India has urged the West to give up eating beef to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions responsible for global warming.
By Dean Nelson in New Delhi
The environment minister, Jairam Ramesh, said if the world abandoned beef consumption, emissions would be dramatically reduced and global warming would slow down.
"The solution to cut emissions is to stop eating beef. It leads to emission of methane which is 23 times more potent than carbon dioxide," he said.
"The best thing for us, India, is we are not a beef-eating nation.
The United States, the world's largest emitter along with China, is also the world's greatest beef-eating nation and consumes 25 per cent more than Europe.
His comments follow a call last month by Lord Stern, the author of a British Government study on climate change, for people to give up eating meay to reduce emissions. "Meat is a wasteful use of water and creates a lot of greenhouse gases," said Lord Stern. "It puts enormous pressure on the world's resources. A vegetarian diet is better."
Hindus are forbidden to eat beef and India has more vegetarians than any other country in the world. More than 30 per cent of its 1.1 billion people do not eat meat at all.
According to the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation, livestock is responsible for 18 per cent of the the Earth's greenhouse gas emissions. Cows produce harmful methane gas and environmentalists argue beef production causes greater damage than any other farming because it requires far more land and water than for any other form of animal husbandry.
Friday, November 20, 2009
Monday, November 16, 2009
‘India's timid response to Kargil resulted in terror strikes’
by Samirajan on 16 Nov 2009, New Delhi
New Delhi India's ‘timid’ response to the Pakistani military ingress in Kargil in 1999 has been blamed by a retired Army General for the series of terrorist strikes beginning with the attack on Parliament in 2001.
He has also come down heavily on the country's then political, executive and military leadership -- Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee, Defence Minister George Fernandes, Army chief General V P Malik and IAF chief Air Chief Marshal A Y Tipnis -- for not standing up to the challenge.
"Our (NDA's political and military leadership's) timid response at Kargil, laid the foundation for future terrorist attacks on India, starting with the attack on the Indian Parliament," former Deputy Chief of Army Staff Lieutenant
General Harwant Singh says in an article in the coming edition of the Indian Defence Review. Apart from the wasteful troop mobilisation at a cost of Rs 1,000 crore after the terror strike on Parliament House, India was paying, literally and figuratively, large sums on strengthening NSG, Coast Guard and police after the 26/11 Mumbai attacks, all because of the dithering during Kargil operations, he says.
Public Opinion
Our Generals of the Army are confusing the Public. Some Generals, especially the retired ones say that our Army is illequipped to fight China or Pakistan. Some Generals in service say that we would give a fitting reply to the aggressors. What is the real position?
Reply | Forward
The simple truth by Hero Vaz on 16 Nov 2009
The General has put it well. Gutlessness pervades through all Indian government actions and reactions. Has India ever been assertive in anything? It is no wonder China and Pakistan are wiping their shoes on India and the US notices India in passing. In no world forum does India take a bold stand and make itself felt. The putrid leadership is to blame for this. As a result, 1.2 billion people in the country have a disgustingly low rating in the world.
Reply | Forward
truth lies somewhere else by amit on 16 Nov 2009
truth is inthefact thwt we are hypocrates. If we believe in secularism, why we agreed to have a country on base of religion, and allow lakhs of indian suffer in Pakistan on name of religion?fact is we had surrendered inm 1947 against religious zealots. They are curse on humanity nad they are making every pakistani( indian)Suffer. since they have got a country on basis of hatred, they have only one strength with them i.e. hatred. They have no national idemntity, they have no sense of belonging, because if they develop it then their fanatic struggle of creating pakistan will become meaningless. so for their survival, they are to keep the flame of hatred, which created the nation of pakistan, alive till the time they can afford. we are to realise this truth at home as well as across the border, or pretend to be peaceloving and compromising and get thousands wounds to bleed till eternity
Reply | Forward
It's a well disguised attempt by UPA to shift blames to their predecessor... by Anand Guru on 16 Nov 2009
I bet this is a well disguised attempt of UPA to shift the blames of their failures to their predecessors. Everybody knows that UPA's performance in their previous stint was horrible as far as tackling the issue of terrorism was concerned. India faced more terrorist attacks in last 5-6 years not because of Kargil or Tashkent but simply because UPA virtually enticed them to come and attack by removing the only existing deterrence we had namely POTA - in the name of vote-bank politics. And not before the attack on Mumbai on 26/11 shook the nation (forget about countless others which preceded 26/11) they realized their mistake and hurriedly got together to enact a renamed version of POTA again. Now coming to Kargil - this war deserves a special mention in modern history. No nation has fought a war in 20th or 21st century with so much restraint and has still achieved the desired results. Somebody has rightly pointed out that even a full-blown war wouldn't have fetched us this result!
Reply | Forward
India unaware of Pak as the most dangerous enemy by Samir on 16 Nov 2009
The problem is that Indians are not aware of how much enemy of thiers is this terrorist Pakistan till 26 Nov 2008. Before that from Indias side only appeasement and wooing went on to this terrorist Pakistan. It was a Pak strategy to hold so called peace talk between India and Pak while 26/11 was being performed. Some so called Pseudo-intellectuals in India at first mentioned that,while Indo-Pak "peace talk" was going on this 26/11 happened, hinting Pak is good but West is bad. This is the Indian Public Opinion of Cunning and terrorist Pakistan by Indians. In fact Indians are so much confined top their internal affairs that they are not aware of who their most dangerous external enemy is.
Reply | Forward
It's a well desguised plan to shift the blame - that's where UPA's expertise lies... by Anand on 16 Nov 2009
I bet this is a well disguised attempt of UPA to shift the blames of their failures to their predecessors. Everybody knows that UPA's performance in their previous stint was horrible as far as tackling the issue of terrorism was concerned. India faced more terrorist attacks in last 5-6 years not because of Kargil or Tashkent but simply because UPA virtually enticed them to come and attack by removing the only existing deterrence we had namely POTA - in the name of vote-bank politics. And not before the attack on Mumbai on 26/11 shook the nation (forget about countless others which preceded 26/11) they realized their mistake and hurriedly got together to enact a renamed version of POTA again. Now coming to Kargil - this war deserves a special mention in modern history. No nation has fought a war in 20th or 21st century with so much restraint and has still achieved the desired results. Somebody has rightly pointed out that even a full-blown war wouldn't have fetched us this result!
Reply | Forward
Indian leadership's sickening inertia problem by rishi parekh on 16 Nov 2009
The Indian army general's point that a weak response to Kargil by India led to a series of terrorist attacks on the country is a valid one. Let us remind ourselves that for almost two years leading up to 26/11 attacks, India had been hit by terrorist attacks practically every two months resulting in many, many deaths. Still, Manmohan Singh did not move against the home minister Patil, who would show up in hospitals in "sympathy" for the bereaved in impeccable suits. I started out as a strong Manmohan Singh supporter, but now have strong reservations about him as an effective PM. His coalition received a good mandate in the recent general election, which his government could have used to move forward with economic reform legislation with urgency. But nothing has happened. There is talk of "we will do this and that reform" but things do not move forward with speed. The political system is sick and suffers from inertia. Meanwhile, Pakis and others exploit India's weaknesses.
Reply | Forward
Kargill;response by Brigadier Ashok Joshi(Retd) on 16 Nov 2009
It is unfortunate that to sell a book the author wishes to blame his comrades. The then COAS,Army Cdr,Corps Cdr and others did whatever was possible to give reply to the intrusion which had taken place.You could not have taken steps to have the matter escalated to war like situation. But the question still remains as why nobody was sacked for the intrusion which remained undetected? I wish the author has highlighted this,as i have no desire to read this book as he has been writing on every subject with which he had no association.
