Future strategic scenario for the Indian Subcontinent

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 31 Jul 2009 00:48

brihaspati wrote:India should reclaim Pakistan not only because Pakistan has failed in all its justifications for its existence. But because the entire idea of Pakistan was an imagination based on an alien and imported ideology that was imposed on the land at the point of military coercion, and that still holds its primary ideological identification and affiliation to a source and cultural centre outside of the subcontinent. Because the idea of Pakistan was a bluff pulled by dominant theologians and affiliated Islamic political leadership and implemented with the active encouragement and support of colonial regimes and powers external to the subcontinent.

Because the idea of Pakistan was accepted by the then prevailing regime and political leadership among the non-Muslims, and no leader or leadership at any point of time in a nation's history is greater than the nation itself. Therefore what the non-Muslim leadership accepted is not binding on the nation, and it can and should overturn any decisions taken in the past that is perceived to have been disastrous, unilaterally painful and costly on the common members of the nation (and not on the leadership who suffered little or nothing even in personal terms of the fallout of the creation of the artificial entity of Pakistan).

The Indian subcontinent must come under one single political authority and economic system that also gives primacy to the long standing indigenous Bharatyia culture of the majority of the populations as modified to suit current advances in knowledge and humanitarian concepts. For those countries in the "west" which have brought down on the peoples of the subcontinent untold hardship, trauma and pain, in their racist, colonial and theological paranoia by supporting and maintaining the terrorist rashtra of Pakistan - it is time for their leadership and their people to understand that an unified subcontinent, not under Islam, is in their long term interest. Such an unified entity will stop Jihadi terror exports to the west, help in erasing Jihad globally over the long term, provide a much larger, integrated market to "exploit", and stable strategic infrastructure to utilize to get access to IO and the central Asian energy sources.

Any Indian leader or leadership that fails to carry out this agenda will go down in history not only as blind, clueless, and poor caricatures as statespersons but also as traitors who helped prolong the alien and artificially constructed entity of Pakistan, thereby extending the suffering of subcontinental populations on both sides of the existing borders - Muslim and non-Muslim alike.

Sir,
I understand where you are coming from and your argument why India should reclaim Pakistan is sound from a historical perspective. But should'nt we be thinking practically?
Reclaiming Pakistan does not merely imply reclaiming territory wrongfully taken from us. It also involves accepting 200 million people with an high percentage of Islamist radicals known for exporting terrorism throughout the world. The population in general after decades of brainwashing and indoctrination hates India and everything Indian.
As an Indian citizen, I do not want my country overrun by such scum.
Further, how do you suggest an Indian leader actually go about trying to reclaim Pakistan?

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 31 Jul 2009 00:59

nachiket, What brihaspatiji is saying is a goal. What you are saying are the practical impediments to achieving the goal. What is needed is to take a wholistic view and work around the impediments. The key change that has come over TSP is from the Islamization drive launched in 1970s. And the support from West and PRC. As all social engineering projects it can be reversed.

If all we say is neti, neti, how can we bring about vasudeva kutumbam? Through out the ages there were visionaries who tried to square the circle and at crucial times there were interventions which subverted the process.

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 31 Jul 2009 01:17

ramana wrote:nachiket, What brihaspatiji is saying is a goal. What you are saying are the practical impediments to achieving the goal. What is needed is to take a wholistic view and work around the impediments.
...If all we say is neti, neti, how can we bring about vasudeva kutumbam? Through out the ages there were visionaries who tried to square the circle and at crucial times there were interventions which subverted the process.

I understand sir, but whatever goal, we might set for our country has to be feasible within a particular timeframe and more importantly the benefits obtained from realizing that goal must be quantitatively and qualitatively greater than the sacrifices we would have to make to achieve it.

ramana wrote:The key change that has come over TSP is from the Islamization drive launched in 1970s. And the support from West and PRC. As all social engineering projects it can be reversed.

Maybe, but how can we assume that they would want to be a part of a united India? Majority of Muslims who left India for Pakistan in 1947 wanted a separate country. Those who did'nt stayed back. What can cause this to change?
Do we even know for sure that our own people want to recliam Pakistan?
I am sure there is a sizable number like me who don't want to touch that sorry excuse for a country with a barge pole.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 31 Jul 2009 01:18

nachiketji,
I appreciate your reservations. Ramanaji has already answered for me to a great extent. But in many pages of this thread in the earlier part we had thrashed out reasons and arguments for what I have stated above. May I request you to go over these earlier posts and give me your opinion to the specifics?

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 31 Jul 2009 01:22

brihaspati wrote:nachiketji,
I appreciate your reservations. Ramanaji has already answered for me to a great extent. But in many pages of this thread in the earlier part we had thrashed out reasons and arguments for what I have stated above. May I request you to go over these earlier posts and give me your opinion to the specifics?

I must confess that I havent read the thread in its entirety. I skimmed through several pages.

Will read all the posts in detail.
Thank you.

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 31 Jul 2009 01:26

Pathans, Sindhsi, Balochs etc are all secured in their identity . Onlee Pakjabis need "Sudhaar" and there are many way to do such "reforms; if you understand their history. the one way to straighten the dog's tail is to cut it it into small pieces.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 31 Jul 2009 03:45

Acharyaji,
that organization has to reinvent itself if it wants to achieve what it wants. I understand why it has become what it has become, but just like the closely related political/parliamentary adjunct, they both suffer from memories of a virtual underground existence. They have to get over it if they want to play their role. That structure is not typical of a generator of mass movements. It can help though (or not obstruct) to form a new one from a distance. Much wider sections have to be made to get involved. Closing my big mouth.

JwalaMukhi · Post by **JwalaMukhi** » 31 Jul 2009 04:40

Brhaspathiji,
That's is definitely need of the hour for the movement. The movement also seems to be obsessed with the western borders and trying to achieve its results. It need to be emphasized that the core structure for bharatiya civilization had shifted towards the southern region and the north has received and withstood multiple wounds. The consolidation should start with the low hanging fruits. Starting with Sri lanka, Myanmar, BD sectors and working towards the western borders. These regions are the way forward. The movement has to breakthrough and demonstrate that it can provide viable vision in these friendlier regions, before taking on the gargantuan task on the western border. The neglect of these regions due to obsession with western borders can turn out to be costly.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 31 Jul 2009 16:42

^^^ The consolidation should start in Sri Lanka.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 31 Jul 2009 18:10

nachiketji,

I will try to briefly summarize the main points in favour of incorporation of the territories currently occupied by GOTSP.

(1) Strategic necessity:

(a) As long as a separate and independent entity of TSP remains it will continue to try everything in its power to bleed India, take over Kashmir, and further expand its dream of a Mughalistan. This means undercover operations, terror attacks, or even formal invasions on India.

(b) As long as TSP exists, it will be seen as an instrument to pressurize and manipulate India by outside powers like USA, UK and PRC. Which means certain weaknesses for India in international bargaining situations. Such bargaining can extend not only in purely foreign interests for India, but also have impact internally on India in its economy and internal security situation.

(c) Even if TSP is not trying to infiltrate, terrorize, or invade at any given instant of historical time, India has to maintain a large portion of its defence efforts and expenditure all along the western borders, from POK to Gujarat. This is more than a normal border maintenance operation becuase of persistent vicious hostility from the Paksitani side.

