31.1.09

Malaysia a poster child of Muslim success?




And so I also speculate as to why Malaysia is successful.

A good pertinent question to pose. Whether the thesis has credibility in relation to Pakistan and other Muslim countries interests me and I imagine a lot of other people curious and concerned for the outcomes of such countries.


I would attribute Malaysia's success to many factors, and not just one, two, or three. Malaysia is a second world country now with real per Capita income around $15,000 (2009), and is on target to becoming a first world country by
"2020" which is its program name. I think it can achieve this realistically. So why is Malaysia successful, when the vast majority of Muslim countries still slumber in the Third World?

1) I believe Malaysia's present success has a lot to do with its resource wealth. It has a lot of exportable resources, juxtaposed with a small population. But that in itself would not alone explain the countries success.....Zaire or the DRC in Africa also has huge wealth, but is very poor with little development.


2) Malaysia was fortunate to have a good leader. Mohammed Mahatir ruling the country for 22 years. He was not corrupt but loved his country ardently. He was intelligent and understood the basic essentials of economics.He understood global politics far more than the average Third World leader. Through his astute guidance he made Malaysia successful.


3) Malaysia was a colony of the British, and to a great extent how the colonial master behaves towards your country, both overtly and covertly determines how successful a country becomes even after the British let go the reins of power into their chosen successors in that ex-colony.

Looking at Malaysian/British relations there does not seem to have been any great conflict, except for the Communist insurgency by ethnic Chinese in the Malay peninsula. By contrast not too far away in both Pakistan and later Bangladesh the British exercised a very negative posture against both countries covertly, especially Bangladesh, both independently or with collaboration with America. There are various historical factors for this....though certainly not justifiable....but as they say its the luck of the draw...Malaysia is a Muslim country as are Pakistan and Bangladesh, BUT the British applied different standards. My assumption is that the British shielded Malaysia from American Jewish interference and intrigue, and Mahatirs long and successful tenure as PM was not merely the result of his "genius".


4) It is easier for the British or Americans to be benevolent towards 16 million Moslems in Malaysia than the 200 million Muslims in Indonesia, or the 140 million in Bangladesh or the 180 million in Pakistan. It is likewise easy for the British and USA to be benevolent towards the UAE or Kuwait both enjoying high living standards, but not Iran or Turkey......you understand.


5) Malaysia has a sizable ethnic population of Chinese----about 30%. The Chinese are a talented, intelligent, and hard working race, and a considerable determining factor for Malaysia's current success must be attributed to the ethnic Chinese community. Though certainly being biased, as I am from South Asia originally, Bangladesh and Pakistan has many remarkable talented people by GLOBAL standards. But like any cricket team, and especially the Pakistan cricket team, you can have enormous talent in your country but if the team do not play effectively nationally than that national human talent is wasted. And so the best of these countries people are usually always end up working in the USA and UK. ........So the sum total of South Asia exports (1.5 billion) is less than Malaysia's (27 million). This is not because of the lack of ability, there has to be other explanations, and I tend to focus on geo-strategic reasoning's.

6) Your characterization of the troublesome military in Muslim countries is CORRECT, usually without exception. Most are trained by the USA, and in the case of Pakistan and Bangladesh, the British through colonial history also exercise considerable input.

Both of us know that global Islamic terrorism does not exist and is a fiction perpetuated by America and their puppets around the world who have surrendered to American hegemony, or bribes, or out right criminal activity. In the case of Pakistan specifically, the military/ISI have been the main propagators of the al-Qaeda myth and Taliban nuisance. Without the Pakistan military/ISI "cooperation" in this area with America over 30 years, such organizations would not have existed in the first place in peoples imagination or in reality. The Pakistan military are the main source of problems for Pakistani society, and for Pakistan's neighbors INDIA AND AFGHANISTAN.


But how does a sufficiently strong civilian leader rein in the military of such countries?....800,000 men under arms in the case of Pakistan, consuming and controlling large parts of the economy...very hard. Bhutto tried, as did Nawaz Sharif, but the military with the help of the Americans always dominated again.

In the case of Turkey with its even bigger military/MIT, backed by Israel and America, 1.1 million men under arms, you have an example of maybe a Turkish version of Mohammed Mahatir, Erdogan, and he has started an assault against the military by the arrest of many officers and generals linked to extreme groups attempting a coup against the AKP government. Large sections of the Turkish military seem to tacitly approve his actions, BECAUSE he is delivering on the all important economic front providing jobs for Turks, increasing wealth and income for everybody. Turkey is now has the largest Muslim economy, and has the potential to achieve many great things as I have stated before. BUT Erdogan's success is only linked to the economic side, so long as he can deliver on this than all is well......then Erdogan has room to maneuver within Turkey. By contrast far too many Muslim national leaders are thick on rhetoric but thin on real economic achievement.
Many are corrupt, or outright agents of America (Musharaf).......or incapable (Karzai).

