Hindustan Times
A Nobel for fighting Islamophobia
Not entirely unanticipated but a surprise nonetheless. The 2009 Nobel Peace Prize for President Obama has been received with churlish criticism and variously interpreted as a Nobel for political stardom and stirring speeches. It has also been called “a premature Nobel”.
The Republicans have officially reacted with skepticism. “The real question Americans are asking is, ‘What has President Obama actually accomplished?’” mocked Michael Steele, the chair of the Republican National Committee. See here.
The Norwegian Nobel Committee has not jumped the gun. This is clearly not a Nobel for achievement but for approach. For noble intentions. For peace. And for fighting Islamophobia, if you like.
One only has to read between the Nobel Committee’s citation lines: “for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples”.
Why am I calling it a Nobel for fighting Islamophobia? Because the Norwegian Nobel Committee’s vote for Obama is clearly a vote against and encouragement to his efforts to steer away from his predecessor George Bush’s sledge-hammer unilateralism. Here is a freshman’s Nobel for changing the mood in a world where Muslim nations are mired in intractable conflicts, and therefore, singularly contribute to global instability.
Muslim nations are home to some of the flashpoints of international terror and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict continues to be a major hindrance to global peace. Terror in the name of Islam has adversely affected lives of a majority of peace-loving Muslims.
In an earlier blog on June 14, titled, “Why Obama’s Cairo speech matters”, on President Obama’s speech at the Al-Azhar University, I had written that “An American had just pledged, in a globally televised address to Muslims, to actually defend Islam. And so we must be willing to at least give him a chance.”
The Nobel citation has credited Obama for promoting “cooperation between peoples”. There was proof of this in Obama’s Cairo speech: “And I consider it part of my responsibility as President of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear.” And, “America is not and will never be at war with Islam.”
Bush had started off the war on terror by infamously calling it a “crusade”, a word that served as a reminder of its wrong connotations of a war between Christians and Muslims. Of course, he hastily retracted his statement but then the tone had been set.
The choice of Obama for the prize clearly demonstrates the Nobel Committee’s angst to help his efforts to undo damages done to international diplomacy by the Bush administration. More than a thumbs-up to Obama, it is a thumbs-down to Bush.
Do not forget, Obama went to Cairo before he went to Prague. And the Turkey visit was worth it too. He has pledged to close Guantanamo, where many innocent Muslims had been incarcerated without access to legal help. Obama’s message to the Muslim world was designed to calm riled Muslim sensitivities.
The harms done by Neocon-guided Bush are seemingly irreparable. It is no secret that the war in Afghanistan may be a war of necessity but the war in Iraq was one of folly. It has only given more determination to the ruthless al-Qaeda. Confrontation, without exhausting all options of diplomacy, had set Iran off on the path to becoming a rogue nation. Now diplomacy is back as the lever of international politics.
No wonder, after eight years of neocon unruliness, the Norwegian Nobel Committee wants to embolden Obama’s thrust on diplomacy as the way forward.
I for one do not think Obama’s less than eight months of presidency entirely lacks achievements, unless you count achievements by the number of treaties you have signed. The Taliban have been broken up in Pakistan. That is why they are taking on the Pakistani establishment with more aggression than before.
Morever, Israel knows it would not have unstinted support on all its moves in Gaza. President Obama is bullish on clearing Jewish settlements and freezing expansion of Jewish settlements on Palestinian land.
The first statement he made on Iran was to the effect that he did not consider it a pariah state and therefore kept the door of diplomacy ajar.
Obama’s decision to negotiate with Iran, as opposed to Bush, over its nuclear program is already bearing some fruit. Iran has now promised to send its nuclear fuel abroad for processing, which is being viewed as a major concession because expectations from talks with Iran in Geneva were very, very low.
The agreement for now is “in principle” and there are no guarantees Iran will do as it has promised. But if it does, it will be the first decisive step that Iran’s contested president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad will have taken towards nuclear disarmament.
On the other hand, Obama’s decision to cancel a planned missile-shield system in Eastern Europe that had riled Russia is a definitive step to defuse tension in the Continent.
Many would have wished the award was given to Bill Clinton simply because they feel it was long overdue. Since quitting presidency, the Clinton Foundation has done commendable non-profit work in the areas of health and development. And as President, Clinton pushed peace in Northern Ireland and Middle East unlike any other.
Just last August, he flew to North Korea, held talks with Kim Jong-il and secured the release of two American journalists.
A <Washington Post> editorial commented that a young pro-democracy protester, Neda Agha-Soltan, who lost her life after being shot by thugs working for the Islamist theocracy in Iran and captured on camera was the ideal candidate for being posthumously awarded the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize.
But the Nobel Committee overlooked people like Clinton and Agha-Soltan because it was politically expedient to do so. After all, none of the above people has the opportunity that Obama has as current president.