(d) Independent TSP provides alternative routes to the IO for PRC as well as a means of separating India physically from the CAR, and Iran - all vital for Indias future energy and further strategic needs.

(e) Independent TSP provides locations for nuclear weapons delivery system targeting India, by proxy, by PRC. Without this PRC is restricted to submarine based and Tibet based ones only. It also provides naval facilities to hostile powers like PRC at ports like Gwadar.

(2) Social necessity :

(a) destruction of TSP means the final acknowledgement that the original touted purpose of TSP as a beacon and hope for Muslims on the subcontinent was a false one. Muslims in India have to realize that they cannot have a non Bharatyia future, and none of their fondly looked forward cultural centres outside of India have ever done anything or will do anything positive for their future. As long as TSP exists, the political and military false hope remains and an alternative to integration with the mainstream remains. Submergence within the main Bharatyia stream can only be possible when no alternatives are left for social esteem through a separate and distinct identity.

(b) destruction of TSP and its incorporation finally paves the way for healing the trauma of Partition. Access to pilgrimage centres and cultural centres of the Sikhs and Hindus and possible resettlement options after potential "collateral damages". At the least we can expect "some" of our people to be liberal enough by tradition to "socially" heal trauma after conflict where the male population of Pakjab gets severely reduced in offering marriage to surviving women.

(c) the greatest destroyer of parochialism and ethnic/religious xenophobia is genetic and marital mixing. Opportunities for this can only be exploited within a single unified socio-political framework.

(3) Governance :

(a) Socio-economic reform striking at the base of Islamic retrogression can only be done under a unified state. The first reform is educational, striking at the base of the Madrassah based social control that generates terror on India.

(b) For a long time after reincorporation, there has to be strong administrative and legal mesaures that prevents or controls flow of people out of incorporated territories, and a staged and staggered intrdouction of democratic reforms. Prior to political reforms, economic and social reforms are necessary - especially land-reforms - that is the key to break the backbone of the feudal landowning class at the head of Pakistani politics right from the beginning and the chief criminals behind the trauma of formation of TSP and the Partition.

I do agree with you that a lot of Indians would have strong reservations against incorporations of the lands and peoples currently occupied by GOTSP. But the long term prosperity and peace for all peoples in the subcontinent is crucially dependent on unification under a common rashtra and world-view. I hope you understand why I am asking all to consider taking up this vision alongside the purely economic one we are pursuing now, and which is still not touching large sections of our own populations and which has every possibility of getting jeopardized in the long run if the TSP problem is not solved.

Kashmir or Balochistan is not the "problem" - there is no "Kashmir problem" or "Kashmir issue" but only a "TSP problem" or "TSP issue".

surinder · Post by **surinder** » 31 Jul 2009 19:23

B,

That was a great summary. I am afraid I was beginning to agree with Nachiketa, until I read what you wrote.

A few things to add:

destruction of TSP means the final acknowledgement that the original touted purpose of TSP as a beacon and hope for Muslims on the subcontinent was a false one.

This is vital. The idea of TSP has be killed and stamped out. It has to be stamped out in ways that it never EVER takes root again. 1971 wounded that idea, but did not shatter it completely.

Muslims in India have to realize that they cannot have a non Bharatyia future

I would rephrase it as follows: M's in India can have a non-Bhartiya future for sure, but without Bharatiya land. E.g. they can immigrate to KSA and adopt Arabic as mother tougue and listen to tinny Arabic music, we couldn't care less.

But it has to be sans Bharatiya land.

But the incorporation of TSP has to be done in practical ways. Lands across the Indus can be Vassal states, nominally Independent. Baluch can be a protectorate, or independent. Most of West Punjab will have to return to India. Regarding population, large scale expulsions (voluntary or involuntary) might have to occur. We cannot take in 200 million of momins. And most importantly Sikhs have to get back Lahore & their religious places.

Unfortunately, most of this requires a level of intensity and sacrifice that the Indic have not displayed in abundance in recent past. Something will have to change. That is the impractical part.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 31 Jul 2009 19:56

Surinderji,
I expect a lot of the male proportion of the 200 million momins to pump up their blood hot in resisting the pagan and the infidel. We should do all that we can to encourage that. Collateral damages are accepted as part of casualties of war. But the ladies should be honoured with a proper place in the new society -especially of the marital kind for those eligible.

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 01 Aug 2009 00:50

Aoa to that !
I have stated this many time , out of 20 crore, Pakjabis will be half the fools. We have not much antagonistic panga with any one beside LahoriGanuds. Out of 10C Pakjabis , onlee 2-3 crore are elgible for listing in Heavenly Reward Pogramme. This narrow down the LG problem quite a bit , onlee 10-20 Pakjabis per One real " complete" Pujnabi Man . The odds favour us. Rest of India can rest and join latter in cleaning the mess.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 02 Aug 2009 04:54

X-posting against comparing the Israeli situation with that in J&K

I do not think the J&K situation can be compared to the Israeli situation at all.

(1) The source of dispute in Israel is not ethnicity. If it was ethnicity then we have to accept that almost all non-Jewish ethnicities in the near and middle East and SE Asia have severe problems with the Jews - even those who had never historically been attacked by any of the various historical Jewish principalities. No known Jewish force attacked and invaded the Persians, the ancient Iraqis, Egypt (unless we equate the Hyksos with Israelites), Assyria. But now every non-Jew has problems. The only common thing we find between such a variety of anti-Jew ethncities is that they all follow Islam in one of its two flavours.

(2) The main problem is the reminder that Judaism is the source from which Islam derives, and Islam started out by desperately trying to usurp and replace the authority of Judaism. As long as an independent Judaic nations remains it goes against the primary legitimacy of Islamic theological authority - that the entire Abrahamic tradition resides solely in Islam. Existence of an independent Judaic nation creates problems in consolidation of cultural authority in Islamic icons because of much older and legitimate primacy claims of Judaism on the important "holy" sites.

(3) The post-oil scenario : as and when oil becomes less important for the world economy, the ME will have to go back to its traditional historical survival strategy - by using its geographical position in between the main production and consumption centres of West and East as a trade conduit. For this it will desperately look forward to its historical dream of a continuous "Caliphate" that stretched from the North Africa to Indonesia. Only such a construct can effectively seal off the Eastern Mediterranean and control and live off the flow of products. Here Israel is an effective disruptor projecting western presence into the fertile crescent.

In Kashmir Valley, the problem is not that they need to usurp the legitimacy of "Hinduism/Buddhism" and replace it completely. They in fact distance themselves as much as possible from the latter. In fact emphasizing Islamic origins creates a dilemma. Because of the Mecca/Medina centric focus on legitimacy, there is a fervent and desperate need in Muslims all over the world to try and show descent or derivation from Arabs and glorify their having come to the domicile as "invaders/preachers" from the "centre". So there is always the curious dichotomy I have noticed in many Muslim Kashmiris as a contardictory pull in trying to identify themselves as Arab-derived on the one hand and trying to establish "bhumiputra" status on the other. They need Islam as a rallying point, but more they do, without a distinct Arabic cultural base, they have to fall back on the native culture which shows contiguity with those they need to destroy to survive.