7) You correctly identify the importance of the Middle Class as the power house and work horse of any successful economy and the significant measures Mahatir took to propagate this class in Malaysia.


8) I am not sure why pulling away from Indonesia was important for Malaysia in order to develop, as argued by some. Rather a sweeping statement devoid of any real argument and evidence. In fact Malaysia being part of ASEAN would in reality mean that the opposite has occurred, and Malaysia at various levels in now closer to Indonesia.

Regional cooperation is an important factor for any countries development. If you do not have regional stability with your neighbors, how than can you focus on the economy and other such vital national issues? Pakistan...and India being classic examples, where there is no real regional cooperation, but you have American/UK backed civilian puppets (Zardari) and military puppets (Busharaf) creating problems for the region. Where you have communication between the two countries through the national and international media, or worse still through the Americans and British, the real back seat trouble makers.


9) Good infrastructure. Malaysia through the good leadership of Mahatir has excellent infrastructure......no infrastructure....no development, simple.


10) Good communal relations, tactfully managing the aspirations of the various communal groups; Again this is the legacy of the "benovolent" British colonial rule who originally imported the Chinese and Indian coolies into the Malay peninsula, and the work of Mohammed Mahatir later. By contrast look at Indonesia and the treatement of minorities, or even Pakistan, or Turkey. Development should mean national development for everybody.

26.1.09

The Mystery of the Cuban Missile crisis and all that.









I've visited this area before, and will continue to do so in a Goebbels like fashion.......except hopefully my assumptions about it should be basically correct, devoid of the possession of state documents that point in that direction.


I was reading this interesting article about Comrade Khrushchev, he being Jewish and how his Jewish descendants have flocked to Jew York, living it up passing time in the Big Bad Capitalist country of America.

How ironical given that Capitalist Jew York is the place which actually financed the Bolshevik Revolution in October 1918, in Czarist Russia in the wake of the Great War. Additionally intriguing but not surprising that American Capital built up the Soviet Union from the 1920's, and into the 1930's, into a mighty superpower that possessed by 1941, 6.7 million men under arms (the biggest military in the world) 25,000 tanks, 30,000 artillery pieces, and possibly 10,000 frontline fighters and bombers.
And finally of course it is America which provided its exclusive nuclear technology secrets to the Soviet Union and later Israel which would mostly be aimed at America a few years later into the Cuban missile Crisis.

So the same question again posed before. If the Bolshevik revolution and subsequent Soviet Union was a Jewish NY Capitalist fiction, why on earth with all the Jew channels between NY, London and the Soviet Union did we have the Cuban missile crisis? To be sure the best of gangsters quarrel with each other, and have turf wars only to make up later, but to that extent of near nuclear war mongering, in such a serious manner? What are we to make of this?


Possible explanations:



(i) Jews around the globe don't act in unison. Differences may exist between them depending on their local requirements. That is the location requirement of being an American Jew may be different to the local requirements of a Russian Jew, and so on with the British Jew or a French Jew. Each has their own set of priority which may clash with other Jews in another area.


(ii) Or, that the Cuban missile crisis was an elaborate Jewish hoax to wrong foot President Kennedy, and subsequently replace him with the Jew Lyndon Johnson.

(iii) Or, the Jews don't always know what they are doing. Example: Israel groomed and nurtured Hamas to undermine and replace the PLO from the 1970's, a Socialist secular organization representing Muslim and Christian Palestinians, and initially quite effective as a representative of Palestinian interests. In terms of Israeli thinking: "we Israelis can't possibly negotiate with Islamic Fundamentalist terrorists"; so no chance of settled negotiations and the two state solution........and "the West must help us to keep the Fundamentalist hoards back". The net effect of this covert Israeli support for Hamas is that Hamas, an Islamic fundamentalist organisation is the biggest party representing the Palestinians in the Occupied Territories.....possibly 50,000 armed Hamas fighters in Gaza alone, so ceaseless fighting for the next couple of decades for Israel against Hamas, and the Hizbollah, and then Syria and then Iran presumably.

The Israelis through their American agents have also created the al-Qaeda fiction, a totally phantom organization that does not exist, and the Taliban to occupy Afghanistan and later Pakistan and its nuke bombs. Now I appreciate a lot of people might think this is all very smart, but where does it end for Israel? Open ended hostilities as the Spartans found out usually leads to the destruction of the state, as happened with Nazi Germany, or Mussolini's Italy, and...............

...And so in the case of the Cuban missile crisis the Jew may have stumbled into a superpower confrontation, without the knowledge of knowing how to control it.

25.1.09

So who will it be after PM Manmohan Singh?






