This is a guest post be T.R.Ramaswami
How many blasts have taken place in the last 15 years? – Here is the list which may not be complete but still sufficient – Mumbai (1993), Coimbatore, Lucknow, Jaipur, Varanasi, Mumbai (2006), Malegaon, Hyderabad, Delhi, Kabul, Bangalore, Ahmedabad, New Delhi (2008), Malegaon (2008), Modasa, Assam.
However we find that all the attention has been directed only to the Malegaon blast and we hear nothing about the rest. Why? Because the Malegaon blast was an unsecular blast. All the other blasts were evidently secular according to Secular Maataji, whose temple is said to be located somewhere in New Delhi.
Recall how netas and even the media scream that terrorists have no religion. Now how does this tie up with the plea that Mohammed Afzal should not be hanged during Ramzan? Here is a case where the police have been able to produce evidence to convince the court of his guilt. Now letting him go would be a blow to the police. And since he is a man convicted of a terrorist act, ipso facto he has no religion and Ramzan has no meaning for him. If secularism is so important, then why did such considerations not come into play when the Sankaracharyar of Kanchi was arrested on Diwali day, the most auspicious religious festival of Hindus? Evidently secularism is the art of boot-licking the minorities to garner votes.
I write with reference to Mr. Balbir Punj’s article “A 17-year 48-act farce” (Asian Age 4 Dec 2009). Mr Punj is right – Muslims and Christians are able to do in Hindu majority India what they will never be able to do in each other’s country and even in their own country. India is secular not because that word is there in the Constitution but because the majority are Hindus. Secularism has become “suckularism” because certain political parties, particularly the Congress suck up to minority vote banks because they ejaculate votes every five years. Let the Congress answer one question – if Jinnah wanted a separate country for Muslims, as is taught in school history, why were all Muslims not sent to Pakistan? That’s because Nehru was worried that if this was done then Pakistan may have got Kashmir and he did not want his Kashmiri Pandit jathwallahs to become refugees. He did not mind Sikhs, Sindhis and Punjabis being thrown from their lands.
Over the past few days we heard a number of “secular” leaders mouthing inanities like how the “non- secular forces” have been defeated etc. The fact is that no party can claim to be secular, as the country itself is not yet fully secular. Secondly, if the carnage in Gujarat in 2002 was a non-secular act how about the slaughter of Sikhs in 1984. It appears that a Congress slaughter is secular while an RSS/BJP slaughter is non-secular. Incidentally will Mr. Manmohan Singh have the secular courage to ensure that some justice is done to those who lost their relatives in 1984. After all some of the alleged accused are now MPs in his own party.
At last terrorism is also going secular. The media has the courage to use headlines like “Hindu Terrorism”. Perhaps they will soon develop testicles to also write about “Islam Terrorism.” If all Muslims are not terrorists and terrorists do not have any religion then why is this rule also not applicable to Hindus? Maybe because we are secular. There is another aspect regarding the daily and front page publicity given to Col. Purohit. Evidently the ruling party is using it an election propaganda to check the BJP. It is also stated that the netas, bureaucrats and the police are using the issue to keep the armed forces silent on the Pay Commission issue. Perhaps the police and particularly the Mumbai police, which forms the ATS, need to be reminded that it was the army that held its pants up during the police mutiny in 1980. In fact the “coffee-table” book on the Mumbai police does not have one word on this as it would probably spoil the aroma.
But let me state something in defence of Hindu terrorism. I have no objection to the term provided the media also uses the term “Islamic Terrorism.” Looked at from one perspective this country has been subject to Islamic terrorism for more than 1000 years from the days of Ghazni. So what if Hindus have started retaliating? What riles the Islamic world and many Muslims in India is that even after ruling India for more than 600 years they were unable to convert more than 30% – the only country which they could not turn Islamic in entirety. Half of these converts went to Pakistan and Bangladesh. We made the mistake of not having a clean partition on the basis that is taught as history in schools – that Jinnah wanted a separate country for Muslims. If that is so then why are there more Muslims in India? That’s because Nehru did not want all Muslims to go to Pakistan. If they did then Jinnah would have been justified in asking for more land and ideally Kashmir should have been given to Pakistan with ALL Muslims. But Nehru did not want his Pandit jathwallahs to become refugees – which they are now.
To sum up we are paying for the biggest mistake in modern Indian history – that of Nathuram Godse – he shot the wrong man.
I write with reference to the letter “Not A Secular” by Mr. Shailesh Kumar (BS 8 July 2005). Mr. Kumar states that Jinnah was not a secularist although he did not want the clerics to have a say in the government. However Mr. Kumar seems to have forgotten that it was Gandhi who gave the Indian Muslim an extra-territorial identity by unnecessarily supporting the Khilafat movement. This incident, sometime in 1919, which involved the Caliph, was not even considered important by several Muslim nations. By this one act Gandhi made the Indian Muslim feel that he was a Muslim first and an Indian second. In fact, soon after came the Moplah rebellion in Kerala when several Hindus were slaughtered. Hence any incident anywhere creates an issue here even if several Muslim nations keep quiet. A case in example – the ban on Salman Rushdie’s novel.
Regarding Jinnah’s violent methods – if we had used violence to fight for our freedom, as advocated by Bose, we would have got it at least 25 years earlier and there would have been no partition. Gandhi’s non-violent method delayed independence and is the main reason for our “soft state” image.
I write with reference to the article “Need to recruit Muslims in Intelligence agencies” by Mr. Mobin Pandit. It may be pertinent to note that from 1947-1977, not a single Muslim was recruited in the higher ranks of the intelligence agencies by the so-called secular Congress government as they were considered “untrustworthy”. This has been revealed in several books by spooks who worked in these agencies. In fact it was Morarji Desai who changed the policy but since he was there only for a year, one wonders whether it was again changed thereafter.
As regards the Wahhabism and the Deoband School, it may be noted that more than 50,000 Indians, concentrated in Bihar and UP have given Arabic as their mother tongue in the census. This is not surprising and the history behind this is intriguing. It goes back to the 16th. century when Naqshbandi Sufism was brought to India by Sheikh Ahmed of Sirhind (1563-1624). Thereafter the lines connect to Syed Ahmad of Rae Barreilly (1786-1831) who was influenced by both Sheikh Waliulah of Delhi and Muhammad ibn Abd-al Wahhab of Nejd, Saudi Arabia. It was Syed Ahmad who was responsible for creating the Three Patna Families, whose descendants/followers are the foremost practitioners of Wahhabism in India. In fact, during British Raj, this group funded and maintained a terrorist group in the Mahbun mountain range, west of the Indus in the present Swat province in Pakistan. This group was called the “Hindustani Fanatics” who were planning a jihad which can only be launched from dar-ul-Islam (land of Faith) on the dar-ul-harb (land of the unfaithful). For more details one should read the superbly chronicled book – God’s Terrorists – The Wahhabi Cult and the Hidden Roots of Modern Jihad – by Charles Allen.
– T.R.Ramaswami