Moreover, western part of the Valley can only benefit from the Central Asian trade route between China and Europe, if the Indus Valley is prosperous and productive enough. Economic failure of Pakistan cuts off the only viable survival route for an independent "Kashmir". Thus the "Kashmiryiat" movement is intimately dependent on the success and survival of TSP and not otherwise. This is a completely different situation from that in Israel.

surinder · Post by **surinder** » 02 Aug 2009 20:45

B, The Israel issue has many facets, some of which you have eloquently captured, but some you have not mentioned. Overlayed on top of the religious competition between Judaism & Isalaam, there is an ethnic/racial component. The fair-skinned Ashkenazi Jews immigrating from Europe created a distinctive "first-world" society with its "first-world" trappings. Primary of that is the European tendency to solve conflicts by genocide, ethnic cleansing & dominance. Sephardic Jews existed in reasonable numbers in Palestine, Iran, Iraq, Egypt and most of ME with very acceptable level of integration. They were in much better conditions than how the European were. Their conditions did not worsen until after Israel was created. Why did the Jews flee the Spanish Christian re-conquest? Where did they go when the fled?

Of course there is no conflict with the non-Jews of ME, SE Asia, & other places because the lands of those people are not subject to the same land-grab. If the European Jews were transplanted to Tibet, Bolivia, or Laos and they acted in the same way as they did in Israel/Palestine, you would see the same conflict.

It is also a colonial problem, where Britain the archetypical colonial power used the local land and people to solve its own problems and create a future power base. British handling of Israel/Palestine was paramount in creating the issue as it stands today.

But it is still somewhat irrelevant to the main point: Regardless of the origin of the conflict, the issue is that of the ability to settle & survie in a hostile area. Palistinians & Kashmiri Muslims are a numerical majority in large swathes of the land. The Hindus/Jews want to retain and assert control, one means to that end is changing demographics and settling down. Jews see that land as Judea and Sumeria, a land connected with their religious history. Hindus (should) see kashmir as the land of Rish Kashyapa, a place which is the crucible of Hinduism itself. Both would see Muslims as inhabiting their land. But we see that there are enough Jews who will have enough conviction that they are willing to sacrifice all, bear all pain, and take on risks to life/property/honor to settle this land. You will be hard pressed to find any Hindus in the entire length & breadth of India willing to do the same in Kashmir. One can poll the all the "brave" Shiv Sainiks, RSS, Bajrang Dals members and ask them if they would aggree to settle in Kashmir Valley with their family. What to talk of fresh settlers, on the contrary, the ones who were already settled chose to simply move when violence errupted. They had been living there since the dawn of history. None amongst them went for counter fighting, counter insurgency, counter terror. None showed a willingness to fight it out with blood, tears & sweat to doggedly not relenquish their home & hearth. If there even a few like this, the current state of Kashmir would be very different.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 02 Aug 2009 21:47

S,

I meant that non-Jews not ever facing Jewish aggression, in ME, Persia, SEAsia were still against the Jews if they were Muslims. Muslim non-Jews the world over, who never faced any attack by any Jewish force or principality in historical times, still want to obliterate the Judaic nation, if not Jews. This aggression is not based on actual historical trauma imposed by the Jews. In fact the Quran and the Hadiths are eloquent and frank about one-sided genocide of the Jews to capture their fertile oases properties, and their livestock and women - thats as simple as that. The very fact that the first Muslims openly declare their genocidic agenda shows that it was they the Muslims who cleared awy the Jews from that area.

The first major migration post CE of the Jews took place after the sack of Jerusalem under Romans. This was the time when Jews began to settle across the southern shores of Med, and even go beyond the immediate neighbourhood of Israeli heartland deepr into the desert and along the fertile crescent. Subsequent Roman-Christian "prompting" made them spread around further.

It is not true that Jews preferred being under Islamic subjugation compared to Christian subjugation. There is little historical evidence one way or the other. The widespread reference to Jews all over Europe in the medieval period, in spite of supposed horrendous persecution, and presence in the south and west even in India under non-Muslim rulers, shows that they were mainly motivated by trading opportunities and relative safety and they had little to choose between Islam and Christianity. There are quite good records of persecution of Jews under Muslim rule.

In fact, the generic theological hatred against the Jews shows up as recently as the beginnings of the WWII. If you search up references for the "Grand Mufti" and his tryst with the Nazis and Hitler to help in the solution to the "Jewish problem" - at a time when the Jewish state did not exist, you will see that it is essentiallystill the early founding fathers of Islam - haunting the modern theologians. It is for them a question of genocidic erasure of a culture and populace they "hate" for the competitive reasons I stated before. Unfortunately, all my historical studies have forced me to come to the conclusion that Islam cannot tolerate any culture it feels superior and more complex or sophisticated than itself and has a built in agenda of not resting until nothing superior remains.

As for forceful resettlement and reclaiming the land in the Valley for its pre-Muslim and non-Muslim original inhabitants, as I mentioned before, the greatest and crucial differene with Israel lies in the role of the rashtra. The Indian rashtra, for obvious historical and global political reasons, in reality uses the resources provided by the vast majority of non-Muslim Indians, that goes into maintaining the security forces, to prevent these very same non-Muslim Indians from reclaiming the land. In the case of Israel, the rashtra uses all resources to help and protect such reclaiming.

What is being done now, by the GOI, amounts to creating a special protected enclave of Valley Muslims, subsidized at the expense of the non-Muslim Indian, which virtually excludes all non-Muslim Indians from stepping inside. A parallel situation for Israel would be maintenance of a Gaza exclusively for Muslim Palestinians by the Israeli government, protected from common Israeli reclaims, and subsidized at the expense of the Israeli taxpayer. This virtual recognition is simply conforming and hardening the separate identity based basically on theological grounds.

The government virtually recognizes the Valley Muslims' false claims of a separate and distinct nationhood - by maintaining 370, and not giving any means to the non-Muslims inside the Valley like the Israeli government does to protect themselves from violent and vicious attacks by Muslim exteremists by arming them and providing active military protection.

It is unfair to expect all the Bajrang Dals, RSS or similar organizations to play any reclaiming role here.

Johann · Post by **Johann** » 02 Aug 2009 22:26

The Jewish population of Europe dwarfed that of the Middle East starting somewhere in the Middle Ages.

That has to do with the fact the Jewish population in the Muslim world was confined to urban areas, while in the former Polish-Lithuanian empire (later conquered by the Russians) they were encouraged to settle the land.

The majority of the world's Jewish population was concentrated in this area ('the Pale'), now divided between Poland, the Baltic republics, Byelarussia, and Ukraine, stretching from the Baltic in the north to the Black Sea in the south. Winters were harsh, warfare was endemic, and Jews unarmed and helpless, but the land was fertile and there was space to grow.

Growing Russian nationalist antisemitism in the 19th century (encouraged by an absolute monarchy that hated the secular Jewish middle class demanding democratic reform) created an awakening of Jewish nationalism, and began the process of immigration to the Levant, and the far more extreme Nazi antisemitism only accelerated the process.

Ultimately the modern problems originate from exclusive rather than inclusive definitions of modern notions of nations and nationalism.

Hari Seldon · Post by **Hari Seldon** » 02 Aug 2009 23:06

Friday's Bengal bandh was somehow different enough for some to feel the CPIM may crumble soon. Caveat emptor, of course.