So PM Manmohan Singh will retire from the position of PM sooner, or later if election results are not favorable to the Congress Party. In all events it will not be good for the Congress Party to have him in his present position for too long as it projects a weak leadership which in the present climate of India (a rejuvenated India moving forward, confidently) might not be the right leader to have, both representing the Congress Party and India.

Of course on the other hand the Congress Party will want to project continuity, and therefore there may be no questions of replacing him at this juncture before election results are out. It may appear too cynical and opportunistic to remove him now...the better to sell his term from 2004---2009, without him actually having to do the grueling politicking associated with Indian elections.

He has done a great service to India, especially the much needed economic reforms of the early 1990's which laid the foundation for India's economic miracle in the 1990's to the present. Such needed reforms and economic progress have made India economically successful, and in addition has brought India a certain degree of prestige in the eyes of the world........So he is the prime "Indian" of the nation for the last two decades. But now the time has come to pass the baton on to another...and who will that be, or should it be?

One could argue it doesn't matter who the next PM is (or opposition party leader) as the real power in the party is the lady from Italy, Sonia Gandhi. However, even so with such a back seat driver, driving the state ship, I think we cannot discount the importance of the PM position, or as leader of the opposition if Congress were to lose the next election. I am quite certain that Sonia Gandhi wasn't controlling and running ALL policies for the country, and for Congress, though the pictures with her and PM Manmohan in toe were quite ominous and telling.

It had a Cheney/Bush junior quality, though of course Bush junior and Manmohan Singh are worlds apart. Bush junior was the black sheep of the family, given the presidential position through the powerful connections of his father, despite being totally unqualified. Bush junior himself was a failed individual failing in everything in his personal life, checking into rehab for alcoholism, forever trying to live up to the achievements and expectations of the towering figure of his father. Never mind, though it makes for good melodrama in the colorful world of slippery greasy politics, and the demise of a great nation achieved single handedly by his two terms.

PM Manmohan Singh is obviously not Bush junior; he is an accomplished man, with vast degrees of competency and the tract record to prove it. One would like to think that he was not a mere token subservient front for the Italian lady, but will his successor be a token front for Sonia Gandhi....and where does it all go? For how long? For how long do we have Nur Jahan running the show of India using pliable weak fronts? Is she really qualified to run India? Is this arrangement constitutionally and administratively correct?

And so the question of Rahul Gandhi arises, too young to be PM, but hovering ever closer to that objective. Is this good for India? Is this good for the Congress Party? And here are my generalized objections to him becoming PM, or leader of the Congress Party knowing full well that the person who really matters with the requisite power in the party is Sonia Gandhi:

1) Rahul spent far too many years abroad for a Indian leader in the modern sense (1990---2002). An Indian leader should be educated ONLY in India for a variety of reasons, mainly to do with security and psychology. A person of that background can be a target of foreign intelligence, eager to influence an important country like India, a rising global player. I would be a total idiot if in his time in the USA and UK, the intelligence services of these globally proactive powers did not try to "recruit" him either directly or through Third Parties....girlfriends, business friends, boyfriends, other social friends......spy's don't have spy written on their lapels. Thus in my honest opinion and "experience" of this area over 22 years I would judge him to be a security risk for India, because of the possibility that he will/may have been recruited directly and indirectly by intelligence from the USA or UK or both.

This is a serious problem as the USA gears up against operations against Pakistan, with the possibility that American troops may occupy Pakistan, and thus America will become a "neighbor" of India security wise.......That India should not have such persons at the helm, with his mother behind him when a reincarnation of the East India company situation takes place in our time. Then if the Americans occupy Pakistan, what India will require is a leader who is a sufficiently skeptical national leader of American geostrategic designs and intentions in the region, overt and covert. Otherwise what you will have in such a future scenario is Rahul merely justifying American actions in the region, in the manner of Pranab Mukherjee when he equated the recent Mumbai incident with Global terrorism (you see the LeT is a global oufit according to Mukherjee dada), which is a fake song and prayer from the American hymn sheet. GWOT as any non-American, or even good American statesman should know is a fake false story to justify American global expansionist strategies, articulated through the PNAC 2000 document, especially during the Bush administrations term driven by the Neocons in the AEI, and later en mass given key positions in the Bush administration. Al-Qaeda simply does not exist, and neither does global Islamic terrorism, ONLY regional terrorism or insurgency depending on how you describe them.

2) Rahul's character. Has he got what it takes to be the leader of the Congress Party, and country? Does it matter if his mother is actually running the show? Yes I think it does if she is not directing all the decisions of the party. So one looks at his record, his stature, his speeches and his general demeanor ........as I understand according to many sources he failed at Harvard University, and then ran to sunny Florida to get a late degree certificate. The same with Cambridge University, and his job in London...........so shades of George Bush junior here. On this basis of no staying power, and of a weak non-committed character infused with seeking pleasure at times of national crisis (partying whilst Mumbai burned November 2008) does not bode well for him to become the leader of the party.

