Forcing Hindus into exile(TROP ethnic cleansing)

National Post ^ | Geoffrey Clarfield

[little jeremiah]

Unfortunately the Kali age (different name than the Goddess Kali - she has a long A, and the age has a short A) has roughly 427.000 more years yet to go before Kalki comes and clears the decks for the next Age. Bummer.

BUT there is good news, which I will freepmail you about if I remember (I have at least 17 things I'm trying to do today!!!) Freepmail me about it if you don't hear from me today. And it IS good news. Hint: There is a Golden Age of the Kali Yuga, which is just beginning.

According to the Puranas, the ages of the Yugas are very, very long. Sometimes they've been interpreted to be shorter than they are. The Kaliyuga actually lasts 432,000 years, so we're only 5.000 years into it.

[little jeremiah]

Not for quite a while yet, though (note my post above).

[little jeremiah]

I agree with your assessment. Just as mad dogs cannot be reasoned with.

[little jeremiah]

I agree - Bush's accomodation of Islam is nauseating. It would be enough to be remotely polite. But no, kowtowing is the procedure. Which begs the question, WHY?

[ARridgerunner]

We won't last:-)

[ulmo3]

The Kashmiri Pandits are refugees in their own country and this has been going on for the last 15 years.

If you want to look at the history of terrorism in Kashmir, it started with the JKLF a group of misguided Kashmiris who wanted independence from both India and Pakistan. They want the part of Kashmir which Pakistan occupies also to form an independent country called Jammu and Kashmir. They were (I repeat were) secular and wanted support from all parts of the Kashmir population.

Pakistan tried to use them but could not sway their leadership and decided they were more a liability than an asset so ISI (Pakistans secret agency) started the Hizbul Mujaheeden drawing from the Taliban types in Afghanistan to wage jihad in Kashmir.

Now these new terrorists groups, systematically wiped out the top leadership of JKLF which was strong and had political support. THen they started the Islamization of Kashmir by specifically targetting the Kashmiri Pandits (Hindus) and between 1992 - 1997 hordes of Pandits fled Kashmir and had to live in refugee camps in Delhi.

I guess the Western media has found this story 8 years too late now. But the reason I am trying to draw this line between extremists and moderates is that I do no think all Muslims are bad.

I know people who have suffered the Partition will never trust each other Hindus and Muslims. That was black mark while Hindus fled from Pakistan and were killed, there were lots of Muslims who were killed in India. So I know this might be a sore point for some one who has a personal experience in Partition but I blame both communities and the British for that.

However, there are plenty of moderate Muslims who really dont want to do anything else except get on with their lives and they are not able to do it because of these extremists.

For example, Hizbul Mujaheeden and the other jihadists do not consider the Indian Muslim to be a true Muslim as he/she is less likely to blow themselves us for jihad. Why is that... Infact Hizbul Mujaheedeen tries to blow up Hazratbal which was the sacred shrine to Kashmiri Muslims who they dont consider good muslims.

Why is some one from Turkey more likely to be a moderate than someone from Saudi Arabia or from Malaysia more moderate than lets say from Iran.

Take a look at the form of government they have and take a look the level of extremism.

Just like it is wrong to look at Christians and say they are all alike, Islam is not a huge monolith but is divided into many groups.

There is one group which is currently spawning a lot of terrorists is the strict orthodox Wahabi sect. However, the Imam the founding school of Wahabism which is in India issued a statement quite a long time back (much before sept 11) saying that this is not what Wahabism teaches and condemned the acts of violence.

So for those of you who say Islam --> Terrorists, I say it is more Dictatorship --> Terrorists.

I think extremism in any form is bad whether it be in any religion Hindu, Christian , Islam or Jewish.

Sadly enough i dont think many people agree with me.

[dljordan]

" I hope I live long enough to see it."

A watchman on the wall?

[little jeremiah]

Well, we'll be somewhere. Personally, I'd love to have a ringside seat to see Kalki do what He's going to do!

[little jeremiah]

I agree that there indeed "regular" Muslims who aren't terrorists, and who don't agree with the goals/methods of terrorists. That said, Islam has a bloody history unmatched by any religion in the world. All religions and beliefs are not the same, and history tells the story. It would be to everyone's benefit if all the Muslims of today who are descendents of those forcibly converted (i.e., most of them) were to go back some generations and embrace the religion of their forebears, whatever it was - Hinduism, Christianity, Judaism, Jainism, Buddhism, Parsi. They'd be better off, and so would the rest of the world.

[ARridgerunner]

I watch.

[voletti]

I think extremism in any form is bad whether it be in any religion Hindu, Christian , Islam or Jewish. Maybe you can add a certain religion called athetistic liberalism that's gaining currency in certain urban asylums in the US..... In any case, the fact that you include islamic extremism in the same breath as Christian or Hindu ones is precisely the reason why moderate islamists see no reason or pressure to reform. And there my friend,ies the real tragedy...

[familyop]

Thank you, Gengis Khan and ulmo3, for your mentions of personal knowledge and history. Most of us in the USA have not learned enough of history of the region around India.

