Indo-Israel: News and Discussion

[surinder]

Israel has for the last few years slapping Turkey in a condescending manner. It wants to consciously humiliate Turkey from gaining public prestige as a leader of the rop. Little while back, it did a very planned snubbing of the Turki Ambassodor by making him stand and not offering any refreshments to him in a meeting in Israel, while laughing about the matter in Hebrew. These snubs are designed to show the impotence of Turkey to the RoP in particular, and the world in general.

[Sadler]

Who says anti-semitism is only about religion? it is partly so, because early Christianity was in competition with Judaism for the Judaic legacy. So the living continuation of the "ancestor" was an obstacle for supreme religious authority. Then they wanted to distance themselves from the activist-political-radical-militant Jews against Roman authority. Then Constantine recast and reconstructed "Christianity" as a Roman imperial tool - which also needed to find Jews as the "evil". Then the western or Gothic Christians needed to cast Jews as "evil" because of suspected connections to eastern Byzantine church.

Anti-semitism is as much about religion as it is about racial conjectures. Almost all the known atrocities perpetrated by the Nazis were tried out in one form or another (within limits of historical state capacities) in Europe and a leading light for this had been England. It was first in England that Jews were required to mark themselves out publicly by symbols as Jews - under a certain king.

Many in the Left find it normal to take up an anti-Israel position. Partly because of the Russian heritage, especially under Stalin, (who kept Jewish origin advisors or confidantes - but still took many measure showing his inherent anti-Semitism) and perhaps because of the vilification against Trotsky (original surname Bronstein) that "mother Church" of communism carried out. Early Marxists had an obsession with New Testamental memes, which they used to illustrate the "apocryphal" and "apocalyptic" vision of a proletarian revolution, but they never use explicitly Judaic ones.

This post is on the money, IMOO. Thank you.

[Prem]

Bsir ji's post also explains the phenomenon of fanaticism among the Ajalaf Converts in pursuit of acknowledgement, approval from the higher ups. They act like More Islamist Than True Islamist (Mitti=dirt)

[JE Menon]

Outstanding clarification by brihaspati there. Thanx boss.

We need to have a thread or something or organising mechanism to get all these nuggets in one place and in an easily referenceable manner...

[brihaspati]

Engels, 22nd July, 1892: "I begin to understand French anti-Semitism when I see how many Jews of Polish origin and with German names intrude themselves everywhere, arrogate everything to themselves and push themselves forward to the point of creating public opinion in the ville lumiere [Paris], of which the Paris philistine is so proud and which he believes to be the supreme power in the universe." from Frederick Engels, Paul and Laura Lafargue, Correspondence, Vol iii, Moscow. p 184 (English translation series).

Marx : In a July 1862 letter to Engels, about his socialist rival Ferdinand Lassalle, Marx wrote:
"... it is now completely clear to me that he, as is proved by his cranial formation and his hair, descends from the Negroes from Egypt, assuming that his mother or grandmother had not interbred with a ******.[...] Now this union of Judaism and Germanism with a basic Negro substance must produce a peculiar product. The obtrusiveness of the fellow is also ******-like." [The last I checked, both these nuggets were missing in the online repository for M&E collected works. I am quoting from my personal collection of the older Lawrence and Wishart edition and the Moscow published version]

Curiously, Engels work on early Christianity is a curious pussyfooting balancing between the "problematic" Jew, and an eagerness to show that Christianity was essentially a drifting away from its Juadic roots- those roots what he termed stemmed typical "middle eastern" material interest movement under the garb of religion. Stalinist anti-Semitism will run into pages, so not discussing them here.

One thing becomes clear, in the ME origin ideologies - early Judaism to Christianity to Islam to European communism - they have all used reconstructions and memes of earlier ideologies to call for a transfer of power to a new regime. Within their so-called revolutionary reform hides ancient memes of power grabbing by which left out sections of elite (or who somehow brought up in environments where they naturally expected to have share of power because of their origins) grabbed power fro themselves at the cost of elite already in power. All this talk of commons, proletariat or mumin - was simply to construct and define a supportive constituency whose grievances could be used.

So do feel confident when faced with virulent attack from these revolutionaries that the so-called "Hindu right" is revivalist. They themselves are out and out revivalists.

[ramana]

JEM , Let us start a thread Best Of BRF posts in the GDF and strictly no comments

[Sanjay M]

This post is on the money, IMOO. Thank you.

Nah, I'll say that the Left is anti-semitic because populism finds it easy to frame a demographically smaller and highly-skilled ethnic group as elites, which is the most congruent fit to their anti-elitist politics. Blind populism is the refuge and the panacea for the incompetent, and thus automatically focuses on demonization of the competent.

It's worth remembering that Nazi is an abbreviation of NazionaleSocialisteArbeiterPartie
("National Socialist Workers Party"). The very premise of Nazi anti-semitism is rooted in Nazi socialism and populism.

Meanwhile, the modern Left has buried and covered up the skeletons from their past, by denying any ties between socialism and fascism, and between socialism and anti-semitism.

The fiery Left in India likewise have no problem in erecting their own Asian Shylock-counterparts, vilifying the brahmins, banias, etc as assorted elites of the crafty diamond-polishing money-lending landlording persuasion.

[Carl_T]

Nah, I'll say that the Left is anti-semitic because populism finds it easy to frame a demographically smaller and highly-skilled ethnic group as elites, which is the most congruent fit to their anti-elitist politics. Blind populism is the refuge and the panacea for the incompetent, and thus automatically focuses on demonization of the competent.

