West Asia News and Discussions

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 30 May 2011 21:18

Sigh!

Here we go again. So many Samjaya rayabaras on BRF.

It is paranoia when someone pushes for Indian interests that have larger impact on it's Hindu majority and Indic culture and heritage. On the other hand it is is fair to give away Bharat's pound of flesh even before the deal is discussed.

JE Menon · Post by **JE Menon** » 30 May 2011 21:26

>>their view point about Indian religions are still opaque

Actually not at all. If by Indian religions you mean religions that originated in India, then their views are crystal clear. The religions of India are worthy of the least respect - being polytheistic, or dependent on the sayings of man (Buddhism/Jainism/Sikhism). There is no opacity there.

That, however, does not take away from Shyamd's point that we need to deal with these oiseaules. We are essentially leveraging our relationship with them to silence some of our neighbours to a degree, while it also has the added benefit of catching some of the firebrands in our own neck of the woods on the backfoot, so to speak. Does this give the Saudi theologians excessive influence over our Muslim constituency?

My personal view is that it does not, or that it does not increase Saudi influence by any significant degree over the influence they already exercise. (It's like asking how much more will the Paks hate the Americans if they conducted yet another raid to capture Mullah Omar - not much, because they're pretty much maxed out on the hate. So this gives the Americans leeway now to do whatever TF they want, pretty much. It's the same thing sort of in reverse).

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 30 May 2011 21:31

JE Menon wrote:>>their view point about Indian religions are still opaque

Actually not at all. If by Indian religions you mean religions that originated in India, then their views are crystal clear. The religions of India are worthy of the least respect - being polytheistic, or dependent on the sayings of man (Buddhism/Jainism/Sikhism). There is no opacity there.

That, however, does not take away from Shyamd's point that we need to deal with these oiseaules. We are essentially leveraging our relationship with them to silence some of our neighbours to a degree, while it also has the added benefit of catching some of the firebrands in our own neck of the woods on the backfoot, so to speak. Does this give the Saudi theologians excessive influence over our Muslim constituency?

My personal view is that it does not, or that it does not increase it by any significant degree over the influence they already exercise. (It's like asking how much more will the Paks hate the Americans if they conducted yet another raid to capture Mullah Omar - not much, because they're pretty much maxed out on the hate. So this gives the Americans leeway now to do whatever TF they want, pretty much. It's the same thing sort of in reverse).

I am mostly referring to state policy towards other state. Their internal policy towards Indian religions may be in their control but their state policy towards other state and also influence over the people inside India is in question. This is controlled by the Indian state and it cannot be a private issue.

That does not mean that we wont have relations with them but past history of 50 years of no contact will affect the relations.

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 30 May 2011 21:48

Acharya wrote: If you are familiar with the Indian politics you will realise who are these

Leftists and the mozzy MPs right?

HSBC is not allowed to offer inside US and other western nations.

Sorry sir. This is untrue.

http://www.hsbc.co.uk/1/2/amanah - HSBC UK offer such services.
There are also Islamic Banks in the UK and the US. IBB in the UK.
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_ba ... ic_banking for the US.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 30 May 2011 21:58

shyamd wrote:
http://www.hsbc.co.uk/1/2/amanah - HSBC UK offer such services.
There are also Islamic Banks in the UK and the US. IBB in the UK.
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_ba ... ic_banking for the US.

These are credit union banks and are not full service banks. They use interest free products but they will not call them Islamic banking. MF complying with Islamic principles are usually sham and for consumers.

So these are just small window dressing and they are not real banking rules. Interest free can be allowed without calling Islamic banking, Nobody uses the name in the west. Interest free products are not real business and is not real world.

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 30 May 2011 22:01

Sanku wrote: I believe the strategic impacts should be discussed here, however, if you make a post, a share the link here I will follow it.

Read 1991 opening up of the economy and why we did it. This argument is similar to free trade and the benefits of it. Like I said post in economy thread and you'll get your answer very easily.

Well, the question is what are the changes being made portend for the future, therefore using the past here does not mean much. However, most calls given by the clergy in both Saudi & Iran, are indeed followed up, with fatawas being honored and so on and so forth. (I can provide a list if you want but do we really want to get there?)

Yes various groups have been following up on fatwas etc from Saudi/Iranian leaders. It depends on who they follow within their sect/mosque.

The trend for a section of Indian populations to take a cue from SaudiA is undeniable, and now we want to officially sanction extra-territorial linkages?

Have we sanctioned it? Lets look at the evidence, analyse Sudais's visit and what he said. I posted 1 link (it could have been biased) which seemed to focus on Indo - KSA relations. So its important to analyse this trip he made so that we can address IF GoI has sanctioned it and so on. We should also look at the reaction of the visit.

Basic reset -- what are we getting from Saudi? What are we giving them?

Quoting from my post to RamaY:
Oman to invest $ 3 billion in fertiliser sector in India
Oman - $1.5 billion joint investment fund is well publicised. Its a model now being taken to other countries in the GCC too. Oman I don't need to say further as they are buying our INSAS and so on and we have loads of stuff going on with them.
Qatar to invest $5 billion in India
But in addition to this Qatari's opened an office in Delhi just for investments.

UAE - India wanted them to get involved in the Delhi, Mumbai infra corridor. Not sure how successful that was. But suffice to say India is UAEs largest trading partner.

Kuwait - announced plans earlier in the year to invest in education and healthcare in India and have some sort of mandate to invest minimum $1b in indian stocks. But our relations aren't well developed with Kuwait and have only just started to have an uptick due to the efforts of the indian ambassador (there was a tribute to him in the national papers actually).

KSA - initial framework was signed for a Joint Initial Fund worth $750m. KSA and Oman are investing in our energy security (Storage specifically - strategic security in accordance with deals signed in 2006 and Delhi declaration). Lots of other things going on. We only signed tax avoidance treaties and economic treaties last year, so we will see more big deals going forward. We are still at the begining of relations here, Saudi business councils visit more regularly now. Go through this thread on the specifics of the KSA deals.

India - GCC FTA is almost finalised, talks still going on. There is plenty more, just need to watch this thread.

Forgot to add that we just offered $20billion in infrastructure bonds to foreign investment. You can imagine who will be buying. This is how US bankrolled its spending and so on back in the 80s. We are working on something similar. Our relationship is fairly new, the sums talked about is just the beginning of a long term strategic deal. Also, after this Bahrain incident they realised our security is indirectly linked to their security.

Then add trade, remittances, oil imports etc.

Clearly we are getting
Their "culture"
Some money

A lot of money. Lets just see whats in those books that they are publishing.

We are giving
Officially sanctioned interaction between umaah as okay.
A tap into our hard knowledge infrastructure.

Thats your opinion of it and maybe one small aspect of the bigger picture.

What exactly is India's advantage in this?

Easy, follow the thread for the intecracies, flick through the last 10 or so pages. Plenty of details on investments, sizes, plans for the future and the level of cooperation we have received to date.

JE Menon · Post by **JE Menon** » 30 May 2011 22:07

>>I am mostly referring to state policy towards other state. Their internal policy towards Indian religions may be in their control but their state policy towards other state and also influence over the people inside India is in question. This is controlled by the Indian state and it cannot be a private issue.

