A Changed Landscape of Kashmir Conflict

Sorry for cut and paste,but I thought this may be of some relevance on this board.


The Legacy of Jihad in India
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=4616
July 2nd, 2005


The phenomenon of modern Islamic terrorism has forged an inchoate strategic
alliance between the Israeli and Indian governments, while heightening the
awareness of a common threat-the institution of jihad-among the civilian
populations of these nations.

Rarely understood, let alone acknowledged, however, is the history of brutal
jihad conquest, Muslim colonization, and the imposition of dhimmitude shared
by the Jews of historical Palestine, and the Hindus of the Indian
subcontinent. Moreover, both peoples and nations also have in common, a
subsequent, albeit much briefer British colonial legacy, which despite its
own abuses, abrogated the system of dhimmitude (permanently for Israel and
India, if not, sadly, for their contemporary Muslim neighboring states), and
created the nascent institutions upon which thriving democratic societies
have been constructed. Sir Jadunath Sarkar (d. 1958), the preeminent
historian of Mughal India, wrote with admiration in 1950 of what the Jews of
Palestine had accomplished once liberated from the yoke of dhimmitude. The
implication was clear that he harbored similar hopes for his own people.

Palestine, the holy land of the Jews, Christians and Islamites, had been
turned into a desert haunted by ignorant poor diseased vermin rather than by
human beings, as the result of six centuries of Muslim rule. (See Kinglake`s
graphic description). Today Jewish rule has made this desert bloom into a
garden, miles of sandy waste have been turned into smiling orchards of
orange and citron, the chemical resources of the Dead Sea are being
extracted and sold, and all the amenities of the modern civilised life have
been made available in this little Oriental country. Wise Arabs are eager to
go there from the countries ruled by the Shariat. This is the lesson for the
living history. [1]

Earlier, I reviewed at length the legacy of Muslim jihad conquest and
imposition of the Shari`a in historical Palestine. The current essay
provides a schematic overview of the same phenomena in India, focusing on
the major periods of Muslim conquest, colonization, and rule.

A Millennium of Jihad and Dhimmitude on the Indian Subcontinent

The 570 year period between the initial Arab Muslim razzias (ordered by
Caliph Umar) to pillage Thana (on the West Indian coast near Maharashtra) in
636-637 C.E., and the establishment of the Delhi Sultanate (under
Qutub-ud-din Aibak, a Turkish slave soldier), can be divided into four major
epochs: (I) the conflict between the Arab invaders and the (primarily) Hindu
resisters on the Western coast of India from 636-713 C.E.; (II) the Arab and
Turkish Muslim onslaughts against the kingdom of Hindu Afghanistan during
636-870 C.E.; (III) repeated Turkish efforts to subdue the Punjab from 870
C.E. to 1030 C.E. C.E. highlighted by the devastating campaigns of Mahmud of
Ghazni (from 1000- 1030 C.E.); and finally (IV) Muhammad Ghauri`s conquest
of northwestern India and the Gangetic valley between 1175 and 1206 C.E. [2]

This summary chronology necessarily overlooks the very determined and
successful resistance that was offered by the Hindus to both the Arab (in
particular) and Turkish invaders, for almost four centuries. For example,
despite the rapidity of Mahmud of Ghazni`s conquests-spurred by
shock-tactics and the religious zealotry of Islamic jihad-his successors,
for almost 150 years, could not extend their domain beyond the Punjab
frontiers. Even after the establishment of the Delhi Sultanate (1206-1526),
and the later Mughal Empire (1526-1707), Muslim rulers failed to Islamize
large swaths of Indian territory, and most of the populace. [3] The first
Mughal Emperor, Babur (1483-1530), made these relevant observations upon
establishing his rule in India: [4]

[Hindustan] is a different world.once the water of Sindh is crossed,
everything is in the Hindustan way- land, water, tree, rock, people, and
horde, opinion and custom.Most of the inhabitants of Hindustan are pagans;
they call a pagan a Hindu.

