Vested Interests in India for Giving In to Pak Blackmail

[RajeshA]

Cross-posting a post by ramana from the "Thesis: Peace unlikely in next 25 years" Thread

RamaY let's try to list Indian groups or interests that benefit from piss with TSP.

In the "Thesis: Peace unlikely in next 25 years" Thread, there was a start of a discussion in this direction, but it seems the focus of the thread is elsewhere, so I am starting this new thread to look at

- the whole gamut of groups of political-commercial interests in India willing to appease Pakistan
- the ideology driving sections of Indian population to placate Pakistan
- the various groups who push for this placation
- the "Aman ki Asha" Project
- the Pakistan strategy to coordinate with these groups and derive maximum benefit out of blackmail based on "terrorism and peace" combine

Will cross-post the relevant posts.

[RajeshA]

Cross-posting a post by Rudradev from the "Thesis: Peace unlikely in next 25 years" Thread in order to look at solutions

Shiv,

I think it's important that we look beyond the geopolitical context when discussing what "peace" really is supposed to mean.

The commonly understood meaning of "peace" is a binary antithesis to a declared state of "war". That definition is hardly relevant nowadays. When you consider what national life in the 21st century has become, "peace" today is the consensual point of equilibrium to which the citizenry of a nation accustoms itself, along the entire spectrum from Bhutan-like idyllic serenity to all-out conventional military conflict. That point of equilibrium is something different in the US, the UK, China, India and even Pakistan. As long as there are no catastrophic challenges (like, say, 9/11 in the USA)-- whatever conditions are commonly agreed upon to represent a state of "peace" in that society will prevail. So it is a stable equilibrium.

We keep hearing that all these initiatives are being taken to promote "peace" with Pakistan. Aman ki Asha, MFN, uninterruptible dialogue and what not. But nobody seems to ask the question... what is that "peace" we are seeking to promote? How is it qualitatively different from the prevailing set of conditions in which Indian citizens now live and function, and have lived and functioned in for the last generation or so? Certain parties are clearly trying to sell this idea of "peace" as something we must make concessions to Pakistan in exchange for... but what is that idea other than a mere sentimentalized abstraction?

In geopolitical terms, India has enjoyed uninterrupted "peace" (or, what is consensually agreed upon by the Indian citizenry to represent "peace") since 1971. There has been a contained state of war (Kargil) and a military mobilization (Parakram) but even those are now more than a decade in the past! A huge proportion of India's population is too young even to remember these events, let alone the last time when we were actually in a state of declared "war".

Now proxy war has been ongoing, of course. It has existed in Punjab, Kashmir, the Northeast and the Maoist Hinterland throughout the last two decades, and increasingly in the rest of India over the last decade. This is not a war where India takes the fight to the enemy, however.

What this proxy war means for the State is a need to maintain increased vigilance and to engage in essentially defensive counterterrorism and counterinsurgency strategies. What it means for the common Indian citizen is a threat of terrorist attacks impinging on daily life.

But is this the same as "real" war, in terms of the psychosocial impact it has on Indian citizens? Not at all. It is just something we have grown used to. We don't stop doing business or working hard at our jobs or planning long-term futures for our families on the basis of this proxy war. Yes, it can happen that we will get blown up while waiting for a bus tomorrow... but all things considered, most Indian citizens in most parts of India have weighed the odds and decided it's not much greater a worry than, say, getting run over by the bus itself, or dying in a house fire, or of some nasty communicable disease. It's a danger, but one we quite easily cope with and get on with our lives in spite of.

That is not the kind of impact a war, real war, has on a national psyche. It is simply one arbitrary grey point along the serenity-hostility spectrum where the consensus among Indian citizens is to get on with our lives, having weighed the risks to daily life after two decades of lived experience. For Indians, this situation that we all currently live with is what we call "peace". In fact, even something as notionally challenging to this equilibrium as 26/11 just wasn't enough to transform the mindset of Indians away from thinking that what we live with right now is basically "peace".

And, to the utter discombobulation of all those "peace" activists who demand concessions to Pakistan, be they Wagah Candle Kissers in Delhi lounges or sanctimonious Non-Proliferation A$$holes at Washington institutions... the state of "peace" that India knows is not something we merely live with. It is something we THRIVE with. We prosper and prosper, achieve greater and greater economic heights, and when we complain of the things that make economic life difficult we talk about scams, inflation and corruption... NOT about the lack of "peace".

So then what are all these initiatives aimed at "talking to Pakistan", "befriending Pakistan", "engaging with Pakistan" etc. supposed to deliver? What is the threat, the Damocles sword hanging over our nation's collective heads that makes us say "we must have Peace with Pakistan"? What will happen if we don't make concessions to Pakistan? On the other hand, what is the promised reward... held out by the Pakis and the "peace" constituency in India and Washington... that is supposed to entice us towards making this "peace"?

I have an answer for this. But it is not a politically correct answer.

According to one of the few strictures of political correctness that apply on BRF, we are not supposed to mention Pakistan and Indian Muslims in the same thread, let alone the same breath. These are two entirely different animals, goes the conventional wisdom. We should never impute the motives of one as explanation for the behaviour of the other, under any circumstances.

Yet it seems increasingly obvious to me that there is a constituency in India which is largely comprised of, and held hostage to, the agenda of some members of the Ashraf Caste of Indian Muslims. Ashrafs are the Muslim Castes who proudly claim descent from a "superior" lineage of foreign pillagers. Ashrafs enjoyed special status under British colonialism, and laid the ideological groundwork for the creation of Pakistan. Unfortunately, even after partition, many sections of the Ashraf Caste did not go to Pakistan and transmute into RAPEs. A very large section of them stayed back in India, and for generations since independence, they have milked the system of state patronage and vote-bank appeasement for maximum profit.

Many members of this Ashraf Lobby occupy influential, suited-booted positions in the media, in law, in industry, and even in government. Other members of this Lobby exercise disproportionate influence over the Ajlafs, or Lower Caste Indian Muslims, by dominating influential nodes of Islamic clergy (such as Dar Ul Uloom Madrassa and Jama Masjid), thug-infested political networks of the hinterland (such as the MIM or Samajwadi Party cadres), and organized criminal syndicates. Still others are active in so-called "intelligensia" circles, masquerading as academics, NGO-operators, social workers or left-wing political activists.

However, in their program vis-a-vis the Indian State and the non-Muslim Indian people, the entire Ashraf Lobby shares a united purpose: the domination of India's resources to benefit themselves in the name of Islam. In this project they share a greater commonality of interest with the Pakistani RAPE than with any group in India, including Indian Ajlaf Muslims (whom they regard as cannon-fodder at best.)

Of late, it has been dawning on this Ashraf Lobby that their 66-year ride on the gravy train may soon be coming to an end. Since Independence they have relentlessly practiced the politics of victimhood; they have jealously hoarded of the benefits of "secular" pandering for their own small sub-sectional sliver of India's Muslim population; and they have constantly blackmailed central governments in Delhi while positioning themselves as the sole guarantors of Indian Muslim mass loyalty to India rather than Pakistan. Yet, over the last two decades, all of these projects have begun to offer steadily diminishing returns.

There are many reasons for this. We can identify several landmarks and trends along the way. Just to name a few: the aftermath of the Shah Bano case. The rise of Hindu political assertiveness as part of the mainstream political landscape. And MOST dramatically, the descent of Pakistan into utter state failure and chaos. Once that great bulwark of Islamic subcontinental nationhood was no longer a credible military threat to India, or a credible alternative to blackmail the GOI with, the Ashraf Lobby was forced to change its tune rapidly.

Today we see a situation where the Ashraf Lobbies on both sides of the Radcliffe line are playing good cop-bad cop with the Indian government. But the cop roles have switched.

Earlier, the Indian Ashraf Lobby was the good cop... making sure that India's privileged Ashraf Caste received all sorts of government benefits, "first rights on Indian resources" etc. in exchange for keeping the Indian Muslim masses loyal to India rather than Pakistan. Meanwhile the Pakistani Ashraf Lobby, or RAPE, acted as "bad cop"... threatening war and dismemberment of India under an Islamist banner and wearing a Jernail's uniform.

Today the positions have reversed. Under immense pressure of sanction, isolation and outright ridicule from their former friends in the West, the Pakistani Ashraf Lobby, or RAPEs, have largely switched around to being the "good cop". Their message to GOI is: give concessions to Pakistan on Kashmir, on Siachen, on territory and trade... after all we are all pappi jhappi birathers onlee and we can be one big happy South Asian family onlee.

