|
The American public, traumatized by 9/11 and misled by propaganda from corporate media, swung right. Instead of rebuking Bush and Cheney for their sins against the Republic, for their illegal war on Iraq, for their gutting of the Bill of Rights, for their Orwellian techniques of governance, the public gave them another 4 years in 2004. This Himalayan error of judgment allowed Bush and Cheney to go on, like giant termites, undermining the economic and legal foundations of American values and prosperity.
The fundamentalist, rightwing Hindu Bharatiya Janata Party, which has extensive links with Hindu extremist groups, is already attacking the secular, left-of-centre Congress Party for allegedly being soft on Muslim terrorism. The BJP almost dragged India into a nuclear war with Pakistan in 2002, and it seeded RSS extremists in the civil bureaucracy, and for the Indian public to return it to power now would risk further geopolitical and domestic tensions.
India may well become a global superpower during the coming century. The choices it makes now on how it will deal with this threat of terrorism will help determine what kind of country it will be, and what kind of global impact it will have. While it may be hypocritical of an American to hope that New Delhi deals with its crisis better than we did, it bespeaks my confidence in the country that I believe it can. --- President of the Global Americana Institute Juan Cole's fervent plea. ------------------------------------------------- India: Please Don't Go Down the Bush- Cheney Road By Juan Cole Sunday, November 30, 2008 Many Indians have called the attacks in Mumbai "India's 9/11." As an American who lived in India, I can feel that country's anguish over these horrific and indiscriminate acts of terror.
Most Indian observers, however, were critical in 2001 (and after) of how exactly the Bush administration (i.e. Dick Cheney) responded to September 11. They were right, and they would do well to remember their own critique at this fateful moment.
What where the major mistakes of the United States government, and how might India avoid repeating them?
1) Remember asymmetry
The Bush administration was convinced that 9/11 could not have been the work of a small, independent terrorist organization. They insisted that Iraq must somehow have been behind it. States are used to dealing with other states, and military and intelligence agencies are fixated on state rivals. But Bush and Cheney were wrong. We have entered an era of asymmetrical terrorism threats, in which relatively small groups can inflict substantial damage.
The Bush administration clung to its conviction of an Iraq-al-Qaeda operational cooperation despite the excellent evidence, which the FBI and CIA quickly uncovered, that the money had all come via the UAE from Pakistan and Afghanistan. There was never any money trail back to the Iraqi government.
Many Indian officials and much of the Indian public is falling into the Cheney fallacy. It is being argued that the terrorists fought as trained guerrillas, and implied that only a state (i.e. Pakistan) could have given them that sort of training.
But to the extent that the terrorists were professional fighters, they could have come by their training in many ways. Some might have been ex-military in Britain or Pakistan. Or they might have interned in some training camp somewhere. Some could have fought as vigilantes in Afghanistan or Iraq. They needn't be state-backed.
Keep your eye on the ball.
The Bush administration took its eye off al-Qaeda and the Taliban, and instead put most of its resources into confronting Iraq. But Iraq had nothing to do with al-Qaeda or the Taliban. Eventually this American fickleness allowed both al-Qaeda and the Taliban to regroup.
Likewise, India should not allow itself to be distracted by implausible conspiracy theories about high Pakistani officials wanting to destroy the Oberoi Hotel in Mumbai. (Does that even make any sense?) Focusing on a conventional state threat alone will leave the country unprepared to meet further asymmetrical, guerrilla-style attacks.
Avoid Easy Bigotry about National Character
Many Americans decided after 9/11 that since 13 of the hijackers were Saudi Wahhabis, there is something evil about Wahhabism and Saudi Arabia. But Saudi Arabia itself was attacked repeatedly by al-Qaeda in 2003-2006 and waged a major national struggle against it. You can't tar a whole people with the brush of a few nationals that turn to terrorism.
Worse, a whole industry of Islamphobia grew up, with dedicated television programs (0'Reilly, Glen Beck), specialized sermonizers, and political hatchetmen (Giuliani). Persons born in the Middle East or Pakistan were systematically harassed at airports. And the stigmatization of Muslim Americans and Arab Americans was used as a wedge to attack liberals and leftists, as well, however illogical the juxtaposition may seem.
There is a danger in India as we speak of mob action against Muslims, which will ineluctably drag the country into communal violence. The terrorists that attacked Mumbai were not Muslims in any meaningful sense of the word. They were cultists. Some of them brought stocks of alcohol for the siege they knew they would provoke. They were not pious.