Buddhist civilization within India, in stark contrast, proved far less
resilient. Vincent Smith has described the devastating impact of the late
12th century jihad razzias against the Buddhist communities of northern
India, centered around Bihar, based on Muslim sources, exclusively: [5]

The Muhammadan historian, indifferent to distinctions among idolators,
states that the majority of the inhabitants were ``clean shaven Brahmans``,
who were all put to the sword. He evidently means Buddhist monks, as he was
informed that the whole city and fortress were considered to be a college,
which the name Bihar signifies. A great library was scattered. When the
victors desired to know what the books might be no man capable of explaining
their contents had been left alive. No doubt everything was burnt. The
multitude of images used in Medieval Buddhist worship always inflamed the
fanaticism of Muslim warriors to such fury that no quarter was given to the
idolators. The ashes of the Buddhist sanctuaries at Sarnath near Benares
still bear witness to the rage of the image breakers. Many noble monuments
of the ancient civilization of India were irretrievably wrecked in the
course of the early Muhammadan invasions. Those invasions were fatal to the
existence of Buddhism as an organized religion in northern India, where its
strength resided chiefly in Bihar and certain adjoining territories. The
monks who escaped massacre fled, and were scattered over Nepal, Tibet, and
the south. After A.D. 1200 the traces of Buddhism in upper India are faint
and obscure.

Three major waves of jihad campaigns (exclusive of the jihad conquest of
Afghanistan) which succeeded, ultimately, in establishing a permanent Muslim
dominion within India, i.e., the Delhi Sultanate, are summarized in the
following discussion. The imposition of dhimmitude upon the vanquished Hindu
populations is also characterized, in brief.

The Muslim chroniclers al-Baladhuri (in Kitab Futuh al-Buldan) and al-Kufi
(in the Chachnama) include enough isolated details to establish the overall
nature of the conquest of Sindh by Muhammad b. Qasim in 712 C.E. [6] These
narratives, and the processes they describe, make clear that the Arab
invaders intended from the outset to Islamize Sindh by conquest,
colonization, and local conversion. Baladhuri, for example, records that
following the capture of Debal, Muhammad b. Qasim earmarked a section of the
city exclusively for Muslims, constructed a mosque, and established four
thousand colonists there. [7] The conquest of Debal had been a brutal
affair, as summarized from the Muslim sources by Majumdar. [8]

Despite appeals for mercy from the besieged Indians (who opened their gates
after the Muslims scaled the fort walls), Muhammad b. Qasim declared that he
had no orders ( i.e., from his superior al-Hajjaj, the Governor of Iraq) to
spare the inhabitants, and thus for three days a ruthless and indiscriminate
slaughter ensued. In the aftermath, the local temple was defiled, and ``700
beautiful females who had sought for shelter there, were all captured``. The
capture of Raor was accompanied by a similar tragic outcome. [9]

Muhammad massacred 6000 fighting men who were found in the fort, and their
followers and dependents, as well as their women and children were taken
prisoners. Sixty thousand slaves, including 30 young ladies of royal blood,
were sent to Hajjaj, along with the head of Dahar [the Hindu ruler]. We can
now well understand why the capture of a fort by the Muslim forces was
followed by the terrible jauhar ceremony (in which females threw themselves
in fire kindled by themselves), the earliest recorded instance of which is
found in the Chachnama.

Practical, expedient considerations lead Muhammad to desist from carrying
out the strict injunctions of Islamic Law [10] and the wishes of al-Hajjaj
[11] by massacring the (pagan) infidel Hindus of Sindh. Instead, he imposed
upon the vanquished Hindus the jizya and associated restrictive regulations
of dhimmitude. As a result, the Chachnama records, ``some [Hindus] resolved
to live in their native land, but others took flight in order to maintain
the faith of their ancestors, and their horses, domestics, and other
property`` [12] Thus a lasting pattern was set that would persist, as noted
by Majumdar, until the Mughal Empire collapsed at the end of Aurangzeb`s
reign (in 1707), [13]

.of Muslim policy towards the subject Hindus in subsequent ages. Something
no doubt depended upon individual rulers; some of them adopted a more
liberal, others a more cruel and intolerant attitude. But on the whole the
framework remained intact, for it was based on the fundamental principle of
Islamic theocracy. It recognized only one faith, one people, and one supreme
authority, acting as the head of a religious trust. The Hindus, being
infidels or non-believers, could not claim the full rights of citizens. At
the very best, they could be tolerated as dhimmis, an insulting title which
connoted political inferiority.The Islamic State regarded all non-Muslims as
enemies, to curb whose growth in power was conceived to be its main
interest. The ideal preached by even high officials was to exterminate them
totally, but in actual practice they seem to have followed an alternative
laid down in the Qur`an [ i.e., Q9:29] which calls upon Muslims to fight the
unbelievers till they pay the jizya with due humility. This was the tax the
Hindus had to pay for permission to live in their ancestral homes under a
Muslim ruler.

