India’s ‘Secular Terrorism’

Sajjad Shaukat

Political experts remark, "Terrorism comes in a variety of forms, but these days religious terrorism is the most common and leads to the most destruction. Not all terrorism is equal…there are significant differences between religious and secular terrorism."

Bruce Hoffman, in his book 'Inside Terrorism' writes: "For the religious terrorist, violence is the foremost divine duty executed in direct response to some theological demand or imperative. Terrorism thus assumes a transcendental dimension, and its perpetrators are consequently unconstrained by the political and moral constraints that may affect other terrorists."

On the other hand, Hoffman further explains: "The secular terrorist sense leads to a sanctioning of almost limitless violence against a virtually open-ended category of targets: that is, anyone who is not a member of the terrorists' religion or religious sect. This explains the rhetoric common to 'holy terror' manifestos describing persons outside the terrorists' religious community in dehumanizing terms as, for example, "infidels" or "mud people."

Judging in these terms, since the 9/11 tragedy, irresponsible attitude of Indian, Israeli and some Western politicians have introduced dangerous socio-religious dimension in their societies by equating the "war on terror" with "war on Islam" and acts of Al Qaeda with all the Muslims. Their media have also heightened the currents of world politics on cultural and religious lines with the negative projection of Islam. In this regard, reprinting of the caricatures about Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) and release of a Dutch film against the Holy Quran might be noted as an example.

In this context, on October 19, 2007, the real cause behind was revealed by the the special issue of South Asia Multidisciplinary Academic Journal, under the caption-'Working for India or against Islam? and it wrote: "In the past few years, Indian American community has gained an unprecedented visibility in the international arena and now constitutes influential ethnic lobbies in Washington. Among other factors, Hindu aligned with Jewish pressure groups in relation to the war against terrorism and to further the India-Israel-US strategic partnership play a major role in exaggerating Islamophobic overtones in the Indian American lobbies"

Particularly since 9/11, India which joined the vile propaganda campaign of Western countries in equating Muslims with fundamentalism and in creating Islamic phobia is itself practising terrorism under the shadow of secularism. This could rightly be called secular terrorism.

However, although terrorism has many meanings, but its main aim is to create fear in order to achieve political or social ends, while a terrorist is one who deliberately creates this climate of fear by employing violent means.

So either it is religious terrorism or secular terrorism, India which claims to be a secular state, has broken all the records of violence, genocide and massacre against various ethnic and religious groups, entailing the community of its own lower castes.

Hindu politics and culture, dominated by the fundamentalists parties such as BJP, RSS, VHP, Shiv Sena and other similar groups have been propagating Hindutva (Hindu nationalism). Provocative utterances of their extremist leaders result into more violence against the Christians and the Muslims including other minority groups.

Although violence against the other communities has been used by Hindu terrorists as a normal practice since partition, yet anti-Christian and anti-Muslim bloodshed in the last decade coupled with the dissemination of Hindutva has intensified.

Besides previous massacre of Muslims, more than 2500 Muslims were massacred in 2002 in the BJP-ruled Indian state of Gujarat where horrible scenes of arson, mutation and rape were perpetrated by the Hindu extremists against the unarmed Muslims. Regarding that massive genocide, both Human Rights Watch in 2002 and Amnesty International in 2003 charged the "Gujarat state administration" for involvement in "a massive cover-up of the state's role in that massacres" and pointed out numerous police officials-specifically ministers, high officials and leaders of the VHP, BJP and Bajrang Dal as participants.

Meanwhile, various investigations failed in indicating the real culprits of Hindu terrorism in Gujrat as they were high officials or police officers of the Indian government. Hence, the Supreme Court of India had ordered a fresh probe on March 25, 2008, but the same also remains inconclusive due to concealment of evidence against the culprits who are members of the dominating political parties of the country.

Besides Gujrat, on September 13, 2008, during the communal riots in Uttar Pradesh more than 200 Muslims were murdered. In the most tragic incident in Assam, Hindu terrorists burnt alive six members of a Muslim family.

In Maharashtra, non-Hindu communities have lived in constant fear and awe since the advent of the fundamentalist party, Shiv Sena whose Chief Bal Thackeray has organised army of hoodlums to beat up any religious minority, openly directing the Hindu terrorists to loot and stone any of their shop or house. Silence of the subsequent governments on every challenge of Shiv Sena and lack of serious action against Thackeray's vandalism have clearly defeated the secular echoes of India which is in fact a secular terroist state. More alarming point is that Bajrang Dal has also been imparting arms training to its members near Ayodhya where the fundamentalist Hindus want to build Ram Mandir on the site of Babri Masjid which was demolished deliberately in 1992 with the official backing.

Notably, a few weeks ago, a leakage of the report of the Justice Liberation Commission of India admitted the role BJP's leadership for the destruction of the Babri Masjid, and over other human rights violations in the Indian-held Kashmir including violence against the Muslim and Christian communities.

It is mentionable that after the BJP came to power in February 2006, unlike the previous similar tragic events, Christian persecution rose to new heights in the state of Karnataka. Attacks on Christian holidays became common in the state like other areas. On the Christmas Eve of 2007, Hindu extremists led a series of violent attacks on Christians and their property in the state of Orissa, killing six Christians and razing at least 800 houses and 100 churches.