They killed and wounded Muslims along with other kinds of Indians.
Muslims in general must not be punished for the actions of a handful of unbalanced fanatics. Down that road lies the end of civilization. It should be remembered that Hindu extremists have killed 100 Christians in eastern India in recent weeks. But that would be no excuse for a Christian crusade against Hindus or Hinduism.
Likewise, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, as a Sikh, will remember the dark days when PM Indira Gandhi was assassinated by her Sikh bodyguards after she had sent the Indian security forces into the Golden Temple-- and the mob attacks on Sikhs in Delhi that took place in the aftermath. Blaming all Sikhs for the actions of a few was wrong then. It would be wrong now if applied to Muslims.
Address Security Flaws, but Keep Civil Liberties Strong
The 9/11 hijackings exploited three simple flaws in airline security of a procedural sort. Cockpit doors were not thought to need strengthening. It was assumed that hijackers could not fly planes. And no one expected hijackers to kill themselves. Once those assumptions are no longer made, security is already much better. Likewise, the Mumbai terrorists exploited flaws in coastal, urban and hotel security, which need to be addressed.
But Bush and Cheney hardly contented themselves with counter-terrorism measures. They dropped a thousand-page "p.a.t.r.i.o.t. act" on Congress one night and insisted they vote on it the next day. They created outlaw spaces like Guantanamo and engaged in torture (or encouraged allies to torture for them). They railroaded innocent people. They deeply damaged American democracy.
India's own democracy has all along been fragile. I actually travelled in India in summer of 1976 when Indira Gandhi had declared "Emergency," i.e., had suspended civil liberties and democracy (the only such period in Indian history since 1947). India's leadership must not allow a handful of terrorists to push the country into another Emergency. It is not always possible for lapsed democracies to recover their liberties once they are undermined.
Avoid War
The Bush administration fought two major wars in the aftermath of 9/11 but was never able to kill or capture the top al-Qaeda leadership. Conventional warfare did not actually destroy the Taliban, who later experienced a resurgence. The attack on Iraq destabilized the eastern stretches of the Middle East, which will be fragile and will face the threat of further wars for some time to come.
War with Pakistan over the Mumbai attacks would be a huge error. President Asaf Ali Zardari and Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani certainly did not have anything to do with those attacks. Indeed, the bombing of the Islamabad Marriott, which was intended to kill them, was done by exactly the same sort of people as attacked Mumbai. Nor was Chief of Staff Ashfaq Kiyani involved. Is it possible that a military cell under Gen. Pervez Musharraf trained Lashkar-e Tayiba terrorists for attacks in Kashmir, and then some of the LET went rogue and decided to hit Mumbai instead? Yes. But to interpret such a thing as a Pakistan government operation would be incorrect.
With a new civilian government, headed by politicians who have themselves suffered from Muslim extremism and terrorism, Pakistan could be an increasingly important security partner for India. Allowing past enmities to derail these potentialities for detente would be most unwise.
Don't Swing to the Right
The American public, traumatized by 9/11 and misled by propaganda from corporate media, swung right. Instead of rebuking Bush and Cheney for their sins against the Republic, for their illegal war on Iraq, for their gutting of the Bill of Rights, for their Orwellian techniques of governance, the public gave them another 4 years in 2004. This Himalayan error of judgment allowed Bush and Cheney to go on, like giant termites, undermining the economic and legal foundations of American values and prosperity.
The fundamentalist, rightwing Hindu Bharatiya Janata Party, which has extensive links with Hindu extremist groups, is already attacking the secular, left-of-centre Congress Party for allegedly being soft on Muslim terrorism. The BJP almost dragged India into a nuclear war with Pakistan in 2002, and it seeded RSS extremists in the civil bureaucracy, and for the Indian public to return it to power now would risk further geopolitical and domestic tensions.
India may well become a global superpower during the coming century. The choices it makes now on how it will deal with this threat of terrorism will help determine what kind of country it will be, and what kind of global impact it will have. While it may be hypocritical of an American to hope that New Delhi deals with its crisis better than we did, it bespeaks my confidence in the country that I believe it can. Juan Cole is President of the Global Americana Institute Thoughts on the Middle East, History, and Religion posted by Juan Cole @ 11/30/2008 12:56:00 AM 29 COMMENTS: At 4:47 AM,  John Francis Lee said... The Bush administration was convinced that 9/11 could not have been the work of a small, independent terrorist organization.
The Bush administration clung to its conviction of an Iraq-al-Qaeda operational cooperation...
