Trending Topics:

Narendra Modi, a politician who presided over anti-Muslim pogrom, may be India’s next leader, and U.S. cozies up to him

Israel/Palestine
on 34 Comments
Modi

Narendra Modi

A terrible man who is largely responsible for a pogrom that killed 1000 Muslims is the most-likely next prime minister of India, but the United States is stupidly dropping its opposition and already starting to “engage” with him. How will India’s 138 million Muslims – and other Muslims around the world – react as America lets Narendra Modi in from the cold?

The election begins in India on April 7, and Modi’s Bharatiya Janata Party is well ahead in the polls. In the campaign, Modi is downplaying his aggressive Hindu nationalism, and appealing to voters who are understandably disgusted by the ruling Congress Party, which they blame for corruption and economic slowdown.

Modi is the long-standing chief minister – the equivalent of a governor – of the northwestern state of Gujarat. It was there, in 2002, that he presided over what the Indian writer and activist Arundhati Roy has called “a carefully planned genocide of Muslims in the state.”

Here’s what happened: under murky circumstances, Muslims allegedly attacked a train, killing 59 Hindu pilgrims. As “revenge,” Hindu mobs murdered at least 1000 people; women were gang-raped and burned alive; some 150,000 Muslims were forced from their homes. Whether Modi actually ordered the reprisals, or simply directed his police force to stand by as the killings continued, is unimportant; either way, as the state’s chief executive, he is guilty.

One of my Indian friends in Mumbai, a young middle-class man who is otherwise sympathetic to Modi’s “free market” economic doctrine, pointed out: “Modi might plausibly argue that he lost control of the state for the first day or two. But the mass killings of Muslims went on for a week.”

In 2005, the United States took the principled step of refusing Modi a visitor’s visa. But this February, as his support grew, America reversed course and asked to meet with him. The New York Times, in a foolish editorial, endorsed this as a “pragmatic step.”

By contrast, The Economist, which would normally gush over Modi’s economic approach, has just blistered him in its main opinion piece. The magazine said: “But for now he should be judged on his record – which is that of a man who is still associated with sectarian hatred.”

James North
About James North

Other posts by .


Posted In:

34 Responses

  1. W.Jones
    W.Jones
    April 5, 2014, 5:56 pm

    The New York Times, in a foolish editorial, endorsed this as a “pragmatic step.”

    I’ve noticed that for some people, their dedication to the party in control of the IP conflict has bled over into other areas like hatred of Muslims in general, while 70 years ago they probably would have promoted all round interfaith tolerance.

    On another note, I heard someone suggest once that there is more to Ghandhi’s death than just a “lone nut” or two. Would anyone have knowledge about those claims?

    • just
      just
      April 5, 2014, 6:56 pm

      “I’ve noticed that for some people, their dedication to the party in control of the IP conflict has bled over into other areas like hatred of Muslims in general, while 70 years ago they probably would have promoted all round interfaith tolerance.”

      Oh, you should read the hate- filled comments thus far wrt to the Afghan elections today……disgusting. And I betcha that all of them were all for the war…I was not.

      http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/04/05/us-afghanistan-election-idUSBREA331N920140405

    • April 6, 2014, 7:42 am

      White Jews from Europe and Russia ethnically cleanse a region of natives in order to create a Jewish state and then convince many in the West that any resistance by the natives — mostly Muslims but plenty of Christians as well — is because Islam is a violent religion bent in taking over the world.

      Does that about sum it up?

  2. just
    just
    April 5, 2014, 6:14 pm

    “How will India’s 138 million Muslims – and other Muslims around the world – react as America lets Narendra Modi in from the cold?”

    they’ll have further evidence of our complicity and hypocrisy.

    • Krauss
      Krauss
      April 6, 2014, 12:57 am

      […]but the United States is stupidly dropping its opposition and already starting to “engage” with him. How will India’s 138 million Muslims – and other Muslims around the world – react as America lets Narendra Modi in from the cold?

      Three points.

      1. India is a massive country. It has the third largest economy on a PPP-basis and could easily become the first within 20 years, especially as China slows down. It has much better demographics.

      Why is this important? Because North seems to think we can just shut out the world’s largest democracy. This isn’t North Korea. Does he live in a fantasy world?
      India cannot be ignored, whether you like it or not. It shows you’ve never taken international relations seriously as a subject.

      2. The second part concerns the bizarre focus on the U.S.
      Maybe it’s just me, but it is unlikely that the world’s muslims will focus on the U.S. – which will conducts its business with India just like the rest of the world – why would the U.S. be singled out of all the nations? Surely North doesn’t believe that muslims look at America as a moral beacon, post-Iraq war, post-Drone Strikes?

      This may seem self-evident but his phrasing suggests he somehow thinks America is the center of the world; it isn’t. Similarily, America’s reaction to Modi will be no different than Brazil’s, for example. Will the muslims of the world be outraged at Brazil? Then they have to be outraged at the entire world. Perhaps now it becomes clear how that was argument was never really viable.

      This isn’t about morality, this is about economic realities. The same reason why nobody talks about Tibet anymore. You may or may not like it, but the notion that the world is going to go to war economically and politically against China is a fantasy, because it has become too big and too important. North again doesn’t seem to understand this basic concept.