According to a report of the Global Council of Indian Christians (GCIC), "in one of the events, in March, 2008, more than 150 intolerant nationalist Hindus stormed two Easter Sunday services and beat at least 16 Christians including two pastors in Bangalore and in Shimoga district…before almost every assault, the mob of the Hindu extremist of RSS, VHP and Bajrang Dal, armed with bamboo poles, sticks and rods, while beating drums shout slogans in Hindi-he "who talks in favour of only Hindus will rule the nation."

Nevertheless, assaults on Christians and their property have continued by the Hindu mobs in Orissa, Assam, Kerala and Andhra Pradesh. Even the year of 2009 witnessed a number of incidents of religious intolerance. In this respect, at least 60 Christians have been assassinated in the recent past by Hindu fundamentalists in Orissa.

Recently more than 2,700 unmarked graves of the unidentified bodies were uncovered in villages of Indian-held Kashmir near the Line of Control (LoC). It is not the new event, in the past three years, the International People's Tribunal on Human Rights and Justice (IPT) has discovered unmarked bodies buried at various places. Last year, discovery of nearly 1000 graves of the unmarked Muslims in the Indian held Kashmir was also notable. Sources have suggested that these graves include bodies of extrajudicial executions committed by the Indian military and paramilitary forces.

In fact, the ideology of Hindutva is being encouraged by the government officials. Besides attacks on the other ethnic and religious communities including their establishments, appointment of extremist Hindus in top positions in various institutes, and alteration of courses in accordance with the Hindu ideology have reflected the intentions of the BJB and the Congress rulers.

No doubt, violence against the other communities has been used by Hindu fundamentalists as a normal practice since partition, but intensity of the anti-Muslim and anti-Christian bloodshed in the last decade coupled with the dissemination of Hindutva has displayed India's 'secular terrorism.'

Sajjad Shaukat writes on international affairs and is author of the book: US vs Islamic Militants, Invisible Balance of Power: Dangerous Shift in International Relations.

Article Source : http://www.markthetruth.com/minority-issues-in-india/310-indias-secular-terrorism.html

--

India and Pakistan are Nuclear States—Let's Make it Official

>


Luv Puri

In May 1998, surprise nuclear tests by India and Pakistan transformed regional strategic calculations and added a dangerous new dimension to tensions between the two.

According to Taylor Branch, writing in The Clinton Tapes: Wrestling History with the President, Indian officials who spoke with Bill Clinton were fully aware of the potential devastation a clash between the two nations could lead to, calculating that a doomsday nuclear volley would kill 300 to 500 million Indians while annihilating all 120 million Pakistanis (although the Pakistani side insisted its rugged mountain terrain would shield more survivors than the exposed plains of India).

But regardless of the accuracy of these numbers, and although the two countries' military strategies differ, (India's is based on conventional superiority, while Pakistan tends to emphasize nuclear deterrence to cancel out this advantage) one thing is clear-the threat of nuclear terrorism looms large over both.

In December 1998, Osama Bin Laden told Time magazine that acquiring weapons for the defence of Muslims is a religious duty. 'If I have indeed acquired these weapons, then I thank God for enabling me to do so. And if I seek to acquire these weapons, I am carrying out a duty,' he is reported as saying. Even if the statement was merely rhetoric, it demonstrates intent. However, a number of reports suggest that Bin Laden's statement was more than just talk.

In August 2001, two Pakistani scientists, Sultan Bashiruddin Mahmood and Chaudary Abdul Majeed, met Bin Laden and Mullah Omar in Afghanistan. The two scientists were detained on October 23, 2001, 'for questioning.' Majid was a retired nuclear fuel expert from the Pakistan Institute of Nuclear Science and Technology, while Mahmood worked on the secret Pakistani gas centrifuge program that ultimately produced the highly enriched uranium used in Pakistan's nuclear weapons.

But even without acquiring access to weapons, there are other means of groups such as al-Qaeda engaging in nuclear terrorism. Radioactive dispersal devices, for example, are particularly suited to non-state actors as they are portable and can be used to meet one of the common aims of terrorism, which is to cause significant economic damage. Combined with an explosive device, RDDs can be used to create dirty bombs, which can cause both immediate casualties from their explosions and long-term health and psychological damages from radiation.

Many analysts see Pakistan, and specifically Punjab province, as the most likely source of materials for extremists to undertake such attacks, and the precision of the recent terrorist attacks in Punjab on several Pakistani military facilities suggest there has been some inside help for militants.

On October 10, for example, terrorists dressed as Pakistani soldiers entered the Pakistani Army's headquarters at Rawalpindi and killed six soldiers, including a brigadier. Subsequent investigations pointed to Illyas Kashmiri, who once served in the Army, as a potential suspect.

Back in 2003, meanwhile, there was a suicide assassination attempt on then-Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf's convoy, from which he narrowly escaped. The investigation, as recorded in a book authored by Musharraf, led to the arrest of low-level army officers who had conspired with Islamists, and who were angry over his co-operation with the United States in cracking down on extremists in the tribal areas.

In India, though, the threats have been more recent, and point to the bigger danger of the link between nuclear facilities and militants. Earlier this month, it was reported that the Lashkar-e-Taiba, an extremist group, is planning to target nuclear scientists (security has reportedly been tightened around several of the alleged targets) while there have also been reports of plans to strike the country's nuclear infrastructure.

