will give way to restraint. Of course, the Indian media and officials have been more irresponsible because they started the blame game. But that doesn't mean that the Pakistani media necessarily reply in the same coin. It needs to show sympathy and should not give in to the tendency – in such situations – to reply in the same coin.


The writer is a doctoral candidate at the SOAS, University of London.
http://www.thenews.com.pk/print1.asp?id=150434


: Beyond the age of terror
Submitted by admin3 on 3 December 2008 - 6:43pm. Articles Crime/Terrorism Indian Muslim
By Kashif-ul-Huda, TwoCircles.net,

A lot has been written already and lot will be written in days and weeks to come about terrorism in India. Lots of advices have been offered and some more will be made public by commentators. Some will argue for Indians to be united, others will ask for stringent laws. For some solutions will be to replace the UPA government with the one run by the NDA and even a strong leader like Modi to be in charge. Hang Afzal Guru and make that a lesson for the future terrorists is one suggestion but the latest I read was to have "more overt and covert policing of the minority community."

As a Sanskrit saying goes 'vinaash kale vipreet budhi" which roughly translated means your intellect works against you during the time of destruction. This is what has been happening in India. For many reasons, it is a critical time in India's history but all our leaders and intellectuals can offer us are patchworks of solutions, if they are solutions at all. Some solutions, like the policing of minority community are wrong at so many levels that if implemented will make the situation worse than what is it now. For India to move forward and grab the destiny that it rightfully deserves we all have to think beyond our prejudices and think of solutions that go beyond our self-interests, regional interests, and communal interests, to become national interests that offers a vision for global peace.

Let's start by looking at what we want for India to achieve in international stage. We all want India to become a superpower but without a clear definition of what it means and when will we know that we have achieved that status. In the multi-polar world we can not be the only superpower so what in reality we want to see is for India to become a global power so that we can influence world opinion and protect our interests as well as push a vision which we believe is important for the world. This does not mean only protecting our trade interest but rather having some moral values and ideals that will drive our international policy which will help us win friends and become a moral leader. We still need to work out a moral agenda that will help us become a world leader. India led the non-align movement but in the new world scenario it can be justice, end to poverty, and end to extremism where the world needs leaders and India can play a role in it. But for that to happen we need to have a neighborhood policy and lot of work need to be done at home.

The only superpower of this time, United States of America has two neighbors that it shares its borders with. Canada in the north and Mexico in the south have friendly relations with the United States and it doesn't expect any threat from either of these two countries. Similarly, former Soviet Union by force and bribe was able to create a buffer zone around its borders. India on the other hand has unresolved differences or disputes with some of its neighbors. We need to resolve our differences with our neighboring countries – China, Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Sri Lanka. To play a bigger role on world stage we need to be confident that our rear guard is well protected. This can happen only when our neighbors are also feeling safe and know that they expect to gain from our enhanced international standing.
It will also mean that it is in India's interest to provide all the assistance it could to make sure states around us do not become unstable or failed states. We have to invest in programs that will generate economic activities and build institutions and provide more interaction between countries so anti-social elements are not able to spread hate among people to push their own agenda of chaos and anarchy.

This can be achieved when we have a confident India and that can happen only when we have developed a consensus within the nation on our long term and short term vision for the country and the people. We have to be sure of the continuity of our policies though political parties can be voted in and out of power. India is a nation where there are hundreds of languages and thousands of dialects are spoken. All major religions of the world have found a home in India and culture that changes every fifty miles. For India to survive as a nation we need to have ideals, morals, and vision that all Indians can identify and agree with. Like our freedom struggle we have to lead another grass root level struggle that will inculcate these ideals in our lives.

All the communities in India need to realize that all of them are set to gain from this new vision of India that we are forming. No one should feel that they will be left behind in the path to progress. There are plenty of actual and perceived grievances and all can not be addressed but they as a part of the country should have the opportunity to present their case.

Again, to make India a world power we have to make sure that India itself is free from violence and disturbances. Rule of law need to be strengthened and court systems overhauled to speed up the process of seeking justice. All violent crimes especially violence for political ends which includes riots and terrorism should be dealt with strongly and fast-tracked so that timely justice is served. Indian government should also ensure that all children are given quality education and everyone has right to live their life with dignity and according to their traditions.

Panchayati Raj system gives power to the people in running their affairs; this should be strengthened so that it can empower marginalized communities to improve their lot. RTI act has made it possible for common man to gain information from the government; further transparency will only strengthen the governance. While encouraging people's participation in the government this will also ensure that public servants are accountable to the public that they are supposed to serve.


A significant portion of problems in India has to do with misunderstanding and mistrust between Hindus and Muslims. Both communities need to understand each other and that the suspicion and hate that has begun to grow between the two is not good for India. Hindus need to realize that declaring India as Hindu Rashtra will mean that they are prepared to let go of large parts of India and they will be content with a smaller land mass that they can call Hindu India. Other problem is that next fault lines of Hinduism will begun to appear and regionalism will creep in and the visions that Thackeray family has for Mumbai will be repeated in other parts of a smaller India leading to further breakup or severe conflicts.

People who champion Hindu Rashtra cause offer no solution for the problems of communities of other faith existing in India. It is not possible for such a large number (at least 200 million) to be transported out of the country, converted, or even killed. So let's find an alternate vision for India where everyone wins not some.
Hindus have to sit down with Muslims and listen to them and also present their complaints to them. They will realize that Muslims love India not less than Hindus of India. Yes Pakistan is a Muslim country but so is Bangladesh and Malaysia if you don't suspect Muslims of supporting other Muslim countries then why would they support Pakistan. So all this misconceptions about Muslims need to be investigated. A simple analysis can easily counter propaganda that Muslims will outnumber Hindus in India in few years. Rumors like this keeps Hindus in perpetual fear of a minority but as recent events has shown this fear may result in monstrous violence.
Muslims need to realize that there is a great mistrust of them by Hindus in general. They need to open up their madrasas, mosques, and community and invite people of other faith to visit them, ask those questions and have an opportunity to interact with them. Muslims also need to check growth of extremism amongst them. Increasing interest in religion is one thing but extremism that thrives on hate for others' faith is against the teaching of Islam and practices of our elders. Those who are involved in criminal activities and in some instances become community heroes and leaders need to be identified and reported to the authorities. We can not afford to tolerate any illegal activity in our midst.

We all have multiple identities depending on faith, region, language, etc. but we all are also a human being and Indian. As a citizen of this country we all have certain rights and duties. As we demand our rights we also have to check whether we are fulfilling our duties. We have to promise that there is nothing that we will do that acts against the nation or humanity. We will not do any fraud for some quick bucks, we will be honest in all our dealings, and we will do the job that we are hired for to the best of our ability. We also have to promise ourselves and the nation that we will not take or give bribe however profitable that may be.

In this complex world where everything is linked together only an integrated approach can work and the change we hope to see in the world has to start from us.

http://www.twocircles.net/2008dec03/india_beyond_age_terror....


Last edited by MRehan on Dec 08, 2008 - 07:19 AM; edited 2 times in total
 
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website  
Reply with quote Back to top
MRehanOffline
Post subject: RE: Terror is Terror Mumbai  PostPosted: Dec 05, 2008 - 12:04 PM


Joined: Aug 03, 2006
Posts: 268

Status: Offline

-------------------------------------



Muslims have gained nothing from terrorism

Maulana Wahiduddin Khan
December 05, 2008

Every Sunday morning, the renowned Delhi-based Islamic scholar and thinker Maulana Wahiduddin Khan addresses a group of his disciples, speaking on various issues. His lecture on November 30 focussed on the recent terror attacks in Mumbai. This is a translation of the lecture by Yoginder Sikand, with some slight modifications that were needed to clarify certain points.
On November 26, Mumbai witnessed the worst kind of terror attack. Ten terrorists entered several buildings and indiscriminately fired at people, leaving behind several dead and wounded.
According to a tradition, at the time of the Prophet there was a man whose only concern was to speak negatively of the Prophet and spread wrong ideas about him. The son of this man became very angry and asked the Prophet to allow him to kill his father. The Prophet told him not to do that, as then people would say that the Prophet allowed killing among his people. The lesson which can be inferred from this incident is that anything, which defames the name of Islam should not be done. These incidents are mentioned in books but people fail to infer or draw lessons from them as they do not engage in deep study.
In the Jewish Talmud there are many stories. In one incident, the Prophet Moses prayed to God: "O! God, take anything away from my followers but do not take away their wisdom." God replied: "O! Moses, if we decide to take away something from a community, it is their wisdom that we take away."
Today, many Muslims have lost their wisdom, as is evident from the events which have taken place recently. Those Muslims who are said to be involved in terrorism in Mumbai gained nothing. In Palestine, the Arabs have been fighting for the last 60 years and have not achieved anything. In many places Muslims have resorted to suicide bombings, although suicide is unlawful in Islam. This is a result of deterioration and lack of wisdom. Those who are behind these suicide attacks are not afraid of accountability and the fact they will have to stand in front of God after death.
What is the reason for this madness and how did it originate?
The reason for this madness is hatred. Hate can make a man do anything. Hate began from Satan. When God created Adam, He asked the angels and Satan to bow before Him. Satan however, did not bow and consequently, God said to him: "You and your followers will go to hell." Satan had developed such hate for man that despite knowing that he will be cast into hell, he did not obey God's command. Hate is so blinding that it can take one to hell.
I have studied in Muslim seminaries, madrassas and have participated in numerous Muslim gatherings, and in many of these places hatred and pride is instilled in the minds of Muslims. They are taught: 'We are the caliphs and vice-regent of God on earth."
I once met an Arab whose first question to me was, "Who are we?" He then said: "We are the Caliphs of God on earth." I told him that this is not written anywhere in our books. The Sahih Al-Bukhari says that Muslims are witnesses of God. That is, they have to spread the message of God on earth. The same is alluded to in the Quran, that is, the task of Muslims is to spread God's message and lead a life according to His instructions. However, Muslims have made themselves the self-appointed Caliphs, and have launched all sorts of movements that propagate the ideology of capturing political power. This thinking emerged when the Ottoman and Mughal empires declined, and Muslims started considering the rest of the world as usurpers and oppressors who snatched their rights and power from them.
Political power is like an examination paper. A test paper can never be the monopoly of one; it would change hands from people to people as God wants to test every community. Hence if political power has been taken away from you then you need to have patience. When political power was with you then it was your test paper and now, when it has been given to someone else, it is their test paper.
No Muslim leader could tell this to the Muslims and pacify the political shock which they received after the breaking up of the Muslim empires in the face of Western colonialism. No one told them that their test paper of political power was over and now they should concentrate their effort on some other constructive activities like education, reform, dawah work etc. In Palestine, for example, it was God's decision to give the political power to somebody else. Hence, Muslims should have accepted it, but they started fighting and now 60 years of fighting has given them nothing. Muslims should have realised that God had now wanted to test some other community. Therefore, he gave them political power. But Muslims rose up to fight, and it was equivalent to fighting God's decision and hence they attained nothing. As a result, all the Muslims got conditioned in hateful thinking.
Before the Second World War, the thinking of the Japan [Images]ese was same as that of the Muslims. Hirohito was the emperor of Japan at that time. The Japanese had the concept of Imperial Divinity, that is their king -- the so-called 'god-king' -- should rule the world. Consequently, they fought with many countries. It was the Japanese who started the concept of suicide bombing known as hara-kiri. But in 1945 America dropped two atomic bombs on Japan and the Japanese army was completely destroyed. Japan suffered a humiliating defeat. Then the Japanese developed second thoughts, that is, if the king was god then he would have saved them, but because they were severely crippled due to those bombs they realised that the king was not god. Hirohito then renounced the concept of Imperial Divinity and the Japanese have never looked back since then.
This makes me ponder as to why this hate does not get finished among Muslims? This is because Muslims' hate is a reflection of a certain mind-set. The so-called 'god-king' of the Japanese was proved wrong and therefore the concept of 'god-king' died. However, a mind-set cannot be done away on its own. The mind-set which inspires hate for others in many Muslims cannot be killed like an individual. Nor can it cannot kill itself. This mind-set can be replaced by deconditioning alone.
Hirohito said "I'm not god," and this led the Japanese to discard their unfounded notions and pave the path to progress. But the case of Muslims is very different. In their case, their mind-set has to be transformed to change their thinking. The thinking of Muslims has to be changed. There has to be long process of deconditioning.
There are two kinds of deconditioning: one is the Prophetic deconditioning; that is the deconditioning which the Prophet did of his companions. Then the companions did the deconditioning of some of their companions. But now there is no prophet and so self-deconditioning has to be done. This is a very difficult task. Ideological deconditioning has to be done among the Muslims to help them come out of hate.
It is essential to understand that distinction between the negative engineering of the mind and positive engineering of the mind. Today, minds are being negatively engineered with hatred and pride. Many Muslims live in this fallacy that they are a special race, and when they are not treated specially then they are frustrated and hold others responsible for their not receiving the special treatment that they expect. The mission of positive engineering of the mind is very difficult. You have to do merciless introspection. It is our test to convert the thinking of people from negative to positive.
The terrorists who assaulted Mumbai had done extensive planning. This made me think why these people were so capable of negative planning, and completely lacked any inclination towards positive planning. This sort of mentality, unfortunately, has become endemic among many Muslims. Nobody is doing planning for the positive task of spreading God's message, and love and peace. This is because as years passed by, this work became dead in Muslims. But it alone can promote positive planning as it requires well-wishing for the whole of humankind. We must therefore focus our energies on spreading God's love and restrain from any negative and destructive activities.
http://www.rediff.com/news/2008/dec/05mumterror-muslims-have-gained-nothing-from-terrorism.htm
 
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website  
Reply with quote Back to top
MRehanOffline
Post subject: RE: Terror is Terror Mumbai  PostPosted: Dec 08, 2008 - 08:05 AM


Joined: Aug 03, 2006
Posts: 268

Status: Offline

-------------------------------------



It is general view of most of Indians that due to muslims this country was devided into two parts. The fact is just opposit.
There were redical groups in ALL communities and Britsh Raj did their job very well to devide and rule. These redical groups were the main cause for partition of India or nor?

One fundamental difference to British Raj and muslims rulers was that English never tried to be a part of Indian culture and society where as most of Indian muslims rulers tried their best to be an Indian. This we can see even from this book:

Meher Fatima talks about her book on 150 patriotic Indian Muslims,
By Mumtaz Alam Falahi, TwoCircles.net,


The book Celebrating India: Reflections on Eminent Indian Muslims (1857-2007) provides biographical profiles of 150 patriotic Indian Muslims, many of them unsung heroes – those who did not become party to the two-nation theory. Author Meher Fatima Hussain, Lecturer at Jamia Millia Islamia, talks to Mumtaz Alam Falahi of TwoCircles.net on her book.

What inspired you to write this book?


India is celebrating centenaries of 150 years of its first War of Independence and 60 years of Independence. In this moment of celebrations I thought I should also contribute through a book that would highlight the contributions of patriotic Indian Muslims who have contributed in the period from 1857 to 2007 in the 1857 War of Independence, in freedom movement as well as in enhancing India’s glory and prestige in different spheres like art, culture, music, sports, academic and journalism. I thought that through this book I would be paying tribute to the patriotic Indian Muslims and this idea inspired me to write this book.




Mehar Fatima


There are a lot of books on patriotic Indian Muslims. How is this book different?

I would not totally agree that a lot of books have been written on patriotic Indian Muslims because one can hardly find such books in the market. There have been books about Indian Muslims and many on their problems and prospects in pre- and post-Independence era also. But there hasn’t been a book from national integration point of view and one that would be totally focusing on patriotic endeavours of Indian Muslims.

As far as this book is concerned this contains biographical profiles of patriotic Muslims with a message to the society specifically to the younger generation that how they should be inspired by these people who overcame their personal ambitions and rose above their personal motivations and contributed to the society and the nation through sacrifices and their services to the nation. In this respect my book is quite different from other books. My book does not portrait the profiles of those Muslims who have played party to the two-nation theory or who have led to the partition of India.

What were the criteria for selection of personalities in your book?

I have taken a time frame of 1857 to 2007 for selecting 150 patriotic Indian Muslims. For selection of people from around 1857, martyrdom was a criterion as it was the first war of independence. We have selected many patriots from that time including Bahadur Shah Zafar, Hazrat Mahal, Maulvi Ahmadullah and Maulvi Mohammad Baqar who have played part in the freedom movement and many of them were martyrs. Progressing from 1857 I have taken freedom fighters of India’s war of independence. For people from around 1947 being freedom fighter was the criterion. So, I have selected Maulana Abul Kalam Azad, Syed Mahmood, Abdul Qaiyyum Ansari and M A Ansari and many others from that time.

It is not that I have selected only martyrs of 1857 or freedom fighters but also those who did not take part in freedom movement but through their contributions in different spheres like art, culture, sport and music, painting, ghazal singing or journalism they have given their best to the nation and furthered the cause of the nation. They won glory and prestige to the country and took India ahead of other countries as far as progress is concerned. In the third category are M F Hussian, Tayyab Mehta, Azharuddin, Syed Nayeemuddin, Ilyas Babar, and Sania Mirza.