3) In my humble opinion dynasty politics is inappropriate for a modern party like the Congress Party, representing a great nation like India, an emerging global power. Dynasty politics is OK for North Korea, for Egypt, for Haiti, for Libya, for Pakistan and Bangladesh, BUT not for India......it is crude, filthy and smacks of nepotism and corruption. Even if Rahul is a reincarnation of Emperor Ashok, he still should be disqualified, and not crowned emperor of India. Every indications are that Rahul is not Ashok. There are many rising talented party members within the Congress Party who should be groomed and sought to replace the old tired leaders of the Congress Party in India.

India beyond the SINGLE issue of economic success faces many problems which require head on comprehensive holistic energetic tackling by future governments, otherwise the benefits of economic success will become meaningless in themselves and will be negated.......I am talking about controlling the population growth, giving India the largest population in the world a few decades later; with existing severe food insecurity covering large parts of the population; poorly managed agricultural sector; unequal economic benefits, with the % living in poverty increasing creating knock on socio-economic and security problems; infrastructure problems; lack of electricity and power distribution; corruption; naxal and other forms of political violence; poor education; extremely low levels of exports relative to the world............and so on. That outside of the old farts, and inside circle of expected leaders, a new generation of Congress Party members can be given a chance to serve India.

4) Related to point 1, but slightly more technical. No Manchurian candidates should be allowed to become the PM of India. Micro-chip technology used for mind control is at an advanced stage, and they can be implanted into the skin, and dentures during visits to dentists. Such technology has existed especially in countries such as France and the USA, since the 1960's. Rahul has been micro-chip whilst in the West and shoud be scanned for them.

These are my objections to why Rahul should not become the next leader of the Congress Party.

20.1.09

Movie review.
























I do hope one day a righteous Indian government with good clear intentions dismantles the "Bollywood" trash house fiction which churns out so much rubbish whilst at the same time managing to launder the ill gotten gains of the Indian underworld and especially the likes of Ibrahim Dawood et al. That perhaps the CBI should take a closer look at its funding and its sources of creative inspiration, which contributes "so much' for and to India, consciously and subconsciously.That it models itself on Hollywood is bad enough aspirations wise, but that it should be a source of foreign propaganda, which is inherently against India's interests is a more serious concern.


So I watched Junoon in the 1980's. Once on Jeremy Isaac's channel 4, in the late evenings when he was running Indian art-house movies, and again on the same channel with some Indian friends, Punjabis mostly. I can handle Indian art-house movies, without feeling frustrated, confused, embarrassed, irritated, annoyed, and bored; some of the emotions that come over me when watching "Bollywood" movies....the list of emotions is not exhaustive. So it seems Hindi movies must dumb down to the perceived level of the simple peasant, in order to sell their wares; sounds logical to me.




















It was a relief that in this movie there were no songs with the leads prancing about artlessly, engrossed in melodramatic poses in the Himalayas foothills yet again. That the song in the beginning had some connection to the movie (In India holy men, Sufis and Pirs really do dance around in chants and do perform with music...so OK)


The movie itself seemed like a made for TV production, but at least the subject was original, historical, topical and interesting, devoid of the traditional Bollywood copied tedious fare. The camera work seemed pedestrian, and the plot even more pedestrian, focusing on the welfare of our English damsels in distress hiding from the savage natives, and the Leering prying eyes of the "Pathan" . Yes an Anglicized audience might be concerned about the plight of the memshahibs, but for most ordinary South Asians a focus on ordinary Indians in such turbulent times would have been more appropriate and pertinent.

Shashi Kapoor being married to Jennifer Kendal, would mean that his perceptions of the "Mutiny" or shall we say the "Liberation War" COULD have a significant British Raj bias, especially with his wife acting in it. .............and I thought that was conveyed in various subtle ways in the movie. But that is a matter of personal taste and preferences. It is after all a story based on a book written by a English gentlemen, and mainly from their perspectives which "our" Shashi Kapoor decided to choose as producer of the project, as his very first project.


So what was good about the movie? I enjoyed the dialog, which seemed natural and intelligent...though the conversations were way to sparse and short. People in such intense times of rebellion and war tend to speak a lot more, and usually in more intense ways about relevant topics. Our characters in the movie by contrast seemed to be constantly lost for words, and lacking the ability to communicate at extensive length with their counterparts. Through dialog we get a better understanding of our characters, and their "situation" in the drama unfolding.