This all comes as India works to expand its nuclear capacity after receiving a waiver from the Nuclear Suppliers Group's rules that allow its civilian nuclear deal with the United States to proceed, following strong US lobbying. India has signed treaties with several countries that will help it expand its nuclear infrastructure, but such an expansion needs to be matched by upgrades in security.

Meanwhile, Bangladesh is also working to establish a civilian nuclear power plant after signing a memorandum of understanding on peaceful use of nuclear energy with Russia. Like India and Pakistan, it also faces the challenge of dealing with radicalized groups.

Bringing India into the non-proliferation regime will be crucial if Pakistan is also to be drawn in, moves that would both help reduce the risk of nuclear conflict as well as the risk of nuclear materials falling into the wrong hands.

India and Pakistan made a good start in the field of nuclear cooperation when they signed an agreement in 1989 not to attack each other's nuclear facilities. And in a more recent positive sign, in November 2008, Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari stated Pakistan was willing to commit to a no first-use policy for its nuclear weapons-a policy he said he could secure backing from parliament for. However, only 4 days after the suggestion terrorists struck Mumbai, killing 176 people and stirring up tensions between the two.

Pakistan's refusal to join the nuclear proliferation regime is also linked to India's rejection of the same system. Both countries are not bound by the conditions reached after the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty was agreed, such as the 1997 Additional Protocol, to strengthen the non-proliferation regime. As a consequence, the continued exclusion of Pakistan and India from the non-proliferation regime is actually intensifying the nuclear arms race in South Asia.

Bringing India into the regime will mean addressing its objections to becoming part of the arrangement-it believes that the non-proliferation regime is discriminatory as it is rooted in the NPT, which only gives nuclear weapons status to five countries.

The United States has already taken a significant step toward accepting India through the Indo-US civilian nuclear agreement, the framework for which was agreed in 2005. Here, the US defended the exception for India because of its impeccable record in non-proliferation. But the move in turn upset Pakistan, which argued the exceptional treatment for India risked triggering an arms race.

It seems clear then that granting both countries official nuclear weapons state status through suitable amendments to the NPT would be the best way of curbing the on-going arms race and reducing the threat of nuclear terrorism by making it easier for the International Atomic Energy Agency to hold the nuclear infrastructures of both countries to the highest scrutiny.

Many nations may balk at such a move. But the stakes are too high to not let pragmatism be the guiding basis for policy.

Luv Puri is a Fulbright Fellow at New York University and has written on South Asian related issues for nearly ten years. A previous version of this essay appeared in The Diplomat.

Article Source : http://www.acus.org/new_atlanticist/india-and-pakistan-are-nuclear-states%E2%80%94lets-make-it-official

--

Is this The End Of India?

India with Blind govt, Deaf Army chief, militant groups and hushed masses battling to be a super power……

A.D.Khalid

Khuswant Singh- a renowned journalist world wide & recognized as Nom Chomsky of India, in his book "The End of India" predicted about the total destruction of India into diminutive parts. He cautioned not only govt but all stake holders of Indian so called secular society that they should not only forget the partition of India but also accept presence of Pakistan and all Muslims inside and outside of India with open heart .He further suggested that India must accept equal rights of others, do justice with minorities, discourage extremism grouped with militancy and forget to eliminate the low caste Hindus from the society by degrading and disregarding their presence in millions. But unfortunately, since the publication of his book all these evils have unprecedented increase in Indian society.

It was a few days back when two famous news publishing groups of Pakistan (The Jang) and India (Hindustan Times) hoisted a flag for peace in the subcontinent. It was really very lovely on their part because this is the time when poor masses of the region are looking for respite so that economic activities can burgeon in the area. Probably people are now fed up from wars and arms race. The masses now want that governments must spend money on their welfare, health, education and comforts of life. Each one having little knowledge and vision of future, looks towards European Union countries, how they have resolved their skirmishes and now are focused on scientific advancements and economic growth of their people. But when one of the two countries is India, in a peace dialogue with Pakistan, results are always pitiable as India never responds positively to peace process. The theme "Aman ki Aasha" is a good beginning. Peaceful people of Pakistan responded well and it received warm welcome in Pakistan side of the border but it was not acceptable for the militant minds and extremist groups having deep roots in govt, Indian army and society as well.

It was really interesting to see the influence of politicians getting lead from extremist groups on the sports event IPL, being conducted in India. At this time, Indian media kept quite and never pointed what all was happening. It was really terrifying to engulf that every one in India had gone bonkers. When poor people of the two countries just started dancing under the flag of "Aman ki Aasha", the Indian wise strategy makers same as of their previous record, stabbed the peace process by influencing IPL franchises for snubbing Pakistani players at auction. The mind planning this all, was really cunning and insightful that successfully pierced the hearts of ordinary cricket lovers. Actually, extremist elements of India being supported by Indian army and agencies want to escalate the war between two countries. This time they tried a way which is never used anywhere in the world ever. They polluted the sports which are always above politics and players are ambassadors of peace. But it was a typical Hindu mind who at one end never hesitates to damage Pakistan and on the other sabotaged the peace efforts. This was really a right move to hoist the public sentiments. Time and again, India by its actions has proved its enmity with Pakistan and people of Pakistan and govt must take a serious note of it. India showed its true colors with this one action when Pakistan cricketers were ignored and humiliated by IPL franchises at the player's auction in Mumbai, India on Tuesday. With this snub, no Pakistani cricketer will feature in the third edition of the IPL to be held in India in March 2010. It was not only players who went under the hammer but the hearts of millions of cricket lovers across the region. Let us see how this Aman ki Aasha floats in coming days with the Indian extremist's desperate efforts to interfere with it. As far as cricket is concerned, it is really funny on the cricket management part that no player of the world T20 champion team will be playing. It seems from the sports point of view that India has probably slapped its own secular face by showing this drama to complete world.

