Posted on 10/26/2005 7:10:55 AM PDT by milestogo
| Geoffrey Clarfield | |
| National Post |
On Oct. 10, just two days after an earthquake killed tens of thousands in South Asia, Islamist terrorists belonging to Hizb ul-Mujahideen and Lashkar e-Tolba killed 10 Hindu civilians in the Rajouri district of Indian-controlled Kashmir. The attacks were part of an orchestrated campaign designed to cleanse Kashmir of its indigenous Hindus and bring the area entirely under Muslim governance -- either through a union with Pakistan, or as an independent, Sharia-based Islamic state. Apparently, not even the massive devastation wrought by mother nature has slowed the terrorists' murderous campaign.
Kashmir is the only state of India -- there are 27 states and seven union territories in the nation -- where the majority of inhabitants are Muslim. Indian law prohibits migration of Indians from other states into Kashmir, in order to preserve its Muslim character. In 1947 and 1948, when Hindus and Muslims were slaughtering each other on either side of the Punjab, Kashmir was remarkably peaceful, its Hindu minority lived without fear and the Kashmiris welcomed the Indian army, which protected the population from invading Pakistani tribes.
How was this spirit of tolerance created? The answer lies in the nature of Kashmiri Islam.
Islam came to the Kashmir valley during the late middle ages. Some scholars argue that the slow and gradual conversion of the inhabitants was the result of an indigenous version of Islam promulgated by local mystics, or Sufis, called Rishis.
Rishis were celibate and pacifist mystics. Like the Kashmiri Yogis and Buddhists who may have been their models, they were tolerant of non-Islamic faiths such as that practised by the indigenous Hindus of Kashmir, the Pandits, whose most famous son, Jawaharlal Nehru, founded the modern state of India.
Rishis established centres of pilgrimage graced by beautiful buildings called Ziarat. Many of these places were honoured by Hindus, and many Rishi saints were venerated by Muslim and Hindu worshippers alike. Until the early 1980s, the Hindu Pandits of the Kashmir valley generally lived peaceably with their neighbours of the Muslim majority.
The basis of this mutual toleration is called Kashmiriat. Roughly translated into English, it means "the Kashmiri style or way of life." Unlike the Salafist or Wahhabi Islam of Osama Bin Laden and his followers, Kashmiriat versions of Islam tolerate dance and music. (The Kashmiri musical tradition has more than 180 local ragas and myriads of dances that local musicologists are trying to record and disseminate.) For those looking to reconcile Islam and democracy, Kashmiriat provides an example of how a tolerant Islamic religious and cultural tradition can lay the groundwork for secular democracy.
But during the 1980s, Kashmiriat was dealt a blow from which it may never recover. Moderate Kashmiri Muslims woke up to find that their mosques had new preachers, many of whom had been trained outside of the country. They preached against the old versions of Islam and insisted that their intolerant Wahhabi strain must be adopted by all Kashmiris. Women were to adopt the veil and music was proscribed.
They also preached that indigenous Hindus should be forced to leave, so that Kashmir could become a land reserved for Muslims. No doubt, they were inspired by the world's silence following the near total expulsion of the 50,000-strong Hindu community of Kabul after its conquest by the Taliban.
After a decade of preaching and fulmination, words led to action.
In 1990, the local Urdu-language press in Srinagar, the capital of Indian Kashmir, published a press release from Hizb ul-Mujahideen demanding that the Pandits of Kashmir leave so that Kashmir could join Pakistan. A poster campaign followed demanding that Kashmiris obey an "Islamic" dress code and that video parlours and cinemas be banned.
Shops, businesses and homes of Kashmiri Pandits were marked out, and notices were placed on their doors demanding that they leave. In villages throughout the region, hit lists of Kashmiri Pandits were distributed. Within a short period, gangs of young men carrying Kalashnikovs began random and indiscriminate killings of Pandit families and any Kashmiri notable who opposed the terror.
The state government of Kashmir collapsed, the Chief Minister went into hiding, and both the regional and national security forces sat idle while a flood of Pandit Hindus were driven out. On Sept. 12, 2004, The Times of India put the case mildly when it ran a story under the headline "Hindu population in decline in Kashmir."
The American and British governments have confirmed that more than a quarter of a million Pandit refugees have been driven out of Kashmir into neighbouring states during the last 15 years. Yet the Indian government has yet to call these people what they are: victims of terror. As a matter of political convenience, it has labelled them "migrants." They languish in refugee camps, in squalor and disease -- people who were once famous for their pacifist version of Saivite Hinduism and who were once an inspiration to Mahatma Gandhi.
Meanwhile, the new Chief Minister of Kashmir has asked the Pandits to return. But each time such announcements are made, there is another terrorist attack against the remaining Hindu stragglers in Kashmir. The Oct. 10 attack was of this type.
Pakistan was created as an Islamic state. India was created as a secular democracy. Although Hindus outnumber Muslims in India by 10 to 1, the media and the government have always been fastidious in ensuring that their rights are honoured and protected. Allowing the expulsion of a quarter of a million indigenous Hindus from their ancestral homeland in Kashmir is not only a hateful, collective crime -- it is also a betrayal of the tolerant creed that has allowed Muslims themselves to prosper. Qudsia Shah, former president of the College for Women in Srinagar put it bluntly: "The exodus of Hindus is not good for Kashmir. We Muslims are the losers."
The Indian government must first recognize the Pandits as legitimate victims of terror in Kashmir. They must then give them back their stolen property and they must win the war on terror in Kashmir. By doing so, they will also allow the moderate Islam of Kashmir to return to that once fabled Himalayan paradise. Kashmiriat is good for democracy.
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.
Not for quite a while yet, though (note my post above).
I agree with your assessment. Just as mad dogs cannot be reasoned with.
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?
We won't last:-)
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.
" I hope I live long enough to see it."
A watchman on the wall?
Well, we'll be somewhere. Personally, I'd love to have a ringside seat to see Kalki do what He's going to do!
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.
I watch.
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.
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.
So, basically, appeasement stemming from fear? Not a good sign.
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.
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.
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.