The acting was wooden, though mercifully we were spared the loud speaker melodramatic treatment of Bollywood, an acting style presumably imported during Queen Victoria's era by a semi deaf theater producer from Bombay, and instead we had natural tones and vibrations. But Shashi Kapoor as a Rohilla Pathan...nah!!!He always seemed too effeminate for me for such a role, like his other brother Shammi. Nafisa Ali, yes very beautiful, though no great acting skills, and Naseeruddin Shah looked a bit Bin Laden to me, but as always a good animated actor.


So a bit of historical context which the movie did not give us, but merely the colonial narrative of savage ungrateful natives doing the usual. Superstitiously reacting to the prophecies of Pirs.......We are informed in the movie by a native soldier that the natives are restless because of the greased cartridges that the British had introduced contained pig and cow fat (offensive to both Muslims and Hindus respectively) SUBTEXT: "These natives are primitive and superstitious, and it doesn't take a lot to get them in a rebellious mood, killing left right and center". It trivializes the real issues and the brave Indians who fought for their country and stood up for their beliefs. If only it was that simple, and the standard repeated lie of Raj history.

The greased cartridge case wouldn't explain why the entire Bengal Presidency army rebelled en mass in 1857.
The British had conquered Bengal in 1757, and 1857 was the hundredth year of their rule of the great Indian state of Greater Bengal (Bengal Bihar Jharkand, Orissa.

British misrule of Greater Bengal was notorious; just think of a bank robber in a bank vault....in 1769, 10 million Bengalis died because the British restricted the growing of rice in favor of cash crops for exports to Europe, such as Jute and Indigo........and so on...and so on......Turning the richest state in India, "The Pearl of India" into one of the poorest in a few decades. Then there was the taxation of ordinary civilians of the type never seen before in India....and into the 19th century where the British were feeling more confident in themselves and their "benevolent rule", and so their desire to "civilize" the Indians through evangelical Christianity. Finally, symbolically in 1856 the British removed the ruler of Oudh, who were the traditional Wazirs of the Mughal Empire, and then that was it.........rebellion.


So based on the above facts, contrary to the portrayal of the movie, the British weren't just having polite conversations over dinner, or going to church; they were inflicting great harm in Greater Bengal especially, and weren't exactly charitable to the rest of India in various degrees. A visual portrayal of what they were actually doing in India in terms of gross misrule would have added context to the rebellion of the company soldiers. BUT instead the overall visual imagery of the movie simply doesn't connect or justify the actions of the Indians against their British masters...it is thus in that sense, in terms of the visual, unbalanced. And the movie directs the audiences sympathy towards the English ladies, in their sad plight trying to hide from the savages. The "Hero" of the movie, if there is one is an imperfect bounder craving for a young memshahib, even though he is already married......and that is all he does a little tediously throughout the entire film.


We should remember that the only army that "mutinied" was the Bengal Presidency army of 140,000, whilst the Madras Presidency and Western armies of 200,000 combined remained royal to the East India company, and were subsequently used to put down the rebellion. The Bengal Presidency army was dominated by Hindu Brahmins from Bengal and UP, which the movie did not convey, but rather came across as a rebellion by sword wielding, turbaned, bearded Muslims---WRONG!!!!!


Finally lets talk about proportionality since the movie pondered at great length at the sad plight of the English damsels in distress, with the added burden of the prying learing prowling eyes of our lascivious "Pathan" who already had a wife. About 13,000 British troops were killed in that war, and a few thousand British civilians, but the native Indians, Hindus and Muslims alike, they suffered 100,000's of deaths during and subsequent to the Liberation War, and new academic research in India indicates that the British
carried on with their anti-insurgency operations for a considerable many years in North India, so possibly millions killed.

And we have latter day Gunga Dins like Shashi Kapoor, and Mr. Shameful Bengali telling us otherwise. Yes OK, there were many Gunga Dins in India during Raj rule, otherwise they couldn't have ruled India proper for over 100 years, but I didn't think so many existed to this day still. Maybe 1% of Indians benefits from British Raj rule, or maybe even 5%, but that does not mean their descendants should be allowed to get away into propagating the British Raj as some dreamy halcyon leap forward in Indian civilization.

Yes the British Raj left their Gunga Dins to rule South Asia trained and educated at Oxford, Cambridge, Sandhurst, Dera Dun, Kakul and so forth, and that is why India is still celebrating and participating in the British Commonwealth, and hosting the Commonwealth games in 2010 (clap clap clap!!!! Hip hip Hurray to Queen Victoria, Clive of India, Warren Hastings, General Dyer, Partition, the Indian railway system.......) The Gunga Din elite of Pakistan, and the Gunga Dins in the Pakistani military and "Intelligence"....The Gunga Dins in the Congress Party, and the neo-Nazis of the BJP whose only special hate is reserved for their own kind, the Gunga Dins in Bollywood, the Gunga Dins in the ICS.....the Gunga Dins in the Indian military who want to have a go at the Gunga Dins in the Pak military, and so forth.


