Clash of civilizations

**acharya** · (This post was last modified: 08-13-2003, 01:39 PM by acharya.)

I feel this is an important topic but we have to wait as the events are

unfolding and it is little too early. This topic can wait until IPKF deployment

is confirmed. Please read the Messrs. HH, Ramana and Anaath Das views. And the

questions posed at the end.

Ramana wrote:

A couple of years back I had thought Arhari was RAPE. Tim Hoytt pointed out that

just because he spouts RAPE thoughts he might not be so. On further gogling I

found that Arhari is from India but totally alienated. He is a scholar in Intl

Affairs and teaches at a lot of US DoD think tanks. What all this is to suggest

he is uber RAPE.

And as is being pointed out in bits and pieces by some of our long view members

is he is still pushing the old 'political center for Islam story of the last two

centuries. Eg see H^2 second post in the India and US thread page 5 or 6. KSA

formation secured the Islamic religious center. Would be very interested in

Arhari's antecedents. I am willing to speculate and say he is a descendent of

the governing elite of the Indian Muslims say Mughal era.

refs:

[url="http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=005681;p=5"]http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/ubb/ultimate...=1;t=005681;p=5[/url]

Hauma Hamiddha

Member

Member # 4896

posted 18 June 2003 12:35 AM

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

quote:

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

The US is in for the long haul for a fight against Islamic terrorism. And who do

we fight - Pak sponsored terrorists. So there is a convergence of interests.

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

I disagree. The above is an overly simple view of the picture. The US is not

really in an all out fight against Islamic terror. It wants to castrate the

Arabs who are danger to its colony Israel. At the same time it wants to pacify

the Moslems by creating an alternative representaitve for them "far away" from

Western interests. So though a violent clash between the Christian West and

Islam is very much in our interests, it is not really happening. Instead they

want strengthen TSP as the "far away" Islamic represtantive (especially given

the ease with which their generals GUBO). Further, they see breaking India as

means to gain access to China via the eastern fragments of India (hence the

Christian terrorism in the East) Now look at the following move: Getting TSP to

recognize Israel. I see this as the most dangerous step the US is negotiating

with respect to India. If this is achieved there is a finite possibility that

the Intra-Abrahamic feuds are curtailed and we could lose the foot-hold we had

against the Islamic world via Israel.

So when we help them we must make them help us too! I am sure that is what is

going on though not so obviously.

The war on Islamic violence is the single uniting factor between India and

Israel. If this neutralized then our military supplies could be in serious

trouble.

quote:

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

And then why should we oppose the US? The French are supplying Augustas to them,

the British are training their pilots. Their airforce has 150 (or so) Mirage -

3/5 compared to about 32 operational F-16s. They surely need French help for

maintaining the Mirages. And what about the Chinese?

There are a lot of benefits of being close to the US.

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

Of these China is a clear enemy. England and US are covertly hostile. France

sells tp anyone who buys: right from the days when the sold weapons to both

Moslems and Maharattas. I am not suggesting that we do no business with these

countries for our own interests. However, there is no chance to get close to

them when they are already in bed with Houri-seekers.

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

BTW, H^2 has said in one post what we have been saying in many disconnected

posts over the past two years. I would like Anaath Das to comment on this.

Anaath Das wrote:

Ramana,

H^2 is 100% on target.

Sadly, it can be confirmed that several of our friends introduced to us by PVN

are very eager about this. Their brethren ruling the roost further west are even

more so.

Both these groups have collective amnesia about how similar "victories" effected

through the Shah in 1960s-70s Iran backfired in a big way.

This is how Shunashepa must have felt when he was approached to appease Varuna.

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

My thoughts:

Each and every word of HH is worth the weight of gold. HH's insight from the

historical perspective indicates what lies ahead for us. This certainly warrants

a new topic something along the lines of Implications of the softening(as I see

there is no end) of clash of civilisations. As Ramana said HH summed up very

well what had been dicussed over the past two years. We may have a lot of

questions that we need to get the thorough understanding of it.

1) This recognition and reconciliation among governments of "Intra-Abrahamic"

faiths, will it reach their people? Will there be an end to Mahamad Attas?

2) Will they overcome the colliding two nation theories and "rescuing the souls"

ideologies?

3) What was the relationship among Judaism, Christianity and Islam prior to

World War I? This is the most important question to measure the future.

4) How long can USA buy and guarantee peace among USA, Israel, the Middle East,

Turkey, Afghanistan, Pakistan as there are serious economic issues here(for

USA)?

5) With the growing influence of Islam on African Americans, what would be the

impact of the clash when it ascends and reaches the height?

6) What are the implications on Indian Muslims? What role they will play?

7) What are the implications on Indian Christians? What role they will play?

8) Under this growing scenario, what would be the best way to tackle(for India)

when it comes to Abrahamic and the Chinese nations? (I sincerely feel, going by

the history of few millenia(discounting last 75 years), it is imperative India

and China realise and get a better understanding. Hopefully China will see the

light and resolve all outstanding issues peacefully. And they (China) stop

sponsoring TSP)

9) With the increasing population of Muslims in low and declining ones of

European nations, what impact will it have? Europeans(except Spain for few

centuries) haven't faced what Indians(of pre and post 1947) faced.

10) In conjunction with above(the item no. 9) what would that be on USA? The

difference being USA's huge population and 9/11(Cole, Embassy and other

attacks).

11) And many more.

Prerequsite reading/understanding would be the Islamist, anti-Pakistan is not

equal to anti-Islam, the Great Game topics to a great extent and events of post

world war II to a lesser extent.

Posted by Prabhakar Babu (Member # 1724) on 19 June 2003, 10:32 AM:

I don't think there will be a major Clash of Civilisation. Economy will be the

driving force for all future conflicts. Economy will be driven by resource

availability [including Oil, Water, human resources].

Russia have lot of Oil, but their population is going south. Even yesterday when

there was No-Confidence motion on PM of Russia, the point was Russia doesn't

have any big economy except Oil.

Europe doesnt have lot of oil and their population is going south. So they

become more dependent on Immigrants to keep their motor running. So they have

much softer view on world. They avoid clashes. They don't have big army.

Asia is mixed, they have Oil, they have population, but water?? big No. That is

where all the fights are going to be Iraq-Turkey, India-Pakistan, China-India,

Israel-neighbors.

USA have water, Oil to some extent, and population is comfortable. But to

maintain super-power status their week point will be Oil, so they show interest

in Mid-east. That is why we see so many Isolationist in USA because they think

they are self-content.

I left out Africa, and South America since i don't have that much data.

But to summarize, i think the clashes will not be based on Civilization, but on

Economy [Oil, Water and work force/population]

Posted by Raj Kumar (Member # 2360) on 19 June 2003, 11:04 AM:

All conflicts have been due to one of the following;

zan/zamiin/zeywar

woman/land/jewel

Posted by ramana (Member # 356) on 19 June 2003, 11:07 AM:

From Arun_Gupta:

Arun_Gupta

Member

Member # 3483

posted 19 June 2003 10:54 AM

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

A democratic secular Iraq is in India's interests, if only for the reason that

by occupying important Islamic space, it deflates the value of Pakistan.

Since someone brought up the analogy of a chess game, in a chess game, you

sometimes cannot calculate ahead enough, you just move your pawns and pieces on

general principles - occupying or opening up space, gaining tempo, etc.

Thus, if pro-deployment folks are able to provide a grand narrative without too

many specifics of how this specific move helps in the chess game, but simply on

general principles of chess, this is a valid argument.

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

Similarly a secular multiethnic setup in Afghanistan that values differences

will also help in bringing the fundoos to modern times and thus neagatively

impact the importance of TSP. I submit that there is a bigger aims which force

the West from allowing India into these countries in a way that can shape their

future and thought processes. From H^2 and parasuram's posts these are Indian

influenced areas from time immemorial.

I have question for all. Was the project to move the political center far away

from Europe and Western interests(Jerusalem) hatched in the 20th Century are

before that say mid ninteenth century. IOW when did the West take interest in

Arabia while it was under Turkish rule? And the timeline for the revivial of the

Indian Muslim elite.

Posted by Kaushal (Member # 138) on 19 June 2003, 11:20 AM:

I have question for all. Was the project to move the political center far away

from Europe and Western interests(Jerusalem) hatched in the 20th Century are

before that say mid ninteenth century. IOW when did the West take interest in

Arabia while it was under Turkish rule? And the timeline for the revivial of the

Indian Muslim elite.

1857 was the turning point. The last remnant of a Islamic Empire was decisively

smashed. The Brits exacted a terrible revenge of these remnants in Dilli,

culminating in the blinding of Bahadur Shah Zafar before they exiled him to

Rangoon.

Turkey officially capitulated as an empire after WW I, but the rot had set in

earlier and the Brits(and the French) were poaching in the Turkish empire long

before then.

It didnt take long for them to realize that their real opponent in India was the

Indic civilization, which was almost comatose but still had a pulse and started

stirring. We have to thank the Parsees for the initial phases of this revival

(Dadabhai Naoroji), but by 1870's the pendulum had swung back in favor of the

Indian Muslim and the appeasement of people like Sir Syed Ahmed Khan and the

Agha Khan had begun.

It would be a grave error to underestimate the draw of civilization and culture

in general and religion in particular on the events of today and in the future.

Just because Indian Hindus welcome diversity and pluralism, as they have always

done, it cannot be assumed that such is the case for the rest of the world.

Posted by ramana (Member # 356) on 19 June 2003, 11:52 AM:

Kaushal, Are we being limited by our Indic prism? I agree that was an important

year but reflect on situation in Europe. Turkey was the 'Sick man of Europe' and

very much a wild card. The Crimean War was just over. And the Brits were about

to launch the Great Game to deny access of warm water ports for the Russians.

The Arabs never acknowledged the Khalifah status of the Turkish Sultan otherwise

they would never have joined the Brits in WWI. In later half of 1800 we find

suddenly there are British explorers and Arab linguists. Where did these come

from? Lawrence of Arabia did not emerge from a vaccum.

I think these have a bearing on the new Islam project. Free up the religous

center from the Turks and create a politcial center far away from these borders.

The Indian Muslim elite seemed right choice for this project. But where it went

awry was those who concieved the project did not reckon with the fundamental

streak in the religion. When the Wahabis captured the Hejaz their doctrine got a

big boost and the discovery of oil in KSA gave them the sinews to spread their

bad dreams.

The current makeover seems to still retain the TSP for its original goals.

However one should remember that Arabs hate Israel for the Palestine question

while TSP hates them for being Jewish. So the project will not succeed.

I owe a lot to acharya for helping and clarifying the thought process on the

this matter. What amazes me is that H^2 has also come to similar conclusions

from his prespective.

Hats of to the Indian freedom movement for making the Brits leave India with the

project uncompleted.

Posted by acharya (Member # 289) on 19 June 2003, 11:58 AM:

By the beginning of the 20th century the entire Muslim world came under western

domination except Turkey, Iran, Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan. According to

Bernard Lewis there was no attraction to colonize the last two countries because

they were very poor territories but he did not mention the failed British

attempt to conquer to Afghanistan. Even Turkey and Iran came under indirect

control of the West.

With increase in muslim population in the west from 1972 to 1982 discourse in

the core state for Islamic civilization increased.

There was a need for geo-political Islamic block which can be given a

recognition in the world. Turkey was considered but it has problems. Quote from

a reviewer: âWithout a core state the Muslims can never restore their dignity in

the world and be equal partners with other civilizations. It is only a core

Muslim state that could address the paradox of geopolitics in the interest of

international peace and security.â And the only country that fits that status is

Turkey because as observed by Huntington it has history, population, middle

level economic development, national coherence, military tradition and

competence to be the core state of Islam. So long as Turkey continues to define

itself as a secular state leadership of Islam is denied it.

Pakistan is one candidate which has been eager for such a role of political

center and are willing to do anything to get a political structure and center

which can project such a world islamic political center with influence. Since

they are not the spiritual center of Islam they need the support of Kingdom of

Saudi Arabia.

Posted by Kaushal (Member # 138) on 19 June 2003, 12:18 PM:

While we in india are naturally Indocentric, Bernard lewis is hampered by

ignorance of events in the heartland of Asia. Bernard Lewis is very

Semitic-centric and makes the assumption that what happens in the region around

Jerusalem is key and that Islam is fundamentally a religion of semitic speaking

people.

The fact of the matter is that the center of gravity of Islam has shifted

towards the Indian subcontinent (450 million Muslims) and Indonesia (200

million) and the majority of muslims today no longer speak a semitic

language.This is a development that is post nineteenth century. These 2 areas

comprise half of islam and the CG of Islam is no longer KSA and the Arabs, but

has shifted inexorably towards Iran and further east, and i wouldnt be surprised

if the geographical CG of islam is somewhere near Afghanistan or even as far

east as India.

Posted by acharya (Member # 289) on 19 June 2003, 12:20 PM:

INteraction of the west with Islamic civilization

Only recent history is considered since the rise of the west.

1453 Ottoman Turks capture Constantinople and bring the Byzantine Empire to an

end.

1492 Christians capture Granada, capital of last of the Muslim states in Spain.

1517 Ottoman Turks conquer Syria and Egypt and end Mamluk Sultanate.

1520-66 Reign of Sultan Suleiman "the Magnificent"; Ottoman rule extended along

the coast of North Africa; by the end of the 16th century, the Ottoman Empire

included present-day Romania, Bulgaria, Greece, Cyprus, Albania, Yugoslavia and

parts of Hungary and the Ukraine.

1639 Ottomans take Iraq (from Persia).

First arabic dept estd. in Oxford and Cambridge

1683 - Siege of Vienna - Turks are turned back and henceforth the Ottoman threat

to Europe ebbs.

1798 Napoleon Bonaparte launches an Egyptian expedition and brings Egypt under

French rule.

1805 The Ottomans appoint an Albanian officer, Mohammed Ali, as viceroy or pasha

of Egypt; he finally breaks the power of the Mamluks.

1820 Britain signs treaty with Gulf shaikhs to protect its shipping.

1830 France begins the conquest of Algeria.

1834 British establish steamship service to India via Suez. (This is why

annexing Aden soon after was vital)

1839 The British take the port of Aden.

1869 Suez Canal opened (A joint Egyptian/French concern)

1882 British captured Suez Canal and assumed sole control.

1912 Morocco becomes a French protectorate; Arab Nationalism and opposition to

Ottoman rule begin to develop.

1914 Ottoman Empire enters World War One as an ally of Germany.

1916 Arab revolt against the Ottomans in Hijaz; Sherif Hussein of Mecca had

agreed to enter World War One on the side of the Allies, in return for British

promises of independence of what is now Syria, Palestine/Israel, Jordan, Iraq

and the Arabian Peninsula; Britain signs a secret pact (the Sykes-Picot

Agreement) with France dividing the Arab regions of the Ottoman Empire between

them.

1917 The British oust the Ottomans from Jerusalem and Baghdad; in the Balfour

Declaration, Britain declares its support for the establishment of a 'national

home for the Jewish people' in Palestine.

1918 End of Ottoman rule in Arab lands.

1920 The League of Nations awards mandates for Syria and Lebanon to France and

for Palestine, Transjordan and Iraq to Britain.

1926 Having conquered Hijaz, Ibn Sa'ud proclaims himself its king.

1932 Iraq becomes independent; Ibn Sa'ud proclaims kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

1934 Independence of North Yemen recognised.

1936 Anglo-Egyptian Treaty ends British occupation except in Suez Canal zone.

1946 Syria becomes an independent republic; Britain recognises the independence

of Transjordan.

1948 End of British mandate in Palestine; Israel is established; first

Arab-Israeli war. 750,000 Palestinians become refugees

1951 Libya becomes an independent kingdom.

1952 Military coup in Cairo; King Farouk abdicates; King Hussein takes over in

Jordan.

1953 Egypt becomes a republic.

1958 Formation of United Arab Republic by Egypt and Syria; civil war in Lebanon;

Iraq proclaimed a republic following revolution and shortly after leaves Baghdad

Pact.

1961 Kuwait becomes independent; Syria secedes from the United Arab Republic.

1971 Britain leaves the Gulf. United Arab Emirates (UAE), Qatar and Bahrain

become independent.

1973 Arab-Israeli war of Ramadan/Yom Kippur.

1974 Arab summit recognises PLO as the sole legitimate representative of the

Palestinian people

1970s - Ascendency of Kingdom of Saudi Arabia

cron

Posted by Kaushal (Member # 138) on 19 June 2003, 12:38 PM:

The first series of interactions with the west came to an end with the Battle at

Poitiers in France in 732 CE between Charles Martel and the Ummayad Arabs, after

which there was an Arab presence in Spain for 700 years - an influence that can

be seen even today in the distinctiveness of Spanish culture from the rest of

Europe.

The battle of Poitiers is contemporaneous with the defeat of Raja Daher in Sindh

by M bin Qasim. Of course in many parts of Europe(e.g.France) the percentage of

Muslims today is no different than in India.

Posted by Arun_Gupta (Member # 3483) on 19 June 2003, 12:40 PM:

acharya,

To the list above, I'd add 1683 - Siege of Vienna - Turks are turned back and

henceforth the Ottoman threat to Europe ebbs.

Posted by Arun_Gupta (Member # 3483) on 19 June 2003, 12:52 PM:

Poitiers marks the end of the Arab advance into Western Europe.

The failed seige of Constantinople in 678 marks the end of the Arab advance into

Eastern Europe.

Posted by Sriram Kaushik (Member # 4194) on 19 June 2003, 12:59 PM:

Excellent Sirs. Learning a lot.

The words that stood out are "military supplies could be in serious trouble" and

when retraced how HH arrived to a conclusion, it made a lot of sense.

The primary motivation of this topic: that "supplies" should be reliable(Israel

proved in Kargil), recent in technology (apart from innovating and upgrading

ourselves) and how this softening of the clash among Abrahamic faiths have

implications on the security of India(and Indic civilisation).

For this we have to know the past(how they interacted among themselves and with

others), understand what is happening in the present(Iraq situation,

Israel-Palestinian roadmap, Islamic recognition of the state of Israel, Islamic

demographic changes in Europe and USA and its implications, the resultant (right

wing) Christians' emergence in the Europe and USA, both of them influencing

governmental policies towards India and its security etc) and how to handle this

situation of Abrahamic and Chinese civilisations, overtly or covertly, colluding

to undermine India.

I'll also think on the questions raised as I learn and please feel free to

add(questions).

Prabhakar, I'll give my thoughts by tommorrow or so. I'm with you partially on

this.

Posted by Kaushal (Member # 138) on 19 June 2003, 01:04 PM:

The Golden age of the arab khalifs comes to an end with the sack of Baghdad by

the Mongol Hulagu , which coincides with the Islamic conquest of India by the

Central Asian(afghanized) Turks. The Mongols also made several forays into India

at the same time but were eventually repulsed by the Khaljis. While Timur prides

himself on his Mongol heritage the fact of the matter is that he was a Turk as

were his Timurid descendants the Moghals. The first 3 Moghals spoke a Turkish

dialect (Chagatai).