      3. Thirdly, and most importantly, the Economist completely glazes over/dismisses the fact that there is a history of sectarian violence in India. The BBC, as usual, is much harsher on all sides. Written just a few months ago:

      http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-26235314

      They never really came clean on those riots either, they stacked the investigation etc. This of course raises the question: should we merely forgive them because it happened in the 80s? That sounds an awful lot like an argument most of us are familliar with, namely that Palestinians have to “get over” the Nakba because it happened a long time ago.

      Or maybe we shouldn’t let time be the ultimate absolver and then the conclusion becomes apparent: why is the Economist willing to let the Congress party get away with its dirty history but not the BJP? And where was the feigned outraged on behalf of Sikhs? Maybe because they are a such smaller proportion of the world population – i.e. they are unlikely to cause trouble to the Economist and unlikely to buy the magazine in large numbers – that they don’t matter that much.

      Is Modi a bad guy? There’s no question his role in the riots is unescapable. The investigation was a political set-up and a lot of evidence was destroyed. But as I said earlier, India has a long history of sectarian violence. That doesn’t excuse the latest instance, but it does raise the inevitable question why the Economist is willing to let slide other ethnic riots.

      The 1984 riots were eight times as deadly and the Economist seems to be eight times as forgiving. And Mr. North doesn’t even seem to bother with those riots. Maybe because he doesn’t even know about them, which of course raises the embarrassing specter of an amateur weighing in a country whose basic history he does not know.

      • Krauss
        Krauss
        April 6, 2014, 1:15 am

        P.S. the most hopeful thing about these elections is the rise of the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP). Sure, there have been things that they have proposed that have been populist in a bad way(free water for everyone but no taxes to fund it).

        Nevertheless, their focus is on the right place. And, crucially, they are not afraid to take on business interests or biased media. NDTV is basically a sub-division of the INC.

        Mukesh Ambani has been allowed to rip off Indian gas customers, which at this stage is a lot of poor households, in an outrageous way. He has, unsurprisingly, threatened Kerjiwal with law suits for speaking the unspeakable.

        Another interesting thing is that the AAP has gotten a lot more support from overseas Indians. They have reached out in a major way, they just held a townhall for 700 Indians in London. They have a team of dedicated Indian engineers in Silicon Valley, some of whom have dropped jobs at Apple and other companies to dedicate themselves to fight corruption.

        The Congress and the BJP both have stains on their records, whether it is ethnic riots or endemic corruption, that explains the meteoric rise of the AAP. This election is yet too soon for them, but the next one could be a lot more interesting.

      • seafoid
        seafoid
        April 6, 2014, 1:59 am

        Krauss

        The 84 riots followed the assassination of Prime Minister Indira Gandhi by her Sikh bodyguard. This was at the height of the influence of the extremist Sikh Khalistan movement.

        Modi is disturbing because of his Hindutva background. His party, the BJP, grew to prominence on the back of Hindu extremism. The big breakthrough came when the Ayodhya masjid mosque was destroyed by Hindu paramilitary goons in 1992. Ayodhya is the Indian version of the Haram al sharif/temple Mount. Revered by Hindus as the site of Ram , a very serious cosmic space upon which the Mughals built a mosque in the 1500s.

        The 2002 pogrom was orchestrated by Modi’s people. There are no videos of the Germans whipping up anti Jewish hatred in Ukraine in 1941 but youtube does have the Hindutva versions from 2002. Ehsan Jafri was a former Congress mp who was hacked to death by the mob in his home. The riots spread to Mumbai. Muslim taxi drivers used to decorate their cars with a number that they believed was lucky. In normal times the number brought them business. During the riots the number allowed Hindutva gangs to identify them so they could be killed.

        I see Modi as similar to Pinochet. Right wingers like him because he is pro business and impressive on law and order. Building a political base on human rights abuses works in other countries and has been good for the Likud, for example.

        Ratcheting up intercommunal tension is not the way forward.

      • gamal
        gamal
        April 7, 2014, 10:16 am

        “Dissatisfaction over the reluctance of the Government of India to vigorously take up such issues with other Governments gave rise to a feeling among some of the Sikh residents of the UK, the US and Canada that only by creating an independent State for the Sikhs would they be able to have their religious rights protected. A group of Sikh bus drivers and conductors in the UK formed an organization called the Sikh Home Rule Movement under the leadership of one Charan Singh Panchi. Some well-to-do Sikh farmers in the US floated an organization called the United Sikh Appeal, which was modeled after the United Jewish Appeal, which had actively supported the rights of the Jewish people and worked for an independent State of Israel. However, the majority of the Sikh communities in the West kept away from these organizations. They did not support the idea of an independent Sikh State.

