Friday, January 4, 2008

The Other Jihad: Islam's War on the Hindus

January 3, 2008
Comment by Jerry Gordon

from Act for America

Westerners know comparatively little about the contemporary and historical waves of Jihad that have ravaged the Indian subcontinent over a millenia down to the 21st Century. William Warner, director of the Center for the Study of Political Islam in a pamphlet, "An Ethical Basis for War Against Political Islam" identifies one of the major 'Tears of Islam" , the more than 80 millions estimated Buddhists and Hindus slaughtered in earlier waves of Islamic conquest of this important South Asia region. Janet Levy in this American Thinker review of "The Art of War on Terror: Triumphing over Political Islam and the Axis of Jihad" By Moorthy Muthuswamy, gives us the contemporary toll of Jihad committed in the wake of the Division of British India or the Raj in 1948-tens of millions of Hindus slaughtered, raped and displaced in West Pakistan and former East Pakistan in 1971 (For graphic eyewitness accounts of the Jihad In Bengladesh that precipitated the secession of the state from Pakistan-read the volume "Leaving Islam: Apostates Speak Out," by Ibn Warraq) . Where India opted for a secular democratic form of government, Pakistan devolved into an Islamic republic that eschewed the stable democracy of its neighbor, India. There has been continual turmoil Islamist Pakistan. Witness the recent assassination of opposition Pakistani politician Benazir Bhutto and concerns about whether Jihadists will take over the country and seize its nuclear weapons stockpiles. She notes that when Bangladesh was created in 1972, it opted, like Pakistan to an Islamic Republic in 1977. India, itself with a sizable Muslim minority has witnessed periodic outbursts of sectarian Muslim Jihadism with attendant slaughter of majority Hindus in major clashes.

Levy notes these policy recommendation of the author regarding 'containment of Political Islam':

The United States is hampered by its belief in Islam as a conventional faith and not a political ideology, Muthuswamy writes. This belief mistakenly frames the situation as a freedom-of-religion issue, he says. The author feels that America is weakened by its strong religious outlook and needs to refocus its priorities on scientific and technological development. "Information-based societies," such as China and India, have an advantage over theologically-based ones, Muthuswamy says. He adds that religion restricts effective functioning in the modern world and needs to be supplanted by common sense and science.

In a final "Policy Response" section of his book, Muthuswamy suggests a multi-pronged plan of action for America. He advocates the potential weakening of political Islam through the discrediting of its theological foundation and manufactured Muslim grievances. He recommends a change in focus away from individual terrorist groups and the axis of evil to the axis of jihad, even to the point of formally charging Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Iran with crimes against humanity. Muthuswamy further contends that the strengthening of India, as well as a coalition between India and Israel, could act as a counterforce to political Islam and the axis of jihad. Recognizing the physical threat of the global jihad, he acknowledges the necessity of developing a comprehensive allied nuclear retaliatory strategy to fight jihadist nations.
by Janet Levy, The American Thinker, January 3, 2008

The Art of War on Terror: Triumphing over Political Islam and the Axis of Jihad
By Moorthy MuthuswamyPaperback, 2007236 pp., $21.95.

Pakistan and its nuclear arsenal catastrophically may fall into the hands of jihadists. But the South Asian version of jihad is a less familiar but no less fearsome variant of the war directed at the Great Satan America, and the Little Satan, Israel.

At one billion people, Hindus, the majority of whom live in the Indian sub-continent, constitute the third largest religion in the world after two billion Christians and 1.5 billion Muslims. Yet, their numbers have not spared Hindus from ongoing, systematic Muslim attacks in India, Pakistan and Bangladesh.

Indeed, the jihad against India's non-Muslims has accelerated within the last few decades. The Indian government and international human rights organizations have done little to address human rights violations and have stood idle despite constant attacks on Hindus. Meanwhile, the media rarely mentions the desecration of Hindu religious sites and the constant intimidation of Hindus. While special concessions have been granted for Muslims in India, the governments of Pakistan and Bangladesh have long supported a policy, based on Islamic law, of religious discrimination against non-believers. Hindus in Pakistan and Bangladesh are unable to obtain positions of power, have great difficulty procuring business loans, are subjected to spurious blasphemy claims for defaming the prophet Mohammed and are specifically identified as non-Muslims on their passports.