Reply | Forward
My common sense analysis by adaamin on 16 Nov 2009
kargil or no Kargil Pakistan will always have some excuse or the other to bleed India. The real analysis that need to be done is does India have any excuse to attack Pakistan and shut them off once and for all?
Reply | Forward
Anti NDA Propaganda by Ananth Seth on 16 Nov 2009
Mr. Singh, I would be interested in your take on a.the refusal/inability of the then Prime Ministers of India to resolve the Kashmir issue during 1965 and 1975. b. Nehru's role in literally "creating" the China problem. c. The need for continuing article 370. Do not mind, the timing of and the delay in your reaction, make your intentions suspect. Do have political ambitions but in the process, plz do not malign or attempt to disgrace the other political side. Kindly do not politicize the defence aspects. The politicians are already doing a "good" (pun intended) job on that front!
Reply | Forward
Timid Response by Sam on 16 Nov 2009
Easy to talk of Bold responses when one is not in the hot seat, In the light the of what we have seen regarding Chinese incursions and Paki attacks in 2004-09 how would the UPA be different.
Reply | Forward
Why is he out of the closet now ? by Juby Mathews on 16 Nov 2009
What is this General commenting ? No Indian would buy his argument that all the terrorist attacks that happened in India was because of the so-called "timid approach" to the Kargil attacks. In fact General Musharaff was forced to make a shameful surrender to our brave jawans. Where is the correlation between Kargil and the subsequent terror attacks ? In fact, the terror attacks would have been more otherwise.
Reply | Forward
Ignorant Comments by Veer Sain on 16 Nov 2009
The General's comments are unrealistic and uninformed. He should know that the government has to take many factors into consideration, including the international community. It is foolish to think by any sane mind that with US interests in Pakistan and US forces sitting in there, America would have allowed India to beat up Pakistan.
Reply | Forward
Gen's comment by kamusingh on 16 Nov 2009
The mobilazation of troops after the attack on Parliament. and the kargil encounter was push back of the terrorists, and Pak army. We just managed to push them back from our door step. All for political macho image creating. It was punctured by the Kandhar surrender. NDA govt never recovered that image again. Propoganda tried to create a paper victory of Kargil. Churchill said, of the escape of the British army from France, after the fall of France, "Do not clothe this escape with attributes of Victory"
Reply | Forward
lets show pakis by indian on 16 Nov 2009
pakistan thinks that its nuke will act as a deterant and they will get away with anything. Indian army should have crossed the loc and punished the pakis once for and all.
Reply | Forward
To Roy. by Krishna on 16 Nov 2009
I agree completely. The right-wingers in this country are a bunch of wimps who just love blaming everyone especially the Congress for their concerns. If they are so brave and committed to the national cause, why dont they go stand on the border and hold a gun instead of sitting here and filling message boards with their mindless and senseless criticisms.
Reply | Forward
TIMID COUNTRY by Sachin on 16 Nov 2009
A timid country my India. Can't believe we just wasted a whole opportunity to bring Kashmir back from Pakistanis.
Reply | Forward
Timid response for 60 years: Part-2 by Raj on 16 Nov 2009
The 1000 character limit is irritating.The Pakis have been prejudiced against India since beginning. How this happened is another chapter. But what is true is that they hate us for no valid reason. They think that it is their birthright to damage India. To satisfy this animal instinct, they can go to any in-human extent. Hate-India is theri reason of existence. If they lose this reason/ motivation they will not know what to do. India has failed to increase their cost for adopting such a line. Hence our people are suffereing. We want their players to play in IPL. Sharad Pawar say, India will welcome Pakistani players in Mumbai if they qualify for final of World Cup!!!. Have we lost senses. Such language give a message of weakness. Our prime Minister is keen to start talks. For what purpose?
Reply | Forward
Absolutely foolish analysis---- by romesh.sharma on 16 Nov 2009
This retired General is apparently interested to achieve some kind award from the Congress/ruling UPA and his criticism/ blames to them serving Generals and the Govt is obscurely ignominious to the Dence Forces and the then Govt.His passion fo a soldier is too exaggerated and unjustified.He has to know the moral sensibility produced by profound difference of circumstances,failing that he has falsified the judgement.What was then the reaction to back-stabbing attack on India by most unscrupulous enemy couldn't be underestimated.India pushed the enemy and retained its positions and not to forget the enemy suffered much more,which has been told and confirmed by both Mr Nawaz Sharif and Musharraf.This could result to worse for it wasn't a declared war and no one had slightest idea.What was done was the great job of our forces and diplomatically well dealt by then NDA/BJP.Through all out War India couldn't have achieved more.Increasing terrorism is to blamed to the dirty Cong polcies like
Reply | Forward
India is yet to get a Leader who can RUN the country by Umesh on 16 Nov 2009
It is unfortunate that we during the 60 years had only one or two political leaders who sood up to the real challanges the country facing. I\The cargil, the parliament attack, we should have given a tit for tat response. Now the Pakis knw well that even they send few tanks and jet fighters to our country, our parliamentarians will discuss it out in another six months and the outcome would be that, we are peace lovers, we should not act like the pakis... shame on the leadership...... I sometimes compelled to feel guilty of being an indian....
Reply | Forward
Timid response for 60 years: Part-1 by Raj on 16 Nov 2009
That's absolutely true. What kind of Rajputs, Sikhs, Marathas and other warrior clans are we, that we have given no befitting response to Pakis over the past 60 years. Musharraf, had once remarked that "Indians are incapable of reacting". He was right. I don't know, whether it is our strength or our bane. The Paki policy is clear and it is like this. They will never let go of the terror card inflict damage to India, come what way. There thinking is that they should never compromise on their strengths. As per them the Terror-factories represent a unique competence which hardly anyone in the world can replicate. Also they will continue to keep the pressure of terrorist strike on with the terror acts suitable spaced in time and space. They will never let the pressure reduce. The Kashmir issue is a ruse to continue this behaviour. It is foolish for Indians to even think of talking to Pakis. They don't understand this language.
Reply | Forward
Wimps by joel on 16 Nov 2009
Generals love war because they can claim to be heros for ordering jawans to become martyrs. Its easy to say start a full scale war but is it practical? Roy ur a wimp I can confirm. And the man they released for hostages who is responsible for the attacks!!! Would Roy give his family up as hostage in exchange for the passengers? Indian donkeys who beat their chest calling themselves nationalist but would not go to the front line themselves. Israel is a miserable country that dont exchange for hostages (they will for galit) but can India do it? What would those who lost loved one feel? And if Saeed was not released do you think the organisation would be dead??? somebody would come up and attack India. Roy u should offer yourself in exchange for any hostage in future. you probably will run like a mouse at the sound of gunfire.
Reply | Forward
HARD TRUTH by M V Chilukuri on 16 Nov 2009
Well, it's well known truth that Indian Govt approach to any terror attacks including Kargil has been TIMID. It's no wonder, there huge decline in young Indians joining Defence forces and moreover there is no pride factor in joining Armed Forces after Kargil War.
Reply | Forward
Truth is beautiful but hard to know--- by romesh.sharma on 16 Nov 2009
Mr Chilukuri,Kargil wasn't mere terror-attack but a well planned and silent and surprise invasion on our country.The response of India wasN#t timid but of hesitation and elayed because of terrain and absolutely unexpected on-slaught.To tackle that kind of situation it does need time,especially under that kind of circumstances.Not to write much one must first research and read all about Kargil War before calling it Timid.There is enough material available in internet.This action was of much greater success and honour than 71.Youth not willing to join DefenceForces has nothing to do with Kargil or other Wars/border conflicts but its nepotism and corruption in recruitment system which is demoralizing.There are plenty young men and women who have the craving to join and serve the Nation but its very rare these true people really get some chance to be in uniform.The other factor is possibly vast difference of pay-scale between Officer and ordinary soldier;and ofcourse poor equipments.A fine and supportive uniform and equipment gives high spirits anf boosts the morale of every soldier.I was soldier and would like to be again one if reborn in India or if asked even now for I feel born to serve my nation.