Would you also please, if you have a minute or two, inform me a little on any tactical military or other secular issues regarding Kashmir? Does possession of Kashmir offer any special military or natural resource (economic) items of importance? It seems that expensive fighting at such altitudes and on such terrain would need some high motivations, even if the overall fighting is centered around religion and culture.

[familyop]

"I agree - Bush's accomodation of Islam is nauseating. It would be enough to be remotely polite. But no, kowtowing is the procedure. Which begs the question, WHY?"

Hi, LJ.

I think that Islam-friendly information policy is for the same reason as that of our Platform policy on Israel. The "elite" in our Party are as afraid of any chance of warfare in our own country as are the more wealthy donors of the Democrat Party. Consider who our enemies would target the most, if those enemies were operating more on our own soil. It wouldn't often be factory workers, office clerks or field hands.

If our leaders did not pander to the "Palestinians" with "land for peace" to suit the wishes of the various Arab nations, Europe and other countries, we would have a really broad, expensive and dangerous fight on our hands--mostly and firstly dangerous to all who are among the most visible.

[CarrotAndStick]

Kashmir is important for the sole reason why the Himalayas are important to India, viz., they slow down enemy (read Chinese) advance into the plains below. Besides, there's too much baggaage with respect to history, culture and heritage between Indians, especially Hindus, and the Himalayan land, to let it get into Pakistani hands. For starters, most of the important Hindu pilgrimage sites lie along the Himalayas, especially Kashmir. And India being a vastly diverse country, any foreign-inspired separatist movement anywhere can become a trigger for such movements all-over.


After all, letting go Pakistan during Partition, back in 1947 was, and still is, a major disappointment to a huge number of Indians.

[Gengis Khan]

If you want to look at the history of terrorism in Kashmir, it started with the JKLF a group of misguided Kashmiris who wanted independence from both India and Pakistan. They want the part of Kashmir which Pakistan occupies also to form an independent country called Jammu and Kashmir. They were (I repeat were) secular and wanted support from all parts of the Kashmir population.

Pakistan tried to use them but could not sway their leadership and decided they were more a liability than an asset so ISI (Pakistans secret agency) started the Hizbul Mujaheeden drawing from the Taliban types in Afghanistan to wage jihad in Kashmir.

Now these new terrorists groups, systematically wiped out the top leadership of JKLF which was strong and had political support. THen they started the Islamization of Kashmir by specifically targetting the Kashmiri Pandits (Hindus) and between 1992 - 1997 hordes of Pandits fled Kashmir and had to live in refugee camps in Delhi.

 

Sorry to say but you got it all wrong ulmo3. Firstly I have never heard of any Muslim terrorist group that was "secular". For those who know the recent history of political events in J&K would also know that  the agenda for the JKLF was an "Islamic" Jammu and Kashmir state from day one. It was the JKLF that first targeted the Hindus long before the more radical Pakistani groups like LET or Jaish were formed. It was the JKLF that served pamplets warning Hindus to vacate their homes or face the consequences. It was the JKLF that blared out hateful anti-Hindu speeches from inside Mosques although their operations mostly targeted the government or military assets. It was the JKLF that called the Hindus as "traitors". And while all this was going on the Huirryat conference (the choclate boy of the west) deftly played the "moderate" game and said that it was the anger and frustration of the average Kashmiris against the Indian rule that is making them do this.

 

I suppose in "secular" India, anti-Hinduism is the turest form or secularism.

 

I guess the Western media has found this story 8 years too late now. But the reason I am trying to draw this line between extremists and moderates is that I do no think all Muslims are bad.

 

The western media found it only after 9/11, the day they very same Islamic terrorism struck the heart of the western world. Untill then Kashmir (and anti-Hindu ethnic clensing) was a "third world" problem and mostly India's fault. The realisation came only after they themselves were hit after 9/11. Like it or not, thats the fact.

 

I know people who have suffered the Partition will never trust each other Hindus and Muslims. That was black mark while Hindus fled from Pakistan and were killed, there were lots of Muslims who were killed in India. So I know this might be a sore point for some one who has a personal experience in Partition but I blame both communities and the British for that.

 

Hindus didnt ask for Pakistan. Hindus didnt start the "direct action day". Hindus didnt ask for a seperate "Hindu" homeland and the removal of Muslims from those lands.  Hindus didnt start the ethnic clensing. But yes the Hindus retaliated as they should cause if the dont, then they dont deserve to exist.

 

However, there are plenty of moderate Muslims who really dont want to do anything else except get on with their lives and they are not able to do it because of these extremists.

 

Just how many times have we heard that cliche? If they are not able to get on with their lives then whose responsibility is it to clean the muck within their own religion? America's? The evil western world's ? Israel's? or India's? If there are as you say "plenty of moderate Muslims", (and assuming they are genuinly moderate and not shamming it) then where the hell are they? WTF are they doing?

 

The so-called "moderate" Islam thing has turned into a big joke. The "elite western educated moderates" paint themselves as the "good guys" and get appeased and pampered by liberal societies while radicals Muslims from "madrasas" do the dirty work for them.