In his recent book, The Art of War on Terror: Triumphing over Political Islam and the Axis of Jihad, Moorthy Muthuswamy explores this little-known and vastly under-reported Muslim campaign against Hindus. Muthuswamy addresses the methodology and ideological basis of political Islam, illuminates the 60-year history of jihad in India, specifies the roles played by the countries he identifies as being part of the "axis of jihad," and sets forth potential solutions to the jihadist threat.

The roots of this jihad on the Indian sub-continent began in 1947, when the British departed South Asia and granted independence to the sovereign states of India and Pakistan. India chose to establish a secular democracy and a legal system based on English Common and Statutory Law. Pakistan, however, was founded under the leadership of the Muslim League, later renamed the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, and based its governance on Islamic law. At the time, the Hindu minority in West Pakistan constituted 29% of the new nation's population and 23% of the population of West Pakistan. But, by the start of the India-Pakistan War of 1971, some 2.5 million Hindu citizens of Pakistan had been massacred. Soon thereafter, when East Pakistan was established as the People's Republic of Bangladesh, 10 million Hindu refugees fled to India. (Continue Reading this Article)

Tuesday, January 1, 2008

Jewish General led Indian army to victory in 1971

The Canadian Jewish news 17/2/05 SHELDON KIRSHNER
Posted on 02/16/2005 10:36:40 AM PST by sukhoi-30mki

Jewish general led Indian army in 1971 war


In the annals of modern warfare, the 1971 war between India and Pakistan is regarded as a template of brilliance. Within 13 days, the Indian army routed Pakistan in one of the swiftest campaigns of the 20th century.

Occasionally compared to Israel’s victory in the 1967 Six Day War, and studied at military academies as a textbook example of efficient planning, the Indo-Pakistan war gave rise to a new state, Bangladesh, and established India as a regional superpower.

The major general who masterminded and spearheaded India’s offensive, and who accepted Pakistan’s surrender, was Jack Frederick Ralph Jacob, the scion of an old Jewish family from Calcutta. A spry bachelor of 81 who retired in 1978 as the commander of India’s eastern army, he considers that war the highlight of a long and distinguished career as a soldier. Having written a book about it, Surrender at Dacca, published in 2001 by Manohar, he claims that the war was “surely the greatest military feat in our history.”

Although historians are acquainted with his resumé, Jacob is not exactly a household name outside India. As I prepared for my trip to India late last year, I ran across his name in my research. Intrigued by the possibility of interviewing a Jewish warrior from an exotic country whose Jewish community is rooted in antiquity, I asked to meet him.

When I arrived in New Delhi on my last day in India, following relatively brief flights from Cochin and Mumbai, B.B. Mukherjee, a helpful contact from the ministry of tourism, was at the terminal to greet me with the news that Jacob had consented to an interview. I was pleased, but the timing was hardly fortuitous. I was tired, coming down with a cold and a hoarse voice, and my flight back to Toronto was just hours away. Nevertheless, I told Mukherjee I would be ready to talk to Jacob at his home in New Delhi at around five o’clock.

After a shower and change of clothes, I met Mukherjee in my hotel lobby, and off we drove to Jacob’s flat in a non-descript gray apartment building in the centre of this sprawling city and capital of India. When we arrived, one of his Nepalese houseboys opened the door and ushered us into a dimly lit room filled with French furniture and crowded with original Mogul art on the walls.

Jacob, a surprisingly small man with a café au lait complexion and a formal manner, was smartly decked out in a blue blazer, creased pants, shirt and tie. He motioned me to sit down next to him on a narrow couch.

I began by asking him about his role in the war – the 33rd anniversary of which was marked shortly before my trip to India – and his decision to become a soldier. Jacob, whose Baghdadi family settled in Calcutta more than 200 years ago and whose father – Elias Emanuel – was a businessman, was quite effusive, enunciating his words in a posh upper-class Indian accent.