It may well be that Obama presidency could begin to flag on solving the real big problems of this world, like Russia-Chechnya, Isreal-Palestine, AfPak and climate change. The real achievement of Obama is his changing the mood of the world. In the words of the Nobel Committee, he has “created a new climate in international politics”.
Whether that is enough to win somebody a Nobel Prize is best left to the Nobel jury, which clearly wants all of Obama’s goals fulfilled.
The Nobel strategy has worked before. In 1996, the peace prize went to Cardinal Carlos Belo and politician Jose Ramos Horta, both of who fought for East Timorese independence from Indonesia. The prize suddenly put their cause into sharp international focus, ultimately leading to East Timorese independence in 1999.
Remember the 1994 prize went to Israeli Prime Minister Yitzahk Rabin, Israeli Foreign Minister Shimon Peres and Palestine Liberation Organization head Yasser Arafat. It prodded them into signing the Oslo Accords, although the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has yet to see lasting peace.
So, the prize for Obama is neither a recognition for topping the popularity charts nor an honour for oratory. The 2009 Nobel Peace Prize has been carefully though out, one that is aimed to help achieve crucial results and boost course correction. As one news anchor on Sky News put it, it is a prize for “not being Bush”.
(6 votes, average: 4 out of 5)
Loading ...Posted by Zia Haq on Sunday, October 11, 2009 at 6:07 pm
Filed under World · Tagged 2009 Nobel Peace Prize, Barack Obama, Norwegian Nobel Committee, president barack obama
(4.64 out of 5)
I will not consider Russia-Chechnya as a world problem. Russis should suppress the Islamic seccessionist movement and resolve the Chechnya problem, which they will do. India is the only country which donates its territorries..
Coming to the Nobel prize - My friends in US say there is lot of controversy and criticism about the award, mostly from Republicans; also from his fellow Democrats. I endorse Zia’s view that Europeans feel relieved after eight years of Bush. A recent Pew Reserach Poll showed a sea change in Europeans’ attitude towards US after Obama became President - from an average 12% popularity last year to an 85% popularity few months ago. As Zia says, this will potentially influence Obama to pursue reconciliation and peaceful approaches rather than the confrontational tactics his predecessor pursued.
However noble Obama’s objectives may be, he is a victim of the whims and fancies of the US electorate. The Republican right wing is hammering him on every silly thing. A Muslim terrorist attack eiher within the country or against any of its embassies or interests in the world will meet with a show of force and strength and revenge, more than they have demonstrated in th past, for that is what American people will demand.
In that sense, the only way to fight Islamophobia is by 1) Muslim Terrorists not committing 9/11 type and other suicide attacks and stay away from terrorism as a solution to their perceived problems and 2) by the non-terrorist Muslims criticizing and keeping a distance from the terrorists, educating their fellow Muslims, and participating full heartedly in the nation building efforts. They cannot worry about Muslims in distant lands; a Chechnyan Muslim problem is one that should be settled between him and Russia..
[Reply]
S Singh Reply:
October 12th, 2009 at 6:52 am
@ Mr Thomas
Agree with your comments on “fighting” Islamophobia.
The fighting and counterarguments have to come from non-terrorist Muslims (I like that categorization!) and not from Obama or any “outside” party. It is Muslims who are creating the mayhem (yaya “Terrorism does not know any religion”); and it is up to other (non-terrorist) Muslims to justify/castigate..
And why should fighting Islamophobia even important in the relative mix of things? Fighting radical Islam with all available tools (including non-terrorist Muslims) is more important than fighting Islamophobia. Islamophobia will disappear when Muslims live normal lives like others, and stop going around the world throwing bombs.
Fighting Islamofascism is more important than fighting Islamophobia!
[Reply]
singer Reply:
October 12th, 2009 at 9:05 am
what do u have aganst poor chechens and u side russians beacuse they are jut christians tyrants. do you think chechenya is natural part of russia or what do they share same culture, religeon or language. why do they stay with russia. and for u whoever oppose colonialism is terrorists!!
[Reply]
S Singh Reply:
October 12th, 2009 at 1:36 pm
Singer
Chechnya is Russian territorry from the Czarist days. Now, if Chechenyans want to secede from Russia, it is a fight between Chechnya and Ruassia; and nobody else’s. I wont have an issue in calling the separatists (assuming they are in majority) ‘freedom fighters”.
[Reply]
Zia Haq Reply:
October 12th, 2009 at 7:23 pm
@ Gopi Thomas
Agree on your prescription for Muslims, though these are fairly the same things I have talked about before. But one quibble: “They cannot worry about Muslims in distant lands”. This is a very narrow and flawed outlook. It is human nature that people of one community should have some concern about their brethren in other lands. Nobody ever asks Tamils to stop worrying over Sri Lanka. We also naturally worry over the plight of Hindus in Pakistan. We ought to.