But Friday's bandh was somehow slightly different. I went out on the streets and tried to find out why there was this uncanny silence all around. Which is usually not the case because during an Opposition-sponsored bandh in Bengal almost everything plies as usual with the slight difference of a few buses being stoned or cars stopped. But that is routine and taken as part of the game.

But here, we had a only a 12-hour-bandh and the silence was almost phantom-like in its presence. It was everywhere but could not be felt. There were no gully football matches, the nukkads were not milling with no-gooders doing small talk, shops were closed as if they wouldn't reopen ever, and government buses and trams were nowhere to be seen. The CPI(M) government had taken the hint. It was not taking any chances. For the first time in many, many years, the government had surrendered. Yes, capitulated.

And strangely, though there was lumpen violence the previous day, nothing happened during the 12 hours on Friday. The city was peaceful. The silence of the lambs spoke of impending slaughter, I felt.

But slaughter of whom? And by whom? That is the big question. Because there is no sacrifice here. The CPI(M) has got its just desserts and is now facing the music. The Opposition, as if manna from heaven, has found a cause to beat the government with on every front. And the people, who usually lead any slaughter in the absence of an annointed priest, are now silent.

Friday's bandh should be an eye-opener. Change may not always be welcome but if it has to come, then the signals were clear on Friday. I have no clue as to who will usher in the change or whether the leaders of that change are competent to govern us. But I am clear about one thing.

Bengal is set for change. And we are waiting with silence. Because before any slaughter, it is always sympathy and silent prayers for the lamb which are uttered before the mob rises in orgasmic violent cries when the chopper falls with a deft swish.

link

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 03 Aug 2009 01:41

I think even in April this year people here were wondering whether the Left in WB would ever go and that WB was a hopeless case. I was the lone voice warning about the highly subversive nature of the political "Bengali". The fact is that now the populations feel more or less feel confident that MB has a solid central lineup and that Congress has no obvious reason to backstab MB and shake hands with the CPI(M).

Although, I would go along with that feeling, I must also warn that, Congress would most likely also open a back line with sections of the Left. Ultimately, MB is someone to be used and dropped to gain entry back into WB - and its probably good timing as the generation that remembers SSRoy or the Shata Ghoshs is dying out. The WB public is likely to spring more surprises, and I would not be surprised to see MB aligning with camps opposed to the Congress in the future.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 03 Aug 2009 09:06

brihaspati wrote:

It is not true that Jews preferred being under Islamic subjugation compared to Christian subjugation. There is little historical evidence one way or the other. The widespread reference to Jews all over Europe in the medieval period, in spite of supposed horrendous persecution, and presence in the south and west even in India under non-Muslim rulers, shows that they were mainly motivated by trading opportunities and relative safety and they had little to choose between Islam and Christianity. There are quite good records of persecution of Jews under Muslim rule.

This cannot be based on any facts of history.
http://www.india-forum.com/forums/index ... st&p=82141
Jews and Christians in the Roman Empire: a clash of civilizations?
Religion and Politics
Dr Henk W. Singor, Leiden University

Christianity splits from Judaism; roots of anti-semitism:

Another fundamental phenomenon of major geopolitical consequence was not merely Christianity's growing out of the confines of Judaism, but of it actually developing serious and fundamental anti-Jewish moorings. The exact causes and reasons for this are the subject of much research today, we shall see that the anti-Jewish theme developing right from Jesus Christ himself.

The Jews refusal to recognize Jesus' claim to being the messiah or prophet resulted in an open conflict between "the Jews" and Jesus. For specific example, we refer our reader to John 8:31-8:59, a dialogue between Jesus and "the Jews". The Jews challenge Jesus claim to prophethood, accuse him of being possessed by a demon, and in turn Jesus defends himself as "son of God", and calls the Jews liars and children of the devil. This would certainly be a recurring theme...we shall see the same with Mohammed, and again with Luther etc....where the Jews refuse to recognize the claim of the prophet to prophethood and the religion of the prophet turns against the Jews. The development of the dogma of the divinity of Christ made a breach between the church and the synagogue. Judaism could not admit of the deification of a man; to recognize any one as the son of God was blasphemy; and as the Jewish Christians had not severed their connections with the Jewish community, they were disciplined. This accounts for the flagellation of the Apostles and the new converts, the execution of Stephen and of the Apostle James. [In this and only in this context, we have put inverted commas around "the Jews", because this is not quite "the Jews", but "the Jews in power of Judea", claiming to represent conventional Jewry.

Some consequences:
The church would remain anti-Judaic till this very day, and the Jews would suffer greatly at the hands of the church through the millenia. The Doctrine of Manifest Destiny was used to justify punishment for the Jews as being divinely ordained for not having come over to the Christian belief. Once the church gained control of most of Italy, confinement and ghettoization of Jews started and conditions in the ghettoes depended on economic and political need of church. The Jews had to pay a ransom in order to survive in the ghettoes. With the spread of Christianity to other kingdoms and over Europe, the persecution of Jews assumed global proportions. In the century following Gregory’s papacy, the Jews were already being hounded out of several countries of Europe. King Dagobert, in 626 AD, expelled them from France, although they did subsequently have a brief respite during the reign of the Carolingian dynasty. In 694 AD the Spanish monarchy, with open collusion from the church, forced the Jews to choose between conversion and slavery. The same was repeated in Portugal, where the persecution was particularly severe between 600-1000 AD. It was marked by massacres and economic loot of the Jews and their properties.

The Jews were thus forced to migrate eastwards, moving into Southern France and Pirennes Mountains in North Spain (related to today's Basque separatism), then onto Poland, Hungary, Russia, Mongolia and finally China. However, as Christianity spread to each of these countries, the persecution of Jews would accquire a worldwide proportion. They would start adopting Christian disguises to avoid detection and death or expulsion. Secret Jews (Conversos in Spain or Moranos in Portugal) were usually prominant wealthy Jews who officially converted to Christianity but practically remained Jewish. They were able to gain the confidence of the Spanish and Portuguese kings giving rise to a group called "Hoffjudens" or "court Jews". This group would help Jewish resistance over Europe and Asia.

The church was alarmed at the rise and penetration of these Secret Jews and decided to react. But they waited for the next four centuries till the last crusades were finally won in 1491 in Granada. Although during the crusades the intensity of the persecution of Jews decreased, they were still targetted in an indirect manner. The crusades were primarily aimed at liberating Palestine from islamic rule, but the crusading armies often used to pillage and kill Jews on their way to the holy land.

The decicive victory by Spain left Europe with Spain and Portugal (both Catholic) as the major naval powers. Once islam was controlled, the Church turned back to Europe to cleanse the continent from what it perceived to be the eternal menance -- Jews. In the period after the crusades, the Jews of Germany were routinely humiliated and sometimes massacred after accusations of treachery, poisoning of wells etc. Many German Jews fled eastward. Several Polish noblemen of the middle ages showed special favor to Jews who immigrated because of persecution in Germany, coupled with a Polish desire for Jewish expertise in commerce. The Jews did well in Poland, until recently. Although Catherine the Great was the first to give the Jews political rights, resulting in an influx of a million Jews into Russia, the Orthodox church was not too happy. It urged them to accept Christianity, leading to riots and slaughter later in the century. In Germany, Martin Luther King had initially fantasized that the Jews, whom he was attracted to, would flock to his version of the church. However, as was the case with Jesus, the Jews refused to recognize his claims to being a messiah and he then turned against them. He had earlier, in 1523, written the pro-Jewish book "That Christ Was Born a Jew" . But now he turned against this "damned and rejected race," and wrote "Against the Sabbatarians" (in 1538 AD) followed by "On the Jews and Their Lies".

