Muslims in America

Tahmed sahib,

Hindoos are about as pro-US as you wud get and no can accuse Hindoos of being pro-Muslims but this is what Indian opinion about Iraq invasion was. I will reproduce an article written by Vir Sanghvi (who is neither commie nor a jihadi) in HT.

{{{Vox Populi and the Iraq Invasion - Counterpoint by Vir Sanghvi: A few months before America and Britain invaded Iraq, my colleague Aditya Sinha had an idea. In those days, Aditya was editor of the Sunday Hindustan Times — he has since moved up in the world and become Editor-in-chief of the New Indian Express — and he was keen to commission an opinion poll for the paper.

At that stage, nobody had polled the Indian people about our attitude to the US invasion of Iraq, and many journos — hard as this is to believe now — thought that there might be public support for military action.

The reasons seemed self-evident then. Memories of 9/11 were still fresh. The invasion of Afghanistan had been popular. There was a pro-American mood in India. The first Gulf War had evoked no sympathy for Saddam Hussein among most Indians. The NDA was in power and Hindutva sentiment was at a height. Which Hindu, many know-alls argued, would support a Muslim military dictator against America? Even the central government was humming and hawing about criticising the planned invasion and one view was that India might even send troops (under a UN mandate) to fight in Iraq. (Which we nearly did.)

When the results of Aditya’s poll came in, they revealed how wrong journos (and those in government) had been about the public mood. I forget the exact figures now but an overwhelming majority of Indians were bitterly opposed to any invasion of Iraq.

We talked about the results of the poll in our office and our broad conclusion was that Indians were more sensible than journos sometimes believed. It was not a Hindu-Muslim thing or a pro or anti America response. The US had simply failed to convince the world of the need for an invasion. Afghanistan was different — that operation had been directly linked to 9/11. So was the first Gulf War — it had been fought to liberate Kuwait.

But, this time around, the only reasons that Washington could offer were that a) Saddam was a military dictator and b) that he probably possessed weapons of mass destruction. Neither reason was enough to justify an invasion. America was friends with nasty dictators all over the world (let’s start with the Saudi royal family) and even if Saddam did possess chemical or biological weapons, so did many others. As I argued at the time: given this reasoning, the US should have invaded Pakistan where a nasty military dictator was not only in power but had also publicly admitted possessing nuclear weapons. (Plus his government had links with terrorists who had murdered many more people than Al Qaeda.)

As the months went on and the invasion seemed imminent, many distinguished Indian journos (with foreign affairs backgrounds that I lack), tried to persuade us that we should align with Washington and that the invasion made sense. Those of us who said it was about oil or establishing US power in the region were being intellectually lazy; we were told there were compelling reasons for taking out Saddam.

I thought back last week to Aditya’s poll and to the common sense of the Indian people. When Parliament passed a resolution opposing the invasion, many foreign policy experts sneered at our “Cold War mentality� and warned that there was no profit in antagonising the US. The central government made informal promises of support to Washington and we came perilously close to sending troops but for the good sense of AB Vajpayee who finally told his colleagues that the Indian people would never stand for it, and scuppered the proposal when it was already at a fairly advanced stage.

But the foreign policy experts and the well-connected journos were all wrong. It was the people of India who had the right instincts.

Just look at the devastation the war in Iraq has caused.

Not one person has emerged from that conflict with any credit. First of all, the weapons of mass destruction on which the war was predicated were never found. In his new book, George Tenet, who was director of CIA at the time, says that his agency had actually warned the White House that there was no authentic intelligence about such weapons. But George W Bush and Dick Cheney went ahead and lied to the
world anyway.

Secondly, the US administration was not just venal, it was stupid. There were no plans for administering Iraq after the conquest. Paul Bremmer, Bush’s viceroy, took the disastrous step of disbanding the police force and the army and plunged a whole country into lawlessness, chaos and anarchy. Even now, something like 50 people die every day on the streets of Iraq because of terrorist attacks.

Thirdly, none of the men who talked so convincingly about the need to invade Iraq now stands by those claims about Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction or his links to terrorists. Tony Blair steps down in a few months, his reputation in tatters only because of his misjudgments about Iraq. Nearly every member of his cabinet now admits that the decision to invade was wrong.