The real solution is also about eschewing the hard line and the little bit of bias we all have.
[Reply]
Gopi Thomas Reply:
October 12th, 2009 at 8:24 pm
Zia
One should be concerned as one human being for another; and not as one Muslim for another Muslim, or a Catholic for another Catholic or a Hindu for another Hindu..However, i do understand the feeling for “kins”.
I should have clarified - what I meant was the physical involvement; the traveling bunch who go from Kannur, India to Pakistan; or the Arab who travels to Pakistan or to Chechenya. They should be eliminated.
I do not think any Hindu from India went to Sri Lanka to particiapte in Prabhakaran;s murderous venture. In fact, Prabhakaran, through his menace, made Sinhalese feel like an endangered minority in their own country. I feel we are getting close to that tipping point here too when I see some of the demands and actions of our Muslim minority and their appeasors. And that will be quite damaging and dangerous; so we all should be careful about that.
Catholics worldwide went on their business when IRA was under attack by UK. Some must have felt sympathy; but I am not aware of any foot soldiers from the wordlwide Catholic community zeroing in on the side of IRA and traveling to Belfast.
I do have a major problem when a boy ( in fact boys) from my hometown go to Pakistan for training and particpate in bombings in India for the perceived injustices; especially when this group is the richest, conytrolling group in my part of the country.
[Reply]
Bobby Reply:
October 12th, 2009 at 10:08 pm
I think there should be solidarity among people and groups of people in the world. The lack of such genuine secular solidarity creates a vacuum which is then filled in by the fundamentalists and extremists who are usually more motivated.
I mean just look here in South Asia. In Pakistan, the jamaat ul dawa and other Jihadi organizations are apparently at the forefront when it comes to helping people during earthquakes for instance. The Madarsaas in pakistan helps poor muslims get education when they cant do so secular expensive schools.
Same here in India, with the hindutva-wadis many times coming to the forefront in helping people during calamities, before secular organizations. This way they create a bond with people.
Same in the case of the more politically dangerous situations. If Palestine would have got more support from the international community. If the US did not have its head so deeply buried in the sand, and had taken a more neutral stance and sided with the majority of nations, and not blocked repeated UN resolutions against Israel, then I feel that religious militant organizations would not have got so much support there.
Even in India, there are not enough people, I feel, who speak out for the Kashmiris or for people in the North East or the tribals. Our misguided sense of patriotism makes us always take the side of the Indian state and not the the Indian people.
If there was enough number of educated elite Indians talking against the injustice done to marginalised sections of the country , be they tribals or kashimirs or even in the North east, as well as standing with them and helping them get justice, then I feel a lot of the support that armed movements like the Naxalite movement or the militants in Kashmir or the North East get from the people would have evaporated.
Gopi Thomas Reply:
October 13th, 2009 at 6:32 am
Bobby
I do not understand what you mean by “secular solidarity” . Is it more than identifying and assisting the affected citizenry? Couldnt we just have “ordinary” solidarity with these people?
Whatever may be the causes, and whoever has not stepped in, we should avoid “but” or “however” in these cases. We should avoid saying “this is the cause for that.. Avoid these mistakes so as not to give causes for extremism” . These other causes may be equally important, or more important or less, but those issues have to be addressed sepaarely from the extremism. Extremist Islam is an evil which is causing bloodshed, destroying society, and blackening Islam’s name. It is bringing ruins to Islamic and non-Islamic countries, inciting transgression against human life, while (I think) violating the tenets of Islam and the dictates of basic human values. This has to be wiped off; with the perpretators annihilated. No fair trial, and possibly even torture.
Maoist revolt also fits in this; although restricted only to India (and fringe countries like Nepal). First of all, these leaders should take a closer look at the Mao country now. They are fighting yesterday’s war with day before yesterday’s tactics. The leaders should be hunted, put in jail without trial or under some harsh regulation like POTA. They all know the language of toughness.
If these Maoists have any guts or if they really want a change in this country, they would have killed a corrupt minister or a corrupt senior bureaucrat or a couple of votebank pleasing MPs, instead of killing the innocent police constables or private company employees. This would instill a sense of responsibility and fear/accountability among the bureaucracy and politicians, because electorate does not demand any accountability.. They did similar stupid killings which turned people off during the first Naxalite movement in lthe late sixties ( I rwas a high school student then) - I remeber them killing a local landlord (who had les than 10 acres of land) here and putting his severed head on the gate of his house as a warning to the bourgoise. Had they killed a few political leaders, more things would have changed! faster!