I don't understand what you mean by the above... are you referring to Saudi state policy towards India? This has also been clear. On the other hand, I don't think any one is recommending to allow Saudi influence over the people inside India, and certainly I did not say it should be a "private issue" (assuming by that you mean that Saudi government being permitted to come in and do whatever it wants in terms of Islamic oriented activities in India). This stuff is monitored pretty well.

My response was simply to your comment that the Saudi view on Indian religions is opaque. It is not, and in fact their view is reprehensible; the Saudi view derives from Islam, which has a specifically destructive view of religions such as those that originated in India. The Islamic view of Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, Sikhism - grouped for convenience under polytheism or idol-worshipping - is comically simplistic and reflective of poor intellect. But it is by no means opaque.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 30 May 2011 22:19

JE Menon wrote:
My response was simply to your comment that the Saudi view on Indian religions is opaque. It is not, and in fact their view is reprehensible; the Saudi view derives from Islam, which has a specifically destructive view of religions such as those that originated in India. The Islamic view of Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, Sikhism - grouped for convenience under polytheism or idol-worshipping - is comically simplistic and reflective of poor intellect. But it is by no means opaque.

Usually the state policy will be different from their religious belief and hence the comment. If the state policy is same as their internal views then there is nothing to discuss

JE Menon · Post by **JE Menon** » 30 May 2011 22:36

There is no real difference as there is no "civil society" type set up of note in the kingdom. If anything, the internal view (I guess you mean the view of the general public) is harsher than the state view. I spent last week in KSA (that probably explains the vehemence

), and nothing I saw there suggests any enlightenment of any sort is on the cards. (One mutawa was roaming a mall, forcing shop-owners to remove mannequins that had their arms exposed!!!).

What seems to differ, however, is "personal" practice in personal space. Here there seems to be a fairly wide range (relatively speaking of course) of observance. Public observance is fairly uniform. Privately it seems to be a different matter. Apart from Taliban run Afghanistan in 1995-2000, I don't think any country comes close to the sort of restrictive rules in application in KSA. But it is their country, and they can do what they want there I suppose.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 30 May 2011 22:57

shyamd wrote: Read 1991 opening up of the economy and why we did it. This argument is similar to free trade and the benefits of it. Like I said post in economy thread and you'll get your answer very easily.

No it is not, and as I said, if you post in economy thread and post a link here, I will follow it.

Yes various groups have been following up on fatwas etc from Saudi/Iranian leaders. It depends on who they follow within their sect/mosque.

Good we agree.

Have we sanctioned it? Lets look at the evidence, analyse Sudais's visit and what he said.

Yes, it is tacit approval, can not be read any other which way. Al Sudais has no business being here and dealing with GoI.

Basic reset -- what are we getting from Saudi? What are we giving them?

We are still at the begining of relations here,

So nothing yet.

India - GCC FTA is almost finalised, talks still going on. There is plenty more, just need to watch this thread.
etc....

And in future, basically trade, fine. Lets have trade, no problems. I have already talked about the money part.

A lot of money. Lets just see whats in those books that they are publishing.

Still ONLY money. A lot, a little, does not matter it is MONEY. Also some or more depends on whether you see it as total % of Indian GDP, total foreign investment, % needed for 1% GDP growth etc. So fine you may say lot, I will say some.

Thats your opinion of it and maybe one small aspect of the bigger picture.

Thank you for agreeing even if you chose to play it down.

What exactly is India's advantage in this?
Easy, follow the thread for the intecracies, flick through the last 10 or so pages. Plenty of details on investments, sizes, plans for the future and the level of cooperation we have received to date.

I see investments, investments and more investments. Potential ones.

Fine, let me for a minute concede that there is going to be money inflow.

Are you saying that we dilute the essential characteristic of India to achieve it? Is there no other way to engage with Sauds? They will not have a relationship unless we offer on a plate "cultural" exchange? Investment in our country is predicated on "keeping them in good humor"

I am sorry, the way you describe it the "relationship" building reminds me of only one type of relationship, one which is deeply repugnant. I am sure that is not what you mean, but forgive me that is how it increasing comes to appear.

Any relationship on economic side, should not have a impact which goes against the grain of some deeply cherished beliefs, I am afraid it does. More below.

===================================

JE Menon wrote:My personal view is that it does not, or that it does not increase Saudi influence by any significant degree over the influence they already exercise.

JEM sir, that was as jem of a post, I suspect Shyamd also wants to say that Saudi's have maxed out their level of damage that they can do in terms of internal manipulation.

If I may so very humbly state, you may be considering this from the prism of Southern states, where there is already a solid interaction between the "Gelf" and local population, and in that context I agree. However if you were to consider the north Indian regions particularly Deoband belt, and consider still how a large section of population does not have a lot of exposure, and at the same time is closely led by the theological networks which are yet not fully integrated with any "outside" pointers. You may wish to reconsider the above.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 30 May 2011 22:58

JE Menon wrote: I don't think any country comes close to the sort of restrictive rules in application in KSA. But it is their country, and they can do what they want there I suppose.

And imagine if a section of this population was to impress upon a section of Indians what the "right" approach in public life is.

You are underestimating the danger JEM.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 30 May 2011 23:58

shyamd wrote: Nice try... Well I already posted who spoke first regarding the whole religious comments. Go back and check who mentioned Sudais first too.

Well this is what I wrote:

So preserving the Saudi regime is in India's interest now? Which means more sops given to the Saudi theological establishment [more shaking the hand of the likes of As Sudias at dinners hosted by rashtryia functionaries!] and more power to the growing Indian Sunni voice in the internal politics of India? Actually it is a wonderful opportunity for the Centre-Left of India to justify more appeasement and more paralysis of the rashtra before Islamist demands. It is merely formally recognizing the perception perhaps in the ruling icrcles of India - that India is already a hostage to its Islamic population, and whatever is claimed in their name or by various spokespersons has to be given importance to simply because of the potential mobilization of IM on essentially foreign issues and of Arab interest. Of course the "large" expat population in KSA acts as a further excuse to all concerned to justify this perception of unavoidability to the "hostage" scenario.

The basic tactical understanding in dealing with a two party conflict from the viewpoint of a third party, is to try to avoid strengthening the stronger party more - if neither of the fighting parties differ in their long term ambitions to try and replace the third party completely.

Can you please point out where I have mentioned "cultural investments" and "trade" and financial flows in this context? This was an entirely political question, where in case of KSA, religion and religious sects does become important.

As for "chair" -if you still want to hogwash the very real question of what exactly is going to be allowed to be represented about Indian history and culture in the educational framework of the KSA, and you would like to ignore or suppress the existing attitudes of the KSA regime and its theologians to pre-Islamic archaeological evidence - then it only shows that you are suppressing a real problem in order to strengthen your line of pro-GCC alliance.

Of course I am more interested in tarring you. You can see that in my first reply to your comments.

Of course you are piously commenting neutrally, isnt it - as in the "response"

The whole point of the exercise is to build relations. End of story. And btw they are researching about the Indian influence on the arab peninsula also, which means we are discovering the Indian roots. Qatar and Oman have discovered Indian artefacts and are reported in national papers. This research will tell us more about the Indian past in the peninsula. Get over the paranoia.

Lets see what it comes up with before we issue rhetoric.