The Bush administration took its eye off al-Qaeda and the Taliban, and instead put most of its resources into confronting Iraq.
You talk as though this ridiculous claptrap created by the Neocon Putsch for public consumption has any reality of its own. Why do you even give it lip service? Clearly the plan was WAR and a casus belliwas required. This was just the one that "For bureaucratic reasons we settled on... it was the one reason everyone could agree on..." in the words of Public Enemy Paul Wolfowitz. This is all smoke and mirrors drug up to enable their WAR to go forward. To even talk about the Neocon's caring at all, other than to be grateful for, the mass murders of 9/11 is nonsense.
Many Americans decided after 9/11 that since 13 of the hijackers were Saudi Wahhabis, there is something evil about Wahhabism and Saudi Arabia.
You have that right. Not only Americans but Indians, Frenchmen, every "brand" of human is ready at an instant to brand another group of humans as sub-human and kill them all. That is what we are trying to struggle against, not to use cynically to put a few more dolloars in our pockets, the Neocon specialty. As the entire military-industrial-complex's specialty.
But Bush and Cheney hardly contented themselves with counter-terrorism measures. They dropped a thousand-page "p.a.t.r.i.o.t. act" on Congress one night and insisted they vote on it the next day. They created outlaw spaces like Guantanamo and engaged in torture (or encouraged allies to torture for them). They railroaded innocent people. They deeply damaged American democracy.
When the people in charge of our government are in the pay of corporations they will inevitably "simplify" government to make the populace easier for the corporations to control. And when corporate goals unabashedly include aggressive warfare... well, then you can't "simplify" enough.
The Bush administration fought two major wars in the aftermath of 9/11 but never able to kill or capture the top al-Qaeda leadership.
This is the nature of military-industrial "might". It's "good" for destroying things, for "shocking and awing" ordinary humans with its utter bestiality but it is utterly ineffective. It cannot conquer a ragtag band of antagonists who swim like fish in the sea of humanity that rightly is horrified and disgusted by the barbarity of the Wehrmacht turned loose upon it. And it bankrupts you besides.
The military-industrial complex is like a heroin addiction. It gives you fantastic rushes of pure delusion, of omnipotent fantasy, as it destroys your body, your mind, and your very soul. For there's a hole in Daddy's arm where all the money goes.
The American public, traumatized by 9/11 and misled by propaganda from corporate media, swung right. Instead of rebuking Bush and Cheney for their sins against the Republic, for their illegal war on Iraq, for their gutting of the Bill of Rights, for their Orwellian techniques of governance, the public gave them another 4 years in 2004.
And the Good Germans did nothing as the Third Reich ran them over as well as the Poles, the Gypsies, the Jews, the homosexuals... There is no one to help us either, or to sympathisize. We were the Kings of the World, so we proclaimed. American Democracy ueber alles. Well, that's right... it's all our fault. We stood by with our hands in our pockets and watched it all go down. Some of us cheered.
And now we've lit up another bowl, for a fresh round of fantasy: Change without changing.
I met a traveller from an antique land
Who said: Two vast and trunkless legs of stone
Stand in the desert. Near them on the sand,
Half sunk, a shatter'd visage lies, whose frown
And wrinkled lip and sneer of cold command
Tell that its sculptor well those passions read
Which yet survive, stamp'd on these lifeless things,
The hand that mock'd them and the heart that fed.
And on the pedestal these words appear:
"My name is Ozymandias, king of kings:
Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!"
Nothing beside remains: round the decay
Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare,
The lone and level sands stretch far away At 4:58 AM, fatima said... Thank YOU Mr Cole for an amazing article , thank you for not judging all Muslims (like myself my family and friends) for the work of these Extremists who do not speak for me . thank you so much for informing your readers . At 6:28 AM, Anonymous said... When things are really confusing in foreign affairs, I come visit Professor Cole for sanity. He doesn't disappoint. The amount of propaganda being put out there already regarding the Mumbai attacks is frightening. I shudder to think where this is leading. At 8:03 AM, Anonymous said... I firmly believe the Bush administration decided Pakistan will be the sacrificial lamb in its non-sensitical foreign policy pursuits. In order to save face in South Asia, Bush appointed Pakistan to be the lamb that gets slaughtered. India is thrilled and has decided now is the opportune time to help in the destruction of Pakistan.
Israel has always considered Pakistan a threat because any Muslim country that is powerful and/or has nuclear weapons is a threat to Israel's long-term expansionist goals.
