Why so much violence against India? Part I

Submitted by GF (India), Sep 26, 2006 at 21:59

You have a similar problem of illegal immigrants coming in from across your borders. Now for example, if Mexico or Cuba were to openly proclaim vicious jihad against you, pouring in weapons and explosives for 2-3 decades with international support under guise of Cold War, what would you see? The sudden jihad syndrome is nothing in comparison. Just read one single pronouncement of a mad man like Hamid Gul, or other similar men in power in the Pakistan military, and you wou will realise what India has been up against. Indian has always been a responsible nation on the hub of geopolitics in the Indian Ocean and verging on the oil rich territories. It is surrounded by jihad-crazed forces. But it has not yet submitted to jihad, nor will submitting to either jihad or to the Maoist forces of terrorism will end the violence -- as is obvious from what is happening between the Shias and Sunnis in little Iraq! India has historically embraced the full spectrum of religious diversity within its borders. And now it does so with the economic refugees of the failed states surrounding it in at least hundreds each month!

Musharraf, for one, being a Mohajjir in Pakistan (by his own admission) -- someone who is not from the ruling Punjabi elite, but a migrant from India -- as the chief of the military state, must prove himself more loyal than the King! Everything else follows. So long as there is a gap in public pronouncements and private apprehensions in the West over the issue of Pakistan being the fountainhead of international jihad, confusion will continue to prevail and the West will be handicapped in terms of taking full cognisance of the threat within its own borders!

Fact and fiction, http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/2029813.cms; http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/2030211.cms; http://www.indianexpress.com/story/13479.html; http://www.indianexpress.com/story/13501.html; http://www.indianexpress.com/story/13461.html

Musharraf, with all his lies in his book, calls the term "Islamic Bomb" racist, while in fact it was peddled as so for over three decades by the movers and shakers of the Pakistan establishment.

The term 'Islamic Bomb' was coined by the Pakistan Prime Minister, Z A Bhutto, and given wider currency by President Zia ul Haq! See:

[http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/1994_cr/h940912-pak.htm;

http://www.worldpolicy.org/journal/articles/wpj05-3/crossette.html In the 1980s, General Zia was not only amassing, or trying to purchase, a significant arsenal of sophisticated American aircraft and weaponry, but he was also suspected of working on a nuclear weapon to match India's. Zulfikar Ali Bhutto had dubbed it the "Islamic bomb," and Zia proclaimed that he would be happy to share it with other Muslim nations. This alarmed not only India but also Russia and Israel, among others. Since then, Pakistan has only upped the level of anxiety with a now openly acknowledged nuclear weapons program. Worse, the country has been found to be a purveyor of dangerous and illegal nuclear exports.

http://www.opendemocracy.net/articles/View.jsp?id=3276 The notion of an "Islamic bomb" is now almost thirty years old. Addressing posterity from his death cell in a Rawalpindi jail, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, the architect of Pakistan's nuclear programme, wrote in 1977: "We know that Israel and South Africa have full nuclear capability. The Christian, Jewish, and Hindu civilisations have this capability. The communist powers also possess it. Only the Islamic civilisation was without it, but that position was about to change."

Another Muslim leader stressed the need for a bomb belonging collectively to Islam. Addressing an Islamic conference in Tehran in 1992, the Iranian vice-president, Ayatollah Mohajerani said: "Since Israel continues to possess nuclear weapons, we, the Muslims, must cooperate to produce an atomic bomb, regardless of UN efforts to prevent proliferation."

In the celebrations following the 1998 nuclear tests, the Jamaat-e-Islami party paraded bomb and missile replicas through the streets of Pakistani cities. It saw in the bomb a sure sign of a reversal of fortunes and a panacea for the ills that have plagued Muslims since the end of Islam's golden age. In 2000, we captured on video the statements of several leaders of jihadist, rightwing political parties in Pakistan — Maulana Khalil-ur-Rahman and Maulana Sami-ul-Haq — who also demanded a bomb for Islam (see the documentary film Pakistan and India under the Nuclear Shadow, Eqbal Ahmad Foundation, 2001).

http://www.rediff.com/news/2004/mar/08inter.htm Didn't (then US secretary of state) Henry Kissinger threaten Pakistan in those days if it went ahead with the nuclear programme?

He said, 'We'll make a horrible example of you if you test. Okay?' That was around August 1976. The French did cancel the reprocessing plant agreement, but the uranium enrichment continued.

At that stage there was this Islamic bomb article and they started spreading [rumours ] that Libya had funded it. I believe that story was being spread by Zia [Pakistan's military dictator General Zia-ul Haq ] and his intelligence because my brothers had set up Al-Zulfiqar and they were launching an armed struggle for the overthrow of Zia's regime. Zia was very scared of them. His plane had been attacked, his key minister Zahor Ilahi had been killed. So he was very scared of what they would do and they were the first people, like the Tamil Tigers, who were prepared to face death but bow down before him.

I was launching a peaceful movement and a democratic movement and I had studied in America and had a lot of influential friends. To discredit us he wanted to say that these people had connections with Libya and that's where the money came from. But it had nothing to do with Libya.

I can say 100 percent it had nothing to do with Libya because, although I cannot say who helped and aided us in our technological advancements, again for reasons of state, I know who did and it was not Libya.]

As to why the LTTE of Sri Lanka are not called Hindu terrorists is simply because they are not fighting the Hindu cause, and don't identify themselves as Hindus, but as Leftists! Their long-term chief spokesman ensconced in Europe, Anton Balasingham is a Christian! http://www.dnaindia.com/report.asp?NewsID=1055364.

---

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".