Lest the modern Gunga Dins forget, these are the plain facts of British Raj rule
: Approximately 30 million Indians perished from British misrule and greed for profits, and aggression, Hindus and Muslims alike. Perhaps $1 trillion worth of Indian assets were transferred to the UK from India, from Hindus and Muslims alike. London since 1800 looks a very rich and prosperous city. In 1750 India was the second richest country on earth accounting for 25% of global manufacturing and a nation in many respects technically advanced, and by 1947 India was perhaps the 10 richest country on earth with manufacturing accounting for 2% of global manufacturing. Between 1770----1914 actual living standards in India declined in absolute terms, for Hindus and Muslims alike. The British came, and said everything about the Indian civilization and religion was inferior to theirs....and then continued to segregate themselves at all levels from their subjects in very negative and disrespectful ways, from Hindus and Muslims in equal measure. Finally the British Raj departed in 1947 by leaving a royal mess in South Asia by creating the false failed state of Pakistan, which alone has created much problems for South Asia, and may become the entry point for a later day attempt to revive the British Raj again.


I do hope Bollywood one day does a serious project about the Indian Liberation war of 1857, and for once ditch their "Junoon" for trashy copies of Hollywood movies. I have not seen "Mangel Pandey: The Rising" with Aamir and Rani, but I can guess the content, so I won't bother. Other suggestions for Hindi movie projects have been posted here before.

Movies especially, but also other parts of the media create and play an important part in affecting ordinary peoples consciousness, which determine peoples behavior and perceptions to a greater or lessor degree on important and unimportant matters. That Indian movie directors and producers should not create false consciousness of their
own Indian history cannot be stressed enough, especially given the passage of 62 years of British Raj rule, that Indians particularly now and South Asians generally should be able to make pertinent, reflective, circumspective and relevant observations of their history without falling into the trap of repeating false historical constructs of the imperialist who wreaked so much havoc on South Asia. And especially now, because of the advent of neo-colonialism in India's door step, in Afghanistan, and the dangerous activities of later day Mir Jafars around and IN India.

__________________________________

South Asian racial stereo-types.

Quote from Wikipedia: "
Stereotypes of South Asians are oversimplified ethnic stereotypes of South Asian people, and are found in many Western societies. Stereotypes of South Asians have been collectively internalized by societies, and are manifested by a society's media, literature, theatre and other creative expressions. However, these stereotypes have very real repercussions for South Asians in daily interactions, current events, and governmental legislation."

Salman Rushdie "Outside the Whale"

Salman Rushdie "The New empire within Britain"(1982)

"But British thought, British society, has never been cleansed of the filth of imperialism."

Edward Said, "Orientalism"

11.1.09

From the reality of the Pakistani perspective






I think despite the impatient tone of the article of the Times of India, the JATM is a good idea, with logical pragmatic solutions and intentions, if used correctly. That perhaps the JATM has lost its direction due to misunderstanding on both sides is without doubt. A bilateral apparatus can only work, beyond superficial gestures if it is approached with honest clear intentions from BOTH sides.


As Churchill said Jaw, Jaw, Jaw is better than War, War, War.

However the extent to which expectations from the Indian side are fully met where India provides the intelligence and culpability of Pakistani nationals, and Pakistan honestly acts on them immediately, quickly without fail, must be cautioned by the fact that such terrorist groups have in the past been sanctioned by the military and ISI in Pakistan, and Pakistan is a failed state with VERY weak levels of governance. Indian expectations must therefore be moderated by the 'reality' of Pakistan.


The perception of some key security in Pakistan within the military and ISI, who matter is this:

1) "You India helped break up our country by training, providing logistics and sanctuary to the 80,000 Mukti Bahini which led to the creation of Bangladesh. You militarily participated on sovereign Pakistani soil to invade and divide our country, AFTER coordinating, and organizing the Awami League false victory in East Pakistan in October 1970, through the newly instituted RAW in 1968" ........."So for us it is fair game, that we do the same in at least in Indian Kashmir if not the rest of India where a section of the population are clearly pro-Pakistani" "Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander" blah blah blah.

2) "You India are operating suspiciously in Afghanistan, expanding your role there against our interests, and from the base of Afghanistan, through your consulates, too numerous to mention, you are carrying out covert ops of terrorism on our soil in especially Baluchistan, NWFP, and possibly even the Punjab"........so if we back a few fellow Kashmiri Muslims in Indian Kashmir who are pro-Pakistani whats the problem?........"Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander"......Notably Ahmed Quraishi and other such prominent journalists with linkages to the ISI.