 

Just like it is wrong to look at Christians and say they are all alike, Islam is not a huge monolith but is divided into many groups.

 

How many? More than the amount of diversity of thoughts, ideas, philosophies, beliefs, rituals, customs, traditions, sects Hinduism has (or for that matter Christianity or Buddhism has)? Islam without doubt, is one of the least diverse and the most rigid religions in the world.

 

So for those of you who say Islam --> Terrorists, I say it is more Dictatorship --> Terrorists.

 

Islam is ---> Dictatorship. Show me one truly democratic society or institution that is also deeply Islamic.

[little jeremiah]

So, basically, appeasement stemming from fear? Not a good sign.

[little jeremiah]

Thank you for your comments, and I am afraid you are more right than wrong. I have no doubt that there are "moderate" Muslims sprinkled about, such as westernized secular ones or illiterate peasants on their farms. But the radical jihadis are the ones who define Islam, and teach the true radical Islam to the masses. And the non-radicals are afraid to say or do anything in opposition. They don't want their heads cut off either.

The history of Islam has been one of aggression, forced conversion, rapine, looting, military takeovers and bloodshed from day one. I wish it wasn't so, but wishing does nothing. Facing the truth is the only sane course of action. Appeasement only prolongs the ultimate confrontation. And those of you in India (by which I mean her old borders as well) know better than anyone else what Islam is capable of doing.

[Gengis Khan]

Most Americans cannot differentiate between a good Muslims from bad ones.The term "moderates" is misleading. A "moderate" Muslim invariably means someone who is "westernised" in his outlook, appearance and education. They are not necessarily the good ones. In fact they are very often as bad as the radicals. The western world finds them more acceptable since they have adopted "western" ways and discarded every last trace of their outwardly "Islamic" appearance that the western societies might find offensive. It does not make them good Muslims. In fact these are the Muslims to watch out for. They are shammers and pretenders hiding their political agenda under their "western" mantle. Mohammed Ali Jinnah (founder of Pakistan) was one such westernised "moderate" while Maulana Abdul Kalam Azad, the Congress party leader and prime opponent of Jinnah, was a devout Muslim. Our current President APJ Abdul Kalam is a devout Muslim and the most tolerant of Hinduism and other religions. In contrast all the Pakistani dictators (with the exception of Zia ul Haq) were always "moderates". The "moderates" are not as powerless as you make them sound. Almost all governments of Islamic countries (with the exception of Iran) are headed by "moderates". What makes them "moderate" to western eyes is the fact that they are America's lackeys and they do America's bidding .......at least infornt of them. What they do behind them is another story. The "moderate" leaders of the Islamic world uses the radicals as weapons to further their political agenda. The "moderate" leaders deny their people the most basic rights and uses poor Muslims for indoctrination who later on become the foot soldiers of terror groups. Its the "moderate westernised elites" who control the Islamic world not the other way round. They even enjoy the support of the western media and liberal political parties of the west. The west has been supporting the devil thinking it to be an angel. Staying in India I have known many devout Muslims (not the wahabists) from average families who are actually the most tolerant Muslims that you can find. These are Muslims who hold on to their Indian ethos and have rejected the Saudi Arabian brand of Islam ......but they are not "moderates" by western standards.

[Gengis Khan]

Does possession of Kashmir offer any special military or natural resource (economic) items of importance?

 

Nothing much. Even the revenue from tourism is minimal.

 

OTOH Kashmir sucks a bulk of the Central government's budget that should otherwise go to much poorer states. Kashmir is more of a liability for India. Its the only state in India with Muslim majority. The only state in India that has borders with both Pakistan and China. Both Pakistan and China have territorial claims on Kashmir. Almost a third of India's military might is pinned down in Kashmir.

 

The Chamb and Akhnoor sector (also known as Chicken neck) in Jammu is India's biggest strategic weakpoint. A large sized military thrust from the Pakistani side can completely cut off the only road connecting Srinagar to the rest of India (and in such a case India will have to open second fronts in Punjab and Rajasthan).  

 

India spends 1 Billion rupees every day to maintain the military bases at 4000-5000 ft in Siachen (the worlds highest and coldest battlefield). If India losses the Siachen glaciers, Pakistan will be able to cut off Ladak from the rest of India by cutting of the Leh-Srinagar highway.

 

Kashmir has been a battlefield for more than 50 years where India has lost more than 70 thousand soldiers and over a million civilians. There are no strategic or commercial "benefits" to holding on to Kashmir.......except that it is Indian territory. It just sacred Indian territory and India will fight tooth and nail for every inch of it. Thats the reason why we chose to lose 500 solidiers in Kargil only to get back those barren and uninhabited icy peaks from the hands of Pakistan. We lose men every month in Siachen only to hold on to the toughest battlefield on the planet only because its Indian territory.

[little jeremiah]

Thanks for your comments. It is invaluable to have first person viewpoints on FR. You're living in the midst of what is thousands of miles away for many readers, and there are very few places to find the truth.

When I was thinking "westernized" I was thinking of some westernized Muslims I've met in the US who were probably atheists and ate pork. Not even Muslims, really.