Meanwhile the Indian Ashraf Lobby have compensated for the current weaknened state of the RAPEs, by becoming the bad cops. Thanks to the Karachi project on the one hand, and Manmohan Singh's initiatives on the other, India's official policy has become NOT to blame Pakistan for acts of terrorism within India, but rather to blame "indigenous" groups like the "Indian Mujahedin" as if they were operating in a vacuum... or even worse, to blame fictitious "Saffron Terrorists" wherever possible.

So here is how all this connects to my original thoughts about "peace".

The Indian Ashraf Lobby is essentially holding out a veiled threat against the Indian nation. Give concessions to Pakistan. Give them territory and respectability and economic freebies. Do this in the name of "peace"... because WE have the power to mobilize, not Pakistani jihadis, but Indian Muslim Masses against the Indian state and people.

In recent times, with the imminent decline of the Congress Party's political fortunes signaling a possibly permanent and abrupt end to the Ashraf Lobby's gravy train, the "veiled" threat is no longer so "veiled." It is coming out in the open. It is telling us that failure to continue with the "peace" process vis-a-vis Pakistan, i.e. a cessation of giveaways and handouts from India to Pakistan, will lead to a sustained, dramatic worsening of the security situation within India, through the action of Indian Muslims. It will destroy the level of "peace" to which the Indian citizenry has consensually accustomed itself over the last two decades.

Please read this article by an Ashraf Lobby bad cop threatening what will happen if Narendra Modi (or anyone else who might stop the GOI's Pakistan appeasement program) becomes Prime Minister. It is laid out as "fiction" but the message is loud and clear. If you stop giving Pakistan what they want, we will make sure that Indian Muslims rise up and wage war against the Indian Government. I would like to thank the gentleman who wrote this article a million times for finally going one step too far and lifting the veil from before our eyes.

The worst (ever) case scenario


By OMAR AKHTAR

Published: Sun, 07 April 2013 09:21 PM



The article is intended to highlight the danger of power-grabbing, communal politics. It is a work of fiction.


It is 2014 in India. The Hindu-nationalistic IJP wins the election by a slender majority on its own, obviating the need for coalition, the first such time in India since 1984. The upper middle class votes in droves for the party, fed up with the corrupt Conference Party-led government in New Delhi. Led by the charismatic, Mahendra Bodi, the IJP starts on the path to, ‘repay the debt of Bharat Mata.’

Soon after election, Mr Bodi stops all negotiations with Pakistan, effectively ending talks on enhancing trade and cooperation between the two warring neighbours. ‘Kashmir is not up for discussion,’ thunders Mr Bodi in his first address to Parliament. He asks Parliament to remember the 1994 resolution which clearly stated that the ‘dispute’ was over ‘Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (PoK).’ The statement sends shockwaves in Kashmir. Protests are held. Arrests are made. Curfew is imposed. Mr Bodi calls on the Army and Paramilitary to fend off the protestors, and deal with the situation with an ‘iron fist.’ In a bloody trip to the Valley, Mr Bodi, recalling his march in 1992 to Srinagar to raise the Indian flag in Lal Chowk, dares the ‘Pakistanis’ to come and meet him in Lal Chowk. A protest march is fired upon. Dozens are killed. Kashmir witnesses its bloodiest day in years. The curfew continues. Kashmiris in other parts of India hold marches in solidarity with their Kashmiri brethren. The protests are broken up, many are arrested. Some are convicted of ‘terrorist’ and ‘anti-national’ acts under a new law introduced to specifically counter protests against Security Forces deployed in disturbed areas. The JKNC and PDP legislators from the Valley, aghast at the brutal treatment, call on Mr Bodi to hold back his forces. The Assembly is dismissed. The State Elections of 2014 are postponed. The harsh winter of 2014-15 is like a particularly severe winter 25 years ago, with the daily doses of killings, curfews, and crackdowns. The press, one of the strongest institutions in Kashmir, is gagged for months. The internet shuts down. An eerie silence descends upon the Valley…



The ‘Grand Plan’ was to obliterate Muslims. But the Plan falters. The Muslims are prepared. They close ranks. The battles make the Syrian and Iraqi Civil Wars look like child’s play. Brave last stands are made. The Battle of India begins. The Day of Judgement is definitely near…



In a surprising development, Muslim organisations from Hyderabad to Kerala and Uttar Pradesh hold solidarity marches, to call on the government to refrain from imposing harsh measures against the population in Kashmir. Clashes erupt between parallel marches in some major cities, between the Muslim marches and a particularly virulent Hindu organisation organising marches on the same day. The Police, instructed to watch and do nothing, do exactly that. Communal clashes see dozens killed, most of them Muslims, in systematic attacks against businesses and professionals, in a few days, reminiscent of a sad chapter in India’s history when a ‘Nero’ stood watching as his State burnt. Political parties, led by Congress, call for peace, but blame the Muslims for ‘starting’ the trouble.

A few weeks later in 2015, bomb blasts occur outside the offices of the Hindu organisation blamed for most of the violence. In three hours, twelve blasts destroy the organisations’ offices in different cities throughout India. Hundreds are killed when buildings collapse on them in a major city, dozens more when another bomb blast occurs at the moment rescuers are trying to save the injured.

Mr Bodi goes on TV. ‘To every action there is a reaction.’ A theory he had propounded a few years ago to justify carnage against Muslims in a different era. The reaction happens. Systematically, almost to perfection, targeted killings and bomb blasts occur in succession in every state ruled by the IJP. The Police suspected to have played a role in the acquisition of the bomb-making materials. Some Muslim Officers are dismissed for having alerted Muslims before the blasts. The plan was perhaps hatched a long time before the spark. Mosques, Shrines, Madrassas, and major places of congregation for Muslims are targeted. Historical monuments are severely damaged. Thousands die in an orgy of violence.

‘Follow the Burmese model,’ say some particularly savage votaries of the violence. ‘The result is a foregone conclusion,’ says one member of the Hindu organisation. ‘We have to restore Hindu-rule. These Muslims are invaders, they have to be killed.’

But the Muslim middle-class, now fully aware of its identity and conscious of its religious duties, responds in an unexpected way. The ‘Grand Plan’ was for them to be pushed to refugee camps, their property taken away from them, and ultimately, like advised by the late founder of a party with a strong base in Maharashtra, ‘Remove the Muslims from the electoral lists.’ The Plan falters. The Muslims are prepared. They close ranks. From the ghettos of large cities, the small towns in the Gangetic plains; from seminaries in the North, to the colleges in the South; from large mosques to large Shrines, the Muslims fight to death. The battles make the Syrian and Iraqi Civil Wars look like child’s play. Brave last stands are made. The Battle of India begins. The Day of Judgement is definitely near…

Please read and realize exactly what this Ashraf Caste is saying. FORGET about the "Narendra Modi" angle (that is just a convenient hook and has no bearing on the message).

The author of this article is saying that raising the Indian flag in Srinagar, and reiterating the 1994 Parliamentary Resolution that POK is part of India... will be enough to invoke a response from INDIAN Muslims, across the nation, that will make the Iraqi and Syrian Civil Wars look like "child's play."

THIS is the threat to "peace" that we are being intimidated into averting by making concessions to Pakistan. The threat is not anything Pakistan can do directly... but rather, the promise of a jihad waiting to happen by Indian Muslims, under the leadership of Ashraf Caste Indian Muslims, against the Indian nation.

There is only one way to guarantee the perpetuation of our current form of "peace" in India, and it has nothing to do with Pakistan. What is needed is to liberate the Ajlaf Castes, who form 85% of the Indian Muslim population, from the poisonous dominance of the Ashrafs. And to do away with the blackmailing Ashraf Lobby by any and all necessary means.

[RajeshA]

Cross-posting a post by RamaY from the "Thesis: Peace unlikely in next 25 years" Thread

IMO there are three kinds of "Art of Pyar" (Aman ki Asha) strategists

First group is the "Families without borders". I do not know if these families did not relocate to India/Pakistan during partition for financial (have significant assets on both sides of the border) or religious reasons (have religious affiliation on both sides of the border). I cannot understand why a family decided to leave some of it in a (real & perceived) hostile nation.

Second group is the Mughalai-political system. This group has interdependent political and financial interests to keep the majority under their rule. I would put the Paki RAPE class and the Desi Psecular parties in this group.

Third group is the agents of external super-powers. Majority of NGOs fall in this category.

Now the question is what is the interest of Congress System? Who do they represent, 2/3 group?

[RajeshA]

Cross-posting a post by akashganga from the "Thesis: Peace unlikely in next 25 years" Thread

Shiv Ji, Rudradev Ji,

Very intelligent posts from you guys. Good work.

I do not have any hopes on ashrafs or high caste muslims of the subcontinent. They consider themselves as descendents of arabs or mughals. Then fantasize mughlistan. I have some hope in the rest of the muslims of India. If arab and islamic world start descending into chaos as is already happening in many parts followed by improvement in economy and standard of living in India, many of the non ashrafs in India will identify more and more with bharatiya sanskriti.