The reign of Suleiman the magnificent in Istanbul is contemporaneous with the

beginning of the timurids in india.

Posted by alan desouza (Member # 5008) on 19 June 2003, 02:06 PM:

quote:

The fact of the matter is that the center of gravity of Islam has shifted

towards the Indian subcontinent (450 million Muslims) and Indonesia (200

million) and the majority of muslims today no longer speak a semitic language.

I disagree with this. Demographically and or geographically this may be

accurate, but the arab world [iran is a wild card here] dominates islamist

thinking. islamists whether in lahore, dacca,acheh or bali draw inspiration from

arab islamists like ayub etc, while arab islamists afaik are not influenced by

south asian or se asian islamists.

Posted by acharya (Member # 289) on 19 June 2003, 02:19 PM:

I agree with Alan, The CG of the Islamic world is not in the numbers but in the

mind. The arab population IS the center of gravity but that precisely is the

cause of instability. The seeds of the intra-civilization conflict is built in.

Hence you have some ashrafs in TSP being unhappy with the KSA regime and want to

take the center stage.

Posted by ramana (Member # 356) on 19 June 2003, 05:44 PM:

Pioneer Op-Ed : Militant Islam un-Said

Militant Islam un-Said

Priyadarsi Dutta

Edward W Said's debunking of Samuel Huntington's clash of civilisations theory

('The Clash of Ignorance'; The Pioneer, June 9, 2003) conceals a bitter irony.

Israel-baiter Said is no different from our Hindu pseudo-secularists and

proxy-Islamists who preach "secularism" safe in India defended by a Hindu-Sikh

army. But they dare not undertake that exercise in Pakistan for even though

"secularism" is dear, life is certainly dearer. Said, who claims to have been

displaced by Israeli "aggression" of 1948, is an Arab Christian.

Given that he is a passionate campaigner for the Palestinian cause, it is ironic

that Said's own Christian community is being squeezed out of West Asia by

Muslims. Bethlehem is today two-third Muslim majority. In Jerusalem, Christians

had edge over Muslims in 1920, but today they have been pummeled to a meagre two

per cent. Christians formed 55 per cent of Lebanon in 1920. In 1970s they felt

the ground beneath their feet slipping away against the rising population of

Lebanese Muslims and the influx of Palestinian refugees. The only way they felt

the disaster could be avoided was to carve out a lesser Lebanon for Christians

in East Beirut, the Northern part of Mount Lebanon, and the coastal area north

of Beirut. This was the crux of the Lebanese Civil War (1975-1990) in which

Christians suffered discomfiture. In post-war Lebanon, Christians have not only

lost their influence in every field but their population share has plummeted to

25 per cent.

Hailing from an affluent background and based in America, Said could be an

Israel-baiter. But was it indiscreet that Lebanese Christians had constantly

sought good relations with Israel. In 1940s, Archbishop of Beirut Ignatius

Mubarak publicly voiced his sympathy for Zionism. In 1976, fiercest Christian

militia Guardians of Cedar argued publicly that the Christians should ask Israel

to save what was left of Lebanon. If Israel were successful in its attempt of

creating a Christian-dominated Lebanon, Christianity's last bastion in West Asia

could have been saved.

Edward Said was aware that the title of Samuel Huntington's essay later expanded

into a book. The Clash of Civilizations was derived from an expression of

veteran exponent of Islamic history Bernard Lewis (1990). But what Said seems to

fudge or not know is the first person to acquaint America with nature of radical

Islam was Daniel Pipes, whose book, In the Path of God - Islam and Political

Power (1983), was written on the backdrop of Islamic Revolution in Iran and the

US embassy staff hostage crisis in Tehran. That was the first time the Americans

felt targeted by a militant interpretation of Islam.

A perusal of the Mediterranean history would demonstrate that the clash of

civilisations is not new and still less somebody's individual invention. It

predates the Crusades but is epitomised by the fall of Byzantine capital

Constantinople and its metamorphosis into Turkish Istanbul 550 years ago in

1453. Even pre-Christian civilisations like Egyptian, Babylonian, Assyrian,

Jewish, Phoenician (and Punic), Greek and Roman etc., had vigorously struggled

and interacted with each other. But often harmony surpassed struggle like amity

between Phoenicians and Jews. Emergence and spread of Christianity had a

positive Hellenic dimension to these civilisations. But Islam brought it

definite power struggle against pre-Islamic civilisations and Christianity. A

Greek Alexander was welcomed in Egypt in 331 BC since he brought them liberation

from inclement Persian rule and paid obeisance to Egyptian religion. But in

1798, Napoleon, though he liberated Egyptians from rule of Mamluk Turks, was

looked upon as a Christian usurper in Muslim territory though he paid homage to

Islam. Between Alexander and Napoleon two proselytising religions viz

Christianity and Islam has emerged and clashed with each other around the

Mediterranean.

Said confuses readers with his silly example that Muslims don't abjure western

dress and hence not anti-Western. Unlike Indian Muslims of the early 20th

century, today's radical Islamists are highly tech-savvy. Just see how many

websites are there in support of the Shariat law. Osama bin Laden had a British

degree in Mechanical Engineering and was amongst the first to use Global

Satellite Telephony; Omar Sheikh attended the London School of Economics;

Mohammed Atta, who rammed the airplane in the WTC on 9/11; studied in Hamburg.

Hamas Chief Abed-el Aziz Rantissi is a Pediatrician who speaks impeccable

English.

Radical Islamists are not only using Western inventions but also Western systems

like democracy and freedom of expression paradoxically to create a world without

democracy or free speech.

Posted by Kaushal (Member # 138) on 19 June 2003, 05:49 PM:

But the numbers will eventually play a role. In 30 years the number of muslims

in the Indian subcontinent will be at least 600 million and the population of

Indonesian muslims will be over 300 million. That makes 900 million , not

counting Iran which would be another 100 million. This is not counting the

central asian and Chinese muslims. This makes well over 50% of the total,maybe

even more than 60%. The demographic CG of this population will be well east of

Iran.

How will islam handle this diversity is the question. The Arabs will be a

definite minority within Islam. Most Muslims who do not understand Arabic will

not understand the Quran and will have to read it in translation, which is

specifically forbidden.

Posted by Rajesh (Member # 5247) on 19 June 2003, 06:17 PM:

quote:

How will islam handle this diversity is the question. The Arabs will be a

definite minority within Islam. Most Muslims who do not understand Arabic will

not understand the Quran and will have to read it in translation, which is

specifically forbidden.

For an idea look at christianity, its pluralism and tolerance..

Posted by Nilesh (Member # 5362) on 19 June 2003, 07:06 PM:

I'd add the following to the timeline:

1834 British establish steamship service to India via Suez. (This is why

annexing Aden soon after was vital)

1869 Suez Canal opened (A joint Egyptian/French concern)

1882 British captured Suez Canal and assumed sole control.

Posted by alan desouza (Member # 5008) on 19 June 2003, 07:09 PM:

Arabs are already a minority. 300 m out of a total of 1.2 B(?).

There is an imperial idea at the heart of islamism, based on ethnecity and race.

The struggle of the islamists can be seen as a conflict between imperialists and

nationalists.

the imperialists want the caliphate back as it was in the 9th century, a purely

arab empire.

islamist leaders in south east asian countries, always claim blood ties with

arabic ancestors.

suharwardy , the bengal muslim leader, who played perhaps as important a part in

partition as jinnah, claimed arab ancestory!

Here is a quote from the paki gov web site

quote:

A new language URDU, derived mainly from Arabic and Persian vocabulary and

adapting indigenous words and idioms, came into existence.

Is this not a farcical example of the imperial / colonial mindset? Is'nt urdu

really hindustani with words and idioms borrowed from perisan and arabic ?

Unless this imperial idea is defeated, larger number of non-arab muslims may not

be significant.

Posted by Hauma Hamiddha (Member # 4896) on 19 June 2003, 07:28 PM:

quote:

While Timur prides himself on his Mongol heritage the fact of the matter is

that he was a Turk as were his Timurid descendants the Moghals. The first 3

Moghals spoke a Turkish dialect (Chagatai).

Unfortunately the old History thread is dead: I had posted the details of

Timur's antecedents there. He was a Mongol, contrary to many popular assertions,

including by the great Rene Grousset. However, Beatrice Forbes-Manz has

convincingly established that he was a Turkified Mongol, of the Barlas clan. He

descends from the Mongol general of Chingiz Kha'Khan named Qara'char Barlas.

Barlas clansmen constituted 50 % of the official cadre of the Timurid empires.

Many modern TSPian elites are of the Barlas family!

Posted by shiv (Member # 367) on 19 June 2003, 08:00 PM:

May I add some thoughts here not directly in line with what has been said so far

- but an impression that occured to me based on an email I received from an

Italian (American).

I once wrote a rather anguished article for an alumni e-newsletter entitled "Is

the American civilization a disguided barbarian civilization?". My thought were

based on the horrifying scenes of one of those school student massacres in the

US and cliched, less than logical responses of the US gun lobby.

The email I received was interesting and it is possible that this person was

looking at the American civilization from a Southern European, "Roman Empire"

viewpoint. Note that one of the meanings of "barbarian" is as follows:

quote:

Barbarian

a Greek word used in the New Testament (Rom. 1:14) to denote one

of another nation. In Col. 3:11, the word more definitely

designates those nations of the Roman empire that did not speak

Greek.

The message said that the Americans follow a modern version of an ancient

Northern European style of life. In pre-history and early Europe these people

worshipped personal power and wealth and people who becamse powerful if

necessary by looting and winning in personal combat. These winners took all and

were worshipped, as was wealth. Americans. according to this person still do

exactly that - but the worship of winners in combat has been replaced by worship

of winners in sport.

I am not sure how far this thesis is correct - but it seems to me to have some

elements that ring true. If that is the case there is a disctict difference

between this "winner takes-all" culture and any other culture of mutual

dependence and cooperation. But cultures of mutual cooperation and coexistence

to my knowledge have existed only in the "most primitive" forest people/tribal

type cultures that one hears of. I don't really know if the Indic civilization

specifically abhors "shameless" pursuit of gain and specifically extols the need

for cooperation without exclusive competition. But compared to the so-called

"Northern European" model, it certainly looks like that.

The two paradigms are bound to come into conflict and I wonder if the entire

"colonial era" was just that.

Soory for the ramble - I hope I have not been too obscure.

Posted by Hauma Hamiddha (Member # 4896) on 19 June 2003, 08:02 PM:

Interesting thread, but just one thought for now:

When Ambhi (Omphis in Greek) is said to have gone out to meet Alexander he is

said to have stated the following: "People wage war for food, water, wealth, but

we have all of those in plenty for all of us. If you want some you may have some

of it too." Alexander is said to have stated in return: I wage war for attaining

Kleos (sanskrit: shravas) through the strength of my arms".

While the Ambhi-Alexander meeting was not exactly a civilizational conflict, it

illustrates something about them. The civilizational wars can be very asymmetric

in the way in which they are perceived by the concerned parties. This in part

leads to the confusion about them. Thus, if take two early examples of

civilizational conflict: when Christianity was denuding Greek and Roman

religions, and later native European religions, the victims did not realize the

extant to which they were under attack. Essentially, they thought through it

like Ambhi reasoning it out with Alexander. We see the same general trend amidst

our compatriots in the civilizational context we are currently engaged in. It

can never be over-emphasized as to how similar native Greek, Roman and European

traditions were to the Indic tradition. So their fall in one of the earliest

civilizational conflicts is lesson to be carefully studied.

Next when we see the civilizational conflict between India and China, India

clearly triumphed. The Chinese reacted to it merely with brutum fulmen, not

having the devices of Abrahamic civilizations in conflict. Thus, they could

never succeed in erasing the signs of Indian civilizational conquest completely

(The other end of the spectrum where the attacked civilization knows fully well

that it is under attack but does not figure out a correct response). Finally,

internalization of Marxism (a modern cousin of Islam) gave them a means of

rolling back the Indian civilizational effects.

Posted by AnilD (Member # 5342) on 19 June 2003, 08:41 PM:

Kaushal asked " How will islam handle this diversity is the question?"

I am not sure if you ask this question rhetorically, glibly, tongue in cheek -

or in a rare "tired" moment.

The answer is well known to you and you have expounded on it eloquently

countless times.

Posted by parsuram (Member # 4343) on 19 June 2003, 09:36 PM:

I have always had a problem with the concept of Islam as a civilization, so I

guess I have a problem with the premise of this thread. It is clear to me that

Islam is an ideology, even a theology, but a civilization? That is stretching

it. Western civilization, for instance, has some basic tenets (Greek

rationalism, eg). The foundations are broad enough to tolerate a wide variety of

functioning societies within it. Ditto Hindu/buddhist civilization. So, what is

this Islamic civilisation? What is its track record? - for instance by

fundamental yardsticks for civilizations such as contribution to individual and

collective human development under its sway from its inception. Are the Beduin

Arabs that much further along in human development or positive evolution since

the advent of Mohammad and Islam? No. So what is this Islamic "civilization" all

about? I will offer that it is really an exclusive ideology that promotes for

its members an opportunistic and parasitic growth based on feeding off of real

civilized societies. Elsewhere on these forums I likened them to an

approximation of a locust swarm type societies. I still believe that Islamic

societies, from their inception, have prospered only by exploiting the human and

natural resources of other civilizations and of geography and geology etc. I

fail to see any outstanding original contribution from over a thousand years of

Islamic dominance of human societies. They plundered the genius of civilizations

that they conquored in war, and when those assets were used up, they folded. so

what is this "clash of civilizations" all about. It is about civilizations

protecting themselves from this ideology of conquest and exploitation. No matter

the diversity of ethnic background etc., islamic ideology is seductive in that

it promisses some thing for very little - or at least in return for excersising

base human instincts. Not to put too fine a point on it, Islam promotes anarchy

for the purpose of loot and plunder. Therefore 911. Islamic societies are so far

behind in the matter of human development that their only means to progress now

is at the expense of other societies that have put in the hard work to succeed

to varying degrees, and are continue to do so.

Posted by acharya (Member # 289) on 19 June 2003, 09:46 PM:

Parasuram, this is for you

[url="http://www.kanoonline.com/cgi-bin/articles/template.php/iak017.txt"]http://www.kanoonline.com/cgi-bin/articles....php/iak017.txt[/url]

Posted by shiv (Member # 367) on 19 June 2003, 10:03 PM:

quote:

Originally posted by Kaushal:

The fact of the matter is that the center of gravity of Islam has shifted

towards the Indian subcontinent (450 million Muslims) and Indonesia (200

million) and the majority of muslims today no longer speak a semitic language.

I am greatly colored once again by a gripping book that I am still reading.

(Arab Mind, Rafael Patai)

Arabs were a small people lost in the wilderness until the coming of Islam.

After the prophet Mohammed Arabs went on a never before, never after" expansion

spree that took the ARABIC language, Arab culture and Islam right across

Northern Africa and West Asia. The area of its influence is HUGE and any

indigenous languages were replaced by Arabic. But Islam continued to spread

wider and Arabic did not get that far. Arabic did not replace indigenous

languages in Turkey, Persia and India. But Islam sucessfully supplanted existing

indigenous religions in Turkey and Persia. That came to a halt in India and that

is where we are now.

The structure of Islam as far as I can see is akin to that of a ratchet, a one

way street when it comes to religious belief. But as a government it is an utter

failure because it is so Arabic. It represnts a very small segment of humanity

and has not yet developed mechanisms to cope with cultural diversity other than

by total elimination and subjugation.

In short, any civilization that comes up against the hybrid Arab/Islam

civilization faces ONLY what the whole thing started with, that is conquest with

a view to eventual subjugation and creating a whole lot of people who believe in

submission to the god. Even in this there is an Arab-Islamic caste system

despite vehement denials. Arabs are at the top of the heap, Non arab muslim

below that and non Arab non muslims at the bottom. As far as I can tell Islam -

with one Arabic book to work from has NO clear mechanism to cope with cultural

diversity.

If the Arab/Islamic culture is described as one civilization, we have many

others too, incluing the Indic ones and the "Northern European" one I referred

to earlier.

Posted by parsuram (Member # 4343) on 19 June 2003, 11:18 PM:

acharya

Thanks. Will go through it tonite.

Posted by manju (Member # 5128) on 19 June 2003, 11:54 PM:

Raj Kumar

Member

Member # 2360

posted 19 June 2003 11:04 AM

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

All conflicts have been due to one of the following;

zan/zamiin/zeywar

woman/land/jewel

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

In Kannada

HeNNu MaNNU Honnu

(means the same as above)

Posted by ramana (Member # 356) on 20 June 2003, 12:10 AM:

acharya, could you post the text of the link. Am not able to get access.

Parsuram, Please read History of Civilizations by Fernand Braudel. (Penguin

Books) I know its there in any good uty book store. Braudel describes how Islam

built on the civilizations that it swept under. He gives very good examples.

Posted by acharya (Member # 289) on 20 June 2003, 12:15 AM:

What Went Wrong with the Muslims? A Review of: Bernard Lewis 2002. What Went

Wrong? The Clash Between Islam and Modernity in the Middle East Weidenfeld &

Nicholson London

by

Ibrahim Ado-Kurawa B. Sc (HONS) M. Sc Zoology (Applied Entomology)

Director Research, Institute for Contemporary Research (ICR) Kano and General

Editor Weekly Pyramid The Magazine

Kano, Nigeria

(majekarofi@yahoo.com )

[url="http://www.kanoonline.com/cgi-bin/articles/template.php/iak017.txt"]http://www.kanoonline.com/cgi-bin/articles....php/iak017.txt[/url]

[url="http://www.kanoonline.com/ibrahimado/"]http://www.kanoonline.com/ibrahimado/[/url]

This book by a leading Western scholar of Islam is indeed very important because

of its theme and the current trend in world politics. And it should be read

along with the more detailed Samuel Huntington s Clash of Civilizations and the

Remaking of World Order, another scholar whose paradigm of clash of civilization

is accepted by Western policy makers. The main argument or thesis of Lewis is

that Muslims are the source of their predicaments in the world today but they

tend to blame others. His recipe is westernization. According to him Muslims

must assimilate western culture for them to able to catch up with the West and

restore their dignity in the world. His thesis in this sense is opposite of

Huntington s observation that regards such an ideology as Kemelism, a failed

ideology which makes a country or nation torn. Kemalist response has always been

unsuccessful because it infects the country with a cultural schizophrenia, which

is difficult to expunge. Japan and China were earlier forced into momentary

infatuation with this ideology but they later discarded it and opted for

reformism[1]. Huntington s prescriptions for world peace are the recognition of

cultural differences and refrain from the imposition of one universal culture.