There we go. Part of it is the idea that Israel is to be characterized as a "white, western, imperial power" and therefore it is something to be rejected whereas Palestinians are "poor, backwards, brown skinned people, with non-Christian religion" that are to be sympathised with as victims. Notwithstanding the fact that Israelis aren't really TFTA and most Palestinians are TFTA.......

[chetak]

The fiery Left in India likewise have no problem in erecting their own Asian Shylock-counterparts, vilifying the brahmins, banias, etc as assorted elites of the crafty diamond-polishing money-lending landlording persuasion.

Sanjay M ji,

No need to grant the immature and irrelevant left in India any more credit than they deserve. Under their doltish student leader dadagiri type "politburo" members like karat, yechury, bose et al, they are in self destruct mode.

Their virulent anti israel stand ( as indeed their "Asian Shylock-counterparts" as you put it) is crassly motivated by their roper vote banks. Nothing more, nothing less.

But for the stupid GOI, to persistently and in a thickheaded manner, to regularly wade in where angels ought to fear to tread, is beyond belief.

What makes these morons feel that anyone in the world has the least interest in what they have to say.

Dilpomacy is the art of thinking twice and then not speaking at all. Not pissing off your staunch supporters every time you open your mouth.

[Rudradev]

I'd like to introduce a new variable to our analysis of such situations: the Pee Value.

Very simply, Pee Value is the probability of the null hypothesis: that no pissful citizens of a certain pure country were involved in any way with the incident or situation in question.

In the Marvi Marmara situation, you have a lot of stupidity to start with from all sides, but upto a point, Pee value tends to 1 onlee.

The Erdogan government decided to boldly go where no post-Ataturk regime in Istanbul has gone before; to involve itself in the Israel-Palestine conflict in an unprecedentedly public manner. In a move obviously aimed at angling for stature among the nations of Islamic West Asia, it sent out a flotilla of "relief ships" to run the blockade of Gaza.

I do not know what the Erdogan government were thinking as they did this; but they cannot have imagined that the Israelis would not see it as a provocation. Maybe they thought it would win them the admiration of the West as organizers of an "enlightened" and "peaceful" political protest (as opposed to other Islamist regimes which unfailingly use terrorism to address "injustices against Muslims"). The TFTA Turks care very much about the opinion of the more-TFTA Europeans and Americans. They would rather have the mantle of "legitimate leadership of the Muslim world", conferred on them by fawning Westerners than by the sordid rabble of the Arab street.

The Israelis could have handled this in many ways, rather than rise to the rather silly Turkish bait and precipitate an international incident with attendant bad publicity. But Bibi is not exactly known for his subtlety, and decides to throw down by sending out commandos in helicopters to interdict the flotilla. Even more stupidly, if some reports are to be believed, he sends the commandos in with paintball guns. I mean, really? WTF is the point of that... minimizing casualties? In the heat of action and the dark of night, if you see a hostile coming towards you with weapon ready, will you assume that it is a non-lethal weapon, or will you take what measures you think are most likely to preserve your life? A disaster was waiting to happen.

But even despite all this stupidity, Pee value still remains around 1.

Now consider what happens when the commandos land. Most of the people on the ship, misguided lefties and peaceniks, babble like frightened turkeys and lock themselves in their cabins. But a few total geniuses decide to attack the commandos with rods and knives.

Pee value just went down a little bit. After all, who in their right minds would take on armed Israeli commandos with rods and knives?

Who would do this, except a bunch of retarded yahoos placed on the boat specifically to provoke a violent, deadly over-reaction by the Israeli commandos? Yahoos who did not care if any innocent passenger of the Marvi Marmara got hurt, and in fact wanted to stage-manage a situation in which people died, so that Israel and Turkey became embroiled in a diplomatic conflagration or worse?

Who in the world thinks like this? Who puts forward total idiots in hopeless situations shouting "AoA", with the sole purpose of creating a deadly situation that will embitter relations between a Kufr Jewish state and a dearly beloved TFTA country? Hoping, surely, that TFTA Turkey would be pushed further down the Islamist path as a result?

Only somebody who had been bent over, penetrated and pumped full of "Khorasan" fantasies by the likes of Zaid Hamid.

From where I'm sitting, Pee value abruptly shrank to ~0.0000001.

And sure enough, as reports emerge, we learn that there were not only British Pakis, but Paki Pakis on board. Pee value is now officially 0.

Q.E.D.

[Sanjay M]

Well, then by that reasoning, we can consider that Hamas sought this sordid outcome in order to midwife a quid pro quo with Erdogan's Islamists, knowing that such a crisis could serve the ends of both groups.

Hamas benefits from more attention on Gaza, and Turkey's Islamists benefit in their battle against their local Ataturkist adversaries.

So then by that measure, Hamas would have every reason to want to see this outcome, by planting troublemaking opportunists aboard. And that fits their well-known modus operandi.

And Turkey's Islamists aren't out of the woods yet with respect to their battles with their local Ataturkist opponents, which means they will have to continue to ride the Palestine tiger.
Unfortunately, they may find themselves reaping the whirlwind before they can get off it.

Their country has too many chinks in its armor for Islamism to shore them up against.
They are the anti-Afghanistan, the un-Afghanistan.
Their country sits at a geopolitical crossroads too, but stands so exposed and vulnerable that it could easily be turned into the Islamist Waterloo.

[shyamd]

Sanjay M, you know someone can easily say, the Israeli's sent submarines, loads of gunships, naval ships just to tackle some protestors - and that Israel started firing first and took brutal action first (considering the way people were killed) so that no one repeats this attempt again. Fits their modus operandi. Israel benefits if it causes casualties, no one will attempt these peaceful attempts again - Hence, next time when people use violence, they can show how "violent, intolerant, full of hate" all muslims are.