There can be no peace wherever their are muslims. Muslims wish peace be upon their prophet whenever they invoke the prophet. For the rest of humans including other muslims they have only jehad.

[RajeshA]

Cross-posting a post by Rudradev from the "Thesis: Peace unlikely in next 25 years" Thread

Shiv,

I do see your point. General convulsions about Islamism become too much of a shotgun approach to the problem. However, we can't fully address the problem if we don't talk about ideology... and in this case, the ideology is not Islamism per se (although it uses Islamism like a conjoined twin's endocrine system). It is Nazariya e Pakistan, or NeP.

NeP says that all of the Indian subcontinent must revert to an imagined Muslim domination that (fictitiously) existed under the Mughals before the British came. It is the reason behind all that you ascribe to Pakistan that makes it unwise for us to seek "peace" with it... political supremacy of the army, inculcation of anti-Hindu hatred in the educational system etc. The West, in fact, supports these facets of NeP even as they actively fight against other strains of Islamism directed against them.

Certainly, NeP is specifically a Paki thing, not an Islamist thing per se. If you ask a Muslim in Oman or Jordan or Morocco whether the whole Indian subcontinent should be ruled by Islam... he may even say "yes", if the price to him is no greater than checking a box on a survey. But apart from a very small minority, people from these other Muslim nations will pay no more than lip service, if at all, to the idea. It is only within the Indian subcontinent that millions of Muslims feel an ideological affinity to NeP, to such an extent that they would engage in organized violence willingly in support of the cause. They are motivated not only by the fact of being Muslim but by the adherence to a specific historical narrative centered on the Indian subcontinent, as an article of faith. So our focusing on "Islamism" conflates the specific issue we have regarding "peace with Pakistan" into some much wider and blurrier picture.

So I am in agreement with you to leave Islamism out of it. But we cannot leave NeP out of it. And the principal aspect of NeP is that it has adherents both in India and in Pakistan; its adherents didn't all go to Pakistan, and many of them are well-ensconced at many levels (business, industry, government, media, clergy, politics, organized crime) in India.

They are a wealthy and powerful lobby who hold the interests of the vast majority of Indian Muslims to ransom. They are (BOTH in Pakistan AND India... witness Farooq Kathwari, Omar Khalidi and Ghulam Nabi Fai) backed by the West.

Now as you say, there are certain parties in India... not just the core NeP lobby but WKKs and others... who benefit copiously from the ongoing process of "engaging" with Pakistan in the stated interest of "peace". They continue to benefit while a far larger proportion of Indians lives with deadly danger of Pakistani terrorist attacks.

The WKKs and anti-Hindutvavadis who benefit from this process are able to ignore the Indian wing of the NeP lobby, and sweep their true motivations under the carpet, by claiming that those who oppose efforts to make "peace with Pakistan" are jackasses and bigots. That is exactly as you say.

The need of the hour is to work against the entire set of groups with an agenda to benefit from continuing engagement and accommodation of Pakistan, through OTHER means than raising the Islamism threat (otherwise the agenda-driven groups will demonize us as yahoos who shout "Hindu Dharm Khatre Mein Hai" and say that Jinnah was secular compared to us.)

Yet, in formulating the strategy we cannot ignore that our primary enemy is motivated by NeP; that NeP exists within India; and like it or not, NeP is correlated (if not causatively related) to Islamism. Even if we do not say this publicly (until a strategic opportunity presents itself to bring it out for maximum gain)... in our own minds we must know that this is so.

[RajeshA]

Cross-posting a post by brihaspati from the "Thesis: Peace unlikely in next 25 years" Thread

I think I have proposed for a long time now - that the existence of Pakistan is crucial for the ruling interests of India. There are some simple hypotheses that can explain observations on the ground for the last 60 years:

(1) the rashtryia ruling interests have a regional perception of "center" - somewhere abstractly in UP. The further you go from this imaginary centre of the world - all else becomes periphery simply by distance. Other factors that define periphery - are language, perceived cultural differences, and of course independent political thinking.

Any and all regions that have historical tendency to challenge the "centre" from dominating all the trade and demographic flow of the northern plains - are "enemies". In that sense Pakistan is "periphery". So Pakistan must be "kept out". The border is as much to keep India away from Pakistan as it is to keep Pakistan away from India. Pakistan and BD helps in keeping the two main challengers of UP-centre in GV - Punjab and Bengal - pre-occupied.

(2) Pakistan fortunately concentrates "islamism". This helps in not having to show the deep distrust and hatred of Muslims as "people" openly - and the hatred for "Muslim", not Islam which is admirable for its seamless integration of totalitarian control, can be kept covered up within pseudo-nationalistic antagonism between "nations". Indian rulers can safely go on pretending their love of "Islam" while hiding their hatred of "Muslims" - possibly out of identification of the majority of muslims as having been converted "lower class" Indians - under a hatred for Pakistan.

(3) Pakistan as an antagonistic ideological opponent of India - as an unchanging religiously motivated "enemy", helps in internal politics of India. The sole arbiter of power at the "centre" can threaten the Muslims in India with the imaginary threat of non-Muslims swallowing them up, while they can raise the threat of Pakistan and Indian Muslims joining hands together against the non-Muslim Indians. The sole arbiter can therefore play neutral and be safe in power. They can also threaten Pakistan in the same way the MKG/JLN line blackmailed the Brits in the 45-47 period - if you do not walk with us, the "others" would take over reigns of power - and then you will have it much harder.

(4) Making "peace" with Pakistan helps in keeping the uncertainty and the threat - permanent.


Opposite of "peace" - escalation into war - forces the rashtra to go for "conclusions". More militant or more "give-in == mergers/unions" - extreme parties are morel likely to become stronger. That is a disaster for the current cozy equation in power. Apart from due potential pressure from external forces interested in keeping Pakistan's existence - the internal reason is the strongest one.

So "peace" attempt is a kind of not-so-subtle tactic of postponing the inevitable.

However, from Pak view point - "peace" is a disaster. India has to me made to see the need for both "peace" and the "price of peace" - by which some resource transfer takes place that keeps the pak state living. If there is too much of peace - the economic and other "concessions" needed to keep Pak afloat cannot be justifiably demanded by Pak - nor given by Indian rulers in the eye of the Indian electorate.

So a perpetual state of non-peace, not-war that is decisive, is beneficial for both ruling elites. What the more fanatical brethren not yet elitized in pakiland [after all there are onlee a limited number of ashraaf hoors and zamindaris to share] think of the strategy is an entirely different ball-game.

I feel that Pak will increasingly come repeatedly to the point of war. But it will need a very determined not-hating-Muslims but determined to wipe off the ideology - leadership, to break this everlasting cycle of mutual blackmailing.

[Agnimitra]

- the whole gamut of groups of political-commercial interests in India willing to appease Pakistan
- the ideology driving sections of Indian population to placate Pakistan

Need to differentiate between sellouts in India who collude with Paki Deep State, and those Indians who selectively focus on developing useful links with certain Pakistani segments (that will separate from Pakistan's deep state and 3.5 interests and allow it to sink into an even lower ethical condition while themselves becoming dependents of India). There's a danger of boxing all Indians who probingly develop links with Pakistan into the WKK and sellout category.

Having created a dependency between certain choice sections of TSP and India, TSP should begin to devolve further as a legitimate nation state. It would help India's cause if a solid section of TSP is pro-Indian interventionism, patrolling, etc. Merely appealing to outsiders (international community) is not enough - needs to be complemented with a solid segment within TSP, that needs to be cultivated. But this is surgery, need to slice very, very selectively and not allow cancerous rascals to piggyback.

[Rudradev]

Rajesh A ji, thanks for starting this thread.

Carl ji,

You make a good point, but it leads to the tricky position of having to determine what constitutes a "legitimate" interest among some Indians in wanting to develop (or sustain existing) links with Pakistan. Yes, there are those who want to build up economic ties that could conceivably, under *certain* conditions, result in dependency of selective sections of Pakistani society upon India.

Beyond that there are people whose families remain divided across the border. Growing up in Mumbai, there were Sindhi families in my building who had (Hindu Sindhi) branches, first cousins, living in Pakistan and apparently doing quite well there. My neighbours' cousins would come down to visit sometimes and they were, curiously enough, the "rich" relatives, well dressed, with the foreign toys and Western vacations. They were nice enough but would sometimes condescend about how the roads, cars, buildings etc. were so much nicer in Ka-RAT-chee (that's how they pronounced it, in their American School accents). That was a long time ago of course, back in the '80s... I hope for their sakes they're safely away from Ka-rat-chee by now.