A brigadier-general by 1963 and a major-general by 1967, he was appointed chief of the Eastern Command in 1969 by Gen. Sam Maneckshaw, the Parsi chief of staff. Jacob’s immediate superior was Lt. Gen. J.S. Aurora, a Sikh.

Jacob joined the British army in the summer of 1941 while at university and when India was still a British colony. He did so, he said, “to fight the Nazis.” After graduating from officers training school in 1942, he was posted to northern Iraq in anticipation of a possible German thrust to seize the Kirkuk oil fields. He trained with Glubb Pasha’s Arab Legion, which would be the backbone of Jordan’s army. In the wake of Japan’s defeat, he was assigned to Sumatra. Returning to an independent India after taking a gunnery course in Britain, Jacob commanded a mountain battery and served in an armoured division. Then, in short order, he took artillery and missile courses in the United States and was a general staff officer at Western Command headquarters.

“I didn’t plan to be a career officer,” he said. “I liked the army and stayed on. I did everything I was supposed to do.”

During the mid-1960s, when India fought a war with Pakistan, he was the commandant of the School of Artillery. Subsequently, he was in charge of an infantry division in Rajasthan, where he wrote a much-praised manual on desert warfare. Promoted to chief of staff of the Eastern Command, based in Calcutta, Jacob was soon grappling with insurgencies in Nagaland, Manipur and Mizoram.

The Eastern Command was a sensitive one. The partition of the Indian sub-continent in 1947 had led to the emergence of India and Pakistan, which was made up of two distinct and geographically disconnected areas. Although East Pakistan was more populous than West Pakistan, political power rested with the western elite, causing resentment, unrest and calls for autonomy in the other half.

By 1971, East Pakistan was in revolt, and Pakistan’s ruler, Yahya Khan, cracked down. As the violence escalated, with a massive loss of life and an exodus of millions of Hindu refugees into Indian territory, Indo-Pakistani tensions rose.

When India’s prime minister, Indira Gandhi, extended assistance to Bengali rebels who sought to break away from Pakistan and form their own country, Pakistan responded first by attacking rebel camps in India and then, on Dec. 3, by bombing nine northern Indian airfields. In a dramatic broadcast to the nation, Gandhi declared war on Pakistan.

Having watched these developments with mounting concern, Jacob realized that conflict was imminent. “We knew we would have to intervene, but we hardly had any infrastructure and had to build it up,” he recalled.

In consultation with his superiors, he refined his plan to engage Pakistan in a “war of movement” in difficult terrain with few bridges and roads, crisscrossed by rivers and broken up by swamps, mangroves and paddy fields. Jacob’s strategy was clear. Dacca – the heart of East Pakistan – would be captured and Pakistani forces bypassed. Pakistan’s communication centres would be secured and its command and control capabilities destroyed, while its forces would be drawn to the border. Some Indian commanders raised objections to the unorthodox plan, but it was finally approved.

“I planned for a three-week campaign, but it went faster than I expected,” said Jacob, who instinctively understood that speed was essential and that a protracted war would not be in India’s interests: The United Nations would apply pressure on India to halt its offensive, and the Soviet Union – India’s ally – might not be able to fend off calls for a ceasefire.

As fighting raged, Jacob flew to Dacca and wrested unconditional surrender terms from his opposite number, Gen. Amir Niazi, who would later accuse Jacob of having blackmailed him into submission.

“It was a total victory over a formidable, well-trained army,” he observed. “Had Pakistan fought on, it would have been difficult for us.” Indian casualties were 1,421 killed and 4,058 wounded. “We expected higher casualties,” he admitted. The Pakistani figures were much higher, in India’s estimation: 6,761 killed and 8,000 wounded.

Jacob, who calls Surrender at Dacca the most authoritative and objective account of the war to date, ascribed his victory to a few factors – imaginative planning, flexibility of approach, the capacity to react to shifting and perhaps unforeseen events and, of course, luck. But for Jacob, a keen student of warfare, historical context was always of crucial importance. As he put it, “I’ve learned from every campaign since Alexander the Great and Napoleon.”