Who among the third category inspired you most?

Ilyas Babar was the most inspiring personality as far as patriotism is concerned. He was given Dronacharya Award as government’s recognition of his contribution but it came at the end of his career. He was not made the national athletic coach but despite this fact he gave his best to the national athletic team. He even spent from his pocket on coaching of his athletes. And he never expected anything to come back from the government. He worked beyond his personal ambition.

Three unsung heroes in your book

First is Maulvi Mohammad Baqar, the martyr journalist of 1857 War of Independence. It was only recently during centenary celebrations of 150 years of First War of Independence that his personality has been discussed so much and has been talked about. He was mentioned in dictionary type book but his full fledged personality was missing.

Other is Gama. Hardly anybody knows that he was a Muslim and today in an age when we know the wrestling is such a lucrative business and we find wrestlers amassing huge amount, his personality stands out. Gama was an inspiring hero. He was not only Rustam-e-Hind but also Rustam-e-Zamana (world wrestling champion). He had brought victory to India. He won the title of Rustam-e-Zamana. His full name was Ghulam Mohammad Bakhsh.

Another unsung hero is Rainbow Hadi. He had represented India in seven international sporting events. He was the first cricketer to make a 100 in Ranji Trophy.

Of the 150 patriotic Indian Muslims, who inspired you most?

Of all I am more influenced by Syed Hasan of Kishanganj. He was Assistant Professor in the US. He abandoned the lucrative career there and came back to Bihar’s poverty stricken district of Kishanganj. He did lot on education. He empowered society through education overcoming all his personal ambitions. He worked much for humanitarian causes. His work in the field of education inspired me most.

Message of the book

My message to the young generation through this book is that they should know about the best personalities of India – those who have contributed so much to the nation. They should get inspired by their personal contributions. In this age when consumerism has captured the mind of people we have to bring out contributions of these personalities so that the new generation could get inspired. If I bring a little change in the society by influencing young mind I think that would be the biggest contribution from my side to the society.

Book is published by:

Manak Publications Pvt. Ltd.
B-7, Saraswati Complex, Subhash Chowk
Laxmi Nagar, Delhi-110 092
India
Phones: 91-11-22453894, 22042529
email: manak.publications@gmail.com
http://www.manakpublications.com

http://www.twocircles.net/2008dec05/meher_fatima_talks_about_her_book_150_patriotic_indian_muslims.html
 
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website  
Reply with quote Back to top
MRehanOffline
Post subject: RE: Terror is Terror Mumbai  PostPosted: Dec 09, 2008 - 07:21 AM


Joined: Aug 03, 2006
Posts: 268

Status: Offline

-------------------------------------



The Mumbai Terror Attacks:
Need For A Thorough Investigation

By R.H.

08 December, 2008
Countercurrents.org

In all the confusion and horror generated by the ghastly terrorist attacks in Bombay, a dimension which has not received the attention it deserves is the circumstances surrounding the death of Anti-Terrorist Squad (ATS) chief Hemant Karkare and two of his colleagues, encounter specialist Vijay Salaskar and Additional Commissioner of Police Ashok Kamte. The major pattern of operations involved well-organised attacks on a few high-profile sites in Colaba – the Taj, Oberoi and Trident Hotels, and the less-known Nariman House – while a parallel set of operations was centred on Victoria Terminus or VT (now known as Chhatrapati Shivaji Terminus or CST) station, Cama Hospital and the Metro cinema, in the middle of which is the police headquarters where Karkare worked. The latter is an area where foreigners are much less likely to be found.

Why is a Proper Investigation Crucial?

Hemant Karkare was engaged in unearthing a terror network with characteristics which had not been seen so far. The investigation started by tracing the motorcycle used to plant bombs in Malegaon in September 2008 to a Hindu Sadhvi, Pragyasingh Thakur; it later uncovered a cellphone conversation between her and Ramji, the man who planted the bombs, in which she asked why more people had not been killed. For the first time, the Indian state was conducting a thorough professional probe into a terror network centred on Hindu extremist organisations, this one with huge ramifications, some leading into military and bomb-making training camps and policised elements in the army, others into organisations and political leaders affiliated to the BJP. One of the most potentially explosive discoveries was that a serving army officer, Lt.Col. Srikant Purohit, had procured 60 kg of RDX from government supplies for use in the terrorist attack on the Samjhauta Express (the India-Pakistan ‘Understanding’ train) in February 2007, in which 68 people were killed, the majority of them Pakistanis. Initially, militants of Lashkar-e-Taiba and other Islamist terror groups had been accused of carrying out the attack, but no evidence against them had been found.

The hostility generated by this investigation was enormous, with allegations (refuted by medical examinations) that the suspects had been tortured and that Karkare was being used as a political tool, and demands that the ATS team should be changed. Chief Minister of Gujarat Narendra Modi and BJP Prime Ministerial candidate L.K.Advani accused him of being a ‘desh drohi’ or traitor, a charge that in India carries a death penalty, and the Shiv Sena offered legal aid to those accused of the terrorist attack, complaining that ‘The government does not save Hindus from terrorists, and if Hindus defend themselves, they are maligned’. In an interview shortly before he died, Karkare admitted he was hurt by the campaign against him. On November 26, just before the terrorist attack, the police in Pune received a call from an anonymous caller saying in Marathi that Karkare would be killed in a bomb blast within two or three days.

Just as attitudes to Karkare in society at large were polarised, with some admiring him as a hero – one Maulana went so far as to call him a ‘massiha (messiah) of Muslims’, an amazing tribute from a Muslim to a Hindu – while others hated him as a traitor worthy of death, attitudes within the police force too were polarised. For example, dismissed encounter specialist Sachin Vaze (who with three colleagues was charged with murder, criminal conspiracy, destruction of evidence and concealment of the dead body in the case of Khwaja Yunus shortly before the terrorist attack) was a member of the Shiv Sena who was actively engaged in the campaign against Karkare and in support of the Malegaon blast accused. Vaze and several other encounter specialists who had been dismissed for corruption, extortion and links with the underworld also had a grudge against Salaskar, whom they suspected of informing on them.

Hard Evidence or Pulp Fiction?

Given this background, and reports that are riddled with inconsistencies, it is not surprising that many residents of Bombay are asking questions about the exact manner of the death of Hemant Karkare and his colleagues. The earliest reports, presumably relayed from the police via the media, said that Karkare had been killed at the Taj, and Salaskar and Kamte at Metro. If this was not true, why were we told this? And why was the story later changed? Was it because it conflicted with eye-witness accounts? Indeed, under the heading ‘ATS Chief Hemant Karkare Killed: His Last Pics’, IBNlive showed footage first of Karkare putting on a helmet and bullet-proof vest, and then a shootout at Metro, where an unconscious man who looks like Karkare and wearing the same light blue shirt and dark trousers (but without any blood on his shirt or the terrible wounds we saw on his face at his funeral) is being pulled into a car by two youths in saffron shirts. The commentary says that Karkare ‘could well have fallen prey to just indiscriminate, random firing by the cops’, and also reports that there were two vehicles, a Toyota Qualis and Honda City, from which the occupants were firing indiscriminately.

Later we were given two accounts of the killings where the venue is shifted to a deserted lane without cameras or eye-witnesses. The first account is by the lone terrorist captured alive, claiming to be A.A.Kasab from Faridkot in Pakistan and a member of the terrorist group Lashkar-e-Taiba. According to him, just two gumen, he and Ismail (also from Pakistan), first attacked VT station, where they sprayed bullets indiscriminately. (Around 58 people were killed there, over one-third of them Muslims, and many more might have been killed if the announcer, Mr Zende, had not risked his life to direct passengers to safety.) They then went to Cama, a government hospital for women and children used mainly by the poor. According to the police, Kasab claimed he and Ismail had killed Karkare, Salaskar and Kamte.

The other account is by police constable Arun Jadhav. According to him, Karkare, Salaskar, Kamte, a driver and four police constables including himself were driving down the alley from VT to the back entrance of Cama (barely a ten-minute drive) in their Toyota Qualis to check on injured police officer Sadanand Date when two gunmen emerged from behind trees by the left side of the road and sprayed the vehicle with bullets, killing all its inmates except Jadhav. They then dragged out the three officers, hijacked the vehicle, drove to Metro junction and then Mantralaya in South Bombay, abandoned it when a tyre burst, and grabbed another car. According to police accounts, they then drove to Girgaum, where Kasab was injured and arrested and his companion killed.

These accounts raise more questions than they answer. Kasab claimed that a band of ten terrorists landed and split up into twos, going to various destinations, he and his companion going to VT. He said they wanted to blow up the Taj, as in the attack on the Marriott in Islamabad; yet we are told that only 8kg of RDX were found at the Taj, and even that was not used; contrast this with 600kg of RDX and TNT used to blow up the Marriott: could they really have expected to blow up the Taj? He said that the terrorists planned to use their hostages as a means of escape, yet there was no attempt at any such negotiations; at other times, he also said they had been instructed to fight to the death. He says he is a labourer from Faridkot near Multan and only studied up to Class IV, but it is reported that he speaks fluent English and that people in Faridkot village say they have never seen him. (Moreover, how did the invaders from the sea get one bomb to go off in Dockyard Road and another in Vile Parle, 25 kilometres away, at around 11.30 p.m?)

During his interrogation, Kasab said that he and eight of the operatives had done a reconaissance trip to Bombay a few months back, pretending to be students and renting a room at Colaba market, which is close to Nariman House. It is extremely hard for Pakistani nationals to get Indian visas, and they are kept under close surveillance by the police; it is also most unlikely that the Indian immigration authorities would be fooled by forged passports of another country. In that case, the Indian immigration authorities would have visa applications of nine of the terrorists including Kasab, and could match the photographs in them to those of the terrorists: has this been done? Later, Kasab changed his mind and said that the team who carried out reconnaisance was different from the team who had carried out the attacks, but they still would be traceable.

The events in VT and Cama and the back lane also put a question mark over his story. According to witnesses, two gunmen started firing at the mainline terminus in VT at 21.55 on Wednesday night, but at precisely the same time, according to CCTV footage, two gunmen began an assault on the suburban terminus. If the first account is true, there were four gunmen at the station: where did the other two come from, and where did they go? We are shown video footage, claiming to be CCTV but without the timeline of normal CCTV footage, of Kasab and Ismail wandering around the parking lot near the mainline terminus. This surely cannot be before the shootout, since the station is completely deserted; and after the shootout, Kasab and Ismail are supposed to have escaped via the footbridge from Platform 1 of the suburban station on the other side of VT: this, again, suggests there were four gunmen. Several people have pointed out that one of the terrorists in VT was wearing a saffron wrist-band, a Hindu custom. And even if Kasab and Ismail had been shown photographs of Karkare, Salaskar and Kamte before they embarked on their trip, how could they possibly have identified the police officers in a dark alley in the dead of night?

Witnesses in Cama hospital say the terrorists spoke fluent Marathi (presumably without a Punjabi accent). The gunmen killed two guards in uniform, spared a third who was in civilian dress and begged for his life saying he was the husband of a patient, demanded water from an employee in the staff quarters and then killed him. They then appear to have made a beeline for the 6th floor (which was empty) and the terrace, taking with them the liftman, Tikhe. 15-30 minutes later, six to eight policemen arrived, and another employee took them up to the 6th floor. The policemen threw a piece of steel up to the terrace, whereupon Tikhe came running down and told them there were two terrorists on the terrace. A fierce gun-battle ensued for 30 to 45 minutes, in which ACP Sadanand Date was injured. Panic-stricken patients and staff in the maternity ward on the 5th floor barricaded the door; nurses instructed the women to breast-feed their babies to keep them quiet, and one woman, who was in the middle of labour, was told to hold back the birth; but they were not invaded. Eventually the gunmen appear to have escaped, it is not clear how. If they were Kasab and Ismail, then these two must have been fluent Marathi speakers. And why would they have taken up positions on the terrace? Was it because they would have a direct view of the lane in which Karkare, Salaskar and Kamte were later supposedly killed?

The other account is equally dubious. In his first account, Jadhav said Karkare was in the second row of the Qualis, while in the second he was supposed to be in the front row with Kamte. In the second account, Salaskar was initially sitting behind the driver, but then asked the driver to slow down and got behind the wheel himself: is it plausible that an experienced encounter specialist would deliberately make himself into a sitting duck like this when they were in hot pursuit of terrorists? In the first account they were supposed to be going to check up on their injured colleague Sadanand Date, but in the second were supposed to be looking for a red car in which they had been told the gunmen were travelling. If the report about the red car was a decoy to lure them into an ambush, it is important to know who told them that the terrorists were in a red car. If the gunmen were firing from the left side, as Jadhav claimed, how was Karkare hit three times in the chest while Jadhav himself got two bullets in his right arm? Also, the only vegetation in that part of the lane has wire netting around it, and it would be hard for anyone to hide behind it. How did two terrorists manage to kill six police personnel, including Karkare and Kamte who he said were armed with AK47s and Salaskar, an encounter specialist who had confronted and killed dozens of dangerous criminals, without getting seriously injured themselves?

There was also an intriguing report in DNA on 28 November saying that Anand Raorane, a resident of a building opposite Nariman House, heard sounds of celebration from the terrorists there when the news of Karkare getting killed was flashed on TV: isn’t that strange? The same report quoted a resident of Nariman House and a local shopkeeper who said that the terrorists had purchased large quantities of food and liquor before the attack, suggesting, at the very least, that they were not pious Muslims, and that more than two of them were planning to occupy the place for a long time. Another DNA report, on 2 December, said that sub-inspector Durgude, who had been posted in front of St Xavier’s College, between Cama Hospital and the exit point of the back lane onto Mahapalika Road, saw two young men whom he took to be students and called out to warn them that there was firing at Cama. When they ignored him, he approached them, upon which one of them turned an AK47 on him and killed him. If Kasab and Ismail were there, who was firing inside Cama? Eye-witnesses in St Xavier’s saw a man shot and lying on the pavement in front of the college around 12.30 a.m., while about three gunmen stood over him: who was that? Various reports said that two to eight terrorists were captured alive. Now there is only one in police custody: what happened to the other(s)?

A careful scrutiny of all the reports available so far suggests, to this writer anyway, that the killing of Karkare and his colleagues was a premeditated act, executed by a group that had stationed snipers at various points along the general route between VT and the Metro cinema with a view to maximising their chances of a successful murderous assault.

The Objective: Shutting Down Terrorist Networks

These are just a few of the numerous questions being asked by vigilant Bombayites who find themselves thoroughly dissatisfied with the information that has been doled out. These are citizens who understand the importance of identifying terrorist networks and shutting them down, but doubt that this will be done by the authorities. Why are they so cynical about the possibility of a genuine professional investigation? The answer is that we have too much bitter experience of investigations in which innocent people (usually Muslim youth) are rounded up, tortured and even killed, while the real culprits are allowed to go free. Karkare broke with this dismal record, but now he is dead. When a person who has been vilified, slandered and threatened with death is killed in suspicious circumstances, it is imperative that a proper investigation should be carried out soon, before too much evidence can be manufactured and/or destroyed. If Kasab aka Iman disappears or is assassinated like Lee Harvey Oswald, or is executed, that would be further evidence of a conspiracy.

The government and people of Pakistan have as much interest as the government and people of India in eliminating the terror networks that have killed President Asif Ali Zardari’s wife Benazir Bhutto and thousands of others in both Pakistan and India. The terrorists, on the other hand, be they Islamist or Hindutva, have a common interest in destroying secularism, democracy and peace within and between the two countries. That is their precise agenda. Pakistani politicians have offered a joint investigation into the terrorist attacks, a far more sensible suggestion than the belligerent statements by some Indians accusing Pakistan of harbouring terrorists who are killing Indians. It should be obvious that a military conflict between India and Pakistan would be disastrous for both countries economically, while a nuclear war, which might ensue if extremist forces captured power in both countries, would have unthinkable consequences. If the Indo-Pakistan peace process is halted, as L.K.Advani advocates, the terrorists would have won.

Indeed, without a joint investigation, the terrorist networks behind this outrage can never be uncovered: how else could the names and addresses in Pakistan revealed by Kasab be followed up to the satisfaction of all parties? A team of Pakistani investigators should be invited to come to Bombay and interview Kasab. If he is indeed a Lashkar-e-Taiba militant, he will be able to provide invaluable information, and a team of investigators from India should be invited to Pakistan to pursue the investigation there. If, as some reports have indicated, he is not what he claims to be, that too would become clear. The Indian government owes it to the memory of Karkare, Salaskar and Kamte, who died fighting terrorism of all hues, to establish exactly where, when and how they were killed, identify their killers, and make sure that their work is continued. They also owe it to us, the public, who are the prime targets of all terrorist attacks, to carry out a credible investigation which identifies and puts behind bars all the mass murderers involved in this and other attacks.