But as an intellectual and a patriot he wants the pre-eminence of the western

world and the maintenance of its dominant position in the world.

By the beginning of the 20th century the entire Muslim world came under western

domination except Turkey, Iran, Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan. According to Lewis

there was no attraction to colonize the last two countries because they were

very poor territories but he did not mention the failed British attempt to

conquer to Afghanistan[2]. Even Turkey and Iran came under indirect control of

the West. In fact U.S. involvement in Iran was one of the most bizarre forms of

imperialism in history[3]. To Lewis colonial domination was too brief to account

for all the problems of the Muslims. Therefore the Muslims should find another

excuse for their backwardness.

Lewis is also not concerned with the fact that most of the dictators and tyrants

in the Middle East were either sponsored or came to be close associates of the

West as confirmed by other scholars and intelligence Chiefs who see such linkage

as a necessity of defending Western interests[4]. That is why the Algerian

election that was aborted because the Islamic party was about to win was not

important enough to deserve the attention of Lewis. The double standards of the

West in its pretension of promoting democracy and human rights are also not

important enough to deserve his attention. But Huntington in a recent interview

with The Observer[5] confirmed that the west cannot afford to promote human

rights in Saudi Arabia in fact he acknowledged that when he was a member of the

National Security Council they never contemplated promoting human rights in that

country.

Western involvement in countries of the Middle East and other Muslim countries

did not receive the attention of Lewis because he could easily attempt to

dismiss such involvement as conspiracy theories. But the scholarly community

cannot afford such a dismissal. The role of Ambassador Glaspie in instigating

Sadam to invade Kuwait was well presented by a Saudi Prince and commander during

the gulf war[6]. When Sadam entered the trap and invaded Kuwait because he

thought the U.S. was indifferent to such a move President George Bush (Snr)

turned the table and declared that U.S. has special interest in the security of

the region.

According to Lewis, Muslims or Middle Easterners cannot attribute their

predicament to the Jewish state of Israel. After all how many Jews are there in

the world. He discounted the influence of the Jews in the U.S. as a myth or an

exaggeration. But he was quick to demonstrate how few Jews were able to defeat

the Arabs, who have even outgunned the Jews. Scholars do not need the conspiracy

theory contained in the protocols of the learned elders of Zion to demonstrate

Jewish influence in the West. It is nothing but intellectual bullying to say

that Israel can ever survive with out the support of the U.S. or that the Jews

were super human and the Arabs dullards hence their defeat at the hands of half

a million Jews as Lewis attempted to show. Who is the largest recipient of U.S.

foreign aid? In 1986 the per capita aid of US to Israel was $8000[7], which was

more than the per capita of most Arab countries. Currently the U.S. gives $13

million per day of U.S taxpayers money[8] to Israel to subsidize its occupation

of Palestine and brutality against the Palestinians. This is contained in a

letter Rand Carter wrote to the U.S. President in which he stated the number of

UN resolutions violated by Israel[9]. It is not only Muslims who noticed the

influence of the Jews in the U.S. In fact non-Muslims have documented the

evidences beyond reasonable doubt[10].

It is unfortunate that Lewis downplayed the influence of pro-Israel lobby, which

is so powerful even in Europe. For example France and Belgium have been

described as anti-Semitic because of their criticism of Sharon s policies.

Belgium attempted to try him because of the war crimes he committed in Sabra and

Chatila[11]. The powerful pro-Israeli lobby has succeeded in making all

objective critics of Israel anti-Semites including those who call for justice

for the innocent Palestinians. This is as if the Palestinians are not

Semites[12]. To silence critics of Israeli injustice Europe s greatest taboo is

invoked: criticize Israel and you are anti-Semite just as surely as if you were

throwing paint at a synagogue in Paris [13].

Lewis never bothered about Jansen s suggestion that most western scholars are

not objective while treating the conflict between Muslims and the state of

Israel. He might have discarded Jansen s observations because as an authority he

wants to tell the Muslims look these are your problems and here are the solution

take them or leave them. But Jansen s observations can not be discarded easily,

this was what he wrote:

For example, the British academic Dr. Bernand Lewis is a prolific writer on

modern Middle Eastern topics. His first books on the Arabs appeared after the

establishment of Israel. He is a passionate defender of that country, to the

extent that he has testified in its defence to committees of the United States

Congress. Should not this political stance affect our opinion of his scholarly

objectivity when he writes of countries that are sown enemies of Israel (and

with the exception of Egypt every single Muslim state is such)?[14]

Muslims represented by the Ottoman Empire thought that the secret of western

success was military power therefore they embarked on military reforms but this

did not reverse their retreat and the subsequent destruction of their empire.

Muslims assimilated western military innovation in both hardware and discipline

even Khomeini s Iran accepted the drill and uniform based on Western style. Yet

Muslim defeat has remained irreversible. Napoleon was the first to expose Muslim

weakness when he landed in Egypt with a small expeditionary force and took over

the pearl of the Muslim world. That trend has continued to this day with the

widely celebrated defeat of the Taliban. Even if Muslims adopt western military

hardware and strategy they cannot go anywhere so Lewis argues that the answers

must be found elsewhere.

In chapter two Lewis demonstrated Muslims failure to resolve their problems

because of wrong assumption that the solution is acquisition of wealth and

power. He presented catalogue of Muslims distress. Again western imperialism was

brushed aside. But Western imperialism is the greatest disaster in human memory

the Africans know better than anyone. It has been proved reasonable doubt that

the crisis in central Africa was caused by western companies so this cancer is

not restricted to the Middle East[15]. The U.S. Congress turned deaf ear to the

evidences given to it by an American journalists on the atrocities of the

companies and U.S. government agencies[16].

Another example of imperialism currently in progress and similar to the Middle

East is Western involvement in Afghanistan an area that is the easiest outlet

for the oil rich Muslim central Asia. This is because Afghanistan is

indispensable to regional control and transport of oil in central Asia as Egypt

was in Middle East [17]. Other routes will depend on Russia and China the rivals

of the West in that region. The U.S. supported the Mujahidun and they were even

honored by President Regan as the moral equivalents of America s founding

fathers[18]. Zbignew Brzenski[19] the architect of the initial policy of U.S. in

that region stated clearly how the U.S. administration planned and executed its

strategy of using the Muslims to get at the Soviets. Brzenski said The day the

Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote to President Carter: We now have

the opportunity of giving the USSR its Vietnam War. Indeed, for almost 10 years,

Moscow had to carry on a war unsupportable by the government, a conflict that

brought about the demoralization and finally the breakup of the Soviet Empire .

He was asked whether he does not regret fueling Islamic fundamentalism and the

emergence of Taliban he quickly dispelled that and asked: What is more important

to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire?

Some stirred-up Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the

cold War? [20]

In chapter three Lewis attempted to show the cultural and social barriers that

inhibited Muslim development to the stage of westernization. As usual the

dominant theme is the emancipation of women an area in which the Muslims could

easily be castigated. But the contradiction is that despots and tyrants have

always advanced the women s rights in Muslim countries for example Attaturk,

Sadam, Qadafi and the rulers of Yemen. He observed that: Among the Arab

countries legal emancipation of women went farthest in Iraq and in the former

South Yemen, both ruled by notoriously repressive regimes . As expected Lewis

never mentioned the continuous Muslim women s love for Islamic practices such as

the veil. The secularists in Turkey have oppressed Muslim women who chose the

veil voluntarily as the case in France and other western societies. Is that

democracy or freedom? Again this does not deserve the attention of Lewis, like

the Turkish secularist his position is that the Muslim women do not know the

problem. Therefore they need to be guided. Also he did not resolve the

contradiction that the despots are the promoters of women s rights in the Muslim

world.

Chapter five on secularism and the civil society is perhaps the most persuasive

attempt. This is the core of the book. It acknowledged that secularism is a

solution to Christian problem but in a brilliant style it tried to show that the

Muslims over time have contacted the Christian disease therefore they need the

cure. The most interesting case is Shiite Islam, which in recent years

established clerical rule therefore he observed that they might be triggering a

reformation. Perhaps if he had studied Soroush the man hailed as Martin Luther

of Islam in the West he would have concluded that secularism would triumph in

fact Soroush has already been defeated by it[21]. But this chapter like all the

other chapters mentioned above cannot withstand analytical rigor. Only chapters

four and six can escape such a scrutiny because there may be little or no

disagreement with the Muslim positions.

According to Lewis all the above observations he made cannot be the reasons for

Muslims failure in the modern world but it is caused by refusal to Westernize,

after all the Japanese westernized and were followed by the Koreans who have all

overtaken the Muslims. Some scholars will argue that Japanese modernized but did

not westernize their culture. Lewis documented the elements of Westernization

assimilated by the Japanese, which the Muslims refused to assimilate. His theory

is based on the fact that in every era of human history, modernity, or some

equivalent term has meant the ways, norms, and standards of the dominant and

expanding civilization .the dominant civilization is Western, and Western

standards therefore define modernity (p. 150). Few non-Western scholars will

agree Lee Kaun of Singapore and other advocates of Asian values will be the

first to object. The argument will continue. Why were Attaturk and his

successors failures despite their total submission to the West in everything

while the Confucian Asians who were selective in submission were successful?

Lewis never treated these questions.

The most important shortcoming of the book is that it has shown beyond

reasonable doubt that the Turks followed all the steps of westernization but it

deliberately refused to acknowledge that Kemelism is a failure. Attaturk was an

overzealous secularist and his military successors have remained secularist

fundamentalists because they insist that only their claim of universalism is

valid and all others must conform to their standards [22]. Kemelists have

refused to allow an unfettered democracy by denying some parties the right to

participate in the political process. Why is it that despite its westernization

as prescribed by Lewis, Turkey has remained a failure? The Simple is answer is

that his thesis is flawed. Why? This is because he deliberately ignored or down

played some facts in his analysis. One of the reasons for this is that Lewis is

aware of his position in the academic world and the difficulty many Muslims will

face in debunking his feeble thesis especially in the aftermath of September 11,

which made the book a best seller and demonized all Muslims who disagree with

Western conservative scholarship as terrorists.

Lewis downplayed the reasons for the rise of the West. This was deliberate

because of his thesis. He rhetorically asked why were the voyages of the

discoveries from Christian Europe or precisely Iberia and not the Atlantic coast

of the Muslim world. The Harvard scholar, Sachs excellently illustrated the rise

of Europe in comparison to decline of the Muslim world:

In fact the role of culture in the relative decline of the Islamic world is

vastly overrated. The difficulties in Islamic societies have more to do with

geopolitics and geography than with any unbridgeable differences with the west .

Islam was both made and undone in part by its geography

Over the course of centuries, the demographic balance shifted decisively in

favour of Europe .[23]

He went on to demonstrate how the population of Europe supported by a better

environment made it to over

08-13-2003, 10:33 PM

This may be a good thread to post this. Many useful insights into the manner in which the clash of civilizations is pursued using the means of war. should be read in conjunction with John Mearsheimers book on the tragedy of great Power politics.

[url="http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/maynes2.htm"]http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/maynes2.htm[/url]

Charles, William Maynes "Relearning Intervention," Foreign Policy, no. 68 (Spring 1995)

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

One of the most difficult questions in American foreign policy is the use of force--its legitimacy, its utility, its desirability. A run for the White House requires that a candidate address it, and a successful candidate is often not considered a successful president until he actually employs it.

But it may be that the nature of the political debate on the use of force will soon change. It may be that the very purpose for which American leaders threaten the use of force has shifted without many people paying much attention....

08-14-2003, 10:02 AM

Shah waliullah - whose curriculum is taught in all madrasas is an important figure in Indian history . He is responsible for much of the backwardness of the muslim in India today. The birth of Pakistan and the problems India is having with the Islamist minorities is in large part due to a few people among whom Shah Waliullah ranks very high.

[url="http://www.bharatvani.org/books/muslimsep/ch6.htm"]http://www.bharatvani.org/books/muslimsep/ch6.htm[/url]

But Rizvi has summarized them in the following words from Waliullah's magnum

opus in Arabic, Hujjat-Allah al-Baligha: "According to Shah Wali-Allah the

mark of the perfect implementation of the Sharia was the performance of

jihad. There were people, said the Shah, who indulged in their lower nature

by following their ancestral religion, ignoring the advice and commands of

the Prophet Mohammed. If one chose to explain Islam to people like this it

was to do them a disservice. Force, said the Shah, was the better course -

Islam should be forced down their throats like bitter medicine to a child.

This, however, was possible only if the leaders of the non-Muslim

communities who failed to accept Islam were killed, the strength of the

community was reduced, their property confiscated and a situation was

created which led to their followers and descendants willingly accepting

Islam. Another means of ensuring conversions was to prevent other religious

communities from worshipping their own gods. Moreover, unfavourable

discriminating laws should be imposed on non-Muslims in matters of rule of

retaliation, compensation for manslaughter, and marriage and political

matters. However, the proselytization programme of Shah Wali-Allah only

included the leaders of the Hindu community. The low class of the infidels,

according to him, were to be left alone to work in the fields and for paying

jiziya. They like beasts of burden and agricultural livestock were to be

kept in abject misery and despair."3

Shah Waliullah was son of Shah Abdur Rahim, a sufi who was employed by

Aurangzeb for compiling the FatÃ£wa-i-ÃlamgÃ®rÃ®. Those who have illusions

about Sufism will do well to study this master-piece of the sufi mind. The

son was also a sufi. But instead of turning to Rumi or Attar or Hafiz, he

chose Sultan Mahmud of Ghazni as his hero. According to the Shah, Mahmud was

the greatest figure in the history of Islam after the first four caliphs. He

accused the historians of Islam of failing to recognise the fact that Mahmud

's horoscope had been identical with that of the Prophet, and that Mahmud

had won as many and as significant victories in jihÃ£d as the Prophet

himself.

Waliullah had travelled all the way to Mecca and Medina - a difficult and

dangerous undertaking in his days - and studied under half a dozen Sufis and

savants of 'Islamic sciences', only to 'discover' and declare what the

meanest mullah in the most obscure village mosque in India had been mouthing

for more than a thousand years. He himself wrote as many as 43 books between

1732 and 1762 - thirty thoughtful years - only to re-echo the routine

ravings of a thousand theologians who had continued to thunder ever since

the advent of Islam in this country! He wrote hundreds of letters to his

contemporary Muslim monarchs and mercenaries, including Ahmad Shah Abdali,

whom he considered to be the saviours of Islam in India, only to convey the

conventional Islamic message which all of them

---------

3. To Najibuddaulah

.There are three groups in Hindustan which are known for the qualities of

fanaticism and zeal. So long as these three are not exterminated, no king

can feel secure, nor any noble. The people (read Muslims) also will not be

able to live in peace.

Religious as well as worldly interests dictate that soon after winning the

war with the Marhatahs, you should turn towards the forts of the Jats, and

conquer them with the blessings from the hidden (occult) world. Next is the

turn of the Sikhs. This group should also be defeated, while waiting for

grace from Allah.

.I appeal to you in the name of Allah and his Prophet that you should not

cast your eye on the property of any Muslim. If you take care in this

regard, there is hope that the doors of victory will be opened to you one

after another. But if this caution is ignored, I fear that the wails of the

oppressed may become obstacles in the way towards your goal

**Hauma Hamiddha** · 08-15-2003, 03:24 AM

Aug14th 1669 the vishveshvara temple in Kashi was demolished by the Mogol hordes.

Awrangzeb had given the order:

"The Lord Cherisher of Islam learnt that in the provinces of Tatta, MultÃ£n, and especially at Benares, the Brahmin kaffirs used to teach their false books in their established schools, and that admirers and students both Hindu and Muslim, used to come from great distances to these misguided brahmins in order to acquire this vile learning. His Majesty, eager to establish IslÃ£m, issued orders to the governors of all the provinces to demolish the schools and temples of the infidels and with the utmost urgency put down the teaching and the public practice of the religion of these kaffirs of Hindustan.â

"It was reported that, according to the Emperorâs command, his officers had demolished the temple of VishvanÃ£th at KÃ£shÃ®.â

-MaÃ£sir-i-âÃlamgiri

muddur · 08-16-2003, 07:38 AM

[url="http://www.lander.edu/atannenbaum/Tannenbaum%20courses%20folder/POLS%20103%20World%20Politics/103_huntington_clash_of_civilizations_full_text.htm"]The Clash of Civilizations? by Samuel P. Huntington[/url]

[url="http://www.alamut.com/subj/economics/misc/clash.html"]http://www.alamut.com/subj/economics/misc/clash.html[/url]

The Clash of Civilizations?

by Samuel P. Huntington

Foreign Affairs Summer 1993

SAMUEL P. HUNTINGTON is the Eaton Professor of the Science of Government and Director of the John M. Olin Institute for Strategic Studies at Harvard University. This article is the product of the Olin Institute's project on "The Changing Security Environment and American National Interests."

I. THE NEXT PATTERN OF CONFLICT

WORLD POLITICS IS entering a new phase, and intellectuals have not hesitated to proliferate visions of what it will be -- the end of history, the return of traditional rivalries between nation states, and the decline of the nation state from the conflicting pulls of tribalism and globalism, among others. Each of these visions catches aspects of the emerging reality. Yet they all miss a crucial, indeed a central, aspect of what global politics is likely to be in the coming years.

It is my hypothesis that the fundamental source of conflict in this new world will not be primarily ideological or primarily economic. The great divisions among humankind and the dominating source of conflict will be cultural. Nation states will remain the most powerful actors in world affairs, but the principal conflicts of global politics will occur between nations and groups of different civilizations. The clash of civilizations will be the battle lines of the future.

Conflict between civilizations will be the latest phase of the evolution of conflict in the modern world. For a century and a half after the emergence of the modern international system of the Peace of Westphalia, the conflicts of the Western world were largely among princes -- emperors, absolute monarchs and constitutional monarchs attempting to expand their bureaucracies, their armies, their mercantilist economic strength and, most important, the territory they ruled. In the process they created nation states, and beginning with the French Revolution the principal lines of conflict were between nations rather than princes. In 1793, as R. R. Palmer put it, "The wars of kings were over; the ward of peoples had begun." This nineteenth-century pattern lasted until the end of World War I. Then, as a result of the Russian Revolution and the reaction against it, the conflict of nations yielded to the conflict of ideologies, first among communism, fascism-Nazism and liberal democracy, and then between communism and liberal democracy. During the Cold War, this latter conflict became embodied in the struggle between the two superpowers, neither of which was a nation state in the classical European sense and each of which defined its identity in terms of ideology.