The litmus test for "legitimacy" in both these types of relations... family as well as business... lies, unfortunately, in the question of whose hands are steering the process of rapprochement.

Under a Government of India whose commitment to India's national interests, governance and development were beyond all doubt, I daresay people would have more confidence that the project of engendering economic dependence among certain sections of Pakistan was being pursued in an organized, targeted, strategic manner. One might be able to trust that it was the well-intentioned, rather than the parasites, who were the driving force behind the "Peace with Pakistan" constituency... and furthermore, that the parasites of all stripes would be marginalized and kept at a safe distance from being able to influence the process in a manner inimical to India.

Under today's GOI, of course, the situation is precisely the opposite. We dare not trust that a businessman dealing with Pakistan is serving any higher purpose than to fill his own pockets, having paid off the government for the requisite licenses and so on. And we can be absolutely sure, given the increasingly bizarre concoctions of "Hindu Terrorism" and so on that spews from the GOI's mouthpieces, that the driving force behind present moves to accommodate and placate Pakistan is wholly and exactly the Ashraf Lobby... with a deep-seated commitment to Nazariya-e-Pakistan as their primary motivation.

The vehicle may conceivably serve legitimate ends, but one can hardly doubt the intentions or quality of the driver today. I'm in favour of impounding the thing until a better class of person can be found to take the wheel.

[Agnimitra]

^^ Rudradev ji,

You echoed my sentiments in general. My basic position is:

"Louder" dialogue: Right foot forward

Here's a line of thought that advocates a greater focus on internal dialogue and external covert ops, along with a drastic reduction of external dialogue, diplomacy, and "cultural exchange" with any nation or party that misuses protocols and engages in a one-pointed agenda of hate.

However, just as covert ops needs one to cultivate a network across enemy lines, so also some very, very limited track-2 below a certain threshold might be considered a part of that. But I guess given the margin I have in mind, my post above was unnecessary.

[Luit]

Cross-posting a post by ramana from the "Thesis: Peace unlikely in next 25 years" Thread

RamaY let's try to list Indian groups or interests that benefit from piss with TSP.

In the "Thesis: Peace unlikely in next 25 years" Thread, there was a start of a discussion in this direction, but it seems the focus of the thread is elsewhere, so I am starting this new thread to look at

- the whole gamut of groups of political-commercial interests in India willing to appease Pakistan
- the ideology driving sections of Indian population to placate Pakistan
- the various groups who push for this placation
- the "Aman ki Asha" Project
- the Pakistan strategy to coordinate with these groups and derive maximum benefit out of blackmail based on "terrorism and peace" combine

Will cross-post the relevant posts.

I am posting an article by Yoginder Sikhand which was quoted in the J&K thread a couple of years back. Indian Muslims are the core issue. This article gives an insight into their psyche.

New Delhi: Nov 1, 2010: Jamiat Ulema Hind’s Conference on the Kashmir issue held in Ram Lila Maidan here on Sunday unanimously called for the withdrawal of the army from Kashmir and putting an end to gross human rights violations by the state police and the security forces to restore peace and normalcy in the valley. It appealed to the leadership of the militants, calling them ‘mujahideen’ , thus sanctifying their terrorism as Jihad, to take recourse to democratic process. No attempt was made to explain how Jihad could be waged democratically.

Most speakers displayed complete ignorance of or were willing to condone the treacherous policies pursued by Pakistan that has resulted in the present situation. Mufti Mukarram went to the extent of demanding the implementation of UN resolutions which could not be implemented due to Pakistan’s unwillingness to withdraw its armed forces from the state of Jammu and Kashmir, as the resolution demanded. The late Prime Minister of Pakistan Zulfiqar Bhutto had practically rescinded these resolutions in the Simla Pact of 1972 calling for the resolution of this issue bilaterally and former President General Musharraf had said, they are no longer applicable. Journalist M J Akbar, however, clarified, to loud cheers from the audience, that he was NOT with Kashmiris if they wanted another division of the country, but like every other Indian, he too would support them if they demanded justice.

The conference was presided over by the President of the Jamiat Ulema-e-Hind Maulana Syed Md Usman Mansurpuri and attended by its Secretary Maulana Mahmood Madani, Maulana Mujtaba Farooque, Secretary Jamaat-e-Islami Hind, Maulana Abdul Wahhab Khilji, Secretary Jamiat Ahl-e-Hadis, Film Director and human rights activist Mahesh Bhatt, Journalist Dr Aziz Burney, Journalist M J Akbar, Swami Agnivesh, Renowned Gandhian Rajiv Vohra, K K Jain, Kamal Farooqi and Professor Tahir Mehmood along with other dignitaries and intellectuals.

The Secretary of the JUH, Mehmood Madani said in no uncertain terms that persecution of Kashmiri people and atrocities on women and children in the name of suppressing protests would not be tolerated anymore because Kashmir belonged to us and Kashmiris were our own. He said that the erosion of trust that had taken place among the people of Kashmir due to the non-fulfilment of promises on the part of the government was the root cause of the current situation in the valley and to win their confidence back, the government would have to take some sincere steps. He further said that restoration of civil rights was a pre-requisite for bringing back peace and normalcy in the state.

Maualana Madani read out an 11 point Resolution passed by the JUH:

1) The government should accept the demands of the Kashmiri people within the frame work of the Constitution of India to restore peace in the state;

2) The government should fulfil the promise of special economic packages for the development and stability of Kashmir and take appropriate steps for the rehabilitation of displaced people and pay compensation to the affected people.

3) The government should issue orders to the armed forces to vacate populated areas as they have made life difficult for the people.

4) The AFSPA (Armed Forces Special Powers Act) and the PSA (Public Safety Act) should be immediately revoked;

5) Action should be taken against the violators of human rights and a commission should be set up to investigate the disappearance of missing youth in the valley;

6) Innocent arrested people should be immediately released;

7) The protesters should not be treated as militants and terrorists;

The JUH appeals to the leadership of the mujahideen to take recourse to democratic process;

9) The JUH assures the Kashmiri people that we support their legitimate demands. We do not regard their interests as different from those of the common Muslims of the country; We shall not allow the millat or the country to break up;

10) The JUH appeals to the peace-loving and justice-loving people and organisations to come forward and start movement against the injustice and atrocities meted out to the Kashmiri people;

11) The JUH declares that its movement against the human rights violations, atrocities and injustices in Kashmir will go on shoulder to shoulder with the people of the country.

Almost all the speakers and representatives of organisations present in the conference supported and seconded the resolution. The Secretary of the Jamat Islami, Mujtaba Farooque said that his organisation supported the resolution and said that the army of any country was for the safeguard of the sovereignty of the country and for the protection of its people, not for killing innocent children and women.

The Vice-President of All India Muslim Personal Law Board Maulana Kalbe Sadiq said that the Kashmir issue was messed up by Mr Jagmohan when he was made the governor and said that our Prime Minister instead of taking solid decisions was merely indulging in lip service.

He said that there are two parties in this dispute. Some people say that there was a third party also involved. But if the government makes further delay in solving this issue, a fourth party which is more powerful than India might also get involved in it.

He further said that had Gandhiji been alive today, he would not have allowed this bloodshed of the Kashmiris.

He proposed to the government to involve the leaders of Jamiat Ulema Hind and Darul Uloom Deoband in the Kashmir process as he hoped that they can solve the issue.

Renowned journalist and group editor of Rashtriya Sahara (Urdu) Dr Aziz Burney discussed the historical perspective of the Kashmir issue and questioned the legitimacy of the presence of the army in the valley.

He said that Kashmir was an integral part of India but if we do not have the army posted in all the other states of India as we have in Kashmir, then Kashmir is not a part of India in the same way as are other states of India.

Senior journalist M J Akbar said that it was heartening that the Jamiat was holding a sincere and honest discussion on the Kashmir issue. He said, “If the Kashmiris demand justice, we are with them but if they demand division of the country, we are not with them.”

Maulana Mufti Mukarram of Fatehpuri Masjid said that it was commendable that we were raising our voice for justice. It is the duty of every peace loving Indian to raise his voice against the atrocities and tortures on the Kashmiris by the armed forces. No Kashmiri is a terrorist, no Muslim is a terrorist, and the killings, the torture of Kashmiri youth, women and children could not be tolerated.

He said, “I have learnt that the first Prime Minister of India Pandit Jawahar Lal Nehru had made some commitment before the UNO about Kashmir. The Nehru family is still there. If it is true then the government should honour its commitment.”

He further said that he did not support the illegitimate demands of the Kashmiris but their legitimate demands should be met.

Referring to the killings of protesters, he said that it was unfortunate that the security forces kill the protesters whereas in other parts of country the police and the security forces do not open fire on protesters. Protesters often burn trains, block roads, damage government offices but no one is killed.