Leave A Comment
&
Share Your Insights
http://www.countercurrents.org/rh081208.htm
 
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website  
Reply with quote Back to top
MRehanOffline
Post subject: RE: Terror is Terror Mumbai  PostPosted: Dec 13, 2008 - 06:36 PM


Joined: Aug 03, 2006
Posts: 268

Status: Offline

-------------------------------------



Sorry Sakina, my friend, for letting you down
By Ritika Ganguly, IANS,

I was on the phone with an old buddy from Delhi when the door bell rang, and I placed him on hold. He heard me thanking the visitor and guessed out loud if I was being pampered yet again by my neighbours. I suppose he had heard from my mother how much I was cared for in Bangalore where I am staying temporarily as a PhD researcher, how a hot meal on my table awaits me every time I get back into town from my field travels, that a list of my favourite foods is stuck on my next door neighbour's refrigerator, and that not a day goes by without being asked if everything is all right. When I sated his curiosity as to who "these people" were, he repeated, "Muslim family? Sweety, are you sure you're safe?"

My stunned silence he took as confirmation of his concern. He continued, "They don't enter the house when you're not around, do they?" and then said in a more jocular tone (except that he wasn't joking), "bomb to nahin banaa rahe hain tere ghar mein ghuskey? Why are they being so nice?" His worries, which he feels are genuine, are not isolated apprehensions, or coming from someone whose house has been used to make bombs, or out of any real experience of feeling "unsafe" around a Muslim. They are part of a set of constructed fears that demonise and exclude, that discriminate and victimise, that see anti-Muslim hostility as normal and even respectable, and that take all of five seconds to turn a "pampering", "caring" neighbour into a threat and a problem that the world has to deal with.

It was no coincidence that the very same evening Sakina, my neighbour's daughter, came back, moist-eyed, trying to make sense of what she was told in office. One of her HR colleagues at work had blazed out loud, days after news of terror poured out of Mumbai, that "these people (Muslims) should all just be sent back to Pakistan.... Employees at the Taj are suspected to have plotted with the terrorists, god knows how many employees, at what all places, are scheming more attacks." Sakina found herself retorting that just because people shared their names did not mean they were alike. They were not kin. How would the Hindu colleague feel if he were asked to leave his own country or sent away to another place and forced to consider it his own. But the calmer question she posed to me, with whom she was unpacking later the import of all that was said to her at office, was, "Why did it feel foolish and far fetched to even suggest that the colleague could be asked to leave this country? Because it is his country more than mine, right? He has a greater right to determine who stays and who goes..." I was stunned into silence for the second time that evening. Because she was so goddamned right.

It is only the privileged and politically correct English-speaking liberal literati Muslims like theatre person Aamir Raza Husain who can have the luxury (and the nerve) to mobilise all Muslims to prove themselves good citizens, and as equal participants in the fight against terror. It is every Muslim's responsibility in such times of crises to portray his or her patriotism to the world, he says. But I wonder why my friend should do it? Sakina, who sat glued to her television set for the three days of the flushing out operations at the Taj, mourning the loss, mourning the apathy, the insensitivity, the complete failure of those we choose to put in power to instil a semblance of safety in the lives of their citizens, and mourning the near complete success of some to practise their best brand of divisive politics.

She does not need to demonstrate her loyalty to the country and her hostility towards the perpetrators of terror any more than Hindus need to establish a distance from the kar sevaks who carried out a planned barbaric act on the Babri Masjid; or the carnage in Gujarat that claimed the lives of more than 1,000 Muslims; or the Hindu terror suspects who bombed people in Malegaon. It is no coincidence that we call this "small section" "Hindu fundamentalists", whose aims and means the rest of the community has nothing in common with, while the Muslim is just plain and unmarked fundamentalist or even terrorist.

On a recent TV show that was another frenzied response to the Delhi bomb blasts, a panel was discussing what people thought about banning the Bajrang Dal like the Students Islamic Movement of India (SIMI). Non-resident Indians were texting in from London, Sydney, Tuscany, Tennessee, from all over the world, really, to show that they were very much a part of the public discourse in India. While SIMI was decidedly anti-national, the Bajrang Dal was only anti-cultural. One got to hear the most absurd claims about how non-threatening Hindu terrorists were. A well-known panellist even said that comparing the SIMI and the Bajrang Dal was like comparing an AK 47 with a water pistol. These are precisely the discourses that conjure up a national Other who is menacing, violent, untrustworthy, worthy of exclusion and discrimination, and guilty until proven innocent.

I left India four years ago to be a graduate student at a US university to learn about post-colonial theory, politics of knowledge and representation, discourses that construct the Other, and other scary things. I have come back for my PhD fieldwork to the right place, and I am still wishing that I wouldn't get my field data so easily.

(12.12.2008-Ritika Ganguly is a doctoral student in anthropology at the University of Minnesota. She can be reached at gangu008@umn.edu

http://www.twocircles.net/2008dec11/sorry_sakina_my_friend_letting_you_down.html
 
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website  
Reply with quote Back to top
MRehanOffline
Post subject: Terrorismus und die Folgen- Nach Mumbai  PostPosted: Dec 13, 2008 - 07:04 PM


Joined: Aug 03, 2006
Posts: 268

Status: Offline

-------------------------------------



10.12.2008 09:50 Uhr Drucken | Versenden | Kontakt

Terrorismus und die Folgen
Nach Mumbai
Weltweiter Wandel: Die Tragödie von Mumbai lenkt den Blick darauf, wie negative Effekte der Globalisierung Indien und andere Demokratien im 21. Jahrhundert verändern.
Von Dipesh Chakrabarty



Indien nach den Anschlägen von Mumbai: Das Land steht vor großen politischen Herausforderungen.
Foto: Reuters

Es fällt mir schwer, abstrakt und unpersönlich über das zu sprechen, was Ende November in Mumbai passiert ist. Einige Freunde haben ihre nächsten Angehörigen durch die Kugeln mörderischer Terroristen verloren. Ein alter Bekannter von der Universität rettete sein Leben aus dem Taj-Mahal-Hotel - während der gesamten Belagerung hatte er nichts zu essen und zu trinken.

Ein muslimischer Taxifahrer schilderte im indischen Fernsehen in herzzerreißenden Worten, wie er Familienmitglieder am Chhatrapati-Shivaji-Bahnhof durch Attentäter verlor, die wohl dachten, dass sie für die Sache der Muslime kämpften. Dieser Bericht allein genügte, um jeden daran zu erinnern, dass es bei diesem Wahnsinn nicht um religiöse Unterschiede ging oder um das Verlangen der Menschen in Kaschmir nach einer gerechten politischen Zukunft.

Es handelte sich um den Versuch, durch den Mord an möglichst vielen unschuldigen und nichtsahnenden Menschen Angst zu verbreiten. Es war, wie alle Terrorakte, ob sie von Gruppen ausgeführt werden oder von Staaten, ein Verbrechen gegen die Menschlichkeit.

Die Tragödie von Mumbai lenkt den Blick darauf, wie einige der negativen Effekte der Globalisierung die Demokratien im 21. Jahrhundert verändern. In Anbetracht der vielfältigen globalen Spannungen - Terrorismus, wirtschaftlich-ökologische Krisen und Bürgerkriege - werden demokratische Staaten in den kommenden Jahrzehnten dazu neigen, den Sicherheitsaspekt immer stärker zu betonen.


Vor der Debatte des Jahrhunderts
Die Gewalt von Mumbai unterschied sich merklich von der terroristischen Gewalt, die Indien bis dahin gesehen hatte. Diesmal waren es die Terroristen selbst, die ein globales Ereignis schaffen wollten. Zu ihren Zielen gehörten ganz normale Inder, aber auch die internationale Elite, die in den bekanntesten Hotels von Mumbai verkehrt, der weltoffensten Stadt des Landes. Auch die Technologie der Terroristen und die Wahl ihrer Opfer waren global - nehmen wir nur die Internet-Telefonie, mit der sie mit ihren Strippenziehern in Pakistan kommunizierten, oder den bewussten Angriff auf eine kleine jüdische Einwanderergemeinde.

Durch die Gewaltorgie steht die indische Demokratie nun traurigerweise vor einer der großen Debatten des Jahrhunderts: Sollen demokratische Staaten auch Sicherheitsstaaten werden? Sicherheitsmaßnahmen sind kein Ersatz für politische Prozesse, aber ignoriert werden dürfen sie auch nicht. Die Terroristen haben bereits angedroht, in Neu-Delhi zu wiederholen, was sie in Mumbai taten. Wie konnte Indien Sicherheitsfragen bisher so desinteressiert vernachlässigen?

Die Situation wirft unmittelbar zwei Herausforderungen auf. Die erste Herausforderung bezieht sich auf allgemeine Fragen der Demokratie. Die Aussicht auf einen Sicherheitsstaat beunruhigt verständlicherweise und zu Recht Bürgerrechtsaktivisten. Eine der großen Debatten dieses Jahrhunderts wird, so viel ist klar, über den Gegensatz von individueller Freiheit und kollektiver Sicherheit geführt werden.

In den entwickelten Ländern ist es heute schwer, zwischen harter Anti-Terror-Politik und restriktiver Immigrationspolitik zu unterscheiden. Die liberalen Demokratien werden die Frage nach der Balance zwischen dem Recht der Bürger auf Sicherheit und anderen Bürgerrechten nicht umgehen können. Freilich kann diese Balance nicht a priori festgelegt werden. Entscheidend ist, dass das Streben nach Sicherheit nicht zu einem Instrument der Unterdrückung und Diskriminierung von Minderheiten und Einwanderern wird. Die Globalisierung dieser Debatte prägt unsere Zeit. In Indien wird die Diskussion nun neue Dynamik erhalten.



ANZEIGE




Nach den Anschlägen Trauer in Mumbai




Mehr zum Thema
Kampf gegen den TerrorIslamabad will selbst urteilen
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anschläge von MumbaiPakistan fasst mutmaßlichen Drahtzieher
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Terrorserie in MumbaiAttacke aus Zimmer 630 Die zweite Herausforderung, eine originär indische, erwächst aus der Geschichte der indischen Politik. Einen Cordon sanitaire gegen den Terrorismus zu schaffen, würde von den indischen Behörden Effizienz und Wachsamkeit in einem Maße erfordern, das sie seit Jahrzehnten nicht aufbringen. Seit den siebziger Jahren haben Indiens Regierung und die öffentlichen Institutionen ihre Fähigkeit verloren, ein effektiver Anbieter von Gütern und Dienstleistungen zu sein.

Die indische Demokratie hat viel erreicht - etwa die Beendigung der Notstandsherrschaft, die Premierministerin Indira Gandhi ausgerufen hatte, oder das Gefühl politischer Beteiligung, das auch Angehörige der unteren Kasten besitzen. Gleichzeitig ist die Demokratie in Indien aber auch zu einem Vehikel des Machtgewinns für einzelne Gruppen geworden - für Mitglieder der unteren Kasten, für die Ureinwohner Dalits, für Minderheiten oder sogar die hinduistische Mehrheit, die behauptet von den "Privilegien", die Minderheiten gewährt werden, geschwächt worden zu sein.

Die gestiegene Bedeutung der Identitätspolitik hat Wahlen zum Mittelpunkt der indischen Demokratie gemacht. Von Sachthemen hat diese Entwicklung die Politik dagegen entfernt. Obendrein ging sie mit wachsender Korruption einher. Gegen eine große Zahl von Parlamentsmitgliedern wird ermittelt, und Medienberichte weisen auf eine elefantöse, unverantwortliche und ineffiziente Bürokratie hin, die zügellos Ressourcen verschwendet: Korruption und Ineffizienz gehen oft Hand in Hand.

Die Ereignisse von Mumbai haben gezeigt, dass es eine funktionierende Küstenwache in indischen Gewässern nicht gab und das, obwohl die Regierung vor Angriffen vom Wasser aus gewarnt worden war. Als im Taj-Mahal-Hotel Feuer ausbrach, traf die Feuerwehr erst nach drei Stunden ein. Die Eingreiftruppe der Polizei musste von Neu-Delhi aus entsandt werden.


Schutz und Status
Die Mobilisierung dauerte neun Stunden, weil viele der Spezialisten für den "Schutz" von Politikern eingesetzt werden, die Schutz vor allem als Frage des Status begreifen. Es hat sich auch herausgestellt, dass eine sehr hohe Summe, die der Modernisierung der Polizei von Mumbai dienen sollte, für die Anschaffung stattlicher Limousinen und anderer Luxusartikel für hohe Offiziere und deren Gehilfen ausgegeben wurde.

Ein Sicherheitssystem zu schaffen, das die Bevölkerung tatsächlich vor terroristischen Attacken schützt, wird also nicht leicht sein. An staatlichen Geldern haftet in Indien stets der Ruch von Korruption. Das untergräbt die Leistungsfähigkeit des Landes. Außerdem wäre das effektive Funktionieren einer Institution in Indien nur möglich, wenn politische Einmischung strikt unterbunden würde. Die zweite Bedingung ist nicht leicht zu erfüllen. Die notwendigen Reformen bedürfen eines politischen Willens, den die politische Klasse in Indien in der Vergangenheit nicht gezeigt hat.

Dennoch kann Indien eine Debatte über Sicherheit und Bürgerrechte nicht länger vermeiden. Die Regierung hat bereits Maßnahmen angekündigt, die die Anti-Terror-Gesetze wirksamer machen sollen als bisher. Auf dem Papier wird es sicher weitere Reformen geben, und vielleicht werden sie sogar umgesetzt. Denn viele Mitglieder der gebildeten Mittelklasse sind im Moment erbost über die Unfähigkeit ihrer Regierung, sie zu schützen. Wir wissen noch nicht, wie erfolgreich sich dieser Ärger für echte Veränderung nutzen lässt. Wenn aber die politische Klasse so bleibt und weitermacht wie bisher, wird sich Indien daran gewöhnen müssen, mit einem gewissen Grad an Terror zu leben.

Mein optimistischstes Szenario hofft, dass die Inder ihre kurz- und langfristigen Probleme gemeinsam angehen und dass die Tragödie von Mumbai - so wichtig Sicherheitsüberlegungen auch sind - nicht nur ein neues Denken begründet, sondern auch zu einer Neubelebung der demokratischen Institutionen führt.

Der Autor, geboren 1948 in Kalkutta, lehrt südasiatische Geschichte an der University of Chicago und ist zur Zeit Fellow am Wissenschaftskolleg zu Berlin.


http://www.sueddeutsche.de/politik/304/451020/text/
 
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website  
Reply with quote Back to top
MRehanOffline
Post subject: RE: Terrorismus und die Folgen- Nach Mumbai  PostPosted: Dec 15, 2008 - 12:42 PM


Joined: Aug 03, 2006
Posts: 268

Status: Offline

-------------------------------------



Mumbai horror exposed gaps in India's economic takeoff: expert
Submitted by admin4 on 14 December 2008 - 8:06am. Crime/Terrorism India News Indian Muslim
By IANS,

New York : The terror attacks on India's financial capital Mumbai revealed several chinks in the country's emergence as an economic superpower, a French scholar has said.

"The attacks exposed the weakness of the so-called Indian economic takeoff," Gilles Kepel, an analyst of the Islamic and Arab societies, said in an interview to Forbes.Com.

"The aim of the attack was mainly political, but the economic dimension is still visible," he added.

Kepel said India, Brazil, Russia and China may have double digit growth but most of the population lives in poverty.

"In India you have 150-200 million people who live by European standards and one billion who live in sheer poverty. Not to say that Muslims are necessarily poor, just as there are poor Hindus also, but this exposes a number of faultlines behind the Indian miracle," he said.

Supporting the viewpoint of India and the US, Kepel said the Nov 26 Mumbai attacks were carried out by the Pakistan-based Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) and reflected the group's usual modus operandi.

"They do not do suicide bombings because they feel that if they press the button on the suicide belt, they commit a grave sin against Allah's will. For them, Allah is the one who decides when he should take back the life that he has given. In committing suicide, even if it's for the sake of jehad, a Muslim goes to hell," he said.

Kepel's latest book, "Beyond Terror and Martyrdom", examines the future of relations between Islam and the West.

The author said one of the main objectives of the Mumbai attacks was to create tension between India and Pakistan so as to deflate the pressure on the militants on the Afghan-Pakistan border, where a massive operation is going on against them right now.

"By ratcheting up the tension and bringing India into the battlefield, the attackers aimed to turn Pakistan away from the Taliban and focus on tension with India. This would then alleviate pressure on the militants," he said.

http://www.twocircles.net/2008dec14/mumbai_horror_exposed_gaps_indias_economic_takeoff_expert.html
 
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website  
Reply with quote Back to top
MRehanOffline
Post subject: Mumbai Terror and feelings- Bush shoe-ing worst Arab insult  PostPosted: Dec 15, 2008 - 01:37 PM


Joined: Aug 03, 2006
Posts: 268

Status: Offline

-------------------------------------



Zaidi's attack was launched with the words "this is a farewell kiss, you dog"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=duLds-TZMGw

Around the Arab world, if you want to escalate a situation, by saying for example "I'm going to thump you", add the words "with a shoe" and you're literally adding insult to injury, at least the threat of injury.

It's that cultural significance that has added real sting to assault by an Iraqi journalist against US President George W Bush at a Baghdad news conference.

In Arab culture it's considered rude even to display the sole of one's shoe to a fellow human being.
Certainly, crossing one's legs ankle-on-knee style should never be done in a public place for fear of offending the person next to you.