And, another question for you. Why weren't there more extremists on any of the ships? So far there have been 7 ships, and so far only 1 had extremists on board to "violently" resist Israeli soldiers. Also, would it not have been better to just jam the rotors and tow the boat to Ashdod? That would have looked even more better and would have pissed off the protestors even more.

Also, technically, this peaceful protest has broken the blockade imposed by the West and Israel, because Egypt has opened the borders for trade/humanitarian assistance/medicine etc.

[brihaspati]

X-posting from "future scenario" with some additions for this thread:
reading through the last few pages, I feel that there is huge dilemma in us about being "objective" and "strictly unbiased". This is not such a bad thing as afar as analysis is concerned. However to extend that "strict neutrality" and "objective unbiasedness" into choosing sides is where it takes the cake.

Let us analyze "who is guilty" as much as we want, but let not that influence us into choosing sides. Choosing sides depends on hard and cold long term calculations about our national interests. It is time we learnt that sometimes being adharmic in the short term is actually serving dharma in the long term, and sometimes insisting on being dharmic in the short term implies serving adharma in the long run.

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

The recent fiasco in the "Gaza adventure" throws up in sharp light the current tomfoolery that is being played on Asia. Since the fall of USSR there was a temporary lull in pandering to Islamist violence from the west. Within that space, the Jihadis consolidated and turned their attention from Russia towards their real objectives in Asia - Israel and India. They intensified their campaign against India with Jammu and Kashmir, and their rocket/bombing campaigns against Israelis, from both within Lebanon and the Gaza strip.

Their real ambitions is for global domination, and the real long term targets for Islam - militant Jihad and Ghazwas to convert, loot, rape and take over non-muslim majority nations. This became clear to the racially and colour blinded ideology of the west only when the Jihadis turned their attention directly to pricking the west, as part of their global strategy to tie down western forces away from any protective interest the west may develop for Israel and India.

The calculations were quite clear and as consistently seen in the tactics of Islamist groups ranged against their Asian targets.

(1) Carry out terroristic outrages against both military and civilians of Israel and India, so that the military of these nations are forced to react. Use the terror attacks to stimulate survivor instincts within the civilians in the hope that they will create political pressure on their governments not to retaliate. Use the internationally conformed limitations within which national armies have to work as a tactical field advantage.

(2) Pressurize muslims living within the territory of these nations to take sides, which in the ultimate analysis has always been historically proved to be on the position that "jihad cannot or should not be opposed violently" by Muslims anywhere. In every situation of war or conflict where Islamism has taken up arms to subjugate non-muslims among them or beside them, the Muslim population has never ever really taken any effective steps to resist such Jihadi outrages on non-Muslims. In ME, in now Pakistan occupied western India, or in then East Pakistan now Bangladesh in 1971, large Muslim populations which apparently showed all outward forms of communal amity did not do anything to stop Jihadi outrages on non-Muslims and in many instance took advantage of the situation to possess land, wealth and women of non-Muslims. This practice is consistent with the basic line of Islamist expansion as formulated in their core texts.

(3) Simultaneously carry out a publicity campaign among western nations - especially those in academia and media who for various reasons have had anti-establishment fantasies all the while being sustained by the establishment. There have always been a toying undercurrent with Marxist thinking in the west, especially in the British universities beginning in the post war radicalism phase of 60's. Probably this was maintained out of two tactical considerations by the authorities - as a honey trap to confine radical intellectuals so that they did not go out to do more damage in the outer world, and at the same time work as a captive experiment where the Leftist thought process could be observed and manipulated. Problem with this game is that it basically creates a reward system for radicalism and anti-establishment sentiments which over time will draw more and more opportunist political activists who will use this legitimacy to carry out their personal political agendas.

The Islamists used this sympathetic base from within the western establishment. It was natural that with the fall of the USSR and an overtly nationalistic and dictatorial redefinition under Putin the western establishment radicals were without a cause to champion. This they now found in championing the cause of supposedly repressed Islamic communities under Israel and India.

(4) To drive home the Islamist representation of reality, Islamists selectively targeted western institutions with violence. Having placed a pro-Islamist radical western sympathy base among the very vocal academia, media, NGO's, charities etc, such targeting could be used to pretend that all this was because the west was not doing enough to destroy Israel and India or dismember these countries so that the Jihadis could occupy the dismembered portions. The general risk avoidance of the civilian populations of prosperous economies would ensure that there would be a backlash against any government retaliation.


(5) Once the western core of governments or regimes realized the new trends, the policy formulated was perhaps two pronged : give the Jihadis a new target of shifting attention towards Russia in chechnyia and adjoining muslim dominated areas sensitive for Russian security, and towards Eastern Turkmenistan currently under Chinese occupation. Simultaneously, overt pressure would be put on both India and Israel to concede more towards Islamist demands. It is possible that the first hesitant and obviously confused (read secret intense debate and therefore indecision) implementation of this policy was in the Balkans with the ultimate creation of a Muslim homeland within Europe.

(6) The success of the Croatian case showed the Jihadis the way forward, and they now know almost all the manipulative strings that they can use to pressurize the west into conceding more and more Islamist homelands carved out of non-Muslim dominated areas, from where they will launch more and more Jihadi campaigns.

The western strategists are losing this game. It is crucial that Israeli and Indian people do not get confused by the manipulative propaganda and representations of Islamists and their non-muslim sympathizers, and see to it that regimes capable of resisting western pressures are put in government.