Reply | Forward
Factual...what more by Roy on 16 Nov 2009
The real truth will wound the die hard extreme right wingers in these columns...as seen by fellow countrymen like me they are mere paper tigers or wimps in every sense of the word. Dithered..they shied away from the realities....cowered in the face of attack & gave in to terror tactics by releasing the very man now the bane of all the attacks in India...they blame the Congress & the minorities for all their woes...call themselves nationalists...pitable lot the whole bunch. Come on wimps ..lets hear your views
Reply | Forward
New Delhi India's ‘timid’ response to the Pakistani military ingress in Kargil in 1999 has been blamed by a retired Army General for the series of terrorist strikes beginning with the attack on Parliament in 2001.
He has also come down heavily on the country's then political, executive and military leadership -- Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee, Defence Minister George Fernandes, Army chief General V P Malik and IAF chief Air Chief Marshal A Y Tipnis -- for not standing up to the challenge.
"Our (NDA's political and military leadership's) timid response at Kargil, laid the foundation for future terrorist attacks on India, starting with the attack on the Indian Parliament," former Deputy Chief of Army Staff Lieutenant
General Harwant Singh says in an article in the coming edition of the Indian Defence Review. Apart from the wasteful troop mobilisation at a cost of Rs 1,000 crore after the terror strike on Parliament House, India was paying, literally and figuratively, large sums on strengthening NSG, Coast Guard and police after the 26/11 Mumbai attacks, all because of the dithering during Kargil operations, he says.
Public Opinion
Our Generals of the Army are confusing the Public. Some Generals, especially the retired ones say that our Army is illequipped to fight China or Pakistan. Some Generals in service say that we would give a fitting reply to the aggressors. What is the real position?
Reply | Forward
The simple truth by Hero Vaz on 16 Nov 2009
The General has put it well. Gutlessness pervades through all Indian government actions and reactions. Has India ever been assertive in anything? It is no wonder China and Pakistan are wiping their shoes on India and the US notices India in passing. In no world forum does India take a bold stand and make itself felt. The putrid leadership is to blame for this. As a result, 1.2 billion people in the country have a disgustingly low rating in the world.
Reply | Forward
truth lies somewhere else by amit on 16 Nov 2009
truth is inthefact thwt we are hypocrates. If we believe in secularism, why we agreed to have a country on base of religion, and allow lakhs of indian suffer in Pakistan on name of religion?fact is we had surrendered inm 1947 against religious zealots. They are curse on humanity nad they are making every pakistani( indian)Suffer. since they have got a country on basis of hatred, they have only one strength with them i.e. hatred. They have no national idemntity, they have no sense of belonging, because if they develop it then their fanatic struggle of creating pakistan will become meaningless. so for their survival, they are to keep the flame of hatred, which created the nation of pakistan, alive till the time they can afford. we are to realise this truth at home as well as across the border, or pretend to be peaceloving and compromising and get thousands wounds to bleed till eternity
Reply | Forward
It's a well disguised attempt by UPA to shift blames to their predecessor... by Anand Guru on 16 Nov 2009
I bet this is a well disguised attempt of UPA to shift the blames of their failures to their predecessors. Everybody knows that UPA's performance in their previous stint was horrible as far as tackling the issue of terrorism was concerned. India faced more terrorist attacks in last 5-6 years not because of Kargil or Tashkent but simply because UPA virtually enticed them to come and attack by removing the only existing deterrence we had namely POTA - in the name of vote-bank politics. And not before the attack on Mumbai on 26/11 shook the nation (forget about countless others which preceded 26/11) they realized their mistake and hurriedly got together to enact a renamed version of POTA again. Now coming to Kargil - this war deserves a special mention in modern history. No nation has fought a war in 20th or 21st century with so much restraint and has still achieved the desired results. Somebody has rightly pointed out that even a full-blown war wouldn't have fetched us this result!
Reply | Forward
India unaware of Pak as the most dangerous enemy by Samir on 16 Nov 2009
The problem is that Indians are not aware of how much enemy of thiers is this terrorist Pakistan till 26 Nov 2008. Before that from Indias side only appeasement and wooing went on to this terrorist Pakistan. It was a Pak strategy to hold so called peace talk between India and Pak while 26/11 was being performed. Some so called Pseudo-intellectuals in India at first mentioned that,while Indo-Pak "peace talk" was going on this 26/11 happened, hinting Pak is good but West is bad. This is the Indian Public Opinion of Cunning and terrorist Pakistan by Indians. In fact Indians are so much confined top their internal affairs that they are not aware of who their most dangerous external enemy is.
Reply | Forward
It's a well desguised plan to shift the blame - that's where UPA's expertise lies... by Anand on 16 Nov 2009
I bet this is a well disguised attempt of UPA to shift the blames of their failures to their predecessors. Everybody knows that UPA's performance in their previous stint was horrible as far as tackling the issue of terrorism was concerned. India faced more terrorist attacks in last 5-6 years not because of Kargil or Tashkent but simply because UPA virtually enticed them to come and attack by removing the only existing deterrence we had namely POTA - in the name of vote-bank politics. And not before the attack on Mumbai on 26/11 shook the nation (forget about countless others which preceded 26/11) they realized their mistake and hurriedly got together to enact a renamed version of POTA again. Now coming to Kargil - this war deserves a special mention in modern history. No nation has fought a war in 20th or 21st century with so much restraint and has still achieved the desired results. Somebody has rightly pointed out that even a full-blown war wouldn't have fetched us this result!
Reply | Forward
Indian leadership's sickening inertia problem by rishi parekh on 16 Nov 2009
The Indian army general's point that a weak response to Kargil by India led to a series of terrorist attacks on the country is a valid one. Let us remind ourselves that for almost two years leading up to 26/11 attacks, India had been hit by terrorist attacks practically every two months resulting in many, many deaths. Still, Manmohan Singh did not move against the home minister Patil, who would show up in hospitals in "sympathy" for the bereaved in impeccable suits. I started out as a strong Manmohan Singh supporter, but now have strong reservations about him as an effective PM. His coalition received a good mandate in the recent general election, which his government could have used to move forward with economic reform legislation with urgency. But nothing has happened. There is talk of "we will do this and that reform" but things do not move forward with speed. The political system is sick and suffers from inertia. Meanwhile, Pakis and others exploit India's weaknesses.
Reply | Forward
Kargill;response by Brigadier Ashok Joshi(Retd) on 16 Nov 2009
It is unfortunate that to sell a book the author wishes to blame his comrades. The then COAS,Army Cdr,Corps Cdr and others did whatever was possible to give reply to the intrusion which had taken place.You could not have taken steps to have the matter escalated to war like situation. But the question still remains as why nobody was sacked for the intrusion which remained undetected? I wish the author has highlighted this,as i have no desire to read this book as he has been writing on every subject with which he had no association.
Reply | Forward
My common sense analysis by adaamin on 16 Nov 2009
kargil or no Kargil Pakistan will always have some excuse or the other to bleed India. The real analysis that need to be done is does India have any excuse to attack Pakistan and shut them off once and for all?
