Friday, January 9, 2009
Roots of the Crisis
In my last post I wrote of how the threat of war distracts from the "roots of the crisis". I was referring to Pakistan's support of terrorism. The deeper root is, of course, the dispute over Kashmir. The current Indian administration could have negotiated some kind of deal while General Musharraf was in charge. He held all the levers of power and offered some very reasonable approaches to resolving the issue. Unfortunately, Manmohan Singh followed the tradition of Indian heads of government in showing no interest in resolving the vexed question. I wrote an article about it in the Sunday Times of India last April, and warned the window of opportunity would not remain open forever. Notwithstanding the recent election in Jammu and Kashmir state, that window seems to have firmly shut.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
Girish - "The deeper root is, of course, the dispute over Kashmir."
Are you saying that once the Kashmir issue is solved to Pakistan's satisfaction, Islamic terrorism will stop?
You must have been drinking the Obama cola.
NO, axis mundi, I'm not saying that. If you want to make judgments, make them on the basis of what I've actually said, which is right before you, not on the basis of what you take to be the implications of what I've said.
Furthermore, I don't use the phrase Islamic terrorism. Islamist terrorism is a more accurate term.
Girish - Unless I have the ability to read your mind, how else am I supposed to interpret the following statement - "In my last post I wrote of how the threat of war distracts from the "roots of the crisis". I was referring to Pakistan's support of terrorism. The deeper root is, of course, the dispute over Kashmir."
Pray tell?
Btw, What is the difference between Islamic Terrorism and Islamist Terrorism?
I would really like to know, please.
You don't have to be a mind reader, axis, just a little logical.
I did not state that the Kashmir issue was the sole spur of Islamist terror in India, let alone the world. There are other events which serve as good take-off points for terror outfits to brainwash Muslim youth. For instance, in Gujarat in 2002, hundreds of innocent Muslims were killed and nobody high up was punished for the crime. The same thing happened in Bombay in 1993. Those events led to terrorist outrages like the serial bombs of March 1993 and the Akshardham attack.
I will remind you, though, that once all parties came together to negotiate in Northern Ireland, violence waned and finally ceased.
Islam is a religion. Islamism is a political ideology which uses certain interpretations of the religion for contemporary political ends. When the means to those ends is terror, it makes for Islamist terrorism.
Unfortunately, most of us are quite unaware of the games that are played at higher levels. Would you consider for a moment that the Kashmir issue generates a colossal defence budget, and ample opportunities for people to siphon funds? How much of the Siachen funds end up in the pockets of government babus and politicians? There is a strong class that wants this issue to remain alive.
Agree with others on the fact Kashmir is not the sole reason we have these attacks, but it is a central rallying point you would agree.
Fine, let's be logical.
By your logic [Mumbai 93 and Gujarat 02] - Kashmiri Pandits would be justified in killing hundreds of Kashmiri Muslims, and then, force the entire Muslim population of Kashmir to flee their homes.
Tibetans would be justified in sending suicide bombers to not only Shanghai and Beijing, but also to New York, London, Frankfurt, Rome, pretty much anywhere Made in China products are purchased.
Vietnamese should have bombed the F&*% out of American cities. You get my drift?
Logic would also demand that the intellectuals [esp, those with a platform] amongst us answer honestly, why the above scenarios are not occurring, and what is that one reason that compels two young Moroccans from Paris, a dozen or so Londoners of Pakistani extraction, and a few Arabs to leave their loved ones behind and go to Kashmir to die while killing the unbeliever?
p.s. i am not saying that you are justifying Islamist terror, but you are surely suggesting that injustice against Muslims is the reason for Islamist terror, no?
thanks for explaining the difference between Islamic and Islamist.
Anonymous - Colossal defence budget for which country? Pakistan? or India?
If the latter, then it begs the question, why did terrorism in Punjab stop completely? Because, even then, there were people who, without a shred of evidence, were claiming that, higher up people are using terrorism as a cover for massive narcotic smuggling through Punjab; why has violence in Kashmir reduced significantly? wouldn't it benefit the higher ups to keep the fires burning, so to speak?
First you say I am justifying terror ("by your logic Kashmiri Pandits would be justified...") then you claim, in a post script, that you are not saying that. Make up your mind, axis.
But I think you are too blinded by hatred and prejudice to bother understanding my argument. You want to build a straw man that's easy to knock down.
I agree with anonymous. There are a great many mercenaries who want the kashmir issue to remain alive. The link below is a revelation and while the article itself is probably by a kashmir baiter, the numbers he quotes makes one realise just how much money there is in keep kashmir on the burn.
http://www.rediff.com/news
/2002/nov/09rajeev.htm
I hope the newly elected MLAs there now start asking where all this moneys actually going. Peace will come when the profit from war turns into a loss. S Anand
Post a Comment