The national armies and even special intervention forces have to work under international forms and restrictions that will be stringently applied by Islamists and their sympathizers for their ulterior motives. In both countries there should be targeted erasure of the sources of support for Jihad, or all anti-state terror under forces that do not officially exist. Forces which also have strong ideological indoctrination to add that extra armour to manipulation. Forces which do not exist and therefore are free of formal restrictions of so-called one-sided humanitarianism.

[munna]

reading through the last few pages, I feel that there is huge dilemma in us about being "objective" and "strictly unbiased". This is not such a bad thing as afar as analysis is concerned. However to extend that "strict neutrality" and "objective unbiasedness" into choosing sides is where it takes the cake.

Let us analyze "who is guilty" as much as we want, but let not that influence us into choosing sides. Choosing sides depends on hard and cold long term calculations about our national interests. It is time we learnt that sometimes being adharmic in the short term is actually serving dharma in the long term, and sometimes insisting on being dharmic in the short term implies serving adharma in the long run.

If one looks beyond the confines of normal left-lib circles of so called "non-partisan" and "neutral" observers, people see this fiasco for what it is! A silly attempt by a global network of "Arun-Dotty" types in conjunction with glorious bak-pakis to feather and tar the already cornered state of Israel by sending "peace" activists well versed in "soosai" and "aoa" tactics. One look at the composition of "activists" is enough to understand the motives of these fellows. Moreover as mentioned before on the forum a common Indian will always condemn leave alone support a "miscreant boat group carrying violence encouragement operatives" that carries ONE mark it even ONE member on board that support the killings our soldiers in J&K.

[SwamyG]

Let us analyze "who is guilty" as much as we want, but let not that influence us into choosing sides. Choosing sides depends on hard and cold long term calculations about our national interests. It is time we learnt that sometimes being adharmic in the short term is actually serving dharma in the long term, and sometimes insisting on being dharmic in the short term implies serving adharma in the long run.

Agreed, when there is a goal. If there is national end goal, then continued support to adharma because sticky issue.

[A_Gupta]

http://www.haaretz.com/blogs/a-special- ... m-1.290977

[anirvan.mandal]

Declare Israel a terrorist state

http://blogs.timesofindia.indiatimes.co ... rist-state

Specify the reasons before throwing a sentence that too a country with whom we had a very friendly ties. remember Kargil LGBs were provided by that friend...

[ajit_tr]

Students plan counter-flotilla
Flotilla organized to aid Turkey's oppressed Kurds, Armenians; show up world's hypocrisy after sharp criticism of Israel's raid on Gaza flotilla

Israeli students are planning a "peace flotilla" to Turkey with humanitarian aid for nations who suffered under Turkish imperialism – the Kurds and Armenians. The initiative comes in response to the world's sharp criticism of Israel's lethal raid on the Gaza flotilla which left nine activists dead and many wounded.

The organizers are currently seeking a suitable vessel and trying to recruit other students to the cause. No date has yet been set, but a skipper has been found: Arik Ofir, a member of the navy veteran's union and owner of a private business. They have also obtained medical supplies, and hope that by the end of the week they will be able to set out.

[shukla]

"Dear friend Hitler" - a Bollywood first - Film on Hitler kicking up a storm in Israel. Film apparently depicting Hitlers Indian sympathy - role in India's independence, his romance, final days, etc

The subject of the storm -
Bollywood's Adolf Hitler

Dear Friend Hitler: Bollywood takes new direction

Anger in Israel..
Israelis "shocked" by Bollywood film on Hitler

The defense..
‘We will not be romanticising Hitler’

An independent opinion..
Why Bollywood's film about Hitler is profoundly misguided?

[kittoo]

^I hope this director isnt another 'Madhur Bhandarkar' wannabe whose films screams- 'lookie I am making serious films even though I dont know $hit about the matter at hand really. I just read a 10 line article on the matter and made the film.'
The title of the movie though, doesnt really give much hope in that regard though.

[Hitesh]

Whether the Israelis dislike it or not, Hitler did play a leading role in liberating India although it was not his main intention. Without WWII, Britain would not be weakened enough to be persuaded to let go of India peacefully. In fact, the bloodletting would go on for years before Britain would be finally persuaded to leave. I mean take a look at Africa and Southeast Asia, it was only in the 60s that Britain recognized independence. Even it took more than 10 years for Britain to recognize Sri Lanka independence after Indian independence.

Another fact to mention, if it wasn't for WWII India would not have a 2 million battled hardened soldier army ready to return to India and liberate it. The bankruptcy of the British coffers due to the costs of the war and a battle-hardened 2 million army ready to fight for Independence (the Indian Naval Mutiny of 1947 proved that) was what made Britain leave India. Gandhi just merely steered it into a peaceful direction in an mostly unified fashion (He couldn't reconcile Jinnah's aspirations)

Therefore, Hitler's role in starting and waging WWII had a huge role in the independence of India even though his intentions were not in the best interest of India or its people.

[GuruPrabhu]

It is the " dear friend" that has negative connotations to it. I would imagine that we would feel the same pain if an Israeli makes a movie called " dear friend Kasab" or " dear friend Aurangzeb"
Hitler ranks amongst the worst people to have ever set foot on this earth, he cannot be dear to anyone except like minded mass murdering Pakistanis

[Karan Dixit]

No body in India has any respect for Hitler. Indians were one of the first group of soldiers who fought Hitler. Thousand and thousands of Indians died fighting against Hitler. My suggestion to our Israeli friend would be to take it easy and if they really want to say something they should say something to honor those brave Indians who were one of the first ones to have liberated the Gestapo run execution camps. Imagine the horror a 17 year old Indian soldier must have experienced upon learning what Germans were doing to Jews in those camps.