Guest post from T.R.Ramaswami
We have been accusing Pakistan of facilitating state sponsored terrorism in India and have also solicited the help of the US. The US of course is now putting its weight on Pakistan to end terrorism not in India but in Afghanistan, because that is where its troops are. But here is a list of earlier “state sponsored terrorism” events which many seem to have forgotten:
The assistance to the Shah of Iran in deposing Prime Minister Mossadegh.
Bringing down the elected government in Guatemala
Rigging the election in Lebanon in 1957, whose effects are still being heard.
Assasination of Patrice Lumumba of Zaire in 1961. It is also rumoured that the plane crash that killed the then UN Secretary General, Dag Hammarskjöld was engineered by the secret services of the same country.
Repeated attempts to kill Fidel Castro of Cuba.
Bringing down the elected government in Chile.
Dislike and attempts to oust Hugo Chavez of Venezuela.
Support to dictators and sheikhs of oil rich countries, as long as they toe the line.
Which is this country? No prizes for guessing. Maybe now that the epidermis of the President has changed colour some of the guilt may be expiated?
– T.R.Ramaswami
Ankur Aggarwal:
I wrote a post some time back:
I guess each country tries to define its zone of influence and plays all sorts of nasty games in there to maintain its dominance.


Indo-Pak relations and Taliban

The situation in SWAT valley, Pakistan is far from normal. As per Time over 1.5 million civilians have been displaced and both sides claim to have killed over a 1000 soldiers.

For the past decade or so the government had little control over North West Frontier, but now the situation has reached crisis proportion. Pakistan needs all the men it can to fight the situation, but the problem is that bulk of its army and military infrastructure is entrenched all along the Indo Pak border and is miles away from the actual battlefield. The trust between we 2 countries is so low that no General can even think of sparing these men.

Now the question is:
1. What is the implication of this Afghan Pak standoff for India?
2. How can India make the best of it?

Losing control over the SWAT valley could destabilize/topple the newly formed democratic government in Pak. Now a democratic govt is always far better for the peace of the region than a military dictator. (Musharaff was a war hero and the chief architect for Kargil War)

Lawlessness are the recruiting grounds for terrorist. Even now Pakistan is feeling the heat of the attacks from these groups. We not only have a moral responsibility to lend them a helping hand, but ending this would reduce a lot of terrorist threats for India. After all its better to curtail the threat of Taliban on Pak soil then battle them out in our cities.

Goodwill: If India makes the smallest gesture like declaring:
“We (India) sympathize with Pak for the battle they are fighting and unilaterally declare cease fire till the threat is over” and also withdraw some troops then it will not only help us gain some goodwill with
a. Pak Army
b. Pak population
c. International Forums.

This will free a lot of Pak troops to fight the talibans. Indian army should also welcome this move because this way not only military expenses will go down, it will free our soldiers for other pressing tasks.