As for not twisting and not putting up your own ideas as mine :

Okay. So your idea of building relations is getting them to say sorry. We should do that with the British too and the US for 1971. Only if they say sorry we should develop trade with them and maintain relations.

Archbishop of canterbury has met with the PM. Just last year infact.
http://pib.nic.in/release/phsmall.asp?phid=31024 for a photo.
I am sure PMs have met with the Pope's too in the past. HH Dalai Lama, jewish leaders in NY, etc.

Was the Archbishop of Canterbury visit in the backdrop of "new strategic partnership" deals coming up with UK - I mean with a country with which we did not have any significant "strategic partnerships" before? No "large" trade flow and investments flow before either, isn't it - those things were being negotiated for the first time and at a new high level when he appeared? Do I need to bring up again something I posted but you found it convenient to ignore it - that the relevant follower community in total does not amount to much above 2.5%[not all of whom are Anglican] of the total population whereas the following represented by As Sudais amounts to the large majority of the 14% of that community in India.

Do you really need to completely ignore the fact that biz relations with the other countries you mentioned had been existing from a long time, and they developed or took off in a backdrop without clerics being entertained by state functionaries?

We refused an offer that came directly from King Abdullah to renovate Jama Masjid precisely because we wanted to signal that we don't want much to do wit htheir religious establishment.

So are you guaranteeing that after the so-called tie-up, we still will continue to refuse future such offers? Does KSA really need to donate the money from the "state" and can it not simply channel it through institutional private charitable routes to fund the same?

We have to look at it from a strategic point of view, not the religious angle.

If how you look at it was interesting for me, I would not even have bothered to ask. It is not about your personal views unfortunately - it is about how it appears to people not in a love fest with the royals, and who are opposed also along sectarian lines - of that region. How do you convince the non-Sunnis, and the anti-monarchists of the region that you have not joined one Islamic sect and against another? That just like the USA you have not sided with an autocracy in the name of "strategic interests"?

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 31 May 2011 00:20

shyamd wrote: I brought in other countries too as you have quoted me.
Are you saying US does not constitute a threat at all to our civilisation when they arm Pak (last time I checked haven't they contributed to the killing of several soldiers and civilians too. Forgotten Headley and pullback 93 grenade going missing case in protection of Pak and perhaps Dawood ibrahim? They have also allowed Pak to go nuclear which poses one of the biggest threats to our civilisation) and help PRC interests?

Aha - so only USA did all that, and your dearest KSA had no role in it? No facilitation? no supplying money to Pak for acquiring nuke tech? if you have not noticed, the USA also pummels the Pakis when it feels the need to! KSA does not seem to have that capacity or inclination. You are so fond of justifying things on the basis of "strategic interests" and pragmatism. If you had to choose between the two - whom would you prefer to suck up to?One that has the purse and hedges its bets equally between PRC, Pakistan and [as is now being claimed, and to borrow from you, "need to wait and see" what really it delivers!] India economics-wise - but has no muscle capacity or apparent will to seriously damage Pakis. Or the one who has the muscle capacity as well as the apparent will to do serious damage on the Pakis, in the Gulf region in general, and equally has the capacity to unleash the same on us too!

What does your logic - which translates at least overtly into "international opportunism" - say?

then perhaps shyamd ji can answer clearly the following question : does he think that the USA is the greater threat to India compared to KSA,
I don't need to answer this childish questions.

Good try! whatever way you try to answer this question you will have to contradict major chains of arguments you have given previously - so you do need to avoid this! By the way, aren't you supposed to be a calm and dispassionate analyzer of the "Gulf" - was it a great enhancement to your logical capacities to introduce the word "childish"?

Rasthriya will do what is in its national interest to do so depending on the context and situation. Period.

Rashtra is a bigger concept than government or ruling regime. I cannot climb up to the levels of linguistic arrogance you often display, but would it not be better at least to be precise in language? You meant the current government or current ruling regime - isn't it?

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 31 May 2011 00:57

I am sure the following has been posted somewhere before about the Saudis and their "investments" and "Islamic finance" and "Islamic Banks". If it is felt that these are "lies" etc, please do post some counters - as it might be helpful for all of us to attain greater clarity about the whole issue.

http://www.monies.cc/publications/saudi_finance.htm

The cornerstones of Islamic banking are two Saudi banks: the Dar Al Maal Al Islami (DMI) and the Dallah Al Baraka (DAB). Each has vast networks of subsidiaries and corresponding banks in the Middle East, Africa and Asia. Very powerful men run these banks: Mohammad Al Faisal, brother of Prince Turki, former head of Saudi Intelligence and son of the late Saudi King, founded DMI; Saleh Abdullah Kamel, the Saudi magnate and the king’s brother-in-law, created the DAB holding group, a banking empire with 23 branches and several investment companies scattered across 15 countries.
[...]
Saleh was also among the founders of the Al Shamil Islamic Bank in Sudan. The US State Department claimed that Osama bin Laden controlled this bank, after paying $50 million towards its ownership. It is more likely that he only became a large shareholder when, in the mid 1990s, Osama moved several of his businesses and assets to Sudan. Former bin Laden business associate Jamal Ahmed Mohammad al Fadl, who testified at the trial against Al Qaeda operatives responsible for the 1998 bombing of two US embassies in Africa, confirmed that bin Laden used the Al Shamil, as well as the Faisal and the Tadamon Islamic Banks, to channel money to his followers around the world. Interestingly, the Faisal and the Tadamon are both among the largest stockholder of the Al Shamil.

The Tadamon is the second largest banking institution in Saudi Arabia. Among its shareholders are several Islamic banks from the Gulf, such as the Bahrain Islamic Bank, the Kuwait Finance House, the Dubai Islamic Bank and the National Company for Development and Trade of Khartoum, which controls 15 per cent of the Tadamon. The bank has 21 operative branches in Saudi Arabia and a considerable network in Sudan, where it is particularly active in the agricultural, industrial and real estate sectors. Because of this network, the Tadamon is ideally placed to channel to Islamist armed groups Saudi funds from zakat - the religious almsgiving required of all Muslims.
[...]
In Saudi Arabia zakat is a large potential source of income - the 6,000 members of the Saudi royal family alone, for example, are worth $600 billion, making their zakat potentially equivalent to a yearly $15 billion. Recent UN estimates set the yearly Saudi zakat at about $10 billion. These funds are controlled by the Department of Zakat of the Saudi Ministry of Finance and National Economy, which in turns channels them to the 241 Saudi charitable institutions. Charities also attract a yearly $4 billion in independent donations.

“Zakat paid to charities is one of the many stratagems used to finance Islamist groups,” confirms Ayesha Siddiqa-Agha, a Pakistani military specialist. “During the 1980s, the Saudis channeled $1 billion per year towards militant Islamist organizations in Pakistan, mostly under the guise of donations to charitable organizations”. Saudi and Palestinian documents released in April 2002 (found in the headquarters of the Tulkarm Charity Committee, an organization based in the Occupied Territories and linked to Hamas), during operation Defensive Shield, proved that the Saudis have been funding suicide bombers and other terrorist activities via charitable channels. Monies disguised as donations by the Committee for Support of the Intifadat al-Quds, a Saudi charity headed by Saudi Interior Minister, Naif Ibn Adeb al Aziz, regularly reached the Occupied Territories. Funds arrive monthly to the Cairo-Amman Bank, an agent of Western Union Money Transfer Service, via two major banking routes: one from Damascus via Jordan, the other from Saudi Arabia through Egypt. The Cairo-Amman bank has 21 branches in Palestine; its network includes 51 branches in Jordan and a web of corresponding banks in Egypt.

