Terrorists set off three bombs in Bombay business district, kill 21

More desolating proof of the terrible mistake India made when, led by the liberal idealist Gandhi, it failed to expel its Muslim population at the time of Independence.

- end of initial entry -

Daniel S. writes:

So what is the cause of Islamic terrorism in India? Is it because Indian Muslims feel humiliated by the West? Is it because of American foreign policy? Is it because of the treatment of the Arabs by Israel? Is it because the West is secular and morally decadent? Honestly though, the targeting of non-Muslim, non-Western countries and peoples by Muslims should be a good indication to those smug Western intellectuals who would blame Islamic terrorism on the West, especially America and Israel, that the jihad is something that ultimately transcends the West. Muslims are waging jihad against not only the people of India, but the non-Muslim populations in Thailand, the Philippines, Nigeria, Ethiopia, Indonesia, Sudan, the Caucasus region in Russia, Egypt, etc. The fact of the matter is that the jihad attacks in India demonstrates (as if any further demonstration was needed) that Islam cannot and will not coexist with anyone else.

Aditya B. writes:

One of my earliest discoveries on VFR was a lucid and incisive discussion of India’s Muslim Question. Your interlocutor identified Indian living in the West (“ILW”) has provided one of the most concise and comprehensive analysis of the unfortunate end of the Raj and its aftermath and arrived at very reasonable conclusions. Especially his conclusions regarding the relative harmony of Hindu-Muslim relations

The way peace is maintained in India is by fear of mob fury. Muslims in India are generally peaceful because they know that if they stretch the limits of Hindu tolerance and kill people, Hindu mobs would descend upon them with a fury that would kill many more Muslims. This is fundamentally the way in which peace in a relative sense is maintained in India—by fear of violent retribution. A good example is a Muslim attack on a train of Hindu pilgrims in 2002. They burnt 50 Hindu women and children alive. Inevitably, in retaliation, violent Hindu mobs killed 2,000 Muslims.

This explanation, while undeniably true, is not the only reason for this harmony. Hindus and Muslims are mostly self-segregated. When and where they interact, they manage peaceably. We even share certain religious shrines, the most notable being Alauddin Khilji’s shrine in Ajmer as well as the Hadji Ali shrine in Bombay. As it should be. Muslims are piece and parcel of India. They have as much right over their land as any Hindu. Islam has been a presence in India for almost a millennium. In fact, Muslim administration gradually evolved into a central structure enabling the creation of unified political entity called “Hindustan.” This was a work begun by Turks and completed by the British. The British administration, when it took over in 1858, was simply moving into a Mughal dwelling, the builders and owners of which had recently been forcibly ejected, and which was in desperate need of repairs.

I have perused your strategy of “Separationism” which is the only rational and moral way of dealing with Islam in the West. There is nothing Western about Islam. It has contributed nothing to your culture, by way of art, religion or even dress and diet. By contrast, in India Islam has been throroughly absorbed, though not completed digested, by Hindu culture. It is reflected in our religion, our music, our literature, our speech (my language, Gujarati, is replete with Arabic and Persian loan words), and our diet and dress. We cannot separate from Islam.

The creation of Pakistan is the closest we came to such separation. Pakistan, like the Soviet Union, was the creation of intellectuals who were insulated from the havoc they created. Most Muslims didn’t want to leave an ancestral home they had occupied for generations. Populations on both sides share language, dress and diet and are almost physically indistinguishable. If Pakistan had matured into a stable and prosperous nation, separation may have been viable. But it is the very nature of Islam and of the ethnic groups residing in West and East Pakistan that prevents the formation and continuation of good governance and shatters any hope for prosperity. Muslims cannot create a viable nation of their own. Pakistan and Bangladesh will collapse. It’s only a question of time.

If we cannot separate from them, we must live with them. So the question is how to live amidst a minority that may still retain faint memories of domination. One that still resists the tolerance that is natural to polytheistic societies. One that, at its core, remains a program of elimination and colonization. I am not sure. ILW cites Narendra Modi as an example of a Hindu stalwart. He may be. But this man, Mr. Modi, is responsible for conducting a pogrom against men, women and children. He remains popular in Gujarat owing to a general level of prosperity, but nowhere else. In fact, his idealogy, the neo-fascist “Hindutva,” has no broad appeal, because “Hinduism,” in my view, is not even a religion, much less a coherent political philosophy like Islam. Also, I doubt if his methods of State-sanctioned terror have any long-term viability. Hindus and Muslims cannot live together in an atmosphere of mutual distrust and hatred devolving into a cycle of relentless violence.