These conflicts between princes, nation states and ideologies were primarily conflicts within Western civilization, "Western civil wars," as William Lind has labeled them. This was as true of the Cold War as it was of the world wars and the earlier wars of the seventeenth, eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. With the end of the Cold War, international politics moves out of its Western phase, and its center-piece becomes the interaction between the West and non-Western civilizations and among non-Western civilizations. In the politics of civilizations, the people and governments of non-Western civilizations no longer remain the objects of history as targets of Western colonialism but join the West as movers and shapers of history.

II. THE NATURE OF CIVILIZATIONS

DURING THE COLD WAR the world was divided into the First, Second and Third Worlds. Those divisions are no longer relevant. It is far more meaningful now to group countries not in terms of their political or economic systems or in terms of their level of economic development but rather in terms of their culture and civilization.

What do we mean when we talk of a civilization? A civilization is a cultural entity. Villages, regions, ethnic groups, nationalities, religious groups, all have distinct cultures at different levels of cultural heterogeneity. The culture of a village in southern Italy may be different from that of a village in northern Italy, but both will share in a common Italian culture that distinguishes them from German villages. European communities, in turn, will share cultural features that distinguish them from Arab or Chinese communities. Arabs, Chinese and Westerners, however, are not part of any broader cultural entity. They constitute civilizations. A civilization is thus the highest cultural grouping of people and the broadest level of cultural identity people have short of that which distinguishes humans from other species. It is defined both by common objective elements, such as language, history, religion, customs, institutions, and by the subjective self-identification of people. People have levels of identity: a resident of Rome may define himself with varying degrees of intensity as a Roman, an Italian, a Catholic, a Christian, a European, a Westerner. The civilization to which he belongs is the broadest level of identification with which he intensely identifies. People can and do redefine their identities and, as a result, the composition and boundaries of civilizations change.

Civilizations may involve a large number of people, as with China ("a civilization pretending to be a state," as Lucian Pye put it), or a very small number of people, such as the Anglophone Caribbean. A civilization may include several nation states, as is the case with Western, Latin American and Arab civilizations, or only one, as is the case with Japanese civilization. Civilizations obviously blend and overlap, and may include subcivilizations. Western civilization has two major variants, European and North American, and Islam has its Arab, Turkic and Malay subdivisions. Civilizations are nonetheless meaningful entities, and while the lines between them are seldom sharp, they are real. Civilizations are dynamic; they rise and fall; they divide and merge. And, as any student of history knows, civilizations disappear and are buried in the sands of time.

Westerners tend to think of nation states as the principal actors in global affairs. They have been that, however, for only a few centuries. The broader reaches of human history have been the history of civilizations. In A Study of History, Arnold Toynbee identified 21 major civilizations; only six of them exist in the contemporary world.

III. WHY CIVILIZATIONS WILL CLASH

CIVILIZATION IDENTITY will be increasingly important in the future, and the world will be shaped in large measure by the interactions among seven or eight major civilizations. These include Western, Confucian, Japanese, Islamic, Hindu, Slavic-Orthodox, Latin American and possibly African civilization. The most important conflicts of the future will occur along the cultural fault lines separating these civilizations from one another.

Why will this be the case?

First, differences among civilizations are not only real; they are basic. Civilizations are differentiated from each other by history, language, culture, tradition and, most important, religion. The people of different civilizations have different views on the relations between God and man, the individual and the group, the citizen and the state, parents and children, husband and wife, as well as differing views of the relative importance of rights and responsibilities, liberty and authority, equality and hierarchy. These differences are the product of centuries. They will not soon disappear. They are far more fundamental than differences among political ideologies and political regimes. Differences do not necessarily mean conflict, and conflict does not necessarily mean violence. Over the centuries, however, differences among civilizations have generated the most prolonged and the most violent conflicts.

Second, the world is becoming a smaller place. The interactions between peoples of different civilizations are increasings; these increasing interactions intensify civilization consciousness and awareness of differences between civilizations and commonalities within civilizations. North African immigration to France generates hostility among Frenchmen and at the same time increased receptivity to immigration by "good" European Catholic Poles. Americans react far more negatively to Japanese investment than to larger investments from Canada and European countries. Similarly, as Donald Horowitz has pointed out, "An Ibo may be . . . an Owerri Ibo or an Onitsha Ibo in what was the Eastern region of Nigeria. In Lagos, he is simply an Ibo. In London, he is a Nigerian. In New York, he is an African." The interactions among peoples of different civilizations enhance the civilization-consciousness of people that, in turn, invigorates differences and animosities stretching or thought to stretch back deep into history.

Third, the processes of economic modernization and social change throughout the world are separating people from longstanding local identities. They also weaken the nation state as a source of identity. In much of the world religion has moved in to fill this gap, often in the form of movements that are labeled "fundamentalist." Such movements are found in Western Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism and Hinduism, as well as in Islam. In most countries and most religions the people active in fundamentalist movements are young, college-educated, middle-class technicians, professionals and business persons. The "unsecularization of the world," George Weigel has remarked, "is one of the dominant social factors of life in the late twentieth century." The revival of religion, "la revanche de Dieu," as Gilles Kepel labeled it, provides a basis for identity and commitment that transcends national boundaries and unites civilizations.

Fourth, the growth of civilization-consciousness is enhanced by the dual role of the West. On the one hand, the West is at a peak of power. At the same time, however, and perhaps as a result, a return to the roots phenomenon is occurring among non-Western civilizations. Increasingly one hears references to trends toward a turning inward and "Asianization" in Japan, the end of the Nehru legacy and the "Hinduization" of India, the failure of Western ideas of socialism and nationalism and hence "re-Islamization" of the Middle East, and now a debate over Westernization versus Russianization in Boris Yeltsin's country. A West at the peak of its power confronts non-Wests that increasingly have the desire, the will and the resources to shape the world in non-Western ways.

In the past, the elites of non-Western societies were usually the people who were most involved with the West, had been educated at Oxford, the Sorbonne or Sandhurst, and had absorbed Western attitudes and values. At the same time, the populace in non-Western countries often remained deeply imbued with the indigenous culture. Now, however, these relationships are being reversed. A de-Westernization and indigenization of elites is occurring in many non-Western countries at the same time that Western, usually American, cultures, styles and habits become more popular among the mass of the people.

Fifth, cultural characteristics and differences are less mutable and hence less easily compromised and resolved than political and economic ones. In the former Soviet Union, communists can become democrats, the rich can become poor and the poor rich, but Russians cannot become Estonians and Azeris cannot become Armenians. In class and ideological conflicts, the key question was "Which side are you on?" and people could and did choose sides and change sides. In conflicts between civilizations, the question is "What are you?" That is a given that cannot be changed. And as we know, from Bosnia to the Caucasus to the Sudan, the wrong answer to that question can mean a bullet in the head. Even more than ethnicity, religion discriminates sharply and exclusively among people. A person can be half-French and half-Arab and simultaneously even a citizen of two countries. It is more difficult to be half-Catholic and half-Muslim.

Finally, economic regionalism is increasing. The proportions of total trade that are intraregional rose between 1980 and 1989 from 51 percent to 59 percent in Europe, 33 percent to 37 percent in East Asia, and 32 percent to 36 percent in North America. The importance of regional economic blocs is likely to continue to increase in the future. On the one hand, successful economic regionalism will reinforce civilization-consciousness. On the other hand, economic regionalism may succeed only when it is rooted in a common civilization. The European Community rests on the shared foundation of European culture and Western Christianity. The success of the North American Free Trade Area depends on the convergence now underway of Mexican, Canadian and American cultures. Japan, in contrast, faces difficulties in creating a comparable economic entity in East Asia because Japan is a society and civilization unique to itself. However strong the trade and investment links Japan may develop with other East Asian countries, its cultural differences with those countries inhibit and perhaps preclude its promoting regional economic integration like that in Europe and North America.

Common culture, in contrast, is clearly facilitating the rapid expansion of the economic relations between the People's Republic of China and Hong Kong, Taiwan, Singapore and the overseas Chinese communities in other Asian countries. With the Cold War over, cultural commonalities increasingly overcome ideological differences, and mainland China and Taiwan move closer together. If cultural commonality is a prerequisite for economic integration, the principal East Asian economic bloc of the future is likely to be centered on China. This bloc is, in fact, already coming into existence. As Murray Weidenbaum has observed,

Despite the current Japanese dominance of the region, the Chinese-based economy of Asia is rapidly emerging as a new epicenter for industry, commerce and finance. This strategic area contains substantial amounts of technology and manufacturing capability (Taiwan), outstanding entrepreneurial, marketing and services acumen (Hong Kong), a fine communications network (Singapore), a tremendous pool of financial capital (all three), and very large endowments of land, resources and labor (mainland China). . . . From Guangzhou to Singapore, from Kuala Lumpur to Manila, this influential network -- often based on extensions of the traditional clans -- has been described as the backbone of the East Asian economy. n1

n1 Murray Weidenbaum, Greater China: The Next Economic Superpower?, St. Louis: Washington University Center for the Study of American Business, Contemporary Issues, Series 57, February 1993, pp. 2-3.

Culture and religion also form the basis of the Economic Cooperation Organization, which brings together ten non-Arab Muslim countries: Iran, Pakistan, Turkey, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Turkmenistan, Tadjikistan, Uzbekistan and Afghanistan. One impetus to the revival and expansion of this organization, founded originally in the 1960s by Turkey, Pakistan and Iran, is the realization by the leaders of several of these countries that they had no chance of admission to the European Community. Similarly, Caricom, the Central American Common Market and Mercosur rest on common cultural foundations. Efforts to build a broader Caribbean-Central American economic entity bridging the Anglo-Latin divide, however, have to date failed.

As people define their identity in ethnic and religious terms, they are likely to see an "us" versus "them" relation existing between themselves and people of different ethnicity or religion. The end of ideologically defined states in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union permits traditional ethnic identities and animosities to come to the fore. Differences in culture and religion create differences over policy issues, ranging from human rights to immigration to trade and commerce to the environment. Geographical propinquity gives rise to conflicting territorial claims from Bosnia to Mindanao. Most important, the efforts of the West to promote its values of democracy and liberalism to universal values, to maintain its military predominance and to advance its economic interests engender countering responses from other civilizations. Decreasingly able to mobilize support and form coalitions on the basis of ideology, governments and groups will increasingly attempt to mobilize support by appealing to common religion and civilization identity.

The clash of civilizations thus occurs at two levels. At the micro-level, adjacent groups along the fault lines between civilizations struggle, often violently, over the control of territory and each other. At the macro-level, states from different civilizations compete for relative military and economic power, struggle over the control of international institutions and third parties, and competitively promote their particular political and religious values.

IV. THE FAULT LINES BETWEEN CIVILIZATIONS

THE FAULT LINES between civilizations are replacing the political and ideological boundaries of the Cold War as the flash points for crisis and bloodshed. The Cold War began when the Iron Curtain divided Europe politically and ideologically. The Cold War ended with the end of the Iron Curtain. As the ideological division of Europe has disappeared, the cultural division of Europe between Western Christianity, on the one hand, and Orthodox Christianity and Islam, on the other, has reemerged. The most significant dividing line in Europe, as William Wallace has suggested, may well be the eastern boundary of Western Christianity in the year 1500. This line runs along what are now the boundaries between Finland and Russia and between the Baltic states and Russia, cuts through Belarus and Ukraine separating the more Catholic western Ukraine from Orthodox eastern Ukraine, swings westward separating Transylvania from the rest of Romania, and then goes through Yugoslavia almost exactly along the line now separating Croatia and Slovenia from the rest of Yugoslavia. In the Balkans this line, of course, coincides with the historic boundary between the Hapsburg and Ottoman empires. The peoples to the north and west of this line are Protestant or Catholic; they shared the common experiences of European history -- feudalism, the Renaissance, the Reformation, the Enlightenment, the French Revolution, the Industrial Revolution; they are generally economically better off than the peoples to the east; and they may now look forward to increasing involvement in a common European economy and to the consolidation of democratic political systems. The peoples to the east and south of this line are Orthodox or Muslim; they historically belonged to the Ottoman or Tsarist empires and were only lightly touched by the shaping events in the rest of Europe; they are generally less advanced economically; they seem much less likely to develop stable democratic political systems. The Velvet Curtain of culture has replaced the Iron Curtain of ideology as the most significant dividing line in Europe. As the events in Yugoslavia show, it is not only a line of difference; it is also at times a line of bloody conflict.

Conflict along the fault line between Western and Islamic civilizations has been going on for 1,300 years. After the founding of Islam, the Arab and Moorish surge west and north only ended at Tours in 732. From the eleventh to the thirteenth century the Crusaders attempted with temporary success to bring Christianity and Christian rule to the Holy Land. From the fourteenth to the seventeenth century, the Ottoman Turks reversed the balance, extended their sway over the Middle East and the Balkans, captured Constantinople, and twice laid siege to Vienna. In the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries at Ottoman power declined Britain, France, and Italy established Western control over most of North Africa and the Middle East.

After World War II, the West, in turn, began to retreat; the colonial empires disappeared; first Arab nationalism and then Islamic fundamentalism manifested themselves; the West became heavily dependent on the Persian Gulf countries for its energy; the oil-rich Muslim countries became money-rich and, when they wished to, weapons-rich. Several wars occurred between

Arabs and Israel (created by the West). France fought a bloody and ruthless war in Algeria for most of the 1950s; British and French forces invaded Egypt in 1956; American forces returned to Lebanon, attacked Libya, and engaged in various military encounters with Iran; Arab and Islamic terrorists, supported by at least three Middle Eastern governments, employed the weapon of the weak and bombed Western planes and installations and seized Western hostages. This warfare between Arabs and the West culminated in 1990, when the United States sent a massive army to the Persian Gulf to defend some Arab countries against aggression by another. In its aftermath NATO planning is increasingly directed to potential threats and instability along its "southern tier."

This centuries-old military interaction between the West and Islam is unlikely to decline. It could become more virulent. The Gulf War left some Arabs feeling proud that Saddam Hussein had attacked Israel and stood up to the West. It also left many feeling humiliated and resentful of the West's military presence in the Persian Gulf, the West's overwhelming military dominance, and their apparent inability to shape their own destiny. Many Arab countries, in addition to the oil exporters, are reaching levels of economic and social development where autocratic forms of government become inappropriate and efforts to introduce democracy become stronger. Some openings in Arab political systems have already occurred. The principal beneficiaries of these openings have been Islamist movements. In the Arab world, in short, Western democracy strengthens anti-Western political forces. This may be a passing phenomenon, but it surely complicates relations between Islamic countries and the West.

Those relations are also complicated by demography. The spectacular population growth in Arab countries, particularly in North Africa, has led to increased migration to Western Europe. The movement within Western Europe toward minimizing internal boundaries has sharpened political sensitivities with respect to this development. In Italy, France and Germany, racism is increasingly open, and political reactions and violence against Arab and Turkish migrants have become more intense and more widespread since 1990.

On both sides the interaction between Islam and the West is seen as a clash of civilizations. The West's "next confrontation," observes M. J. Akbar, an Indian Muslim author, "is definitely going to come from the Muslim world. It is in the sweep of the Islamic nations from the Meghreb to Pakistan that the struggle for a new world order will begin." Bernard Lewis comes to a regular conclusion:

"We are facing a need and a movement far transcending the level of issues and policies and the governments that pursue them. This is no less than a clash of civilizations -- the perhaps irrational but surely historic reaction of an ancient rival against our Judeo-Christian heritage, our secular present, and the worldwide expansion of both. n2

n2 Bernard Lewis, "The Roots of Muslim Rage," The Atlantic Monthly, vol. 266, September 1990, p. 60; Time, June 15k 1992, pp. 24-28.

Historically, the other great antagonistic interaction of Arab Islamic civilization has been with the pagan, animist, and now increasingly Christian black peoples to the south. In the past, this antagonism was epitomized in the image of Arab slave dealers and black slaves. It has been reflected in the on-going civil war in the Sudan between Arabs and blacks, the fighting in Chad between Libyan-supported insurgents and the government, the tensions between Orthodox Christians and Muslims in the Horn of Africa, and the political conflicts, recurring riots and communal violence between Muslims and Christians in Nigeria. The modernization of Africa and the spread of Christianity in Nigeria. The modernization of Africa and the spread of Christianity are likely to enhance the probability of violence along this fault line. Symptomatic of the intensification of this conflict was the Pope John Paul II's speech in Khartoum in February 1993 attacking the actions of the Sudan's Islamist government against the Christian minority there.

On the northern border of Islam, conflict has increasingly erupted between Orthodox and Muslim peoples, including the carnage of Bosnia and Sarajevo, the simmering violence between Serb and Albanian, the tenuous relation between Bulgarians and their Turkish minority, the violence between Ossetians and Ingush, the unremitting slaughter of each other by Armenians and Azeris, the tense relations between Russians and Muslims in Central Asia, and the deployment of Russian troops to protect Russian interests in the Caucasus and Central Asia. Religion reinforces the revival of ethnic identities and restimulates Russian fears about the security of their southern borders. This concern is well captured by Archie Roosevelt:

Much of Russian history concerns the struggle between Slavs and the Turkish peoples on their borders, which dates back to the foundation of the Russian state more than a thousand years ago. In the Slavs' millennium-long confrontation with their eastern neighbors lies the key to an understanding not only of Russian history, but Russian character. To under Russian realities today one has to have a concept of the great Turkic ethnic group that has preoccupied Russians through the centuries. n3

n3 Archie Roosevelt, For Lust of Knowing, Boston: Little, Brown, 1988, pp. 332-333.

The conflict of civilizations is deeply rooted elsewhere in Asia. The historic clash between Muslim and Hindu in the subcontinent manifests itself now not only is the rivalry between Pakistan and India but also in intensifying religious strife within India between increasingly militant Hindu groups and India's substantial Muslim minority. The destruction of the Ayodhya mosque in December 1992 brought to the fore the issue of whether India will remain a secular democratic state or become a Hindu one. In East Asia, China has outstanding territorial disputes with most of its neighbors. It has pursued a ruthless policy toward the Buddhist people of Tibet, and it is pursuing an increasingly ruthless policy toward its Turkic-Muslim minority. With the Cold War over, the underlying differences between China and the United States have reasserted themselves in areas such as human rights, trade and weapons proliferation. These differences are unlikely to moderate. A "new cold war," Deng Xaioping reportedly asserted in 1991, is under way between China and America.

The same phrase has been applied to the increasingly difficult relations between Japan and the United States. Here cultural difference exacerbates economic conflict. People on each side allege racism on the other, but at least on the American side the antipathies are not racial but cultural. The basic values, attitudes, behavioral patterns of the two societies could hardly be more different. The economic issues between the United States and Europe are no less serious than those between the United States and Japan, but they do not have thesame political salience and emotional intensity because the differences between American culture and European culture are so much less than those between American civilization and Japanese civilization.