I think a small gesture like this could go a long way in resolving the indo-pak conflict over kashmir and also extract diplomatic mileage.


Siachin Glacier ( useless sacrifice)

The beauty of the region was that when the Shimla agreement LOC was drawn, armies on both side thought it would be ridiculous to draw and monitor a front there. The area is inhospitable round the year and hence no question of a dispute. Like most glaciers, high unfathomable mountains, this area was also not divided.

Pakistan started promoting it as a tourist destination and tons of tourist started coming there (from the Pakistan side) in search of virgin ice. None of the forces from both the sides were having bases. It was widely accepted that the terrain was too dangerous for any infiltration/smuggling. Some tribal/ shepherds from the Indian side spotted the tourists and reported their presence to Indian army which immediately sends patrol parties to the glacier. The tourists reported the army presence to the Pak rangers and the militarization started.

Now this frozen desert has become a major prestige issue, both sides proudly proclaim it to be the highest battle-field. Well battles should be like flash floods… you come and you should sweep/conquer and not the ones we are fighting. The only people who lose are the faceless soldiers who get killed in hundreds each year on both sides… not due to shelling, but due to the terrain/ avalanches.



Selling the sinking Boat (Kashmir Chapter)

Today I will talk about the ceding of the throne of Jammu & Kashmir after the Tibet disaster.

Firstly a little briefing about the 600 states which were merged into India:

When British left India, the sub-continent was divided into 3 zones. The territory directly under the rule of British India was divided into India / Pakistan on the basis of the demography. However there were more than 800 princely states which were given freedom. By diplomatic efforts of Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel, all 600 states which lie under India’s jurisdiction were united. The trouble came from 3 regions:

State of Junagadh: The Hindu king wished to be independent. It was rumored that the king there was more interested in dogs than actual citizens.

The Nizam of Hydrabad: The Muslim ruler wished to join Pakistan. It would have been a major security concern for India to have a landlocked independent state in the heart of its territory. So ignoring Nehru’s instructions Patel intervened and marched into the state.

The state of J&K: The Hindu king Raja Hari Singh ruled over the Muslim subjects, because if the distrust for Pakistan, he decided to remain independent. Nehru honored this decision.

Now the crushing defeat of India against China raised Pakistan hopes. They send across the light infantry with a hope that locals will join hands and give it a face of popular revolt against the senile king. The march of Pakistan was unhindered and the king flew immediately to seek India’s support.

Now the interesting developments happen. The home minister (Patel) was not allowed to join in. All the terms which the king wanted (before the onset of the emergency) was accepted to and a few additional concessions were doled out.

1) There shall be a prime minister of J&K instead of the usual CM?
2) The state placed under foreign ministry instead of the home ministry. (Nehru personally looked after the foreign ministry and wanted Patel out of the whole matter)
3) Host of sops. Like free food, development plans, infrastructure projects.
4) Indians from other parts of the country cannot go and buy property. So the rules of the mainland were not applicable. Few of the Jan Sang members who protested this were arrested in Jammu for entering the state of J&K without permission.
5) Usually the area of governance of centre and state are divided into central state and concurrent list. In the concurrent list both centre and the state have powers to enact laws, but in case of a conflict, the centre rules. However it was the reverse for J&K. The state had more power and jurisdiction.
6) In UN India proudly announced that it will do a referendum to know the people’s wish. Even after repeated reminders this promise was never fulfilled and added to India’s long list of foreign affairs disaster.

It makes no common sense to bend over for a state which urgently needed your support.



India is a peace loving nation?

Well we are as much peace loving as USA..

I always wondered why none of the neighbors on India (except Bhutan) support us in the international community. Digging a bit deep I find:

1) Sri-Lanka: we bred, supported and armed the LTTE and pushed the country into civil war which lasted for decades.

2) Bangladesh: We for them, liberated them from the oppressors in Pakistan (atleast our history books say so) yet when there is a match between India and Pakistan, I see more Bangladeshi support for the green flag. Indira Gandhi actually nurtured and armed MUKTI BAHINI for the liberation of bangadesh

3) Nepal: we are arming and training the dictator army who just recently over-threw an elected democratic parliament.

4) China: we are regularly fighting for the seat in the UN council. Due to opposition for communist governments, the state of Taiwan got the permanent Veto powers rather than the communist china. India is said to be the forefront campaigners who helped China to get back its seat. Yet there is no mention of reciprocating this favor.

5) Afghanistan: We were hand in glove with Russia in establishing and running the unpopular communist regime there and burnt our fingers.

6) Pakistan: no explanation needed.

7) Myanmar: read the papers there. Every other day you hear about Indian’s violating there territorial rights.

8) Sikim: we were supposed to be the protectors of this small hill state. But alas we gobbled her up.

Please correct me if I missed any neighbor.

Haven’t you ever wondered, there is no country who thinks highly of us or whom we have done some good. I wish someone catches the foreign affairs ministry for an explanation.