Reply | Forward
Anti NDA Propaganda by Ananth Seth on 16 Nov 2009
Mr. Singh, I would be interested in your take on a.the refusal/inability of the then Prime Ministers of India to resolve the Kashmir issue during 1965 and 1975. b. Nehru's role in literally "creating" the China problem. c. The need for continuing article 370. Do not mind, the timing of and the delay in your reaction, make your intentions suspect. Do have political ambitions but in the process, plz do not malign or attempt to disgrace the other political side. Kindly do not politicize the defence aspects. The politicians are already doing a "good" (pun intended) job on that front!
Reply | Forward
Timid Response by Sam on 16 Nov 2009
Easy to talk of Bold responses when one is not in the hot seat, In the light the of what we have seen regarding Chinese incursions and Paki attacks in 2004-09 how would the UPA be different.
Reply | Forward
Why is he out of the closet now ? by Juby Mathews on 16 Nov 2009
What is this General commenting ? No Indian would buy his argument that all the terrorist attacks that happened in India was because of the so-called "timid approach" to the Kargil attacks. In fact General Musharaff was forced to make a shameful surrender to our brave jawans. Where is the correlation between Kargil and the subsequent terror attacks ? In fact, the terror attacks would have been more otherwise.
Reply | Forward
Ignorant Comments by Veer Sain on 16 Nov 2009
The General's comments are unrealistic and uninformed. He should know that the government has to take many factors into consideration, including the international community. It is foolish to think by any sane mind that with US interests in Pakistan and US forces sitting in there, America would have allowed India to beat up Pakistan.
Reply | Forward
Gen's comment by kamusingh on 16 Nov 2009
The mobilazation of troops after the attack on Parliament. and the kargil encounter was push back of the terrorists, and Pak army. We just managed to push them back from our door step. All for political macho image creating. It was punctured by the Kandhar surrender. NDA govt never recovered that image again. Propoganda tried to create a paper victory of Kargil. Churchill said, of the escape of the British army from France, after the fall of France, "Do not clothe this escape with attributes of Victory"
Reply | Forward
lets show pakis by indian on 16 Nov 2009
pakistan thinks that its nuke will act as a deterant and they will get away with anything. Indian army should have crossed the loc and punished the pakis once for and all.
Reply | Forward
To Roy. by Krishna on 16 Nov 2009
I agree completely. The right-wingers in this country are a bunch of wimps who just love blaming everyone especially the Congress for their concerns. If they are so brave and committed to the national cause, why dont they go stand on the border and hold a gun instead of sitting here and filling message boards with their mindless and senseless criticisms.
Reply | Forward
TIMID COUNTRY by Sachin on 16 Nov 2009
A timid country my India. Can't believe we just wasted a whole opportunity to bring Kashmir back from Pakistanis.
Reply | Forward
Timid response for 60 years: Part-2 by Raj on 16 Nov 2009
The 1000 character limit is irritating.The Pakis have been prejudiced against India since beginning. How this happened is another chapter. But what is true is that they hate us for no valid reason. They think that it is their birthright to damage India. To satisfy this animal instinct, they can go to any in-human extent. Hate-India is theri reason of existence. If they lose this reason/ motivation they will not know what to do. India has failed to increase their cost for adopting such a line. Hence our people are suffereing. We want their players to play in IPL. Sharad Pawar say, India will welcome Pakistani players in Mumbai if they qualify for final of World Cup!!!. Have we lost senses. Such language give a message of weakness. Our prime Minister is keen to start talks. For what purpose?
Reply | Forward
Absolutely foolish analysis---- by romesh.sharma on 16 Nov 2009
This retired General is apparently interested to achieve some kind award from the Congress/ruling UPA and his criticism/ blames to them serving Generals and the Govt is obscurely ignominious to the Dence Forces and the then Govt.His passion fo a soldier is too exaggerated and unjustified.He has to know the moral sensibility produced by profound difference of circumstances,failing that he has falsified the judgement.What was then the reaction to back-stabbing attack on India by most unscrupulous enemy couldn't be underestimated.India pushed the enemy and retained its positions and not to forget the enemy suffered much more,which has been told and confirmed by both Mr Nawaz Sharif and Musharraf.This could result to worse for it wasn't a declared war and no one had slightest idea.What was done was the great job of our forces and diplomatically well dealt by then NDA/BJP.Through all out War India couldn't have achieved more.Increasing terrorism is to blamed to the dirty Cong polcies like
Reply | Forward
India is yet to get a Leader who can RUN the country by Umesh on 16 Nov 2009
It is unfortunate that we during the 60 years had only one or two political leaders who sood up to the real challanges the country facing. I\The cargil, the parliament attack, we should have given a tit for tat response. Now the Pakis knw well that even they send few tanks and jet fighters to our country, our parliamentarians will discuss it out in another six months and the outcome would be that, we are peace lovers, we should not act like the pakis... shame on the leadership...... I sometimes compelled to feel guilty of being an indian....
Reply | Forward
Timid response for 60 years: Part-1 by Raj on 16 Nov 2009
That's absolutely true. What kind of Rajputs, Sikhs, Marathas and other warrior clans are we, that we have given no befitting response to Pakis over the past 60 years. Musharraf, had once remarked that "Indians are incapable of reacting". He was right. I don't know, whether it is our strength or our bane. The Paki policy is clear and it is like this. They will never let go of the terror card inflict damage to India, come what way. There thinking is that they should never compromise on their strengths. As per them the Terror-factories represent a unique competence which hardly anyone in the world can replicate. Also they will continue to keep the pressure of terrorist strike on with the terror acts suitable spaced in time and space. They will never let the pressure reduce. The Kashmir issue is a ruse to continue this behaviour. It is foolish for Indians to even think of talking to Pakis. They don't understand this language.
Reply | Forward
Wimps by joel on 16 Nov 2009
Generals love war because they can claim to be heros for ordering jawans to become martyrs. Its easy to say start a full scale war but is it practical? Roy ur a wimp I can confirm. And the man they released for hostages who is responsible for the attacks!!! Would Roy give his family up as hostage in exchange for the passengers? Indian donkeys who beat their chest calling themselves nationalist but would not go to the front line themselves. Israel is a miserable country that dont exchange for hostages (they will for galit) but can India do it? What would those who lost loved one feel? And if Saeed was not released do you think the organisation would be dead??? somebody would come up and attack India. Roy u should offer yourself in exchange for any hostage in future. you probably will run like a mouse at the sound of gunfire.
Reply | Forward
HARD TRUTH by M V Chilukuri on 16 Nov 2009
Well, it's well known truth that Indian Govt approach to any terror attacks including Kargil has been TIMID. It's no wonder, there huge decline in young Indians joining Defence forces and moreover there is no pride factor in joining Armed Forces after Kargil War.
Reply | Forward
Truth is beautiful but hard to know--- by romesh.sharma on 16 Nov 2009
Mr Chilukuri,Kargil wasn't mere terror-attack but a well planned and silent and surprise invasion on our country.The response of India wasN#t timid but of hesitation and elayed because of terrain and absolutely unexpected on-slaught.To tackle that kind of situation it does need time,especially under that kind of circumstances.Not to write much one must first research and read all about Kargil War before calling it Timid.There is enough material available in internet.This action was of much greater success and honour than 71.Youth not willing to join DefenceForces has nothing to do with Kargil or other Wars/border conflicts but its nepotism and corruption in recruitment system which is demoralizing.There are plenty young men and women who have the craving to join and serve the Nation but its very rare these true people really get some chance to be in uniform.The other factor is possibly vast difference of pay-scale between Officer and ordinary soldier;and ofcourse poor equipments.A fine and supportive uniform and equipment gives high spirits anf boosts the morale of every soldier.I was soldier and would like to be again one if reborn in India or if asked even now for I feel born to serve my nation.