The sensitivity is related to the fact shoes are considered ritually unclean in the Muslim faith.

In addition to ritual ablutions before prayer, Muslims must take off their shoes to pray, and wearing shoes inside a mosque is forbidden.

Shoes should either be left at the door of the mosque, or carried (preferably in the left hand with the soles pressed together).

But beyond the Islamic significance, the dirty and degrading implication of the sole of a shoe crosses all religious boundaries in the Middle East.

Following in the footsteps

There has been plenty of droll reaction in the wake of Sunday's shoe attack to experts who have informed the public that "throwing a shoe at someone's face is considered an insult in Islam".

History will record Mr Bush's last trip to Iraq, a country his government has left such an indelible mark upon, was greeted with a volley of shoes and a cry of 'dog'

The blog reaction (to articles not unlike the one you are reading) has been a sarcastic, "and in all other religions... it is a sign of affection, friendship, fellowship, and good feeling(!)" to quote chookie on democraticunderground.com.

But it is worth mentioning that there is quite a rich history when it comes to shoe-ing incidents involving Iraq and the Bushes.

The first was the floor mosaic at the front door to Baghdad's Rashid Hotel depicting the first President Bush.

Its location meant visitors to the hotel - frequented by top Baath regime officials and visiting VIPs - had to step on George Bush Snr's likeness, in revenge for alleged "war crimes" committed during the 1991 liberation of Kuwait.

The mosaic was reportedly dug up after the US military took over the hotel, following their overthrow of Saddam Hussein in 2003.

In that year the Iraqi shoe was much in evidence during popular protests against the fallen Iraqi ruler, being used to hit the posters and statues dedicated to him around the country.

Boot on the other foot

As anger over Washington's policies in the Middle East has grown in some Arab circles, it has been posters of George W Bush that have received the shoe treatment.


Bush's image has been associated with shoes across the Arab world
His national security advisor and subsequent secretary of state has been given the particularly insulting first name Kundara - meaning shoe - instead of Condoleezza Rice.

Now history will record that Mr Bush's last presidential trip to Iraq, a country his government has left such an indelible mark upon, was greeted with a volley of shoes and cries of "dog" (another extreme insult in Arabic) from Iraqi cameraman Muntadar al-Zaidi.

Fortunately for Mr Bush, who leaves office in just over a month, he was able to duck out of the way of the two shoes Mr Zaidi threw at him - presumably the only weapon the assailant was able to smuggle through the security cordon.

Many of Mr Bush's supporters will see it as a mean-spirited gesture against a man whose policies liberated the country from a vicious dictator.

To illustrate the point, in a previous age, the perpetrator would be facing a summary, and probably agonising, death if he had dared confront Saddam Hussein's regime in such a way. Instead Mr Bush has been praised for his dignified response.

But others have called Mr Zaidi a hero, for striking a symbolic blow against someone they hold responsible for devastating wars in the Muslim world that have cost hundreds of thousands of lives.

And they celebrate its occurrence at the very heart of American power in Iraq, the massively fortified Green Zone where US forces shelter Iraq's political leaders, American and UK diplomats, and visiting dignitaries, from the anger of Baghdad's streets.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7783325.stm


Last edited by MRehan on Dec 17, 2008 - 03:23 PM; edited 2 times in total
 
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website  
Reply with quote Back to top
MRehanOffline
Post subject: Mumbai Terror and Bush shoe-ing worst Arab insult  PostPosted: Dec 17, 2008 - 08:41 AM


Joined: Aug 03, 2006
Posts: 268

Status: Offline

-------------------------------------



Ist seems Terror too is a global problem:

Deoband Ulema in India, Pakistan condemn Pak’s UN official’s statement
Submitted by admin4 on 16 December 2008 - 7:49am. Indian Muslim
By RINA,

New Delhi: The statement by Pakistan’s Permanent Representative to the United Nations Abdullah Husain Haroon implicating Darul Uloom Deoband in Saharanpur of India for militant activities in the North West Frontier Province (NWFP) and other border areas has drawn severe criticism in India and Pakistan.

Several leading graduates of Darul Uloom Deoband have termed this statement as utterly misleading and obnoxious. They have condemned Haroon for maligning the image of Darul Uloom. It is to be noted that Abdullah Husain Haroon while addressing the UN Security Council’s session on terrorism on December 9 dragged Darul Uloom Deoband’s name as the prime perpetuator of terrorist activities going on in Pakistan. This has caused widespread resentment not only in India but in Pakistan as well particularly among those affiliated to Darul Uloom Deoband.

President of Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam of Pakistan and leader of Muttahida Majlis-e-Amal (MMA), Maulana Fazlur Rahman in an exclusive interview to Rabita Islamic News Agency (RINA) drew attention to a very important fact relating to Abdullah Hussain Haroon. “The ancestors of Abdullah were supporters of the Britishers whereas the Darul Uloom Deoband was established with chief purpose of opposing the Britishers and freeing India from their clutches. His statement smacks of a feeling of revenge. He wondered: “How come a person holding such a high office can make such irresponsible assertions. He seems totally unaware of diplomatic etiquettes either. There is a complete lack diplomatic communication.”

On the role of Darul Uloom Deoband in Indo-Pak relations, Maulan Fazlur Rahman asserted: “It (Darul Uloom Deoband) is the only organisation that is playing a very active, positive and vital role in resurrecting the cordial relations between the two countries.”

On his organisation's efforts for peace Maualana Fazlur Rahman said: “It is well known all across the globe that we are totally committed to establishing peace. All of our efforts are directed towards this goal.”

Sharply reacting to Pakistan official’s statement Qari Usman Masoorpuri, President of Jamiat Ulama-I-Hind and teacher at Darul Uloom Deoband outright rejected such uncalled for accusations about Darul Uloom and termed them as “white lies.” He posed an interesting question: “If any graduate of say Delhi University takes action according to the prevailing political situation in his/her home country what would be that called as?” “Darul Uloom has time and again clarified its stance on the issue of terrorism and I declare it again that it has no business with terrorism. We condemn it in all forms and manifestations,” he said.

Maulana Abdul Khaliq, Naib Muhtamim (Assistant Rector) of Darul Uloom Deoband dubbed the statement of Haroon as “absolutely false.” According to him, “Haroon made such irresponsible remarks due to his sheer ignorance about Darul Uloom movement.” He urged the Pakistani government to “immediately recall Haroon from the UN and appoint someone who is well off with Darul Uloom.” With respect to Darul Uloom’s alleged links with terrorism Maulana Abdul Khlaiq resounded, “There is no denying the fact that Darul Uloom has nothing to do with terrorism.”

Maulana Muzzammil Ul Haq Husaini Qasmi, Working General Secretary of the Delhi based Old Boy's Association of Darul Uloom Tanzeem Abna-e-Qadeem (TAQ), described these allegations as completely "baseless". Talking to RINA Maulana Muzzammil observed, “Darul Uloom Deoband has always been the beacon of peace and amity. Darul Uloom is never bothered about what's happening in other countries. He said that an emergency meeting of TAQ would be called to take a tough notice of these allegations. Maulana Muzzammil revealed that at a convention convened by Shahi Imam of the historic Jama Masjid of Delhi, “one of the Pakistani delegates disclosed that none of the madrasas in India is involved in terrorist activities. He, however, admitted that some of the madrasas in Pakistan do have such tendencies."

Maulana Akhlaq Husain Qasmi denied such blames on Darul Uloom Deoband. "No terrorism in Darul Uloom", was his apt reply when contacted over the telephone. "Darul Uloom is based on the ideology of nationalism as proposed by Sheikhul Hind Maulana Mahmoodul Hasan," he said.

http://www.twocircles.net/2008dec15/deoband_ulema_india_pakistan_condemn_pak_s_un_official_s_statement.html


Last edited by MRehan on Dec 17, 2008 - 03:26 PM; edited 1 time in total
 
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website  
Reply with quote Back to top
MRehanOffline
Post subject: Mumbai Terror and Bush shoe-ing worst Arab insult  PostPosted: Dec 17, 2008 - 08:43 AM


Joined: Aug 03, 2006
Posts: 268

Status: Offline

-------------------------------------



Indian Muslims: We do not need foreign support
Submitted by admin4 on 16 December 2008 - 7:30am. Indian Muslim
By KUNA,

New Delhi : All India Muslim Majlis-e Mushawarat (AIMMM), the largest union of Islamic organizations here, said Tuesday that Muslims in India do not need foreign or external support to handle their affairs.

"The Indian Muslim community is capable to fight its battle for justice and equality within the legal and constitutional framework of India and no outside power, outfit or individual, especially those based in Pakistan, should shed crocodile's tears for Indian Muslims," the union's president Zafarul-Islam Khan told reporters.

He criticized claims of the executors of the Mumbai attacks in which they said Indian Muslims suffered injustices and the attack is to avenge them.

He also welcomed the decision of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) which banned the activities of terrorist groups in Pakistan, expressing his appreciation to the Indian media for restraint and not blaming an Indian group for the attacks that occurred late November.

http://www.twocircles.net/2008dec15/indian_muslims_we_do_not_need_foreign_support.html


Last edited by MRehan on Dec 17, 2008 - 03:27 PM; edited 1 time in total
 
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website  
Reply with quote Back to top
MRehanOffline
Post subject: Terror in Mumbai and Pakistan view  PostPosted: Dec 17, 2008 - 03:14 PM


Joined: Aug 03, 2006
Posts: 268

Status: Offline

-------------------------------------



I am of the openion it is always better to listen to the openion of others or even enemy. In general there are some points where even enemy can be true/correct as well.

After second WW Germany and France sat together and worked out a good solution for better future. They also worked out how they are going to put history for school/universities which does not create bad feeling among the nabour countries.

THE LINK BELOW WILL BRING SOME LIGHT TO INDIA DURING BRITISH RAJ AND MISTAKES

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iBDHuMx5nGc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=73JLur_hQJ8&feature=PlayList&p=77E3ECC71608C0C8&index=0&playnext=1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wqy5inJZxBk

Partition of India and the Creation of Pakistan

Mohammad Omar Farooq, PhD
July 2001

I.
II.
III.
IV.
V.
VI.
VII.
VIII. Introduction
Two Things Left a Bad Taste
The FIRST SEED of Partition
The bad British habit
The rise of Muslim League and Quaid-e-Azam
Jinnah plays the communal card
A HISTORIC OPPORTUNITY arises
The Historical Opportunity LOST


[This presentation of the pertinent history is based on the autobiographical account of Maulana Abul Kalam Azad, India Wins Freedom. Maulana Azad was the President of the Congress party during some of the most eventful and pivotal years in the modern history of the subcontinent. This series originally appeared in Shetubondhon, a distinctive, Bangladesh-focused e-forum that promotes seeking common grounds and building bridges. This series is a response to Dr. Sukhamaya Bain's recent stereotypical, biased and inaccurate statements regarding the genesis of Pakistan and subsequently of Bangladesh. In reality, the partition of India and the creation of Pakistan, as presented by Maulana Azad, a staunch opponent of Jinnah and the Pakistan Movement, were the outcomes of an interplay of multiple forces, and not of any one-sided hatred of Pakistan-seeking Muslims, as Dr. Bain erroneously claimed. The comments of Dr. Bain were made in the context of the alleged communalism in Bangladesh. This series, based on Maulana Azad's book, has special relevance to understanding the history of Bangladesh too.]
________________________________________
I: Introduction
The dominion of India officially transitioned from the Mughal to the British India in 1757. Nearly two hundred years later, in 1947 the British colonial rule ended, but the new India built and influenced by both the Mughals and the British became partitioned into India and Pakistan. While the post-1947 India continues undivided, albeit over the occasional flurries of internecine resistance from some citizens, Pakistan became further divided in 1971. The people of Bangladesh earned their independence by powering through a civil war and suffering a genocide master-minded by the ruling elite and meted out by the Pakistani Army.
Despite these fundamental changes, Bangladesh, India and Pakistan remain intricately linked in multiple ways. We are increasingly being pulled asunder against each other for reasons that are both internal and external. Our history, heritage and identity are intertwined. Just as our past is intermingled, so are the present and the future. It is critical, ever more, to re-learn our history in a non-partisan manner and develop a vision, perspective and orientation that help us to forge ahead with a positive attitude of bridge building.
Dr. Bain recently took a stab at flinging some insults upon Bangladeshi Muslims. He decided that the naming of a navy ship after Sheikh Mujib was an "insult to Islam"; next, he proceeded to make hasty generalizations about the history of this subcontinent, especially the partition of India. I propose that Dr. Bain�s approach could serve as a poignant reason for us to endeavor to better understand the difficulties in building a better relationship. When people are biased and prejudiced, they might delude themselves with (rephrasing Tagore) "Nodir epar chaare shostir proshshash, joto dosh oparete amar bishshash," and fail to recognize their own follies and wrongdoings.
When someone makes a hasty generalization, as Dr. Bain did in "Re: Why are we a least developed country" that Pakistan was based upon mostly hatred." he also chisels a marked impression not only of his observation that India was partitioned but, also, of his conjecture that Pakistan was formed due to a one-sided hatred, campaign and demand of Muslim Pakistan-seekers. From such perspective, "Bangladesh has a lot of false glory. Is it rooted in the FALSEHOOD of the concept of Pakistan that was responsible for the Bangladesh that we have now?" [emphasis is mine; http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Shetubondhon/message/2334]

This probably is not an uncommon view among the Indians and a sizable number of Bangladeshis, especially among the post-1971 generation. But is his an informed and accurate, unbiased and objective view of the pertinent history? It is to test that turbid water that I posed the question to Dr. Bain to help us understand his views about Maulana Abul Kalam Azad. His response seems to indicate that he is familiar with Maulana Azad, his life and works. Indeed, he quoted from Maulana Azad's autobiography "India Wins Freedom" in support of his own view that how Maulana was totally opposed to the concept of Pakistan. It appears that he has very high respect for Maulana Azad and his autobiography to the extent that recognizes him as a key player in the history of India's independence struggle, Dr. Bain wrote: "I am sure, Maulana Abul Kalam Azad's role as an Indian leader can be an eye opener to much of the intelligentsia of Bangladesh." [http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Shetubondhon/message/2327]
Interestingly, Dr. Bain did not include the Indians in his list of those whose eyes might be opened by his role. The recommendation was primarily for "the intelligentsia of Bangladesh." Could it not also be an eye-opener for the intelligentsia of India, including Dr. Bain himself? He also urged the "good writers who have the time to do this, to educate us more with Maulana Azad's wisdom." Well, Dr. Bain, if Maulana Azad's wisdom really has any value, and if you have read Maulana's India Wins Freedom, then you should reconsider your opinion that "Muhammad Ali Jinnah fits the title of 'founder of Indian partition' the most." [http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Shetubondhon/message/2327]
As you agreed with me, Dr. Bain, Maulana Azad throughout his entire life was bitterly opposed to the partition of India, to Pakistan Movement, to Muslim League, and to Muhammad Ali Jinnah, but he did not think that Jinnah "fits the title ... the most." The partition of India and the creation of Pakistan were complex historical developments that involved the interplay of so many people - key people. Thus, one can't quite identify a single person as "the founder of Indian partition." Yet, Maulana Azad did, and if we, especially "the intelligentsia of Bangladesh" are to benefit from his "wisdom," then it is not Jinnah, but someone else. According to Maulana Azad, "It would not perhaps be unfair to say that Vallabhbhai Patel was the founder of Indian partition." [India Wins Freedom, Orient Longman, p. 198]
Dr. Bain also mentioned: "The 'Two Nations Theory' was indeed a one-sided thing from the Pakistan-seekers, unless if you argue about facts like Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel ...." Mr. N. Bhattacharyya has already quite capably pointed out the inaccuracy and unhistoric nature of this "one-sided thing" argument. But since such (mis)perception or (mis)understanding as exemplified in the statements of Dr. Bain might be quite common, I would like to take this opportunity to turn to the person about whom he wrote: "There is a lot more to learn from Maulana Azad."
Yes, there is a lot to learn from Maulana Azad and his works. In this series, drawing primarily from the work of Maulana Azad (India Wins Freedom), I would like to offer the synopsis of his account that repudiates such naive, prejudiced, uninformed and ahistoric view that Pakistan is based on "one-sided" "two-nations theory", showcasing Pakistan-seeker Muslims' "hatred." Actually, the partition of India AND the creation of Pakistan were due to an interplay of three separate forces: the Muslims, the Hindus and the British. A proposition of any one group's hatred and "one-sided thing", whether the Hindus, the Muslims or the British, is simply untenable. And, indeed, that might serve as an important foundation to rise above our partisan frame of reference and to seek common ground with an emphasis on building bridges.
I hope to present this account of Maulana Azad without adding anything substantive from myself and I intend to do so in a non-partisan spirit and with a goal of self-education. I may have certain questions, which I will identify and hopefully others can help fill those gaps.
I also hereby clarify that my presentation of Maulana Azad's account does not necessarily indicate that I agree with his particular viewpoints and perspective on any specific topic, subject or issue.