Pakistan's survival is in grave danger. When the US, India, and Israel together decide that Pakistan stands in their way of greater power, then the clock starts ticking ......
God help Pakistan !! At 8:44 AM, markd said... I have only read the first part - but with respect Juan I think you are wrong. The WMD's and the terrorist thing was just a ruse. The target was always oil and the control of strategic resources just like in so many other places. Understand that and I think you will understand so much more. At 9:42 AM,  Julio said... Ahmed Rashid sees Al Qaeda behind the training of the terrorists in Mumbay, he affirms that the attacks were a diversionary maneuver to take the pressure off their bases in the tribal areas of West Pakistan who are under attack by the Pakistani army and USA's unmaned drone bombs.
Can you comment? At 9:42 AM, enfieldco said... Not withstanding everything you've said, there is a far more pragmatic reason gravity will draw India toward conflict with Pakistan that is not so strongly mirrored in the US case (aside from Hussein wanting/trying to kill W's Dad and the presumed ongoing imperatives of neo-colonialism).
Governmental power and legitimacy is derived from being able to deal with threats internal and external. For this reason India's government faces a disaster in any case, but it is far easier to rally the masses against a visible nation state which has always played this key role as India's nemesis, most recently just a few years when they almost came to blows and it seemed to be all the US could do to stop a war. To NOT blame someone that is understood to be an enemy the government has options against, would be to acknowledge how effete and ineffective they are as a state to protect their own people.
In this sense there is a parallel as you noted, but the difference is that in India's case there is far less choice about blaming the Paks: it is a matter of it being a regime (elite) survival strategy. At 10:38 AM, Steve Muhlberger said... Hypocritical? No, sane. At 10:41 AM, Jayhawk said... Excellent and well written, but I would question one point.
"The Bush administration clung to its conviction of an Iraq-al-Qaeda operational cooperation..."
I do not believe that the Bush Administration believed that connection for one second. The invasion of Iraq was a plan that preceeded 9/11, and that event provided the justification. The connection was a lie from start to finish. At 1:15 PM, El Cid said... I really can't quite grasp the context -- India has seen so many horrific episodes of terror, violent attacks, and even government-directed slaughter, how is it that this incident counts as "India's 9/11"? At 1:38 PM, Shirin said... "The Bush administration was convinced that 9/11 could not have been the work of a small, independent terrorist organization. They insisted that Iraq must somehow have been behind it."
Come on! The evidence makes it very clear that the Bush administration did not for a moment believe that Iraq was really behind 9/11. In fact, for the most part they carefully avoided making a direct statement connecting Iraq to that event in order to provide themselves with plausible deniability. Instead, they just made sure to frequently mention Iraq and 9/11 in close proximity to one another in order to connect the two in the minds of Americans. When directly confronted they assumed an innocent air and insisted that they had never said there was a connection.
The Bush administration wanted to invade Iraq from day one. 9/11 provided them with a lucky pretext to do so, and thehy took advantage of it.
I am surprised and disappointed that you have chosen to take the Bush administration off the hook for intentionally misleading the American people into connecting 9/11 and Iraq. At 1:44 PM, Anonymous said... The Government of Pakistan, for whatever its governance abilities are worth, appear to be in the know of rogue elements operating within their country. The military is a law unto itself, and it is difficult to believe that the democratically-elected government in Pakistan has much control over the military.
How does one tackle rogue elements directly associated with the military? How does one force the Government of Pakistan to overcome its own military's control over intelligence and deport criminals and terrorists wanted by the Government of India, the Interpol and the FBI? No amount of pressure has worked in the past. How is it that magazine editors and TV crews have access to terrorists in Pakistan for interviews and photo opportunities, while the Government claims that they don't exist within the country?
My concern is that individuals, both within civil society and within the government, have nothing to do with any of this, and yet they appear to come in harm's way whenever they attempt to acknowledge the good sense spoken in international conventions related to reigning in domestic terror groups. However, just as various sections of Indian media are calling the Mumbai attacks a failure of governance in Mumbai and indeed the whole of India, the failure to reign in rogue elements and capture terrorists and terror groups is a failure of the Government of Pakistan.
The US needs to mobilize an international force, not an army, and send them inside Pakistan for systematic, undercover termination of key individuals associated with the terror groups. At 1:54 PM, Matthew Gabriele said... Muslims in general must not be punished for the actions of a handful of unbalanced fanatics. Down that road lies the end of civilization.
Absolutely. I agree wholeheartedly. But less so with this...