Unlike the church which broke all links to any "motherland" (it had never accepted one in the first place), the Jews did have a historic home or promised land where they had once lived and fought for. But the hated Romans had devastated their political kingdom, and soon after they were completely driven out by the muslims. What was worse, they were beginning to realize that they were insecure in every country they fled to, as it seemed the church (and subsequently islam) followed them there. (This would happen even in India, where they thought they had found safe haven amongst the Pagan Indians. They were soon disabused of this notion, for the Catholic Portuguese Albuquerque instituted the Goan Inquisition, specifically aimed at hounding the Jews out of Goa.)

Of course, the Jews were not going to take all this lying down and face extermination. This insecurity would force them to create a unified global brotherhood (in much the same way as the church aimed to control the world without a kingdom or homeland). This brotherhood, reasonably termed Zionism, would be far greater in geopolitical reach, with a strong intention of getting back and creating their homeland. While the church would have as its primary aim religious conversion, using economic subjugation towards this end, the Jews would have as their primary geopolitical strategy mercantile control and political subjugation as tools for survival and getting back their homeland. They would play the same game that the church had started--that of controlling nations to serve their ends. They would put to good use the elaborate resident colonies and ghettos and the ubiquitious Secret Jews, and their considerable mercantile skills to organize resistance and exploit all avenues and weakness in the church (and also in islam). We should also mention that they were not averse to intrigues with various church denominations. In fact, in what may have been their first victory, they were responsible for the conquest of Jerusalem in the first crusade, and ruled Jerusalem under a French Noble named DeBullion (they were driven out by the Arabs 80 years later). In a later chapter, we shall see how they exploited the major rift between Catholics and Protestants to engineer the English Revolution, and take control of England.

The stage was now well set for what present generation Indians are taught about Auschwitz, Buchenwald, Dachau, Hitler and Nazism. Perhaps the second victory of the Jews was the creation of the State of Israel in 1948, with 5 million Jews from all over moving in, after.

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 03 Aug 2009 09:24

^^^b-ji

If and when that happens, I will ship you one kg sugar and a scotch bottle of your choice

John Snow · Post by **John Snow** » 03 Aug 2009 13:30

you mean SS Ray not Roy

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 03 Aug 2009 15:23

John Snowji,
In Bengali references he would be mentioned in full glory - Siddhartha Shankar Raaye! His Anglicized version is Ray.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 03 Aug 2009 15:29

Acharyaji,
it was not clear to me if you doubt that my contention that Jews were mainly motivated by trading opportunities and relative safety, and that they had little to choose between living under Idlamic or Christian subjugation. The large majority of Jews indeed lived within European and Christian spheres of influence as pointed out by Johannji.

Under both systems they were systematically exploited and repressed, and also used and protected for commercial or entrepreneurial interests of the "state", and Jews also exploited such needs in the state to survive and flourish to a certain extent.

I only said that the Jews were also repressed and exploited under Islamic regimes, but the latter is usually not highlighted compared to the Christian narratives.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 03 Aug 2009 17:22

Just a brief timeline extracted from the web: re Jews under Islamic regimes. The major incidents mentioned here are referenced in more than one documents. Islamophiles can of course try to dispue some of the minor ones. In fact all the references to the Granada massacres under the oh-so-tolerant Fatimid Caliphate are solidly founded upon historical documentary claims.

717 Possible date for the Pact of Umar, a document that specified restrictions on Jews and Christians (dhimmi) living under Muslim rule. Could have been actually composed much later.
807 Abbassid Caliph Harun al-Rashid orders all Jews in the Caliphate to wear a yellow belt, with Christians to wear a blue one.
1008-1013 Caliph Al-Hakim bi-Amr Allah ("the Mad") issues severe restrictions against Jews in the Fatimid Empire. All Jews are forced to wear a heavy wooden "golden calf" around their necks. Christians had to wear a large wooden cross and members of both groups had to wear black hats.
1016 The Jewish community of Kairouan, Tunisia is forced to chose between conversion and expulsion.
1032 Abul Kamal Tumin conquers Fez, Morocco and decimates the Jewish community, killing 6,000 Jews.
1066 December 30 Granada massacre: Muslim mob stormed the royal palace in Granada, crucified Jewish vizier Joseph ibn Naghrela and massacred most of the Jewish population of the city. "More than 1,500 Jewish families, numbering 4,000 persons, fell in one day."
1090 The Jewish community of Granada, which had recovered after the attacks of 1066, attacked again at the hands of the Almoravides led by Yusuf ibn Tashfin, bringing the golden age of Jewish culture in Spain to end.
1107 Moroccan Almoravid ruler Yusuf ibn Tashfin ordered all Moroccan Jews to convert or leave.
1148-1212 The rule of the Almohads in al-Andalus. Only Jews who had converted to Christianity or Islam were allowed to live in Granada.
1165 Forced mass conversions in Yemen
1198 August: Saladdin's nephew al-Malik, caliph of Yemen, summons all the Jews and forcibly converts them.
1232 Forced mass conversions in Marrakesh.
1333 forced mass conversions in Baghdad
1438 Establishment of mellahs (ghettos) in Morocco.
1619 Shah Abbasi of the Persian Sufi Dynasty increases persecution against the Jews, forcing many to outwardly practice Islam. Many keep practicing Judaism in secret.
1678 forced mass conversions in Yemen.
1790-1792 Destruction of most of the Jewish communities of Morocco.
1805 Massacre of Jews in Algeria.
1840 The Damascus affair: false accusations cause arrests and atrocities, culminating in the seizure of sixty-three Jewish children and attacks on Jewish communities throughout the Middle East.
1921 May 1-4 Jaffa riots in Palestine.
1929 August 23 The ancient Jewish community of Hebron is destroyed in the Hebron massacre.
1934 2,000 of Afghani Jews expelled from their towns and forced to live in the wilderness.
1941 The Farhud pogrom in Baghdad results in 200 Jews dead, 2,000 wounded.
1948-2001 Antisemitism played a major role in the Jewish exodus from Arab lands. The Jewish population in the Arab Middle East and North Africa has decreased from 900,000 in 1948 to less than 8,000 in 2001.
1948 During the Siege of Jerusalem of the Arab-Israeli War, Arab armies were able to conquer the part of the West Bank and Jerusalem; they expelled all Jews (about 2,000) from the Old City (the Jewish Quarter) and destroyed the ancient synagogues that were in Old City as well.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 03 Aug 2009 17:51

Rounding up, please look up references on Mohammad Amin al-Husayni, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem and his role in possible rioting/pogroms against the Jews in Palestine long before any Jewish state had been established, his connections with the Nazis to block immigration of Jews from East Europe to safety in Palestine, his possible corroboration and plan to help in the "final solution", his eventual asylum in Egypt and British refusal to help in his extradition for trial and British use of him for their own intelligence gathering purposes. He is closely connected ideologically and by his descendants to the founding of the PLO. If I were an Israeli concerned for the survival of my rashtra, I would be most suspicious about anything that has such illustrious heritage.