Reply | Forward
Factual...what more by Roy on 16 Nov 2009
The real truth will wound the die hard extreme right wingers in these columns...as seen by fellow countrymen like me they are mere paper tigers or wimps in every sense of the word. Dithered..they shied away from the realities....cowered in the face of attack & gave in to terror tactics by releasing the very man now the bane of all the attacks in India...they blame the Congress & the minorities for all their woes...call themselves nationalists...pitable lot the whole bunch. Come on wimps ..lets hear your views
Reply | Forward
Thursday, November 12, 2009
SAUDI ARABIA: Ideological and Financial Epicentre of Jihad?
By R. Upadhyay
Jihadi terrorism which is inspired by the 260 year old tradition of extreme intolerance against the infidels flowing from the Saudi sponsored ideology of Wahhabism is the most challenging menace for the modern world.
With fusion of religion and political control the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia derived religious legitimacy from being the custodian of the two holiest shrines and controller of annual Haj pilgrimage and positioned itself to be the authoritative voice of Islamic world. However, when it faced the challenge of the Jihadi terrorists in its own land in late seventies of last century, it started spending billions of dollars for spreading Wahhabism in different countries with the objective to developing a clout in Islamic establishments. Due to this persistent and ruthless endeavour Wahhabi thought and customs are not only taking root among sizeable section of world Muslims but are also making inroads even among the peace loving faithfuls.
A cursory glance to the chronology of Jihadi terrorism gives an idea that empowerment to violent Islamists is not an overnight development. It is in fact a logical culmination of the politics of Arab imperialism which began after the death of Prophet Mohammad, the founder of Islam who in his first Jihad in 622 AD gave a command to his soldiers, “Fight and fear not, the gates of Paradise are under the shade of sword” (‘The Arabs’ by Anthony Nutting, Hollis & Carter, London, page 23). Similarly, in his last address before death in 632 he said, “I was ordered to fight all men until they say ‘there is no god but Allah’. (Prophet Mohammad’s farewell address, March 632 – Islamic Imperialism – A History – Efraim Karsh, Yale University Press London, 2006, page 2).
Interpreting these two addresses as perpetual advice and Islamic sanction to the Arabic word Jihad which literally means struggle, his companions launched war not for the cause of Islamic spiritualism but for Arab Imperialism .Clubbing Islam with Arab culture and transforming it into a cleverly designed violent political ideology, the Arab warlords due to their mental make-up of ‘killed or be killed’ reminded their followers that so long all the Qafirs (Infidels that is non-Muslims) do not surrender to Islamic Empire and accept Allah as the One and Only God it is the obligation of each Muslim within his abilities to launch Jihad against the infidels. Pursuing such an interpretation of Islam, they turned the trail to the bloodshed, pushed the spiritual aspect of the faith to the back burner and conquered vast territories from Spain in West to the Indian sub-continent in South. Many scholars therefore call this Jihad as civilisational war against the non-Arabs. Wahhabism, which laid the foundation stone of Saudi Arabia in mid eighteenth century and is still its political ideology. It is also based on the same political interpretation of Islam by the medieval Muslim marauders and is still the root cause of the on going Jihadi terrorism.
Historically, in between the reign of the first Caliph Abu Bakre from 632 AD to the abolition of the Ottoman Empire in 1924, it was the story of the rise and fall of Arabs. However, when this mighty Islamic Empire of last Caliph entered into a period of military reverses, a hardcore Islamist zealot namely Maulana Mohammad Ibn Abdul Wahhab (1703-92) from the Najd region of Arabian Peninsula rejuvenated the movement for revival of pristine Islam based on extreme Arab traditions of Prophet Era with an objective to restore the glory of Islamic power. While advocating purging Islam from modern innovation, he prescribed the imperialistic supremacy of Ummah (Muslim community) under the Arab leadership and recommended Jihad against the Qafirs, Shias, Sufis and the fellow Muslim heretics as the only solution to the evil being faced by the Muslims. For him worship to the tombs of Sufi saints was idolatry. Following the foot steps of the companions of the Prophet he also clubbed Islam with Arab culture and made these two words synonymous to each other. Wahhab’s worldview of extreme intolerance and belief in divine fiat of authoritarian state under the command of exclusively central Arabian power is also known as Sunni theo-fascism which continued and still continues to proliferate it across the globe.
Like Prophet Mohammad who was forced to flee from Mecca region at the beginning of revelations to him, Wahhab’s preaching was also not acceptable to the ruler of his region. Accordingly, being expelled from his home town he took refuge in Ad’Dirjyyah near Riyadh then under the control of an Arab war lord of Al Saud clan named Mohammad ibn Saud. Inspired with the teachings of Wahhab which advocated the fusion of Islam and political power, Ibn Saud, then a principal tribal leader of Arabian Peninsula became ambitious to extend his political territory and therefore forged an alliance with the former in 1744/1745. The Alliance was based on an agreement in which Ibn Saud pledged to implement and enforce his teachings for cleansing the Islamic practices of heresy; the latter endorsed the legitimacy of Saudi monarchy to rule over the Islamic Empire though the latter had no credible claim over it. Accordingly, the Saudi king with the Jihadi followers of Maulana Wahhab launched Jihad against the different rulers in Arabian Peninsula and expanded his political boundary by conquering various regions. Their attempt to capture Mecca was however, frustrated by the forces of the Ottoman Empire in 1818.
After the collapse of the Ottoman Empire in 1924, the ambitious Saudi king re-launched Jihad against the kingdom of Hejaz then under the control of Ottoman representative Hussain, a Hashimite (A broader combination of a group of Arab clans including the Quraysh sub-clan of which Prophet Mohammad belonged). Defeating Hussain who was also the then Sharifs (Custodians) of Mecca shrine in 1926 the king became the custodian of the holiest place of Islam and his Saudi kingdom was duly recognised by United Kingdom under the Treaty of Jeddah in 1927 (The British then did not realize what they were doing). “For centuries Hashemites governed Mecca which was attacked and sacked by Ismaili Muslims in 930 CE and by the Wahhabis in 1803. In 1926, the Sharifs of Mecca were overthrown by the Saudis, and Mecca was incorporated into Saudi Arabia”. After conquering Mecca and Medina Ibn Saud united the different conquered regions of Arabian Peninsula in one political unit in1932, established the kingdom of Saudi Arabia and declared himself as king of the country. His legitimacy to lord over the region is thus questionable.
Since Saudi-Wahhabi partnership was based on mutual interest, Abdul Aziz took Wahhabism which had been carrying forward the legacy of the Arab instinct of imperialism, justifying the Saudi Monarchy since 1744 AD and endorsing the royal family’s authority in political, security and economic spheres of the state, as key to the longevity of the rule of his dynasty. Accordingly while recognising the Wahhabi version of Islamic rule as political ideology of his kingdom, he granted the Wahhabi clerics the control over religious, social and educational institutions and also allowed them to enforce the Sharia (Islamic law) in the kingdom rigidly. Since then Wahhabism became an integral part of Saudi administration and therefore, the royal family was duty bound to spend a substantial portion of its oil-earned revenue for its promotion not only in the kingdom but also across the world. The present day problems of the Muslim could thus be tracked to the Saudis.
Sharing a significant share in the political power of theocratic Saudi kingdom Wahhabi clerics have been enjoying the status of a much more privileged class in comparison to their counterparts during the medieval Islamic Empire. Today Wahhabism, a “most intolerant expression of Islam” is characterised as Islamo-fascist group due to its “ extremist, puritanical, contemptuous of modernity, misogynist and militant in nature” ( Wahhabi Islam: From revival and reform to global jihad by Natna J. Delong – Bas, page 3, I.B. Publishers).