So I don’t have any answer to India’s Muslim Question. But I was hoping that perhaps you might have the time and inclination, to consider the situation, and to offer your thoughts.

Warm regards,
Adi

July 15

An Indian living in the West writes:

There is no solution to the problem of Islam in India. It could have been solved by Gandhi at the time but it wasn’t. Nothing can be done about it now.

While Aditya B. agrees that there is no real, permanent solution to India’s Islam problem, he also suggests that some sort of peaceful co-existence is possible. This is an illusion. (For background, see S. Trifkovic’s 2008 article, “India, Jihad’s Permanent Battleground.”)

The fundamental problem lies in Islam’s sanctions against paganism and polytheism. The fact that despite these sanctions ordinary Muslims in India do not attack Hindus when outnumbered 10 to 1 does not mean that peace is forever possible. The Koranic sanctions can be invoked at the appropriate time when the numbers are more favourable. That is the very crux of the ideology of jihad under the Koran. In fact, I would argue that Islamic violence in India has increased as their numbers have increased significantly relative to the rest of the population. Even in a country like India where the fertility rate for the population as a whole is very high, the fertility rate for Muslims is higher still.

Also, it was the foolish belief in Islamic “contributions” that caused Gandhi to inflict the problem on India in 1947.

Aditya writes:

The creation of Pakistan is the closest we came to such separation. Pakistan, like the Soviet Union, was the creation of intellectuals who were insulated from the havoc they created. Most Muslims didn’t want to leave an ancestral home they had occupied for generations.

When Muhammad Jinnah wanted to create Pakistan, some 10 percent of Indians consistently voted for him in elections that were held by the British colonial regime (corresponding to the Muslim percentage in the population at that time). To suggest that Pakistan was created without popular Muslim support is facetious in my view.

Aditya also seems to believe in secularism as a worthy goal and regards the Hindu Nationalists as akin to “fascists.” He writes:

ILW cites Narendra Modi as an example of a Hindu stalwart. He may be. But this man, Modi, is responsible for conducting a pogrom against men, women and children. He remains popular in Gujarat owing to a general level of prosperity, but nowhere else. In fact, his idealogy, the neo-fascist Hindutva, has no broad appeal, because Hinduism, in my view, is not even a religion, much less a coherent political philosophy like Islam. Also, I doubt if his methods of State-sanctioned terror have any long-term viability. Hindus and Muslims cannot live together in an atmosphere of mutual distrust and hatred devolving into a cycle of relentless violence.

I didn’t cite him as a Hindu stalwart but as a man who has run a clean administration for a decade and transformed his state into something close to a second world country. There is also little corruption in Gujarat, where he is Chief Minister. It is also noteworthy that although the Islamic fanatics hate Gujarat and Modi the most, they have not been able to carry out a single successful attack in Gujarat in 6 years. This is not for lack of trying. They have been thwarted by an administration that is competent and that regards the safety of its citizens as a higher goal than the politics of trying get Muslim votes.

As for the riots of 2002, India’s secularists are quick to point the finger at Modi while forgetting that in 1984, the Congress (hyper-liberals and all that) Government watched and did nothing while 3000 Sikhs were murdered in cold blood as revenge for the assassination of Indira Gandhi. Somehow that never tarnished their “secular”and “liberal”credentials.

Also, here is a recent article on Modi and Gujarat in The Economist.

July 15

James P. writes:

Daniel S. wrote:

So what is the cause of Islamic terrorism in India? Is it because Indian Muslims feel humiliated by the West? Is it because of American foreign policy? Is it because of the treatment of the Arabs by Israel? Is it because the West is secular and morally decadent?

In my view Islamic terrorism in India has very little to do with the West, or America, or Israel, and much more to do with Pakistan. This study notes “Pakistan is perhaps the world’s most active sponsor of terrorist groups,” and also “Islamabad has long worked with many different groups linked to jihadists in its fight to wrest Kashmir from India.” Pakistan’s government thinks that Islam is the only way to hold their state together (since it consists of a number of fractious minorities) and justifies its existence as the guardian of the Islamic faith from the predatory aggression of Hindu India. Pakistan keeps the Kashmir dispute alive, and keeps the terrorist pot boiling in India, because otherwise the Pakistani people might challenge the ruling establishment, which has proven utterly incompetent at governing Pakistan. Arguably, the Pakistani government has even failed at its primary mission of providing security from India—Pakistan has never won a war, including three wars with India (two of which Pakistan started) and two Kashmir crises that Pakistan provoked (1990 and 1999).