I do agree that the affected populace opens up a great “market” opportunity for these eunuchs to step in and leverage. The state and central leadership, while hunting and killing the leaders and organizers, should make sure the tribals are taken care of . Again, we all know, there is enough and more programs for tribals on paper; money is allocated; obviously politicians and bureaucrats must be pocketing these. I wish the Naxalites would have targeted a minister or bureaucrat who is responsible for the tribal development!
Madrasas in Pakistan was a deliberate choice and decision by Zia Huq (not our Zia Huq!)(in conjunction with Saudi Arabia) as a part of hiis anti blasphemy and other Islamization programs (the results of which the Pakistanis are reaping now in plenty!).
Palestinians - we will have a sepaarte discussion. (I do sympathize with them on certain aspects). However, the Islamic terrorism would not have been tampered had the problem was not there. The roots and genie of the Islamofascismt lies in some other obvious places and philosophy.
Here in India, our ’secular” politicians have interpreted secularism as equal respect to communalism and not equal rights to faith or culture. So, they are instituting policies for “disadvantaged”, that just encourage a race to the bottom, with everybody wanting to be proclaimed more backward.
Ashish Reply:
October 13th, 2009 at 12:06 am
In one word, Ummah! Long live global Islamic brotherhood
[Reply]
In my opinion giving the Nobel peace prize to Barak Obama is the Joke of the year. On the other hand, it does not matter much because the Nobel Peace prize itself has long been known to be a joke, given that some of its winners include Netanyahu, Arafat and Kissinger. I wonder how they missed out the other great apostle of peace: the nut called Reagan.
Obama is always showcased as a liberal and the antithesis to George Bush, which in fact he is not. In my opinion the difference between George Bush in his second term and Obama is really minimal, and most of the difference is really that of good advertising. I don’t think he will do anything fundamentally different than most US presidents have. One example of a genuinely progressive candidate for the US presidency would have been some one line Dennis Kucinich.
Of course given the fact that the US is so overwhelmingly powerful, even a small difference in policy will come as a big relief to the rest of the world.
[Reply]
Gopi Thomas Reply:
October 12th, 2009 at 1:20 am
Bobby, I think you meant Rabin (who got the prize along with the corrupt Arafat) and not Netanyahu. (Well, wait for a while, Netanyahu will also get!)
It will be quite difficult to do a 180 degree turn in US foreign engagement even if Obama wants to do. In a sense, George Bush has handicapped him. He has to prosecute two wars; and the Afghanistan theater is becoming increasingly difficult because Bush ignored it to focus on Iraq.
Obama has announced he will close down Guntanamo Bay prison; and that he will hold trials of the terrorists captured, but not tried. He has also stopped the
offshore rendition of suspected terrorists by CIA.
However focused or idealistic an American president may be, he needs the majority support of the congress. Republican members generally give a carte blanch to their President; while Democrats quarrel about everything. His party is not supporting him on the health care overhaul that people have voted for with his election.
I do have hopes on Obama. He seems to have galvanized the youth all across the world, including here in India.
Personally, I would have preferred Mrs Clinton - intelligent, charming, no-nonsense, focused; and you get two for the price of one - Bill Clinton would have come with the package!
You are right in terms of “fundamental” change in foreign policy. No US President can and will change it drastically - because at the end of the day their main interest is in protecting the American interests including American people’s interests and ensuring they and their party will get reelected. Hence we see them coddling dictators, countries like Pakistan, their undivided loyalty to Israel, etc. Pretty soon they will be on the case of Iran.
[Reply]
Ashish Reply:
October 12th, 2009 at 10:55 am
I never thought I would agree so whole-heartedly with anything Bobby writes
The difference between Obama and Bush is that between the Good Taliban and the Bad Taliban
[Reply]
Bobby Reply:
October 12th, 2009 at 4:09 pm
“I think you meant Rabin ”
Thanks for the correction, Gopi.
Just two comments.
(1) “They cannot worry about Muslims in distant lands; a Chechnyan Muslim problem is one that should be settled between him and Russia..”
Well I dont think the US would worry at all about Isalmists joining cause with the Chechen Muslims. Its a “problem” only when they join cause in fighting the US, as you know from the history of the Soviet Afghan war.
(2) “their main interest is in protecting the American interests including American people’s interests”
Well actually its not even that. I dont think they care about the American population at all. Their main interest is in protecting the interests of the american elite—- the “have and the have mores” as George Bush once commented, “or as I call them- My Base” …..
[Reply]
Gopi Thomas Reply:
October 13th, 2009 at 12:42 am
@Bobby
You are right that US will not be serious as long as Islamists stay away from US. However, they will still monitor when foreign Muslims join a native resistance. They now have a clear understanding that a large number of Muslims do not have the notion of nation-state and these people are bound by a self destructive ideology, that they call Islamofascism.