New Year is exposing India in front of the world with each passing day. New Year started with millennium statements of the Indian army chief who either talked of nuclear war or attacking two nuclear neighbors simultaneously and was boasting to defeat both. In the same month while visiting the test fire, the chief himself admitted Indian army's armored debacle and expressed concern about the force's night blindness in the area of armored corps and mechanized Infantry. As per Indian Tv, it also revealed during test fire that army chief was deaf from one ear and will be the first army chief to retire on medical grounds. Seeing the health, statements and action of the general, I am afraid that opinion of some other health check specialists may also be solicited. It's really high time for Indian people as their state apparatus is dancing into the hands of extremist groups and international power brokers. With its actions govt seems totally blind and dancing for the goals which are never achievable.

When Indian policy makers and highest officials are talking of wars with nuclear neighbors, humiliating the peace process and battling for becoming a superpower through short cuts; the situation inside country is alarming. India's Maoist rebels are now present in 20 states and have killed more than 900 security officials. People are coming on the roads for price hike and in a recent protest Malaiam Singh Yadev, the leader of Samaj Vadi Party was arrested by the police. Deepening stark inequalities and raucous role of militant elements are harnessing India towards a self triggered tragedy which will not only destroy India but the region also.

At this critical juncture of time, India requires a policy and leadership who can comprehend the future challenges. Other than falling into the hands of international power brokers and extremist groups from inside, India will have to hold firmly its secular image with real implementation. India will have to address the grievances' of people from with in and will have to regard the rights of its neighbors. Extremist militant groups have deepened their roots in Indian society and armed forces as well. India will have to eliminate them by discouraging such thought process. 21st century is an era of peace, prosperity and mutual trust where all nations can live with equal rights and comforts. If India does not regard the will of the people, none in this world be able to safeguard its integrity and she will break from inside. India at the moment is at the cross roads of its existence and any adventure will take it to turmoil.

Article Source : http://www.markthetruth.com/pakistan-a-the-world/301-is-this-the-end-of-india.html

--

Why Washington fears Islamic Iran?

General David Petraeus (a Jewish Lobby's choice), Head of US Central Command, during a recently interview with CNN threatened Islamic Iran by saying that in addition to crippling sanctions and international diplomacy, Washington is considering "contingency plans" against Iran's nuclear installations in parallel. Responding to the General's barking, Islamic Iran's Chief of staff of Joint Armed Forces, General Hassan Firouzabadi advised Petraeus to carry out consultations before making such warmongering threats: "The politicians' statement may not cost them dear, but the military men are expected to avoid making crude and emotional remarks".

Professor James Petras writing for the Global Research (May 4, 2008) called General David Petraeus Zionism\'s Military Poodle: "In pointing to Iran, Petraeus played the dangerous game of echoing the Israeli line and providing support for a military attack on Iran promoted by the leadership of major American Jewish organizations. Even while Petraeus was covering up his failure (in Iraq) by blaming Iran, (the US) Iraqi puppet government was praising the Iranian government for helping to stablize the country by using its influence on the Shia militias to hold their fire. Puppet Prime Minister Maliki invited Iranian President (Ahmadinejad) to Baghdad, signed trade agreements and praised their co-operation and efforts to stablize the country".

On January 22, Richard Haass, the Zionist Jewish president of the powerful Zionist think tank, Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) and an adviser to Obama administeration, made the pitch for the Zionist entity by calling for a (pro-Israel) regime change in Tehran. He called for western governments' continue help for the anti-Ahmadinejad movement, more sanctions against Tehran and more international pressure on Islamic regime to stop its nuclear program which could pose a threat to Israel's monopoly in that field (Tel Aviv has 240-400 nuclear warheads).

Last month, another Jewish Lobby puppet, US secretary of states Hillary Clinton, warned Venezuela and Bolivia to "think twice" about the consequences of their ties with the Islamic Republic.

Incidendtly, Israeli MEMRI has not translated any of Ahmadinejad's speeches in which he may have called for "Wipe the US off Map". So why the successive US administrations are so paranoid of the Islamic regime in Tehran? Ramzy Baroud, an author and internationally-syndicated columnist, in his recent essay, titled Iran and Latin America: The Media States Its Case, provides some background to Washington's paranoid behaviour.

Should the United States be concerned about Iran's determined efforts to reach out to Latin America? Or, as was suggestively described in the Economist, by the Ayatollahs' strategy of cozying up to Latin America?

The US continues to see the world as its own business. It gives itself and its allies, most notably Israel, the right to geopolitical maneuverability. Iran, on the other hand, is censured, derided and punished for even its own internal policies, within its own borders. Thus, an Iranian move into Latin America is naturally viewed as unwarranted, uncalled for and most definitely dangerous as far as the US is concerned.