Muslim states can co-exist with India—Bangladesh has done so since 1971—but Pakistan cannot. While there is a Pakistan, there will be Islamic terrorism in India. Expulsion of Muslims from India is not really an option, as there are almost as many Muslims living in India as there are in Pakistan itself.

Aditya B. writes:

Thank you for posting my thoughts about the recent Bombay atrocities.

I am equally grateful to your contributors, especially ILW, who have taken the time to offer their thoughts on the larger issue, viz., compatibility of the Indian Hindu and Muslim populations and the solution to the millenia-old Indian Muslim question. With your permission, I would like to respond to several issues raised in this discussion.

I. Why do Muslims attack India? Does it have anything to do with US/Israeli policy?

No. Jihad was old in India when dirt was young. ILW is absolutely right that there’s been an ongoing campaign of elimination of the kaffir. Even the so-called “Akbar the Great” was a bloodthirsty Mohammedan who, true to his god, executed thousands of Hindu Brahmins and enslaved their daughters for sale in Istanbul’s Aurat Bazaar.

Muslims attack non-Muslims because, not in spite of, their religion. They will continue to do so until either the kaffir or Islam disappear.

2. If Islam and Hinduism are incompatible and in constant conflict, why don’t they separate (as defined by LA):

LA’s course of action is possible in the West and moral for reasons set forth earlier. India was a Muslim nation for almost a millennium. Muslims have lived there for as long as anyone and have influenced elementary things such as language, diet , dress, music and art. These cannot be separated.

Hindustan belongs to Hindus and Muslims. I will not, and cannot, countenance such an expulsion. Furthermore, history shows us that Muslims cannot maintain a modern state. Eventually, this Muslim state will collapse. A Muslim state which shares a contiguous border with a Hindu one will eventually spill over. Therefore, separation of Hindus and Muslims on the Indian sub-continent is simply not possible.

Although Muslims voted overwhelmingly for Jinnah’s Muslim League, it was out of the sort of monolithic solidarity that compels blacks, even a very race-mixed “black” like Colin Powell, to vote for a black man simply because he is black. Please note that until 1950, Indians did not have universal suffrage. Therefore, most votes were cast by people with education and means. Exactly the kind of person who could insulate himself from the horrors of Partition.

3. Is “secularism” the best solution?

“Secularism” may be the best solution because of the nature of Hinduism. Unlike Abrahamic religions, there is no central authority on theology, statecraft and social organization. It is a loose confederation of indigenous beliefs that have evolved separately and together without any apparent cohesion. As such, Hinduism cannot be the source of social and political organization.

Because of lack of Hindu cohesion, and because of Hindu tolerance, secularism is the only acceptable policy.

Indian secularism is properly described as “pseudo-secularism” because it is perceived as belittling and denigrating Hinduism and Hindu interests while slavishly deferring to Muslim and other minority interests. It is undeniable that the Indian Establishment was, and remains, predominantly Hindu. It is equally undeniable that it is mostly composed of Indian National Congress party members and sympathizers who have gone out of their way to accommodate Muslim aggression. Yet it is untrue to call such men “anti-Hindu.” There is no hostility towards Hinduism, just a lack of courage needed to stand up to aggressive Muslims.

What I propose is a real secularism, not the debased form that exists in India in order to maintain a fair and just society where man neither benefits not suffers on account of his religion.

4. Is “Hindutva” “fascist?” If so, are they the only “fascists” in town in the Republic of India?

Hindutva is fascist to the extent it proposes disabilities upon non-Hindus. To the extent that its khaki-shorts clad members preach aggression and hatred of minority and peddle absurd conspiracy theories about Muslims, Christians, the Catholic Church and the West in general.

However, the Congress party has engaged in similar, if not worse, provocation throughout its misrule. Whereas Modi organized one pogrom, the Congress is responsible for countless, not only against the Sikhs in the ’80s, but also against Muslims throughout its half-century of “governance.”

So, no, the Hindutva are not the only “fascists” in town. But does that mean we all resort to barbarism and brutality? Does that mean we should return terror for terror? Organize a polity on force and aggression?

Also, the Hindutva rank and file are more concerned with nonsense like erection of temples upon mosques, prohibition of cow-slaughter, prohibition of alcohol, opposition to “Westernization” and other regressive policies. There are, obviously, not too many takers for that, which is why the BJP (the Hindu national party) will never become an institutional party.

4. Why is the BJP successful in Gujarat?

Government in Gujarat, as elsewhere in India, is as corrupt as ever. However, as always, the government in Gujarat manages to facilitate industry and commerce. Modi’s government is a collection of corrupt crony-capitalists (like every government before) who have the decency to provide services and keep things running to the best of their abilities. Also, please bear in mind that Gujarat already has cow-slaughter bans and prohibition on alcohol. Therefore, the Hindutva brigade doesn’t have to effect radical social changes.