II. Two Things Left a Bad Taste
Maulana Azad closes the introduction to his book India Wins Freedom (IWF hereafter) with the following comments:
"In 1935, the Government of India Act was passed which provided for provincial autonomy and a federal Government at the Centre. It is here that the story I wish to tell in the present volume begins." [p. 13]
That is the context in 1935 wherein Maulana Azad begins his analysis. [All emphases are mine, unless otherwise noted.]
"In the first elections held after the introduction of provincial autonomy the Congress won an overwhelming victory. It secured absolute majority in five of the majors provinces and was the single largest party in four. ... The victory of the Congress has to be judged against the Congress' early reluctance to contest the elections at all. The Government of India Act 1935 provided for complete provincial autonomy but there was a fly in the ointment. Special powers were reserved to the Governors to declare a state of emergency and assume all powers to himself. Democracy in the provinces could therefore function only so long as the Governors permitted it. The position was even worse so far as the Central Government was concerned. Here there was an attempt to reintroduce the principle of diarchy which has already been discredited in the provinces. Not only was the Central Government to be a weak federation but it was also overweighted in favour of the princess and other vested interests. Those could be generally expected to side with the British rulers of the country." [p. 14]
Almost invariably, the decisions made by the British colonial rule were in line with its own interests. Congress was against this type of British arrangement of diarchy. Differences of opinion existed within Congress regarding participation in election. The difference persisted even after the election whether Congress should assume office accepting the current restrictive arrangements. Internal discussions as well as further negotiations with the colonial government in India ultimately paved the way to form government wherever it was possible.
"That was the first occasion that Congress was taking up the responsibility of administration. It was thus a trial for the Congress and people watched how the organization would live up to its national character. The Muslim League's main propaganda against Congress had been that it was national only in name. Not content with defamation of Congress in general terms, the League also gave out that the Congress Ministries were carrying out atrocities against the minorities. ....
Stories of atrocities circulated by the Muslim League was pure invention but two things happened at the time which left a bad impression about the attitude of the Provincial Congress Committees. I have to admit with regret that both in Bihar and Bombay, the Congress did not come out fully successful in its test of nationalism." [p. 16]
a. The Case of a Parsee, Mr. Nariman in Bombay
The first was the case of Mr. Nariman, a Parsee and an acknowledged leader of the local Congress in Bombay, who was generally expected to lead the provincial government. Sardar Patel and his colleagues could not reconcile with such a leadership of non-Hindu Chief Minister where "the majority of members in the Congress Assembly Party were Hindus." [p. 16] Thus, a Hindu leader was presented, instead of Mr. Nariman.
"Mr. Nariman was naturally upset about the decision. He raised the question before the Congress Working Committee. Jawaharlal was then President and many hoped that in view of his complete freedom from communal bias; he would rectify the injustice to Nariman. Unfortunately this did not happen. ... He [Jawaharlal] sought to placate Patel and rejected Nariman's appeal. ... Nariman was surprised at Jawaharlal's attitude, especially as Jawaharlal treated him harshly and tried to shout him down in the meeting of the Working Committee." [p. 16-17]
Nariman decided to take the case to Gandhiji. But the ploy and cunning of Sardar Patel and his colleagues were such that:
"Nariman had lost the case even before the enquiry began. It was finally held that nothing was proven against Sardar Patel. None who knew the inner story was satisfied with this verdict. We all know that truth has been sacrificed in order to satisfy Sardar Patel's communal demands. Poor Nariman was heart broken and his public life came to an end." [p. 17]
b. The Case of a Muslim: Dr. Syed Mahmud in Bihar
"A similar development took place in Bihar. Dr. Syed Mahmud was the top leader of the province when the elections were held. He was also a General Secretary of the All India Congress Committee and as such he had a position both inside and outside the province. When the Congress secured an absolute majority, it was taken for granted that Dr. Syed Mahmud would be elected the leader and become the first Chief Minister of Bihar under Provincial Autonomy. Instead, Sri Krishna Sinha and Anugraha Narayan Sinha who were members of the Central Assembly, were called back to Bihar and groomed for the Chief Ministership. Dr. Rajendra Prasad played the same role in Bihar as Sardar Patel did in Bombay." [p. 17]
"These two instances left a bad taste at the time. Looking back, I cannot help feeling that the Congress did not live up to its professed ideals. One has to admit with regret that the nationalism of the Congress had not then reached a stage where it could ignore communal considerations and select leaders on the basis of merit without regard to majority or minority." [p. 18]
Muslim League was already doing its part, purportedly on behalf of the Muslims. It is noteworthy that Muslim League and the majority of Muslim mass of India were not quite closely identified with each other at that point. But those two above mentioned cases set the backdrop of Azad's account in IWF, where certain powerful elements in the Congress contributed their due communal part in gradually alienating the Muslim mass and their opinion.

III. The FIRST SEED of Partition
a. C. R. Das: An Example of Non-Communal Leadership
"As I reflect on the treatment meted out to Mr. Nariman and Dr. Syed Mahmud, my mind goes back to Mr. C. R. Das, one of the most powerful personalities thrown up by the non-cooperation movement. Mr. Das occupies a very special position in the history of our national struggle. He was a man of great vision and breadth of imagination. At the same time he had a practical mind which looked at every question from the point of view of a realist. He had the courage of his convictions and stood up fearlessly for any position he regarded to be right." [IWF, p. 18]
"Mr. C.R. Das used to discuss the situation with me almost every day. He was convinced that Gandhiji had erred grievously in calling off the [non-cooperation] movement. This had so demoralised political workers that it would take many years before public enthusiasm could again be roused." [p. 21]
During this phase, there was a major difference of opinion in the Congress camp. Should there be participation in the political process or resumption of non-cooperation? Mr. C.R. Das became elected as the President.
"The decision of the Delhi Congress was that pro-changers and no-changers should be free to pursue their own programmes. Dr. Rajendra Prasad, Shri Rajagopalachari and their associates took up the constructive program. Mr. C.R. Das, Pandit Motilal and Hakim Ajmal Khan founded the Swaraj Party and decided to contest the elections. Their move created great enthusiasm throughout the country. In all the Provincial as well as in the General Assembly, the Swaraj Party won a very large following." [pp. 22-23]

b. Bengal enters the picture
Muslims of Bengal firmly supported the Swaraj Party. Mr. Das' visionary leadership recognized that Muslims were the majority in Bengal, and yet grossly underrepresented. His bold decision shocked many leaders of Bengal Congress. They opposed him and his views, but finally yielded to his plan. Muslims of Bengal were swayed toward his leadership. But his untimely death was a blow to this nascent rapprochement. The effect was that "the first seed of partition was sowed"; it was sowed in Bengal, and by the communal Hindu leaders of Bengal Congress. How did Muslim League ultimately win over the Muslims of Bengal? Well, the Muslim League effectively presented the actual conditions of the Muslims of Bengal to make its case; the communal role of Hindu-dominated Bengal Congress played its part.
"I have said that the Swaraj Party won a large following in the Central as well as the Provincial Legislatures. Perhaps its most remarkable achievement was its success in capturing seats reserved for Muslims. The electorates were communal and only Muslim voters returned Muslim legislators. The Muslim League and other communal parties were therefore able to play upon the fears of the Muslims and generally returned candidates with communal leanings. Mr. Das was able to overcome the fears and apprehensions of the Muslims of Bengal and was acclaimed their leader. The way he solved the communal problem of Bengal is memorable and should serve as an example even today.
In Bengal, Muslims were the majority community but for various reasons they were educationally and politically, backward. They had hardly any place in public life or Government service. Even though they numbered over 50 per cent of the population, they held hardly 30 per cent of the posts under the Government. Mr C.R. Das was a great realist and immediately saw that the problem was an economic one. He realised that till the Muslims were given the necessary assurances for their economic future they could not be expected to join the Congress wholeheartedly. He therefore made a declaration which took not only Bengal but India by surprise. He announced that when Congress secured the reins of power in Bengal, it would reserve 60 per cent of all new appointments for the Muslims till such time as they achieved proper representation according to population. He went even further in respect of the Calcutta Corporation and offered to reserve 80 per cent of the new appointments on similar terms. He pointed out that so long as the Muslims were not properly represented in public life and in the services, there could be no true democracy in Bengal. Once the inequalities had been rectified, Muslims would be able to compete on equal terms with other communities and there would be no need for any special reservation.
This bold announcement shook the Bengal Congress to its very foundations. Many of the Congress leaders violently opposed it and started a campaign against Mr. Das. He was accused of opportunism and even partisanship for the Muslims but he stood solid as a rock. He toured the whole province and explained his point of view to Muslims and Hindus alike. The strength and sincerity of his purpose was such that ultimately the Bengal Congress was converted to his point of view. His attitude made a great impression on Muslims in Bengal and outside. I am convinced that if he had not died a premature death, he would have created a new atmosphere in the country. It is a matter for regret that after he died, some of his followers assailed his position and his declaration was repudiated. The result was that the Muslims of Bengal moved away from the Congress and the FIRST SEED OF PARTITION WAS SOWN. [pp. 23-24]
c. A Muslim Leadership in Congress stands firm against communalism
When Congress established the government, Maulana Azad was in charge of the parliamentary affairs in several provinces that suffered communal troubles. His non-communal role balanced the tendencies of Hindu communal forces and improved the situation considerably toward better Congress-Muslims relationship. But "the first seed of partition" was already sown, and according to Maulana Azad as explained above, it was due to the communal role of certain Hindu leaders.
"I must however make one fact clear. The Provincial Congress Committees of Bihar and Bombay erred in denying local leadership to Dr Syed Mahmud and Mr Nariman, and the Working Committee was not strong enough to rectify the wrong. Apart from this one lapse, Congress made every effort to live up to its principles. Once the Ministries were formed, every effort was made to ensure justice to all minorities.
When Congress accepted office, a Parliamentary Board was formed to supervise the work of the Ministries and give them general guidance on policy. The Board consisted of Sardar Patel, Dr Rajendra Prasad and myself. I was thus in charge of the Parliamentary affairs in several Provinces, viz., Bengal, Bihar, UP, Punjab, Sind and the Frontier. Every incident which involved communal issues came up before me. From personal knowledge and with a full sense of responsibility, I can therefore say that the charges leveled by Mr. Jinnah and the Muslim League about injustice to Muslims and other minorities were absolutely false. If there has been an iota of truth in any of these charges, I would have seen to it that the injustice was rectified. I was prepared even to resign if necessary on an issue like this." [pp. 24-25]
IV. The bad British habit
a. The Cripps Mission
In the early 1940s, the Allied power as well as the British government were anxious to see India engaged in the world war. Congress and the Indian leadership were deferring any definitive commitment because leaders, such as Maulana Azad, insisted on reaching an explicit and categorical agreement with the British government in regard to the independence of India after the war was over. It was in this context the Cripps Mission, led by Sir Stafford Cripps, arrived in India in 1942.
b. Maulana Azad helps the nationalist Muslims
The British were yet to acknowledge Muslims as a community. Maulana Azad had some role in the background in facilitating a positive change in that regard.
"Before coming to India, Sir Stafford Cripps had written to the Viceroy that he would like to meet, besides the leaders of the Congress the leaders of the Muslim League also. In addition, he would like to meet representatives of the Princes, the Hindu Mahashabha and Khan Bahadur Allah Bux, then Chief Minister of Sind. Khan Bahadur Allah Bux had attained importance in recent months after presiding over the Convention of the Nationalist Muslims in Delhi. I did not participate in this Conference but from behind the scenes I had helped in the arrangements. The Conference was held with great �clat and 1,400 delegates came to Delhi from all quarters of India. The session was so impressive that even the British and the Anglo-Indian press, which normally tried to belittle the importance of nationalist Muslims, could not ignore it. They were compelled to acknowledge that this Conference proved that nationalist Muslims were not a negligible factor. Even the Statesman and the Times of India wrote leading articles on the Conference." [pp. 48-49]
c. Oh, the British were gentlemen - with some baaaad habits
The British tended to build or break different groups, parties, individuals as they found it convenient. Even Muslim League with no significant clout initially was given patronage by the British government to counter the rise and power of the Congress. This is a bad habit of all those at the helm of power to pursue the policy of "divide and rule." The British were exceptionally good at this bad habit.
"It is interesting to consider why the British Government wanted to consult the representatives of so many bodies in India. It was well known that Congress spoke for the vast majority of the Indian people. It is true the Muslim League had gained considerable influence among a section of the Muslims, but this was largely due to the support which the Government had extended to it. As for the other parties, they were almost entirely the creations of the Government. If the British Government came to a settlement with Congress, they had neither the strength and courage nor perhaps the inclination to oppose. The only reason for inviting all such parties to meet Sir Stafford was to use them as possible counterweights to Congress. The British Government wanted to inform the world outside that there were many parties in India and Congress could not speak for the whole country. The British also perhaps felt that it this way they could exert some pressure on Congress. It was in this context that Cripps felt he ought to invite the President of the Nationalist Muslim Convention when he was meeting leaders of other Indian parties." [p. 49]
d. Naughty, Naughty? Or, Nasty, Nasty?
Understandably, then, the well publicized Cripps Mission lost its luster before long.
"... as the negotiations continued, the early mood of confidence and optimism was gradually dissipated.
There were other reasons also for a change in the mood and atmosphere. I have already said that before Sir Stafford came to India, he had asked the Viceroy to issue invitations to a number of political leaders of whom one was the late Mr. Allah Bux. After arriving in India, Cripps appeared to modify his stand, perhaps as a result of the influence of the Viceregal House. Allah Bux had come to Delhi on the Viceroy's invitation and was waiting for an interview with Sir Stafford but the interview was not being fixed. As this was creating an awkward situation. I spoke to Cripps and he said that he would soon invite Allah Bux. In spite of this promise, no invitation was actually issued. Allah Bux at last got disgusted and said he refused to wait in Delhi any longer. When I heard this, I spoke strongly to Sir Stafford and pointed out that this was an insult not only to Allah Bux but to the strong body of Muslims whom he represented. If Cripps had any doubts on the points, Allah Bux should not have been invited at all. But since the invitation had been issued, he should be properly met. My intervention resulted in an interview between Sir Stafford and Allah Bux the next day. The interview was for only an hour and was confined to general discussions. Cripps did not touch the root of the problem.
This incident created a bad impression on me. I felt that this was not the proper method of dealing with difficult political issues. In my judgment, Cripps had not behaved like a statesman. The invitations should not have been issues without consulting the Government of India. Even if there were difficulties, he should have pointed them out to Allah Bux in a straightforward manner and not kept him cooling his heels in Delhi." [pp. 55-56]
e. Playing "Muslims against Hindus" Game
It is too well known a game to elaborate. The British gentlemen did there part in fostering and using the communal card in the unfolding events in India.
"There was another incident which left me with a disagreeable taste. As soon as the press released the text of the War Cabinet's proposals, there was a large volume of criticism in the Indian press. The most critical were the papers which generally expressed the Congress point of view. Hindustan Times of Delhi was one of those which was frankest in the expression of opinion. While the Congress Working Committee was still in session, Cripps sent me a letter in which he said that though the Hindu press had not welcomed the offer, he hoped that I would consider the proposal from a broader point of view. This reference to the Hindu press appeared very odd to me. It also occurred to me that perhaps he was putting the emphasis on the Hindu press because I am a Muslim. If he did not like the comments made by the press, he could easily have referred to the Indian press or a section of it. I replied that I was surprised at his reference to the Hindu press and did not think that there was any justification for drawing such a distinction among the different sections of the Indian press. I assured him that the Congress Working Committee would consider the proposals only from an Indian point of view and it would take into consideration all sections of opinion before it came to decision." [pp. 56-57]