But Iran is not invading America geopolitical space per se. It is neither financing a terrorist group, nor involved in the ongoing narcotic war. More, there is no historical connection between an interventionist Iran and the bloody past of Latin America, including its former dictators and brutal juntas. In fact, Iran's 'cozying up' to Latin American merely began in 2005. Since then, Iran has opened embassies in several Latin American countries and launched important joint projects that provided funds and work opportunities for thousands of ordinary people. There is no Iranian equivalent to the School of the Americas.

So why the alarm?

Paul McLeary of Aviation Week gives us a clue. Iran's move "has set off a proxy conflict between Iran and Israel in South America, with the presidents of both countries logging frequent-flier miles to win friends in the region. One cause for concern among many analysts is the weekly flight between Caracas and Tehran (with a stop in Damascus) that Iran Air has flown for two years."

He quotes Frida Ghitis: "Flight manifests are kept secret, so neither cargo nor passenger information is well known …one Israeli report suggested that Venezuela and Bolivia are supplying uranium to Iran."

Two questions emerge. One, is it required of Caracas and Tehran to provide a detailed report of the cargo and passengers to the US and Israel, and perhaps also cc-ed to a list of their friends and allies?

The second pertains to Israel itself. Why is the media most concerned by Iran's 'suspicious' behavior in Latin America, despite the fact that its presence is welcomed by various countries in the hemisphere, while Israel - whose bloody involvement has wrought much chaos to South America - is simply unquestioned, and even cited as a credible source? There is no evidence to link Iran to death squads, or any Iranian firm with "an archive and computer file on journalists, students, leaders, leftists, politicians and so on" to be hunted down, killed or simply made to 'disappear' under brutal regimes. Israel's own history in Latin America seems to inspire little commentary by the ever-vigilant 'many analysts'. McLeary, Ghitis and others need to do their homework before leveling accusations against others. The book Dangerous Liaison: The Inside Story of the U.S.-Israeli Covert Relationship may be a good place to start.

Back to the lurking Ayatollahs in America's backyard, Susan Kaufman Purcell is also raising questions, this time about Brazil. In Brazil President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva welcomed his Iranian counterpart, president Ahmadinejad late November 2009. In the January 7 Wall Street Journal, Purcell claimed: "Until recently, the Obama administration assumed that Brazil and the United States were natural allies who shared many foreign policy interests, particularly in Latin America. Brazil, after all, is a friendly democracy with a growing market economy and Western cultural values." Purcell suggests that Brazil's various achievements - largely beneficial to the US - qualified the country to become "more like us".

Western media is indeed rife with all sorts of unfounded accusations, baseless speculations and superfluous insinuations. They evoke in the reader and viewer a dread and fear, based in this case on the doomsday scenario whereby fanatical Latin Americans and radical Muslims gang up on America, and ultimately Israel……….."

Article Source : http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2010/01...-islamic-iran/

--

Feed War, Starve Democracy

by Frank Scott

"While our consumer goods producing corporations have been emigrating to cheap labor markets abroad, our military industry has been - literally - booming at home. It's more than 100% greater than it was in 2000, doubling in size while the rest of the manufacturing sector has nearly vanished. We continue exporting jobs to foreign countries while importing cheap labor and increasing unemployment for American workers here in the USA."

The American public is borrowing trillions of dollars to finance private capital and a military industry that president Eisenhower warned about more than fifty years ago. In an historic speech he cautioned that we were in danger of domination by a "military-industrial complex" that could squander our wealth and threaten our democracy. Have we done anything to avoid the problem he identified? Since the 9/11 attack supplied an excuse to expand on the previous myth of a communist menace, the military frenzy of economic waste and bloody slaughter dubbed the "war on terror" makes what Eisenhower feared seem almost benign by comparison.

While our consumer goods producing corporations have been emigrating to cheap labor markets abroad, our military industry has been - literally - booming at home. It's more than 100% greater than it was in 2000, doubling in size while the rest of the manufacturing sector has nearly vanished. We continue exporting jobs to foreign countries while importing cheap labor and increasing unemployment for American workers here in the USA.

The military sector is nearly three times as large as it was at the beginning of the Bush administration and regime change has brought not just continuity but further growth in that malignant trend; with a military budget of more than 700 billion dollars things are getting worse and at a faster pace. Even true believers in total reliance on market forces for survival must acknowledge that war is ultimately bad for business in that it kills potential consumers. And producing bombs, tanks, and other mass murder weapons are not stacking shelves at the mall with goods to be consumed by America's shopping legions. Further, given that the crazed credit delirium propping up this economy for the past generation is at an end, a fundamentalist market minister would have to admit that the death business is draining resources from the sacred global mall where we are supposed to shop until we drop or file for bankruptcy.

While we rob our society of its human and productive wealth with this incredible spending binge for endless war, we also subsidize financial cathedrals and their banking clergy with hundreds of billions for corporate capital's further welfare. Both Bush and Obama say these prophets of profit are too big to fail so millions of citizens are paying for their private survival by taking on a public debt that threatens our future as a functioning society. This makes great sense to the wealthy who dwell at the penthouse levels of America's class structure. They have little concern for those living on the floors beneath them except that the underclass majority shores up the crumbling foundation of that wobbling structure. How does that minority compare to the rest of us in financial status?