Donald Rumsfeld, cheer leader for the invasion, has been sacked. Paul Wolfowitz, the neo-con ideologue who provided the rationale that the White House needed for the invasion, has been kicked out of his next job, as head of the World Bank, for manipulating the system to give his mistress a raise.

Dick Cheney, who told most of the lies about weapons of mass destruction, is a reviled figure whose political career will end the moment he steps down as Vice President. George W Bush is struggling to regain the initiative as polls show that Americans, usually the most patriotic people in the world, especially when their country is at war, are turning against him.

Fourthly, far from spreading democracy and making the world a safer place, the invasion has actually put us all at risk. We saw what form democracy took in Iraq when a lynch mob hanged Saddam, under American sponsorship. And Washington is terrified that democracy might actually lead to the election of Shia extremists now so even those plans are on hold.

All over the world, otherwise peaceful Muslims who had been persuaded that the invasion of Afghanistan was a necessity warranted by the events of 9/11, now believe that the West is waging a war against Islam. What other justification, they ask, could there be for the invasion of Iraq?

Between them, George W Bush and Tony Blair have created millions of more Islamic extremists than Osama bin Laden could ever have managed on his own. That radicalisation makes young Muslims more susceptible to the preaching of militants and fanatics. Thus, terror will actually increase in the long run, and it is you and me who will pay the price for the stupidity of Bush and Blair.

So, how could Washington and London have got it so wrong? How could George W Bush have taken a historic opportunity — with American power at its height, American economic might all-pervasive and American popular culture the new idiom for the whole world — and destroyed it so completely? At no time in its history has America been so hated all over the world.

I’ve never been able to find an answer to those questions. Nor have I worked out how and why so many Indians in high places and in positions of influence believed that the invasion was worth supporting — or that it would succeed, even if it was unjustified.

It does, however, confirm my overwhelming faith in the good sense of the Indian people. At a time when the journos, the experts and the best and the brightest got it so wrong, the man on the street got it completely right. }}}

Regards

Tahmed sahib,

What matters is the logic of an action in light of stated goals.

Well, Mushy had a stated goal when he imposed Emergency, didn't he?

Seriously, if you believed that USA's reasons for invading Iraq was it stated goals i.e. to provide security to its own population and to liberate the people from a dictator, well I will leave it at that.

Regards

Masadi & PM,

Thanks for your replies. Really trying to understand you guys!

"The USE of Islam for ulterior motive (rather misuse), does not make it any more "political" than any other religion."

Is it easy to use Islam for ulterior motive of few? Does it ask for separate identity in terms of your political power, names, language, festvals, cultural expressions, etc that it perceives threats to itself from seemingly innocuous events such as cartoons, Amarnath land lease?

Does Islam like to rule even if it is in minority in a particular land? Isn't that the reason for Pakistan. Chrchill and Jinah only capitalized on this trait of Islam.

majumdar #141 "So what was the motive for invasion of Iraq? "

I lack the god-like abilities possessed by so many on chowk to determine "what evil lurks in the minds of men" (only The Shadow knows that!). More important, motivations are not even relevant. What matters is the logic of an action in light of stated goals. And there I have already made my point below in comparing the logic from the goals of providing security to the US population and the goal of getting rid of a dictator and restoring the rights of the Iraqi people to a democratic constitution and the rule of law.

you continue: "But I believe you supported this invasion, didn't you?"

Yes I did. From the point of view of the Iraqi people mentioned above. And it makes as much sense today as it did then. The only thing I did not predict is the incredible incompetence of the Bush administration which I outlined below and which everyone knows today.

cheema sahib #140 You make a very good point when you say that "one has to present a substantial alternative rather than rhetoric; ....oh they invaded our brothers....oh how bad...oh...oh....then the emotive pictures to go with that rubbish"

True. What you say inspires me to come up with the ... bugles..drums...
The Second Law of Chowk Thermodynamics: We cant think with your emotions.

Explanation: Thinking is a function assigned to the brain, not to the hormones.

You continue: "truth is, it is Iraqis being killed by Iraqis in the name of insurgency day in day out; I am yet to see any condemnation of this here by anyone!...."

True. This is an example of what happens when we violate the above-mentioned Second Law of Chowk Thermodynmaics.