‘The final task of Islamic banking is to serve and promote Islam’ an Arab banker explained several years ago. For the Saudis banks are mere instruments to proselytize and spread Wahhabism. Egypt, a key US ally in the Middle East and the largest recipient of US aid after Israel, also fell victim to this expansionist and aggressive policy. According to Rifaat El-Said, general secretary of the Egyptian opposition party Tagammu (Progressive Union), in 1993 the Saudis offered money to Mubarak’s government on the condition that it would encourage the Wahhabization of Egyptian society. The primary vehicles for this have been the media and the banking system. In a country starved of cash, the Saudis successfully promoted the proliferation of Islamic investment houses and penetrated the banking system. Among them is the Islamic Development Bank, part of the IDB Group (the Islamic Corporation for the Development of Private Sector), created by the Organization of Islamic Conference, a Wahhabi anti-Zionist institution founded in 1969. Naturally, Islamic banks’ loans are conditional on strict adherence to Islamic laws and traditions.

In Egypt, the arrival of Saudi cheap credit coincided with the reactivation of fundamentalist armed groups, primarily Islamic Jihad. In 1995, members of this organization made an attempt on the life of Mubarak, and, in 1997, they succeeded in killing 58 people, mostly tourists, in Luxor. “This is a familiar pattern in Muslim countries,” commented an Italian aid worker in Sarajevo. “Albania, Kosovo, and Bosnia have all experienced this phenomenon: Islamic banks bring cheap and plentiful cash while Islamist groups target the sector of traditional economy which generates hard currencies, such as tourism”. The aim is to maximize the dependency of the society on Islamic finance, a crucial first step towards the Wahhabization of the economy. Is Syria next in line? Anticipating the liberalization of the economy of the new Syrian president, Bashar al Assad, a team of Muslim investors formed a consortium and put $100 million into the Syrian economy. Some of the members are well-known names in the murky world of Islamist terror financing: the Dallah Al Baraka of Saleh Abdullah Kamel; the bin Laden consortium of Osama’s brother Saleh; the Saudi Oger, a contracting concern of Lebanese premier Rafiq Al Hariri; and the First Saudi Investment Company of Syrian businessman Wafiq Said.

Wahhabism and Saudi financing form a dual track in Riyadh’s religious colonization. The strategy is simple: Islamic banks prepare the ground for Saudi fundamentalism to penetrate deep into the Muslim world. For over two decades, Saudi money have paid for mosques and madrasses - the religious schools where children are indoctrinated, studying exclusively the Qur’an and the Quranic laws. Inside, Wahhabi mullahs preach and teach a bellicose vision of Islam. This is a phenomenon that affects every single country where Muslims live. In Punjab, for example, government officials admit that the Saudis have targeted the region. “By the end of 2001 there were 2,715 Wahhabi seminars with 250,000 students in the Punjab alone”, wrote The Tribune, a leading Pakistani political magazine. Punjabi Wahhabi students are tutored in ‘unusual’ skills ranging from religious propaganda to guerrilla combat.

People can quote from the rest of that article - to try and show US complicity. But it can be even more fun - for it will show at most partners in crime who are also playing against each other at the same time and what "strategic interests" argument leads to.

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 31 May 2011 01:11

Bji

Thanks for the reference.

It is common for western systems to create right conditions (ref: confessions of economic hit man) to be followed by EJ charities to harvest souls. Their IMFs/WBs demand economic liberalization, their awardees halt any industrial activity in the name of environment/fair-compensation (interestingly none of their project proposals include these social costs), then their EJ charities enter the game for soul harvesting.

Same goes with GCC monorchies now. They export oil at market prices, yet treat it as a trade concession to the recipient. They have large slave (on the basis of living conditions; it is all gets blamed on the contractors anyway) labor and want to use it as a leverage in the name if remittences. Then they want theological and cultural concessions in return for promises of investment. The funny thing is the whole list of declared investment projects ar less than $10B. Incidentally this is the amount indis's LoC for African union (after including this weeks $5b increase).

We are getting good at destroying our core to sustain our periphery.

We have too many Sanjayas amongst ourselves. Please refer the epics thread for details.

UBanerjee · Post by **UBanerjee** » 31 May 2011 02:20

The difference in engaging US & China is that- while they work to undermine India they are also massive, complex and grown-up civilizations that we can't afford to ignore. Watching out for EJs and Chini agents comes part and parcel with that. US may enable Pak- it also strangles Pak in the process and is our best bet to ensure the security of a multi-polar Asia. Chinese are our largest trading partners and serve as a check on the US.

We can afford to ignore the Saudis- beyond paying Rs. for oil. The US has already found out the cost of embracing the Saudi snake- the gain comes with serious pain. And they don't even have a massive domestic Muslim population and two Islamic neighbors at least one of which is an existential threat.

I don't think linkages should be ignored entirely- but there should be utmost wariness.

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 31 May 2011 02:53

brihaspati wrote: Let me remind you of your first reply on religion. Link When the subject being spoken about was engineering degrees and science and cultural excchange on history and so on.

Can you please point out where I have mentioned "cultural investments" and "trade" and financial flows in this context? This was an entirely political question, where in case of KSA, religion and religious sects does become important.

I think you are asking a question that I never asked.

As for "chair" -if you still want to hogwash the very real question of what exactly is going to be allowed to be represented about Indian history and culture in the educational framework of the KSA, and you would like to ignore or suppress the existing attitudes of the KSA regime and its theologians to pre-Islamic archaeological evidence - then it only shows that you are suppressing a real problem in order to strengthen your line of pro-GCC alliance.

Again you are at it. I answered what the chair was about. you have Brought this in out of nowhere. The chair is with Oman not KSA.

As for not twisting and not putting up your own ideas as mine :

Well you do understand that if they did hypothetically report the truth there will be an awkward moment in relations where they will have to say sorry or that will have to be forgotten about? Ideally you don't want to talk negatives to improve relations, you talk positive. Just like how GoI doesn't discuss British brutality during the indian rule diplomatically. You do understand that right? So what I said actually fits the context of your comments.

Was the Archbishop of Canterbury visit in the backdrop of "new strategic partnership" deals coming up with UK - I mean with a country with which we did not have any significant "strategic partnerships" before?
Archbishop has visited India No "large" trade flow and investments flow before either, isn't it - those things were being negotiated for the first time and at a new high level when he appeared? Do I need to bring up again something I posted but you found it convenient to ignore it - that the relevant follower community in total does not amount to much above 2.5%[not all of whom are Anglican] of the total population whereas the following represented by As Sudais amounts to the large majority of the 14% of that community in India.

So if he met with a muslim cleric thats a crime = must mean vote bank politics. Okay if you say so. But he is allowed to meet other religious faiths as it doesn't matter because its a smaller % of population. Why didn't MMS play this tactic before? The Delhi declaration took place in 2006.