The interactions between civilizations vary greatly in the extent to which they are likely to be characterized by violence. Economic competition clearly predominates between the American and European subcivilizations of the West and between both of them and Japan. On the Eurasian continent, however, the proliferation of ethnic conflict, epitomized at the extreme in "ethnic cleansing," has not been totally random. It has been most frequent and most violent between groups belonging to different civilizations. In Eurasia the great historic fault lines between civilizations are once more aflame. This is particularly true along the boundaries of the crescent-shaped Islamic bloc of nations from the bulge of Africa to central Asia. Violence also occurs between Muslims, on the one hand, and Orthodox Serbs in the Balkans, Jews in Israel, Hindus in India, Buddhists in Burma and Catholics in the Philippines. Islam has bloody borders.

V. CIVILIZATION RALLYING

THE KIN-COUNTRY SYNDROME GROUPS OR STATES belonging to one civilization that become involved in war with people from a different civilization naturally try to rally support from other members of their own civilization. As the post-Cold War world evolves, civilization commonality, what H. D. S. Greenway has termed the "kin-country" syndrome, is replacing political ideology and traditional balance of power considerations as the principal basis for cooperation and coalitions. It can be seen gradually emerging in the post-Cold War conflicts in the Persian Gulf, the Caucasus and Bosnia. None of these was a full-scale war between civilizations, but each involved some elements of civilization rallying, which seemed to become more important as the conflict continued and which may provide a foretaste of the future.

First, in the Gulf War one Arab state invaded another and then fought a coalition of Arab, Western and other states. While only a few Muslim governments overtly supported Saddam Hussein, many Arab elites privately cheered him on, and he was highly popular among large sections of the Arab publics. Islamic fundamentalist movements universally supported Iraq rather than the Western-backed governments of Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. Forswearing Arab nationalism, Saddam Hussein explicitly invoked an Islamic appeal. He and his supporters attempted to define the war as a war between civilizations. "It is not the world against Iraq," as Safar Al-Hawali, dean of Islamic Studies at the Umm Al-Qura University in Mecca, put it in a widely circulated tape. "It is the West against Islam." Ignoring the rivalry between Iran and Iraq, the chief Iranian religious leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, called for a holy war against the West: "The struggle against American aggression, greed, plans and policies will be counted as a jahad, and anybody who is killed on that path is a martyr.""This is a war," King Hussein of Jordan argued, "against all Arabs and all Muslims and not against Iraq alone."

The rallying of substantial sections of Arab elites and publics behind Saddam Hussein called those Arab governments in the anti-Iraq coalition to moderate their activities and temper their public statements. Arab governments opposed or distanced themselves from subsequent Western efforts to apply pressure on Iraq, including enforcement of a no-fly zone in the summer of 1992 and the bombing of Iraq in January 1993. The Western-Soviet-Turkish-Arab anti-Iraq coalition of 1990 had by 1993 become a coalition of almost only the West and Kuwait against Iraq.

Muslims contrasted Western actions against Iraq with the West's failure to protect Bosnians against Serbs and to impose sanctions on Israel for violating U.N. resolutions. The West, they allege, was using a double standard. A world of clashing civilizations, however, is inevitably a world of double standards: people apply one standard to their kin-countries and a different standard to others.

Second, the kin-country syndrome also appeared in conflicts in the former Soviet Union. Armenian military successes in 1992 and 1993 stimulated Turkey to become increasingly supportive of its religious, ethnic and linguistic brethren in Azerbaijan. "We have a Turkish nation feeling the same sentiments as the Azerbaijanis," said one Turkish official in 1992. "We are under pressure. Our newspapers are full of the photos of atrocities and are asking us if we are still serious about pursuing our neutral policy. Maybe we should show Armenia that there's a big Turkey in the region." President Turgut Ozal agreed, remarking that Turkey should at least "scare the Armenians a little bit." Turkey, Ozal threatened again in 1993, would "show its fangs." Turkey Air Force jets flew reconnaissance flights along the Armenian border; Turkey suspended food shipments and air flights to Armenia; and Turkey and Iran announced they would not accept dismemberment of Azerbaijan. In the last years of its existence, the Soviet government supported Azerbaijan because its government was dominated by former communists. With the end of the Soviet Union, however, political considerations gave way to religious ones. Russian troops fought on the Side of the Armenians, and Azerbaijan accused the "Russian government of turning 180 degrees" toward support for Christian Armenia.

Third, with respect to the fighting in the former Yugoslavia, Western publics manifested sympathy and support for the Bosnian Muslims and the horrors they suffered at the hands of the Serbs. Relatively little concern was expressed, however, over Croatian attacks on Muslims and participation in the dismemberment of Bosnia-Herzegovina. In the early stages of the Yugoslav breakup, Germany, in an unusual display of diplomatic initiative and muscle, induced the other 11 members of the European Community to follow its lead in recognizing Slovenia and Croatia. As a result of the pope's determination to provide strong backing to the two Catholic countries, the Vatican extended recognition even before the Community did. The United States followed the European lead. Thus the leading actors in Western civilization rallied behind its coreligionists. Subsequently Croatia was reported to be receiving substantial quantities of arms from Central European and other Western countries. Boris Yeltsin's government, on the other hand, attempted to pursue a middle course that would be sympathetic to the Orthodox Serbs but not alienate Russia from the West. Russian conservative and nationalist groups, however, including many legislators, attacked the government for not being more forthcoming in its support for the Serbs. By early 1993 several hundred Russians apparently were serving with the Serbian forces, and reports circulated of Russian arms being supplied to Serbia.

Islamic governments and groups, on the other hand, castigated the West for not coming to the defense of the Bosnians. Iranian leaders urged Muslims from all countries to provide help to Bosnia; in violation of the U.N. arms embargo, Iran supplied weapons and men for the Bosnians; Iranian-supported Lebanese groups sent guerrillas to train and organize the Bosnian forces.

In 1993 up to 4,000 Muslims from over two dozen Islamic countries were reported to be fighting in Bosnia. The governments of Saudi Arabia and other countries felt under increasing pressure from fundamentalist groups in their own societies to provide more vigorous support for the Bosnians. By the end of 1992, Saudi Arabia had reportedly supplied substantial funding for weapons and supplies for the Bosnians, which significantly increased their military capabilities vis-a-vis the Serbs.

In the 1930s the Spanish Civil War provoked intervention from countries that politically were fascist, communist and democratic. In the 1990s the Yugoslav conflict is provoking intervention from countries that are Muslim, Orthodox and Western Christian. The parallel has not gone unnoticed. "The war in Bosnia-Herzegovina has become the emotional equivalent of the fight against fascism in the Spanish Civil War," one Saudi editor observed. "Those who died there are regarded as martyrs who tried to save their fellow Muslims."

Conflicts and violence will also occur between states and groups within the same civilization. Such conflicts, however, are likely to be less intense and less likely to expand than conflicts between civilizations. Common membership in a civilization reduces the probability of violence in situations where it might otherwise occur. In 1991 and 1992 many people were alarmed by the possibility of violent conflict between Russia and Ukraine over territory, particularly Crimea, the Black Sea fleet, nuclear weapons and economic issues. If civilization is what counts, however, the likelihood of violence between Ukrainians and Russians should be low. They are two Slavic, primarily Orthodox peoples who have had close relationships with each other for centuries. As of early 1993, despite all the reasons for conflict, the leaders of the two countries were effectively negotiating and defusing the issues between the two countries. While there has been serious fighting between Muslims and Christians elsewhere in the former Soviet Union and much tension and some fighting between Western and Orthodox Christians in the Baltic states, there has been virtually no violence between Russians and Ukrainians.

Civilization rallying to date has been limited, but it has been growing, and it clearly has the potential to spread much further. As the conflicts in the Persian Gulf, the Caucasus and Bosnia continued, the positions of nations and the cleavages between them increasingly were along civilizational lines. Populist politicians, religious leaders and the media have found it a potential means of arousing mass support and of pressuring hesitant governments. In the coming years, the local conflicts most likely to escalate into major wars will be those, as in Bosnia and the Caucasus, along the fault lines between civilizations. The next world war, if there is one, will be a war between civilizations.

VI. THE WEST VERSUS THE REST

THE WEST IS NOW at an extraordinary peak of power in relation to other civilizations. In superpower opponent has disappeared from the map. Military conflict among Western states is unthinkable, and Western military power is unrivaled. Apart from Japan, the West faces no economic challenge. It dominates international economic institutions. Global political and security issues are effectively settled by a directorate of the United States, Britain and France, world economic issues by a directorate of the United States, Germany and Japan, all of which maintain extraordinarily close relations with each other to the exclusion of lesser and largely non-Western countries. Decisions made at the U.N. Security Council or in the International Monetary Fund that reflect the interests of the West are presented to the world as reflecting the desires of the world community. The very phrase "the world community" has become the euphemistic collective noun (replacing "the Free World") to give global legitimacy to actions reflecting the interests of the United States and other Western powers. n4 Through the IMF and other international economic institutions, the West promotes its economic interests and imposes on other nations the economic policies it thinks appropriate. In any poll of non-Western peoples, the IMF undoubtedly would win the support of finance ministers and a few others, but get an overwhelmingly unfavorable rating from just about everyone else, who would agree with Georgy Arbatov's characterization of IMF officials as "neo-Bolsheviks who love expropriating other people's money, imposing undemocratic and alien rules of economic and political conduct and stifling economic freedom."

n4 Almost invariably Western leaders claim they are acting on behalf of "the world community." One minor lapse occurred during the run-up to the Gulf War. In an interview on "Good Morning America," Dec. 21, 1990, British Prime Minister John Major referred to the actions "the West" was taking against Saddam Hussein. He quickly corrected himself and subsequently referred to "the world community." He was, however, right when he erred.

Western domination of the U.N. Security Council and its decisions, tempered only by occasional abstention by China, produced U.N. legitimation of the West's use of force to drive Iraq out of Kuwait and its elimination of Iraq's sophisticated weapons and capacity to produce such weapons. It also produced the quite unprecedented action by the United States, Britain and France in getting the Security Council to demand that Libya hand over the Pan Am 103 bombing suspects and then to impose sanctions when Libya refused. After defeating the largest Arab army, the West did not hesistate to throw its weight around in the Arab world. The West in effect is using international institutions, military power and economic resources to run the world in ways that will maintain Western predominance, protect Western interests and promote Western political and economic values.

That at least is the way in which non-Westerners see the new world, and there is a significant element of truth in their view. Differences in power and struggles for military, economic and institutional power are thus one source of conflict between the West and other civilizations. Differences in culture, that is basic values and beliefs, are a second source of conflict. V. S. Naipaul has argued that Western civilization is the "universal civilization" that "fits all men." At a superficial level much of Western culture has indeed permeated the rest of the world. At a more basic level, however, Western concepts differ fundamentally from those prevalent in other civilizations. Western ideas of individualism, liberalism, constitutionalism, human rights, equality, liberty, the rule of law, democracy, free markets, the separation of church and state, often have little resonance in Islamic, Confucian, Japanese, Hindu, Buddhist or Orthodox cultures. Western efforts to propagate each ideas produce instead a reaction against "human rights imperialism" and a reaffirmation of indigenous values, as can be seen in the support for religious fundamentalism by the younger generation in non-Western cultures. The very notion that there could be a "universal civilization" is a Western idea, directly at odds with the particularism of most Asian societies and their emphasis on what distinguishes one people from another. Indeed, the author of a review of 100 comparative studies of values in different societies concluded that "the values that are most important in the West are least important worldwide." n5 In the political realm, of course, these differences are most manifest in the efforts of the United States and other Western powers to induce other peoples to adopt Western ideas concerning democracy and human rights. Modern democratic government originated in the West. When it has developed colonialism or imposition.

n5 Harry C. Triandis, The New York Times, Dec. 25, 1990, p. 41, and "Cross-Cultural Studies of Individualism and Collectivism," Nebraska Symposium on Motivation, vol. 37, 1989, pp. 41-133.

The central axis of world politics in the future is likely to be, in Kishore Mahbubani's phrase, the conflict between "the West and the Rest" and the responses of non-Western civilizations to Western power and values. n6 Those responses generally take one or a combination of three forms. At one extreme, non-Western states can, like Burma and North Korea, attempt to pursue a course of isolation, to insulate their societies from penetration or "corruption" by the West, and, in effect, to opt out of participation in the Western-dominated global community. The costs of this course, however, are high, and few states have pursued it exclusively. A second alternative, the equivalent of "band-wagoning" in international relations theory, is to attempt to join the West and accept its values and institutions. The third alternative is to attempt to "balance" the West by developing economic and military power and cooperating with other non-Western societies against the West, while preserving indigenous values and institutions; in short, to modernize but not to Westernize.

n6 Kishore Mahbubani, "The West and the Rest," The National Interest, Summer 1992, pp. 3-13.

VII. THE TORN COUNTRIES

IN THE FUTURE, as people differentiate themselves by civilization, countries with large numbers of people of different civilizations, such as the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia, are candidates for dismemberment. Some other countries have a fair degree of cultural homogeneity but are divided over whether their society belongs to one civilization or another. These are town countries. Their leaders typically wish to pursue a bandwagoning strategy and to make theirc ountries members of the West, but the history, culture and traditions of their countries are non-Western. The most obvious and prototypical torn country is Turkey. The late twentieth-century leaders of Turkey have followed in the Attaturk tradition and defined Turkey as a modern, secular, Western nation state. They allied Turkey with the West in NATO and in the Gulf War; they applied for membership in the European Community. At the same time, however, elements in Turkish society have supported an Islamic revival and have argued that Turkey is basically a Middle Eastern Muslim society. In addition, while the elite of Turkey has defined Turkey as a Western society, the elite of the West refuses to accept Turkey and such. Turkey will not become a member of the European Community, and the real reason, as President Ozal said, "is that we are Muslim and they are Christian and they don't say that." Having rejected Mecca, and then being rejected by Brussels, where does Turkey look? Tashkent may be the answer. The end of the Soviet Union gives Turkey the opportunity to become the leader of a revived Turkic civilization involving seven countries from the borders of Greece to those of China. Encouraged by the West, Turkey is making strenuous efforts to carve out this new identity for itself.

During the past decade Mexico has assumed a position somewhat similar to that of Turkey. Just as Turkey abandoned its historic opposition to Europe and attempted to join Europe, Mexico has stopped defining itself by its opposition to the United States and is instead attempting to imitate the United States and to join it in the North American Free Trade Area. Mexican leaders are engaged in the great task of redefining Mexican identity and have introduced fundamental economic reforms that eventually will lead to fundamental political change. In 1991 a top adviser to President Carlos Salinas de Gortari described at length tome all the changes the Salinas government was making. When he finished, I remarked: "That's most impressive. It seems to me that basically you want to change Mexico from a Latin American country into a North American country." He looked at me with surprise and exclaimed: "Exactly! That's precisely what we are trying to do, but of course we could never say so publicly." As his remark indicates, in Mexico as in Turkey, significant elements in society resist the redefinition of their country's identity. In Turkey, European-oriented leaders have to make gestures to Islam (Ozal's pilgrimage to Mecca); so also Mexico's North American-oriented leaders have to make gestures to those who hold Mexico to be a Latin American country (Salinas' Ibero-American Guadalajara summit).

Historically Turkey has been the most profoundly torn country. For the United States, Mexico is the most immediate torn country. Globally the most important torn country is Russia. The question of whether Russia is part of the West or the leader of the Slavic-Orthodox civilization has been a recurring one in Russian history. That issue was obscured by the communist victory in Russia, which imported a Western ideology, adapted it to Russian conditions and then challenged the West in the name of that ideology. The dominance of communism shut off the historic debate over Westernization versus Russification. With communism discredited Russians once again face that question.

President Yeltsin is adopting Western principles and goals and seeking to make Russia a "normal" country and a part of the West. Yet both the Russian elite and the Russian public are divided on this issue. Among the more moderate dissenters, Sergei Stankevich argues that Russia should reject the "Atlanticist" course, which would lead it "to become European, to become a part of the world economy in rapid and organized fashion, to become the eighth member of the Seven, and to particular emphasis on Germany and the United States as the two dominant members of the Atlantic alliance." While also rejecting an exclusively Eurasian policy, Stankevich nonetheless argues that Russia should give priority to the protection of Russians in other countries, emphasize its Turkic and Muslim connections, and promote "an appreciable redistribution of our resources, our options, our ties, and our interests in favor of Asia, of the eastern direction." People of this persuasion criticize Yeltsin for subordinating Russia's interests to those of the West, for reducing Russian military strength, for failing to support traditional friends such as Serbia, and for pushing economic and political reform in ways injurious to the Russian people. Indicative of this trend is the new popularity of the ideas of Petr Savitsky, who in the 1920s argued that Russia was a unique Eurasian civilization. n7 More extreme dissidents voice much more blatantly nationalist, anti-Western and anti-Semitic views, and urge Russia to redevelop its military strength and to establish closer ties with China and Muslim countries. The people of Russia areas divided as the elite. An opinion survey in European Russia in the spring of 1992 revealed that 40 percent of the public had positive attitudes toward the West and 36 percent had negative attitudes. As it has been for much of its history, Russia in the early 1990s is truly a torn country.

n7 Sergei Stankevich, "Russia in Search of Itself," The National Interest, Summer 1992, pp. 47-51; Daniel Schneider, "A Russian Movement Rejects Western Tilt," Christian Science Monitor, Feb. 5, 1993, pp. 5-7.

To redefine its civilization identity, a torn country must meet three requirements. First, its political and economic elite has to be generally supportive of and enthusiastic about the move. Second, its public has to be willing to acquiesce in the redefinition. Third, the dominant groups in the recipient civilization have to be willing to embrace the convert. All three requirements in large part exist with respect to Mexico. The first two in large part exist with respect to Turkey. It is not clear that any of them exist with respect to Russia's joining the West. The conflict between liberal democracy and Marxism-Leninism was between ideologies which, despite their major differences, ostensibly shared ultimate goals of freedom, equality and prosperity. A traditional, authoritarian, nationalist Russia could have quite different goals. A Western democrat could carry on an intellectual debate with a Soviet Marxist. It would be virtually impossible for him to do that with a Russian traditionalist. If, as the Russians stop behaving like Marxists, they reject liberal democracy and begin behaving like Russians but not like Westerners, the relations between Russia and the West could again become distant and conflictual. n8

n8 Owen Harries has pointed out that Australia is trying (unwisely in his view) to become a torn country in reverse. Although it has been a full member not only of the West but also of the ABCA military and intelligence core of the West, its current leaders are in effect proposing that it defect from the West, redefine itself as an Asian country and cultivate close ties with its neighbors.

Australia's future, they argue, is with the dynamic economies of East Asia. But, as I have suggested, close economic cooperation normally requires a common cultural base. In addition, none of the three conditions necessary for a torn country to join another civilization is likely to exist in Australia's case.