As recently as 2006 the top 1% of Americans averaged incomes of more than 400,000 dollars a year. Even if the lower 99% were all watching news analysis on Fox TV and Masterpiece wrestling on PBS they would know they weren't included in that group. But wait. Even if they were, the top .1 of a percent - that's 1/10th of one percent - had more than one and a half million dollars in reported income. If the 99.9% were all stoned, drunk or otherwise sedated while watching TV, they might still know they were a majority that was reduced to a minority in this political economy. In fact that's why so many of them are angry, frustrated and in various ways saying we've had enough and we can't take it anymore. Unfortunately, because they watch too much fictional reality Fox and minority reality PBS, they tend to lash out at one another, foreigners, demon scapegoats and invisible phantoms that are a product of what passes for reality in our corporate dominated mass media culture.

When we lay out hundreds of billions of tax dollars as interest payments on the national debt and realize that this is money we created, loaned to the top of society and on which they are collecting interest from us since they "own" most of that debt, we should be angry. But our anger needs to be informed and focused on the source of the problem and not ignorantly attacking its results.

We are creating new enemies as we mobilize to fight old ones and that mobilization would make an old anti-communist cold warrior of Eisenhower's day drool. The profits pouring into the death machine increase as our society is impoverished, states and municipalities near bankruptcy and millions of our citizens are facing unemployment, un-payable debt and futures that are only seen optimistically by therapists, drug dealers and liquor stores that still take plastic.

We are faced with issues that cannot be dealt with by the political economic system that created them. Flip flopping from corporate republicans to corporate democrats and back again is part of that problem. The demonstrators at the UN conference in Copenhagen were speaking for all of humanity when they chanted that the focus should be "system change, not climate change". The social and environmental crisis faced by all the world's people is not to be blamed on an abstraction called "humanity". But a system by which humanity is dominated by minorities and organized to produce and distribute the means of sustenance and survival for the benefit of a relative few at an ever more deadly cost to everyone else is the problem. That system is capitalism and unless we deal with it, our military, financial and environmental problems will get worse. In order to transform reality for the benefit of all and not just some, we need democracy. Anyone who thinks we already have it is probably part of the .1 percent, or seriously drugged. Or both.

Article Source : http://world.mediamonitors.net/content/view/full/70814

--

Feed War, Starve Democracy

by Frank Scott

"While our consumer goods producing corporations have been emigrating to cheap labor markets abroad, our military industry has been - literally - booming at home. It's more than 100% greater than it was in 2000, doubling in size while the rest of the manufacturing sector has nearly vanished. We continue exporting jobs to foreign countries while importing cheap labor and increasing unemployment for American workers here in the USA."

The American public is borrowing trillions of dollars to finance private capital and a military industry that president Eisenhower warned about more than fifty years ago. In an historic speech he cautioned that we were in danger of domination by a "military-industrial complex" that could squander our wealth and threaten our democracy. Have we done anything to avoid the problem he identified? Since the 9/11 attack supplied an excuse to expand on the previous myth of a communist menace, the military frenzy of economic waste and bloody slaughter dubbed the "war on terror" makes what Eisenhower feared seem almost benign by comparison.

While our consumer goods producing corporations have been emigrating to cheap labor markets abroad, our military industry has been - literally - booming at home. It's more than 100% greater than it was in 2000, doubling in size while the rest of the manufacturing sector has nearly vanished. We continue exporting jobs to foreign countries while importing cheap labor and increasing unemployment for American workers here in the USA.

The military sector is nearly three times as large as it was at the beginning of the Bush administration and regime change has brought not just continuity but further growth in that malignant trend; with a military budget of more than 700 billion dollars things are getting worse and at a faster pace. Even true believers in total reliance on market forces for survival must acknowledge that war is ultimately bad for business in that it kills potential consumers. And producing bombs, tanks, and other mass murder weapons are not stacking shelves at the mall with goods to be consumed by America's shopping legions. Further, given that the crazed credit delirium propping up this economy for the past generation is at an end, a fundamentalist market minister would have to admit that the death business is draining resources from the sacred global mall where we are supposed to shop until we drop or file for bankruptcy.

While we rob our society of its human and productive wealth with this incredible spending binge for endless war, we also subsidize financial cathedrals and their banking clergy with hundreds of billions for corporate capital's further welfare. Both Bush and Obama say these prophets of profit are too big to fail so millions of citizens are paying for their private survival by taking on a public debt that threatens our future as a functioning society. This makes great sense to the wealthy who dwell at the penthouse levels of America's class structure. They have little concern for those living on the floors beneath them except that the underclass majority shores up the crumbling foundation of that wobbling structure. How does that minority compare to the rest of us in financial status?

As recently as 2006 the top 1% of Americans averaged incomes of more than 400,000 dollars a year. Even if the lower 99% were all watching news analysis on Fox TV and Masterpiece wrestling on PBS they would know they weren't included in that group. But wait. Even if they were, the top .1 of a percent - that's 1/10th of one percent - had more than one and a half million dollars in reported income. If the 99.9% were all stoned, drunk or otherwise sedated while watching TV, they might still know they were a majority that was reduced to a minority in this political economy. In fact that's why so many of them are angry, frustrated and in various ways saying we've had enough and we can't take it anymore. Unfortunately, because they watch too much fictional reality Fox and minority reality PBS, they tend to lash out at one another, foreigners, demon scapegoats and invisible phantoms that are a product of what passes for reality in our corporate dominated mass media culture.