People to people contact: Indo-Saudi Ties: Women Take Historic Steps

The initiative was taken by Saudi envoy in Delhi, Faisal Hassan Trad, with Saudi Journalists Association playing host to Indian ladies in Riyadh. Representing different walks of life the delegation included:– Nilofar Suhrawardy (Journalist and Writer), Louise Khurshid (politician), Babli Moitra Saraf (Principal, Indraprastha College, Delhi University), Madhu Kishwar (Academic and Human Rights Activist), Madhu Rao Ayde (Textile Designer with a Business Concern- Sampada) and Rashmi Taneja (Plastic Surgeon). It was the first visit to Saudi Arabia of five ladies with Nilofar having been there earlier for Haj.
Ahead of the visit, highlighting its significance, Saudi envoy Trad said: “They will interact with Saudi women and visit women’s organizations in Riyadh with a view to improve understanding and establish better people-to-people contacts between the two countries. There is an urgent need to enable women of Saudi Arabia and India to meet each other, understand each other and resolve to work together for a better peaceful world.”

Eh? Indian women - hindu's who are designers travelling to KSA. Isn't that dangerous for KSA? Won't women rebel as they are seeing women from India who are free to start businesses and drive etc etc. Do I see kaafir names there?

Do you really need to completely ignore the fact that biz relations with the other countries you mentioned had been existing from a long time, and they developed or took off in a backdrop without clerics being entertained by state functionaries?

Well KSA trade took off (grew 5 times) before Sudais visit.The start of the strategic partnership actually took place in 2004 with Pranab visiting and KSa signing a deal to guarantee oil to India in the event of a disruption or problem - similar to what the US got in 50s.

So are you guaranteeing that after the so-called tie-up, we still will continue to refuse future such offers? Does KSA really need to donate the money from the "state" and can it not simply channel it through institutional private charitable routes to fund the same?

I am not MMS so can't guarantee. You saw for yourself that we are concerned at KSA funding of relgiious schools in wikipeas. So naturally we will be concerned as long as this continues and will probably refuse such offers - even if it came from the King - as we showed in 2006.

How do you convince the non-Sunnis, and the anti-monarchists of the region that you have not joined one Islamic sect and against another? That just like the USA you have not sided with an autocracy in the name of "strategic interests"?

[/quote]
By showing that we still maintain strong relations with Iran - which we still have by the way despite US forcing us to drop it.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 31 May 2011 03:42

shyamd wrote
Let me remind you of your first reply on religion. Link When the subject being spoken about was engineering degrees and science and cultural excchange on history and so on.

What was the link about : lets see! it was responding to this particular "truth" from you:

shyamd wrote
^^ Eh?
They are investing in joint research. The Saudi's are paying for 3 students to do their masters in the sciences/engineering etc in KSA and also 2 to do their PhDs in one of the sciences/engineering subjects listed.

So its quite the opposite of what you said.

Then in a separate agreement they will essentially display historic accounts of Hajj trips from subcontinental muslims. Also:

Quote:
According to an agreement, DARAH would assign the India-Arab Cultural Center (IACC) of JMI to translate important books written in Arabic on the history and culture of the Kingdom into Indian languages, mainly Urdu, Hindi, Malayalam and English. DARAH would also seek the help of the IACC in the translation of books written in different Indian languages on the Arabian Peninsula, its traditions, culture, civilization and history into Arabic.

So our books on history, culture will be translated to arabic. While their books on history and culture will be translated.

This sort of exchange is nothing new and has been going on for a while. They are working on historical, geographical and cultural relations between the countries in order to highlight the nature of relationship in a comprehensive manner.

For example with Oman: address the effects of Omani heritage in India, and Indian monuments discovered in Oman and the formation of working groups from both sides to carry out surveys on the effects associated with the Oman-India relations.

You are merely giving Oman as an example - but you start out with describing and talking about the "kingdom" and KSA. IACC of JMI will "translate" books written in different Indian languages about the "Arabian peninsula" "its traditions, culture, civilization and history" into "Arabic".

You twist this smoothly into "our books on history, culture". Do you realize that you are lying blatantly when you call the "history, culture" of "Arabian peninsula" as "our books on history, culture" - since it is not general history or culture and not of India, but specifically of the "kingdom"?

Are you now trying to claim that "religion" is not part of the "history, culture" of "Arabian peninsula"?

I had merely quoted this part of your post - with its earlier ref to IAAC, DARAH, JMI and KSA. Therefore I was firmly in context in discussing KSA - because it was you who had used most of your post to talk about KSA and its culture-history translations, as part of academic and cultural exchange. In your post, Oman was merely an illustrator, an exemplar.

Having seen your logical outpourings I now realize that you had to highlight only Oman even though you have talked generally of the "peninsula" and "Arab", and hence your angst at KSA being brought in. Because that then exposes your original ramblings about "Arabian peninsula" and its "history, culture" which you tried to pass off as "history, culture".

Your "chair" part was part of that Oman "illustrator" example which you tagged at the end of a long description of cultural exchange between JMI and DARAH. So bringing up the "chair" in context of discussing general "Arab" "cultural exchange" and "KSA" is relevant.

Well you do understand that if they did hypothetically report the truth there will be an awkward moment in relations where they will have to say sorry or that will have to be forgotten about? Ideally you don't want to talk negatives to improve relations, you talk positive. Just like how GoI doesn't discuss British brutality during the indian rule diplomatically. You do understand that right? So what I said actually fits the context of your comments.

This is still your words and you put it on my mouth. How do you manage the arrogance to do this? You should have had the basic honesty to propose it as your own - even if you were trying to be sarcastic! I did not mention anything about asking regimes to be "sorry" for past behaviour. But I posed real concerns because we have had the experience of aggressive Islamist violence, because we still have a widespread network of Islamist institutions, and Islamist insurgency in the valley, and we have a hotbed of support for Islamist violence in our neighbours. Given the background of suspicion of KSA role in funding, and "investments" as a political instrument of expanding their Wahabi networks - we cannot equate the situation with Brit/French/Portuguese/Russians - something that you are doing to trivialize the issue.

Be that as it may - but it is still your comparison, your idea about equating these countries with the Islamist threat - and your idea that they should all say "sorry" for trade to continue. Own it up - say that you wanted to be sarcastic - whatever! But don't lie in ascribing the idea to me.

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 31 May 2011 04:23

UBanerjee wrote:The difference in engaging US & China is that- while they work to undermine India they are also massive, complex and grown-up civilizations that we can't afford to ignore. Watching out for EJs and Chini agents comes part and parcel with that. US may enable Pak- it also strangles Pak in the process and is our best bet to ensure the security of a multi-polar Asia. Chinese are our largest trading partners and serve as a check on the US.

We can afford to ignore the Saudis- beyond paying Rs. for oil. The US has already found out the cost of embracing the Saudi snake- the gain comes with serious pain. And they don't even have a massive domestic Muslim population and two Islamic neighbors at least one of which is an existential threat.

I don't think linkages should be ignored entirely- but there should be utmost wariness.

I don't think the other PoV is to ignore or not to trade with anyone. How is KsA is able to withstand world pressure to protect what it thinks is valuable to it's culture? Yes, oil is important but is it difficult for any meaningful power to outrun KSA in it's existence? How is it able to put one power against another while protecting it's civilizational and economic intrests while getting top $$ for it's resources?

Why can't India do the same? Why can't it stand by it's civilization and history, and trade with rest of the world at the same time? What is India lacking? Why can't india do what is a puny nation like KSA?