Looking back, he described his 37-year career in the army as “the happiest and most enjoyable period of my life.” Never once did he feel the sting of anti-Semitism in the Indian army. “But I had some problems with the British,” he said, declining to elaborate. “I don’t like to talk about it.”

Interestingly enough, Jacob – whose Hebrew name is Yaacov Rafael and who serves as president of New Delhi’s one and only synagogue – was not the only high-ranking Jewish officer in the armed forces. “There was another Jewish general, a chap named Samson, and he was in research and development and ordnance. And there was also a Jewish vice-admiral.”

Upon leaving the army, Jacob went into business. But in 1998, he was called out of retirement to be governor of Goa, a former Portuguese colony popular with Israeli tourists. He remained there until 1999, when he assumed the governorship of Punjab, a job he held until 2003.

A three-time visitor to Israel who was once invited there by Yitzhak Rabin when he was the prime minister, Jacob was also on friendly terms with Mordechai Gur, a former Israeli chief of staff. Jacob played an indirect role in India’s decision to establish diplomatic relations with Israel in 1992, but he refused to talk about his role in that diplomatic rapprochement.

Referring to himself as “a very private person,” he was likewise reluctant to speak about his family, apart from saying that his brothers and sisters are deceased.

Today, in his twilight years, Jacob is a writer and lecturer on military and political affairs. But he wryly described his current status as “unemployed.”

Hat tip to Hugh Fitzgerald of Jihad Watch who pointed me in this direction with his
Fitzgerald: Non-Muslims in India and the "wrong signals" lw.

For more about this, see
The India-Pakistan War Of 1971: A Modern War

Lt. Gen A. A. K. Niazi signs the instrument of surrender on December 16, surrendering his forces to Lt. Gen Jagjit Singh Aurora. From Wikipedia

JFR.Jacob is the officer standing on the extreme right of this picture as General A.K Niazi of the Pakistani army signs the surrender document in 1971.

1 posted on 02/16/2005 10:36:47 AM PST by sukhoi-30mki

More about J.F.R. Jacob from J.F.R. Jacob - Wikipedia

Lt. General Jacob gained prominent fame in his homeland when he headed the Indian armed forces that vanquished the Pakistani army in the war of 1971 or Bangladesh Liberation War that broke out between the two countries over East Pakistan (which after the war became the independent state of Bangladesh). For his decisive role in the sweeping liberation of Bangladesh, Jacob was granted a commendation of merit.

In 1971, East Pakistan rebelled against the ruling elite of West Pakistan. The violence escalated when Yahya Khan, Pakistan's ruler, retaliated, with massive loss of life and the ethnic cleansing of Hindus from East Pakistan into India. When India's prime minister, Indira Gandhi, extended assistance to the ethnic Bengalis in East Pakistan, Indo-Pakistani tensions rose and war was declared. Having watched these developments with mounting concern, Jacob realized that conflict was imminent. He recalled:

We knew we would have to intervene, but we hardly had any infrastructure and had to build it up.

After consulting with superior officers, he chalked out a plan for engaging Pakistan in a "war of movement" in the difficult and swampy terrain of East Pakistan. An initial plan, given to the Eastern Command by General Maneckshaw, involved a brief incursion into East Pakistan and the capture of two provinces, Chittagong and Khulna. Senior members of the Indian Army were reluctant to execute an aggressive invasion for fears of early ceasefire demands by the United Nations and a looming threat posed by China. That, together with the difficulty of navigating the marshy terrain of East Pakistan through three wide rivers, led the higher-ups to believe that the capture of all of East Pakistan was inconceivable. Jacob, however, disagreed and favored his "war of movement" plan which aimed to take control of all of East Pakistan. Jacob felt that the capital city of Dhaka, located deep in East Pakistan, was the geopolitical center of the region and therefore any successful campaign had to involve deeper incursions into East Pakistan and the eventual capture of Dhaka. He realized that any campaign had to be successful and swift as the United Nations was pressing for a ceasefire (which would have been advantageous to Pakistan) and the Soviet Union (an ally of India at the time) were not interested in exercising their veto anymore. He realized that the Pakistani Army commander, Gen. Niazi, was going to fortify the towns and "defend them in strength". Jacob's plan was to bypass intermediary towns altogether using subsidiary tracks to get to Dhaka directly. His plan was eventually approved by the Eastern Command. The strategy would eventually lead to the capture of Dhaka, the heart of East Pakistan. The Pakistani forces would be bypassed, their communication centers would be secured and their command and control capabilities destroyed. His campaign plan would take three weeks, but was executed in two.