While you are right that at a macro level they are more apt to protect the elites and the capitalist foundations; they are quite focused on people at a micro level. May be here in lies the difference between our and their democracy. Their concern for the people is quite evident by the massive resources they spend just to save two or three people who get trapped in some forest or snowstorm; the massive people protection systems like Fireforce, ambulanc,, food and drug administartion etc;. The fact that they did not have a Radical Muslim attack after 9/11 is one indication as to how much they care for the security of the people. Heads will rooll, parties will lose whenever the enxt attack happens.Look at us; how many attacks in the last four years - parliament, Mumbai 1, 2,3, Ahmedfabad, banaglore etc etc. We continue to elect the same irresponsible people.
Islam has penal punishment for sexual crimes;it prohibits both gambling,wine,drugs and interest(on money lending) which are all big business in our world,hence there is conflict or persistent war amongst Muslims and the owners of such business and their political agents.This is to continue.The world masses support Muslims,which is evident from the recent defeat of George Bush and BJP in the elections in the two countries.In the Holy Quran’s Sura Baqarah it is clear that Allah hates those who abet violence.In Hadees (Hadith)we are informed Allah punished a female for she kept her pet-cat tied who thus died of hunger and thirst and forgave a ***** since she gave fetched water in her shoes from a well and gave it to a thirsty dog in a desert.Thus,Islam which is considerate towards an animal its follower cannot be terrorists.Islam prohibits ill-manners,which further disproves the allegation of the aforementioned big business-politiicians mafia that have labelled Muslims as terrorists.Jehad is for Allah’s cause, which is to oppose all the aforementioned social evils.
[Reply]
Raju Kurien Reply:
October 12th, 2009 at 12:57 pm
May God bless you Naved!
[Reply]
SKS Mumbai Reply:
October 12th, 2009 at 2:01 pm
Yeah the fun begins now
[Reply]
a baksh Reply:
October 12th, 2009 at 9:02 pm
this is what you get, when we read too much mumbo jumbo.
[Reply]
Ashish Reply:
October 13th, 2009 at 12:00 am
@Naved,
Thank you for explaining Islam so well.
[Reply]
Sam Reply:
October 13th, 2009 at 1:47 am
this is garbled fairy tale islam..
how about islam permitting
1. owning slaves
2. 1 muslim man = 33 hindu woman in saudi ?
3. Misyar marriages
4. Muttah marriages
5. For a rape, woman has to get 4 muslim virtous men as witness
(if those men are virtuous, why they are not trying to stop the rape)..
6. 1man = 2 woman in court
7. Stupid blasphemy laws
8. Jizya,
Basically there are lot of similarities with a mafia running a protection money racket..
[Reply]
S Singh Reply:
October 13th, 2009 at 7:47 am
Naved
What are you talking about, man?
[Reply]
Sam Reply:
October 13th, 2009 at 9:11 am
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2009/10/you-cannot-kill-a-muslim-because-he-killed-a-christian.html
The indemnity for the death or injury of a woman is one-half the indemnity paid for a man. The indemnity paid for a Jew or Christian is one-third the indemnity paid for a Muslim. The indemnity paid for a Zoroastrian is one-fifteenth that of a Muslim.” — ‘Umdat al-Salik, o4.9
“Thus if [a] Muslim commits adultery his punishment is 100 lashes, the shaving of his head, and one year of banishment. But if the man is not a Muslim and commits adultery with a Muslim woman his penalty is execution…Similarly if a Muslim deliberately murders another Muslim he falls under the law of retaliation and must by law be put to death by the next of kin. But if a non-Muslim who dies at the hand of a Muslim has by lifelong habit been a non-Muslim, the penalty of death is not valid. Instead the Muslim murderer must pay a fine and be punished with the lash….Since Islam regards non-Muslims as on a lower level of belief and conviction, if a Muslim kills a non-Muslim…then his punishment must not be the retaliatory death, since the faith and conviction he possesses is loftier than that of the man slain…Again, the penalties of a non-Muslim guilty of fornication with a Muslim woman are augmented because, in addition to the crime against morality, social duty and religion, he has committed sacrilege, in that he has disgraced a Muslim and thereby cast scorn upon the Muslims in general, and so must be executed….Islam and its peoples must be above the infidels, and never permit non-Muslims to acquire lordship over them.” — Sultanhussein Tabandeh, A Muslim Commentary on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
[Reply]
@Zia
What do u mean by Islamophobia?….it is not some kind of sickness….it is just and rightful reaction..if u hurt someone, it is expected that he or she will respond….so, there is no such thing as islamophobia….it is just normal and proper response against a barbaric relegion called islam by normal society and human being.
[Reply]
@Ashish
Noble prizes for peace and literature are normally a recognition for promoting leftist causes.