Arya Samaj leader Swami Agnivesh was the most vocal against the human rights violations in Kashmir and supported the resolution passed by the Jamiat Ulema-e-Hind. Criticising the Prime Minister for his silence on the issue, he asked,” Why is he not taking any initiative, leaving the matter to his Home Minister and the state government?”

He demanded that the Prime Minister make his decision known on the demand of the withdrawal of armed forces, the repeal of AFSPA and PSA within fifteen days. He also demanded a judicial inquiry into the killing of 111 people mostly youngsters by the security forces.

He warned that if these demands were not met, a movement would be launched and lakhs of members of Jamiat and peace-loving people would march from Delhi to Kashmir.

[ramana]

One big group is the Ganga-Jamuna culture or Dilli-Billis groups in both INC and BJP that will want ot perpetuate the existence of TSP more than the displaced Punjabis(WKK brigade with nostalgia for Lahore) or the Hyderabd Muslims with familial ties to TSP. The reason is its existence allows them to retain power for they fear the periphery taking control of India.
Its the Indo-Gangetic plains linkages vs the Krishna-Godavari linkages.


People fault MKG for denying Vallabh Bhai Patel the INC presidencey in favor of JL Nehru but what choice did he have when universal suffarage was on the cards? MKG prevented an open rupture asthe I-G plains have demographic advantage. This demographic advantage was bandied about by INC stalwarts who used to say winning UP and Bihar was enough to rule India.

If push comes to shove this very I-G crowd will push for merger and invite the Pakis just as the courtiers of Ibrahim Lodi invited Babur or earlier periods.

Bji can fill in the earlier instances.

[svinayak]

One big group is the Ganga-Jamuna culture or Dilli-Billis groups in both INC and BJP that

Its the Indo-Gangetic plains linkages vs the Krishna-Godavari linkages.
This demographic advantage was bandied about by INC stalwarts who used to say winning UP and Bihar was enough to rule India.

If push comes to shove this very I-G crowd will push for merger and invite the Pakis just as the courtiers of Ibrahim Lodi invited Babur or earlier periods.

Bji can fill in the earlier instances.

The Dilli Darbar group has to be transformed into a nationalist group. They can be made to stand up for the Indian civilizational legacy and Indian nationalist vision and goal. It will take time and will be painful. Indians have to brace up for this.

[member_20292]

IB4 conspiracy theories.

[RajeshA]

IB4TL and IB4 conspiracy theories.

Elaborate please the conspiracy theories which you think should not be here!

[shiv]

Cross post
The problem that I am trying to address in the "No peace for 25 years" thread is that Pakistan's behaviour (whether it is caused by Islam or brain fever or inbreeding) requires an Indian response. I am trying to point out that the Indian response should be to two separate entities: 1.Pakistan's actual behaviour,and 2. to the root cause of that behaviour

What I mean here is that we, in our discussions, mix up two very different beasts. I am defining those two different beasts as follows:

1. Pakistan actual behaviour - hostility, inculcation of hate and co-option of Islamic allies (like ummah) and non Islamic allies like USA and China against India. Addressing Ashrafs or local Islamic factors does nothing to Pakistan's allies. I am suggesting a continued development of the military and industry for continuous hostility without pausing for a mythical peace which will not come. The reason that peace cannot come so soon is because the issue has gone beyond mere Islamism. It has now become a geopolitical force that is seen as a "secular problem" by Pakistan allies. Even if we mollycoddle and embrace Islamism we cannot get peace. India Pakistan issues are not seen as a problem of Islamism by shitland's allies no matter how much we bash our heads. That is a problem that we must face head on.

Pakistan's Islamism is not seen as a problem to anyone else - it is seen as an entity that has a right to survive by allies like USA and China and Pakistans suffering is sen in part as Hindu bigotry. Hence Pakistan's quest is secular and just. Indians are bigoted. We tend to ignore this when we bash Islamism which we insist is the root cause. Even if it is the root cause it does not help us because we are seen as the root cause by others.

2. The second, older and more insidious beast is Islamism. In the subcontinental context issues of Islamism have been addressed both by Rudradev and by Brihaspati and this thread hs been started precisely to discuss that.

But as far as Pakistan' allies are concerned - none of them are having their balls squeezed from inside and outside by Ashrafi Islamism and their pseudosecular Hindu Mughal courtiers in India. So it is India that is bigoted, The Hindu courtiers are acusing other Hindus of that and Pakisyanis and Ashrafs and everyone else agrees that it is Hindus (other than the pseudosecular Hindu Mughal courtiers) who are bigoted. Pakistan is secular. Not India

We need to understand that there are two separate sets of responses needed. One is to thwart the secular threat from Pakistan allies and the otheris to deal with incestuous Islamism that insidiously accuses every Hindu of being a bigot.

Hence two threads.

[shiv]

IB4 conspiracy theories.

Please don't allow your embarrassment at being Hindu to come in the way of others discussing what they want. The secular courtiers and the masses must all have their say no?

[RajeshA]

The Axioms of the Ashraf Meme

Cross-posting from the "Understanding Islamic Society" Thread

Rudradev ji

Finally caught up with your peaceful post. I asked Mehdi N^3 a simple question. What was the difference between Indian and Pakistani Muslims (Ashraf or otherwise) on August 13, 1947?

Are Taliban and LET Ashraf?

Still waiting for the answer.

The Ashraf meme is not confined to India. In fact, it is to be found everywhere in the Ummah, including in Saudi Arabia.

So what are the Axioms of the Ashraf Meme?

1. The Ashrafs source their origin from outside of the nation.
2. Often it suffices that they have a little ancestry pointing outside the geography of the nation - a single ancestor even.
3. The Ashrafs always consider themselves racially superior to the native.
4. Ideological purity is posited as directly proportional to the strength of the Ashraf blood line!
5. The Ashrafs are as such always trying to procreate with women, who are considered to be from lands with tribes having martial traditions and "physically superior traits" - white, tall, blonde, lighter colored eyes, etc. If such women can be sourced from Muslim countries, all the better, but even Western women would do, after they have been tempted into Islam.
6. The Ashrafs feel that they are predestined to rule over the natives - Ajlafs and Kufr. The Ashrafs have as such a strong sense of entitlement.
7. The Ashrafs often try to bind the Ajlaf with the same attitude and history, so that he looks at the Ashrafs both in awe and at the Kufr in a manufactured racial contempt. The Ajlaf seeks identification with the Ashraf even as the Ashraf tries to hold his genetic distance from him, promotes his attitude of entitlement, but binds the Ajlaf in ideological brotherhood.
8. The Ashrafs would not want a tribe of relative Ajlafs to defeat an Ashraf tribe or a tribe led by higher Ashrafs, because that turns the Ashraf meme on its head, which says that one tribe wins over the other because of the strength of the Ashraf blood line. That means an Ajlafer nation should not win wars over Ashrafer nation (e.g. Bangladesh over Pakistan).
9. Because the Ashraf identifies himself with an outside more purer nation tribe/nation, he will always support the interests of the outside power over those of his own, because he considers his own more Ajlafer and racially impure.
10. Often due to this meme often the Ajlaf could be forced into more Islamic fanaticism in order to establish his credentials viz-a-viz the Ashrafs, in a way trying to gain a more powerful position in the setup. It is an internal rivalry but it often manifests through a threat to the Kufr as that is how Islamic radicalism expresses itself. This is true for converted individuals as it is true for converted tribes/nations.

So responding to whether Taliban and LeT are Ashraf, I would say the LeT certainly believe that they are Ashrafer than the Muslim converts in India, the Ajlafs. In Pakistan the Ashrafs have the power, whereas in India the Ashrafs have only power over the Muslim masses, and the country itself, India, is not considered Muslim. But in the scheme of things, LeT feels miserably Ajlaf and are trying to show their relevance through Islamic fanaticism and more importantly by trying to terrorize the Kufr, so that they too get some brownie points, but also to show the Ashrafs of India that they should continue to see Pakistanis as the higher Ashraf.

The Taliban don't recognize that the Ashraf leaders of Pakistan are more Ashraf than them. In fact the Pushtun allowed many Arabs to find sanctuary with them to improve their Ashraf quotient. Moreover the Pushtuns feel they converted to Islam earlier so they are closer to Islam. Racially speaking, no Pushtun would accept a Pakjabi's racial credentials. In fact it is because in relation to Pushtuns, the Pakjabis themselves feel more Ajlaf that they are often willing to do downhill skiing. But the non-Pushtun Ashrafs in Pakistan naturally consider themselves more Ashraf than the rest of the Pakistani masses, and funnily it is because of the caste differences. Some of these Ashrafs after coming to power have of course tried to increase their Ashraf quotient by marrying Persians, etc.

