07-18-2006, 03:20 AM
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>Reluctant rulers </b>
Pioneer.com
<i>Prafull Goradia analyses why India is soft towards Islamist terror, while Israel leaves no stone unturned to retaliate against jihadi violence </i>
Having arrived in Mumbai from London on July 5, 2006, Isaac Armstrong, professionally a computer expert, flew into Delhi on the night of the terrorist carnage on Western Railway. We happened to meet on the following day. Being half Jewish, he had interest in Islamic affairs and got talking without my posing many questions. The way to handle them is shown by Israel. In order to recover one abducted soldier, eight ministers and 20 legislators, including the Palestinian Deputy Prime Minister have been captured.
For the Lebanese seizing two soldiers, Israel has invaded their country. But for the strong will of its rulers, a small country like Israel could not have survived on the huge Arabian landmass. Mr Armstrong confessed that had they possessed the same will power earlier, the Nazis could not have slaughtered six million jews.
My interest was in Mumbai of July 11, for which Mr Armstrong had an unusual diagnosis to offer. He said that the carnage was a continuing conflict between sadists and masochists. <span style='font-size:14pt;line-height:100%'>Islamists take relish in maiming people and bloodshed whereas the Hindu ruling class gets pleasure when pain is inflicted on its people. As an example, how else can one explain the Indian Prime Minister, in his first reaction, being worried about Lashkar-e-Tayyeba raising the tempo of communal violence?
Evidently what he had in mind was the fear of a Hindu backlash. The pain of those who suffered the bomb attack and the tragedy of the innocent killed was a lower priority. Home Minister Shivraj Patil was also concerned about the terrorists dividing the society.</span>
Mr Armstrong expressed the hope that Hindus will eventually change just as Jews did after World War II. Think of it, India has not taken a single preemptive or deterrent step against the terrorists even after Parliament was attacked. Contrast that with the US retaliation to 9/11 and the disappearance of terrorism from the American continent. It is the same story after the UK took steps on the morrow of 7/7<span style='font-size:14pt;line-height:100%'>. Islamists continue their attacks because they interpret the signals from India as "you are welcome".</span>
Soon after meeting Mr Armstrong, I went to see a friend of mine whose name is Agha Anwar Mirza. His explanation was lucid. <span style='font-size:14pt;line-height:100%'>The struggle is on to turn India into a dar-ul Islam where the writ of the sharia' would run. That would have happened earlier had there been no Partition. Undivided India would be already 40 per cent Muslim. Qaid-e-Azam Jinnah spoilt it all. By now a popularly elected sultan would have been ruling in Delhi.</span>
In answering my question, Mr Mirza said that a true Muslim cannot condemn what he perceives as a holy war. Not only in India, but also in many other countries, jihad is on; be it Chechnya in Russia, Kosovo in Serbia, Pattani in Thailand as well as for the southern islands of the Philippines. What about England, France, Holland, Scandinavia, the US? The reply was that shorn of details, true Muslims there would like sharia' to be the law applicable to their community. If that has not been declared as the objective, it could be for tactical reasons.
Why kill innocent Hindus? "That was to soften the will of the governments across India. Already you can see," Mr Mirza pointed out, <span style='font-size:14pt;line-height:100%'>"that the Congress-led ministries are offering reservations to Muslims." According to him, the Hindu will is soft. Should not then we Hindus be worried? He said no. They were happy under Muslim rule for centuries. It is the British policy of divide and rule that made Hindus raise their head. Now that the white regime is over, the traditional Hindu-Muslim equation must be returned.</span>
Mr Mirza is a drawing room Marxist; he did his doctorate at Humboldt University in what was East Germany. He has a wide range of interests and thinks up a variety of theses. One of them is that the Hindu per se is not comfortable at governing. He is unconsciously on the look out for someone to hand over the reins of power. Be it the Mughals, the Lodhis and the other sultanates earlier, be it the British, be it the Nehru-Gandhis. Even the Kshatriyas lack the passion to rule. Look what Mr VP Singh did and what Mr Arjun Singh is doing now. They are all reluctant princes.
Mr Mirza took me back to the age of the Mahrathas. They had a glorious opportunity to fill the vacuum created by the decline and break up of the Mughal empire after Aurangzeb. Their armies had gone across to most parts of the sub-continent. Instead of establishing a permanent rule, they preferred to visit and revisit their territories merely to collect chauth or one-fourth revenue. "Were'nt they reluctant rulers?" he exclaimed.
When I encouraged him to go on, Mr Mirza's mind flew to Beijing - the favourite of many a Marxist. See, he said, how China dealt with Tibet and what New Delhi is doing in Kashmir. Did you know how Mao Zedong brought back the seceded Xinjiang into China in 1951, he asked. He invited all the political leaders of the then independent country for a friendly conference between neighbours. He sent an aeroplane to bring the guests to Beijing. They were wined and dined for several days and sent back in the same plane which, however, crashed on the way.
Two of the Xinjiang leaders, who had excused themselves from the conference on account of ill health, elevated themselves to power and declared that their country's merger with the People's Republic of China.