        Before the India-Pakistan war of 1971, Dr. Jagjit Singh Chauhan, who had served for a few months between 1967 and 1969 as the Deputy Speaker of the Punjab Assembly and then as the Finance Minister of Punjab, went to London, joined the Sikh Home Rule Movement, took over its leadership and re-named it as the Khalistan movement. He wanted that the independent Sikh State to be created in Punjab should be named as Khalistan. Even before his arrival in the UK, the Pakistani High Commission and the US Embassy in London were in touch with the activists of the Sikh Home Rule Movement. They established contact with Chauhan after his arrival and started encouraging his propaganda against the Government of India in order to embarrass Indira Gandhi. Gen. Yahya Khan, Pakistan’s military dictator, invited him to Pakistan. He was received warmly and lionized as the leader of the Indian Sikh community even though he had no following in the Sikh community of Punjab. During his visit to Pakistan, the Pakistani authorities presented to him some of the Sikh holy relics kept in the gurudwaras of Pakistan. He took them with him to the UK and sought to use them in order to project himself as a leader, who could protect the religious interests of the Sikhs.

        Before the outbreak of the war in December, 1971, the R&AW, on the instructions of Indira Gandhi, had started a PSYWAR campaign to highlight the violation of the human rights of the people of East Pakistan and the resulting refugee exodus into India. The CIA and the ISI sought to counter this by starting a PSYWAR campaign on the alleged violation of the human rights of the Sikhs in India and the indifferent attitude of the Government of India to the problems of the Sikhs living abroad. Chauhan visited New York and met the local media and others in order to brief them on the Khalistan movement. These meetings were discreetly arranged by some members of the staff of the US National Security Council Secretariat, then headed by Dr.Henry Kissinger. On October 13, 1971, he had an advertisement published in the “New York Times” proclaiming the beginning of a movement for an independent Sikh State. Enquiries made by the R&AW indicated that the Pakistani Embassy in Washington DC had paid for this advertisement. This PSYWAR campaign against India and Indira Gandhi on the question of the alleged violation of the human rights of the Sikhs continued till 1977. When Indira Gandhi lost the elections in 1977 and was replaced by Morarji Desai, this campaign was abruptly discontinued by the CIA and the ISI. Dr. Chauhan returned to India and stopped campaigning for the creation of the so-called Khalistan.”

        http://www.indiandefencereview.com/news/the-khalistani-terrorism/

        Of course also recalling the famous blood telegram of TJ Bass blaming Nixon and Kissinger for supporting Yahya Khan’s genocide in East Pakistan, the carnage was so extreme as to force US diplomats to openly disagree with the Administration policy.

        It was India’s victory in East Pakistan/Bengal which established her as the emerging regional hegemon, Gandhi’s tilt toward the USSR and non-aligned stance which irritated Washington previously now turned hostility to aggression. B. Raman has written “Kao-boys of the Research and Analysis Wing” Kao being Gandhi’s intel adviser, which covers a good deal of the crisis up to and subsequent to operation Bluestar, the storming of the Golden temple and killing of Bhindranwale and his loyalists.

        and further stuff about the ’71 war, resulting from the Awami’s leagues victory, and US/UK involvement in the war.

        “Meanwhile, Soviet intelligence reported that a British naval group led by the aircraft carrier Eagle had moved closer to India’s territorial waters. This was perhaps one of the most ironic events in modern history where the Western world’s two leading democracies were threatening the world’s largest democracy in order to protect the perpetrators of the largest genocide since the Holocaust in Nazi Germany. However, India did not panic. It quietly sent Moscow a request to activate a secret provision of the Indo-Soviet security treaty, under which Russia was bound to defend India in case of any external aggression.”

        http://in.rbth.com/articles/2011/12/20/1971_war_how_russia_sank_nixons_gunboat_diplomacy_14041.html

        Also American funding for the Hidutva movement is quite extensive, as a quick google will confirm. The slaughter of 300k odd and displacement of 10 million, 80% estimated to be Hindu led the Indian state to panic, in fact they supressed infromation about the confessional status up of the refugees for fear of widespread disorder which would have suited America, recalling the infamous Coupland plan to Balkanise India in to competing confessional states.

        In terms of Inter-communal violence in India 1857 is the key date, link is to

        “The Paradoxes of Ethnographic Intelligence a case study of British India”

        which is interesting in and of itself.

        “Ever since 1857, it had been official policy to promote divisiveness between Hindus and Muslims. The idea was to depict the imperial power as a stabilizing force in India. A key plank of the Government’s anti-Congress strategy was the Muslim League, set up in 1905 to promote pro-British views. The League was intended to be a counter-weight to the Congress.60 Its leadership was suspicious of the latter’s demands for democratic governance, anticipating that numerical superiority would give Hindus control over any political dispensation. However, this did not automatically make them advocates of continued British rule over India. It just meant that they would not accept a Congress Government ruling over Muslim majority regions.61 Unlike in 1857, internal rivalries between the Indians did not lend themselves to advancing British objectives. This paper will now explain why British officialdom misread the political dynamics of India so badly as to lose the country. ”

        http://www.satp.org/satporgtp/publication/faultlines/volume20/Article1.htm

      • RoHa
        RoHa
        April 6, 2014, 4:32 am

        “And where was the feigned outraged on behalf of Sikhs? Maybe because they are a such smaller proportion of the world population – i.e. they are unlikely to cause trouble to the Economist and unlikely to buy the magazine in large numbers – that they don’t matter that much.”

        And yet, as far as I can tell, there are more Sikhs than Jews.

