The Free Republic India and Indo-US Issues Ping.
Freepmail me if you want on/off.
Must read!!!
Posted on 07/21/2005 8:38:43 PM PDT by Gengis Khan
In the 1950s, the British people did not know that there was a new country called Pakistan. They were shocked into its existence after Fazal Mahmood, the great bowler, almost single-handedly defeated England at the Oval with his unplayable leg cutters.
Even in the ’60s, the profile of the immigrant in the minds of the people was a confused one. In fact the image of the new immigrant in Enoch Powell’s framework was that of a West Indian. If you visited the street in Wolverhampton where Powell lived you would understand why. The once very English street had been taken over, 100 per cent (except Powell’s house) by immigrants from Jamaica.
So, when Powell predicted ‘‘rivers of blood’’ in his notorious 1968 speech he could not have anticipated Leeds to be the crucible for 7/7. Muslims from East Pakistan (later Bangladesh) were jumping ships and, on occasion, bringing in one or two cases of smallpox. Since the English knew nothing of East Bengalis, they too were placed under the general list ‘‘Indians’’.
By opening the first Indian restaurant on Old Brompton Road, Mahfouz Ali started a flood of Sylhetis branching out to all corners of Britain opening hundreds of ‘‘Indian’’ restaurants. Only after a Sunday Times investigation in 1969 did the Englishman realise that the ‘‘Indian’’ food he ate was cooked by immigrants from one district of East Bengal, Sylhet, known for the indifference of its cuisine!
The profile of the south Asian immigrant in Britain remained that of an ‘‘Indian’’ until, gradually, Pakistani assertiveness began to register. As long as the South Asian presence was innocuous, sometimes even pleasant, they were all perceived to be ‘‘Indians’’. But when the Pakistanis went out of their way to establish their separate identity, a rash of street-corner ‘‘bash ups’’ made frequent appearance in the tabloids.
By the ’70s ‘‘Paki bashing’’ was common. Since many Indians also looked like ‘‘Pakis’’, they were often at the receiving end, by mistake. But there never came into use a term like ‘‘Indi bashing’’ or ‘‘Hindu bashing’’.
Stories would appear in the London Evening News that ‘‘Daljit Singh, Balbir Singh, Gurmeet Singh, three Pakistanis, were arrested at Dover border’’. Next morning’s Times would correct the story — the three were from Indian Punjab. When placed in embarrassing circumstances, the three, secure in their nationality, told a lie because they did not wish to ‘‘disgrace India’’. Pakistanis, 90 per cent of them from Mirpur in Kashmir, would stamp their feet and assert their new found nationhood.
After a hard day’s work, the Indian Punjabi would socialise with his English mate at the only place the Englishman meets friends — the Pub. Indeed, the Punjabi would drink him under the table. The Punjabi was fun, strong of elbow and stout of heart.
The Mirpur ‘‘Paki’’ never turned up at the Pub — religious taboo. He refrained from the other English neighbourhood institution — the butcher shop. He opened halal meat shops. The Indian brought his family with him. The man from Mirpur left his wife in the village, which did not come in the way of his taking British openness for license.
While social tensions simmered between the Mirpur Paki and the British at ground level, the British government’s favoured state on the sub-continent was Pakistan, in the context of the Cold War. Terrorism in Kashmir or Punjab was seen by the British (and the Americans) through the Cold War prism.
This was the state of play when General Zia-ul-Haq, after hanging Bhutto, made himself available to execute the US-Saudi plan to nurture an intolerant variety of Wahabi Islam in Afghanistan with two aims — to fight the Soviets and to be a Wahabi bulwark against the Shia Ayatullahs who had come to power in Iran. Zia had a third aim which the US and Britain ignored. There were more Muslims in India than in Pakistan. The survival and prosperity of these Muslims in a tolerant, secular society would threaten the theocratic state which in food, customs, music was in a large measure part of the sub-continental civilisation. An Arabised Islam in Pakistan would tear it away from the Sufi-Bhakti drenched composite culture of India. The same seeds of Wahabism would be sown in Kashmir. Kashmiri Sufism had to be diluted. Implanted Wahabism in Kashmir, helped by training camps in Pakistan, would keep the Indian state engaged in low intensity conflict.
This would have the potential of disrupting Hindu-Muslim harmony in India. There were enough fanatics on the Hindu fringe to take up the project at their end, possibly unwittingly. Muslim militancy in Pakistan would feed Hindu extremism in India and the other way around.
You, in Washington and London, have for twenty years promoted (during the Cold War) and tolerated (by negligence since) policies in this part of the world of which the three young men from Leeds are only the tiniest consequence. Logically, more must follow.
It is, of course, foolish to imagine that General Pervez Musharraf can undo in two years what you have nurtured for twenty. Full marks to him that he has tried after 9/11.
But there is another catch. Musharraf is ‘‘indispensable’’ to your purposes in Afghanistan. This places on him great pressure to ‘‘deliver’’ in Afghanistan. But the same ‘‘indispensability’’ gives him room for manoeuvre in coping with you. And now that your tails are burning in Iraq, your anxiety to stabilise Afghanistan may enlarge his ‘‘indispensability’’.