Mahmud of Ghazni, according to the British historian Sir Henry Elliot,
launched some seventeen jihad campaigns into India between 1000 and his
death in 1030 C.E. [14] Utbi, Mahmud`s court historian, viewed these
expeditions to India as a jihad to propagate Islam and extirpate idolatry.
[15] K.S. Lal illustrates this religious zeal to Islamize by force, as
manifested during a 23 year period between 1000 and 1023 C.E.: [16]

In his first attack of frontier towns in C.E. 1000 Mahmud appointed his
own governors and converted some inhabitants. In his attack on Waihind
(Peshawar) in 1001-3, Mahmud is reported to have captured the Hindu Shahiya
King Jayapal and fifteen of his principal chiefs and relations some of whom
like Sukhpal, were made Musalmans. At Bhera all the inhabitants, except
those who embraced Islam, were put to the sword. At Multan too conversions
took place in large numbers, for writing about the campaign against Nawasa
Shah (converted Sukhpal), Utbi says that this and the previous victory (at
Multan) were ``witnesses to his exalted state of proselytism.`` In his
campaign in the Kashmir Valley (1015) Mahmud ``converted many infidels to
Muhammadanism, and having spread Islam in that country, returned to Ghazni.``
In the later campaign in Mathura, Baran and Kanauj, again, many conversions
took place. While describing ``the conquest of Kanauj,`` Utbi sums up the
situation thus: ``The Sultan levelled to the ground every fort. and the
inhabitants of them either accepted Islam, or took up arms against him.`` In
short, those who submitted were also converted to Islam. In Baran
(Bulandshahr) alone 10,000 persons were converted including the Raja. During
his fourteenth invasion in 1023 C.E. Kirat, Nur, Lohkot and Lahore were
attacked. The chief of Kirat accepted Islam, and many people followed his
example.

These continuous jihad campaigns were accompanied by great destruction and
acts of wanton cruelty. Utbi describes the slaughter which transpired during
the attacks on Thanesar and Sirsawa:

The chief of Thanesar was.obstinate in his infidelity and denial of Allah,
so the Sultan marched against him with his valiant warriors for the purpose
of planting the standards of Islam and extirpating idolatry. The blood of
the infidels flowed so copiously that the stream was discoloured, and people
were unable to drink it. Praise be to Allah. for the honour he bestows upon
Islam and Musalmans. [17]

[at Sirsawa] The Sultan summoned the most religiously disposed of his
followers, and ordered them to attack the enemy immediately. Many infidels
were consequently slain or taken prisoners in this sudden attack, and the
Musalmans paid no regard to the booty till they had satiated themselves with
the slaughter of the infidels. The friends of Allah searched the bodies of
the slain for three whole days, in order to obtain booty [18]

Mahmud`s final well-known expedition in Hindustan, to Somanath in 1025 C.E.,
was similarly brutal, and destructive:

Mahmud captured the place [Somanath] without much difficulty and ordered a
general slaughter in which more than 50,000 persons are said to have
perished. The idol of Somanath was broken to pieces which were sent to
Ghazni, Mecca, and Medina and cast in streets and the staircases of chief
mosques to be trodden by the Muslims going there for their prayers [19]

Over 900 years apart, remarkably concordant assessments of Mahmud`s
devastating exploits have been written by the renowned 11th century Muslim
scholar Alberuni (a counselor to Mahmud), and the contemporary Indian
historian A.L. Srivastava. First Alberuni, from about 1030 C.E.: [20]

Mahmud utterly ruined the prosperity of the country.by which the Hindus
became like atoms of dust scattered in all directions, and like a tale of
old in the mouth of the people. Their scattered remains cherish of course
the most inveterate aversion towards all Muslims. This is the reason too why
Hindu sciences have retired far away from those parts of the country
conquered by us, and have fled to places which our hand cannot yet reach, to
Kashmir, Benares, and other places.