V. The rise of Muslim League and Quaid-e-Azam
a. Bengal and the Origin of the Muslim League

First a misperception. Where did Muslim League originate? About Muslim League and its repudiated and rejected stances in our contemporary times, many may harbor the notion that Muslim League was a non-Bangali, Pakistani, or West Pakistani phenomenon. Not exactly. The root and origin of the Muslim League are traceable to Bengal. More specifically, to Dhaka in East Bengal that became East Pakistan first and, subsequently, Bangladesh.
"The Muslim League was established in 1906 in Dacca after the session of the Muslim Educational Conference during Christmas. It owed its origin to the efforts of Nawab Mushtaq Husain. I was present at the session and remember the two reasons advanced for the establishment of the League. It was said that one of the objects of the League would be to strengthen and develop a feeling of loyalty to the British Government among the Muslims of India. The second object was to advance the claims of the Muslims against Hindus and other communities in respect of service under the crown and thus safeguard Muslim interests and rights. The leaders of the League were therefore naturally opposed to the demand for political independence raised by the Congress. They felt that if the Muslims joined in any such demand the British would not support their claims for special treatment in education and service. In fact they described the Congress as a disloyal organisation of rebels and regarded even moderate political leaders like Gokhale or Sir Ferozeshah Mehta as extremists. During this phase the British Government always used the Muslim League as a counter to the demands of the Congress." [p. 117]
This is important for several reasons. First, at least, Bangladeshis need to recognize and understand that Muslim League was one of its own - a homespun party or organization. Second, if Maulana Azad's account is accurate, then Muslim League was originally not a progressive force specifically for seeking independence from the British. However, advancing the general interest of Muslims while facing opposition from the Hindus was one of its primary goals. Third, its modus operandi was basically to patronize the British rule so that the British, in return, would patronize Muslims. I am not certain about complete accuracy of Maulana Azad's contextual characterization of Muslim League's origin. However, I have not checked other pertinent works, and I am presenting herein mainly [otherwise, too many �basically�] Maulana Azad's account. Fourth, it was the leaders from Bengal who founded Muslim League; people like Quaid-e-Azam (the Great Leader) was hardly any Quaid (leader) yet, let alone Quaid-e-Azam.
b. Phases of Muslim League
Muslim League took a while to begin to represent the entire Muslim community; it was not easy because there were key Muslim leaders, with solid support from Muslims, involved with Congress.
"The Muslim League entered into the second phase of its activities when it found that the Government was compelled to introduce some reforms as a result of Congress pressure. It was somewhat disturbed when it saw the Congress achieving its object step by step. The League still remained aloof from the political struggle but as soon as any advance was made, it put in a claim on behalf of the Muslim community. This programme of the Muslim League suited the Government well. In fact there are reasons to think that the League was acting according to the wishes of the British. During the Morley-Minto Reforms as well as the Montford scheme of provincial autonomy, this was the attitude adopted by the League.
Then came the third phase in the League's programme during World War II. Congress had gained immensely in prestige and strength. It was now clear that the British Government would have to recognise Indian freedom. Mr. Jinnah had now become the leader of the Muslim League and felt that he must take advantage of every difference between the Congress and the Government. Whenever there were discussions between the Congress and the Government for the transfer of power, Mr Jinnah would in the beginning remain silent. If the negotiations failed he issued a milk and water statement condemning both parties and saying that since there was no settlement there was no need for the Muslim League to express any opinion on the British offer. This is what he did during the August offer in 1940 and the Cripps proposals of 1942. The Simla Conference presented him with a new situation that he had never faced before." [p. 118]
India faced two major issues in dealing with the British. First, the independence of India and second, the communal issue. Based on the ideas of Lord Wavell, important breakthrough was achieved at the Simla conference. Maulana Azad was able to persuade the Congress Working Committee to accept Lord Wavell's plan, which consisted of the idea that the British would decisively tackle the issue of Indian independence after the war. In the mean time, with India on the allied/British side, there would be preparation for the independent India, with the Indians taking charge of the governance of India. Although this was the first successful negotiation with the British regarding the political issue of independence, the Simla Conference got stalled on the communal issue.
"Now that the political issue between India and Britain seemed on the point of solution, the Conference broke down over the question of communal representation in the new Executive Council.
... Congress had taken a national stand on this question while the Muslim League demanded that the Congress should give up its national character and function as a communal organization. Mr Jinnah took the strange stand that the Congress could nominate only Hindu members of the Executive Council. I asked the Conference what right Mr Jinnah or the Muslim League to dictate whom the Congress should nominate." [pp. 118-119]
c. Gandhi's role in propping up Quaid-e-Azam
Although Muslim League originated in Dhaka (Bengal) and Bangali Muslim leaders continued to perform a vital role, gradually, as it emerged, Dhaka was no longer the center of Muslim League's struggle. The case of the top leadership was also comparable. In three decades since its inception, Non-Bangali leaders living outside of Bengal took charge of Muslim League. To a host of factors, Gandhiji�s contribution receives a notable mention.
"For some time after his release, Gandhiji was too ill to take any effective step. He was for some months under treatment but as soon as he felt a little better, he initiated a number of political moves. Two of them deserve special mention. Gandhiji made a fresh attempt for an understanding with the Muslim League and arranged to meet Mr Jinnah. His second move was an attempt to open fresh negotiation with the Government. Contrary to his previous declarations, he now issued a statement that if India were declared free, she would voluntarily side with the British and give full support to the war effort. I was completely taken aback and knew that both these actions were doomed to failure.

I think Gandhiji's approach to Mr Jinnah on this occasion was a great political blunder. It gave a new and added importance to Mr .Jinnah which he later exploited fully Gandhiji had in fact adopted a peculiar attitude to Jinnah from the very beginning. Jinnah had lost much of his political importance after he left the Congress in the twenties.

It was largely due to Gandhiji's acts of commission and omission that Jinnah regained his importance in Indian political life. In fact, it is doubtful if Jinnah could have ever achieved supremacy but for Gandhiji's attitude. Large sections of Indian Muslims were doubtful about Mr Jinnah and his policy but when they found that Gandhiji was continually running after him and entreating him, many of them developed a new respect for Jinnah. They also thought that Jinnah was perhaps the best man for getting advantageous terms in the communal settlement.

I may mention here that it was Gandhiji who first gave currency to the title Qaid-e-Azam or great leader as applied to Mr Jinnah. Gandhiji had in his camp a foolish but well intentioned woman called Amtus Salam. She had seen in some Urdu papers a reference to Jinnah as Qaid-e-Azam.

When Gandhiji was writing to Jinnah asking for an interview, she told him that the Urdu papers called Jinnah Qaid-i-Azam and he should use the same form of address. Without pausing to consider the implications of his action, Gandhiji addressed Jinnah as Qaid-i-Azam. This letter was soon after published in the press. When Indian Muslims saw that Gandhiji also addressed Jinnah as Qaid-i-Azam, they felt that he must really be so. When in July 1944, I read the report that Gandhiji was corresponding with Jinnah and going to Bombay to meet him, I told my colleagues that Gandhiji was making a great mistake. His action would not help to solve but on the contrary aggravate the Indian political situation. Later events proved that my apprehensions were correct. Jinnah exploited the situation fully and built up his own position but he did not say or do anything which could in any way help the cause of Indian freedom." [pp. 96-97]

VI. Jinnah plays the communal card
a. India insists on it independence to join WWII
The British sought India�s assistance in the WWII. Congress, under the leadership of Maulana Azad, stayed firm in its position that India's independence issue must be resolved.
In response to a reporter's question, Maulana Azad responded: "... if India were assured of her freedom, she would join the war voluntarily. Our first duty then would be to mobilise total national effort and we would support conscription.
I reminded the correspondent of a statement I had made as early as 1940 as the President of the Indian National Congress. I had declared that if India's political problem was solved, she would not only join the war of her own free will but also adopt conscription and send every able-bodied young man to the war front. I had then also said that our offer was not merely to live but also die for democracy. It was a pity, I added, that the British did not give us the opportunity of dying with honour and my offer was repudiated." [p. 109]
b. The British mood seemed thawed, but ...
"On 14 June 1945, Mr L.S. Amery, Secretary of State for India, made a statement in the House of Commons in which he declared that full scope would be given to India to decide about the war as a free nation. Asked further whether the leaders of the Indian National Congress would be allowed to run the government, Mr. Amery said that they were asking the representatives of the Congress and the Muslim League to form the Government. The Congress would thus have full freedom to choose any representative they liked including Maulana Azad and Pandit Nehru.
This statement created the general impression in India that at last the Indian political problem was about to be solved. The people felt that there was [no] reason now why Congress should not accept the offer." [pp. 109-110]
c. No substantive change in British position
Discussion with the British Viceroy Lord Wavell revealed that the new British position it was not much different from the past, except the atmosphere.
"The Viceroy then described to me the details of his proposal. My first reaction was that it was not different in substance from the Cripps offer. There was however one material difference in the circumstances. The Cripps offer was made when the British were in dire need of Indian cooperation. Today the war was over in Europe and the Allies had triumphed over Hitler. The British Government had all the same repeated their earlier offer in an attempt to create a new political atmosphere in India.
... I assured Lord Wavell that my endeavour would be to find a solution and not create difficulties.
I was impressed by the frankness and sincerity of the Viceroy as he described the proposals to me. I saw that his attitude was not that of a politician but of a soldier. ... My interview with Lord Wavell created a new atmosphere in Simla.
d. Jinnah and Muslim League play the communal card
At Simla Conference, whereat an important political breakthrough was achieved, Jinnah threw a monkey wrench. While the proposal of Jinnah/Muslim League as an advocate of two-nations theory was understandable, the outcome was also predictable: Congress as a party with substantial Muslim support, especially with Muslim leadership like Maulana Azad, could not be expected to accept it.
"Soon after the Conference began, the differences between the Congress and the Muslim League came out into the open. By the second day, the Conference had agreed on certain main principles like representation for minorities, wholehearted support to the war effort and continuance of the reconstituted Executive Council under the Government of India Act till the end of the war. Difference however arose about the composition of the Executive Council. Mr Jinnah's demand was that Congress could nominate all the Hindu members but all the Muslim members must be nominees of the League. I pointed out that Congress could never accept such a demand. It had approached all political problems from a national point of view and recognised no distinction between Hindus and Muslims on political issues. It could not in any circumstances agree to be an organisation of Hindus alone. I therefore insisted that the Congress should have the freedom to nominate any Indian it liked regardless of whether he was a Hindu or a Muslim or a Christian or a Parsi or a Sikh. Congress should participate on the basis of Indian nationhood or not participate at all. So far as the Muslim League was concerned, it was for it to decide who should be its nominees." [p. 116]

e. Political breakthrough at Simla Conference
India so far had to confront two difficult aspects of its independence. One, political, and the other, communal. Simla conference of 1945 was the first breakthrough regarding the political resolution.
"The Simla Conference marks a breakwater in Indian political history. This was the first time when negotiations failed, but on the basic political issue between India and Britain, but on the communal issue dividing different Indian groups." [p. 117]
"As I have said earlier all discussions between the Congress and the Government had till now failed on political issues. The Congress was not ready to accept any solution which did not ensure Indian freedom. Discussions had therefore failed on political issues and never reached the communal question. In the Simla Conference, I was able to persuade the Congress Working Committee to accept Lord Wavell's offer. Now that the political issue between India and Britain seemed on the point of solution, the Conference broke down over the question of communal representation in the new Executive Council." [pp. 118-119]
f. The British are good at creating problems, but not at facilitating solutions
"I asked Lord Wavell to say in categorical terms whether the stand of the Muslims League could be regarded as reasonable.
Lord Wavell did not give a direct reply, but the purport of what he said was that he could not accept the stand of the Muslim League as reasonable. At the same time he said that this was a matter which should be decided between the Congress and the Muslim League and it would not be proper for either the Government or for himself as an individual to force a decision on either party." [p. 119]
Wow! The British knowing and caring for what is proper, especially about not forcing a decision on either party? The colonial rule was not forced upon India (rather was based on the consent of India and the love for the British), wasn't it? Well, the British knew when being decisive helped their own cause and when appearing neutral or being indecisive worked equally suitably.

VII. A HISTORIC OPPORTUNITY arises
a. The British, as usual, played along the communal game
Simla conference failed as Jinnah/Muslim League, as pursuant to Two-Nations Theory, played the communal game. The British, as usual, played along, even though it was clear to all parties that such major problem could not be solved without the appropriate input of the colonial power that had ruled and rubbled up the whole society, retaining only the colonial interest in mind. After the Simla Conference, Maulana Azad issued a statement, in which he emphasized the following.
"The British Government cannot absolve themselves of the responsibility for the communal problems here. Whether it is today or tomorrow, they must take up a firm stand on a just and fair basis." [p. 123]
b. India holds a general election
With an election manifesto that envisioned "a free, democratic State with the fundamental rights and civil liberties of all its citizens guaranteed in the constitution," the Congress "achieved an overwhelming victory in all provinces EXCEPT BENGAL, Punjab and Sind." [pp. 130, 132]
The passion for independence from the British colonial rule was powering up. Observing no concrete movement toward that final goal, "demonstrations were held in different parts of India. In Calcutta, there was violence during some of these demonstrations. In Delhi, the people tried to set fire to Government buildings and destroyed public property." [p. 144]
c. The British Cabinet Mission
As of February 1946, Maulana Azad provides an account of the political situation in India, especially the changed spirit on the British side.
"It was clear to me that the country had undergone a complete transformation. An absolutely new India has been born. The people, whether officials or non-officials, were fired with a new desire for freedom. There was also a change of spirit on the British side." [p. 145]
It was in this atmosphere that the British government announced in the British Parliament that it is going to send a "Cabinet Mission to India to discuss with the representatives of India the question of Indian freedom." [p. 145] There was an acknowledgement of mutual wrongdoing on the part of the British as well.
"He [i.e., Lord Attlee] admitted that there had been faults on both sides and added that they should now look to the future rather than harp on the past. He explained that it was no good applying the formulas of the past to the present situation, for the temper of 1946 was not the temper of 1920, 1930 or even 1942. He went on to say that he did not wish to stress on the differences between the Indians, for in spite of all differences between the Indians, united in their desire for freedom." [p. 146]
d. The Muslim anxiety
Like everyone else, Maulana Azad himself was keenly aware of the concerns of Muslims, as he tried all the way to the end to seek India's freedom as an undivided India.
"The Simla Conference has convinced me that the political question had reached a stage of settlement. The communal differences were still unresolved. ONE THING NOBODY COULD DENY. As a community, the Muslims were extremely anxious about their future. It is true they were in a clear majority in certain provinces. At the provincial level they had therefore no fears in these areas. They were however a minority in India as a whole and were troubled by the fear that their position and status in independent India would not be secure." [p. 147]
e. Maulana Azad, as an Indian Muslim, rises to the challenge
How to retain India's integrity, while addressing the anxiety and concerns of Muslims? The entire Congress leadership struggled with this issue of resolving the communal problems. Maulana Azad rose to the occasion, which was embraced by the Congress leadership and Gandhi.
"I gave continuous and anxious thought to this subject. Ultimately, I came to the conclusion that the Constitution of India must from the nature of the case be federal. Further, it must be so framed as to ensure COMPLETE AUTONOMY to the provinces in as many subjects as possible. We had to reconcile the claims of provincial autonomy with national unity. This could be done by finding a satisfactory formula for the distribution of powers and functions between the Central and the Provincial Government. Some powers and functions could be essentially central, others essentially provincial and some which could be either provincially or centrally exercised by consent. The first step was to devise a formula by which a minimum number of subjects should be declared as essentially the responsibility of the Central Government.
... The more I thought about the matter, the clearer it became to me that the Indian problem could not be solved on any other basis. If a Constitution was framed which embodied this principle, it would ensure that in the Muslim majority provinces, all subjects except those three (i.e., defence, communication and foreign affairs) could be administered by the province itself. This would eliminate from the mind of the Muslims all fears of domination by the Hindus. Once such fears were allayed, it was likely that the provinces would find it an advantage to delegate some other subjects as well to the Central Government." [pp. 147-148]
"The Working Committee (of Congress) was initially somewhat sceptical about the solution and members raised all kinds of difficulties and doubts. I was able to meet their objections and clarified doubtful points. Finally the Working Committee was convinced about the soundness of the proposal and Gandhiji expressed his complete agreement with the solution.
Gandhiji in fact complimented me by saying that I had found a solution of a problem which had till then baffled everybody. He said that my solution would allay the fear of even the most communal among the Muslim Leaguers and at the same time it was inspired by a national and not a sectional outlook." [p. 149]
f. The ball rolls into Jinnah�s/Muslim League's court
Congress and Gandhi were on board as far as Maulana Azad's suggestion was concerned. How did the Muslim League react?
"The Muslim League had for the first time spoken of a possible division of India in its Lahore Resolution. ... The solution I suggested was intended to meet the fears of the Muslim League. Now that I had discussed my scheme with my colleagues and members of the Cabinet Mission, I felt that the time had come to place it before the country. Accordingly on 15 April 1946, I issues a statement dealing with the demands of Muslims and other minorities." [pp. 149-150]
Dr. Bain referred to this rather lengthy statement while quoting Maulana Azad in regard to his position on the Two Nations Theory and its ramifications, and why division of India with India and Pakistan as two separate entities would be worse for Muslims themselves. Note: Those who are interested in reading this important statement in its full detail, please visit: http://www.globalwebpost.com/farooqm/my_misc/study_resources/azad/azad_statement1.html.
Muslim League vacillated over the scheme articulated by Maulana Azad and later ratified by Congress. Even the Cabinet Mission was on board with the scheme. Muslim League's Lahore Resolution was somewhat vague and it was time for Jinnah and Muslims League to take some more specific position.
"At first Mr. Jinnah was completely opposed to the scheme. The Muslim League had gone so far in its demand for a separate independent state that it was difficult for it to retrace its steps. The Mission had stated in clear and unambiguous terms that they could never recommend the partition of the country and the formation of an independent state. ...[T]hey could not see how a state like the Pakistan envisaged by the Muslim League could be viable and stable.
... The Muslim League Council met for three days before it could come to a decision. On the final day, Mr. Jinnah had to admit that there could be no fairer solution of the minority problem than that presented in the Cabinet Mission Plan. In any case, he could not get better terms. He told the Council that the scheme presented by the Cabinet Mission was the maximum that we could secure. As such, HE ADVISED THE MUSLIM LEAGUE TO ACCEPT THE SCHEME AND THE COUNCIL VOTED UNANIMOUSLY IN ITS FAVOR." [p. 157]
g. A "glorious event", not to last long
"The acceptance of Cabinet Mission Plan by both the Congress and the Muslim League was a glorious event in the history of the freedom movement in India. It meant that the difficult question of Indian freedom had been settled by negotiation and agreement and not by methods of violence and conflict. It also seemed that the communal difficulties had been finally left behind. Throughout the country there was a sense of jubilation and all the people were united in their demand for freedom. We rejoiced but we did not then know that our joy was premature and bitter disappointment awaited us." [p. 158]