Fighting the so called Islamophobia is as dear to the the leftists as to the islamists. There comes OBAMA. The Islamist-Leftist alliance is nearly global, well established and old as well. Never mind left’s aversion to God, as long as you are against US/west, you are their God.
This relationship is also stregthened by their common disdain for nationalism. After US and Capitalism, nationalism and patriotism is the third biggest evil. So wherever there is a separatist movement, leftists will support it in the name of fighting oppression, imperialism or in the name of self determination. Never mind that the guiding spirit of separatists is religion or is basically aimed at establishing a theocracy. Never mind that all these oppressed people go by the name of Al Qaeda, LeT, JeM or Nagaland for Christ, it is all for a just cause. There is no dearth of left wing fanatics, who justify 9/11 or who considered it as an opportunity to regroup, even if under the flag of Islamism to target US. Among these are also ex noble prize winners and numerous luminaris of the leftI don’t remember any statement by the left wing fanatics on the issue of Jihad by Kashmiri Muslims.
See the above example of “SINGER”. No left wing secular indignation when he defends Chechen’s right to a separate country because they don’t share any culture, religion or langauge. When questioned as to why do Muslims cry for secularism and diversity when in India but want separation in Cehehenya or in Kashmir, you are a Hindu Bigot.
Same goes for naxalites, there is no dearth of left wing sympathisers, who rarely see the mayhem and destruction these criminals have unleashed, but are first to complain about human rights voilations when the Government decides to give them their own medicine.
Death of terrorism in Punjab is a good examples for us, force and brutal force is the only remedy for these murderers. It is time for us to stand up and tell the mainstream defendants of these murderers that they have no bloody case and killing them amounts to defending human rights. Even more important is the realisation that compromises or cease-fires are just a method of buying more time to regroup and reboot. These things work only when you have destroyed the life-support systems of these marauders.
Incidentally, One of the reasons why Gandhi was not given a nobel prize was that he was a nationalist.
A revealing discussion is on Mr Vinod Sharma’s blog on HT, “War mongering a sales pitch for US weapons”. See the kind of arguments they have for defending Mr Karat and his type.
[Reply]
Gopi Thomas Reply:
October 13th, 2009 at 9:30 pm
SKS,
I wholeheratedly agree your rendering on leftists, secularists, and extremists.
Somewhere else in this blog I indicated the need for forceful annihilation, killing of these Islamic radicals and extremists like Maoists. There may be various reasons for their coming into being; but we cannot have “but” or “however” when we deal with them. We, especially the so called liberals should avoid making statements like “this is the reason why we have radical Islam or Naxalite attacks, and if only we…..”. We should take care of both; independent of each other. No mercy should be shown to the murderers and life haters.
As you know, our secularists have interrpreted secularism as respect to communalism; not equal rights to faiths.
It is quite inteersting to note that how the ‘God loving” SDPI (a new political party flaoted by “liberal” Muslims) is trying to entice the “god hating” disadvantaged naxalites to join theirr party..
Coming to Zia’s point on Islamophobia; the best and only solution to alleviate the phobia is by the Islamofascists stopping their murder and mayhem.
[Reply]
Ashish Reply:
October 14th, 2009 at 1:01 am
@SKS,
Agree; the leftists, seculars, Islamists and so on make common cause. The logic is, “any one who is poor, backward etc.. and it is a long etcetera; is so because of oppression. All human misery is caused by external factors, the most popular name for that is exploitation”.
Problem of trying to fit everything into the class struggle paradigm is difficult in a world where things are way too complex; see for instance:
1. Mayawati is part of the ruling class (repeat after me, “I am the queen”).
2. Kobad Ghandy and his supporters are crying themselves hoarse seeking justice and rule of law. “Oh, he/ I is/ am not dangerous; just an ideologue; I just recruit people to a cause”. Just like Hafiz Md Saeed, as a matter of fact.
3. Marxists (okay, make that Buddha) want industry in Bengal; their opposition party (what’s the opposite of Left; surprise, it is not Right, but more to the left) led by Mamata and SUC and CPI Mao and CPI ML want it anywhere but in Bengal…
I checked out Vinod Sharma’s blog (what’s with all these Vinods anyway? Sharma or Mehta, they all light candles facing our western border).. I saw you guys were harrassing him, so I went and offered some support
My comment is “Awaiting moderation”.. probably too harsh on “Akhilesh the lube-seller”.. forgive me bro’
[Reply]
Ashish Reply:
October 14th, 2009 at 2:08 pm
@SKS,
my comment on Vinod Sharma’s blog is probably destined for the trash-bin, marked as spam.. like the tallest leader of the 20th Century that Mr Sharma so admires, Mr Sharma now adopts her methods as well..
Long live censorship.
[Reply]
@Ashish
Well let us wait a bit. My first comment was also in moderation mode for some time and I had given up. But it appeared later.