I think the person who made this movie is an idiot. He should have made a movie to honor the brave Indians who fought and died for the sake of humanity.

[Atri]

Its a matter of perspective.. British people killed close to 10 million people in Gangetic plains as a "revenge" of 1857. They have caused two worst artificial famines in Bengal which killed in total about 16 million people - 10 million in 1770 and 6-7 million in 1943). So much so for the people who say english rule was better than nazi rule. India's rise would have been much more rapid if English were replaced by nazis with all their repressive tactics. It would have united Indians like never before for kicking them out.. Anyways, no point in discussing counter-factual history.

Stalin killed many more in USSR. He decimated Estonia (Imbi Paju's "Memories denied).. Pakis killed 3 million Bengalis. Turks killed few million Armenian people.. The glorious Mao caused the death of millions..

We have made films on Razia Sultana, Shahjahan and Akbar who were genocidal towards Hindus as well as well as bigger megalomaniacs than Hitler. We have plenty of books praising Aurangzeb as good and efficient ruler. If we are to believe the descriptions of Muslim chroniclers (which Thaparites tend to disregard as exaggerative), India has suffered many such genocidal maniacs who killed in millions all over India many times in past 1000 years and lived on to make films about them. Few of the films (mughal-e-azam, Tajmahal, Jodha-Akbar for example) went on to become huge hits.

Not making any judgement about the spine of Indians (or lack of it). Nor do I wish to make anti israel OR pro- hitler statement. It is important that the "guilt" in the minds of the "west" about holocaust remains as long as it is possible. With time that guilt will vanish and geopolitics will start changing. It is in interest of Israel and hence India that the guilt remains. If such movies are going to dilute that guilt factor, they should be opposed (not banned).

It will be a litmus test though. Don't think the movie will be a hit. But I am curious what kind of audience it attracts and how much and in which territories of bollywood market. That will tell us a lot about preparedness of Indians.. I am interested in that.

[Anujan]

"Whether the Israelis dislike it or not, Hitler did play a leading role in liberating India"

Yes Hitesh-ji - but that is just a skewed view of expediency. What I mean is that, if Hitler had won WW-II & taken over India, a few million more of us would have died*. I simply view it as, Indians got independence because Imperialism (Europe's invention), ate its own master. As long as European countries fought each other only in their colonies, they did fine. The moment they started fighting each other at home, that is when trouble started (for them). It had nothing to do with Hitler. It was destined that someone who saw Britian's loot would attack her at home to get part of the loot and dominance over Europe.

I have no sympathy for Hitler - he was a barbarian and killed millions. I have no sympathy for Britain either - as Atri had pointed out, they killed millions too. In fact it was a British guy (his name was Temple I think) who was the first to run experiments on the Indians to find out what the least amount of caloric intake was to sustain hard labor. It killed millions of Indians in Madras Presidency. The Indians who died were given less food than the Jews in Buchenwald. (read "Late Victorian Holocausts") Just because Britain won the war, it became Nazi Fascist Jew Killer Hitler vs Democratic Moral Upstanding Britain.

From where I am standing, both of them look like mass murderers to me. I am happy that they chose to fight & kill each other, but do not think that one was better than the other or one somehow helped in liberating India.

The problem with SDREs is that because we have never been a part of Europe and because there has never been a history of anti-semitism here or a substantial Jewish population here, we fail to understand how abhorrent Hitler is for the Jews. Let me give you an example: Imagine how a movie about how Reginald Dyer (of Jalianwallah Bagh fame) is a good family man would rile up the Indians. Compared to what Hitler did and compared to how long he did it, Dyer looks like a petty criminal who did some shoplifting.

*Let us not forget what he did to the Gypsies. All Gypsies originated from India and share Indian features of dark skin, hair and eyes.

[Hitesh]

I am not praising Hitler or giving accolades to Hitler or defending Hitler. I am just acknowledging the effect that Hitler had on the liberation of India. I do not like Hitler at all or the Nazi party and he is certainly a mass murderer although Stalin and Mao beat him to the punch in terms of number killed.

But the point is that if Hitler hadn't risen to power and started WWII, I think that India would have gone through a violent period before finally getting Independence. Witness Rhodesia, Congo, and Indochina. Hitler played a huge role by forcing the British to be spent and exhausted. It is a classic example of the Law of Unintended Consequences.

I just view Hitler and British in the same light in only that they were both evil. It was just that the British was the lesser of the two evils and Hitler made sure that British couldn't come back and dominate India when we were fighting for Independence. The only positive role that a foreigner had on Indian independence was Franklin Roosevelt and America and to a lesser extent, Harry Truman who wanted allies against the communist wave taking place in Europe and the rest of the world and hoping to turn India into an ally.

[Prem Kumar]

OT: Talking about casualties, check out Wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties

Worldwide casualties between 62 to 78 Million. British casualties: less than half a million. The pricks got away easy after having murdered tens of millions in their colonies & exterminating several races. So much for "Dharma yeva hatho hanthi".

Soviet Union was worst hit: 23 Million, followed by China with more than 10 Million

[abhischekcc]

>>But the point is that if Hitler hadn't risen to power and started WWII

But Hitler did not start WW2, Churchill did.
Hitler was a friend of Britain and did not want a war with them, he was more interested in attacking Russia.
Hitler's only fault was that he treated caucasians the way caucasians were treating everybody else.

I agree though that WW2 was seminal in freeing India from the imperial parasites of London.

-----------

>>No body in India has any respect for Hitler.
This is completely false.

[shyam]

I think the person who made this movie is an idiot. He should have made a movie to honor the brave Indians who fought and died for the sake of humanity.