As a first step to consolidate their hold in the masses, the Wahhabi clerics framed the educational policy and prescribed the text books in schools with a view to inciting hatred and violence against the infidels. Now these textbooks having the potential to indoctrinate the students and youths are also found in the syllabus of Wahhabi madrassas in various parts of the world. “Saudi text books describe Jihad as the summit of Islam and one of the most magnificent acts of obedience to God and endorse its militant form for both for defensive and aggressive purposes” (Nina Shea and Ali al Ahmad, National Review Online, August 3, 2009). Dr. Shea, the director of the Hudson Institute’s Centre for Religious Freedom and Commissioner on the US Commission on Religious Freedom is also the author of “200 Update: Saudi Arabia’s Curriculum of Intolerance”.The writer in her earlier paper dated September 5, 2008 referred to the Saudi Education Ministry which “publishes and disseminates teachings that Muslims are to hate and treat as enemies other religious believers, including other, non-Wahhabi Muslims”. She added that “these text books assert that it is permissible for a Muslim to kill an apostate, an adulterer, those practicing major polytheism and homosexuals. They promote global Jihad as an effort to wage war against the unbelievers including for the purpose of calling (infidels) to the faith”.
Curtin Winsor, Jr. Special Emissary to the Middle East during Regan administration in his paper (2001) entitled “Saudi Arabia, Wahhabism and Spread of Sunni Theo-fascism” observed: “While Saudi citizens remain the vanguard of Islamic theo-fascism around the world, the growth potential for this ideology lies outside the kingdom. The Saudis have spent at least $ 87 billion propagating Wahhabism abroad during the past two decades and the scale of financing is believed to have increased in the past two years as oil prices have sky rocketed. The bulk of the funding goes to the construction of mosques, madrassa, and other religious institutions that preach Wahhabism. It also supports the training of Imams; domination of mass media and publishing outlets; distribution of Wahhabi text books and other literatures; and endowment to universities”. Wahhabism has taken such a deep root in Saudi Arabia that “any attempt by Saudi Royal family under international pressure to curtail the Wahhabis could lead to terrorist attack on country’s vulnerable petroleum infrastructure or lead to the collapse of monarchy” (Ibid.).
The annual report 2004 on Saudi Arabia under ‘International Religious Freedom Act 1998 stated: “Government prohibits public non-Muslim religious activities. Non-Muslim worshippers risk imprisonment, lashing, deportation and sometimes torture for engaging in religious activities that attract official attention. Prosylytising by non-Muslims including the distribution of non-Muslim religious materials such as Bibles is illegal” (Saudi Arabia: People-Politics- Policies By Gulshan Dietl, National Book Trust, India, 2006, page 22). Although, the US Congress took note of this report but except declaring Saudi Arabia “a country of Particular Concern” it maintained silence on the issue. ‘Liberation’ a French daily in a debate published in early 2003 observed: “All over the world Imamas trained in Wahhabi school preach hatred and violence in mosques paid for with Saudi money” (The Saudi Enigma by Pascal Menoret, ZED Books London & New York, 2005, Page 62).
Dr. Sami Alrabaa, an ex Muslim and an Arab Muslim culture specialist in an article dated January 26, 2009 ( islam-watch.org) entitled “Saudi textbooks incite hatred & violence against non-Muslims” suggests that so long Saudi Arabia and the other Arab oil countries on the Persian Gulf are not forced by the free world the war on Islamic terror will remain futile.
Referring to Ahmad Al Sarraf a renowned columnist in Al Qabas (June 2, 2007), a Kuwaiti daily Dr. Sami cited the teachers manual in Grade 8 textbook which says, “ Command Muslims to hate Christians, Jews, polytheists and other unbelievers including non-devout Muslims” (Page 14 in Grade 8 textbook). In his another article dated February 10, 2009 the writer observed that the “Saudi King and his clan are the law. They rule whimsically, supported by Wahhabism, a stone-age Islamic version of Islam”. In another article on the Wahhabisation of Saudi people he observed, “A hatred-inciting education system and lack of contact with the secular world in terms of books and culture have generated a fanatic population” “All that being said, we should not wonder that 15 of the 9/11 terrorists were Saudis”. He also wrote that Wahhabi books are also “printed and funded by Saudis for schools in Pakistan, Indonesia, Deobandi madrassas in India and elsewhere”. Despite such curriculum of intolerancee one should not wonder that the Saudi kingdom organized an interfaith dialogue with some of its trusted Christian and Jew leaders. (A paper of this writer can be seen in the site of saag.org).
It is said that ever since the exposure that out of “15 of the 9/11 terrorists were Saudis” the USA no longer considers Saudi Arabia its trusted ally as the latter is suspected for funding Osama bin Laden in lieu of the latter’s assurance to protect the monarchy from terrorist attacks. However, despite being aware of the situation , it is the compulsion of the USA to protect the oil-giant as the alliance between the two countries is based on their mutual interest of protecting the Arab-American oil companies which are running the cycle of the oil linked economy of the both.
This politics of convenience is known to the entire world but except raising some mild voice against it the international community is helplessly suffering from their game of self-seeking interest. Now USA is talking about launching ‘war on terror’ which hardly makes any sense so long Saudi Arabia is not out of the ideological ring of Wahhabism.
(The author can be reached at e-mail ramashray60@rediffmail.com)
Jihadi terrorism which is inspired by the 260 year old tradition of extreme intolerance against the infidels flowing from the Saudi sponsored ideology of Wahhabism is the most challenging menace for the modern world.
With fusion of religion and political control the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia derived religious legitimacy from being the custodian of the two holiest shrines and controller of annual Haj pilgrimage and positioned itself to be the authoritative voice of Islamic world. However, when it faced the challenge of the Jihadi terrorists in its own land in late seventies of last century, it started spending billions of dollars for spreading Wahhabism in different countries with the objective to developing a clout in Islamic establishments. Due to this persistent and ruthless endeavour Wahhabi thought and customs are not only taking root among sizeable section of world Muslims but are also making inroads even among the peace loving faithfuls.
A cursory glance to the chronology of Jihadi terrorism gives an idea that empowerment to violent Islamists is not an overnight development. It is in fact a logical culmination of the politics of Arab imperialism which began after the death of Prophet Mohammad, the founder of Islam who in his first Jihad in 622 AD gave a command to his soldiers, “Fight and fear not, the gates of Paradise are under the shade of sword” (‘The Arabs’ by Anthony Nutting, Hollis & Carter, London, page 23). Similarly, in his last address before death in 632 he said, “I was ordered to fight all men until they say ‘there is no god but Allah’. (Prophet Mohammad’s farewell address, March 632 – Islamic Imperialism – A History – Efraim Karsh, Yale University Press London, 2006, page 2).
Interpreting these two addresses as perpetual advice and Islamic sanction to the Arabic word Jihad which literally means struggle, his companions launched war not for the cause of Islamic spiritualism but for Arab Imperialism .Clubbing Islam with Arab culture and transforming it into a cleverly designed violent political ideology, the Arab warlords due to their mental make-up of ‘killed or be killed’ reminded their followers that so long all the Qafirs (Infidels that is non-Muslims) do not surrender to Islamic Empire and accept Allah as the One and Only God it is the obligation of each Muslim within his abilities to launch Jihad against the infidels. Pursuing such an interpretation of Islam, they turned the trail to the bloodshed, pushed the spiritual aspect of the faith to the back burner and conquered vast territories from Spain in West to the Indian sub-continent in South. Many scholars therefore call this Jihad as civilisational war against the non-Arabs. Wahhabism, which laid the foundation stone of Saudi Arabia in mid eighteenth century and is still its political ideology. It is also based on the same political interpretation of Islam by the medieval Muslim marauders and is still the root cause of the on going Jihadi terrorism.