Jacob understood that a protracted war would not be in India's best interests. As fighting raged, he flew to Dhaka and wrested an unconditional surrender from Pakistan's military commander Lt.General A. A. K. Niazi, who would later accuse Jacob of blackmailing him into the surrender. Jacob quotes:

It was a total victory over a formidable, well-trained army. Had Pakistan fought on, it would have been difficult for us. We expected higher casualties.

The war was a significant victory for India, with nearly 100,000 Pakistani soldiers surrendering to the Indian Army (the second largest surrender in history after World War 2[2][3]). The war led to the independence of East Pakistan from the rest of Pakistan and the new nation of Bangladesh was formed.


This is not the end of the matter. As always, the Moslems although defeated on the field of battle go into the murder-and-demographic-outbreeding phase. So was it with the Moslems in Bangladesh.

Here is what Hugh Fitzgerald writes about the Moslem thrust to make Bangladesh Islamic by forcing out those who are not submitted to this ideology of underhanded tactics and dishonorable evil:

"Surely the non-Muslim government in India, and especially those in the all-important governments of the individual states, such as Gujarat or Uttar Pradesh or Kerala -- and the importance of those states, and their separate ways, is insufficiently understood by foreign makers of policy -- should take note of Islam's tenets and the history of Jihad-conquest. They should note the demographic conquest that India is now enduring in slow motion. The government and people of India should know, and keep constantly in mind, and make known elsewhere, the results of the discrimination, persecution, and even murder of Hindus by Muslims in Pakistan, where the Hindu percentage of the population has become one-tenth of what it was when Pakistan was formed. In Bangladesh (formerly East Pakistan) that population is one-fifth what it was, and has gone down steadily in both parts of Kashmir, where 400,000 Kashmiri pandits were driven out by the Muslims, and in India itself, where the Muslim share of the population steadily rises. And they should not hesitate to act decisively to make sure that the policy of appeasement of Islam, reflected in India's past foreign and domestic policies, does not continue."
-Fitzgerald: Non-Muslims in India and the "wrong signals"

[Emphasis mine. lw]


After defeat of Moslems, firmer measures than standing still and relying on the victory to assure that the defeat sticks must be taken. What these measures should be, I must leave to the imagination of the military-minded free (non-Moslem) reader, as the time to be open about the strategy to assure that there is no demographic or terrorist "bouncing back" of Moslems after their defeat in battle is not yet here (but nigh). Suffice it to say, the solution is most politically incorrect. Refer to the "Punjab-Sikh" section of "Even More Drastic Times Call for Even More Drastic Measures" for ideas.

Surrender at Dacca


Lt. Gen. JFR Jacob's tribute to Lt. Gen. J.S. Aurora
upon the latter's death:

"The man who broke Pakistan"

"When the Muslim population gets to a critical mass . . .

. . . you have problems"

What's the critical mass?

At what percentage does the Moslem population of a non-Moslem country become a dangerous problem?

Prof Israeli, an expert on Islamic history at Hebrew University in Jerusalem, has been brought to Australia by the Shalom Institute of the University of NSW.

He said Muslim immigrants had a reputation for manipulating the values of western countries, taking advantage of their hospitality and tolerance.

"Greeks or Italians or Jews don't use violence," he told Fairfax.

"When there are large Muslim populations who are prepared to use violence, you are in trouble.

"If there is only one or two per cent they don't dare to do it - they don't have the backing of big communities.

"They know they are drowned in the environment of non-Muslims and are better behaved."