[Reply]
@Ashish
Checked now again. I think you have been No-Balled.
I don’t know whether it was chucking or simly overstepping.
You may try again and avoid oversteping. If does not work try changing your bowling action, may be try leg spin if you were bowling fast or vice-versa.
If that also fails, then I am afraid you will have to try bowling on THE Good Line (length is not important). I hope you know what is considered as a GOOD LINE in India.
So GOOD LINE Try Karke dekhiye, it uplifts your spirit
[Reply]
Ashish Reply:
October 15th, 2009 at 4:22 pm
@SKS,
Reminds me of college; where we did skits featuring Attila the no-balled..
Actually, taking the cricket analogy to its logical conclusion, “mera bat, mera ball.. tum mujhe out nahin kar sakte”, said the neighbourhood bully of my childhood. “Agar tumne aisa kiya, to main tumhare saath nahin kheloonga”.
Honest to Allah, I only questioned Akhilesh’s intellectual abilities seeing that he is a mere lube seller, for (horror!) an MNC.. and obviously deprived of a JNU education like Mr Karat… I also posted a ringing condemnation of all the engineer MBA types.. I know, that must have hurt Mr Sharma.
[Reply]
@SKS
you are funny!
TCN has a sudden surge of Jehadis these days..really atrocious ones..from a really different planet..patha nahin….
[Reply]
@Gopi
I have been watching your relentless pursuit to drill some sense there at TCN. While the surge you mention is definitely noticeable, I have also seen a slightly higher no of (meaning it has often exceeded 2 and sometimes 3 as well) progressive ones. But I am afraid, the dominant theme is unlikely to add much to your energy levels.
I am also begining to notice a new trend, while comments claiming to possess rational arguments are most welcome and are always followed by appropriate endorsements. But when I tried to extend the same rationality (I mean same in all sense) to a broader spectrum, it appears that I have been reported to ICC.
Cheers
[Reply]
‘islamophobioa” is caused by the terrorit acts of Muslims. The only way to “get rid of” this is by Muslims not geeting into nterrorist acts..
[Reply]
@Ashish
For far too long “mera bat, mera ball.. tum mujhe out nahin kar sakte”, also included “my playground”. With internet blogs, one thought everybody could claim the playground and score some runs also, but forgot, that ownership of umpires and scorers did not change.
Although, now that you explained the content of your response, one could think of other possibilities for e.g. Redundancy? After all you don’t contribute anything if you are only going to question the IQ part, because you are just reiterating that 2+2 equals 4. So it now dawns on me that good line alone will not do, some length might also be needed.
In any case, it is time for all of us to look at those industries where future is. In my opinion, the next boom is the armed offensive planned against maoists. If we play this right we will own the future bats and balls and playgrounds and umpires etc. As in past, the success will belong to those who can differentiate between the Human and non-human blood, between the legitimate democratic aspirations and brutal state suppression, between the tragedy unleashed by the brutal state offensive and the pleasant breeze of winds of Revolution on which maoists will enter into (literally) the heart and minds of ordinary citizens.
As always the best returns will be generated in the initial phase of growth, while regulatory framework is in evolution (read Govt is committed to the offensive). As the mechanism evolves in future (read Govt losing its will and capacity both, as more LIBERALIIZATION takes place) the return on capital will return to more moderate levels eventually stabilizing to the levels when low risk capital (pension fund kind of guys) will replace the initial high risk capital, which can then be deployed to the sunrise industries of those times.
Let us not lose sight of the potential upsides which the industry will offer in the initial phases of Growth, ranging from the various GN (Gandhi-Nehru) series awards to a possible nobel prize also.
So what say Gopi, Mirza ? Opportunity knocks at our door.
[Reply]
Ashish Reply:
October 17th, 2009 at 12:39 am
@SKS,
the trouble I have with the Maoist insurgency is that, we will get it all wrong. And, when I say we, I mean all of us; the Government, the politcal parties, the bleeding heart liberals, the right wings, Bigots (Hindu or non-Hindu)..
My fear is that, as with most things in India, we will approach this without a long term strategy. This is not just a law and order problem; this is a effing insurgency.. in many areas, the government does not even exist.
The debate in the mainstream media (print/ TV) is being reduced to “helicopter gunships.. to use or not to use?” I would like a focus on what changes will we need to make in our administrative delivery system, in bridging the rural urban divide, in creating trust among the populace. While Maoists rule by fear and intimidation, they are also sowing seeds into fairly fertile grounds. Even if we crush the rebellion, in a year/ ten years/ thirty years.. the ground conditions will remain ripe.
Trickle down economics works to some extent but, obviously not fast enough. While we have to win the law and order challenge, we need to ensure that we work parallely on what a large part of our country is telling us: the state does not exist for delivering roads, hospitals, education.. it only exists to rule. It is difficult for those of us that stay in Delhi or Mumbai to even understand how poor and deprived some of these areas are.