My question: who is funding that movie?

[Hitesh]

But Hitler did not start WW2, Churchill did.
Hitler was a friend of Britain and did not want a war with them, he was more interested in attacking Russia.
Hitler's only fault was that he treated caucasians the way caucasians were treating everybody else.

I am sorry but this is a classic example of Pakilogic. You need to reread the history books and newspaper articles back from that time. Hitler started the war when he invaded Poland despite being warned by France and Britain on numerous times that they would come to Poland's defenses and that Czechoslovakia was the last time Germany could get away with it. Hitler ignored the warnings. Besides it was not Churchill that declared war on Hitler. It was Chamberlain and it was one of his last acts as Prime Minister.

British are also caucasians so if Hitler wanted to treat caucasians the way the caucasians treated everybody else, that means he was no friend of the British.

[brihaspati]

Hitesh wrote

Whether the Israelis dislike it or not, Hitler did play a leading role in liberating India although it was not his main intention. Without WWII, Britain would not be weakened enough to be persuaded to let go of India peacefully. In fact, the bloodletting would go on for years before Britain would be finally persuaded to leave. I mean take a look at Africa and Southeast Asia, it was only in the 60s that Britain recognized independence. Even it took more than 10 years for Britain to recognize Sri Lanka independence after Indian independence.

This is an interesting question. Yes, there probably would have been bloodletting. That is a big big if, though - for I guess MKG would still be there for a longer time. But would it have been more bloody than the Partition riots? I am not sure, but was any ex-colony of Britain partitioned if it won its freedom by carrying fighting politically and militarily against the British overlordship? It appears that wherever certain sections of the colonized elite were a bit too eager to sit in the still warm seats of power left by a smoothly transitioning British colonial machinery - there was more likely to be a "Partition".

Another fact to mention, if it wasn't for WWII India would not have a 2 million battled hardened soldier army ready to return to India and liberate it. The bankruptcy of the British coffers due to the costs of the war and a battle-hardened 2 million army ready to fight for Independence (the Indian Naval Mutiny of 1947 proved that) was what made Britain leave India. Gandhi just merely steered it into a peaceful direction in an mostly unified fashion (He couldn't reconcile Jinnah's aspirations)

My impression was that, and an esteemed commander belonging to the IA, debated this with me on the forum - that the soldiers and commanding officers of the BIA remained loyal to the British authority - to the point that the Indian army did not in general support the Naval uprising or the action by the INA. Note that it is still called the "Naval Mutiny", just as the British "masters" dubbed the First War of Independence the "Sepoy mutiny". It was apparently all about "military discipline" and the oath of loyalty to the "army". So what makes you so sure that these "battle hardened" Indians who proved their devotion to the British army command would suddenly break that "oath" to "liberate" their "country"? Even if they had such secret "intentions" what is the pointer in the previous history of the Indian soldiers in the BIA and in the lead up to the 1947 Partition - that the "military uprising" and "takeover" would actually happen? Maybe the "reaction" of the Indian army to the "Naval uprising", their subsequent treatment, etc should be looked into in details again, please?

Therefore, Hitler's role in starting and waging WWII had a huge role in the independence of India even though his intentions were not in the best interest of India or its people.

By that sort of facile connections a lot else could also be laid at the door of Hitler - the artificially created famine of Bengal which killed how many! The resources extracted from India by the Brits to fight their war? without the war, would there have been a difference of opinion between the Congress and the ML about sending Indians as cannon fodder - and the main point on which Jinnah - the great "lost love" for some modern Indians - scored? In the end, in spite of Congress's formal declaration abstaining from the "war effort" - India still did send Indians to fight Britain's war and the benefits all transferred to the Jihadis under Jinnah's leadership with a Partition foisted on India!

By the way, laying it at the door of Hitler - and saying that the Brits would not have given in so easily otherwise also works in the Brit propaganda favour : after all Indians had no real power to deserve their "freedom" it was all in the hands of Europeans in one way or another! Where does that leave the thesis that India's freedom was won solely by the peaceful non-Cooperation movement led by only two Indians!

[Hitesh]

Brihaspati,

The loyalty and discipline only go so far as long as the British were expected to hand over India in a peaceful manner. That was the unspoken agreement between the Indian soldiers and the British masters. I have several ancestors who served in the WWII Indian Army and they all told me that there would be hell to pay if the British backed out of the agreement and the British knew that in no uncertain terms. My ancestors said they understood what the Naval sailors went through and the INA went through but they were far more concerned with keeping the stability of the country and keeping the nation together. As long as the British were making steadfastly and sufficient paced progress towards independence, the Indians were content to obey the British masters.

Of course this is all ancedote and I don't have newspapers stories to back me up. All I have is the word of my ancestors who fought for the Indian Army in WWII.

[Sanku]

To add to what to Hitesh said, the INC played a stellar role in acting as the pressure valve, chanelling the anger and fury (including those of the soldiers) in a way that violent actions did not take place. One such well documented example is the effort by Sardar Patel during the uprising by Naval ratings to convince them to listen to the British call to not pursue the matter. Of course it is a different matter that they were back stabbed by the Brits in this case like pretty much any other.

If the hope and promise that was channeled through the Congress did not exist the matter would have taken a different turn for sure.

[brihaspati]

Hitesh ji,
my ancestors were connected too, even from the EIC-empire transition stage, with the BIA. After certain generations there was a self-imposed ban on joining the BIA. Some branches maintained the practice and we did not keep any relations with them. Even I as a child was diligently harangued about how the "esprit" of the "corps", and loyalty to the Brits were almost drilled in. We were quite closely involved at all stages of the lead up to 1947 and one relative was a member of the provisional government of Bose. I have heard many counter anecdotes of how some Indians were extra keen to prove their loyalty to the British command as regards the INA (themselves being part of BIA).