The terrorists that attacked Mumbai were not Muslims in any meaningful sense of the word. They were cultists. Some of them brought stocks of alcohol for the siege they knew they would provoke. They were not pious.
In what sense are these extremists "not Muslims?" Does this really do us any good to suggest that extremists within religions are really "not a part" of that religion? Were crusaders not really Christians? Are members of al-Qaeda not really Muslims? No and no. No, they aren't representative of the whole but they're very much a part of their respective religions.
I've written a bit about this elsewhere (in respect to Christianity), but let's not throw the baby out with the bath water and say that the part = the whole, nor apologize for some of the more unpleasant aspects of religious devotion. Let's just start to actually deal with it -- talking about why this is an element of Islam (or Christianity or Hinduism or whatever) and what that actually means. At 1:56 PM, Nataraj said... The Bush administration was convinced that 9/11 could not have been the work of a small, independent terrorist organization. They insisted that Iraq must somehow have been behind it.
You have got the anology wrong here. Pakistan is more like Afghanistan than Iraq in this context. Hardly anyone disputes the fact that some Pakistan based group is involved and all these groups get some form of official support / protection / free hand.
The only difference is the govt. is not directly involved. Pakistan can apprehend the leaders of the responsible groups and extradite them to India and take stpes to eliminate these groups. End of story - no war needed.
But if they insist on not doing anything about the culprits (or some fake ban / arrest / rename / release that Musharraf did after Parliament attack on 2001) - then it is clear Pakistan govt. is not interested in stamping out terror and wants to keep its options open onKashmir and continue the low intensity war. At 2:40 PM, werkshop said... I fear that Bush and Obama will now lock hands in demonizing and attacking Pakistan, based on the attribution of the Mumbai attacks to Pakistan. At 3:03 PM, Anonymous said... Well said Dr. Cole. I agree that there is reason to have confidence that India will prove to be more civilized than the United States, and not concoct, vigorously promote (domestically and internationally), and act on false casus belli. Thus I believe India will not aggressively pursue policies that are to their direct detriment. At 3:50 PM, DJP said... Well put as usual, Dr. Cole. If America could implement your rational thought in her policies, we would be in much better shape. At 3:59 PM, BF said... Below I reproduce what I have written elsewhere.
One wonders at the sheer incompetence of India's security apparatuses: how is it possible that such an organised terrorist act could have been mounted and taken India by surprise? One should realise that this was not a terrorist act committed by a lone person, which could indeed have contained an element of surprise. I think that some heads at the top of India's security establishment will have to roll in response to this clear display of utter incompetence. Of course, the same can be said about the security apparatuses of the countries that have intelligence officers attached to their embassies in India.
BF. At 4:51 PM, Anonymous said... Thank you, Dr Cole, for an excellent article. At 5:35 PM, Anonymous said... read the sameer reddy newsweek analysis the only indepth intelligent piece on mumbai attacks .
it points clearly to motives and between lines implicates right wing hindus .
how do you tell a punjabi hindu from a punjabi muslim if they are cirmcised -it seems lie an upcoming action scam as sameer says there At 10:02 PM, Frank Wilhoit said... All politics is domestic. No nation has a foreign policy. Foreign enemies are always allegories for domestic factions.
So shall it be in India. It is all about the BJP and Hindutva. Wait and watch. At 10:53 PM, Stephane MOT said... I was also worrying
India could follow the same dangerous path.
Bush-Cheney betrayed the victims of 9/11, Singh must move to the contrary closer to the new Pakistani president. At 2:22 AM, BF said... Mr Misha Glenny, the author of McMafia: Crime without Frontiers, has the following insightful Comment which may interest those visiting this page:
Misha Glenny
This was not global jihad. Its roots are closer to home
The Guardian
Monday, December 1, 2008.
Mr Glenny's reference to India's "shambolic intelligence and security forces" conforms with the view that I have expressed in my earlier Comment on this page.
BF. At 11:10 AM, Arun said... Without hatred and without a wish for war, or to create national stereotypes, I point out the following:
The impression the narrative in the American press is meant to convey is that of a Pakistan headed by a civilian government, with a cooperative military and intelligence agencies, and rogue elements of the military, intelligence helping outlawed organizations like the Lashkar-e-Taiba, the Taliban and sundry fundamentalists who infest the western frontier of the country along the Afghan border.
That is simply not true. As this news-item will make amply clear (this is from September 30, 2008):
http://www.dnaindia.com/report.asp?newsid=1194581
ISLAMABAD: The Pakistan government has granted permission to the chief of the Pakistan-based terrorist group, Lashkar-e-Toiba, Hafiz Mohammad Saeed, to import a duty free bullet-proof Land Cruiser, worth Rs 25 million.