We will continue to send our policeman or army to fight our battles while our politicians just need to travel economy to become “trending topics”. That is my worry. If we took this as a wake up call and insisted that the government delivered, not just in Delhi or Mumbai (does it?) but, in our hinterlands too, I would feel less queasy.
[Reply]
@Ashish @SKS
As usual, Brahmins are palnning a new financial calss system . The difference this time is that they are casting their net wide to include not only Dalits, but also tribals and Christian converts and all others who have been crying for justice.
btw I read in one of the blogs that Akbar was a Kaufur (what is the correct spelling?) lover and the worst Moghul King, and Aurangazeb (Rahmatullah) the Gold Plated one with AAA+ rating, right one for pension funds investing..
[Reply]
@Gopi
The instruments in which Pension funds usually deploy maximum capital are interest bearing, so not Halal.
About Akbar being a Kafir, I have also been flooded with gems of wisdom from same blogs. I don’t know whether this will be considered a valid delivery, but I must state it here: these are not my views. Now for samples:
1. Women not wearing burqa are prostitutes. ( the european and australian variants treat these women as uncovered meat)
2. Polytheists are Biggest sinners. You might allow your children to talk to street urchins, but you won’t allow intermingling. Similarly, Muslims cannot intermingle with polytheists. I requested some additional information on this such as how can Muslims work with/under such sinners? What to do when Muslims live in a place where, by and large, the laws are designed and enforced by sinners? TCN guys did not consider it necessary to allow these questions, although I had hoped that answers would have helped many Muslims in their day to day life.
3. People following religions other than Islam are like adulterous wives. No self respecting man should allow this
4. Ulemas when questioned about Uniform civil code, say in so many words that they cannot oppose a uniform civil code if it is within the framework of the Islamic laws but there is no possibility of this and hence their opposition. It is wrong to say that Muslims oppose a uniform civil code. They only oppose any imposition of unwanted laws on them because they feel and rightly so that Islam provides better laws which are not only for them but for all human beings of all times.
5. Ajmal Kasab is an avtar of hindu God Vishnu.
[Reply]
Ashish Reply:
October 16th, 2009 at 11:51 pm
@SKS,
Serious?
[Reply]
@Ashish
Sorry to disappoint you. This is serious and available for all to see, I am sure Gopi has seen them already.
[Reply]
Gopi Thomas Reply:
October 17th, 2009 at 5:30 pm
@Ashish @SKS
Ya, I have seen all these and more articulated by the once (and still) oppressed ones. However, Ajmal as Vishnu avatar is a new one; I missed that. So, is he Kalki or is he even better? Is he the One to bring back the Dharma that has been destroyed by Brahmins ..Is he the “Dharma Samsthapanaye Sambhava mi Yuge Yuge” (to establish Islamic Dharma?????)
But one thing that always bother me in those blogs is their response to the questioning minds — they always use words like “cockroaches” “dogs” ” sewer dweller” etc… I have seen bin Laden and Al Sawhiri also using words like those when they do their call.. Does the Book say non-believers belong to these categories?
[Reply]
Ashish Reply:
October 17th, 2009 at 6:48 pm
Hmm..
@Gopi, too bad..
As for the Book, I think it is more prescriptive than descriptive about non-believers.. if you get my drift..
Happy Diwali, everyone..
[Reply]
@ Zia
After reading your blog, Emmanuel Kant’s views on time and space comes to my mind.
Kant says SPACE and Time are like goggles through which we view all things. So he held that we can know only “Things as we know” and never ” things in themselves”.
The same apply to you also. You view everything through the spectacles of ISLAM. So anything you know has alrady been moulded thorugh this spectales. So I doubt you can ever know “things in themselves”
Mind you Kant meant by “things in themselves”……….what the things trully are.
For you any art, science, architecture, etc……is ISLAMIC art, Islamic architecture, Islamic science, islamic bomb etc….
This is a serious issue man.
[Reply]
I read recently that OBL had one of his son’s pet gassed because similar reasons. I think ape, monkeys and Dogs command special position and Pig of course is a class by itself.
@Gopi
I think the Vishnu Avtar stuff was related to Kalki etc. Comment was by someone who describes HIMSELF as Political Analyst with DeeeeeeeeeP insights. Also claims with Pride that in his circle he is considered a Pandit/Bramhin.
Of course in my opinion his existence makes all Sacahar and other studies redundant. If he is right about his circle, and I have little reason to doubt that, then Sachar didn’t have to collect any primary data, nor was any analysis on the underlying reasons necessary.
In all fairness, I must tell you that there were quite a few who vehemently disagreed with him, saying he must be a RSS guy trying to sow hatred in the minds of Hindus.
[Reply]