It is because we have many RNIs running our policy ande determining our destiny.

We have a proverb in Telugu "inti dogani isvarudu kids pattaledu" meaning not even god can catch the thief amongst ourselves. That is our situation.

UBanerjee · Post by **UBanerjee** » 31 May 2011 04:52

^^ Again we exaggerate into the typical

regarding Indian abilities. You know in nearly every major nation there is the same

about 5th columns, sellout political class, etc.? For example when I listen to what the Chinese say about India, they regard us as a real actor, one with a clear geopolitical vision of Indian Ocean dominance, but they view their own policy in disarray! And of course from our perspective it is the complete opposite! This is a common cognitive bias where you perceive your own indecisions, weaknesses and lack of abilities- but anything your rivals or competitors do, is part of a master plan of great cunning.

The same applies to KSA. KSA top babus are desperately dancing on a pole trying to appease competing foreign interests, regional rivalries and domestic explosive Islamic forces. What looks like a grand master plan is the result of this. It exports virulent memes and such as a steam valve so the Royals can avoid being thrown under the bus by the Islamists. It is very worried about Iran and the Shi'a ascendancies sweeping the region unleashed by the US invasion of Iraq. Who says KSA has managed to protect its 'culture' (such as it is) from pressure so much better than India? Is exporting a Salafi infection that threatens to overwhelm their state protecting it? I don't know about that. Chickens will come home to roost and have begun that already.

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 31 May 2011 05:01

UB babu,

I truly hope you are right. Sorry to take my prejudices on you people

I can quite understand KSAs need to release the Islamic valve to appease it's internal dynamics. What is India's compulsion to accept that sht?

ldev · Post by **ldev** » 31 May 2011 05:28

brihaspati wrote:I am sure the following has been posted somewhere before about the Saudis and their "investments" and "Islamic finance" and "Islamic Banks". If it is felt that these are "lies" etc, please do post some counters - as it might be helpful for all of us to attain greater clarity about the whole issue.

http://www.monies.cc/publications/saudi_finance.htm
The cornerstones of Islamic banking are two Saudi banks: the Dar Al Maal Al Islami (DMI) and the Dallah Al Baraka (DAB). Each has vast networks of subsidiaries and corresponding banks in the Middle East, Africa and Asia. Very powerful men run these banks: Mohammad Al Faisal, brother of Prince Turki, former head of Saudi Intelligence and son of the late Saudi King, founded DMI; Saleh Abdullah Kamel, the Saudi magnate and the king’s brother-in-law, created the DAB holding group, a banking empire with 23 branches and several investment companies scattered across 15 countries.
[...]
Saleh was also among the founders of the Al Shamil Islamic Bank in Sudan. The US State Department claimed that Osama bin Laden controlled this bank, after paying $50 million towards its ownership. It is more likely that he only became a large shareholder when, in the mid 1990s, Osama moved several of his businesses and assets to Sudan. Former bin Laden business associate Jamal Ahmed Mohammad al Fadl, who testified at the trial against Al Qaeda operatives responsible for the 1998 bombing of two US embassies in Africa, confirmed that bin Laden used the Al Shamil, as well as the Faisal and the Tadamon Islamic Banks, to channel money to his followers around the world. Interestingly, the Faisal and the Tadamon are both among the largest stockholder of the Al Shamil.

The Tadamon is the second largest banking institution in Saudi Arabia. Among its shareholders are several Islamic banks from the Gulf, such as the Bahrain Islamic Bank, the Kuwait Finance House, the Dubai Islamic Bank and the National Company for Development and Trade of Khartoum, which controls 15 per cent of the Tadamon. The bank has 21 operative branches in Saudi Arabia and a considerable network in Sudan, where it is particularly active in the agricultural, industrial and real estate sectors. Because of this network, the Tadamon is ideally placed to channel to Islamist armed groups Saudi funds from zakat - the religious almsgiving required of all Muslims.
[...]
In Saudi Arabia zakat is a large potential source of income - the 6,000 members of the Saudi royal family alone, for example, are worth $600 billion, making their zakat potentially equivalent to a yearly $15 billion. Recent UN estimates set the yearly Saudi zakat at about $10 billion. These funds are controlled by the Department of Zakat of the Saudi Ministry of Finance and National Economy, which in turns channels them to the 241 Saudi charitable institutions. Charities also attract a yearly $4 billion in independent donations.

“Zakat paid to charities is one of the many stratagems used to finance Islamist groups,” confirms Ayesha Siddiqa-Agha, a Pakistani military specialist. “During the 1980s, the Saudis channeled $1 billion per year towards militant Islamist organizations in Pakistan, mostly under the guise of donations to charitable organizations”. Saudi and Palestinian documents released in April 2002 (found in the headquarters of the Tulkarm Charity Committee, an organization based in the Occupied Territories and linked to Hamas), during operation Defensive Shield, proved that the Saudis have been funding suicide bombers and other terrorist activities via charitable channels. Monies disguised as donations by the Committee for Support of the Intifadat al-Quds, a Saudi charity headed by Saudi Interior Minister, Naif Ibn Adeb al Aziz, regularly reached the Occupied Territories. Funds arrive monthly to the Cairo-Amman Bank, an agent of Western Union Money Transfer Service, via two major banking routes: one from Damascus via Jordan, the other from Saudi Arabia through Egypt. The Cairo-Amman bank has 21 branches in Palestine; its network includes 51 branches in Jordan and a web of corresponding banks in Egypt.

‘The final task of Islamic banking is to serve and promote Islam’ an Arab banker explained several years ago. For the Saudis banks are mere instruments to proselytize and spread Wahhabism. Egypt, a key US ally in the Middle East and the largest recipient of US aid after Israel, also fell victim to this expansionist and aggressive policy. According to Rifaat El-Said, general secretary of the Egyptian opposition party Tagammu (Progressive Union), in 1993 the Saudis offered money to Mubarak’s government on the condition that it would encourage the Wahhabization of Egyptian society. The primary vehicles for this have been the media and the banking system. In a country starved of cash, the Saudis successfully promoted the proliferation of Islamic investment houses and penetrated the banking system. Among them is the Islamic Development Bank, part of the IDB Group (the Islamic Corporation for the Development of Private Sector), created by the Organization of Islamic Conference, a Wahhabi anti-Zionist institution founded in 1969. Naturally, Islamic banks’ loans are conditional on strict adherence to Islamic laws and traditions.

In Egypt, the arrival of Saudi cheap credit coincided with the reactivation of fundamentalist armed groups, primarily Islamic Jihad. In 1995, members of this organization made an attempt on the life of Mubarak, and, in 1997, they succeeded in killing 58 people, mostly tourists, in Luxor. “This is a familiar pattern in Muslim countries,” commented an Italian aid worker in Sarajevo. “Albania, Kosovo, and Bosnia have all experienced this phenomenon: Islamic banks bring cheap and plentiful cash while Islamist groups target the sector of traditional economy which generates hard currencies, such as tourism”. The aim is to maximize the dependency of the society on Islamic finance, a crucial first step towards the Wahhabization of the economy. Is Syria next in line? Anticipating the liberalization of the economy of the new Syrian president, Bashar al Assad, a team of Muslim investors formed a consortium and put $100 million into the Syrian economy. Some of the members are well-known names in the murky world of Islamist terror financing: the Dallah Al Baraka of Saleh Abdullah Kamel; the bin Laden consortium of Osama’s brother Saleh; the Saudi Oger, a contracting concern of Lebanese premier Rafiq Al Hariri; and the First Saudi Investment Company of Syrian businessman Wafiq Said.