My firm impression has been (as also researches into role of the "officer" section, INA trials, Naval Uprising etc) that if the sentiments you express did really exist, they would be too small a minority to be effective. Saying more here, would be unpleasant and I firmly believe in maintaining the public image of our defense forces and their heritage. But in the future, I hope a new generation of Indians going into the army will feel the gall of having to feel proud with symbols and trophies and honours bestowed by the British for shedding blood to further British interests. Hopefully those symbols will be realized for what they really are - gloating over helping in the enslavement of other Indians - and dropped and erased. There is nothing to continue to feel heroic if that heroism served the cause of evil - like many German units who fought with exceptional bravery and ferocity to fuel Hitlers' ambitions.

It will be OT, and greater discussion is perhaps useless. I personally hold a certain opinion about everyone who kept on collaborating and invoking "discipline" and "oath of loyalty" to the British even after Jallianwallabag (and many other atrocities) not to show that sentiment to intervene in favour of their countrymen. Once independent India took over, that empathy with the Naval "ratings" and the INA soldiers could have found better expression - no? I found no sign of it. Even the the soldiers returning from the WWII front were treated quite dubiously. Why?

However, whether intervention by the Indian army would have landed India in chaos is a highly debatable line of argument. OT here.

[Hitesh]

Brihaspathi,

There were indeed some elements who maintained loyalty to the British but that was because they enjoyed certain perks that they could not enjoy today. Remember, after WWII there was a huge drawdown of the Indian Army, no doubt led by PM Nehru. After the 1962 war, a whole new generation of soldiers who did not have the mentality of obeying the British joined the Army in answer to PM Shastri's call for defending India. So there was a generational gap that allowed the old mentality to die away.

But the point remains even with the old mentality of obeying the British, the Indian soldiers were not content to let the system continue. They wanted to see a change and they expressed a desire for such change but given the nature of the discipline and order imposed by the Army itself, they were bound, largely as a unit, to follow orders. What made it easier was the given fact that the British acknowledged that the Indian Congress was running some things and would be given the reins. Furthermore, the Indian Congress was keen on maintaining order and law and keeping the nation together and specifically asked the Indian soldiers not to break rank but maintain order.

You may have not realize this, but after the Naval Mutiny, a lot of elements of the Indian Army were agitating to rise up and break loose but it was the actions of Sardar Patel and others that convinced those elements of the Indian Army to maintain discipline and keep rank. After the Mutiny, INC issued a nation wide call for order and peace without any further prompting by the British, and the Indian Army responded. That left the British without any doubt who the real masters of the Indian Army were.

[Pranav]

Some less-known background information about Hitler:

The final solution to Adolf Hitler (video): http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 9518563654#

[shukla]

Fearing Jewish community backlash lead actor withdraws from "Dear Friend Hitler"..

Anupam Kher bows out from Dear Friend Hitler

Realising the fact that he was hurting the sentiments of the small community of Jews living in India, he withdrew from the project quite gracefully, claiming it to be a mistake as he tweeted, "Sometimes human emotions are more important than cinema:).I withdrew from Hitler film." He went on to say "Thanks for your varied reactions to my opting out of Hitler.

[Paul]

In the Middle east, the Islamic counter reaction takes couple of hundred of years but finally comes in as a rolling thunder and wipes out all opposition good or bad to it.

The Mameluke counteroffensive happened hundreds of years after the first and second crusades is a ponter to this. The late Hafez Asad repeatedly referred to the 84 year rule of crusaders over Jeruselam as an analogy to Israel's 54 year existence and continue dogged resistance to achieve Pan arab success.

Paul can you plz give me some links to these history. I am still learning

X-Post- Not directly to Indo-Israel relations but has a bearing on Turkey's changed attitude in the recent times.

Facing Tough Choices
Comment by Igor Torbakov
Special to Russia Profile
Print this

E-mail this

Send us your feedback


Kyrgyzstan: a Perfect Storm, By Roland Oliphant

A Ticket to Silicon Valley, Comment by Irina Aervitz

A Double Dose of Espionage, By Tom Balmforth

For Local Use Only, By Svetlana Kononova




Fighting His Corner
Kyrgyzstan: a Perfect Storm
Poppy Diplomacy
Flexible Friends
The Summit
Saakashvili’s Second Spring
White Russian Supremacy
Breakaway Democracy
A Double Dose of Espionage
An Unaccustomed Union
Russia Is Facing a Post Imperial Crisis in Central Asia That it Can’t Ignore

The ongoing turmoil in the southern region of Kyrgyzstan – the worst violence to hit the country since independence – underscores the rise of instability in strategically located Central Asia. The Kyrgyz crisis also highlights the difficult choice Russia will have to make: whether it should or should not intervene to help settle the flaring conflict.

The turbulent events in Kyrgyzstan, touched off by the toppling of the clannish and corrupt government of Kurmanbek Bakiev in April, demonstrate just how volatile the local authoritarian regimes are – they appear to be still going through the tortuous period of post-imperial readjustment almost 20 years after the collapse of the Soviet Union.

But Russia is also haunted by its imperial legacy. The fact that Russia was an empire for a major part of its history is something which cannot be emphasized enough. For a huge land-based empire, protecting its extremely long and often porous borders is a security issue of paramount importance. In fact, constantly expanding its outer periphery, absorbing new lands, and creating buffer zones is a set of policies that a land-based empire usually resorts to in order to make its vulnerable frontiers secure. This strategy was also a key factor behind the continental empires’ territorial growth: the same pattern brought Russia into Central Asia in the middle of the 19th century and has kept it there ever since.