Srivastava in 1950, wrote: [21]

To the Indian world of his day Mahmud was a veritable devil incarnate- a
daring bandit, an avaricious plunderer, and wanton destroyer of Art. He
plundered many dozens of.flourishing cities; he razed to the ground great
temples which were wonderful works of art; he carried thousands of innocent
women and children into slavery; he indulged in wanton massacre practically
everywhere he went; and.he forcibly converted hundred of.unwilling people to
Islam. A conqueror who leaves behind desolate towns and villages and dead
bodies of innocent human beings cannot be remembered by posterity by any
other title.

K.S. Lal believes that by the late 12th century, Muhammad Ghauri was
consummately prepared for the conquest and rule of India. Well-elaborated
theological justifications for jihad, and comprehensive writings on India`s
geography and sociopolitical culture were readily available to him,
complementing his powerful army of Turks, Persians, and Afghans.

He now possessed Alberuni`s India and Burhanuddin`s Hidayah, works which
were not available to his predecessor invader. Alberuni`s enecyclopedic work
provided to the Islamic world in the eleventh century all that was
militarily advantageous to know about India. Equally important was the
Hidayah, the most authentic work on the laws of Islam compiled by Shaikh
Burhanuddin Ali in the twelfth century. These and similar works, and the
military manuals like the Siyasat Nama and Adab-ul-Harb, made the Ghauris
and their successors better equipped for the conquest and governance of
non-Muslim India. There need be no doubt that such works were made
available, meticulously studied and constantly referred to by scholars
attached to the courts of Muslim conquerors and kings. [22]

Muhammad Ghauri launched his first expeditions against Multan and Gujarat
(in 1175 and 1178 C.E., respectively). By 1191-92 C.E., following Ghauri`s
defeat of a Rajput confederation under Prithviraj Chauhan (and Prithviraj
Chauhan`s death),

Sirsuti, Samana, Kuhram, and Hansi were captured in quick succession with
ruthless slaughter and a general destruction of temples, and their
replacement by mosques. The Sultan then proceeded to Ajmer which too
witnessed similar scenes. In Delhi an army of occupation was stationed at
Indraprastha under the command of Qutub-ud-din Aibak who was to act as
Ghauri`s lieutenant in Hindustan. Later on Aibak became the first Sultan of
Delhi [23]

Qutub-ud-din Aibak`s accession in 1206 (consistent with Muhammad Ghauri`s
desires and plans), marks the founding of the Delhi Sultanate.

Finally, the imposition of Islamic law upon the Hindu populations of India,
i.e., their relegation to dhimmi status, beginning with the advent of Muslim
rule in 8th century Sindh, had predictable consequences during both the
Delhi Sultanate period (1206-1526 C.E.), and the Mughal Empire (1526-1707
C.E.). A.L. Srivastava highlights these germane features of Hindu status
during the Delhi Sultanate: [24]

Throughout the period of the Sultanate of Delhi, Islam was the religion of
the State. It was considered to be the duty of the Sultan and his government
to defend and uphold the principles of this religion and to propagate them
among the masses.even the most enlightened among them [the Sultans], like
Muhammad bin Tughlaq, upheld the principles of their faith and refused
permission to repair Hindu (or Buddhist) temples.Thus even during the reign
of the so-called liberal-minded Sultans, the Hindus had no permission to
build new temples or to repair old ones. Throughout the period, they were
known as dhimmis, that is, people living under guarantee, and the guarantee
was that they would enjoy restricted freedom in following their religion if
they paid the jizya. The dhimmis were not to celebrate their religious rites
openly.and never to do any propaganda on behalf of their religion. A number
of disabilities were imposed upon them in matters of State employment and
enjoyment of civic rights.It was a practice with the Sultans to destroy the
Hindu temples and images therein. Firoz Tughlaq and Sikander Lodi prohibited
Hindus from bathing at the ghats [river bank steps for ritual bathers] in
the sacred rivers, and encouraged them in every possible way to embrace the
Muslim religion. The converts were exempted from the jizya and given posts
in the State service and even granted rewards in cash, or by grant of land.
In short, there was not only no real freedom for the Hindus to follow their
religion, but the state followed a policy of intolerance and persecution.
The contemporary Muslim chronicles abound in detailed descriptions of
desecration of images and destruction of temples and of the conversion of
hundreds and thousands of the Hindus. [Hindu] religious buildings and places
bear witness to the iconoclastic zeal of the Sultans and their followers.
One has only to visit Ajmer, Mathura, Ayodhya, Banaras and other holy cities
to see the half broken temples and images of those times with their heads,
faces, hands and feet defaced and demolished.