        (They mattered a lot to the British in the nineteenth century and twentieth centuries. They were tough, dedicated, efficient soldiers. After the British managed to defeat the Sikh army, they happily made Sikhs a significant part of the British forces. Sikhs have an unparalleled reputation for honesty and trustworthiness. (The phrase “Sikh lawyer” does not roll easily off the tongue.). Chinese bankers and merchants in Hong Kong and Malaya employed them as guards. I have seen a temple in Malaya that has representations of Sikhs as guardian figures, instead of the usual gods. This from the notoriously xenophobic Chinese!)

      • James North
        James North
        April 6, 2014, 9:06 am

        Krauss:

        “Maybe because he doesn’t even know about them, which of course raises the embarrassing specter of an amateur weighing in a country whose basic history he does not know.”

        I know at least 10 times as much about India and its basic history as you do.

        Your “argument” boils down to what you think of as hard-headed realism, basically arguing that the U.S. has to overlook Modi’s genocide because he may be the next leader of an economic powerhouse. Even setting aide the morality of your view — something that few visitors to Mondoweiss will want to do — the U.S. policy is stupid even from the “realist” point of view.

        Modi’s BJP party will probably come in first, but regional and minor parties will get up to half the votes, forcing him to try and cobble together an unwieldy coalition. If the United States had maintained its policy of boycotting Modi, a potential governing block might have been forced to pick someone else, from one of the smaller parties, as prime minister.

        But the U.S. stupidly threw away any bargaining power it had by letting Modi in from the cold before the voting even started.

        Another point. The Economist is nothing if not realist, and they and I are in agreement on Modi. Why don’t you go over to their site and lecture them about how they should “take international relations seriously as a subject?”

      • Krauss
        Krauss
        April 6, 2014, 12:01 pm

        I know at least 10 times as much about India and its basic history as you do.

        So you claim, yet you completely miss the 1984 riots. It doesn’t exonerate what happened in 2002, but it puts it in perspective since the INC never came clean. Your quote is more bluster than fact.

        I’ll begin with the rest from the bottom.

        Another point. The Economist is nothing if not realist

        Nope. The Economist is an ideological paper, it’s a neoliberal paper. In India, the two alliances are both neoliberal so the Economist can then go after BJP. It does so not because it cares about human rights – it supported the Iraq war, which is another facet of the Economist, it is “liberal” interventionist, or neocon lite, too – but because over a billion muslims matter a lot more to its revenue than a few tens of millions of Sikhs.

        But the U.S. stupidly threw away any bargaining power it had by letting Modi in from the cold before the voting even started.

        It’s been obvious he would win for at least half a year now. The US has no bargaining power. You live in a fantasy world. The US has exceptionally limited leverage over India. You claim you know a lot about India. You keep disapproving your own hilarious statement with other statements like the ones you just made.

        Modi’s BJP party will probably come in first, but regional and minor parties will get up to half the votes, forcing him to try and cobble together an unwieldy coalition. If the United States had maintained its policy of boycotting Modi, a potential governing block might have been forced to pick someone else, from one of the smaller parties, as prime minister.

        Hahahahahaha!

        His political alliance is likely to be bigger than the current political alliance that won in 2009. Indian politics doesn’t quite work like you say, regional parties matter on a regional level, but they don’t set national policy. The minority parties can block agendas but they can’t drive the country.

        Secondly, it is absolutely hilarious that you think that the U.S. has a reasonable chance of overthrowing the leader of India, the world’s third largest economy and soon the most populous. The U.S. can’t even overthrow Assad, and you think it has a chance of overthrowing Modi?

        Again, remember what I wrote:

        This may seem self-evident but his phrasing suggests he somehow thinks America is the center of the world; it isn’t.

        That you seriously think that the US can swap out PMs of India shows that you have completely lost touch with reality, North. At this point I am merely toying with you. You are no longer a serious debater, this is more for fun.

        Why don’t you go over to their site and lecture them about how they should “take international relations seriously as a subject?”

        The Economist’s article was biased, but it was not delusional. They were correct to point out his fingerprints in the massacres. They were weirdly absent on the role on the very dark and brutal history of their opposition, something the BBC has not been able to do. But the Econoist is not delusional – it does not think America can swap out Indian PMs – and you are.

        Your “argument” boils down to what you think of as hard-headed realism, basically arguing that the U.S. has to overlook Modi’s genocide because he may be the next leader of an economic powerhouse. Even setting aide the morality of your view — something that few visitors to Mondoweiss will want to do — the U.S. policy is stupid even from the “realist” point of view.

        I wrote earlier that you don’t seem to understand the basics of international relations and this quote is saved for last because it underlines my point.

        I’m not arguing that the U.S. has a choice of overlooking anything – which would imply a moral position. I’m arguing that the U.S. has no choice to work with whoever is PM because Indian-US relations are too big to fail. When you have no choice, that means that morality is thrown out of the window. Some people don’t like such situations, and these people are disconnected from reality, which you’ve demonstrated amply throughout this article and in subsequent replies.

        And I also giggle over your attempt to dismiss the realist argument but completely misunderstanding what realist IR policy is. You should read up on John Mearsheimer. He got the I/P conflict right.
        Guess what? He got a lot of other stuff in the world of international relations right, too. He might teach you a thing or two, and you’d end up a much less foolish place than you have throughout this exchange.