This formula does not translate to the country as a whole. People like eating meat, having a drink now and then and maybe even staying out late. Therefore, Hindutva is not an India-wide phenomenon and never will be.

In the end, Hindus and Muslims will have to learn to live together. Both have affirmative duties. Muslims should self-police their pathologies and Hindus should have the cultural confidence to call out these pathologies and advocate action. An objective and impartial Law and Order machinery should swiftly and dispassionately dispose of such anti-social elements.

And obviously, we cannot have such a thing if every Tom, Dick and Hari is allowed to vote. Popular democracy in India is nothing more than a racial-religious-ethnic spoils system. It drags everyone down to the lowest common denominator. This is obviously a left-wing liberal system. Therefore, the Welfare State must be done away with before anything resembling a coherent policy regarding Muslims, or anybody else for that matter, can be enacted and implemented.

July 16

Indian living in the West writes:

I want to compliment Aditya on a very informative and well written set of comments on the issue. I actually agree with him much more than I disagree. I am just more pessimistic on the issue of religious harmony in India.

I think Aditya is contradicting himself somewhat. Here are two quotes:

(1) Muslims attack non-Muslims because, not in spite of, their religion. They will continue to do so until either the kaffir or Islam disappear.

(2) In the end, Hindus and Muslims will have to learn to live together. Both have affirmative duties. Muslims should self-police their pathologies and Hindus should have the cultural confidence to call out these pathologies and advocate action.

(1) contradicts (2) to some extent. If Muslims are to control their pathologies, they would probably need to repudiate some of their own religious teachings. How do we achieve this?

Aditya also wrote:

And obviously, we cannot have such a thing if every Tom, Dick and Hari is allowed to vote. Popular democracy in India is nothing more than a racial-religious-ethnic spoils system. It drags everyone down to the lowest common denominator. This is obviously a left-wing liberal system. Therefore, the Welfare State must be done away with before anything resembling a coherent policy regarding Muslims, or anybody else for that matter, can be enacted and implemented.

This is a fantasy. There is probably no democracy on earth that does not vote for a welfare state. Almost every entrenched interest in democratic politics in India that has been legitimised by law shall stay that way as long as there are enough voters to back such interests up. The destructive caste-based reservation system (far worse than affirmative action in the United States) is one such example.

The only “country” which provides an example of perfect religious harmony despite a large Muslim minority is Singapore, which has been a dictatorship for decades. That is a system that could have worked in India. Basically, after independence from British colonial rule, Lee Kwan Yew became dictator of Singapore and decided that the country’s survival depended upon first putting an end to all religious and racial strife. Singapore was riven by racial strife between Indians, Malays and ethnic Chinese and religious strife between the Muslim Malays and the non-Muslim Indians and Chinese.

The way he achieved harmony was by passing and enforcing draconian laws that tolerated no trouble-making. He was actually once quoted as saying that anyone who instigates racial or religious violence in Singapore shall be locked up and the keys thrown away in the straits of Malaya.

However, this is only achievable in a dictatorial regime. For all the great hymns we hear from the liberal media about the wonders of democracy, it is an absolute certainty that Singapore would be a waste dump today had it become a one man one vote democracy in 1965 rather than a dictatorship that the West has often scoffed at. It is, however, only a hypothetical question as to what India would be like if it came under a regime like Lee’s. The truth is that it cannot and it won’t. The genie is out of the bottle. The people vote and have power. And they will vote for their own vested interests.

The pseudo-secularists of the Congress variety and their fellow travelers have always found the Muslim vote indispensable to success. This is because the Hindu vote gets divided in fifty different ways along the lines of caste, language, region, etc. The Muslim vote tends to be monolithic. Historically, the Muslims in India have always voted for the Congress by a factor of 9:1 because they have regarded the Congress as the party that protects their interests.

Aditya is annoyed by the Hindutva brigade’s dislike for cow slaughter and alcohol. I sympathise with Aditya as I wouldn’t want to live a life without meat and alcohol either! But, there are far more destructive forces in Indian politics. In 1989, India was the first country on earth to ban Salman Rushdie’s Satanic Verses. We banned the book even before Iran! That should tell you how far the Congress was willing to prostrate itself before the Muslim voting block. But this was not an isolated case. There have been several such bans in the past—and these bans tend to be very biased in favour of the Muslim minority and the Congress Party’s other favoured gods.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at July 14, 2011 12:37 AM | Send