In sum,<b> Mr Mirza contended that rulers must not only know real politik, but also have the stomach for ruthless action. The least they need to practice is an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, the old Jewish adage which was openly adopted by Islam and implicitly put to use by Christian rulers.</b>
What the Marxist friend implied was that without this dose of deterrence, no government can govern. <span style='font-size:14pt;line-height:100%'>For every citizen killer, the state government must claim at least test terrorist lives! </span>
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Pioneer.com
<i>Prafull Goradia analyses why India is soft towards Islamist terror, while Israel leaves no stone unturned to retaliate against jihadi violence </i>
Having arrived in Mumbai from London on July 5, 2006, Isaac Armstrong, professionally a computer expert, flew into Delhi on the night of the terrorist carnage on Western Railway. We happened to meet on the following day. Being half Jewish, he had interest in Islamic affairs and got talking without my posing many questions. The way to handle them is shown by Israel. In order to recover one abducted soldier, eight ministers and 20 legislators, including the Palestinian Deputy Prime Minister have been captured.
For the Lebanese seizing two soldiers, Israel has invaded their country. But for the strong will of its rulers, a small country like Israel could not have survived on the huge Arabian landmass. Mr Armstrong confessed that had they possessed the same will power earlier, the Nazis could not have slaughtered six million jews.
My interest was in Mumbai of July 11, for which Mr Armstrong had an unusual diagnosis to offer. He said that the carnage was a continuing conflict between sadists and masochists. <span style='font-size:14pt;line-height:100%'>Islamists take relish in maiming people and bloodshed whereas the Hindu ruling class gets pleasure when pain is inflicted on its people. As an example, how else can one explain the Indian Prime Minister, in his first reaction, being worried about Lashkar-e-Tayyeba raising the tempo of communal violence?
Evidently what he had in mind was the fear of a Hindu backlash. The pain of those who suffered the bomb attack and the tragedy of the innocent killed was a lower priority. Home Minister Shivraj Patil was also concerned about the terrorists dividing the society.</span>
Mr Armstrong expressed the hope that Hindus will eventually change just as Jews did after World War II. Think of it, India has not taken a single preemptive or deterrent step against the terrorists even after Parliament was attacked. Contrast that with the US retaliation to 9/11 and the disappearance of terrorism from the American continent. It is the same story after the UK took steps on the morrow of 7/7<span style='font-size:14pt;line-height:100%'>. Islamists continue their attacks because they interpret the signals from India as "you are welcome".</span>
Soon after meeting Mr Armstrong, I went to see a friend of mine whose name is Agha Anwar Mirza. His explanation was lucid. <span style='font-size:14pt;line-height:100%'>The struggle is on to turn India into a dar-ul Islam where the writ of the sharia' would run. That would have happened earlier had there been no Partition. Undivided India would be already 40 per cent Muslim. Qaid-e-Azam Jinnah spoilt it all. By now a popularly elected sultan would have been ruling in Delhi.</span>
In answering my question, Mr Mirza said that a true Muslim cannot condemn what he perceives as a holy war. Not only in India, but also in many other countries, jihad is on; be it Chechnya in Russia, Kosovo in Serbia, Pattani in Thailand as well as for the southern islands of the Philippines. What about England, France, Holland, Scandinavia, the US? The reply was that shorn of details, true Muslims there would like sharia' to be the law applicable to their community. If that has not been declared as the objective, it could be for tactical reasons.
Why kill innocent Hindus? "That was to soften the will of the governments across India. Already you can see," Mr Mirza pointed out, <span style='font-size:14pt;line-height:100%'>"that the Congress-led ministries are offering reservations to Muslims." According to him, the Hindu will is soft. Should not then we Hindus be worried? He said no. They were happy under Muslim rule for centuries. It is the British policy of divide and rule that made Hindus raise their head. Now that the white regime is over, the traditional Hindu-Muslim equation must be returned.</span>
Mr Mirza is a drawing room Marxist; he did his doctorate at Humboldt University in what was East Germany. He has a wide range of interests and thinks up a variety of theses. One of them is that the Hindu per se is not comfortable at governing. He is unconsciously on the look out for someone to hand over the reins of power. Be it the Mughals, the Lodhis and the other sultanates earlier, be it the British, be it the Nehru-Gandhis. Even the Kshatriyas lack the passion to rule. Look what Mr VP Singh did and what Mr Arjun Singh is doing now. They are all reluctant princes.
Mr Mirza took me back to the age of the Mahrathas. They had a glorious opportunity to fill the vacuum created by the decline and break up of the Mughal empire after Aurangzeb. Their armies had gone across to most parts of the sub-continent. Instead of establishing a permanent rule, they preferred to visit and revisit their territories merely to collect chauth or one-fourth revenue. "Were'nt they reluctant rulers?" he exclaimed.
When I encouraged him to go on, Mr Mirza's mind flew to Beijing - the favourite of many a Marxist. See, he said, how China dealt with Tibet and what New Delhi is doing in Kashmir. Did you know how Mao Zedong brought back the seceded Xinjiang into China in 1951, he asked. He invited all the political leaders of the then independent country for a friendly conference between neighbours. He sent an aeroplane to bring the guests to Beijing. They were wined and dined for several days and sent back in the same plane which, however, crashed on the way.
Two of the Xinjiang leaders, who had excused themselves from the conference on account of ill health, elevated themselves to power and declared that their country's merger with the People's Republic of China.
In sum,<b> Mr Mirza contended that rulers must not only know real politik, but also have the stomach for ruthless action. The least they need to practice is an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, the old Jewish adage which was openly adopted by Islam and implicitly put to use by Christian rulers.</b>
What the Marxist friend implied was that without this dose of deterrence, no government can govern. <span style='font-size:14pt;line-height:100%'>For every citizen killer, the state government must claim at least test terrorist lives! </span>
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->