        Morality is bound to choice and leverage. And you can only manufacture morality, like you have tried, by massively inflating the actual choices the U.S. has over such a massive power like India. Again, if the U.S. can’t get rid of Assad in such a tiny country like Syria then how delusional would one have to be to think that it has a serious shot in India?

        Finally, let me speak about your morality. Where is your outrage over the eight times as deadly anti-Sikh riots and the INC’s/Congress’ inability to resolve the blame there? This is the kind of selective morality that undermined the Economist’s case, not because it was wrong about Modi, but because it serially ignored the unresolved genocides of the past of the other party. The 1980s is not a long time ago. And I don’t see you having a lot of outrage. Maybe you’d support Stalin’s pogroms because he had the “right” ideological leanings? A lot of leftists did until the moment they no longer could. You remind me of them.

        For me, neither the BJP nor Congress are attractive parties.
        But unlike you, I am not willing to forgive one side.

      • James North
        James North
        April 6, 2014, 1:36 pm

        Krauss: You are becoming completely unhinged, as in suggesting that I might “support Stalin’s pogroms because he had the ‘right’ ideological leanings?” Not only are you ignorant of India’s “basic history,” but you try and conceal your lack of knowledge with ad hominem attacks.

        Your point about the 1984 anti-Sikh killings is pointless. You are basically saying that Hindus murdered Sikhs 30 years ago and got away with it, so the James North/Economist alliance has no right to indict Narendra Modi for presiding over Hindus killing Muslims more recently. You can’t even argue that the Muslim Indians are a significant part of a reciprocal cycle of violence.

        You can bet that if this were the 1980s, James North would be making the same argument against Rajiv Gandhi and Congress as I am here, with exactly the same outrage. By contrast, you would be doing what you think is “realistic” — caving in even before the voting started due to India’s size and economic influence.

        Other Mondoweiss readers may want to try a simple thought experiment. What if a Muslim political leader somewhere had presided over a massacre in which Muslim mobs hunted down 1000 Christians or Jews or Hindus based on their religious/ethnic identity and slaughtered them, and drove another 150,000 from their homes?

        Would the United States ambassador announce she is meeting with this murderous Muslim political leader? Or would America instead try and quarantine such a killer, aware that its influence is limited but still wanting to maximize that influence and make a moral statement at the same time?

      • aiman
        aiman
        April 7, 2014, 12:02 am

        “the world’s muslims”

        “Will the muslims of the world be outraged at Brazil? Then they have to be outraged at the entire world.”

        “but because over a billion muslims matter a lot more to its revenue than a few tens of millions of Sikhs”

        Krauss, as usual, your prejudice is evident even in your use of grammar. It is abundantly clear you know as little about India as Netanyahu knows about the Panchatantra. All you have provided evidence of is how good you are at swallowing the contents of one or two articles you linked to and then regurgigating it to make an ostensibly profound point that no one else can. No, you can shoot farther than anyone. That’s right. I suggest you aim for your toilet bowl instead of stumbling to and fro to soil the coat of an honest man of letters like James North. You would have no problem, of course, if a Muslim criminal slaughtered a thousand “jews”, disfranchised them and regularly cut off the electricity in the poor areas they inhabit and was later elected as PM. The US would of course welcome him. You would talk of how “the world’s jews” have more monopoly on the Economist (for the obvious reasons) than “the Sikhs” and then give us a repetitious prose about all the happenings in India that no one else knows.

        I trust Arundhati Roy more than you. And for anyone interested, here’s a great article by John Pilger: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jan/03/india-dystopia-extremes-resistance-rising-neoliberalism-pilger. The relevant paragraphs on Gujarat:

        Jawaharlal Nehru’s democracy succeeded in granting the vote (today, there are 3.2 million elected representatives), but it failed to build a semblance of social and economic justice. Widespread violence against women is only now precariously on the political agenda. Secularism may have been Nehru’s grand vision, but Muslims in India remain among the poorest, most discriminated against and brutalised minority on Earth. According to the 2006 Sachar Commission, in the elite institutes of technology, only four in 100 students are Muslim, and in the cities Muslims have fewer chances of regular employment than the “untouchable” Dalits and indigenous Adivasis. “It is ironic,” wrote Khushwant Singh, “that the highest incidence of violence against Muslims and Christians has taken place in Gujarat, the home state of Bapu Gandhi.”

        Gujarat is also the home state of Narendra Modi, winner of three consecutive victories as BJP chief minister and the favourite to see off the diffident Rahul Gandhi in national elections in May. With his xenophobic Hindutva ideology, Modi appeals directly to dispossessed Hindus who believe Muslims are “privileged”. Soon after he came to power in 2002, mobs slaughtered hundreds of Muslims. An investigating commission heard that Modi had ordered officials not to stop the rioters – which he denies. Admired by powerful industrialists, he boasts the highest “growth” in India.