Majumdar sees a continuum between the Delhi Sultanate and the subsequent
Mughal Empire, regarding the status of the Hindus: [25]

So far as the Hindus were concerned, there was no improvement either in
their material and moral conditions or in their relations with the Muslims.
With the sole exception of Akbar, who sought to conciliate the Hindus by
removing some of the glaring evils to which they were subjected, almost all
other Mughal Emperors were notorious for their religious bigotry. The Muslim
law which imposed many disabilities and indignities upon the Hindus.and
thereby definitely gave them an inferior social and political status, as
compared to the Muslims, was followed by these Mughal Emperors (and other
Muslim rulers) with as much zeal as was displayed by their predecessors, the
Sultans of Delhi. The climax was reached during the reign of Aurangzeb, who
deliberately pursued the policy of destroying and desecrating Hindu temples
and idols with a thoroughness unknown before or since.

Majumdar also makes this interesting juxtaposition of Hindu cultural
advancement under the lengthy period of Muslim colonial rule, compared to
the much shorter interval of British colonial rule: [26]

Judged by a similar standard, the patronage and cultivation of Hindu
learning by the Muslims, or their contribution to the development of Hindu
culture during their rule.pales into insignificance when compared with the
achievements of the British rule.It is only by instituting such comparison
that we can make an objective study of the condition of the Hindus under
Muslim rule, and view it in its true perspective.

Andrew Bostom is an Associate Professor of Medicine, and the author of the
forthcoming The Legacy of Jihad on Prometheus Books (2005).

Notes

[1] Jadunath Sarkar ``The Condition of Hindus under Muslim Rule``, The
Hindusthan Standard, Calcutta, Puja Annual (Deepavali special) 1950.
[2] A.L. Srivastava. ``A Survey of India`s Resistance to Medieval Invaders
from the North-West: Causes of Eventual Hindu Defeat``, Journal of Indian
History, 1965, pp. 349-350.
[3] A.L. Srivastava., The Sultanate of Delhi (711-1526 A.D.) , Agra, 1950,
p.127; R.C. Majumdar (editor). The History and Culture of the Indian People,
Vol. 6, The Sultanate of Delhi, Bombay, 1960, p.xxiii, states, for example,
with regard to the Delhi Sultanate:

The popular notion that after the conquest of Muhammad Ghauri, India
formed a Muslim Empire under various dynasties, is hardly borne out by
facts.barring the two very short lived empires under the Khaljis and
Muhammad bin Tughlaq which lasted respectively, for less than twenty and ten
years, there was no Turkish empire of India. The Delhi Sultanate, as the
symbol of this empire, continued in name throughout the period under review
[ i.e., 1206-1526] but, gradually shorn of power and prestige, it was
reduced to a phantom by the invasion of Timur at the end of the fourteenth
century A.D.