Historically, in between the reign of the first Caliph Abu Bakre from 632 AD to the abolition of the Ottoman Empire in 1924, it was the story of the rise and fall of Arabs. However, when this mighty Islamic Empire of last Caliph entered into a period of military reverses, a hardcore Islamist zealot namely Maulana Mohammad Ibn Abdul Wahhab (1703-92) from the Najd region of Arabian Peninsula rejuvenated the movement for revival of pristine Islam based on extreme Arab traditions of Prophet Era with an objective to restore the glory of Islamic power. While advocating purging Islam from modern innovation, he prescribed the imperialistic supremacy of Ummah (Muslim community) under the Arab leadership and recommended Jihad against the Qafirs, Shias, Sufis and the fellow Muslim heretics as the only solution to the evil being faced by the Muslims. For him worship to the tombs of Sufi saints was idolatry. Following the foot steps of the companions of the Prophet he also clubbed Islam with Arab culture and made these two words synonymous to each other. Wahhab’s worldview of extreme intolerance and belief in divine fiat of authoritarian state under the command of exclusively central Arabian power is also known as Sunni theo-fascism which continued and still continues to proliferate it across the globe.
Like Prophet Mohammad who was forced to flee from Mecca region at the beginning of revelations to him, Wahhab’s preaching was also not acceptable to the ruler of his region. Accordingly, being expelled from his home town he took refuge in Ad’Dirjyyah near Riyadh then under the control of an Arab war lord of Al Saud clan named Mohammad ibn Saud. Inspired with the teachings of Wahhab which advocated the fusion of Islam and political power, Ibn Saud, then a principal tribal leader of Arabian Peninsula became ambitious to extend his political territory and therefore forged an alliance with the former in 1744/1745. The Alliance was based on an agreement in which Ibn Saud pledged to implement and enforce his teachings for cleansing the Islamic practices of heresy; the latter endorsed the legitimacy of Saudi monarchy to rule over the Islamic Empire though the latter had no credible claim over it. Accordingly, the Saudi king with the Jihadi followers of Maulana Wahhab launched Jihad against the different rulers in Arabian Peninsula and expanded his political boundary by conquering various regions. Their attempt to capture Mecca was however, frustrated by the forces of the Ottoman Empire in 1818.
After the collapse of the Ottoman Empire in 1924, the ambitious Saudi king re-launched Jihad against the kingdom of Hejaz then under the control of Ottoman representative Hussain, a Hashimite (A broader combination of a group of Arab clans including the Quraysh sub-clan of which Prophet Mohammad belonged). Defeating Hussain who was also the then Sharifs (Custodians) of Mecca shrine in 1926 the king became the custodian of the holiest place of Islam and his Saudi kingdom was duly recognised by United Kingdom under the Treaty of Jeddah in 1927 (The British then did not realize what they were doing). “For centuries Hashemites governed Mecca which was attacked and sacked by Ismaili Muslims in 930 CE and by the Wahhabis in 1803. In 1926, the Sharifs of Mecca were overthrown by the Saudis, and Mecca was incorporated into Saudi Arabia”. After conquering Mecca and Medina Ibn Saud united the different conquered regions of Arabian Peninsula in one political unit in1932, established the kingdom of Saudi Arabia and declared himself as king of the country. His legitimacy to lord over the region is thus questionable.
Since Saudi-Wahhabi partnership was based on mutual interest, Abdul Aziz took Wahhabism which had been carrying forward the legacy of the Arab instinct of imperialism, justifying the Saudi Monarchy since 1744 AD and endorsing the royal family’s authority in political, security and economic spheres of the state, as key to the longevity of the rule of his dynasty. Accordingly while recognising the Wahhabi version of Islamic rule as political ideology of his kingdom, he granted the Wahhabi clerics the control over religious, social and educational institutions and also allowed them to enforce the Sharia (Islamic law) in the kingdom rigidly. Since then Wahhabism became an integral part of Saudi administration and therefore, the royal family was duty bound to spend a substantial portion of its oil-earned revenue for its promotion not only in the kingdom but also across the world. The present day problems of the Muslim could thus be tracked to the Saudis.
Sharing a significant share in the political power of theocratic Saudi kingdom Wahhabi clerics have been enjoying the status of a much more privileged class in comparison to their counterparts during the medieval Islamic Empire. Today Wahhabism, a “most intolerant expression of Islam” is characterised as Islamo-fascist group due to its “ extremist, puritanical, contemptuous of modernity, misogynist and militant in nature” ( Wahhabi Islam: From revival and reform to global jihad by Natna J. Delong – Bas, page 3, I.B. Publishers).
As a first step to consolidate their hold in the masses, the Wahhabi clerics framed the educational policy and prescribed the text books in schools with a view to inciting hatred and violence against the infidels. Now these textbooks having the potential to indoctrinate the students and youths are also found in the syllabus of Wahhabi madrassas in various parts of the world. “Saudi text books describe Jihad as the summit of Islam and one of the most magnificent acts of obedience to God and endorse its militant form for both for defensive and aggressive purposes” (Nina Shea and Ali al Ahmad, National Review Online, August 3, 2009). Dr. Shea, the director of the Hudson Institute’s Centre for Religious Freedom and Commissioner on the US Commission on Religious Freedom is also the author of “200 Update: Saudi Arabia’s Curriculum of Intolerance”.The writer in her earlier paper dated September 5, 2008 referred to the Saudi Education Ministry which “publishes and disseminates teachings that Muslims are to hate and treat as enemies other religious believers, including other, non-Wahhabi Muslims”. She added that “these text books assert that it is permissible for a Muslim to kill an apostate, an adulterer, those practicing major polytheism and homosexuals. They promote global Jihad as an effort to wage war against the unbelievers including for the purpose of calling (infidels) to the faith”.
Curtin Winsor, Jr. Special Emissary to the Middle East during Regan administration in his paper (2001) entitled “Saudi Arabia, Wahhabism and Spread of Sunni Theo-fascism” observed: “While Saudi citizens remain the vanguard of Islamic theo-fascism around the world, the growth potential for this ideology lies outside the kingdom. The Saudis have spent at least $ 87 billion propagating Wahhabism abroad during the past two decades and the scale of financing is believed to have increased in the past two years as oil prices have sky rocketed. The bulk of the funding goes to the construction of mosques, madrassa, and other religious institutions that preach Wahhabism. It also supports the training of Imams; domination of mass media and publishing outlets; distribution of Wahhabi text books and other literatures; and endowment to universities”. Wahhabism has taken such a deep root in Saudi Arabia that “any attempt by Saudi Royal family under international pressure to curtail the Wahhabis could lead to terrorist attack on country’s vulnerable petroleum infrastructure or lead to the collapse of monarchy” (Ibid.).
The annual report 2004 on Saudi Arabia under ‘International Religious Freedom Act 1998 stated: “Government prohibits public non-Muslim religious activities. Non-Muslim worshippers risk imprisonment, lashing, deportation and sometimes torture for engaging in religious activities that attract official attention. Prosylytising by non-Muslims including the distribution of non-Muslim religious materials such as Bibles is illegal” (Saudi Arabia: People-Politics- Policies By Gulshan Dietl, National Book Trust, India, 2006, page 22). Although, the US Congress took note of this report but except declaring Saudi Arabia “a country of Particular Concern” it maintained silence on the issue. ‘Liberation’ a French daily in a debate published in early 2003 observed: “All over the world Imamas trained in Wahhabi school preach hatred and violence in mosques paid for with Saudi money” (The Saudi Enigma by Pascal Menoret, ZED Books London & New York, 2005, Page 62).