      • traintosiberia
        traintosiberia
        April 7, 2014, 10:18 am

        Yes there is a history of sectarian violence in India. But there is a pattern. It is against the minorities by the majorities. In case of Muslim
        ,it starts with always excuses created by the majority Hindu. These are the excuses
        1 Muslim support Pakistan
        2 Muslim breeds more
        3 Muslim believe and practice polygamy
        4 Muslim invaded and destroyed 300,000 temples
        5 Muslim is trying to covert the Hindus again with swords.
        6 Muslim divided India
        Against this pervasive belief spread by the elementary school system and periodically reinforced by the media ,is another set of belief that assert : Hindus are tolerant. Hindus never tried or forced any conversion. Hindus don’t or did not attack other countries . Hindus celebrate knowledge and education. Hindus tolerate the violence from the minorities and particularly those committed by Muslim . India has always supported Palestine but Arab have always supported Pakistan. India has to appease Muslim by banning Rushdie . Muslim are given the rights of exercising their religious laws in properties ,adoption,and worshipping .
        The lists go on and on.
        A culture and atmosphere of hatred is built and sunk in and within the system that permeates the education,media,folk belief,popular knowledge ,and political attitude .
        So when RSS decides to use anti Muslim hatred for politics,it has no difficulty in finding a slogan,a narrative,a loyal flag to which the Hindus would flock to in droves. Congress uses the same by inverting those concepts . The slogan of Congress is this that Hindus are better and more enlightened and Cpngress is here to protect Muslim despite the shortcomings of the Muslim.
        1984 election gave RSS spawned BJP 2 seats in Parliament. In 1987 this party scored 187 seats . In between happened a court case involving a Muslim woman seeking court’s opinion on payment from ex husband. This unfortunately infuriated Muslim and energized Hindus. Then came the demand to hand over the mosque at Ayoddha to Hindus. This mosque will be layer demolished by the BJP street fighters known as Sang Parivar
        in 1992. But in 1987 a Hindu girl was burnt to death as part of Sati Practice( widow burning ) 300 KM from New Delhi . Not a single Muslimor Christian came out agitating against the Hindu practices deity the exposed BJP affiliations with the perpetrators .
        Yes RSS and BJP came to power by killing Muslims. Modi did same each time on every election after 2002 anti Muslim violence.

        The only way this can be understood if we understand the rise of Nazi party in 1933.

      • gamal
        gamal
        April 8, 2014, 3:56 pm

        ” India has to appease Muslim by banning Rushdie”

        As to Rushdie, my employer at the time, a well known Sheikh, famously said that he would shelter Rushdie in his own house, post Iranian fatwa.

        Incidentally there was a model for the “satanic verses” the well known Rangila Rasul. The Sikh reader penguin employed to look at text warned them of the problems would pose in India/Pakistan, as the afore mentioned Rangila Rasul was part of a culture of mutual denunciation that sections of the Indian population had been in to for a few decades.

        http://books.google.com.jm/books?id=abcfAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA43&lpg=PA43&dq=rangila+rasul&source=bl&ots=35WR1wmi1L&sig=rdZXW8o_-JE1xQFp9oaDttVUxZI&hl=en&sa=X&ei=E0xEU5asM5Ga0gHgxYGIDA&ved=0CEMQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=rangila%20rasul&f=false

        Saudi money had been spent on getting Pakistani’s to protest, in fashions that caused them terrible problems for years to come when Khomeini stole Saudi’s thunder at a cost of 0 GBP, the Saudi’s were pissed, we laughed, while also regretting how the stupid “controversy” caused by the foolish actions of the Muslim community in the UK cost us dearly in terms of wider relationships with other religious and secular groups, the then Bishop of Oxford, with whom we had enjoyed a cordial friendship, never forgave the Muslims and was scathing in his denunciations of our intolerance and stupidity.

        However when I met with a group of Northern British Pakistani (Kashmiri) youth, I was quite impressed with them but their political and social objectives were all dominated by local concerns and the need to organize the community around these issues was given great impetus by using the ‘hurt’ around Satanic Verses as a galvanising issue, they never forgave us for our position and for the next decade or so were forever attacking our lack of fervour, but as the disastrous results of the booking burning and lurid Iranian threats became apparent, they quietly fell in behind our conciliatory approach, so in the end we benefited from the controversy in internal terms despite its huge costs in terms external relations. 911 plunged us in to further problems with our community much of it around the Hijab crap some guys are in to.

    • seafoid
      seafoid
      April 7, 2014, 11:14 am

      India’s Muslims are a very sad collective. Their leaders mostly decamped to Pakistan in 1948 and they have been discriminated against since. They are on average poorer than India’s Hindus and they don’t get access to jobs on the same level as Hindus.

  3. traintosiberia
    traintosiberia
    April 5, 2014, 6:17 pm

    Even the train fire has never been fully explained. There were reports of th fire starting from within.
    Other day there was a demand from the Hindu BJP of Modi to censor the screening of a documentary exhibiting the well orchestrated month long training on the use of explosives,climbing,use of camouflage ,and throwing of grenades and use of dynamite by the Hindu religious figures leading to the demolition of the historical mosque in north India in 1992. BJP has orchestrated some of the ” Muslim-initiated” attack to create the excuse for the political aims.
    But it was 911 that allowed Modi to embark on this massive fraud . He knew that the attitude of the US after 911 would help Modi irrespective of the truth . He knew that he could bank on the neocons and AIPAC as well. He took advantage of the situation .Aroind same time China also crushed Xinxiang ‘s nascent political agitation.