We know that the last Nizam of Hyderabad State, Osman Ali Khan, Asif Jah VII married his eldest son and heir Prince Azam Jah (1907–1970), Princess Durru Shehvar, the daughter of Caliph Abdülmecid II, the last Caliph of the Ottomans in Nice, France, on 12 November 1931. Her first cousin Princess Niloufer, was married to Prince Moazzam Jah, the second son of the Nizam.

[RajeshA]

Based on The Axioms of the Ashraf Meme, one can understand how the Ashrafs in India see it in their interest to save Pakistan.

A Kufr country cannot be allowed to attack or defeat an Ashraf country.

The Gangetic Ashraf generally sees the Pakjabi Ashraf as a higher standing Ashraf. His own standing in his community of Ajlafs in India derives from his Ashrafness.

If a country which is more Ashraf than oneself gets humiliated by a Kufr country, than that undermines the whole principle of Ashrafness, that it is one's Ashrafness which gives one one's superior beauty and superior warrior-heart. The more India, as a Kufr country, accepts the superiority of the Paki Elite, the more the Ashraf in India can sell his Ajlafs the bakwas that his Ashrafness is universally accepted including by the Kufr as superior. It is as such only natural that the Ajlaf too accepts this, and in fact by being Muslim, one gets to share some of the Ashrafness of the Ashraf as it gets rubbed on by rubbing shoulders, making the Ajlaf racially superior to the Kufr.

The Ashraf in India wants India to bow to every Ashraf country, the more Ashraf the country the deeper we should be forced to bow. The deeper we Kufr bow to the Ashraf countries like Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Iran, the more recognition these Ashrafs would get both from their Ajlafs and the Ashraf countries for facilitating such a deep bow, and thus more support.


The remedy is of course for

1. increasing Bharatiya power - knowledge-based, economically, militarily and political, both at the national level and the personal level to a level where Bharat makes West Asia bow to us.
2. We need to give such Thapparh to Pakistan every once in a while that their Ashraf pride really lies at the deepest pig shitpit on Earth.
3. We need to make friends with Afghans, which shows that their growth is not due to their Ashrafness but due to their connections to India.
4. We need to humiliate and kick Ashrafs in India as well who act anti-national. One show of anti-national behavior should mean that the Ashraf in India has basically lost all claim to respect as a citizen. His property should be impounded and he should be publicly humiliated. Zero respect for Ashrafs is a condition for Ajlafs in India to recognize and rediscover their Bharatiya pride.

We should in fact create a constituency in Bangladesh that reacts to any Ashrafness among Bangladeshis with brutal violence.

Basically we need to turn the Ashraf Pyramid on its head.

[ramana]

You need to get deeper understanding of the Ashrafs also.
They have a hierarchy in them

Syeds
Sheikhs
T-A-P: Turco-Afghan-Persian
Etc.
In all of them those who claim to be from Muhammad's direct family triumph over the others.
They quiz each other as to the origins to establish the pecking order and once its known its fixed.
i saw a chit of a girl ask a senior pediatrician whether he was a Syed or a Sheikh? He said his forebears were Maratha converts who switched to the Nizam side.
Down he goes in her estimation!!!

[Prem]

Ashrafs act like alien snake head then easy to solve the problem. remove the ehad and let the body become Bhart i.e Not Indian but Bharati Muslims . Koi Ahrafs ki List Banayo so they can be honored with Moksh Marg away from Mosque Marg.

[RajeshA]

Jhujar ji,

I'm all in favor of humiliation of Ashrafs all over the Subcontinent, by different groups. Bharat needs to fund groups, especially Muslim, who are willing to target Ashrafs and to humiliate them.

If one as much as says that one's ancestry can be traced to Turks, Arabs or Persians and he feels pride in it, then he should become wajib-ul-beizzati and even the Bharatiya Nationlist regimes should allow for some reason or the other, that he be harassed by India's various depts like IT dept, Police, etc. and his property be confiscated.

Ashrafism should be fought like Polio!

[Prem]

Just grant them the Dhimmi status and it will meet all the expectation of both parties. Agrre though on Bharti Soil Actors should take a note of this Ashrafi threat to National security . All these Os (Owaisis/,Omar etc) need to be wiped clean. basic problem is all these people have been encouraged and not confronted by Indians so far and it should change .

[RajeshA]

You need to get deeper understanding of the Ashrafs also.
They have a hierarchy in them

Yes they do have hierarchies, but their behavior towards the country they live in, e.g. India, is the same. They show the same memes.

[shiv]

Please permit me to cross post an idea that I suggested in the no peace for 25 years thread.

India is fundamentally an anti-Musiim/anti-Islam country. Muslims and Islam are tolerated with some disgust. Pakistan of course has recognized this and has been complaining, although Indians have been denying this fact to themselves.

The sops India gives to Muslims and the loud caterwauls by ostensibly "secular" people that Muslims are second class citizens, including insincere statements like "They have first claim on India's resources" are all dramabazi to show how much we care for people whom we tolerate with some disgust.

What not bring this fact out into the open, as a sort of catharsis and "truth commission" so we are transparent in the way we deal with Islam?

[RajeshA]

Please permit me to cross post an idea that I suggested in the no peace for 25 years thread.

India is fundamentally an anti-Musiim/anti-Islam country. Muslims and Islam are tolerated with some disgust. Pakistan of course has recognized this and has been complaining, although Indians have been denying this fact to themselves.

The sops India gives to Muslims and the loud caterwauls by ostensibly "secular" people that Muslims are second class citizens, including insincere statements like "They have first claim on India's resources" are all dramabazi to show how much we care for people whom we tolerate with some disgust.

What not bring this fact out into the open, as a sort of catharsis and "truth commission" so we are transparent in the way we deal with Islam?

shiv saar,

I think one potent tool for starting a discussion with Indian Muslims could be "Ashrafism". Just as people tried to separate "Islamism" from Islam in order to counter it, though unsuccessfully, similarly one can separate "Ashrafism" from Islam, and then try to counter aspects of it.

With "Islamism", non-Muslims especially in the West, tried to set up a standard for "acceptable Muslims" who were to be called "moderate Muslims". These were not supposed to have any political pretensions.

In India, I think the relevant concept would be "Ashrafism" which forces Muslim Ajlaf masses to follow casteist upper caste Muslims - the Ashrafs who swear their fealty to outside powers and interests.

In fact through such psychoanalytical tools, one can also deal with Islamic radicalization, calling it as a reaction to Ashrafism, a result of inferiority complex among the Ajlafs. Then one can start making surveys and censuses based on Ashraf-Ajlaf divide and speak about discrimination and wealth inequality among the two. In fact it is a concept to push in a deep wedge between the Ashrafs and Ajlafs, thus trying to wean away the Ajlafs from Ashraf manipulation.

We can play a better game if we start demonizing Ashrafism. Thus we don't have to be forced to claim at the political level that we are a people against Islam. In fact at the moment, that is considered as incitement to hatred.

[RajeshA]

Ashrafism

There are in fact a large number of steps India can take to institutionalize policies based on rejecting "Ashrafists".

1. We can propose that Ashrafs in India would not be allowed to stand as candidates for any political office in India.
2. Ashrafs should not be allowed to become High Court and Supreme Court judges.
3. In fact Ashrafs should not be allowed to be on the various panels like the "All India Muslim Personal Law Board", etc, or be part of any committees.
4. As such one should stop giving visas to Pakistanis, but if there is to be a policy of continuing to give them visas, we should restrict visas to Pakistanis who are Ajlafs. People have to bring some form of proof that they are Ajlaf and sign a form where they state they are Ajlafs. No visa for Ashrafs.
5. Only have dialogue with Pakistanis who are Ajlaf, and not afflicted with inferiority complex due to Pakistani Ashrafism.

One can add to the list!

[RajeshA]

In fact we should stop giving visas to three categories of Pakistanis - Pakjabis, Islamists and Ashrafs.

Pakjabis should be rejected simply on the basis of human rights abuses in Pakistan and failure to apologize for the Bangladesh Genocide.

[shiv]

http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 4#p1439754

May I ask, once again, why is India so keen on declaring itself as not anti Islam.

1. Pakistan, a state set up ostensibly for subcontinental Muslims accuses India of being anti Islamic. That viewpoint is supported by western thinkers and by the testicle-less OIC. The US and Chin believe that Pakistan's grivance against India is enough to warrant military support
2. The argument that Muslims in India are as free as anyone else is countered by many Indian and Pakistanis who point of many examples where Muslims in India are not free
3. An entire segment of Indians who call themselves Hindu and secular agree with both the above points and claim that "right wing Hinduism" is responsible for all this.

If the facts on the ground are that India is anti-Islam, then why do we tray and buck that question? Clearly the pretence that Islam causes us no grievance is fake. We are Islamophobes par excllence for this reason.