Dr. Sami Alrabaa, an ex Muslim and an Arab Muslim culture specialist in an article dated January 26, 2009 ( islam-watch.org) entitled “Saudi textbooks incite hatred & violence against non-Muslims” suggests that so long Saudi Arabia and the other Arab oil countries on the Persian Gulf are not forced by the free world the war on Islamic terror will remain futile.
Referring to Ahmad Al Sarraf a renowned columnist in Al Qabas (June 2, 2007), a Kuwaiti daily Dr. Sami cited the teachers manual in Grade 8 textbook which says, “ Command Muslims to hate Christians, Jews, polytheists and other unbelievers including non-devout Muslims” (Page 14 in Grade 8 textbook). In his another article dated February 10, 2009 the writer observed that the “Saudi King and his clan are the law. They rule whimsically, supported by Wahhabism, a stone-age Islamic version of Islam”. In another article on the Wahhabisation of Saudi people he observed, “A hatred-inciting education system and lack of contact with the secular world in terms of books and culture have generated a fanatic population” “All that being said, we should not wonder that 15 of the 9/11 terrorists were Saudis”. He also wrote that Wahhabi books are also “printed and funded by Saudis for schools in Pakistan, Indonesia, Deobandi madrassas in India and elsewhere”. Despite such curriculum of intolerancee one should not wonder that the Saudi kingdom organized an interfaith dialogue with some of its trusted Christian and Jew leaders. (A paper of this writer can be seen in the site of saag.org).
It is said that ever since the exposure that out of “15 of the 9/11 terrorists were Saudis” the USA no longer considers Saudi Arabia its trusted ally as the latter is suspected for funding Osama bin Laden in lieu of the latter’s assurance to protect the monarchy from terrorist attacks. However, despite being aware of the situation , it is the compulsion of the USA to protect the oil-giant as the alliance between the two countries is based on their mutual interest of protecting the Arab-American oil companies which are running the cycle of the oil linked economy of the both.
This politics of convenience is known to the entire world but except raising some mild voice against it the international community is helplessly suffering from their game of self-seeking interest. Now USA is talking about launching ‘war on terror’ which hardly makes any sense so long Saudi Arabia is not out of the ideological ring of Wahhabism.
(The author can be reached at e-mail ramashray60@rediffmail.com)
Wednesday, November 4, 2009
Vande Matram not for Muslims; only Jihad: Mullahs
The Jamiat-e-Ulema-e-Hind’s renewed objections to the singing of Vande Mataram by Muslims will unnecessarily fuel a controversy which does not serve any helpful purpose. It will definitely enable the RSS, VHP and the BJP, to stoke anti-Muslim sentiments by stressing, yet again, the supposedly anti-national outlook of the minorities. Even among the Muslims, the more sober elements cannot be too happy with the Jamiat’s unwise fatwa since the resistance among them to accepting the patriotic song has been declining. As much is clear from music director A R Rehman’s stirring rendering of the song, ma tujhe salaam, which captures its essence.
As is known, the Muslim objection is to the song in its entirety since it extols Mother India as a goddess. However, as Rehman’s version specifies, there cannot be any opposition to the perception of the nation as a mother. It is precisely for this reason that only the first two stanzas of Vande Mataram have been declared as a National Song (as also in the case of Jana Gana Mana), which only describe the natural beauty of the motherland. The Jamiat would have been well-advised, therefore, to clarify this point. But it may have been guided by a not very wholesome desire to pose as a champion of Muslim interests by refusing to make a distinction between the opening lines and the whole song. Such a stance is strange since the Jamiat, unlike the fundamentalist Jamaat-e-Islami, has been known for its nationalist credentials and its links with the Congress, which explains P Chidambaram’s presence at its convention in Deoband.
It may be the competitive urge to flaunt its credentials as a true defender of the faith which made the Jamiat not only voice its objections to the National Song, but also to what it perceives as Western influence via cinema and television and the use of English words like “hello”, which it wants to be replaced with salaam. As if all these retrograde advice were not enough, the Jamiat demanded the scrapping of reservations for women in legislatures since it fears that the step would create “social problems” and affect their “security”. To confirm its embracement of primitivism, it also argued against anti-AIDS campaigns.
This egregious display of backwardness undermines its own case against Vande Mataram since these various retrogressive diktat show that the Jamiat cannot be taken seriously.
Public Opinion:
No where in the world, does a citizen of a country says, they decry National Anthem. Its only in our country under the cover of Freedom of Press and Minority Rights, we f**k up every national Sentiment. Sorry to see such a great News Paper, supporting /justifying the hopeless anti national attitudes of Jamait.
By Indian
11/5/2009 12:07:00 AM
This is totally unpatriotic. Our Indian flag has dharma chakra in the middle. Whats next, are they going to stop saluting the Indian flag because it has a non-muslim symbol ? One of the core ideas of Islam is that the state should be governed by Islamic law. Are they going to demand that Sharia must be implemented for all of India ? Where does this stop ??? Why in a "secular" (separation of church & state) country, a particular minority religion is allowed to declare political statements based on religion ? This trend must be totally condemned, else it will lead to another partition.
By Bharatham
As is known, the Muslim objection is to the song in its entirety since it extols Mother India as a goddess. However, as Rehman’s version specifies, there cannot be any opposition to the perception of the nation as a mother. It is precisely for this reason that only the first two stanzas of Vande Mataram have been declared as a National Song (as also in the case of Jana Gana Mana), which only describe the natural beauty of the motherland. The Jamiat would have been well-advised, therefore, to clarify this point. But it may have been guided by a not very wholesome desire to pose as a champion of Muslim interests by refusing to make a distinction between the opening lines and the whole song. Such a stance is strange since the Jamiat, unlike the fundamentalist Jamaat-e-Islami, has been known for its nationalist credentials and its links with the Congress, which explains P Chidambaram’s presence at its convention in Deoband.
It may be the competitive urge to flaunt its credentials as a true defender of the faith which made the Jamiat not only voice its objections to the National Song, but also to what it perceives as Western influence via cinema and television and the use of English words like “hello”, which it wants to be replaced with salaam. As if all these retrograde advice were not enough, the Jamiat demanded the scrapping of reservations for women in legislatures since it fears that the step would create “social problems” and affect their “security”. To confirm its embracement of primitivism, it also argued against anti-AIDS campaigns.
This egregious display of backwardness undermines its own case against Vande Mataram since these various retrogressive diktat show that the Jamiat cannot be taken seriously.
Public Opinion:
No where in the world, does a citizen of a country says, they decry National Anthem. Its only in our country under the cover of Freedom of Press and Minority Rights, we f**k up every national Sentiment. Sorry to see such a great News Paper, supporting /justifying the hopeless anti national attitudes of Jamait.
By Indian
11/5/2009 12:07:00 AM
This is totally unpatriotic. Our Indian flag has dharma chakra in the middle. Whats next, are they going to stop saluting the Indian flag because it has a non-muslim symbol ? One of the core ideas of Islam is that the state should be governed by Islamic law. Are they going to demand that Sharia must be implemented for all of India ? Where does this stop ??? Why in a "secular" (separation of church & state) country, a particular minority religion is allowed to declare political statements based on religion ? This trend must be totally condemned, else it will lead to another partition.
By Bharatham
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