Although, unlike the Soviet Union, present-day Russia is no longer an imperial state, the former continental empire finds it infinitely more difficult to disengage from its former colonies than maritime empires do. The interpenetration of the imperial metropole and colonial periphery is much more intimate and intensive in the first case. Even after the demise of the empire, territorial contiguity leads to a situation where many challenges presented by the former colonies should be seen and analyzed not only as phenomena exclusively pertaining to the sphere of foreign policy, but also as factors directly affecting the domestic situation in the former imperial center.

Russia’s principal concern in the region remains the preservation of the internal stability of the Central Asian nations. Any local turmoil that might potentially be caused by a botched succession crisis or the escalation of political confrontation, by resurgent Islamists challenging the region’s secular regimes, or by inter-ethnic clashes is going to be viewed by Moscow as a direct threat to Russia’s own stability and security.

Making stability their top priority, Russian policymakers are intent on keeping the local regimes afloat by trying to contain the advance of Islamic fundamentalism and prop up the region’s secular authorities. But these two sets of policies appear to run at cross purposes – Moscow is going out of its way to support those regimes which are, in effect, secular dictatorships pure and simple: they are clannish, corrupt, repressive and utterly averse to any kind of democratic reform. With their political base remaining very narrow and claims to legitimacy rather flimsy, the Central Asian regimes are potentially very brittle (as Kyrgyzstan has demonstrated in 2005 and again this year) – with the ever more alienated and impoverished populace becoming increasingly radicalized.

Yet Russia, fixated as it is on the struggle against “terrorists,” appears to be completely unprepared to deal with any kind of large-scale political turmoil caused by the rising popular discontent and the growing Islamization of the region. Arguably, the Kremlin finds itself in a trap of its own making: for Russia, the only way to make the region truly stable is to be able to act as an agent of change, as a force for genuine modernization, cautiously nudging the local authoritarian regimes to transform, democratize and broaden their socio-political base. But the nature of Russia’s own political regime effectively acts as a brake on this progressive kind of policy. As a result, Moscow is compelled to act rather as a conservative force, which seeks to forge ties with the local rulers and back up those regimes that appear to be geopolitically loyal to the Kremlin.

The repeated collapse of government in Kyrgyzstan (seemingly the “weakest link” among the region’s authoritarian regimes) appears to indicate that Moscow’s previous policies toward Central Asia have been deeply flawed. Now, as the death toll in Kyrgyzstan mounts and the number of refugees fleeing across the border into neighbouring Uzbekistan rises steeply, Russia is faced with a painful policy dilemma. As Russia has long been casting itself as the main provider of security in the post-Soviet space, the Kyrgyz crisis appears to represent a moment of truth of sorts when Moscow has to deliver. All the more so since the hapless leadership in Bishkek openly acknowledged that it had lost control over the situation and directly appealed to Russia for aid, asking for peacekeeping troops to be urgently sent in.

If Russia doesn’t step up to the plate, referring, as it recently did, to the crisis as an “internal conflict,” it risks losing face, prestige and the right to claim the leading role in the post-Soviet Eurasia. Yet finding the most appropriate way to intervene is not an easy matter. Given Uzbekistan’s wariness of any Russian move in the region, the Kremlin seems to understand that any deployment in Kyrgyzstan is conceivable only within the framework of the Collective Security Treaty Organization.

However, if Russia does decide to get involved into the Kyrgyz imbroglio it will face different kinds of problems – not unlike those the U.S.-led coalition is currently grappling with in Afghanistan. After all, today’s Kyrgyzstan is a truly failed state: its interim central government is extremely weak, lacks legitimacy and depends heavily on external aid, while the impoverished population is suffering from a deepening economic crisis and is harassed by all sorts of local thugs, criminal kingpins and drug barons. On top of that, the country is divided along ethnic fault-lines – particularly in the southern regions where the sizeable Uzbek minority is concentrated. The continuing inter-ethnic violence in the south of Kyrgyzstan risks undermining the already precarious stability of the entire country and, in the worst-case scenario, the stability of the neighboring countries as well.

Given the stakes involved in any of the policy options, the choice Russia is facing is tough indeed.

Igor Torbakov is a senior researcher at the Finnish Institute of International Affairs.

Russia's inability to put down the ethnic troubles in CA point to declining influence in CA. Again, before others jump in with their pop analysis of how China will fill in the coming void, bear in mind that this question applies to the caucasus as well. China is too far east to play a role here. Iran will look to recover it's lost influence there as a result of 1812 treaty of Tilsit. This struggle will play out between the traditional rivals Turkey and Persia. Crimea may also be open on the table for the scrimmage.

Basically, what happened in 1950s will Britian at sea is going to happen to Russia on the land. This will pave the way for the old powers of the 1200 AD - 1600 AD - Persia, Turkey, and India to reassert their influence. I would not overestimate the influence that the west may have on this struggle. Technology does provide an edge but can be blunted with demographics.

India I suppose will have to be content in the first few stages if it can get it's lost lands till amu darya back in it's backyard. This will open the next phase of the struggle where the old rivalry with the perisans will come to the fore.

[chetak]

Fearing Jewish community backlash lead actor withdraws from "Dear Friend Hitler"..

Anupam Kher bows out from Dear Friend Hitler

Bull.

This faqer simply withdrew so as not to jeopardize his chances in hollywood. The moneybags in hollywood are totally jewish controlled.

He could at least have been honest about it.

[darshhan]

Bad news if true.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/worl ... 095314.cms