Wahhabism and Saudi financing form a dual track in Riyadh’s religious colonization. The strategy is simple: Islamic banks prepare the ground for Saudi fundamentalism to penetrate deep into the Muslim world. For over two decades, Saudi money have paid for mosques and madrasses - the religious schools where children are indoctrinated, studying exclusively the Qur’an and the Quranic laws. Inside, Wahhabi mullahs preach and teach a bellicose vision of Islam. This is a phenomenon that affects every single country where Muslims live. In Punjab, for example, government officials admit that the Saudis have targeted the region. “By the end of 2001 there were 2,715 Wahhabi seminars with 250,000 students in the Punjab alone”, wrote The Tribune, a leading Pakistani political magazine. Punjabi Wahhabi students are tutored in ‘unusual’ skills ranging from religious propaganda to guerrilla combat.
People can quote from the rest of that article - to try and show US complicity. But it can be even more fun - for it will show at most partners in crime who are also playing against each other at the same time and what "strategic interests" argument leads to.

Brihaspati,

To tone down the hysteria I will give you some figures, these are from the top of my head, you may google for specific sites which will broadly confirm these numbers i.e. plus or minus 20%....

State Bank of India has total assets of ~$330 Billion.

Al-Rajhi Bank in KSA has assets of ~$50 Billion

The Dallah Al-Barakah Group has assets of ~$12-15 Billion

Kuwait Finance House has assets of ~$40 Billion.

DMI which the article you quote above as some uber Islamic institution has assets of only $ 1 Billion.

The 3 Arab Banks are run as Islamic Financial Institutions. Other banks in KSA such as National Commercial Bank headquartered in Jeddah (~$80 Billion) or Riyad Bank headquartered in Riyadh are two of the largest banks in KSA and are run just like SBI or ICICI Bank or IDBI Bank. It is estimated that total banking assets run along Islamic lines in the region is about $200-$250 Billion, less than the assets of SBI alone.

I think this will hopefully put into perspective some perceived clout of Islamic institutions. I dont think India is in any danger of being overrun by Islamic Finance, Indian banks are bigger and better run. SBI in fact recently announced that it is targetting to become one of the 50 largest banks in the world.

UBanerjee · Post by **UBanerjee** » 31 May 2011 05:30

RamaY wrote: I can quite understand KSAs need to release the Islamic valve to appease it's internal dynamics. What is India's compulsion to accept that sht?

Well, there I agree with you- none. Hence I said India could, if it wanted to, safely ignore KSA beyond simple mercantile relationship of Rs. for Oil. KSA is a two-trick pony, and we only want one of those.

However, that shouldn't extend to the entire Gulf.

ldev · Post by **ldev** » 31 May 2011 05:57

GCC Islamic banking sector grows at 20% per annum representing 17% of banking system total assets, reveals KFH Research report

A report commissioned by Kuwait Finance House which states that in 2010 Islamic Finance accounted for 17% of total banking assets in the GCC. Think about it...if Islamic Finance in the GCC cannot manage more than 17% of total banking assets what kind of an uphill battle will it face in India.

Hopefully this will tone down the hysteria of an imminent Islamic invasion a little bit.

PS: My bad, total Islamic assets in the Gulf according to the report linked here are about $350 Billion i.e. about the same as the total assets of SBI right now.

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 31 May 2011 06:05

IDev ji,

The key point in Bji's post is how jakat is used to extend theological influence. SBI cannot do that. Imagine if SBI and other banks can put aside 100 basis points aside to propagate Indic culture, values etc; like building temples, organizing cultural events and so on.

That is where a financial institution turns a strategic weapon.

ldev · Post by **ldev** » 31 May 2011 06:12

RamaY wrote:IDev ji,

The key point in Bji's post is how jakat is used to extend theological influence. SBI cannot do that. Imagine if SBI and other banks can put aside 100 basis points aside to propagate Indic culture, values etc; like building temples, organizing cultural events and so on.

That is where a financial institution turns a strategic weapon.

You may not be aware of it, but even in the GCC, donations for those kinds of causes are private. The end use of funds donated by Financial Institutions is very closely monitored to ensure that it does not come to bite the local governments in the A**. In India as in all instances, it is not that the laws are not on the book, but that implementation of those laws is lacking. RBI has very stringent guidelines for granting banking licences. The message will be - Live within those guidelines. Zakat is not part of it. In any event, from my rusty memory about these issues, I dont think RBI is in any hurry to grant any foreign FI an Islamic banking licence - though they have been approached.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 31 May 2011 06:36

ldev,
I don't think I mentioned about "Islamic banking" "Islamic finance" as financially engulfing Indian banking sector. Not sure if you have noticed or not - the article is not bothered that much by the relative size of "Islamic finance" with respect to regular non-Islamic "finance". The article's focus is on Islamic banking/finance being a mechanism to fund Islamist expansion, and it being controlled at key points by KSA elite.

So not sure what makes you tag the post/article as somehow being "hysterical". A couple of pages ago, the issue of Islamic finance came up. Since investments from KSA side was coming up as a key motivational issue - so posted excerpts from the article. I think we can point out errors/misrepresentations without adjectives galore.

devesh · Post by **devesh** » 31 May 2011 10:09

UBanerjee wrote:The difference in engaging US & China is that- while they work to undermine India they are also massive, complex and grown-up civilizations that we can't afford to ignore. Watching out for EJs and Chini agents comes part and parcel with that. US may enable Pak- it also strangles Pak in the process and is our best bet to ensure the security of a multi-polar Asia. Chinese are our largest trading partners and serve as a check on the US.

We can afford to ignore the Saudis- beyond paying Rs. for oil. The US has already found out the cost of embracing the Saudi snake- the gain comes with serious pain. And they don't even have a massive domestic Muslim population and two Islamic neighbors at least one of which is an existential threat.

I don't think linkages should be ignored entirely- but there should be utmost wariness.

this is a serious misconception being peddled by MSM and DDM. it is a carefully constructed image of India and China going for each others' throats while US, the ever gentle middleman, comes in and plays big brother and makes peace...this is an insidious argument for several reasons.

1. the implicit logic is that Asia is incapable of figuring out a peaceful existence by itself.
2. it is taken for granted that India and China are enemies which are going to fight for dominance. this is the biggest deception because this argument totally ignores several millenniums of history.
3. India and China are dangerous like 20th century Germany.
4. other Asian countries better watch out and GUBO to the West if they want to survive!!!
5. US/West needs to meddle b/c otherwise Asia would be oppressed by India/China.

the bolded part leads to the above and many more such deliberately misleading or outright false claims. we need to stop eating up the DDM/MSM news on the supposed India/China rivalry.

the present Chinese racial nationalism is a result of Communist brainwashing which has been coopted by the West. free from these shackles, China is a very different country. and that is not that hard to come true!!!

somnath · Post by **somnath** » 31 May 2011 10:39

RamaY wrote:IDev ji,

The key point in Bji's post is how jakat is used to extend theological influence. SBI cannot do that. Imagine if SBI and other banks can put aside 100 basis points aside to propagate Indic culture, values etc; like building temples, organizing cultural events and so on.