VIII. THE CONFUCIAN-ISLAMIC CONNECTION

THE OBSTACLES TO non-Western countries joining the West vary considerably. They are least for Latin American and East European countries. They are greater for the Orthodox countries of the former Soviet Union. They are still greater for Muslim, Confucian, Hindu and Buddhist societies. Japan has established a unique position for itself as an associate member of the West: it is in the West in some respects but clearly not of the West in important dimensions. Those countries that for reason of culture and power do not wish to, or cannot, join the West compete with the West by developing their own economic, military and political power. They do this by promoting their internal development and by cooperating with other non-Western countries. The most prominent form of this cooperation is the Confucian-Islamic connection that has emerged to challenge Western interests, values and power.

Almost without exception, Western countries are reducing their military power; under Yeltsin's leadership so also is Russia. China, North Korea and several Middle Eastern states, however, are significantly expanding their military capabilities. They are doing this by the import of arms from Western and non-Western sources and by the development of indigenous arms industries. One result is the emergence of what Charles Krauthammer has called "Weapon States," and the Weapon States are not Western states. Another result is the redefinition of arms control, which is a Western concept and a Western goal. During the Cold War the primary purpose of arms control was to establish a stable military balance between the United States and its allies and the Soviet Union and its allies. In the post-Cold War world the primary objective of arms control is to prevent the development by non-Western societies of military capabilities that could threaten Western interests. The West attempts to do this through international agreements, economic pressure and controls on the transfer of arms and weapons technologies.

The conflict between the West and the Confucian-Islamic states focuses largely, although not exclusively, on nuclear, chemical and biological weapons, ballistic missiles and other sophisticated means for delivering them, and the guidance, intelligence and other electronic capabilities for achieving that goal. The West promotes nonproliferation as a universal norm and nonproliferation treaties and inspections as means of realizing that norm. It also threatens a variety of sanctions against those who promote the spread of sophisticated weapons and proposes some benefits for those who do not. The attention of the West focuses, naturally on nations that are actually or potentially hostile to the West.

The non-Western nations, on the other hand, assert their right to acquire and to deploy whatever weapons they think necessary for their security. They also have absorbed, to the full, the truth of the response of the Indian defense minister when asked what lesson he learned from the Gulf War: "Don't fight the United States unless you have nuclear weapons." Nuclear weapons, chemical weapons and missiles are viewed, probably erroneously, as the potential equalizer of superior Western conventional power. China, of course, already has nuclear weapons; Pakistan and India have the capability to deploy them. North Korea, Iran, Iraq, Libya and Algeria appear to be attempting to acquire them. Atop Iranian official has declared that all Muslim states should acquire nuclear weapons, and in 1988 the president of Iran reportedly issued a directive calling for development of "offensive and defensive chemical, biological and radiological weapons."

Centrally important to the development of counter-West military capabilities is the sustained expansion of China's military power and its means to create military power. Buoyed by spectacular economic development, China is rapidly increasing its military spending and vigorously moving forward with the modernization of its armed forces. It is purchasing weapons from the former Soviet states; it is developing long-range missiles; in 1992 it tested a one-megaton nuclear device. It is developing power-projection capabilities, acquiring aerial refueling technology, and trying to purchase an aircraft carrier. Its military buildup and assertion of sovereignty over the South China Sea are provoking a multilateral regional arms race in East Asia. China is also a major exporter of arms and weapons technology. It has exported materials to Libya and Iraq that could be used to manufacture nuclear weapons and nerve gas. It has helped Algeria build a reactor suitable for nuclear weapons research and production. China has sold to Iran nuclear technology that American officials believe could only be used to create weapons and apparently has shipped components of 300-mile-range missiles to Pakistan. North Korea has had a nuclear weapons program under way for some while and has sold advanced missiles and missile technology to Syria and Iran. The flow of weapons and weapons technology is generally from East Asia to the Middle East. There is, however, some movement in the reverse direction; China has received Stinger missiles from Pakistan.

A Confucian-Islamic military connection has thus come into being, designed to promote acquisition by its members of the weapons and weapons technologies needed to counter the military powers of the West. It may or may not last. At present, however, it is, as Dave McCurdy has said, "a renegades' mutual support pact, run by the proliferators and their backers." A new form of arms competition is thus occurring between Islamic-Confucian states and the West. Inan old-fashioned arms race, each side developed its own arms to balance or to achieve superiority against the other side. In this new form of arms competition, one side is developing its arms and the other side is attempting not to balance but to limit and prevent that arms build-up while at the same time reducing its own military capabilities.

IX. IMPLICATIONS FOR THE WEST

THIS ARTICLE DOES not argue that civilization identities will replace all other identities, that nation states will disappear, that each civilization will become a single coherent political entity, that groups within a civilization will not conflict with and even fight each other. This paper does set forth the hypotheses that differences between civilizations are real and important; civilization-consciousness is increasing; conflict between civilizations will supplant ideological and other forms of conflict as the dominant global form of conflict; international relations, historically a game played out within Western civilization, will increasingly be de-Westernized and become a game in which non-Western civilizations are actors and not simply objects; successful political, security and economic international institutions are more likely to develop within civilizations than across civilizations; conflicts between groups in different civilizations will be more frequent, more sustained and more violent than conflicts between groups in the same civilization; violent conflicts between groups in different civilizations are the most likely and most dangerous source of escalation that could lead to global wars; the paramount axis of world politics will be the relations between "the West and the Rest"; the elites in some torn non-Western countries will try to make their countries part of the West, but in most cases face major obstacles to accomplishing this; a central focus of conflict for the immediate future will be between the West and several Islamic-Confucian states.

This is not to advocate the desirability of conflicts between civilizations. It is to set forth descriptive hypotheses as to what the future may be like. If these are plausible hypotheses, however, it is necessary to consider their implications for Western policy. These implications should be divided between short-term advantage and long-term accommodation. In the short term it is clearly in the interest of the West to promote greater cooperation and unity within its own civilization, particularly between its European and North American components; to incorporate into the West societies in Eastern Europe and Latin America whose cultures are close to those of the West; to promote and maintain cooperative relations with Russia and Japan; to prevent escalation of local inter-civilization conflicts into major inter-civilization wars; to limit the expansion of the military strength of Confucian and Islamic states; to moderate the reduction of counter military capabilities and maintain military superiority in East and Southwest Asia; to exploit differences and conflicts among Confucian and Islamic states; to support in other civilizations groups sympathetic to Western values and interests; to strengthen international institutions that reflect and legitimate Western interests and values and to promote the involvement of non-Western states in those institutions.

In the longer term other measures would be called for. Western civilization is both Western and modern. Non-Western civilizations have attempted to become modern without becoming Western. To date only Japan has fully succeeded in this quest. Non-Western civilization will continue to attempt to acquire the wealth, technology, skills, machines and weapons that are part of being modern. They will also attempt to reconcile this modernity with their traditional culture and values. Their economic and military strength relative to the West will increase. Hence the West will increasingly have to accommodate these non-Western modern civilizations whose power approaches that of the West but whose values and interests differ significantly from those of the West. This will require the West to maintain the economic and military power necessary to protect its interests in relation to these civilizations. It will also, however, require the West to develop a more profound understanding of the basic religious and philosophical assumptions underlying other civilizations and the ways in which people in those civilizations see their interests. It will require an effort to identify elements of commonality between Western and other civilizations. For the relevant future, there will be no universal civilization, but instead a world of different civilizations, each of which will have to learn to coexist with the others.

muddur · 08-16-2003, 07:40 AM

The pragmatic fanaticism of al Qaeda: an anatomy of extremism in Middle Eastern politics. Michael Doran.

[url="http://www.lander.edu/atannenbaum/Tannenbaum%20courses%20folder/POLS%20103%20World%20Politics/doran_pragmatic_famaticism_of_al_qaeda.htm"]HERE[/url]

muddur · (This post was last modified: 08-16-2003, 07:48 AM by muddur.)

[url="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/style/longterm/books/chap1/clashofcivilizations.htm"]The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order [/url]

[url="http://www.crosscurrents.org/Mileswinter2002.htm"]THEOLOGY AND THE CLASH OF CIVILIZATIONS Peace will come not when any one terrorist and his network of secret agents have been "surgically" excised but when an authentic alternative vision has emerged within the House of Islam.[/url]

[url="http://archive.tol.cz/transitions/democra1.html"]Democracy, Destiny, and the Clash of Civilizations [/url]

Why do many Western scholars, including Samuel Huntington and his much-discussed The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order, still insist that non-Western means 'inferior,' asks this author, who makes his home in the non-European, non-Protestant, non-Anglo-Saxon state of Serbia

muddur · 08-16-2003, 07:50 AM

Balkans: Raising the Fist of Resistance--Again

[url="http://www.tol.cz/look/BRR/article.tpl?IdLanguage=1&IdPublication=9&NrIssue=1&NrSection=4&NrArticle=10419"]http://www.tol.cz/look/BRR/article.tpl?IdL...NrArticle=10419[/url]

muddur · 08-16-2003, 07:52 AM

Here is another interesting link ..

Clash of Civilizations?

Part 1: Introduction â¢ More of this Feature

â¢ 2. Ideology & Religion

â¢ 3. Why Religion?

â¢ 4. The West vs. Islam

â¢ 5. Today & Tomorrow

[url="http://atheism.about.com/library/weekly/aa101701a.htm"]http://atheism.about.com/library/weekly/aa101701a.htm[/url]

**acharya** · 08-16-2003, 08:20 AM

The Future of âHistoryâ

By Stanley Kurtz

(Go to Print Friendly Version)

his is Samuel P. Huntingtonâs moment. The world of cultural and religious strife anticipated by Huntington in his much-discussed (and widely excoriated) book, The Clash of Civilizations, has unquestionably arrived. Yet whether we might also someday see an alternative world â the global triumph of democracy envisioned in Francis Fukuyamaâs brilliant work, The End of History and the Last Man â is also a question that seems very much before us as we contemplate what it would mean to âwinâ the war in which we are engaged. The question of our time may now be whether Huntingtonâs culture clash or Fukuyamaâs pax democratia is the worldâs most plausible future.

[url="http://www.policyreview.org/JUN02/kurtz.html"]http://www.policyreview.org/JUN02/kurtz.html[/url]

08-17-2003, 01:16 AM

I am not sure where to put this--

What Muslim have done to India

Muslim invasions is still today a very controversial subject, since Indian history books have chosen to keep quiet about this huge chunk of Indian history - nearly 10 centuries of horrors. And whatever happens in contemporary India, is a consequence of these invasions, whether it is the creation of Pakistan, whether it is Kashmir, whether it is Ayodhya, or Kargil. There is no point in passing a moral judgment on these invasions, as they are a thing of the past. Islam is one of the world's youngest religions, whose dynamism is not in question; unfortunately it is a militant religion, as it believes that there is only one God and all the other Gods are false. And so as long as this concept is ingrained in the minds of Muslims, there will be a problem of tolerance, of tolerating other creeds. And this is what happened in India from the 7th century onwards : invaders, who believed in one God, came upon this country which had a million gods... And for them it was the symbol of all what they thought was wrong. So the genocide - and the word genocide has to be used - which was perpetrated was tremendous, because of the staunch resistance of the 4000 year old Hindu faith. Indeed, the Muslim policy vis a vis India seems to have been a conscious and systematic destruction of everything that was beautiful, holy, refined. Entire cities were burnt down and their populations massacred. Each successive campaign brought hundreds of thousands of victims and similar numbers were deported as slaves. Every new invader often made literally his hill of Hindu skulls. Thus the conquest of Afghanistan in the year 1000, was followed by the annihilation of the entire Hindu population there; indeed, the region is still called Hindu Kush, 'Hindu slaughter'. The Bahmani sultans in central India, made it a rule to kill 100000 Hindus a year. In 1399, Teimur killed 100000 Hindus in a single day, and many more on other occasions. Historian Konraad Elst, in his book "Negationism in India", quotes Professor K.S. Lal, who calculated that the Hindu population decreased by eighty million between the year 1000 and 1525, indeed, probably the biggest holocaust in the world's history, far greater than the genocide of the Incas in South America by the Spanish and the Portuguese.

Regrettably, there was a conspiracy by the British, and later by India's Marxist intelligentsia to negate this holocaust. Thus, Indian students since the early

twenties, were taught that that there never was a Muslim genocide on the person of Hindus, but rather that the Moghols brought great refinement to Indian culture. In "Communalism and the writing of Indian history", for instance, Romila Thapar, Harbans Mukhia and Bipan Chandra, professors at the JNU in New Delhi,

the Mecca of secularism and negationism in India, denied the Muslim genocide by replacing it instead with a conflict of classes : "Muslims brought the notion of

egalitarianism in India", they argue. The redoubtable Romila Thapar in her "Penguin History of India", coauthored with Percival Spear, writes again : "Aurangzeb's supposed intolerance, is little more than a hostile legend based on isolated acts such as the erection of a mosque on a temple site in Benares".

What are the facts, according to Muslim records ?

Aurangzeb (1658-1707) did not just build an isolated mosque on a destroyed temple, he ordered all temples destroyed an mosques to be built on their site. Among them the Kashi Vishvanath, one of the most sacred places Hindu worship, Krishna's birth temple in Mathura, the rebuilt Somnath temple on the coast of

Gujurat, the Vishnu temple replaced with the Alamgir mosque now overlooking Benares and the Treta-ka-Thakur temple in Ayodhya. The number of temples

destroyed by Aurangzeb is counted in 5, if not 6 figures, according to his own official court chronicles: "Aurangzeb ordered all provincial governors to destroy

all schools and temples of the Pagans and to make a complete end to all pagan teachings and practices"... "Hasan Ali Khan came and said that 172 temples in the

area had been destroyed"... "His majesty went to Chittor and 63 temples were destroyed"... "Abu Tarab, appointed to destroy the idol-temples of Amber,

reported that 66 temples had been razed to the ground". Aurangzeb did not stop at destroying temples, their users were also wiped-out; even his own brother, Dara Shikoh, was executed for taking an interest in Hindu religion and the Sikh Guru Tegh Bahadur was beheaded because he objected to Aurangzeb's forced

conversions.

This genocide is still a reality which should not be wished away. Because what the Muslims invasions have done to India is to instil terror in the Hindu collective psyche, which still lingers many centuries later and triggers unconscious reactions. The paranoia displayed today by Indians, their indiscipline, their lack of charity for their own brethrens, the abject disregard of their environment, are a direct consequence of these invasions.

What India has to do today, is to look squarely at the facts pertaining to these invasions and come to term with them, without any spirit of vengeance, so as to regain a little bit of self-pride. It would also help the Muslim community of India to acknowledge these horrors, which paradoxically, were committed against them, as they are the Hindus who were then converted by force, their women raped, their children taken into slavery - even though today they have made theirs the religion which their ancestors once hated.

courtesy francois gautier.

Forward this mail to make people aware of our own brutal history

**Hauma Hamiddha** · 08-17-2003, 10:57 AM

[url="http://www.techcentralstation.com/1051/defensewrapper.jsp?PID=1051-350&CID=1051-081403A"]Paul J. Cella' article[/url]

[url="http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/People/spok/metabook/heresies.html"]Link supplied by Acharya[/url]

Quote:

A void is made in the heart of Islam which has to be filled up again and again by a mere repetition of the revolution that founded it. There are no sacraments; the only thing that can happen is a sort of apocalypse, as unique as the end of the world; so the apocalypse can only be repeated and the world end again and again. There are no priests; and this equality can only breed a multitude of lawless prophets almost as numerous as priests. The very dogma that there is only one Mohamet produces an endless procession of Mohamets.

This is a very succint and precise description of Islamic ideology. It is taboo in India and Indian circles to discuss the corollaries of this diagnosis and in some case to mention the very diagnosis itself.

Yet, India is one of the countries that is the main experiencer of the effects of this "endless procession of Mohamets". The response of the Indians to these stream of Mohamets is, IMHO, rather confused and takes the following forms:

1)Mohammedanism is not bad, it is just its modern followers who have misinterpreted the originally peaceful doctrine.

2)Mohammedanism is no problem at all. rather it is Pakistan that is a problem.

3)Mohammedanism is no problem at all, it is the discrimination of Mohammedans by their non-Islamic neighbors that is the main problem.

As a result of these ideas the origins of many of India's problems are neglected and correspondingly the solutions are ineffective.

My main reason for raking this controversial issue is to get some prognosis for the future regarding how the civilizational conflicts of Islam may play out. There is no doubt that we have not seen the last of our conflicts with Islam. Some pertinent questions that arise are:

1) Is there going to be any apocalyptic show down between Islam and its rivals?

2)Is the sub-continent going to be the focus of a great civilizational strife involving Islamic and would it be a grand war?

3)Would the various Non-Islamic parties, eg Hindus, Jews, "The West", Russia, China make a common cause against Islam?

4) Are we going to see Islamic potentates making common cause with each other- the Ummah, in their struggle against the Kaffirs?

An unfettered discussion of these problems may do us some good.

**acharya** · 08-17-2003, 09:06 PM

Muslim namesâ for villages: CM in trouble

Author: Kalathil Ramakrishnan

Publication: The Indian Express

Date: August 14, 2003

URL: [url="http://www.indianexpress.com/archive_full_story.php?content_id=29519"]http://www.indianexpress.com/archive_full_...ontent_id=29519[/url]

Kerala never runs out of issues and causes which trigger communal tension. The latest in Kasargod district is over names â whether villages should be known by their older versions or by the communally ââre- chargedââ new versions.

The government has now accorded official sanction to the change in name of Kettumkallu, a place in Muliyar grama panchayat, to Allama Mohammed Iqbal Nagar amid protests from a section. Local Administration Secretary P. Kamalkutty had approved the change of name through a government order.

The village of Kettumkallu is near the Cherkala grama panchayat, the native place of Local Administration Minister Cherkalam Abdulla. According to Opposition leaders in the panchayat, Abdulla has a vested interest in changing the name of Kettumkallu to Allama Mohammed Iqbal Nagar. The minister, they allege, is trying to create a ââMuslim consolidation in the ensuing district panchayat election.ââ

The adjacent area in Cherkala panchayat is already known as Iqbal Nagar and the place, together with Kettumkallu in Muliyar panchayat, forms a ââdivisionââ of the district panchayat. The entire division now would be known as Iqbal Nagar.

According to CPM leaders of Muliyar gram panchayat, the Muslim League is playing a communal game by instigating the change in name so that voters can be influenced in the next election.

However, this idea to ââcarve outââ a seat for the Muslim League is threatening to snowball into a major row with the CPM-led Opposition and the BJP coming together to defeat the move through a no-confidence motion at the panchayat governing body slated for August 13.

ââWe will start an agitation against the change of name of Kettumkallu,ââ says BJP mandal committee president Ithappa Shetty.