When we lay out hundreds of billions of tax dollars as interest payments on the national debt and realize that this is money we created, loaned to the top of society and on which they are collecting interest from us since they "own" most of that debt, we should be angry. But our anger needs to be informed and focused on the source of the problem and not ignorantly attacking its results.

We are creating new enemies as we mobilize to fight old ones and that mobilization would make an old anti-communist cold warrior of Eisenhower's day drool. The profits pouring into the death machine increase as our society is impoverished, states and municipalities near bankruptcy and millions of our citizens are facing unemployment, un-payable debt and futures that are only seen optimistically by therapists, drug dealers and liquor stores that still take plastic.

We are faced with issues that cannot be dealt with by the political economic system that created them. Flip flopping from corporate republicans to corporate democrats and back again is part of that problem. The demonstrators at the UN conference in Copenhagen were speaking for all of humanity when they chanted that the focus should be "system change, not climate change". The social and environmental crisis faced by all the world's people is not to be blamed on an abstraction called "humanity". But a system by which humanity is dominated by minorities and organized to produce and distribute the means of sustenance and survival for the benefit of a relative few at an ever more deadly cost to everyone else is the problem. That system is capitalism and unless we deal with it, our military, financial and environmental problems will get worse. In order to transform reality for the benefit of all and not just some, we need democracy. Anyone who thinks we already have it is probably part of the .1 percent, or seriously drugged. Or both.

Article Source : http://world.mediamonitors.net/content/view/full/70814

--

India's Vision 2020 and the reality

by Sultan Ahmed

The government of India has come up with a Vision of what India is likely to look like or confront by the year 2020, particularly in its relations with major neighbors, its military prowess and relative economic strength.

The India Vision: 2020, officially released recently, says the economic and military strength of China may in 17 years from now pose a serious challenge to India's security unless measures are taken to fortify India's strength in these areas. The paper also says the Kashmir dispute may still remain unsettled.

The Vision prepared by the Chief of the Indian Planning Commission K.C. Pant, who is close to the Indian Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee says not only the Kashmir disputes is likely to remain unsettled but also "the territorial disputes with neighbors that have defied solution for 50 years may not lend themselves to easy solutions." And that clearly includes India's territorial dispute with China which covers 40,000 square kilometers.

While the paper expects the Kashmir dispute to remain unsettled by 2020 it does not indicate any new line of action for a way out. Instead it says the conflict between India and Pakistan is unlikely to be resolved "without a major social-political change in Pakistan." To that extent the paper reflects the closed mindset of India which dismisses the wishes and aspirations of the people of Kashmir or their right of self-determination.

What the paper, in effect, means is India's tense or strained relations with its neighbors, big and small, would continue and India will have to learn to live with them. Which can be pretty costly and too distracting for the Indian leaders. At the same time the paper warned "religious extremism and radical politics" may continue to adversely impact on our core values. A reflection of that was visible in the state of Gujarat where about 2,000 Muslims were killed last year, and after that the ruling BJP had an overwhelming electoral victory in the state elections with the rampaging chief minister Patel ruling the roost ecstatically.

The dichotomy in the Indian approach to its neighbors is obvious, and it is a part of its game of strident power politics. Normally if India has fear of China's expanding strength all round it should come closer to Pakistan. It does not want to do that as it is in occupation of the valley of Kashmir and Jammu, and it does not want to surrender those territories to the people of Kashmir. But in the case of China, Beijing is charged by India with being in occupation of 40,000 square km of its territory, and that cannot be liberated militarily, as its failure in 1962 demonstrated. So it wants to be pragmatic in its approach to China and develop economic and cultural relations with it while seeking a settlement of the territorial dispute discreetly or patiently.

And India has also joined hands with the US which fears of the future role of China as its economy becomes the second largest in the world - with the US economy remaining the largest. India is also increasing its military cooperation with the US in addition to expanding its economic collaboration.

By increasing its cooperation with the US in various spheres it also hopes to make Washington less interested in Pakistan eventually and thereby weakening Pakistan's bargaining position. India has been looking for opportunities to weaken the close ties between the US and Pakistan, and it now feels it is gaining more ground now as the US quietly plans to isolate China to the extent possible over the time.

India has not been able to make great economic progress through socialist means earlier under Jawaharlal Nehru and its march forward economically has not been outstanding through the new market economy mode either. It has still 40 per cent of its people living below the poverty line of a dollar a day, if not more. And the poverty profile of India is not improving substantially following its half-hearted attempts, or because of its wrong priorities.

The poor masses are becoming more and more restive, particularly the lower caste orders.

India is trying to make up for its varied weakness by enhancing its military strength, as well by enlarging its range of nuclear armaments. It is obtaining a nuclear powered submarine from Russia as well as the latest bombers at a cost of three billion dollars. It is also signing a two billion deal with France to acquire Mirage fighter planes as well as submarines. And its billion dollars deal to acquire trainer planes has been under negotiations for long. And it has now been offered F-16 aircraft by Lockheed of the US. And it has a deal with Israel for a billion dollars worth of arms.

And its missile technology has been making steady headway with the varied ranges of its Prithvi and Agni missiles. And it is now said to be developing a nuclear-capable Agni-III missile.