VIII. The Historical Opportunity LOST
a. Cabinet Mission Plan brings together Congress and Muslim League
Cabinet Mission Plan reflected Maulana Azad's ideas as presented in the previous part. The position taken by the Congress and the forceful articulation and advocacy of Maulana Azad paved the way for the League's UNANIMOUS acceptance of the Plan. For the first time, there was real hope for India being independent as one nation/country.
"Throughout the country there was a sense of jubilation and all the people were united in their demand for freedom. We rejoiced but we did not then know that our joy was premature and bitter disappointment awaited us." [p. 158]
b. In his own words, Maulana Azad's GREATEST BLUNDER
Maulana Azad was the president of the Congress from 1939-1946, some of the most tumultuous and critical segments of India's independence struggle.
Just when "...the political and communal problems seemed to be solved, a new subject now demanded my attention. ... The question naturally arose that there should be fresh Congress elections and a new president chosen. As soon as this was mooted in the press, a general demand arose that I should be reelected President for another term. The main argument in favour of my reelection was that I had been in charge of negotiations with Cripps, with Lord Wavell and at present with the Cabinet Mission. At the Simla Conference, I had for the first time succeeded in arriving at a successful solution of the political problem even though the Conference finally broke on the communal issue. There was a general feeling in Congress that since I had conducted the negotiations till now, I should be charged with the task of bringing them to a successful close and implementing them. Congress circles in Bengal, Bombay, Madras, Bihar and the UP openly expressed the opinion that I should be charged with the responsibility of launching free India in its course." [p. 161]
On the issue of electing a new president, Maulana Azad became aware of some differences of opinion in the "inner circles of the Congress High Command." [p. 161] Apparently, Sardar Patel and his supporters wanted him to be the president. After carefully considering various aspects, Maulana came to the conclusion that he had been president for long enough and did not permit others to propose his name. Gandhi also concurred with his decision. The next decision he had to make was the choice of a successor. His decision was in favor of Jawaharlal Nehru, his long time colleague and partner-in-struggle in Congress. His suggested choice prevailed, especially with the blessing from Gandhi. However, this he regretted later as "perhaps the greatest blunder of my political life."
"I acted according to my best judgment but the way things have shaped since then has made me realise that this was perhaps the greatest blunder of my political life. I have regretted no action of mine so much as the decision to withdraw from the Presidentship of the Congress at this critical juncture. It was a mistake which I can describe in Gandhiji's words as one of HIMALAYAN DIMENSION." [p. 162]
c. Nehru throws in a FATAL monkey wrench
"The Muslim League Council had accepted the Cabinet Mission Plan. So had the Congress Working Committee. It however needed the approval of the AICC. We thought this would be a formal matter as the AICC had always ratified the decisions of the Working Committee. ... When the AICC met, I invited Jawaharlal to take over as Congress President from me." p. 163] Maulana Azad made the case for the Cabinet Mission Plan. Despite major opposition, including the leftists, his presentation "had a decisive influence on the audience" and the resolution was "passed with an overwhelming majority. Thus the seal of approval was put on the Working Committee's resolution accepting the Cabinet Mission Plan." [p. 164]
Lord Pethick-Lawrence and Sir Stafford Cripps were happy that Congress accepted Maulana Azad's resolution and congratulated him on his able presentation of the Cabinet Mission Plan. But all these were too premature.
"Now happened one of those unfortunate events which change the course of history. On 10 July, Jawaharlal held a press conference in Bombay in which he made an astonishing statement. Some press representatives asked him whether, with the passing of the Resolution by the AICC, the Congress had accepted the Plan in toto, including the compositions of the Interim Government.
Jawaharlal in reply stated that Congress would enter the Constituent Assembly 'completely unfettered by agreements and free to meet all situations as they arise'.
Press representatives further asked if this meant that the Cabinet Mission Plan could be modified.
Jawaharlal replied emphatically that the Congress had agreed only to participate in the Constituent Assembly and regards itself free to change or modify the Cabinet Mission Plan as it thought best." [pp. 164-165]
d. TAUNTING: Has it ever helped?
Under the "insult" thread, where Bangladeshi Muslims were "taunted" by Dr. Bain's lessons in recognizing insults, I mentioned that such TAUNTING almost never brings about anything positive. Well, there was another "taunting" Maulana Azad refers to in the chapter "Prelude to Partition."
"The Muslim League had accepted the Cabinet Mission Plan only under duress. Naturally, Mr. Jinnah was not very happy about it. In his speech to the League Council, he had clearly stated that he recommended acceptance only because nothing better could be obtained. His political adversaries started to criticise him by saying that he had failed to deliver the goods. They accused him that he had given up the idea of an independent Islamic state [note: this was a false accusation anyway, because Jinnah was a secular person and his vision was a secular state for Muslims]. They also taunted him that if the League was willing to accept the Cabinet Mission Plan - which denied the right of the Muslims to form a separate State - why had Mr. Jinnah made so much fuss about an independent Islamic State?" [p. 165]
Taunting has never generated anything positive. Even the Indians and/or Hindus have a few things to learn from Maulana Azad, not just Bangladeshis and/or Muslims. The outcome of Nehru's "monkey wrench" and others' taunting of Jinnah was predictable. Jinnah and Muslim League never looked back to Congress, Cabinet Mission, or the idea of an undivided India.
"Mr. Jinnah was thus not at all happy about the outcome of the negotiations with the Cabinet Mission. Jawaharlal's statement came to him as a bombshell. He immediately issued a statement that this declaration by the Congress President demanded a review of the whole situation. He accordingly asked Liaqat Ali Khan to call a meeting of the League Council and issued a statement to the following effect. The Muslim League Council had accepted the Cabinet Mission Plan in Delhi as it was assured that the Congress also had accepted the scheme and the Plan would be the basis of the future constitution of India. Now that the Congress President had declared that the Congress could change the scheme through its majority in the Constituent Assembly, this would mean that the minorities would be placed at the mercy of the majority. ... The Muslim League Council met at Bombay on 27 July. Mr. Jinnah in his opening speech reiterated the demand for Pakistan as the only course left open to the Muslim League. After three days' discussion, the Council passed a resolution rejecting the Cabinet Mission Plan. It also decided to resort to direct action for the achievement of Pakistan." [pp. 165-166]
Thus, according to Maulana Azad, was lost a historic opportunity for an undivided India.
________________________________________
HOME
Index of my writings
Have you visited my site on Kazi Nazrul Islam?
Genocide 1971 Page?
Hadith Humor Page?
Economics-Finance Page?
http://www.globalwebpost.com/farooqm/writings/other/azad/india_wins.htm


http://www.globalwebpost.com/farooqm/writings/other/azad/india_wins.htm

In 1947 mistakes were done from Indian radical groups (Muslims and Hindus) and British Raj always enjoyed to rule India with the policy of devide and rule majority of Indian muslims ( Majority of Indian muslims are born after 1947 who have listened stories from their family only) remained in India which shows their faith in their homeland. It was only Babari Masjid case and then Godra, Mumbai or Malegaun which makes Pakistan feel good because they can point out at us and say look this was the reason why we wanted to have two nations. It was the Indian muslims who adopted to Indian culture and languages where as British Raj never tried to be a part of Indian society, Culture. British raj treated us Indians as B grade citizens. IT IS THE RADICAL GROUPS IN ALL COMMUNITIES WHICH MAKES LIFE HEARD FOR ALL OF US


Voices from Pakistan


Anees JillaniFirst Published : 16 Dec 2008 12:58:00 AM ISTLast Updated : 16 Dec 2008 08:42:09 AM ISTA friend recently organised a candlelight vigil in solidarity with the Mumbai attack victims last Wednesday in Islamabad. I received several SMSes and emails asking me to join but I could not go.


I am glad I did not in this cold weather, as less than 15 people in the city of more than 1.5 million turned up to show solidarity with the Mumbai victims. The fate of another function to deplore the Mumbai attacks organised by another peace activist, Liaqat Ali, in Lahore was no different.

One can partly attribute it to the general apathy in Pakistani society in general about any issue, what to talk of one related to India, in this tense situation. Newspapers periodically make fun of civil society demonstrations stating that there were more fancy cars parked at a demonstration venue than protesters but the turnout at these symbolic vigils to show solidarity with the Mumbai victims is still pathetic.

There are a few expressing positive feelings for the victims and this category generally falls in the class that frequently visits expensive restaurants like the ones located in Oberoi and Taj. Many also associate Mumbai with the September blast at the Marriott Hotel. It is possible that more people would have shown sympathy for the Mumbai victims and would have shown solidarity with the people of India at this juncture, if India had not upped the temperature by blaming Pakistan and the ISI.

One may find it hard to believe but a sizeable section of the educated class in Pakistan seriously adheres to the view that 9/11 was the product of a Zionist-cum-CIA conspiracy to malign Muslims, and consequently to topple the Taliban and Saddam’s regimes.

I thus found it hard to convince a friend, a senior executive in a multinational, while the Mumbai holdup was continuing, that the attacks were unlikely to have been perpetrated by RSS, VHP or BJP.

This line of reasoning is becoming more prevalent, with the Pakistani electronic media taking the lead in forming it. It must again be stated here that we never see the Pakistan


Last edited by MRehan on Apr 06, 2009 - 09:09 AM; edited 5 times in total
 
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website  
Reply with quote Back to top
MRehanOffline
Post subject: RE: Terror in Mumbai  PostPosted: Dec 18, 2008 - 07:38 AM


Joined: Aug 03, 2006
Posts: 268

Status: Offline

-------------------------------------



Who killed Karkare: Muslim leaders support Antulay’s views
Submitted by admin2 on 17 December 2008 - 4:23pm. Indian Muslim
By Mumtaz Alam Falahi, TwoCircles.net,

New Delhi: When Union Minority Affairs Minister A R Antulay today said Maharashtra ATS Chief Hemant Karkare might have been killed due to his investigation of the Malegaon blasts he must be knowing he was raising a big storm in the political corridors, as he was the first leader to touch the issue.

As expected, the parties whose interests were hit by Karkare’s Malegaon probe came down heavily on Antulay. The BJP and Shiv Sena members made hue and cry in the Parliament and asked the Prime Minister to explain the government’s stand on the issue.

Earlier in the day talking to reporters in Delhi Antulay had said that Hemant Karkare was a “victim of terrorism plus something” and that his killing on November 26 during the Mumbai terror attacks could be linked to his probe into the Malegaon blasts. “Karkare found that there are non-Muslims involved in the acts of terrorism during his investigations in some cases. Any person going to the roots of terror has always been the target,” IANS quoted Antulay as saying.

The BJP lambasted the Minority Affairs Minister for his statement and asked the government to explain its position. Succumbing to the pressure the Congress came out distancing itself from Antulay’s statement. Congress spokesman Ashok Singhvi said the party doesn’t support Antulay’s views on Karkare’s death.

But Muslim leaders have come out supporting Antulay’s views. They say Hemant Karkare’s death is still a mystery. It has something to do with the Malegaon blast probe that Karkare was doing. And a proper and separate investigation into Karkare’s death (Antulay’s demand) should be conducted.
While supporting Antulay’s views, Zafarul Islam Khan, president, All India Muslim Majlise Mushawarat, said the Hindutva terror groups are apparently the beneficiary of Karkare’s death as he was exposing their involvement in some terrorist attacks in the country.

Karkare’s probe into Malegaon blast had exposed the face of Hindutva terrorism. Sadhvi Pragya Singh Thakur, Lt Colonel Shrikant Prasad Purohit, Swami Dayanand Pandey and some others were arrested and put behind bars.

“Soon after the Mumbai attack and Karkare’s killing the first-page news about Hindutva terrorism has gone missing” Khan told TwoCircles.net.

Some days before the Mumbai attack, Karkare was threatened to be killed and his house burnt, Zafarul Islam Khan said and demanded high-level enquiry into Karkare’s killing.

Maulana Abdul Hameed Nomani, general secretary, Jamiat Ulama-I-Hind has also demanded proper investigation into Karkare’s death as the circumstances in which he was killed are still not very clear.

The exposure of Sadhvi, Purohit and others in terrorist activities had convinced people that terrorism has nothing to do with religion and terrorists can also be Hindus but the Mumbai attacks have again altered the scene, Nomani told TCN.

Hemant Karkare was doing a brave work by bringing to the nation truth behind terrorist activities in India, he added.

On why Congress distanced itself from Antulay’s statement, he said there hardcore communal elements in the Congress also and they do not want Muslims come out of the blame of terrorism.

Mujtaba Farooq, political affairs secretary of Jamaat-e-Islami Hind said that only a fair probe into Karkare’s death will instill confidence in honest and brave officers who do their job without fear and favor.

Karkare was fearlessly exposing faces behind terrorist attacks in the country and he was killed in mysterious circumstances during the Mumbai attacks. Soon after he exposed Hindutva terrorism he was being threatened by those who were being affected by his probe. If a fair probe is not conducted, his killing will down the morale of other officers, Farooq told TCN.

All India Muslim Personal Law Board member Dr Syed Qasim Rasool Ilyas said that mystery of Karkare’s death should be removed. For his role in Malegaon probe which exposed Hindutva terrorism he was getting threats and during the attack he was killed.
“There is no denying the fact that his death has very much related to the Malegaon probe and thus his death should be properly investigated into,” Dr Ilyas said.
http://www.twocircles.net/2008dec17/who_killed_karkare_muslim_leaders_support_antulay_s_views.html
 
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website  
Reply with quote Back to top
MRehanOffline
Post subject: RE: Terror in Mumbai  PostPosted: Dec 19, 2008 - 08:06 AM


Joined: Aug 03, 2006
Posts: 268

Status: Offline

-------------------------------------



Assam's 'Jackie' also helped baby Moshe escape Nariman House

Submitted by admin4 on 18 December 2008 - 11:17am. Crime/Terrorism Indian Muslim
By Syed Zarir Hussain, IANS,

Kazigram (Assam) : Sandra, the nanny of little Moshe Holtzberg whose parents were killed in the terror attack on the Nariman House in Mumbai, may have received international media attention for saving the baby but the valour of an Assamese youth in the same incident has gone unnoticed.

Zakir Hussain, 23, was along with Sandra and experienced the 13-hour ordeal at Nariman House, all along holding on to the baby, before helping the nanny and Moshe to escape.

Hailing from Kazigram village near Karimganj town, about 340 km from Assam's main city of Guwahati, Zakir was the cook at the Jewish centre run by Moshe's parents, Rabbi Gavriel Holtzberg and Rivka - both brutally killed by the terrorists.
Zakir's family members were terrified when the Nariman House siege was on - they breathed easy only after they got a phone call from him three days later, saying he was safe but sad that he could not save his employers.
"I feel sad for the Rabbi's family and little Moshe who has been orphaned. But at the same time I am really proud that my son did not run away from the place leaving the baby. I am told my son helped Moshe and Sandra to escape," Zakir's mother Fatima told IANS.

A school dropout, Zakir left for Mumbai to earn a living - his elder brother Aftar too stays in Mumbai and works in a restaurant.

"Zakir wanted to come back to Assam after the incident, but some Jewish people wanted him to stay back and work in the same place once it resumes operations. He is now in Mumbai and working with a Jewish family," said Aftar, who is now at home to care for their ailing mother.

Aftar said his brother learnt to cook kosher meals and was endearingly called 'Jackie' by scores of Jews who stopped by at Nariman House.

The youngest among eight siblings, Zakir's bravery has made residents of Kazigram proud.

"We will organise a grand felicitation to honour Zakir's courage. He could have easily fled the place to save his own life, but his conscience did not allow him to escape leaving the nanny and the baby," said a village elder."Terrorism has no religion. A Muslim man saving a Jewish baby risking his own life testifies to the fact that human values are not lost yet," said Nur Mohammed, a community leader.
"We all need to stand up and fight terror without trying to blame religion or caste or creed in this war," he added.


http://www.twocircles.net/2008dec18/assams_jackie_also_helped_baby_moshe_escape_nariman_house.html
 
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website  
Reply with quote Back to top
MRehanOffline
Post subject: RE: Terror in Mumbai  PostPosted: Jan 03, 2009 - 10:59 PM


Joined: Aug 03, 2006
Posts: 268

Status: Offline

-------------------------------------



A study of Indian Muslim mind on 26/11, global terror
Submitted by mumtaz on 3 January 2009 - 2:16pm. Articles Indian Muslim
By M Hanif Lakdawala,

What do 13.81-crore Indian Muslims, who constitute 13.4% of the Indian population as per the Census 2001 figures, think about the terrorist attack in Mumbai? Unfortunately Indian intelligentsia and authorities are neglecting this multitude in the crucial war against terror.