For discussions of the limits of the Mughal Empire, see: A.L.
Srivastava.,The History of India (1000 A.D- 1707 A.D.), Agra, 1964, pp.
674-676; and K.S. Lal. Indian Muslims-Who Are They? , New Delhi, 1990, pp.
122-123, 127, 136-137.
[4] Baburnama. Translated by A.S. Beveridge, Lahore, Sangmeel Publications
(reprint), 1976, pp. 484,518.
[5] Vincent Smith, The Oxford History of India, Oxford, 1928, p. 221.
[6] Al-Baladhuri. The Origins of the Islamic State (Kitab Futuh Al-Buldan).
Part II, Translated by F.C. Murgotten, New York, Columbia University, 1924,
pp. 217-224; Al-Kufi. The Chachnama, excerpts translated in H.M. Elliot and
J. Dowson. A History of India As Told By Its Own Historians-The Muhammadan
Period, 1867-1877 (reprinted 2001, Delhi), Vol. 1, pp. 157-211.
[7] Al-Baladhuri. The Origins of the Islamic State, Part II , p. 218.
[8] R.C. Majumdar (editor). The History and Culture of the Indian People,
Vol. 3, The Classical Age, Bombay, 1954, p. 458.
[9] Majumdar, The Classical Age, pp. 458-459.
[10] From a translation of Ziauddin Barani`s Fatawa-i Jahandari, circa,
1358-9 C.E., in Mohammad Habib. The political theory of the Delhi
sultanate., Allahabad, Kitab Mahal, 1961, pp. 46-47.
[11] Chachnama, Elliot and Dowson, pp. 173-174.
[12] Majumdar, The Classical Age, pp. 460.
[13] Majumdar, The Classical Age, pp. 461-462.
[14] Elliot and Dowson, Vol. II, Appendix Note D, pp. 434-484.
[15] Srivastava. The Sultanate of Delhi, p. 52.
[16] K.S. Lal. The Legacy of Muslim Rule in India , New Delhi, Aditya
Prakashan, 1992, pp. 96-97
[17] Elliot and Dowson, Vol. II, 40-41.
[18] Elliot and Dowson, Vol. II, 49.
[19] Srivastava. The Sultanate of Delhi, p. 59.
[20] Alberuni. Alberuni`s India- An Account of the Religion, Philosophy,
Literature, Geography, Chronology, Astronomy, Customs, Laws, and Astrology
of India (about 1030 C.E), Edited by E.C. Sachau, 1888 (reprinted New Delhi,
1993), p. 22.
[21] Srivastava. The Sultanate of Delhi, p. 61-62.
[22] K.S. Lal. Theory and Practice of Muslim State in India, New Delhi,
Aditya Prakashan, 1999, pp.20-21.
[23] Lal. Muslim State in India , p. 21
[24] Srivastava. The Sultanate of Delhi, pp. 304-305.
[25] R.C. Majumdar (editor) The Mughul Empire, Bombay, 1974, p. xi.
[26] Majumdar Vol. 6, The Sultanate of Delhi, p. 623



Andrew G. Bostom

If these ba$tqard Paki Jehadis are representative of muslims from any part of the world.....then by the same logic so are those 10000 hindu marauding rioters in Gujrat the representative of hindus.................

this is exactly the logic that these right wing extemists want all of us to believe..............that they ``represent`` some community.........................

``Just saw the news that heavily armed jehadis stormed the Ayodhya Ram Mandir. I wonder if harish, arjun, stuka, rahul and other ``secular`` folks would like to comment``

These acts prove the point that Paki Jehadis are actually enemies of IM...they want to make it appear as if the IM are in deadly armed conflict with other communities and the TNT is very much alive and kicking.................they want to prove that TNT is right because its predictions about the IM-s has not come true and now they want to prove that now the IM-s are ``retaliating`` back with much power.........................this is actually the act of the Paki Deen-e-Fasaad jamaat which is being supported by that rascal called Musharaff.

Who is this %@% called Mike spewing RSS propoganda about IM-s??

``So Indian muslims are only interested in joining organisations devoted to India , like the Laskkar-e-Toiba , Hizbul Mujaheedin and Jaish-e-Muhammad. The intention is clear. Top bring back the good old days of 800 year odd muslim rule , the days of Ghaznavi , Ghori , Babar and Auranzeb ....when the idolators knew their place , surrendering their women and wealth to the good merciful muslim rulers in gratitude for being allowed to stay alive . ``

I can see that he has been reading a lot of Togodia speeches!!!

Rahul-Capri ,

`` what do you say about the ULFA separatists?``

Thats a different set of problems with its own permutatations which can be discussed at length if needed . Events are happening fast in Assam , and the ULFA separatists stand discredited by the people of Assam themselves , who have lately woken up to their hindu identity enveloped as they are by the ever increasing illegal migration from b-desh. ULFA - today a virtual pot bellied dad`s army as most of its members are in their middle age with no fresh recruitments - has alienated the assamese public as it is seen to be sympathetic to illegal B-deshi muslim migrants.


`` There are more muslims in India than in Pakistan. ``

Which is understandable because Indian muslims breed like pigs under orders to convert dar-ul-harab to dar-ul-islam.