We have to understand that for nations like Israel or Bharat, their trauma or non-trauma at the hands of invading ideologies like that of Islam has been entirely constructed according to the needs and whims of those colonial regimes which established their control finally - especially that of the British. The British come froma solid background of hating the "pagan", and they hated both Judaism as well as "Hinduism". Even though some of their scholars helped in reviving the memories of trauma into public domain, this happened only when they were in contest with Isalmic regimes for control of these regions - Palestine and India. They did it not to revive the prestige and authority of Judaism or Hinduism but only to delegitimize the Islamic claims. Thus we always find this curious dichotomy of reviving and then disputing or suppressing community memories of trauma at Islamic hands. For full revival of community memories would mean an independent revival of the cultural and faith roots which makes it difficult for imperialist designs.

Thus the memories of Islamic repression on Jews could not be allowed to be aired more than it was necessary for British interests. The cultural memory of the communities themselves will differ from the colonial twists, and such long term trauma never really goes away. This is why we fail to understand the persistent anti-Islamic drive that remains within the core of both nations and wonder at the ferocity of the reactions when they come out under provocations.

I for one, fully understand the reasons the Israelis behave so with the Palestinians, and am not sure that I would not have behaved the same if I was in their position. Our ancestors were fortunate in having places of refuge in the South and pockets throughtout northern India where they could use the terrain to fight back militarily and survive. So we do not show all the paranoid features of the Israeli reaction. But it is important to understand the experience and reaction of the Jews to understand what exactly we missed that made us allow the Partition to happen and gift ourselves the wonderful masochism in enjoying Pakistan for more than 60 years now.

svenkat · Post by **svenkat** » 03 Aug 2009 20:38

Brihaspathiji,
Why on earth should we worry about Israel's problems?Yes we have *some*convergent interests,but ultimately their problems are theirs and our problems ours.

Israel is a western creation as is Pakistan.Israel was created by an inhuman act against palestinians.That is why MKG was against Zionism.The Western barbarians should atone for their evil.

Both Mohammedans and Christists have committed atrocities against Jews.The Christist atrocities were worse because they had some intellectual equipment which made them more sinister and evil because they could not tolerate the jews rejecting their cult and godman which they considered 'universal' and the consummation of human civilisation.

In the 20th century,Europe and the intellectual West has little use for Christism in their socities.They know how hollow the claims of Christism are and it is just a derivative faith of Judaism.Hence the talk of Judeo-Christism as a superior value system,even though Jews themselves see little to connect the Jesus faith to their ancestral religion.

The creation of Israel is to absolve the West of its guilt and be rid of the Jewish problem.The Biblical constituency in US supports Israel because every superpower has its own pet cults which bolsters the 'uniqueness' of the superpower.

It is also a fact that indvidual jews(coming from a deep tradition of learning,discipline,piety,reverence,adoration and mystery) when exposed to enlightenment values and the quest of exploration and truth have produced remarkable achievements in modern life.The powerbrokers in West have tried to cash in on these achievements as 'proof' of the superiority of 'western' values.

surinder · Post by **surinder** » 03 Aug 2009 21:03

Trying to compare the treatment of J's at the hands of Christist Europeans vs. the ME M's is like trying to compare the king cobra with the rattlesnake: it is like comparing one bad thing against another and trying to figure out which is worse. Many cannot see anything redeeming in M's and hence automatically assume that J's got it worse from the M's, not the europeans. I am not so convinced. I can give argument and rest my case: Nazis sloaghtered 4-5 million of J's, there is no comparable event in contemporary Arabs/Iszlaam.

I could go on further, but it merely derails the thread. But I cannot resist the temptation to write a few more things. The Ashkenazi problem with the Palistinans is not just with the Musliems only. About 10% of Palis are Chritstian, and they have been very much in solidarity with their Muslims. In fact, one of PLO's main negotiator & spokesperson a decade ago was Hanan Ashravi, a Christian Palistinian. The J's eviction of tribal bedouins with pagan-like religion is also well known. (their name escapes me.) It is not a mere religious hatred of M's against the J's that explains it all.

Regarding References to grand Mufti of Jerusalem: it is mainly Psy ops. What do you expect the Mufti to do? Support immigration into his lands of the Europeans so that his community can be reduced to a pitiable minority? Anyone who wants to do a psy-ops on a group will try to connect them with the Nazis. Dalai Lamas have been connected with Nazis. Subhash Chandra Bose & other Indian nationalists have been painted to have been connected with the nazis.

Simply counting the number of J's in Europe is no indication of their relative worth. Many other factors play into their decision to stay in Europe. Economic prospects being one of them. As a matter of public arguments, South Africa's Apartheid was called not that bad because a lot of Blacks had 'chosen" to stayin SA, even immigrate from the neighboring. Americans have often claimed that Jim Crow laws were not that bad because Africans want to sitll immigrate to the US. Muslaims in India/TSP have often argued that M rule in India could not have been that bad because in the end majority of kaafirs were neither converted nor killed. Such number games are usually deceptive.

svenkat · Post by **svenkat** » 03 Aug 2009 21:23

surinderji,
I share much of your angst but your analysis on kashmir is a bit simplistic.I will not fault you as I believe many jingoes share your perceptions.

The Zionist movement was by and large clearly focussed.They were steeped in modern western values.They wanted to create a modern state.They were ready to throw out palestinians.They had powerful western supporters.They were desperate and had passed through a life and death ordeal.The Jews had little diversity among themselves.

On the other hand,India is vast.In 1947,the Sikhs and Hindus of West Punjab had been uprooted.But there had been a more peaceful migration by the Hindu elite in Bengal.In most parts of India,the people led secure lives.

Hinduism is as far away from Judaism as possible,atleast in theoretical aspects.The incredible diversity of India meant the Congress of MKG and JLN wanted to preserve the middle ground of Hindu society.Two parts of India had been yanked off.They wanted to consolidate the remaining.

The Indian political and social experiment was new.The old colonial power was hostile to India and had sowed the seeds of discord.India had to weed them out patiently while the British hoped to fuel the fire.India had to opt for stability in the states while preserving unity of the nation.

India had been Hindu from time immemorial but that did not mean unity automatically.An ancient civilisation had to modernise,build capabilities and institutions.Whipping up emotions could have unwittingly opened up pandoras box of linguistic and ethnic grievances.Also from a civilisational ethos,india could not be harsh on Kashmir.

But times change.Today the nation has consolidated.A younger generation which is confident has arrived.Old power structures and conservatism is giving away.The great mass of people in the Gangetic plains are stirring.I think we will see different responses to our problems.

Abhi_G · Post by **Abhi_G** » 03 Aug 2009 21:46

krishnapremi wrote:
On the other hand,India is vast.In 1947,the Sikhs and Hindus of West Punjab had been uprooted.But there had been a more peaceful migration by the Hindu elite in Bengal.In most parts of India,the people led secure lives.

Krishnapremi, this will surely derail the thread but what makes you think of this? I am really amazed. Do you know about the Calcutta riots, or have you forgotten Noakhali? Bengal was just left to herself, as some kind of punishment since the nationalists from there were too difficult to control for the "peaceful" elite of the INC! Famine, extreme police atrocity, partition and what not. The fact is that the entire loss of our land in the east has been just taken for granted. We are left with a chicken's neck. What are you saying boss?

svenkat · Post by **svenkat** » 03 Aug 2009 21:55

Abhi,

It is not in my nature to be argumentative.I try my best to get the facts.Without contesting the nature of Nowkhali massacres and Calcutta pogram,I stand by what I said-the more peaceful migration of the Hindu elite in East Bengal.