  4. bilal a
    bilal a
    April 5, 2014, 7:01 pm

    Hindu mobs murdered at least 1000 people; women were gang-raped and burned alive

    “Aneesa Begum, 40, recounted how rioters “hacked” the legs of her husband as she huddled under a blanket.

    “They are not outsiders, they are village people. How can we face them again?” she said between sobs as she prepared to visit her husband in hospital.

    “Some of the rape survivors have shown courage and approached the police. But when they see that no action has been taken against their attackers, others also get demoralised,” said Sehba Farooqui of rights group the All India Democratic Women’s Association.”

    http://tribune.com.pk/story/616107/rape-victims-suffer-in-silence-after-india-riots/

    entire villages of criminal rapists and their protectors ( in peaceful India.)

    • seafoid
      seafoid
      April 6, 2014, 2:01 am

      India gets great PR, Everyone does yoga, so calm, unlike those mad Iranians.

  5. Kay24
    Kay24
    April 5, 2014, 11:33 pm

    In the Muslim world, the US has already earned the reputation of being killers of Muslims in Afghanistan and Iraq, and interfering in Muslim nations, so this too, will add to that (deserving) negative image. Way to go US.

  6. Walid
    Walid
    April 6, 2014, 1:35 am

    “… U.S. cozies up to him.”

    It may have something to do with heading off Putin at the pass. Also to be remembered is that India is very cosy with Israel and one of its major arms customers.

    • Walid
      Walid
      April 6, 2014, 7:36 am

      Speaking of India being a great customer for Israeli arms ($1 billion/yr.), Rehmat’s Blog reported that:

      “After two-year US-Israel lobbying, New Delhi announced on April 2 that it has agreed let Israel Aerospace Industries (ISI) to provide technical expertise in building India’s own missile defense system (MDS) against attacks from Pakistan and China. India, Israel, Pakistan and China are all nuclear powers. Among them, only China is signatory to NPT.

      “The Indians were looking for Israeli expertise and technology that would allow New Delhi to eventually work on its own MDS. They’re not interested in off-the-shelf Arrow purchase,” said Israeli negotiator.

      The initial agreement would partner IAI as well as Israel’s state-owned
      Rafael Advanced Defense Systems which produced Arrow with India’s Defense Research and Development Organization, Bharat Dynamics and Bharat Electronics. All of the participants are state-owned entities, and Bharat Electronics has developed the Prithvi air defense system, scheduled for deployment in 2015.

      … Last month, Obama administration donated another $429 million taxpayers money to fund Israeli Iron Dome project. Interestingly, two weeks after robbing US taxpayers of $429 millions, the Israeli Iron Dome malfunctioned badly by firing two interceptor missiles in Eilat.

      Dr. Reuven Pedatzur, a highly respected Israeli security analyst claims that Iron Dome’s successful interception rate may well be 5% or less — far below the 84% success rate cited by the Israeli Defense Forces and other defenders of the program.

      Pedatzur also said: “One missile of Iron Dome will cost 100,000 dollars and a Qassam (rocket) costs about 5 to 10 dollars. So what the Palestinians have to do is just accumulate more and more Qassams – because there is a limit to the number of missiles that Israel can buy.”

      It seems, Pentagon is not happy with the performance of the Israeli MDS. The Jewish Washington Post reported in 2012 that Pentagon has footed $100 million toward building an underground military command and control bunker at Israel’s top-secret ICBM complex at Sdot Micha.

      A 2009 marketing video by Israel’s Raphael to help sell arms to India:

      Full article:
      http://rehmat1.com/

      • bintbiba
        bintbiba
        April 6, 2014, 8:15 am

        yech….. :((

      • libra
        libra
        April 6, 2014, 8:25 am

        Walid: …to provide technical expertise in building India’s own missile defense system (MDS) against attacks from Pakistan and China.

        So who better to sell missile penetration enhancement technology to China than Israel? Let’s hope there’s some cheese left over to make another video.

      • LeaNder
        LeaNder
        April 6, 2014, 9:36 am

        Do I have to look at the following lines in the song text as deliberate and reflected (see: video above from the remat1.com link):

        female (Indian): I believe in you.
        male (I suppose Jewish): You believe in me.

        Or is it a mistake? A Freudian slip, or … ok, what else could it be?

        Ok, theoretically I would also appreciate the author to leave out emotions in these arguments, I have to admit:

        The Zionist entity sells $1 billion worth arms to India annually since New Delhi established diplomatic relation with Tel Aviv in 1992 – making Israel second largest supplier after Russia. Watch a 2009 video below in which an Israeli arms firm used sex to sell arms to India.

    • Stephen Shenfield
      Stephen Shenfield
      April 6, 2014, 4:52 pm

      “It may have something to do with heading off Putin at the pass. Also to be remembered is that India is very cosy with Israel and one of its major arms customers.”

      Also with getting pissed off with Pakistan as an unreliable and treacherous ally (from the point of view of the US security elite).

      Also with access to vast Indian mineral resources.

      Also with encircling China.