``If all of them really wanted jihad, just imagine how long we can keep Kashmir or any other part of India in India.``

Which is indeed going to be a major problem in 10-15 years time when Indian muslims double their numbers in 10-15 years time and form 40% of India`s population , which given their birth rate is eminently feasible. Kashmir is being held by India inspite of tremendous sustained pressure put by Indian muslims thanks to the bravery and fortitude of the Indian armed forces.


``Also, the only Al Qaeda recruitee I know of from India is a person who was born Hindu, and then converted to Islam.Some Dheeraj Barot.``

There are two issues to this. One is that Al Qaeda is global Islamic terrorist network which is mainly US-centric. India figures much lower in the pecking order of Al Qaeda targets. Indian muslims have no major beef against US or Israel ..atleast not as much as to being willing to die fighting those two countries. Indian muslim hatred is restricted to India and its multitudes of idol worshipping polytheist kufrs . The Holy Quran is very particular about the absolute neccessity for a good muslim to torture , humiliate , dishonor and murder idol worshipping kufrs if the said good muslims has ambitions of booking a room in Heaven , enjoying the company of 72 virgins , under the auspices of his Maker , Mr. Allah. (la ila ilallah muhammad rasul ullah).

So Indian muslims are only interested in joining organisations devoted to India , like the Laskkar-e-Toiba , Hizbul Mujaheedin and Jaish-e-Muhammad. The intention is clear. Top bring back the good old days of 800 year odd muslim rule , the days of Ghaznavi , Ghori , Babar and Auranzeb ....when the idolators knew their place , surrendering their women and wealth to the good merciful muslim rulers in gratitude for being allowed to stay alive .

The second point is about Mr. Dheeraj Barot. As you so nicely mentioned the fact about Mr.Bardot being a hindu who converted to Islam. Historically the neo-converts to Islam have always been more eager than the muslims themsleves to carry out the orders of their new master Muhammad the Prophet (P be upon him). So undoubtedly Mr.Bardot did what he did in order to prove his credentials to the doubtful Ummah. The usual rites of passage. Its not enough just to get circumsized . You gotta plant RDX in a couple of school buses too.


``You do realize that you are not convincing anybody.``

Not everybody is a dhimmi eunuch like you (and your mother`s husband...)


``I think it would be better for you to move to the hindu country called Nepal if you are so concerned about your Hinduism.``

You mean to say hinduism is extinct in India already ? Saare hindu log mar gaye kya Hindustan mein ? Boy ..those mullahs are quick...

Re:Mike # 38
Which is indeed going to be a major problem in 10-15 years time when Indian muslims double their numbers in 10-15 years time and form 40% of India`s population , which given their birth rate is eminently feasible.
Exactly my point.If this scares the shit out of you, why dont you consider relocating to Nepal?

Who let the dogs out woo-hoo-hoo-hoo.

Re: # 36

Who `let` you out??.....

#32 by ranjit

[However, it is time that India exercises its muscle in the subcontinent and gets a favorable resolution on Kashmir and settles the communal issue once and for all.]

For that matter even Israel, a country that has been very proactive in dealing with Palestinian terrorists has been unable to free itself of the terrorist menace. Not a month goes by without a suicide bombing or two. Might does not always make right, especially when you are dealing with your own.

I agree with you that India must deal with Paki-sponsored terrorism with an iron hand, but to hold Indian Muslims hostage to what Pakistan does is utter nonsense and fraught with dangerous consequences.

#33 by ranjit

[Just saw the news that heavily armed jehadis stormed the Ayodhya Ram Mandir. I wonder if harish, arjun, stuka, rahul and other ``secular`` folks would like to comment!!]

I’m all with you if you’re advocating a no-nonsense approach when dealing with Paki-sponsored terrorism. This looks like the handiwork of the LeT, and India just cannot watch idly as Hafiz Mohammed Sayeed, the LeT supremo continues to make inflammatory speeches against Hindus and India.

Also, I feel the peace process is just a superficial attempt to win international acclaim, which will help Mushy legitimize his rule and prove his indispensability to the Americans. The litmus test for Pakistan would be to discredit terrorist groups like the LeT and JeM, and hand over Syed Salahuddin of the HuM.