3) "We in Pakistan don't think ALL so called "Islamic terrorism" on Indian soil originates from Pakistan, and that a good deal of the terrorists acts are state sponsored, with linkages to the RSS"-----Hemant Kakare investigations etc. "So how can we trusts and act on information you give us on OUR nationals when we think, and believe a lot of the so called terrorist acts are in fact carried out by your own security."......."We through our own work are fully aware of how covert ops of the Mumbai kind are carried out by state actors and then blamed on other nations"....."We are neither naive or innocent of such things ourselves"..."We are fully aware that many Pakistani national disappear in India and Nepal, under suspicious circumstances to be used later as agents of RAW"

4) "On occasions when terrorism is carried out "OPENLY" by your own people in India, with clear incriminating evidence of the terrorists boasting about their deeds, you in India become deafeningly silent. Narendra Modi the BJP, and Gujrat where 2,000 people were butchered and burnt alive." ......"So why should we act against alleged terrorists on our soil, who you accuse, when you do nothing against your own terrorists, also participating in popular national elections, and being treated as celebrity by India" "Hasn't the EU and USA denied Modi visa for his terrorist crimes"....." "More Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander"

5) If the great, "Its not fair by the rules of cricket" UK can host a terrorist by the name of Altaf Hussain, and provide him with the full comforts of citizenship, even though we have provided the UK authorities with the full information of his culpability in numerous acts of sectarian terrorism in Karachi mainly as head of the MQM, then what standards do you expect us to maintain viz your allegations against our nationals in their alleged acts of terrorism on your soil"?

6)"We view India as a hostile power that wants to divide and destroy our country....so why should we cooperate with such a power" ........."You lose no time in criticizing us, without even thinking for a second"..."Into the second day in Mumbai's case, so sure of our evil bad deeds and behavior"...."You create a international hysteria against us openly, that is hostile and negative, but you at the same time expect cooperation from us"....and so on..

7) "You threatened war against us whether veiled, or implied and sometimes directly....if we don't act according to your wishes"

8) "We in the Pak military/ISI are the servants of America and have been for a good few decades. They train us, arm us with highly sophisticated weaponry and systems.......for most of the time, of which you never had any access. It is not what India wants that matters to us, but what America wants that ultimately counts for us"......."That is why we allow the Americans to attack sovereign Pakistani soil openly and kill our civilians, and then we follow it up obediently, and slavishly with ground action by the Pak army and airforce against the Pashtun insurgents, as our American masterji wishes"........"The Americans give us a % from the huge narcotics business from Afghanistan"...."We further enrich ourselves from the $1.2 billion given to us annually by America, as military aid"........."And you sala bacha India (With the tone of gangsters....as the anonymous speech is reported)...you give us NOTHING, but trouble, grief and holier than thou semantic utterances".

9) "Top American officials visit us frequently and give us assurances of support privately, as long as we follow their orders. People like VP Joseph Biden and Admiral Mullen. They publicly slap us to sooth and placate India, but for us with no sense of Lajja and IZZAT, these public admonishments from America means very little."..."What these important people say to us privately is what counts"

10) "We have nuke missiles that cover the whole of India.We have many foreign friends to thank for such capabilities, over the last 30 years, such as North Korea, and ISRAEL via Turkey (Sibel Edmonds--FBI whistle blower, and part of the Valerie Plame investigations outed and exposed by the USA government of Bush, to neutralize it, and her covert work; the same American administration which has signed a nuclear deal with India-) amongst a couple of other helpful countries. Such lopsided capabilities of our basket weaving economy, which is failing again, gives us undue unrealistic confidence in our deterrence capabilities, and blurs, confuses and misdirects our desire to live constructively with India as a good neighbor. Such capabilities inflates our ego beyond our normal senses and perennially clouds our judgment."

So given this REALITY, what is India to do?

1) Legalize the LoC, immediately and make it a non-issue for the Pakistan military and ISI. Sign a general agreement for now clearly stating that the LoC is hence forth the international boundary, and then work out the yards, meters and exact patches later, through detailed bi-lateral negotiations.Off the sight of the local and international media.

2) Give Pakistan money, and give Zardari money, and sign an FTA with Pakistan immediately. Fully project to Pakistan, and let them accept that Pakistan like India can develop together mutually. That this is India's real goal for Pakistan, and not any other...deeds rather than words.

7.1.09

PM Singh and direct accusations against Pakistan.








PM. Singhs current approach, one among many previous approaches to the Pakistani problem, is to blame them directly, and specifically certain state organs of the Pakistani state. From a technical perspective he is correct. ALL acts of so called "Islamic terrorism" is carried out through state security institutions, whether as false flag operations in their own countries, for example 9/11 (to increase security legislation; to allow the security to be more proactive in a given society; to gain more resources and money for security; to concentrate power within a limited elite group who subsequently define who is a good person and bad person......and so on), or operations in other countries.