Most of these fighter aircraft and submarines will be assembled in India to provide it with the capacity to develop such equipment by itself. Its armament-building capacity, is to be expanded steadily.

India is also becoming more and more of an arms exporter. It wants to follow Israel in this regard which will also enhance its diplomatic strength with the developing countries.

In such an environment it is not interested in talking to Pakistan to settle their disputes, particularly in respect of Kashmir. The fact is not that it is opposed to talking to Pakistan but it does not want to discuss Kashmir with Pakistan, while Pakistan insists that it is the core dispute between the two countries. So on one pretext or another, it wants to put off talking to Pakistan until Pakistan gives up talking of Kashmir in frustration. Hence, it has consistently opposed mediation in the Kashmir dispute by any other country, including the US and Russia.

The 12th SAARC summit scheduled for January last has been put off. And when the 11th SAARC summit took place in Katmandu last year Mr. Vajpayee refused to have a one-to-one meeting with President Pervez Musharraf. And so there is small hope of such a summit at Kuala Lumpur when the Non-Aligned Summit takes place there in May.

Despite the territorial dispute between China and India, New Delhi has been talking to China but the Indian leader refuses to talk to Pakistan arguing they cannot be talking as long as the cross-border infiltration in Kashmir takes place and Pakistan does not take adequate steps to check that. The US and the Western countries admit that the cross-border infiltration has come down to a considerable extent. But India insists on total stoppage which Pakistan may not be able to achieve in view of the difficult mountainous terrain. Pakistan has instead called for more UN observers along the Line of Control, but that is not acceptable to India which by now does not accept a UN role in Kashmir.

India's approach to the whole issue by now is more militaristic than diplomatic or political. India was on the point of going to war with Pakistan on two occasions last year, says the former army chief of staff Gen. Padmanabhan.

And recently the Indian Defence Minister George Fernandes threatened to completely wipe out Pakistan if it ever launched a nuclear attack against India. "We will suffer a little but there will be no Pakistan when we respond," he said. Such extreme language is a mark of the blood thirst of the Indian Defence Minister. What he does not realize is that in his attempt to wipe out Pakistan he would also be wiping out the peoples of Afghanistan, and parts of Iran and Central Asia, if not parts of India too if the fumes go there.

A report from New Delhi said that India intended to spend 95 billion dollars more on the most sophisticated arms in the next 15 years. It would do that following the 28.5 per cent increase in defence outlay it made in 2001.

India argues it could spend far more on defence as its defence spending is only around 3 per cent of its GDP, and it is now trying to be an arms exporter; but the real Indian strategy appears to be to force Pakistan spend more and more of its scarce financial resources on arms, and starve other sectors of the economy in the process. What the US did to the Soviet Union, which was over-armed but under-developed in other ways, India wants to do to Pakistan. Pakistan has to be wary of such a game. It has instead to develop as a wholesome country. And it has to rely more and more on the people of Kashmir to liberate themselves through their valiant freedom struggle. A people who have not given up their struggle for the last 13 years despite the loss of 80,000 lives and enormous loss of homes and hearth will not give that up now, and we have to have faith in them and support them politically and diplomatically.

India will never give up Kashmir, and Pakistan should give up its "futile policy" in respect of the disputed region, says the Indian Prime Minister. He says that India had accepted a long time ago the creation of Pakistan, but Pakistan had not accepted a united and secular India, he says.

He simultaneously called for improved economic and cultural ties to bring about an amicable settlement of the Kashmir dispute.

In such talk of the Indian leaders no thought is given to the aspirations of the people of Kashmir who have suffered for the last 50 years. If Pakistan forgets Kashmir, as the Indian premier counsels, that does not mean the people of Kashmir will forget their homeland and their rights within and let Delhi to rule them directly or through its proxies.

The Vision paper is not doing justice to the sub-continent with its 1.3 billion people when it says that India's 50-year-old disputes with its neighbours are not likely to be settled easily by 2020. Instead it should have suggested the means by which there could be more peaceful and less poor sub-continent. With greater economic cooperation between the states.

If India does not make earnest attempts in that direction more and more of the South Asian states with disputes with India would align themselves with China and seek its assistance, as Pakistan has been doing. And that may not be welcome at all to India.

The whole world wants India and Pakistan to settle their disputes peacefully. The US says the situation between India and Pakistan now is worse than the relations between the US and the Soviet Union in the days of the cold war. The minimum they want India and Pakistan to do is to talk to each other and try to solve their problem one after another or at least call for a freeze to their explosive disputes for a short while and then try to solve them. Several solutions are possible along with several approaches to them. But the first step is that leaders of the two countries meet. It is futile for India to argue the Kargil skirmish had made all talk between the two countries fruitless or dashed all hopes of success of such talks. Neighbouring countries cannot afford such a stance as they cannot cease to be neighbours ever.

P.S. Following President Musharraf's visit to Moscow the Russian President Vladimir Putin has called for talks between India and Pakistan to resolve their disputes, including Kashmir. Moscow realizes the importance of talks as the beginning of any kind of settlement between the two neighbors; but India refuses or wants talks excluding Kashmir which Pakistan rejects as that cannot break the ice between the two countries, when Pakistan holds Kashmir as the core dispute between them. Hence the stalemate continues.

Article Source : http://www.mediamonitors.net/sultanahmed3.html

--