But, local Muslim League leaders deny the allegation that the name of Iqbal Nagar had any communal undertones. ââHow can the name of poet Allama Mohammed Iqbal be associated with communalism,ââ asked IUML secretary in Muliyar.

It is the second major controversy in the district after the row over the change in name of a place in Meenja panchayat but that was solved amicably a few years ago. The Kaliyur ward in the panchayat was called Korathipalige by a section of the people and as Shafi Nagar by another group. However, the issue was laid to rest with the intervention of the district authorities who fixed the name as Gandhi Nagar.

But, several nagars are springing up in the district unofficially. The extremist elements on both sides of the communal divide are announcing the changes by planting the name boards.

Though none of these changes has got official approval, the gram panchayats concerned are shying away from taking action against the extremist elements who are trying to turn their strongholds into their exclusive domain.

**acharya** · 09-07-2003, 07:17 AM

Fundamentalism is central to Islam

By Srinivasan K. Rangachary

[url="http://www.dailyexcelsior.com/web1/03sep04/edit.htm#5"]http://www.dailyexcelsior.com/web1/03sep04/edit.htm#5[/url]

As Islamic fundamentalism creates problems for world peace, Islam as

a religion has come under scrutiny by people from other religions.

As regards India, whitewashing Islam and its record in India is a

major activity of India's secularists. They tell us that Islam is

benevolent, peaceful, tolerant and egalitarian, although Muslim

rulers may not have lived up to its ideals. The idea originated with

the late Aligarh historian Mohammad Habib and was enthusiastically

picked up by successive generations of historians and apologists.

The well-known Daudi Bohra reformer Asghar Ali Engineer is therefore

in good company when he seeks to make out that Islam is a medieval

synonym for democracy, socialism and secularism. Since he is neither

the first nor the last to do so, his views merit comment.

According to Engineer there is no concept of a theocratic state in

Quran or Hadis. The primary concern of Quran is to provide moral

guidance and develop an appropriate atmosphere to set up a society,

which is just and benevolent to all, including people of other

faiths. It nowhere discusses any political doctrine or programme,

much less state structure. The Quranic ideal of a just society could

not be realised except for a brief period of few years (Mecca

period?) Medina was a pluralist society and there was no attempt to

impose Islam on any unwilling soul. Thus it was very much secular in

as much as plurality of religions was recognised. The states in

Muslim countries cannot claim to be Islamic states says Engineer,

because few of them have democracy and none of these guarantees

freedom of conscience which is very basic to the Quranic social

morality.

If Quran does not discuss any political doctrine, programme or state

structure, why blame Muslim rulers for their failure to provide

democracy, freedom of conscience, or social justice? There is

nothing wrong about people trying to interpret their tradition in a

liberal and humane manner. Nobody can quarrel with private versions

of Islam that people like Engineer entertain. However, sweeping

general statements about democratic and secular character of Islam

must be checked against the real, official Islam to make sure that

we are dealing with the authentic tradition and not a syrupy

misrepresentation.

For example, competent historians would laugh at Engineer's claim

that there is no religious sanction in Islam for a theocratic state.

For Islam itself is nothing but a theocracy. The prophet's own

ministration in Arabia was known as Nizam-i-Mustafa, a regulated and

purified system of government based on commands of God. According to

Dr. I.H. Qureshi "on these two rocksâthe Quran and Hadis is built

the structure of Muslim Lawâ¦ This law was the actual sovereign in

Muslim lands". According to D. De Santillana, Islam is the direct

Government of Allah, the rule of God, whose eyes are upon his

people. The principle of unity and order which in other societies is

called the civitas, polis, state, in Islam is called Allah: Allah is

the name of the supreme power, acting in the common interest. Thus

the public treasury is the treasury of Allah, the army is the army

of Allah, and even the public functionaries are employees of Allah".

(Arnold and Guillaume (ed.) Legacy of Islam P. 268).

And the link between the theory and practice was very strong at

least in treatment of non-Muslims. Kishori Saran Lal, a senior and

respected historian, has devoted his latest work The Theory and

Practice of Muslim State in India (Aditya Prakashan, New Delhi,

1999) to tracing the relationship between the injunctions contained

in Islamic religious literature and the attitudes and actions of

Muslim kings and conquerors. According to him, the study of Islamic

scriptural literature like the Quran, the Hadis, the biographies of

the prophet and the Shariat reveals that Muslim invaders and rulers

were not cruel or fanatical by themselves as such, but they became

so by pursuing the malevolent ideology as projected in this

literature against non-Muslims as such.

Muslim invaders and conquerors of India belonged to different races,

countries and sects. Their rule extended ever a thousand years in

different parts of the country and their chronicles are written in

different languages. Yet there is a remarkable similarity in their

behaviour pattern. The source of this uniformity of action is Quran.

So much for the `non-theocratic' nature of Islamic state. Let

us now

turn to the claim that Islam recognises freedom of conscience,

minority rights and plurality of religions. Quran makes a clear

distinction with Muslims and non-Muslims and its injunctions on how

the Muslims should treat non-Muslims are numerous, unambiguous and

blood chilling. Quran repeatedly promises hell to Kafirs, warns

believers against mixing with them, calls on them to wage wars on

them and promises eternal luxury in paradise to shaheeds who die in

such wars.

To be sure, there are a few seemingly tolerant passages in Quran

(there is no compulsion in religion: unto you your religion, unto me

my religion). However, these do not bear closer scrutiny, especially

when we examine the context in which these revelations were received.

When the Prophet was strong and powerful, when he had a free choice

between tolerance and intolerance, he shed all tactical semblance of

live and let live and opted for aggression and persecution.

The Hadis or Sunnah is explicit enough and proves that the Prophet

practised what the Quran preaches. As Engineer mentions, he made a

covenant with Jews of Medina whom he recognised as a people of the

book. However, within a few years, two of the three Jewish clans in

Medina were driven out and the third was slaughtered.

The Prophet, in his treaty with Zoroastrians of Bahrain, recognised

them as ahi-al-kitab or people of the book, though they are not

mentioned in the Quran as such.

Where are they now? Apart from a few thousand Zoroastrians living in

abject poverty in a few villages of Iran, Islam has wiped them out.

Only those who fled to the land of Hindu `fascists' have

survived

and prospered.

Engineer refers to the political (sic) crisis over the choice of the

Prophet's successor, which ultimately led to the split between

Shias

and Sunnis, rise of hilafah and imamah and persecution of the latter

by the former. Yet he is unwilling to accept that what the Prophet

had founded was not so much a religion as a state, which claimed to

guide and control each and every aspect of the life of the

individual as well as the society.

For this reason, fundamentalism is not accidental but central to

Islam. It is inherent in all those ideologies, which are built on a

narrow spiritual vision, have a limited psychic base and which

emphasise dogmas and personalities rather than experience of an

impersonal truth.

As the great scholar Ram Swarup pointed out, worthwhile liberalism

in Islam would involve rethinking its fundamentals like its concepts

of god, the last prophet (khatimunnabiyin), and the revelation that

ends all revelation. It will have to discuss whether the Prophet

speaks for Allah or Allah speaks for Prophet. It will have to

rethink the whole concept of Kafirs , Islam's name for its

neighbours. It should raise the question whether Kafirs should treat

the Muslims the way Muslims treat Kafirs.

Obviously, engineer makes no such effort. A spokesman of Islam

extolling virtues of tolerance and freedom of conscience for non-

Muslims represents a great advancement. Unfortunately, what we get

in most cases is either some variant of Islamic fundamentalism or

downright deception divorced from real Islam. INAV

09-17-2003, 10:43 PM

More on Wahhabi Jihadis

[url="http://theoccident.com/saudirobbers.html"]http://theoccident.com/saudirobbers.html[/url]

[url="http://www.unitedvisionsolutions.com/wahabism.html"]http://www.unitedvisionsolutions.com/wahabism.html[/url]

[url="http://www.time.com/time/covers/1101030915/wwahhabism.html"]Wahhabism: Toxic Faith ?[/url]

The debate persists as to whether the state religion of Saudi Arabia breeds intolerance or is just misunderstood

By David Van Biema

Posted Sunday, September 7, 2003

Religious movements often originate in a dream. It was said in Arabia in the 1800s that a man in Najd province dreamed that his body produced flames that spread far and wide, consuming desert camps and towns alike. He told his dream to a sheik, who said the man's son would found a new faith that the desert Arabs would adopt. And so it transpiredâalthough the founder was ultimately the man's grandson: Mohammed ibn Abd Wahhab.

The version of Islam that Wahhab conceived in the 1740s is now the state religion of Saudi Arabia. These days, many would interpret that premonitory dream in a darker light. Is Wahhabism somehow synonymous with terrorism, dictating war on the West as part of its doctrinal underpinnings? Or have terrorists distorted Wahhabism to give a false legitimacy to their militancy?

In his book on Islam in Saudi Arabia, Stephen Schwartz suggests that where Wahhabism is the official creed, there must be a terrorist state. Many religious historians and sociologists, however, see a more subtle picture: a faith founded on rigid and deeply intolerant tenets that in principle falls somewhere short of advocating terrorism. And though a recent murderous mutation may be ascendant in many Saudi mosques, it does not yet represent the ideology of the country's entire clerical establishment.

Wahhab was born in a small central Arabian town in 1703 as the Ottoman Empire, which had dominated Islam's majority Sunni branch for centuries, was in its long, final decline. His seminal text, The Book of Unity, attempted to recover what he saw as the original, pristine state of Islam by pruning out "innovations" that had polluted its essential monotheism. Wahhab's list of corruptions was sweeping; it included Shi'ism, the faith's minority strain, and Sufism, its mystical tradition. He discarded most of the interpretations of Islam's four great legal schools in favor of an exceedingly literal reading of punctilious ritual and enforcement by draconian punishment.

The new creed had no place for free will or human rights, let alone separation of mosque and state. Wahhab partook of a historically typical hostility toward Christians and Jews. But he was less focused on infidels than he was inward-looking and obsessed with orthodoxy: he wrote that jihad should be postponed until the Islamic house was in order. He was more combative regarding his brethren. Although Muslims are forbidden to wage holy war against one another, Khaled Abou El Fadl, an expert in Islamic law at Yale University, says Wahhabis "argued that Muslims guilty of [unorthodoxy] could and should be killed."

That notion proved attractive in 1744 to Mohammed ibn Saud, an ambitious local chieftain of puritan leanings who wanted ideological approval to treat the Ottomans as a foreign occupying power. Wahhabism gave him religious credibility for an armed campaign to gain stewardship of the holy cities of Mecca and Medina. The resulting full partnershipâSaud granted Wahhab religious and judicial control in his lands and married his daughterâwas wildly successful and memorably brutal. Slaughtering thousands of Shi'ites and Sufis (and Sunnis), the House of Saud began a journey that would turn most of the Arabian peninsula into a Wahhabi theocracy. As the Sauds gained territory, they imposed what Paul Hardy, author of Traditions of Islam, calls Wahhabism's "radical intolerance." In 1926 they introduced the muttawa, religious police who enforce prayer five times a day, monitor citizens' cell-phone text messages and arrest women for failing to cover themselves completely with the black abaya robe.

Over the years the profligate ruling family has drawn the ire of its most fervent subjects. To them, the increasing opulence of the princes' lifestyle and the kingdom's openness to dealing with the West are corruptions of the faith's rigid strictures. That dissent increased when the Sauds let Westerners develop their oil.

In the 1980s, when the regime sought to deflect its homegrown militants from domestic agitation by sending them off to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan, it midwifed a radical mutation of Wahhabism. There Saudi mujahedin battled alongside cadres inspired by Egyptian Islamist Sayyid Qutb, whose fundamentalism was influenced by notions of violent national liberation. Unlike Wahhabis, these Islamists believed that the time for jihad against infidels and the neocolonialist West was now. Returning home, the Saudi fighters advanced the idea, and soon there were two types of Wahhabism.

Today, notes Hillel Fradkin, an Islamic scholar who heads the neoconservative Center for Ethics and Public Policy in Washington, "it's increasingly hard to distinguish Wahhabism from radicalized Islam." French writer and Islam expert Gilles Kepel says the Sauds until the late 1990s relied on a trio of aging clerics with conservative credibility to keep the young in check. But all three have since died, and the remaining government-sanctioned religious establishment holds little sway with the most hard-core believers. Those imams who still counsel against jihadist terrorism, says Kepel, may be in earnest. But they "inevitably combine it with injunctions to embrace 'real' Islam all the more zealously." In this era, that all too often translates into values and attitudes hostile to Western culture.

âWith reporting by Bruce Crumley/Paris

09-18-2003, 07:14 AM

One way to look at the failure of the WTO talks at Cancun is to view it as a clash of civilizations - the entrenched european civilization vs. the rest of the world. THe developed world (Europe and NA) are terrified that they cannot compete with the rest should they remove their protective subsidies and tariffs.

[url="http://www.rediff.com/money/2003/aug/28wto1.htm"]Tariff reduction formula suits US, EU: India[/url]

BS Economy Bureau in New Delhi | August 28, 2003 10:54 IST

India has criticised the World Trade Organisation for deviating from the Doha mandate on agricultural negotiations and not accommodating the concerns of developing countries on reduction of subsides.

It also criticised the multilateral body for circulating draft modalities for talks on Singapore issues though there was no consensus on their inclusion.

"If domestic support is not reduced and export subsidies are not eliminated, the distortions in agricultural trade cannot be removed. Unfortunately, the draft ministerial text does not provide the necessary levels of comfort so that developing countries are in a position to make major contributions on market access," India said in its statement at the WTO General Council on Tuesday.

India's ambassador to the WTO, K M Chandrasekhar, and additional secretary in the commerce ministry S N Menon, who attended the meeting, also criticised the WTO for incorporating the tariff reduction formula put forward by the United States and the European Union.

"The framework for tariff reduction worked out by the European Commission and the US are tailor-made to suit their tariff structure and enable them to make minimal contributions to market access while placing inordinately high burden on many developing countries," India said.

The second draft ministerial text for the Cancun ministerial next month has been criticised by a majority of the WTO members, as it does not accommodate the concerns expressed by most of them.

On non-agricultural market access, India expressed its concern about a non-linear tariff formula and asked the modalities for negotiations to accommodate voluntary duty removal by member countries.

India said it was premature for the WTO to circulate draft modalities for negotiating on the Singapore issues, which comprise investment, competition policy, trade facilitation and transparency in government procurement.

"We consider that the annexure to the draft declaration, which reflect only the positions of the EU and Japan, will prejudice the position of the members holding a different view at Cancun," the statement said. India along with a group of countries is seeking more clarifications.

India also asked the WTO membership, particularly developed countries, to address the concerns of developing countries relating to implementation issues and special and differential treatment.

"We have no doubt that there will be firm determination on the part of developing countries to ensure that the development dimension is not cast aside in the process of negotiation," the statement added.

09-23-2003, 11:55 PM

I received the following in the email. I post this in full since some (in another forum) have argued that it is self defeating to talk about the role of IM in terrorism. This is an ostrich like approach (if i put my head in the sand the problem will go away) that will postpone the tackling of the problem. The paper offers some solutions. While one may disagree with the specifics, there can be no doubt that the problem needs to be identified correctly and a framework for tackling the same should be laid out.

New Ideas For A New War

[url="http://www.sulekha.com/articledesc.asp?cid=306446"]http://www.sulekha.com/articledesc.asp?cid=306446[/url]

Moorthy Muthuswamy

At Sulekha.com

In my previous paper, I had outlined a vision on the most important survival threat India faces today -- Islamic fundamentalism. As it has been in the past, the Indian establishment continues to struggle in tackling a problem that has grown into a monster. Therefore, for a country like India that passes on difficult problems to the future generations, a vision alone is not sufficient. A more detailed plan of action and an infusion of new ideas are badly needed.

I am going to outline some new ideas on how external and internal threats can be effectively managed, within the framework of multiculturalism, secularism, religious freedom, and human rights.

Ethnic Cleansing and Justice

Statistics tell the full and complete story of non-Muslim ethnic cleansing designed and executed by Pakistan in South Asia during the last 50 years. The non-Muslim populations, consisting of over 20% and 35% respectively in Pakistan and Bangladesh just before Partition in 1947, have now reduced to less than 2% and 10% respectively, thanks to a systematic campaign of terrorism and genocide conducted by Pakistanis and other Islamists. This pattern too has repeated in the Kashmir valley, another Muslim majority region of South Asia, but a part of India. Here too, local Islamic extremists supported by Pakistanis have managed to get rid of most non-Muslims. However, most Muslims were allowed to stay in secular India in the aftermath of the partition. Since 1951, Indian Muslim population has increased from about 10% to 15%.

The non-Muslim ethnic cleansing conducted by Pakistan has created a land imbalance in its favor and to the detriment of India, with India having to accommodate 85% of the population in 75% of the land. In 1947, when it was becoming obvious that West Pakistan was going to expel most of its non-Muslim citizens to India, Sardar Patel, the then Deputy Prime Minister of India wanted to annex some portions of West Pakistan as a compensation for creating this land imbalance. But he was prevented from doing so by Pandit Nehru, the then Indian Prime Minister. This act of Pakistan was against the understanding reached at the time of partition, a few months earlier.

In the history of civilization, peace has never been achieved by caving into the demands of a criminal nation. Peace in South Asia could only be achieved by Pakistan being made accountable and by providing justice. Pakistan has managed to drive out 30% of its population of non-Muslims to India, from West and East Pakistan (in 1971). Only by annexing at least 30% of Pakistan's landmass (without subjects), as a compensation for creating this land imbalance, people of Pakistan, the real source and sponsor of terror (previous paper), could be made to mend their ways.

If Pakistan is to be considered as a human being, given its track record it would be categorized as a pathological killer. Hence, it is not a country that could be reformed or contained; it must be defeated by inflicting large casualties in the short-term and by being liberated in the long-term.

A desirable scenario would be to make Pakistan landlocked, by seizing about 30% of its territories and emptying them, by sending its inhabitants deeper into its main land. The newly-liberated regions of Pakistan could be settled by descendants of displaced non-Muslims from Pakistan and Bangladesh. The Central Asian nations could get sea access through Afghanistan and through these newly acquired territories of India. This proposal may be of interest to America and others, in search of safe trade routes to Central Asia, and a permanent marginalizing of Pakistan -- the primary terror country of the world.

The steps suggested above are corrective ones -- to roll back the imperialist, hegemonic, and fascist deeds of militant Islam (http://www.saag.org/papers6/paper585.html).

A similar approach could be taken against another Islamic neighbor of India, Bangladesh, also known for non-Muslim ethnic cleansing and illegal demographic Islamic fundamentalist expansion.

Unlike India, while inheriting very similar systems from the departing British in 1947, Pakistan could never sustain democracy or build institutions for governing. Increasing trade with India through Most Favored Nation (MFN) status will do little to promote Indo-Pak understanding or peace. Because, as defined by powerful and influential clerics, Pakistan is designed to wage jihad, not trade or nation-building.