All terrorism is state terrorism in one sense, especially in the Mumbai sense. Simply because of the logistics involved; the material; manpower; training; timing and transport.
Academically PM Singh is totally correct, that what happened in Mumbai was not the work of 10 amateur youths, largely illiterate, not particularly bright by the looks of it, desperate ("If you give me food and a bed, I will work for you" {India} Kasab told the police) from the bottom of Pakistani society, coming all the way from Pakistan to carry this out----they had to have backing for a larger more effective organization.

So from the analytical point of view this is progress, and our politicians are rationalizing the scenarios, rather than making off the cuff threats to Pakistan which were:
(i) Hand over the following from our wish list. (ii) You have 30 days to act, or else. (iii) Clean up terrorism or else, possibly war. Small problem with this new angle is that the FBI have cleared the ISI of involvement, so which other government agencies could be responsible from Pakistan? The army? To embarrass the politicians of Pakistan? The ISI is largely drawn from the army anyway, so.

Or is PM Singh merely posturing in light of elections very soon, and he doesn't believe a word he is uttering?
Is this progress? Not really.

1) The Pakistan state is controlled by the Americans, and specifically the army and intelligence. The Americans reinforced their control of Pakistan in 1977, when they removed Bhutto who was slightly independent in terms of his foreign policy agendas. The American's have reinforced their power over Pakistan even further recently by bringing in Zardari, who is to all intents and purpose a very corrupt gangster out to look after number one, himself, and the Americans use that character weakness to both control him and through him Pakistan. He visits the American embassy in Islamabad every other day. Remember "Busharaf" was not even good enough for the Americans, and had to be toppled using elements within the army loyal to the USA, Kiyani and Pasha. In that realistic scenario accusations by India against Pakistan about Mumbai terrorism misses the point of the real relationship between Pakistan and America. The accusations by India will come to nought of a brick wall, as Pakistan will stone wall, and America will provide cover. Zardari and his other American puppets will NEVER act in good faith to resolve the problem of Mumbai because it is not in their nature, or simply even if they wanted to they can't because they are America's puppets. General Suja Pasha honestly offered to visit India to deal with the Mumbai incident in late November, and then suddenly retracted that offer-----so who caused that change of decison?


(ii) Of course all the above point is on the basis that Pakistan actually carried out the Mumbai terrorist incident. There is considerable doubt about this thesis, at least by me. That 10 amateurs youths can hold off 800+ of India's finest for 3 days, backed by 40,000 Mumbai police force, without sleep, simply does not make sense, in 13 different locations in groups of 2,3 and 4 all at the same time, or similar times? And their very first act is to kill 3 of the top anti-terror encounter experts....who were going together in the wrong direction and destination away from the action.


(iii) The performance of PM Singh and others make India look impotent and ineffective. Maybe even amateurish. If Pakistan is an American controlled puppet state, and India in fact is facing American mischief through failed state Pakistan, then the best outcome for India and South Asia would be to institute mechanisms between India and Pakistan which deal maturely with similar scenarios in the future much more quickly and comprehensively then to engage in media based airwave spats of accusations and counter accusations------The only thing India will get from this is a brick wall of denials and counter denials; It has no meaningful outcomes for India and of course not Pakistan.

It may feel good, in a self important way for the politicians but achieves very little.


(iv) If India is looking for accusations against Pakistan followed by war, there are good reasons why India should not attack Pakistan at this juncture, and I have given plenty of reasons why India should not attack Pakistan in previous posts. In all events Pakistan is a country which is not in control of itself. War with Pakistan will be open ended, and who knows what the outcomes will be for India if a war is initiated against failed state American controlled Pakistan.


(v) That there should be certain outcomes from this episode which are constructive and beneficial for India and Pakistan. Pakistani officials from the key institutions of the armed forces, intelligence, police, bureaucracy need to be engaged in face to face regular meetings in the future with their Indian counterparts, where grievances from both sides can be aired privately in the face to face meetings rather than through the Indian, Pakistani and international media. Which is the case now. I have elaborated on this idea before---hotline calls for a few minutes are not enough; this was instituted long ago, and we need further better communications systems between the two neighbors,NOW.

Of course one can argue that if the Pakistani top echeleon are mere puppets of America, what is the point of meeting them in the first place? I believe in all such meetings some small good can be gauged and clarifications made about key substantive neighborly relations.


No, India did not choose Pakistan as its neighbor, but it is the responsibility of the leadership of mighty India to make sure that all mature avenues are pursued to make the existence between the two neighbors as bearable as possible in the present circumstances, and merely complaining and accusing over the airwaves, is thus not providing mature leadership in the real present scenario for India and for South Asia, which is what India touts itself to be, and can be.