As to your branding IMs as traitors, what would you call the Tamils (mind you I’m a Tamilian) who sheltered the mastermind behind Rajiv Gandhi’s assassination? Or the Sikhs who assassinated Indira Gandhi?

Just saw the news that heavily armed jehadis stormed the Ayodhya Ram Mandir. I wonder if harish, arjun, stuka, rahul and other ``secular`` folks would like to comment!! Indian muslims are part of India, they do not support jihad.....how delusional can we get!!

Re: # 33

The terrorists who attacked Ayodhya were not indian muslims.They are suspected to be from the Lakshar.They look no different from the local muslim or hindu population and there was nothing amiss in them asking to see tourist places in Ayodhya.Tourists from all over India visit that city.It is time the UPA govt. clamped down on kashmir, expel all paks from the country and fortify the fence along the border.Recently , there has been a spate of sectatian killings in Pakistan, while india has been quiet in contrast.The paks had to do something to stir things up.The parliament attack in Delhi was another example.It is time to crack down.Good fences make good neighbors.

Re:rahul_capri and arjun_m

Solving the communal problem will not resolve every problem that India faces e.g. ULFA. However, it is time that India exercises its muscle in the subcontinent and gets a favorable resolution on Kashmir and settles the communal issue once and for all. If there is full, unconditional peace with Pakistan with no territory transfer and normal relations, then the communal chapter can be closed and we can move on.

It is humiliating to see a great country like India demean itself by grovelling in front of Pakistan to halt terrorism. We know that they harbor the jehadis and the terror infrastructure is functional in PoK. Even now we see repeated attempts at infiltration along the LoC, while Syed Salahuddin, the Hizbul chief gives interviews on PTV. No other country of India`s size and power would tolerate this kind of nonsense from a small neighbor, especially when we control their water supply and have overwhelming military superiority. Any other country would have gone for the jugular, after the first soldier was killed. We are still negotiating after losing tens of thousands.

``Secondly if nothing else works, India can hold the 100 million plus IMs as hostage. If you kill Indians in Kashmir, we will retaliate by killing muslims in rest of India in a 1:10 ratio.``

This is utter non-sense and a representative of the chaddiwalas mentality.............typical stereotyping of all the muslims by overemphasizing the acts of the perverse extremists who probably were brainwashed and lured with money by the ISI handlers..............this retaliation theory is actually the basis of the communal approach which has been exhibited succinctly by rascals like hindvi...........and now Ranjit..............

re: googenschlaugen # 26

One of the best ever on the subject of Kashmir.

When parties begin to discuss their real concerns, as opposed to their stated ones, solutions will come.

I have always maintained a very neutral stance on the issue of kashmir. My paucity of knowledge on this matter stands as the primary culprit for this unbiased attitude. I have dabbled into some historical perspective about the issue, and in doing so, i stumbled onto the background over which India and Pakistan fought three wars in the past. I would particularly like to draw attention to the war that occured in 1971, since it was a civil war, when the Pak military junta, in collusion with a few west pakistani politicians, unleashed its army against its own people and ended up losing the eastern wing of the country. To me it`s surprising how Pakistan`s military elites could have managed to remain in power for such a long time after such a colossal blunder in 1971.
The question i have for the educated people in pakistan is that, if you let your own military carve up your own country into two, and with the recent violence in baluchistan, what makes you think the muslims, let alone the Hindus, in kashmir would want to be a part of Pakistan? Do you really care about the kashmiri cause or is the ``real estate`` you are interested in?
On a side note, I dont blame India for the role it played against Pakistan since 1947. If you wanna dance with the devil (indian govt., not the people), like Yahya and Bhutto did in 1971, the devil dont change. The devil changes you.

# various by Ranjit and Mike (gujju)

Yaar, the type of solutions you both seem to be advocating makes the Jihadis next door look like kindergarten kids. Indian Muslims are as much Indian as you and I are. Some IMs may be traitors, but so are some Indian Hindus too.

We may have many grievances with them, as they do with us, but what I`m really proud of is the fact that not a single IM has been involved in international terrorism. India`s democratic polity may be flawed, but it has provided space for everyone of us Hindu or Muslim alike. We should be proud of this fact and work to make it stronger. Such divisive and hateful ideas do no one any good.