Indian Muslim Outlook

When Muslims as a community become a majority in South Asia, they would drive out most non-Muslims from every Muslim majority region. The question then arises how do Muslims behave when they are a minority in South Asia. The answer to this question determines the future of India. Also, what yardsticks could be used to make an evaluation?

The underlying problem with regard to Islamic fundamentalism is traced to hate and retrogressive preaching by medieval clerics found in just about all mosques in South Asia. These clerics want nothing less than a violent imposition of religious fascism, not only on Muslims, but also, on non-Muslims, through jihad -- religious war. In regions where Muslims are a majority, these clerics wield power by circumventing the separation of the Church and State. This is the reason for Pakistan's compulsive hostility towards India and just about everything that is ailing it. However, in India, the majority is the tolerant and secular Hindu community, but these clerics still hold power over the Muslim masses.

A revelation of Indian Muslim mindset popped out in the early 1990s, when there was a large effort by them to collect funds to rehabilitate Bosnian Muslims ethnically cleansed by Serbs. However, this happened when in the Indian Kashmir, Hindus were ethnically cleansed by Kashmiri Muslims. But when the Muslim masses were told by the clerics that Bosnian Muslims were an issue and not the fellow non-Muslim Indians in Kashmir, the flock went accordingly. Many Indian clerics even support the Pakistani line of terrorism directed at security forces in Kashmir and "infidels" in the name of liberation. In Utter Pradesh recently, the clerics have overwhelmingly rejected any attempts to introduce job-oriented state-financed modern education in about 20,000 madarasas -- Muslim religious schools. This paves the way to create future generations of Islamic extremists and terrorists, as the clerics insist on teaching only Islamic theology, and a glorified version of Islamic history achieved through jihad against infidels such as Hindus. Thus, the clergy continue to remain not only as the stumbling block of Muslim progress, but are actively guiding their flock in support of jihad, thereby jeopardizing the future of the entire nation.

The leadership of a community reflects the community itself. In the case of Indian Muslims, their leadership, almost without exception, consists of extremist clergy, who beyond any doubt act as their representatives. Muslim magazines focus attention on solidarity with fellow Muslim "Umma" around the world, while doing little to restrain Pakistan's terrorism directed at India or to bridge the growing conflict with the majority community.

Besides the Kashmir valley, non-Muslims rarely venture into areas of India where Muslims are in large numbers, fearing unpredictable, irrational behavior or violence directed at them. Then there are the not-so-uncommon riots instigated by clerics during the Friday prayers, with non-Muslims and their properties, and public properties at the receiving end. A poll conducted among Indian Muslims showed over 60% support for the Afghan Taliban. A recent India Today poll showed 49% of Indian Muslims considering Pakistan as an ally/brother/friend (only 16% Hindus did). Regrettably, there exists virtually no evidence of Indian Muslims as a community reaching out to the majority community.

All of the above put together implies, thanks to the clerical indoctrination, a vast majority of Indian Muslims have become, at the very least, sympathizers of extremism. At least 5-10% of the Indian Muslim population can be expected to be active in various modes of terrorism. Because these terrorists live among a sympathetic population, they can conduct terrorist operations at will and find refuge among the community. With the Indian law enforcement agencies reluctant to antagonize the whole community, India's war on terrorism is thus becoming unwinable. This is already happening at an intensive level in Kashmir and also in other areas where Muslims form a substantial population.

Reform of Indian Muslims is not an option, when extremism is the norm and reform nonexistent (reference: [url="http://www.saag.org/papers6/paper599.html)"]http://www.saag.org/papers6/paper599.html)[/url]! Liberating Indian Muslims is the only and necessary option India has, both in terms of national security and as a humanitarian deed, giving them true religious freedom away from the clutches of medieval clerics.

The New War

The large scale ethnic cleansing of non-Muslims in South Asia, and the ongoing terrorism directed at non-Muslim civilians by Muslim civilians, points to a new kind of war: Civilians indoctrinated to destroy infidels and their culture.

Indian response has so far been inadequate because it has not taken into account the above reality.

None of the international agreements on human rights stopped non-Muslim ethnic cleansing from occurring in South Asia. Nor does it discourage terrorism from occurring within India, be it in Kashmir or Godhra. The reason is that these laws, meant to apply to nations or state apparatus, are utterly useless when a civilian population is indoctrinated to wage a war on civilians of other faiths, precisely the new war I just described. This conclusion implies a need for new rules of engagement.

New Rules of Engagement

At the moment, India is unable to defend itself with the rules of engagement defined by an enemy on the offensive. Indian response has been very predictable and incoherent towards an enemy who knows no rules or obeys none. This is no recipe for winning the war, but one for Indian defeat!

From now onwards, Indian military response should have a civilian component to it. Namely, liquidating extremists who indoctrinate civilians into jihad. Also, since security personnel too have families with children to take care, their lives should get precedence over the civilian populations under fascist grip that attack infidels or security personnel for religious reasons.

Any treaty in which India has leverage over Pakistan or Bangladesh should be exploited to achieve strategic goals, whether it is the Indus water treaty with Pakistan or the Farakka dam water treaty with Bangladesh.

The only workable strategy is to convey the message to populations under fascist grip, through deeds -- should they think it as a religious duty to kill infidels or destroy their property -- their men, women and children (the ones that matter most to them) too will be hurt or killed overwhelmingly in a retaliatory response. For instance, when the possibility arose that during World War II, Hitler may use poison gas on Allied troops, America warned Hitler, that it too would strike back at the German civilian population. This restrained Hitler and the Nazis.

The key is to be even more ruthless and overwhelming as the Islamic fundamentalists take the war to new heights. Historically, this approach has been the difference between victory and defeat. For instance, if Bangladesh starts pushing out its remaining Hindu citizens into India in response to illegal Bangladeshi Muslims being sent back to Bangladesh, at this instance, it becomes a no-holes-barred warfare, and should be treated as such. India should also push out Muslim Bengali extremists into Bangladesh, and prepare to annex portions of Bangladesh for resettling displaced non-Muslims from Bangladesh through the military option.

Smallpox Civilization

Pakistan, through its acts has shown itself to be more than evil. I am coining a new term to describe its behavior, considering its dedication to eradicate anything deemed different: Smallpox Civilization.

This appropriate characterization, given the nature of the new war India is facing, defines what the Indian response should be. Smallpox was eradicated by giving it no room or no sympathy.

Such a description of Pakistan thoroughly delegitimizes it and hence is essential in preparing the Indian public mentally to prevail in this long and lonely war. The public will also be prepared to be ruthless towards a delegitimized enemy and its extensions found within India.

Religious Freedom Force

India should assign several divisions of its security forces into a new unit called Religious Freedom Force (RFF). The role of RFF is explained through a following example: Recently, in response to a disparaging remark by an American evangelist, a Muslim cleric in Maharashtra instigated his followers in a Friday sermon and directed them to attack the "infidels". This led to the killings of a number of Hindu civilians and to extensive damage to their property and public property. An effective way of addressing this threat is to insert RFF into the situation. The RFF will have the mandate to liquidate extremists and their associates; give Indian names to the followers, erase the buildings that were used as a platform for propagating fascist ideology, subversion, and terrorism. In short, liberate the followers from the fascist ideology, and permanently eradicate the threat, to pave the way for Muslims to progress. The RFF can also be inserted in a preemptive manner for the purposes of liberation. Godhra could be a possible location of RFF deployment.

Dealing with Human Rights Activists

None of the human rights organizations have so far raised the issue of ethnic cleansing of non-Muslims by Pakistan in all Muslim majority areas of South Asia and called for accountability. This includes Indian versions, self-described activists in India, and internationally known ones such as Amnesty International or Human Rights Watch. What is the reason? Lack of understanding of the issues concerning religious fascism in South Asia. Human rights activists and journalists typically belong to a group with degrees in humanities as opposed to hard sciences or professional subjects. Hence, they have less exposure to how real life problems are solved or how projects are successfully completed. Some of them tend to develop a narrow and short-term vision and priorities. It appears that such people staff these organizations. The self-styled Indian human rights activists have created a great deal of divide and confusion in the society, by encouraging Islamic fundamentalism, falsely accusing the beleaguered majority, under attack by relentless Islamists, of fascism. They have made India's ability to win the war on terror next to impossible. These organizations, and the Indian versions, including some self-described human rights activists, utterly discredited today, should be marginalized and their access to media restricted on the grounds of inciting terrorism and undercutting the war on terrorism.

Election Manifesto

India made a significant step forward in an effort to defend itself from barbarism, when the recent Gujarat elections was fought and won on the national security/terrorism platform. In a democratic setup, the way to mobilize the public on any particular issue is to put it on the election ballet. Clearly, elections should be fought more on national security specific issues.

Based on the ideas presented above, some specific pledges to put into elections ballots are: Getting rid of illegal Muslim Bangladeshis, Crushing Kashmir terrorism (more later), and annexing a large portion of Pakistan's land (minus its jihadi-influenced population) as a compensation for non-Muslim ethnic cleansing.

When the Indian public is forced into debating these issues vigorously, the truth will become increasingly transparent as to who the aggressors and the victims in South Asia are (my previous paper). It will automatically lead to a mandate to revoke Article 370, liberating temples demolished by Muslim invaders, implementation of Uniform Civil Code etc. Also, those political parties or media who find it convenient to identify with the extremist views of Muslim clergy will have to either adapt or perish.

Any party that plays up the issue of national security has the best chance of reaching power, given the fear of Islamic fundamentalism that cuts across Indian faultlines. A recent poll conducted by India Today (over 40% of the people polled considered terrorism as the issue of most concern) has confirmed that.

Illegal Muslim Bangladeshis

Given their proven disposition to extremism (Islamic Bangladesh has managed to get rid of most non-Muslims to India), Illegal Muslim Bangladeshis (unlike illegal non-Muslim Nepali immigrants) pose an extraordinary demographic and genocidal threat to India. Given its magnitude, the Indian government should reach out to the Indian public to identify and push them back to Bangladesh. A good start would be to liquidate extremists among them, and generate a perception that illegal Bangladeshi Muslim women, children, and men are no longer safe in India. In other words, they should lose the desire to stay in India and, willingly leave for Bangladesh. Once the perception of India being an unsafe country is formed, Muslim Bangladeshis would refrain from coming to India. Nationalist non-governmental organizations should be roped in to assist in the operations.

Non-Muslims illegal from Bangladesh should not be sent back as they are threatened in that Islamic State. A future possibility of annexing land from it to create a homeland for displaced and resident non-Muslim Bangladeshis exists.

The Future of India

India is on a losing trend vis-Ã -vis Islamic terrorism, seen by its escalation. Extrapolating the census figures of 10% Indian Muslim population in 1951 and 12.6% in 1991, by 2050, the percentage will rise anywhere from 16% to 24%, depending upon the extent of illegal Muslim Bangladeshi migration. It is useful to be reminded that when British India was divided on the basis of Islam in 1947, Muslims constituted about 24%.

Several millions of real or potential jihadis are graduating every year from Indian madarasas. In the near future, as the Muslim population increases, extrapolating the current level of acts of terror by Muslim extremists, India will be highly destabilized. Even though the Indian economy grows now, it will cease to do so at some point in the near future by the destabilizing effects of the escalating Islamic fundamentalism, if India continues to talk and act incoherently. Obviously, time is not on India's side.

At the moment, India is running up large budget deficits to finance its defense. This is not healthy. Since 1985, India has spent, according to some estimates, well over 30 billion dollars on terrorism-related operations alone, besides having to maintain a huge military. If that money had gone into development, the Indian economy would have had a higher growth rate, the naxalite/leftist rebel-driven violence, owing to socio-economic depravation may not be an issue, as it is now. The government and its machinery are now spending way too much time on terrorism, while other issues get little attention.

The East Asian countries, South Korea, Taiwan, or even China had stability and no ongoing terrorism or insurgency during the period of truly impressive economic growth. With a well-educated population, a strong economic base and infrastructure, they have made a smooth transition to democracy or are in the process of doing so. This shows the importance of achieving stability. In fact, these examples indicate that by achieving stability and a strong economic growth through a good economic vision, while sacrificing some rights (as would be the case during an emergency) in the short-term, can lead to long-term dividends of economic prosperity, stability, and strengthened democracy.

Problem-Solving Approach America has become the greatest economic, technological, and military power today, thanks to mastering the problem-solving approach as a civilization. In a typical problem-solving approach, a problem is identified and everything else is put together to solve it.

This predicament India finds itself in vis-Ã -vis terrorism was first generated by Pakistan (also since the 1980s, funded and encouraged by many Middle Eastern Islamic nations) by floating and violating all forms of human rights and international law. To reverse it, India, as I have said, should have to go by the new rules of engagement. Many nations are not going to appreciate that. After all, barring Israel, no other nation faces the kind of civilizational threat India faces. Since the rest of the world allowed non-Muslim ethnic cleansing to occur at all these times in South Asia, it hardly has any say when it is reversed to bring justice, towards achieving eventual peace and development, free of terrorism. Therefore, it is not particularly relevant for India to solicit 'understanding' or 'sympathy' of the world on these issues beyond a certain point. As we have seen in the past, in reality the world doesn't understand the full-magnitude of what India faces. The strategy should be to get the job done quickly. Once India makes a determined headway, the world will rally around to the reality. The world would rather go with a civilized country of one billion people than with populations dominated by religious fascism threatening the entire civilization.

The extent of the threat India faces is much more than a law-and-order problem. India is neck deep in a war, a new kind, as I have explained. New laws are neither sufficient nor effective, as they are not enforceable. Law enforcement, as relates to Islamic fundamentalism, requires declaration of emergency. Emergency gives the Government necessary powers to unify the country, and do what it takes to solve the problem.

No more excuses will do. The Indian establishment is fighting for the future of all of its children. It has a job at hand and it must do it.

The Moral Advantage

Pakistanis think that they have the 'moral' advantage in supporting 'self-determination' of Muslims in India. As we have seen, India has the real moral card: calling for accountability of Pakistan for its genocidal acts of non-Muslim ethnic cleansing (who were driven to India). As a propaganda and as a strategic tool, it should be exploited to the hilt. Pakistan has no answer to this. India should demand a third of Pakistan's land mass (no subjects) in any meeting between the two countries.

It is worth emphasizing what I concluded in my previous paper: Since India has once been divided on the basis of Islam, and has been victim of non-Muslim ethnic cleansing, India has every right to neutralize the fascist ideology to ensure the survival of its non-Muslim population.

The Nuclear Threat

The Smallpox Civilization that exists in Pakistan is capable of using nuclear weapons without any humane or moral reservations. In fact, many in Pakistan think that it is their religious duty to nuke India. Certain facts regarding nuclear attacks that were launched to subdue Imperial Japan in 1948 are worth noting here.

About half a million people, in the immediate vicinity, were directly exposed to the nuclear radiation. However, the incidence of cancer among this exposed yet surviving population was less than 1%. Health-wise, the rest of Japan was hardly affected at all. Conclusion: The long-term cancer possibilities due to nuclear strikes on the surviving civilian population in and around the area of nuclear strikes are negligible.

Kashmir Terrorism

The open secret about Islamic fundamentalism is this: Claiming to be victimized, under the cover of alleged victimization, exploit and marginalize non-Muslims. The Muslim insurgency in Kashmir is a classic example of that. The Muslim-majority Kashmir valley is being subsidized (per capita) about 4-5 times more than most states in India. While some Hindu children have died of Hunger in Rajasthan and Orissa, the Kashmiri Muslims enjoy a much higher standard of living, thanks to heavy subsidies.

The Kashmir valley Muslims are responsible for ethnic cleansing of Kashmiri Hindu Pandits. If they do not shelter and aid terrorists sent by Pakistan, these terrorists would be very easily identified and liquidated by Indian security forces. They have taken a lion-share of government jobs and college admissions in Kashmir through an unfair quota system and are now colonizing the rest of Kashmir and the rest of India, while adamantly refusing to let other Indians buy property in Kashmir. When a population is under the grip of religious fascism, as the Kashmir valley Muslims are, the democracy they follow becomes a fascist democracy, fascism under the name of democracy, a kind also practiced in Pakistan, in between military coups. There is no way democracy in Kashmir is going to solve the terrorism problem.

What Kashmiri Muslims need more than anything else is liberation from religious fascism. Such a liberation should make them leave fascist democracy and embrace secular democracy, the kind practiced in the rest of India. This is the only way they can progress and let India progress too. Determined Islamic fundamentalists should be driven to Pakistan, a land created for them. The Religious Freedom Force's first assignment should be in Kashmir, to solve this problem once for all.

If the government doesn't have the stomach to do the above, at the very least, it should declare martial law in Kashmir to break the back of terrorism by liquidating the sponsors. Clearly, while this will reduce the extent of terrorism, it is no long-term solution, unlike liberation.

The Legacy of the Vajpayee-Advani Team

As the heads of the ruling coalition, the team of Vajpayee-Advani can make very significant, but small steps towards an Indian fight-back. Such steps, I am sure, will initiate dynamics that should overpower religious fascism in South Asia. History will be kind to them, see them as heroes of not only Hindus, but of the entire civilization.

President Bush was able to rally America around by speaking in black-and-white terms, and by uniquely identifying the enemy. Indian leadership, by articulating the impact of non-Muslim ethnic cleansing in South Asia, including the characterization of Pakistan as the cradle of Smallpox Civilization, can effectively rally the people around to prepare a clear-headed, determined, and unified India to neutralize the threat.

I think the time is ripe for implementing most of what I have discussed. The ball is now in the court of the Vajpayee-Advani team for one last time, to be the real heroes!

09-24-2003, 04:05 AM

Kaushal,

I agree with some of what you say. Moorthy's articles have created quiet a noise on Sulekha and have been heavily debated or quarreled on Sulekha - visit the comments section.

Let me just mention one thing that I find very discomforting about Moorthy. On repeated questioning he has refused to comment on xtian fundoos from NE, nothing about baptist fundoos, etc. At random he also fires things like "hindus have no problem solving ability". Until he clarifies this, there will always be a doubt in my mind about his credibility - what his real intentions are and so forth..

So read it but please keep this in mind..

Regards..

09-24-2003, 05:55 AM

I am not sure whether I agree with the specifics of the remedies that he proposes in the article, but there can be no doubt that Indians by and large are not identifying the problem correctly. I will have more to comment after i read the comments in Sulekha.

**acharya** · 09-24-2003, 06:29 AM

Hindus have not yet understood the gigantic nature of the plan against them from Islamic, Chinese and western front.

SInce Hindus do not have any narrative on other lands and civilizations; Hindus are not able to differentate 'us vs them' like other religions.

Login




Remember me Lost Password?