Why not accept that and move on?

I must add that it was I who once described India as "pale green" almost sharia compliant. India is anti Islam simply because it is not fully sharia compliant and we don't intend to be either. What is the problem in saying that? What are we hiding? And from whom?

[CRamS]

RudraJi/DocJi,

Good arguments. But lets not forget that a huge portion of this appease TSP, self-flagellate Hindus include many Hindus themselves. (As an aside, I just read with some amusement, Hindu RAPE Karan Thappad on HT sing paens of late hard-core UK white Christian nationalist Maggie Thatcher. The same moron never tires of declaring his secularism and relentlessly going after say an India version of Thatcher, a Hindu nationalist like Modi). Point being that caste divisions are so deep among us Hindus, that in this intra-Hindu battle for power and supremacy, one Hindu caste or the other co-ops the Muslims or Ashrafs or whoever, which in turn means appeasing TSP. You ask 10 Hindus, their views on TSP, and their views will range anywhere between nuke slumbad to breaking up India and giving TSP whatever it wants. I think if even 50-55% of Hindus can speak in one voice, Ashrafs or whoever will have no chance of manipulating or blackmailing India.

[shiv]

Why should an Indian "secular" - strictly "secular I mean and not covering or hiding sympathies for one religion under the garb of being neutral - have any reason to act against non-peace activities from Pakistan?

"Who is really secular" is a judgemental thing. Lots of people who call themselves open Hindutvadis are as secular as the secularist they imagine is the "other party". It is just, IMO fashionable to root for Hindutva without leaving the comfort of secularism. Of course the issue here is that Hindutva is not anti-secular and self professed Hindutva supporters who oppose secularism simply use the expression without themselves being clear of what they are for or against.

I think most people who speak of Hindutva are just anti-Islam. They are not unsecular as such. They just use the secular word loosely without knowing what they are saying and needlessly place themselves in opposition to a group whom they call "secular".

Secularism in my view demands being anti-Islamic because Islam is unsecular. If you are anti-Islamic you could still be secular. It is better to admit being anti-Islamic and secular. these are not incompatible.

[shiv]

RudraJi/DocJi,

Good arguments. But lets not forget that a huge portion of this appease TSP, self-flagellate Hindus include many Hindus themselves. (As an aside, I just read with some amusement, Hindu RAPE Karan Thappad on HT sing paens of late hard-core UK white Christian nationalist Maggie Thatcher. The same moron never tires of declaring his secularism and relentlessly going after say an India version of Thatcher, a Hindu nationalist like Modi). Point being that caste divisions are so deep among us Hindus, that in this intra-Hindu battle for power and supremacy, one Hindu caste or the other co-ops the Muslims or Ashrafs or whoever, which in turn means appeasing TSP. You ask 10 Hindus, their views on TSP, and their views will range anywhere between nuke slumbad to breaking up India and giving TSP whatever it wants. I think if even 50-55% of Hindus can speak in one voice, Ashrafs or whoever will have no chance of manipulating or blackmailing India.

If you are secular, you are anti-Islam. Secular anti-Islam people in India are divided up among secular parties and Hindu parties. This pretence of calling one party secular while the other is called "Hindu" only gives the fake impression that secular is pro Islam and Hindu is anti Islam. Actually all view Islam with suspicion and disgust, but the claim to secularism is a vote ploy - by accusing Hindus of not being secular. Either way islam is not secular and has no reason to go with either secular or Hindutva parties.

[member_20317]

Why should an Indian "secular" - strictly "secular I mean and not covering or hiding sympathies for one religion under the garb of being neutral - have any reason to act against non-peace activities from Pakistan?

"Who is really secular" is a judgemental thing.

brihaspati ji

Though that was not a reply. I still would like something clarified to me. Why cannot there be a secular response to Pakis. After all within Muslims there has been a substantial minority that has felt the brunt of split identities. The underlying query on their priorities remain. They should be trying to fall either way in their comfort zone. There have been Muslims who view Pakis only as a nuisance for themselves. Something designed to compromise their position. I admit such a group is only going to be a minority. Most are too stoned to have a view. Even within the non-muslims there is a substantial population (another minority) that has decided to keep itself frightened. Lika a crow afraid of a twig. To these too the Paki attacks have become entirely unabashed. These cannot risk, being laughed at. Had it been an ok thing for them we would have had excuses like 'I have a paki friend' by now, in support of peace efforts.

You can and I also do doubt the efficiency and clarity in a secular response to Pakis, but a lot of these seculars cannot really afford to be seen with the WKK.

The WKK use it only as a facade not as part of their belief system. The seculars think these WKK need to be engaged. I believe the unmentionable being done to them will persuade them better. But these are separate matter.

[RajeshA]

What one can do is to differentiate between the secularism that has been imposed by the Nehruvians - Nehruvian Secularism, and the secularism that many Indians have embraced in good faith as "sarva-dharma sambhava" - Indian Secularism.

Nehruvian Secularism is pure Islam-Lovemaking, while Indian Secularism is supposed to be Islam-Civilizing.

As long as Nehruvian Secularism is allowed in India, Indian Secularism would always lose out.

At the moment all the political parties under the "secular" banner are promoting Nehruvian Secularism, and as such are a threat to India. The Hindus who vote for these parties however mistake their secularism for Indian Secularism and impose their trust in them. They have been taken for a ride and made a fool of.

So political parties in India campaigning under the "secular" banner have to clarify whether they are advocating "Nehruvian Secularism" or "Indian Secularism".

[shiv]

It occurs to me Rajesh that Ashrafs are the Islamic equivalent of high caste Macaulayite.

Sociologically, a "high caste" person is one who is once removed from his compatriots - he has been placed on a separate, high pedestal.

A high caste Macaulayite was a distillate from that higher pedestal from where some people were placed on an even higher pedestal. On that higher pedestal, the occupants had a dual identity. One is the higher identity of equality with the British representatives with subservience to the king of England and the other is the lower identity of being a social/community leader among Hindus or Muslims. They were respected people in the population that they came from. Many Rajas and Nawabs and Indian aristocracy occupied this "double pedestal" of "high caste Macaulayite". Nehru and Jinnah were in this category, as were assorted Ashrafs.

In the run up to independence, and under Gandhi's influence, the Muslim Ashrafs and Hindu high caste Macaulayites took a different route. The Hindu high caste Macaulayites agreed to forfeit their traditional and inherited power in favour of allowing democracy to permit someone to "rise from the low ranks" - from a station that was below the pedestal occupied by the high caste Macaulayites to equal them or exceed them in power. The "low ranks" in India are the less privileged castes and are the equivalent of ajlaf in Islam (It is another matter that in India, those who rose from the low ranks to occupy the neta position previously filled only be high caste Macaulayites took upon themselves all the trappings of former nawabs and rajas and started considering themselves above the law and as people who can loot land and wealth. But that is India's democracy problem and is a digression - not for this thread)

In Pakistan, the Ashraf never gave up their weath and privileges. They were and continued to remain high caste Macaulayites. Jinnah, Pakistani diplomats, Ayaz Amir, Hoodbhoy, probably that Lawhore wotzisname lawyer - Hamdani, Gen Ayub Khan, Bhutto etc are all examples of high caste Pakistani Macaulayites. The ajlaf of Pakistan never got a chance to rise. It is on record that the Pakistan army and the LeT (and similar Islamist organizations) were the only entities that managed to allow ajlafs to rise above what is allowed in Pakistan.

What happened to the Ashrafs who remained behind in India? I am certain that some percentage of them bought into the democratic ideas of India. They are there and I say so because I know a few people of that type. But an unknown number of Indian Ashraf fall into the patter described so well by Rudradev above and characterized as followers of Ashrafism by Rajesh.

In Indian Ashrafism, the Macaulayite identity allows them to appear to be secular world citizens, but they also wield cross border links with Ashrafs of the ummah and the west that allows them to be on a pedestal that is neither low caste Indian, high caste Hindu or ajlaf. They are in a separate compartment. I believe it is a good idea to define the characteristics of this group before classifying them as wholly this way or wholly that way. Simply as a way of learning how the social dynamics work.

[Agnimitra]

Shiv ji,

Not all ashrafs are "macaulayites", and not all Moslem macaulayites are ashrafs. Ashrafism percolates to all strata of Islamist society - from the mulla circles in the lumpen bastis, the ulema of the ghetto, to the college campus qur'an study circles, to macaulayite academia, to uber-macaulayite diplomat.

[shiv]

Not all ashrafs are "macaulayites", and not all Moslem macaulayites are ashrafs. Ashrafism percolates to all strata of Islamist society - from the mulla circles in the lumpen bastis, the ulema of the ghetto, to the college campus qur'an study circles, to macaulayite academia, to uber-macaulayite diplomat.