Masadi,

"Only when faced by an external enemy (constructed or otherwise) which was supposed to exterminate their identity."

Does the Islamic identity over rides all other identity? If so, then is it something in the doctarine/koran?

truth writes "Pakistani people supported Muslmim League and Pakistan army because it is Islamic...."

Only when faced by an external enemy (constructed or otherwise) which was supposed to exterminate their identity. Now when they are opposing it, opposing the Army and its supporters are they doing it because they all of a sudden became non-Islamic?

maj writes "MAJ (pbuh) had envisaged India and Pak to be friendly countries post demerger.."

A very dumb man would envisage the above by chopping off the process that led to Pakistan. I doubt that Jinnah was that dumb, he knew that Pakistan would be a whore in the hands of the colonials to control India when need be, his immediate political career leading up to the partition did not reveal a friendly coexistance...

Truth writes " knew you are going to write this standard disclaimer. You skipped my first few sentences: But do you think political Islam is the problem? Or, is it Islam is political by design?"

There is nothing standard about the disclaimer, in a nation where dictation is from on high (no democracy exists) and no instruments of conveying the will of the people exist, the actions that occur are the responsibility of such a non democratic establishment and not the people. The USE of Islam for ulterior motive (rather misuse), does not make it any more "political" than any other religion.

truth100:

I'm sure masadi sahib will get back to you once he's unbanned but I thought I'd take the liberty of stating what I think he meant when he wrote that "the actions of a establishment/military controlled Pakistan cannot be equated with the actions of Pakistanis."

In 'actions', he must have included motives, and therein lies the difference. Besides, while the masses may actually have believed the Islam khatrein meiN canard, I'm sure the guys pulling the strings didn't.

PM,

Re: 164

Thanks for taking interest. The only reason I wanted to avoid discussing here was 'cos it may be tangential to the Board. But if you guys are interested I will do so right here.

Regards

Masadi,

"Truth mian, the actions of a establishment/military controlled Pakistan cannot be equated with the actions of Pakistanis."

I knew you are going to write this standard disclaimer. You skipped my first few sentences: But do you think political Islam is the problem? Or, is it Islam is political by design?

Pakistani people supported Muslmim League and Pakistan army because it is Islamic. Pakistni people were easily fooled by Jinnah and his cronies by saying Islam is Khatren Main Hain. It seems Islam has to survive at any cost.

Like he was very naive in assuming that Punjab and Bengal (along with Assam) would fall into Pakistan as whole entities because they apparently share the same "culture".

Re: # 163

MAJ (pbuh) had envisaged India and Pak to be friendly countries post demerger. And that indeed wud have been the case had Kashmir not intervened (a fiasco for which incidentally he too is culpable) If you would recall he even did not dispose off his Bombay property and intended to spend his last days in Bombay, which hardly suggests that he expected to see India as a hostile enemy from which Brit sceurity cover would be required.

:-) If Jinnah really thought that he must be very naive.

re. majmumdar #163

"Bit pressed for time but we can discuss #159 later possibly over email."

No, No! Please exchange whatever you have to (minus bodily fluids) right here. It's interesting!

Masadi sahib,

he knew Pakistan as a weaker nation would always be dependent on the British for defense

No, this is not quite correct. MAJ (pbuh) had envisaged India and Pak to be friendly countries post demerger. And that indeed wud have been the case had Kashmir not intervened (a fiasco for which incidentally he too is culpable) If you would recall he even did not dispose off his Bombay property and intended to spend his last days in Bombay, which hardly suggests that he expected to see India as a hostile enemy from which Brit sceurity cover would be required.

Bit pressed for time but we can discuss #159 later possibly over email.

Regards

One quick clarification before I leave, even though I have clarified this many times before but Majumdar repeats it again: He writes :

"( and considering how things have panned out in India he can only be considered right in hindsight)."

You cannot interpret events by chopping off their context in the way you are doing. The condition of Muslims in India cannot be interpreted today by ignoring the history of the partition and the results it produced, chopping by half the Muslim political voice, evoking hatred of the majority against the minority who now considered these people traitors, and the resulting conflict with Pakistan. Were the partition not to happen the conditions of the Muslims of India might well have been much different and much better. You cannot use the condition today as proof of the speculations (for ulterior motive)of MAJ before the partition, logically speaking....