Muslim participation in war on terror

How can India successfully fight a war without knowing what Muslim thinks and without active participation from one of its major communities?

The war against terror cannot be fought without understanding the Muslim mindset and their active participation in that war. The crucial regions in war against terror have a huge Muslim population.

The highest proportions of Muslims are in the tiny islands of Lakshadweep in the Arabian Sea: 97% of a population of around 60,000. Then comes Jammu and Kashmir, where Muslims form 67% of the 10 million souls. Next is Assam where Muslims comprise 31% and are a majority in three districts; then comes West Bengal where Muslims form 25% of the population; followed by Uttar Pradesh with 18.5% and Bihar with 16.5%. These states have a huge porous border and the role of Muslim in fight against terror is very crucial.

Study of Muslim mind on 26/11

First question first: what does Muslim think about 26/11 attacks in Mumbai? A survey was conducted by Trend Research and Analysis Centre (TRAC) to dig into the Muslim’s deep, hidden underlying attitudes and feelings about the terrorist attacks in general and 26/11 attack in particular.

A total of 127 respondents across Mumbai, Pune, Delhi, Patna and Chennai, were exposed to closed ended questionnaire. Six focus groups consisting of 8 to 12 respondents were exposed to issues related to terror attacks in India.

All the respondents were Muslim between the ages 18 to 54 years. One condition that was applied for selecting the respondents was that respondents were in touch with either a newspaper or television news channel.

Certain myth regarding the origin of terror attacks in India were debunked during the study. One of the reason reported in the media, quoting a survivor that was held as a hostage in Taj, as stated by the terrorist for the attack was, "revenge for the Gujarat carnage and Babri Masjid demolition. 94% of the respondent doesn't agree with the reason.

During the focus group discussion respondents argued that if it was so then why now, after years? Also who are the terrorists to take revenge on behalf of Indian Muslims? 88% of the respondents said that Indian Legal system provides them with enough safeguards.

Muslim youths being brainwashed for Jihad?

Although it's clear that there was no local involvement in 26/11 there is one burning issue which Indian Muslim cannot afford to neglect. According to 54% respondents the most serious issue for the Indian Muslim is the involvement of a minuscule but substantial section of the community in the terrorist activities. These Muslim youths have been brainwashed by the fanatics and exploited to achieve their heinous agenda. These respondents agreed that a distorted version of Islam is presented to trap the Muslim youth in the name of Jihad. The community should not hesitate to discuss the issue openly and do all that is possible to save these Muslim youth from the clutches of fanatic and extremist groups.

Mariam Abou Zahab and Olivier Roy in their book Islamist Networks, explaining the recruitment process of jihadi organizations say "it is Pakistan, where "the fate of the last jihadists" trained and inspired before Sep. 11 "is being played out." The "Pakistanization of al Qaeda," as the authors call it, is rooted in 20 years of collaboration between elements of the Pakistan army and intelligence service and the radical Islamist movements that birthed and nurtured bin Laden's organization. In the aftermath of Sep. 11, contradictions long submerged and unresolved in Pakistan are surfacing as open conflict – as in the kidnapping and murder of Daniel Pearl.

India is a plural country and communal temperature between various communities is affected with every terrorist attack. Only 29% respondents agreed that these terrorist attacks have increased the barrier between Muslims and Hindus. Majority of the respondents opine that common Indians have learned to handle such heinous attacks and don't allow them to affect their relationship between members of other community.

What prompted these youths to resort to gruesome killing that too in the name of Islam? 59% of the respondents agreed that it's the propaganda, that Muslims world over are the persecuted and waging a war is the last resort. This propaganda distorts the reality and affects the psyche of few Muslim youth making them fanatic.

These respondents believed that much of the increase in terror attacks worldwide has been a direct result of the anger in the Arab and Muslim world at the US attacks on Afghanistan and Iraq, the killing and imprisoning of hundreds of thousands of innocent persons in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as the imprisonment without trial of several thousand Muslims in the US after 9/11.

Why across the world there is a sustained campaign that Muslims are being persecuted without a concrete initiative to end this persecution? Does Islam promote pessimism and negative mindset or Islam stands for optimism and positive attitude? Is violence and mass protest the only option? Is there no guidance in Quran, Hadith and beloved Prophet (SAW) life? These were the questions asked by the Muslim youths who participated in the study.

91% of the respondents opine that Islam has nothing to do with these terrorist attacks. Terrorist have their own agenda for which they convert themselves into human bomb killing innocent people.

Robert A. Pape, a well-known American expert on terrorism and the author of Dying to Win: The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism, said after the London train bombings that the "sustained presence of heavy American combat forces in Muslim countries is likely to increase the odds of the next September 11, 2001". He said that his research had shown that what 95 per cent of all suicide bombings around the world since 1980 had in common was not religion but a clear, strategic objective: "to compel a modern democracy to withdraw military forces from a territory that the terrorists view as their homeland".

Why terror attacks in India?

Going by the study of Robert Pape, we can extrapolate that the terrorist attacks in India has nothing to do with Indian Muslims issues or Islam. The genesis of all the terrorist attacks in India is still to be probed. The big question: what is the strategic objective of forces which planned, and triggered terrorist attacks in India?

Logically there are various forces which do not want to see a stable and economically powerful India, which means that India will play proactive role in global socio-economic sphere to the detriment of quite a few forces.

Also enmity between India and Pakistan will increase the demand for arms and ammunition in the region benefiting the powerful lobby which deals in the arms, ammunition and military software.

There are forces which take oil rates to $150 per barrel, and then take it to other extreme at below $40 per barrel. Indian stock markets were irrationally inflated to more than 20,000 Sensex and in short time it was made to crash to below 9000 Sensex. There are various forces which have socio-economic agenda in India.

Also strategically India is very important to quite a few forces as it has the second largest Muslim population in the world. These forces would be interested in the deterioration of the Hindu-Muslim relationship.

Zahab, a French specialist on Pakistan, and her colleague Roy, an accomplished scholar on political Islam, argue that in Pakistan – unlike in other countries where al Qaeda has recruited and thrived – "the state and the Islamist movements had common interests," namely, political control of Afghanistan and Islamic revolution in Kashmir.

Zahab and Roy argue that unless negotiations on Kashmir issue succeed, Pakistan's army "need the jihadis to put pressure on India," time to time, reviving the cycles of violence .Thus this so called jihad as nothing to do with Islam. It is pure political agenda of various forces having vested interest.

Indian mainstream Media and Intelligentsia is working overtime to simplify the 26/11 attacks as India Pakistan issue. No doubt involvement of Pakistan is beyond doubt. Circumstantial evidence makes it clear that all ten terrorists were indeed Pakistanis. Also there are enough evidence to establish the link with the extremist and fanatic organizations like Lashkar-e-Taiba, Jaish-e-Muhammad and others.

73% of the respondents opine that terrorist attacks in India should not be just seen from India- Pakistan perspective. There are other forces involved which need a detailed and systematic research.

Why 26/11?

94% of the respondents opine that Lashkar-e-Taiba, Jaish-e-Muhammad and section of ISI and Pakistani Military are hand in gloves with the forces responsible for the terrorist attacks.

68% respondents agreed that entire 26/11 attack is planned to provoke India and engage it at Indian frontier away from Afghan border as Pakistan army no longer has the stomach to fight the Pakistan Taliban and the other tribal insurgents in the Northwest Frontier, leaving it to US forces.

The fact is Pakistan army has got a bloody nose in the northwest and would like to exit, leaving the war to the American across the Durand Line. Pakistan government is under tremendous pressure to disengage itself fighting its own people in the northwest. Taliban and other terrorist group which Pakistan army is fighting along with US are Pakistanis.

There are enough lunatic elements in the region which were created by the US in the name of Jihad to fight against the USSR occupation in Afghanistan. Now these trained mercenaries are available to any forces which want to achieve their strategic objective in the region.

How to dismantle terror networks?

Now the important question, how to dismantle the network of these merchant of death? Yes they are murderer and killers who in the name of Islam try to achieve their hidden agenda. Let’s see what Allah Subhan'hu'tala revealed when Holy Prophet Mohammed (SAW) called on his enemies: when he was wounded in the battle, he involuntarily invoked evil upon his enemies and said, "How can that community prosper which wounds the Prophet?"

"(O Prophet,) you have no authority to decide the affair: Allah alone has the authority to pardon them or punish them for they are workers of iniquity. Allah is the Owner of whatever is in the heavens and whatever is in the earth: He may forgive whomever He pleases and punish whomever He wills; Allah is Forgiving and Merciful". (Aal-e-Imran; 128-129).

When Allah Subhan'hu'tala does not endorse his beloved Prophet (SAW) saying few harsh words against his enemy who were after his blood how can Allah Subhan'hu'tala will accept the killings in his name?

Islam’s position is crystal clear. There is no confusion that killings in Islam are not allowed whatsoever the provocation. Jihad is for specific objective and under strict conditions. Even during Prophet Mohammed (SAW) time there were youth who had a sincere desire to attain martyrdom fighting for the cause of Allah. Let’s see what Quran says about those youth during Prophet Mohammed (SAW) time, who were so desirous of martyrdom that they had persuaded the Holy Prophet against his wish to go out of Al-Madinah to fight with the enemy.

"Be not faint hearted and be not sorrowful, you will surely gain the upper hand, if you be true believers. If you have received a blow now, your enemy also received a similar blow. These are the vicissitudes of time that We alternate among the people; this has been done so that Allah may test from among you who were believers and choose the righteous witnesses of the Truth; for Allah does not like the workers of iniquity-and by this test He willed to sort out true believers and to crush down the disbelievers. Do you think that you will enter Paradise without undergoing any trial? Allah has not yet tried you to see who among you are ready to lay down your lives in His way and who will show fortitude for His sake. You used to long for death but that was before you confronted it. Well, now it has come before you, and you have seen it with your own eyes". [Aal-e-Imran; 139-143].

This is no logic, no intellectual argument, just plain Allah's word. We have no alternative but to accept it. It is ideological confusion deliberately created within the Muslim community by the anti-Islamic forces that is responsible for the Muslim youth falling prey to these fanatic organizations.

Islam does not enjoin revenge but promote patient amongst believers. Islam does not promote pessimism but enjoin believers to have faith in Allah.

"Give Glad tidings to those who exercise patience when struck with adversity and say, 'indeed we belong to God and to him is our return' such ones receive blessings and Mercy of their lord, and such are the guided ones," (Qur'an 2:155).

Allah's Apostle said, "The strong is not the one who overcomes the people by his strength, but the strong is the one who controls himself while in anger," (Bukhari: Volume 8, Book 73, Number 135).

So to dismantle the network of these merchant of death it's essential that quintessential Islam and authentic message of the greatest benefactor humanity as ever seen, Prophet Mohammed (SAW) must be propagated aggressively amongst all sections of society. Once the true words of Allah are presented the confusion and exploitation will go. It’s high time Muslim youth are protected from these fanatic forces. It should not be difficult as we are in an era of information and communication.
(The writer can be reached at mhl@rediffmail.com)

http://www.twocircles.net/2009jan03/study_indian_muslim_mind_26_11_global_terror.html
 
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website  
Reply with quote Back to top
MRehanOffline
Post subject: RE: Terror in Mumbai and Pakistan  PostPosted: Jan 07, 2009 - 01:18 PM


Joined: Aug 03, 2006
Posts: 268

Status: Offline

-------------------------------------



Two-nation theory has bred practice of hatred
7 Dec 2008, 0042 hrs IST, M J Akbar

Why has Pakistan become synonymous with terrorism? The vast majority of Pakistanis surely find terrorism, which is the purest form of hatred, as
repellent as Indians do. Why then does Pakistan breed an endless flow of suicide missionaries?

Practice has been shaped by theory. A theory of separation created Pakistan in 1947; over time, this has been converted into a culture of hatred by some self-appointed ideologues.

Pakistan emerged out of the notion that Hindus and Muslims could not live together. The threat perception was raised into the claim that Islam itself would be obliterated in a Hindu-majority India, during the seminal general elections of 1936-37. The Muslim League's slogan was: "Islam in Danger!"

Neither history nor theology could have sustained such a slogan, but Muslim elites in British India, particularly landlords and capitalists, manipulated the incipient ideology of the Muslim League, and fuelled it with incendiary sentiment in order to create a state where they could protect their vested interests. They were not really afraid of "Hindu Raj"; they were terrified of land reform and socialism - however pale a version it might be - that the Congress would enforce. It is no accident that till today there has been no serious land reform in Pakistan. Gandhi's honest faith in Hinduism was maliciously exploited to spread the perfidy that India would never offer an equal place to Muslims.

The idea of Islam being in danger was particularly attractive to a section of the ulema - but not to all of them; the Jamaat-e-Ulema-e-Hind (now led by Maulana Mahmood Madni), unlike the Jamaat-e-Islami, was very clear-headed about the potential pitfalls and opposed the creation of Pakistan. The pro-partition ulema, however, discovered a unique opportunity for power. If Islam was going be the raison d'etre of the new nation, then who else could be its true guardians? The elites took control of the economy and politics; the upper middle classes dominated the administration; and the two shared authority in the armed forces. The clergy gradually took control of educational and legal space.

The one thing that united these elements, who had separate agendas and could be culturally antagonistic, was Kashmir. The first important decision taken after Pakistan's birth was to convert the two-nation theory into a cornerstone of Pakistan's foreign policy.

It is often forgotten that Pakistan created the Kashmir problem when it decided to seize the Valley by armed force in
the last week of October 1947. If this incursion had not taken place, there would have been a peaceful resolution to both Kashmir and Hyderabad, perhaps by the spring of 1948, with Britain as referee through the person of Lord Mountbatten. Perhaps this was one reason, apart from his sense of self-importance, why Mountbatten wanted to be named Governor General of both India and Pakistan, but Jinnah told him to stick to Delhi.

India, Pakistan and Britain were in full agreement that no princely state should be permitted independence. The two holdouts, Kashmir and Hyderabad, could never have survived in their frozen condition. Mountbatten has left on record a note from Nehru in which he suggested that the resolution of Kashmir could be left to spring 1948, when the snows had melted.

Instead, Jinnah, Liaquat Ali Khan and Pakistan's freshly emboldened leaders were convinced they could pray at the main mosque in Srinagar on the Friday following the invasion. They failed. The failure sponsored a lie, that the invasion was a "popular uprising". Shuja Nawaz has exposed this falsehood effectively in his history of the Pakistan army, Crossed Swords [Oxford University Press]. The October 1947 invasion was armed and supported by the Pakistani administration.

Six decades of Fridays later, the rulers of Islamabad are still waiting. If they want to enter Srinagar on tanks they are welcome to wait another six decades and hand over the effort to their great grandchildren. If they want to come to Srinagar in peace, they can come and pray tomorrow. But it will be difficult for them to come in peace to Srinagar as long as they believe that Hindus and Muslims cannot live together. The two-nation theory might have been abandoned in 1971, when Pakistan itself was partitioned. But it remains the official doctrine of the Pakistan state, sold to generations in millions of school textbooks.

Pakistan's support for Sikh secessionism in the 1980s was clear evidence that it did not need only a "Muslim" cause to become pro-active. If it could destroy India's integrity through another religious module, it was equally happy to do so. If General Zia ul Haq had spent as much energy on the construction of Pakistan as he did on the destruction of India, Pakistan might have had a rising economic story to tell by now.

Kashmir became the implicit sanction for the emergence, under Zia's beneficial watch, of terrorist groups like the Lashkar-e-Taiba, or the Army of the Pure. Zia's successors, starting with Benazir Bhutto, did little to contain these terrorists. When India protested, Pakistani diplomats were polite across the table, and probably had a good laugh behind Delhi's back. Since Zia's time Pakistan has been asking for "evidence" or proof, and encouraging skepticism or conspiracy theories (dutifully lapped up by sections of the Indian media). Well, this time there is a canary singing in custody, and a satellite phone abandoned by terrorists with five logged calls to members of the Lashkar. Just in case you did not know, it is the declared intention of the Pure Army to fly the Pakistani flag on top of the Red Fort. Its plans are not secret. They are on its website. Its leader, Hafiz Muhammad Saeed, certainly gets a wink if not a nod from the Pak establishment. Pervez Musharraf was the only Pakistani leader to ban the Lashkar, under international pressure after Vajpayee mobilized along the border in the wake of the December 13 attack on Parliament. Passions cooled, and it simply reappeared under another name, back in business. Hafiz Saeed does not live in hiding. He gives interviews to Indian publications.

Asif Zardari's latest alibi is: these are non-state actors. They certainly preen around on the Pakistani stage. If the Pakistani state cannot stop this bloodthirsty drama, the world will have to.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Opinion/Sunday_TOI/Special_Report/Two-nation_theory_has_bred_practice_of_hatred/articleshow/3803243.cms


Last edited by MRehan on Jan 13, 2009 - 11:35 AM; edited 4 times in total
 
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website  
Reply with quote Back to top
Display posts from previous:     
Jump to:  
All times are GMT + 1 Hour
Post new topic   Reply to topic
View previous topic Printable version Log in to check your private messages View next topic
RSS Feeds backend.php
----Terms of Use & Disclaimer----