Please explain this to me. My mental model may be wrong. Not all upper caste Hindus are Macaulayite. Many are humble and poor, but upper caste nevertheless. But the movers and shakers of Hindu society around the time of independence were both upper caste and Macaulayite.

Isn't the social model similar with Islam?

[RajeshA]

It occurs to me Rajesh that Ashrafs are the Islamic equivalent of high caste Macaulayite.

shiv saar,

there are some similarities and some big differences.

Def: Macaulayism: Belief by a native in the superiority of the Western thought over the native thought.

There are indeed some Muslims who did act Macaulayite, just as there were many high caste Hindus who bought into Macaulayism. Today however one would at the most call these Muslims as liberal Muslims. Moderate Muslims still do not believe in Macaulayism. But Muslims who acted Macaulayite were not limited to Ashrafs, and Ashrafs on the whole were not Macaulayite.

Ashraf simply means someone who has a genealogical line going back to outside the Indian Subcontinent (Arab, Turk, Persian, though in a narrow sense it is to Muhammad's family), and Ashrafism is a mentality born out of viewing one's interests through this prism.

If one wants to say, Macaulayites are to West/Britain as Ashrafs are to Arabia, then the difference is that Macaulayites are simply slaves to an outside civilization considering it superior, in which case not just Ashrafs but all Muslims would need to be classified thus.

If one wants to say, that high caste Hindu Macaulayites and Ashrafs enjoyed a historical preferential treatment by the foreign rulers and this continued after independence of the countries of the Subcontinent, then that is of course true.

But the main difference between Macaulayites and Ashrafs is that the latter identify the superior civilization with origin of their genealogical line while Macaulayites don't. The Macaulayites spurn any such connection.

For Ashrafs the superior civilization is Islamic and Arabic. For Macaulayites the superior civilization is European. Ashrafs however just like Macaulayite Elites like to show off their privileged position in current setups by showing themselves as globally connected, well-traveled and being elite.

[RajeshA]

http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 4#p1439754

May I ask, once again, why is India so keen on declaring itself as not anti Islam.

1. Pakistan, a state set up ostensibly for subcontinental Muslims accuses India of being anti Islamic. That viewpoint is supported by western thinkers and by the testicle-less OIC. The US and Chin believe that Pakistan's grivance against India is enough to warrant military support
2. The argument that Muslims in India are as free as anyone else is countered by many Indian and Pakistanis who point of many examples where Muslims in India are not free
3. An entire segment of Indians who call themselves Hindu and secular agree with both the above points and claim that "right wing Hinduism" is responsible for all this.

If the facts on the ground are that India is anti-Islam, then why do we tray and buck that question? Clearly the pretence that Islam causes us no grievance is fake. We are Islamophobes par excllence for this reason.

Why not accept that and move on?

I must add that it was I who once described India as "pale green" almost sharia compliant. India is anti Islam simply because it is not fully sharia compliant and we don't intend to be either. What is the problem in saying that? What are we hiding? And from whom?

shiv saar,

My View
you're perfectly correct. Being Hindu is all about being against foreign imperialist religious ideologies like Islam, and since India is thought to be a Hindu majority country, one should expect Indians to be anti-Islam.

The "Nehruvian Secular" View
However due to Nehruvian Secularist brainwashing, one cannot say all this for certain today. Secondly Hindus never really did any serious Purva-Paksha of Islam, so they theoretically would not know what is it they don't like about Islam. They however do know that the Muslims committed many atrocities on them, and so they have legitimate grounds to be against those Muslims. However those who did commit those crimes are long gone, and so many Thaparites make the argument that Hindus may or may not have a reason to hate all those Islamic rulers, but that is no cause to hate Islam and what have the current Muslims done to them, which was uncalled for, and even if some body did so, it was exception to the rule and one cannot hold the grudge against all Muslims. Besides the Muslims today in India are overwhelmingly local converts and as such can't be held responsible for the crimes of some Islamic invaders and rulers. Also no Purva-Paksha of Islam itself is allowed for fear of hurting minority sentiments.

So it is hard to say whether Hindus are anti-Islam. Do we have any surveys?

The Strategic View
Islam is against Kufr. All Muslims, in some capacity, known or unbeknownst to them, are working on the anti-Kufr project. They receive some form of support from outside India too, but the main responsibility for the project lies with the local Muslims. That is the default situation.

However if we formally declare that we are all anti-Islam, then basically we are inviting all of Ummah to wage hot war on us at every level giving them legitimacy in their own societies to destroy India however possible, i.e. to make maximum war. Some may say, at least that would waken up the Hindus and they too would wage total war, instead of being cooked like a frog in hot water. They may be right, but it would also mean a high cost.

There are however other means of winning with lower costs than what a total war would exact on us. We can do salami-slicing or icesheet fragmentation. We can use Ahmadiyyaization or Ajlafism to that end. This means however that we use a precision knife on Islam, e.g. Ashrafism, and try to solve the issue of Islam through a variety of "secular" tools which however should have a prerequisite that they do have an effect on Islam directly rather than on many straw-men Islam has put up. Muslim control over their women is I believe the crux of Islam, without which it has zero relevance, and relieving that control should be a sustained effort.

[Agnimitra]

Please explain this to me. My mental model may be wrong. Not all upper caste Hindus are Macaulayite. Many are humble and poor, but upper caste nevertheless. But the movers and shakers of Hindu society around the time of independence were both upper caste and Macaulayite.

Isn't the social model similar with Islam?

Yes I agree the social model is the same. Ashrafism can be compared with "upper caste leadership", specifically "caste brahminism". The Seyyeds are this caste-Brahmin segment. The Turk-Afghan-Iranian-Mongol strains are like the caste-Thakurs. Converted Rajputs and others are a few notches lower. Converted lower caste masses are followers.

In places like rural and semi-rural Pakjab, one sees that Seyyeds act and are treated exactly like caste-brahmins. The converted ajlafs and arzals merely transfered the same customs to a different strain of people. Seyyed children are taught a little bit of Arabic from a young age, though most can't actually use it beyond showing off a few words or quotes here and there (or memorizing the whole Qur'an), or allowing it to inform their vernacular usage - but they will always tell you of an uncle or a phourth coujin who is a scholar and rubs shoulders with folks in Arab lands. Again all this is pretty much the same as how caste-Brahmins relate to Sanskrit literature as an elite language.

Seyyeds carry a mythical halo not just because of bloodlines to the Prophet - for whose leela Allah specifically created the entire universe - but the entire race of those ancient Arab companions of the Prophet was a special, last remnant of an exalted and free human form, gathered around the Last Prophet. For instance, it is said that the companions were all very tall, usually over 6.5 or 7 feet and upwards. The proof of this is that in Jannat-ul-Baqi, the best of graveyards (where the Prophet and many companions are interred), the oldest graves are all 10 feet or longer in length. But since then the graves seem to be getting shorter. So that's madrassah archaeology right there for you. Those exalted luminaries of that leela were the last free humans in touch with the angels and God, and since then humans have been getting much shorter. This was once properly explained to me by a short and wiry Paki Seyyed friend whose uncle was given the honour of being buried in Jannat-ul-Baqi.

So in terms of mythic origins also, the Seyyeds are much like caste-Brahmins and other upper castes who sprung from fire and other supernatural methods. Similarly, marital alliances with Ashrafs (Seyyed as well as T-A-I-M) are highly desirable and prestigious - or even to have a child fortuitously out of wedlock, or by temporary alliance, from one of them is not considered too shameful, but one of drawing closer to that mythical genetic entity, of genetic improvement - even though one's family will always be merely a "half-caste", at least one half will be better than the other! This again has a long parallel in Indian culture and its caste hierarchies.

Given that their story was supplanted in a subcontinent where the masses were already under the political and psychological spell of such myth-making and social hierarchies, the Ashrafism has taken on a particularly special hold on the India-Pak-BD Islamic communities.

[RamaY]

In fact we should stop giving visas to three categories of Pakistanis - Pakjabis, Islamists and Ashrafs.

Pakjabis should be rejected simply on the basis of human rights abuses in Pakistan and failure to apologize for the Bangladesh Genocide.

RajeshA garu,

Is it possible for a Muslim family to have Islamists even if they are neither Pakjabis nor Ashrafs?

Can someone explain what we mean by

1. Ashrafs - I know the origin of this word. But my question is do we want to call all the Muslim Nobles as Ashrafs. If so are we talking about the old nobles only OR new nobles as well. IMO, the new nobles are the bollywood khans etc.,

2. Moderated Muslims - Who are these? What is their perspective on Geopolitical equations, Indian interests and India's relationships with Ummah?