      • Walid
        Walid
        April 6, 2014, 5:19 pm

        Pakistan was always unreliable. After getting the bomb, it started with A.Q. Khan peddling its knowhow left and right for cash. I guess we can say the same thing about Israel, its bomb and South Africa and about the sale of American AWAC technology that it was in the process of selling to the Chinese, until the US stepped on Israel’s tail and supposedly stopped it.

  7. traintosiberia
    traintosiberia
    April 6, 2014, 12:31 pm

    At one time Israel was supporting both the Tamil rebels and the Sri-Lankan government
    This time Israel has been busy building military arsenals of India but with eyes open to Pakistan market .Telegraph reported that Pakistan was busy buying Israeli arsenals leaving Indian side red faced .
    Obviously reports were denied and never again explored .

  8. traintosiberia
    traintosiberia
    April 6, 2014, 12:38 pm

    “Israel has rejected in strongest terms data recorded and published by the Ministry of Defence which documents the sale of Israeli-manufactured cockpit displays and electronic warfare components for F16 fighter jets to Pakistan in 2010. Further investigations launched by Britain into the deal however at the request of both Israeli and Indian officials have found that it did in fact take place, although they have yet to establish whether it was with the knowledge of the Israeli government.”
    Telegraph( UK) 13 th June 2013

    • Walid
      Walid
      April 6, 2014, 5:00 pm

      “At one time Israel was supporting both the Tamil rebels and the Sri-Lankan government” (train)

      “Israel has rejected in strongest terms data recorded and published by the Ministry of Defence which documents the sale of Israeli-manufactured cockpit displays and electronic warfare components for F16 fighter jets to Pakistan in 2010. “(train)

      Nothing innovative in both instances, train; didn’t the Rothschilds finance both sides in the Napoleonic and other wars?

      • Kay24
        Kay24
        April 7, 2014, 9:37 am

        Israel has devious methods of operating. Yes indeed, Israel was training Tamil rebels and the Sri Lankan troops, at the same time, within miles of each other, and no one was any wiser.
        On Saturday 3 lower level security officials violently clashed with the Indian immigration officers at an Indian airport, showing typical Israeli arrogance, and their sense of entitlement. Many Americans may remember how they were treated like dirt at Ben Gurion airport, Tel Aviv, and that the US State department has issued travel warnings for Americans entering Israeli airports. Yet Israelis expect to be treated like God’s chosen, so impatient, and disrespectful.
        http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/1.584232

        Should make us wonder what these three thugs were up to, considering the fact that India is having their elections, and perhaps they were there to interfere in some way or the other, zionist style.

      • eljay
        eljay
        April 7, 2014, 10:57 am

        >> The paper said the three got “upset” when immigration officers asked them to wait. They responded by screaming at him and accused him of intentionally delaying them.

        They forgot to accuse him of anti-Semitism. Weird.

  9. traintosiberia
    traintosiberia
    April 7, 2014, 10:33 am

    Palestinians pay for Indian ambitions
    By Ramtanu Maitra

    ….

    The push to consolidate the India-US-Israel compact at the strategic level began months ago, but surfaced only recently. Last May, India’s National Security Advisor Brajesh Mishra was in Washington to form the India-US-Israel axis. In a clear public announcement, made in front of 1,200 dinner guests of the American Jewish Committee (AJC), Brajesh Mishra spoke in support of such a triangular bonding. Mishra proposed, offered and expounded on just about everything to make the case that the three countries must fight

    When Indian Deputy Prime Minister L K Advani was in Washington last June, his brief visit included dinner at the elite Cosmos Club, courtesy of the American Jewish Committee.

    Another major event was the first-ever joint Capitol Hill forum that was held on July 16, between the US Indian Political Action Committee, the American Jewish Committee, and AIPAC. The event featured nearly a dozen Congress members from across the US, including Republican Tom Lantos (D-CA) and Republican Gary Ackerman (D-NY). Tom Lantos summarized the binding issue of the evening thus, “We are drawn together by mindless, vicious, fanatic, Islamic terrorism.” Congressman Ackerman said that Israel was “surrounded by 120 million Muslims” while “India has 120 millions Muslims [within]”.

    Subsequently, visiting Israeli special envoy David Ivry told New Delhi that Israel will assist India in its battle against terrorism. Ivry met with External Affairs Minister Yashwant Sinha, Advani and Mishra. Ivry said that a recent speech by Mishra in Washington implied that India, the US and Israel should cooperate in fighting terrorism. “The US can be the leader and we [Israel and India] can contribute as much as we can,” he said. He added that sharing of intelligence was very important. But that is not all. The traders’ bonding has also become pretty tight.

    The Indian lobby that promotes a strong India-Israel business linkage also finds it necessary to justify why Israel should be brought closer. They point out the commonalities that hang these two countries together – India and Israel are both democracies and have survived in a sea of hostility, surrounded by implacable adversaries and a heavily militarized security environment. Both nations have fought wars in nearly every decade of their existence. No other two countries in the world have suffered so much at the hands of state-sponsored Islamic jihadi terrorism as India and Israel, the rhetoric goes

    (Copyright 2003 Asia Times Online Co, Ltd. All rights reserved. Please contact [email protected] for information on our sales and syndication policies.)
    Asia Times on line

    http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/EI10Df03.html

Leave a Reply