I let the knowlegable people here to be the jury.

Abhi_G · Post by **Abhi_G** » 03 Aug 2009 22:07

^^^^^
Growing up among the dispossed gives a different perspective. The sources do not need to be elite. Best way is not to compare. It would charge up very raw emotions.

svenkat · Post by **svenkat** » 03 Aug 2009 22:17

Abhi_G wrote:Best way is not to compare. It would charge up very raw emotions.
^^^^^
Growing up among the dispossed gives a different perspective. The sources do not need to be elite. Best way is not to compare. It would charge up very raw emotions.

I agree.I have no intention to scour raw wounds.Sorry,if i did that.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 04 Aug 2009 00:07

krishnapremi wrote
Why on earth should we worry about Israel's problems?Yes we have *some*convergent interests,but ultimately their problems are theirs and our problems ours.

No I was not worrying about Israel's problems. I clearly stated that the Indian non-Muslim military successes made us less paranoid compared to the Israelites in our reaction to Islamic Jihad. I was merely saying that understanding Jewish reaction and response can help us in realizing what we did not do right in allowing the Partition to happen, and the Kashmir Valley to retain its separatist core based on religion.

Israel is a western creation as is Pakistan.Israel was created by an inhuman act against palestinians.That is why MKG was against Zionism.The Western barbarians should atone for their evil.

MKG suggested lots of things to lots of people. The myth of totally peaceful non-violent methods onlee behind the removal of the British from India overlooks the facts that many others had to really fight violence with violence to survive. If you read all the logic given by MKG aginst "Zionism", I am not sure whether you will be able to decide to laugh or cry - his main proposition was not to resist the "atrocities" on the Jews and not to defend themselves. MKG suggested similar stuff to the British to give up everything to the Germans. I have always wondered why he did not suggest giving up India to the Japanese, to Congress and Nehru when the Japanese advance was taking pkace.

I agree that "western barbarians" should atone for their evil, but why should the middle-eastern barbarians not atone for their evils - which they perpetrated on the Jews from the time of the founding fathers of Islam?

Both Mohammedans and Christists have committed atrocities against Jews.The Christist atrocities were worse because they had some intellectual equipment which made them more sinister and evil because they could not tolerate the jews rejecting their cult and godman which they considered 'universal' and the consummation of human civilisation.

The same is also true of Islamic scholarship - in their condemnation and repression of Jews. There is a termendous amount of statements in early Islamic literature justifying violence and genocide against the Jews. And in fact the same accusation is more openly hurled against the Jews - that they rejected their "cult" - Islam, and their "godman", - Muhammad, as swearing personal loyalty to Muhammad is part of the first "pillar" of accepting Islam.

In the 20th century,Europe and the intellectual West has little use for Christism in their socities.They know how hollow the claims of Christism are and it is just a derivative faith of Judaism.Hence the talk of Judeo-Christism as a superior value system,even though Jews themselves see little to connect the Jesus faith to their ancestral religion.

But they have the same problem as that of Islamists, that they have to acknowledge that their faith is ultimately derived from Judaism.

The creation of Israel is to absolve the West of its guilt and be rid of the Jewish problem.The Biblical constituency in US supports Israel because every superpower has its own pet cults which bolsters the 'uniqueness' of the superpower.

Yes, but why should that love showered by any superpower be a fault of the Jews?

It is also a fact that indvidual jews(coming from a deep tradition of learning, discipline, piety, reverence, adoration and mystery) when exposed to enlightenment values and the quest of exploration and truth have produced remarkable achievements in modern life.The powerbrokers in West have tried to cash in on these achievements as 'proof' of the superiority of 'western' values.

Judaic scholars flourished also before whenever they were allowed the opportunity and freedom. Achievement of Judaic scholars at the same time remains a thorn against the arguments that you are giving - for it shows that the very same western technique that produces an Einstein or Freud (or Marx) could not produce similar brains after all from within the western ethnic pool itself

surinder wrote
Trying to compare the treatment of J's at the hands of Christist Europeans vs. the ME M's is like trying to compare the king cobra with the rattlesnake: it is like comparing one bad thing against another and trying to figure out which is worse. Many cannot see anything redeeming in M's and hence automatically assume that J's got it worse from the M's, not the europeans. I am not so convinced. I can give argument and rest my case: Nazis sloaghtered 4-5 million of J's, there is no comparable event in contemporary Arabs/Iszlaam.

S, I simply said that there is no great historical proof to favour one against the other in atrocity. As Johann points out, ME Jewish populations were smaller compared to Europe, so in my opinion any atrocity or repression has to be compared in proportion to the populations. The early indications in the biography of Muhammad by Ishaq or the Shahi Hadith, indicates planned genocide of entire settlements and clans of Jews in a very similar manner as to what the Nazis did. The slaughter of Banu Quaraizah Jews and enslavement of their women should be a good case study - it comes from Muslim pens.

I could go on further, but it merely derails the thread. But I cannot resist the temptation to write a few more things. The Ashkenazi problem with the Palistinans is not just with the Musliems only. About 10% of Palis are Chritstian, and they have been very much in solidarity with their Muslims. In fact, one of PLO's main negotiator & spokesperson a decade ago was Hanan Ashravi, a Christian Palistinian. The J's eviction of tribal bedouins with pagan-like religion is also well known. (their name escapes me.) It is not a mere religious hatred of M's against the J's that explains it all.

If the Christians have mistreated them in Europe we cannot expect any great love for them from the hardliners among the Jews. However here what they started out doing was to secure the sea-front and expand their territory, which obviously displaced the small proportion of Christian Palestinians. But, my point was that Islamic faith was the fundamental motivation to prevent the Jews from gaining any toe-hold in Palestine as at the time this Arabic-Islamic reaction started, there was no possibility or vision of a free Jewish state. The historical presence of the Jews in the land is attested to by archaeology, as well as Islamic texts which gloat over how many Jews they killed, or dispossesed and forced to leave, or how many women they sold or enslaved. Historically it was the Arabs who displaced the Jews under Islam from the Levant in the 7th and 8th centuries.

Regarding References to grand Mufti of Jerusalem: it is mainly Psy ops. What do you expect the Mufti to do? Support immigration into his lands of the Europeans so that his community can be reduced to a pitiable minority? Anyone who wants to do a psy-ops on a group will try to connect them with the Nazis. Dalai Lamas have been connected with Nazis. Subhash Chandra Bose & other Indian nationalists have been painted to have been connected with the nazis.

I am not going into the denate whether connection with Nazis was bad or good. I merely stated this to show that the Jews have no reason to trust the intentions of Islamic groups or parties in the region, especially the PLO, whose roots are linked to such characters.

Simply counting the number of J's in Europe is no indication of their relative worth. Many other factors play into their decision to stay in Europe. Economic prospects being one of them. As a matter of public arguments, South Africa's Apartheid was called not that bad because a lot of Blacks had 'chosen" to stayin SA, even immigrate from the neighboring. Americans have often claimed that Jim Crow laws were not that bad because Africans want to sitll immigrate to the US. Muslaims in India/TSP have often argued that M rule in India could not have been that bad because in the end majority of kaafirs were neither converted nor killed. Such number games are usually deceptive.