That is where a financial institution turns a strategic weapon.

I think shyamd has extensive knowledge of the Gulf, but I thought I will just clear up this whole alarm around Islamic finance..First, islamic finance is not just done by "Islamic banks", but conventional banks with Islamic banking services (incl many global majors like Citi, HSBC, Stanchart et al)..In fact the share of the former has been declining over time...Two, in terms of sheer size, the global Islamic Banking industry has total assets of 800-900 billion dollars, which is really a very tiny % of global banking...As a perspective, just one ME sovereign wealth fund, ADIA (Abu Dhabi Investment Authority) is rumoured to have assets running well over 1 trillion dollars...So even in the Gulf/GCC, islamic banking is a smallish part of the banking sector..

third, if the intention is to use banks to subvert someone else's economy/society, using a vehicle that is small or doesnt exist in the "target" country is a very bad idea..You would rather set up vehicles that enmesh closely with the system...So you would want to set up a vanilla bank, not an islamic bank in India...

Last, if someone were looking to do funny things in India, they cant think of a vehicle worse than a foreign bank...And relative size has got little to do with it..Ldev posted some data on the size of varioous GCC/Gulf banks, to be honest there are LOTS of banks there that are much bigger - ADCB, NBAD, SAMBA, lots...But there are Indian banks bigger, and more importantly much more efficient thatn these...But in banking, global (or home market) size means little in "onshore" jurisdictions like India (or China, or Korea and many others)...No other country regulates banks, especially foreign banks with as much scrutiny and detail as India...And the quality of that oversight is very very high, its not international standard, it sets the international standard - something that all Indians should be very proud of...

So at least on this count, rest easy!

about broader relations with SAudi, there are lots of merits to that...Saudi is one of the two pillars of the Gulf, it is in our interest to have good offices with both...And I dont understand this caviling over why the PM met a religious leader - I mean why not? No other country has such deep and official involvement of the theological class in its polity..Hence engaging with them is almost a sine qua non..Its a bit like us saying we wont engage with the Pak military when we talk to Pak - well, we actually dont do that unfortunately, but the rest of the world does, and rightly so..

devesh · Post by **devesh** » 31 May 2011 10:51

^^^

about broader relations with SAudi, there are lots of merits to that...Saudi is one of the two pillars of the Gulf, it is in our interest to have good offices with both...And I dont understand this caviling over why the PM met a religious leader - I mean why not? No other country has such deep and official involvement of the theological class in its polity..Hence engaging with them is almost a sine qua non..Its a bit like us saying we wont engage with the Pak military when we talk to Pak - well, we actually dont that, but the rest of th world does, and rightly so..

God, the level of decadence and utter deracination is astounding. why do we have to keep up with this blatant pandering to Islamists? isn't there a point where a forumer blurs the line between his views and outright advocating for enemy interests????

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 31 May 2011 10:58

brihaspati wrote:. I think we can point out errors/misrepresentations without adjectives galore.

This behavior is becoming increasingly virulent on BRF, to attack the ideas by calling names, assigning adjectives, twisting words and such.

The strain of this behavior was first seen during the 123 deal discussion (many by the same worthies) but is now endemic. Some people cant seem to make a post without the use of profusion of such words for other posters.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 31 May 2011 11:20

since the Sauds do not have intention of giving even the limited degree of religious and social freedom seen in the smaller gulf sheikhdoms, long term India should aim to exit the saudi labour market. as it is , I believe only muslim indians are allowed to work there. thats like US saying only Telugu people will be given H1 visas. why do we accept such conditions if not to pander to the minority lobby?

let that other claimant to the throne pakistan export its manpower enmasse and fill up the hole we vacated. the saudis will soon realize the side 'benefits' of having extra millions of pakis in the wood work there

somnath · Post by **somnath** » 31 May 2011 11:28

^^^Singha-ji, that does nothing to Saudi, but impacts (muslim) Indians who might want a go at a better life for themselves...why do you want to circumscribe their right to work for their own prosperity, as long as it isnt anything illegal? By that logic, the Pashupatinath in Nepal will only employ Namboodiri brahmins from India, no one else - should we stop that as well?

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 31 May 2011 11:31

Rupesh · Post by **Rupesh** » 31 May 2011 11:31

Filling S-barbaria with pakis is the right thing to do.. sauds will get a real taste of their own ~~medicine~~ poison.

sum · Post by **sum** » 31 May 2011 11:34

^^ Not sure if the Brahmins come back from Nepal talking about how Hindus are the only true things and should kill/boycott all non-Hindus.... exactly the same has happened in most of Kerala ( eyeball Mk.1 observation) and large parts of costal K'taka.

somnath · Post by **somnath** » 31 May 2011 11:43

^^Indeed..That is a problem...Not sure if banning Indians wanting to work in Saudi legally is either possible, or a solution to that though...

JE Menon · Post by **JE Menon** » 31 May 2011 13:23

Sanku,

>>If I may so very humbly state, you may be considering this from the prism of Southern states, where there is already a solid interaction between the "Gelf" and local population, and in that context I agree....

Actually, I was looking at it from the overall perspective – not just the south. Frankly, having not lived much in the south (Mallustan) – my knowledge of the Islamist thing is not south-heavy. In TN where I was there were hardly any Muslim community. On the other hand, I suppose I might have an above average understanding of the situation countrywide.

>>And imagine if a section of this population was to impress upon a section of Indians what the "right" approach in public life is.

There has been for decades a sustained effort by the Saudis to impress their ideology on the Indian Muslim population with some success, I’m sure. But it would be an improper assessment to take that to mean that the Saudis will be able to make any fundamental change. Democracy is a very tough defender of its condition, and the right of speech within India does things to such ideological approaches that the Saudis have no clue about how to work around. Plus, our own Islamic theologians – being SDREs like us and not entirely unfamiliar with the situation in Saudi – are not about to lie down and be dictated to. They have their own ideas... Does this mean that the Muslim community ideologues will not try to revive their past position within India? Of course, not. They will try. Will they succeed? Depends on how the rest of Indians deal with it. Truth is often the best weapon. What we need to do is to call it as it is. Satyameva Jayate and all that.

>>You are underestimating the danger JEM.

Having said that, it is possible that I’m underestimating the danger. My assessment at the moment is that it is not. Time will tell, no doubt.

Advait · Post by **Advait** » 31 May 2011 14:08

Its said that if you owe a million to the bank, the bank owns you.

If you owe the bank 100 million, you own the bank!

Lets hope GOI does something like this. But it is possible only if janta puts pressure on the gov.

abhischekcc · Post by **abhischekcc** » 31 May 2011 14:15

Somnath, you are conflating two very different subjects together:
1. Islamic banking, as in banking/finance done according to principle laid down in Islam (primarily, interest free approach).
2. Banking for Islamic political purposes, which is what is being discussed here.

Yes, Islamic banking (option 1) is a small part of global finance, or even Indian finance, and that non Islamic banks also offer these products. But that is not the worry point. The worry point is the use of banking/financial institutions for political purposes.

So the difference is between "Islamic banking" (one word/phrase) and "Islamic" banking (two words).