According to the interior ministry sources in Islamabad, the LeT chief, who fears a possible attempt on his life by his "external enemies", had sought the government permission to import a duty free bullet proof Land Cruiser in view of the rising number of terrorist acts across Pakistan.
The sources said that after some lengthy deliberations on the issue, the government has decided to give him a go ahead to import a fully armoured Land Cruiser for his use from Dubai. It was for the first time that the leader of a banned jehadi group had made such a request to the government and it is also for the first time that the government has acceded to such a request.
-------
The terrorists are part of Pakistan's so-called civil society. This should be unacceptable to you, Professor Cole, and I call upon you to call for its end.
Since peace is your (laudable) goal, it is also upto you (and me and everyone else) to make sure Pakistan expels these people from its civil society and truly makes them fugitives. At 11:14 AM, Arun said... Regarding the failures of the Indian government, the following link outlines it. The fact is that the Indian government had actionable intelligence, and did nothing. In part this is because appearing tough on terrorism is politically interpreted as war-mongering or hate-mongering. Mumbai is what happens when security falls prey to politics.
http://ibnlive.in.com/news/govt-knew-about-the-threat-did-nothing-arun-shourie/79457-3-p0.html At 11:14 AM, turanga said... Just a note that a look at the list of victims posted at http://www.mumbaihelp.blogspot.com/
(scroll down) shows that among them are a substantial number of muslims. At 12:05 PM, PillarOS said... The terrorists that attacked Mumbai were not Muslims in any meaningful sense of the word. They were cultists. Some of them brought stocks of alcohol for the siege they knew they would provoke. They were not pious.
What basis (or right) does this guy have to determine if people are muslims or nonmuslims (let alone characterize the difference between 'pious' and 'nonpious' on the basis of alcohol-Islam relationship)? I'm sure he can read minds/has his own personal interpretation of what "Islam" is.
Likewise, India should not allow itself to be distracted by implausible conspiracy theories about high Pakistani officials wanting to destroy the Oberoi Hotel in Mumbai. (Does that even make any sense?)
It makes no sense, and I doubt any one will blame the Pakistan government per se. The problem is that the Pakistan govt. is fractured, and the relationship between the state/army/intelligence services are dubious and often hostile in many ways. What does make, at least historical, sense is the militants potentially having links to elements in Pakistan.
Muslims in general must not be punished for the actions of a handful of unbalanced fanatics...It should be remembered that Hindu extremists have killed 100 Christians..But that would be no excuse for a Christian crusade against Hindus or Hinduism.
This is true, but using Hindu extremists is a lacking comparison, as even a cursory look at Indian history shows that the amount of people slaughtered by members of other faiths in India out ranks any sporadic (or even tacitly state-sponsored, as suspected in Gujarat) Hindu extremist violence. It really should be the other way around.
The fundamentalist, rightwing Hindu Bharatiya Janata Party, which has extensive links with Hindu extremist groups, is already attacking the secular, left-of-center Congress Party for allegedly being soft on Muslim terrorism.
The BJP is not a "fundamentalist party" or even a "Hindu party", it is a mainstream secular party just like the Congress Party. However, both parties are guilty of often inflammatory communal "vote bank" politics(BJP often relies on Hindus, while Congress often relies on the Christian/Muslim/other minorities).
...and for the Indian public to return [BJP] to power now would risk further geopolitical and domestic tensions
The Congress and BJP party both are guilty of blaming Pakistan for every slight. Also important to note is that the Congress party is the one who in many ways instigated the pogrom against the Sikhs--it does not have some sort of monopoly on keeping tensions calm/inflaming them. At 7:25 PM, Anonymous said... Thanks Prof. Cole for an enlightening article.... At 8:34 PM, The Mad Scotsman said... Well said Mr. Cole. I'd add one other item: Don't bankrupt the country in response to a terrorist attack.
My reading of the situation is that Bin Ladin wasn't trying to lock horns militarily with the Great Satan (as he describes the US), but to cause financial chaos. I think he has succeeded way beyond his wildest wettest dreams, and this can be laid squarely at the feet of the neocon agenda.
I hope that India can use the results of the US reaction as a lesson they don't want to repeat.
Cheers, Neil. http://newageislam.org/NewAgeIslamArticleDetail.aspx?ArticleID=1038 |
3:47 PM
Sultan Shahin
0 comments:
Post a Comment