Well Indian non-Muslims really had no choice. Jews in Europe on the other hand did have the choice - they could have gone back to Palestine or the Levant. In fact there were small groups in Baghdad and Jerusalem, but why did not the European Jews choose to migrate back to this land and faith of tolerance in ME? They crossed and settled in Kerala, but not in between - why?

Indian non-Muslims also have a past which is suppressed, they fought back and had sufficient pockets of strength and resources from which they could revive militarily. This is the main reason behind the survival of a large majority of Hindus. Jews were too small in number to sustain such military campaigns aginst the powers they came up ahgainst in their diaspora.

All in all, my point was to draw attention to the possibility that a little more paranoia and military independence as well as determination like the Jews in 1948, on the eve of the Partition might just have been able to prevent the slaughter and even dissolved Pakistan - saving us all the subsequent pain.

Johann · Post by **Johann** » 04 Aug 2009 20:40

Re. the discussion on Jewish communities

Historians of both the Jewish communities and the ME like Bernard Lewis have made it clear that not all times and places were alike.

The Ottoman Empire for example was far, far more tolerant of the Jewish minority than the Iran under the Shi'ite dynasties, but the most intolerant was probably the Berber dynasties that came out of the Atlas mountains in Morocco.

Things change of course - the Pahlavis in Iran emancipated Iranian Jews, and Morocco today is one of the only Arab countries that still has a Jewish population in four figures, and that is because of the choices of the Moroccan leadership over several decades.

It is also clear that in most all cases the treatment meted out to Jews by Muslim societies and states was no better and no worse than other dhimmis.

The kind of special, burning hatred of Jews we see all over the Muslim world today only become widespread in the 20th century.

South East Asia and the Subcontinent are the home of the vast bulk of the world's Muslims, but they are not at the core - the fertile crescent of the Arab world, Iran and Turkey are. If Israel had been created on the periphery, say what is now Singapore and Malaysia, it simply would not dominate the global Islamic imagination.

What is at stake is Arab, Middle Eastern and ultimately Islamic honour , particularly after Jerusalem (Al-Qods) was taken in 1967. In the minds of so many of these people it has become the test of solidarity, and a test of potency and vigour of both the Arabs and Islam itself.

I think its important that Indians who are interested in the conflict understand that until recently Israelis did not primarily define their struggle as one with Islam or Muslims - for over 60 years they saw it as a struggle with the (settled) Arabs, who were often led by secular, or (Greek)Orthodox Christian figures, while Jewish settlers and the Israeli state allied with the Druze and Bedouin tribes (both of whom fought side by side with the IDF) within Israel/Palestine, and with the Turkish state, the Shah's Iran, etc on the outside.

It remained as such until the Islamic Republic of Iran took the forefront of the anti-Israeli and anti-Semitic campaign in the 1990s. This has intensifed the transformation of an ethno-nationalist conflict in to a religious one.

Israeli and Jewish rage against the Arabs has very little to do with historical memories of encounters with Islam - those were barely understood by the waves of Russian and Polish Jews in the 19th and 20th centuries. It has everything to do with the strength of Jewish nationalism, and the burning desire to end a history of victimhood and wandering that began with the (pagan) Roman destruction of the Jewish Temple and their forced deportation over two thousand years ago.

The problem was of course that they naively and condescendingly took for granted the willingness of fellow-Semites among the Arabs to accept this plan. The idea that there might be Arab nationalist response was not taken seriously, let alone the idea that Islamic solidarity might back it. What we have now is two nations, and two nationalisms competing for one land, locked in to the matrix of larger regional struggles.

Ultimately accomodation of Iran and Syria in to the regional and international order will de-escalate the Israeli-Palestinian and Israeli-Lebanese conflicts - the Levant is very much a proxy battleground for Iranian-Arab and US-Iranian rivalries - formerly intra-Arab, and US-Soviet rivalries.

Competing forms of nationalism and competing great powers are the most important underlying drivers here. Religion complicates things by mobilising and globalising the conflict and and is responsible for some of the extent of passion and violence, but it is far from the most important problem.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 04 Aug 2009 20:49

And the Shiite Iran's rhetoric is driven by its goal of dominating the Musilm mind space. Dont forget that Wahabi Sunnis are not too far behind. As a derived ideology they both need to negate the past.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 04 Aug 2009 20:54

ramana wrote:And the Shiite Iran's rhetoric is driven by its goal of dominating the Musilm mind space. Dont forget that Wahabi Sunnis are not too far behind. As a derived ideology they both need to negate the past.

If derivation is so potent in destruction of historical bonds, someone should start deriving Islam in India (and elsewhere)!

Johann · Post by **Johann** » 04 Aug 2009 21:17

ramana wrote:And the Shiite Iran's rhetoric is driven by its goal of dominating the Musilm mind space. Dont forget that Wahabi Sunnis are not too far behind. As a derived ideology they both need to negate the past.

Iran has always been far more imaginative, even if the Arabs are wealthier and better connected.

Until the Iranian revolution in 1979 Arab parochialism seriously dimmed the reach of the Wahhabis among non-Arabs apart from the few self-hating Muslim states like Pakistan.

Khomeini was the first figure to really inspire a worldwide Islamist movement, and the Saudis scrambled to keep up. The Wahhabis appropriated so much of Khomeini's rhetoric - particularly the identification of Jews, Israel, America and consumerism as the most dangerous threats to Islam, the importance of global Islamic resistance to them, attacks on capitalism and communism as enemies of social justice, etc.

This is why what happens in Iran is so very important today. An Iranian state turned away from the ideology of hating Israel, and towards the idea of universal human rights, but at the same time still dressed up in Islamic justifications will profoundly affect the Arab world and beyond.

'Islamic democracy' would become Iran's new bid for leadership of the Muslim world, and like Islamism before it, there will be huge appeal for Arabs and other Muslims sick of their corrupt and unrepresentative governments. Just as before the Saudis will have to scramble to outdo them.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 04 Aug 2009 23:43

Johann, The trajectory I see is like this.

Islam-> Sunni-> Shia-> ?

Persia first de-Arabised by adopting the Sunni faith and sent the Beduion back to the desert. After the Mongol & Timurlane's sack of Baghdad, Sunni power waned in ancient near east. Shiaism was adopted to again move away from the old Arabic roots while the Turks adopted Sunnism and moved westward.

Persia is going back to the roots over last couple of centuries and will de-Islamise eventually. The Khomieni revolution is a reactionary step and will pass away if not for the Western pressure where they can take cover of nationalism.

So Iranians will survive and move into the modern age. Some segments are already there.

The question is Arabs and wannabes ka khaya hoga? How long will they usurp the Covenant?

g.sarkar · Post by **g.sarkar** » 04 Aug 2009 23:57

ramana wrote: The question is Arabs and wannabes ka khaya hoga? How long will they usurp the Covenant?

After the oil runs out they will eat sand.
Maybe I should not say that. There are Arabs and Arabs, And then there is the memory of a civilization. Among the Arab students I met in Europe, Egyptians were the best, the Saudis and Libiyans the worst. Egypt had a civilization, others came from the desert where all the energy was spent just surviving.
Gautam