You may, in your state of funk, lose sight of transgressions across the LoC to insulate Musharraf from internal pressures. This would be a fatal mistake. Remember, 500 million Muslims live in South Asia — India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Maldives — more than in all of Middle East. Moderate these Muslim by harmonising the Indo-Pak equation. Reared in a tolerant civilisation, they will be an engine for moderating the Muslim world.
Democracy is a function of the fundamental sanity of India with its countless checks and balances. India will lurch forward with its elephantine tread. But if your limited attention span restricts you to firefighting in Iraq and Afghanistan, keeping subcontinental priorities to another day, you may lose control in the country you consider indispensable — Pakistan.
"And now that your tails are burning in Iraq, your anxiety to stabilise Afghanistan may enlarge his ‘‘indispensability’’."
The tone of the author peeks out of his prose for most of the article, until the breast popped out of the bathing suit here.
I am a proponent of jettisoning Pakistan and chumming up with India, for many of the reasons the author dispenses. But I disagree with his characterization.
The aithor happens to be a Muslim !
The author happens to be a Muslim !
US-Pakistan relationship at this moment is nothing more than strategic, just like India-Myanmar relations to hunt down militants attacking India from Myanmar. If Musharraf is replaced by a hardliner in the next election, the relationship will be likely to downgrade.
Musharraf does what he has to do to stay alive and stay in power and keep raking in those American, Chinese and Saudi bucks. We can only push him so hard. His replacement will likely be worse.
Amateurs study tactics. Professionals study logistics. When you realize where the SPOD for this theater is located, and where so many of the critical classes of supply originate, the patience shown towards Pakistan begins to make sense.
I agree the tone gets a little harsh on that particular line but I think you have to agree with the crux of what he has to say.
And yes Saeed Naqvi is a Muslim and a very respected journalist in India.
The only place where I disagree with the author (Saeed Naqvi) is when he says that Mushy has tried his best after 9/11. That would be accepting the same crap spread by the US MSM, when we Indians here should know better.
The fact remains that Mushy hasnt even started cleaning the muck in his country.
I should have answered this in your previous thread when you raised the point about India-Myanmar relations being paralle to US-Pakistan relationship.
Buddy that analogy dosent work for the following reasons:
1. India-Myanmar relations is not directly or indirectly detrimental to America's security.
(US-Pakistan relationship along with the military aid and weaponry directly undermines India's security)
2. India is not giving billions of dollars of military aid and weaponry to Myanmar which would be used against US.
(US military aid and weaponry to Pakistan will be directly used against India)
3. Myanmar does not have nukes thats thats in the danger of falling in the hands of Jihadis nor does it threaten its neighbours with dire consequences.
(Pakistan has nukes and is already the worlds worst nuclear proliferators)
4. Never heard of a Burmese carrying out suicide bombings or terrorist attacks on foreign soil.
(With Pakistan thats a regularity)
5. Moreover India has not abandoned Aung San Su Chi but is merely cooperating with the junta to take out the NSCN terrorist group.
We in the USA don't know much about India--even those of us who have good friends and neighbors from there. Our history and perceptions are different from that of the UK with respect to India. We in the USA tend to reject desires for "empire."
As for hardware sales to Pakistan, most of us only wonder about that and disagree with such transactions. We assume that US and India leaders know more about it than we.
India is certainly becoming a great and powerful country.
The place where I disagree with this author is regarding arms sales to Pakistan, which did not occur in a vacuum. We didn't just wake up one day and start selling them arms simply because we could make money off of it.
India was a highly socialized country, allied militarily with the Soviet Union. If the USA made a mistake, it was hewing to closely t the "Friend of my enemy is my enemy" logic.
That said, I reiterate what I have said in many posts regarding India-US relations:
The muslim lunatics are going to eventually grab power in Pakistan, we should get used to it, and plan for it.
We allied with Pakistan in the cold war, because they were a logical butress against the Soviets and the Indians, who were generally allied with the Soviets, or at least took their side in a lot of issues.
India is now more like the USA with respect to economic practices. They are less socialistic than they used to be, and MUCH more capitalistic, which has improved the lives of all Indians.
The more I think about this, extremely close ties with India look like a better deal to me. I think both countries would benefit greatly from it.
India is a strategic location, and the population is fairly literate (From the CIA Factbook-59% age 15 or over can read and write) and are only 13% muslim. They are entepreneurial, have a generally positive impression of the USA, and there are a LOT of Indians living here.
My impression of Indians is they are polite, tolerant and and have a good sense of humor.
With China on one border and Pakistan on the other, we would be wise to be sleeping with India.
It would be a win-win situation. It is always good to have the Ghurkas on your side...:)
Fat chance. We're in with Mush, all the way, for better or worse.
He will define the terms of cooperation, as he has.
Nukes, jihadis, apres moi, le deluge are are all in play and valid. There is not much wiggle room for the US.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.