LIFE can become untenable when the Muslim population of a non-Muslim country reaches about 10 per cent, as shown by France, a Jewish expert on Islam says.

The Australian Jewish News yesterday quoted Raphael Israeli as saying Australia should cap Muslim immigration or risk being swamped by Indonesians.

Professor Israeli told the Herald that was a misunderstanding. But he said: "When the Muslim population gets to a critical mass you have problems. That is a general rule, so if it applies everywhere it applies in Australia."

Professor Israeli, an expert on Islamic history from Hebrew University in Jerusalem, has been brought to Australia by the Shalom Institute of the University of NSW. The Australia-Israel Jewish Affairs Council is co-hosting many of his activities.

He said Muslim immigrants had a reputation for manipulating the values of Western countries, taking advantage of their hospitality and tolerance.

"Greeks or Italians or Jews don't use violence. There is no Italian or Jewish Hilaly [a reference to the controversial cleric Sheik Taj el-Din al Hilaly of Lakemba mosque]. Why?"

Professor Israeli said that when the Muslim population increased, so did the risk of violence.

"Where there are large Muslim populations who are prepared to use violence you are in trouble. If there is only 1 or 2 per cent they don't dare to do it - they don't have the backing of big communities. They know they are drowned in the environment of non-Muslims and are better behaved."

In Australia, Muslims account for about 1.5 per cent of the population.

Professor Israeli said that in France, which has the highest proportion of Muslims in Europe at about 10 per cent, it was already too late. There were regions even the police were scared to enter, and militant Muslims were changing the country's political, economic and cultural fabric, and demanding anti-Semitic and anti-Israel policies.

"French people say they are strangers in their own country. This is a point of no return.

"If you are on a collision course, what can you do? You can't put them all in prison, and anyway they are not all violent. You can't send them all back. You are really in trouble. It's irreversible."

Professor Israeli said that in Australia a few imams had preached violence. "You should not let fundamentalist imams come here. Screen them 1000 times before they are admitted, and after they are admitted screen what they say in the mosque."

He said some Muslims wanted to impose sharia (Islamic law) in their adopted countries, and when propaganda did not work they turned to intimidation.

Professor Israeli said his task was to describe, not prescribe. He also said his warning did not include immigrants, including Muslims, who simply wanted to improve their lot. As long as they respected the law and democracy, their numbers — Buddhist, Muslim or Jew — were immaterial. It became material when a group accepted violence.

"The trains in London and Madrid were not blown up by Christians or Buddhists but by Muslims, so it is them we have to beware," he said.

Keysar Trad, of the Islamic Friendship Association of Australia, said "Not only religious clerics need to be screened before entering Ausralia but also academics … this type of academic does nothing but create hatred, suspicion and division … We should review not only what the man has said but also those who have sponsored him, to see if they endorse those comments."

Copyright © 2007. The Sydney Morning Herald.

But . . .


In the usual bending-over-backwards show of "tolerance" . . .

The Jewish Board of Deputies has distanced itself from comments by an Israeli academic who says Australia should limit its number of Muslim immigrants.

Professor Raphael Israeli is quoted in the Australian Jewish News as saying that without such a migration cap Australia risks being swamped by Indonesians.

But Prof Israeli told the Herald his comments had been misunderstood.

"When the Muslim population gets to a critical mass you have problems," he said.

"That is the general rule - so if it applies everywhere, it applies in Australia."

But NSW Jewish Board of Deputies CEO Vic Alhadeff today distanced his organisation from the comments.

"The Jewish community dissociates itself from the comments by Israeli academic Raphael Israeli that Australia should limit the number of Muslim immigrants," he said in a statement.

Mr Alhadeff said the Jewish community did not believe racial or ethnic quotas were helpful.

"We do not believe in racial or ethnic quotas or stereotyping," he said.

"These comments do not reflect the position of the Jewish community and are unhelpful in the extreme.

"The Jewish community has a strong and proud record in fighting racism, and condemns all expressions of bigotry."

[Comment by lw: Once a country becomes Moslem, what % of the Jewish population can tolerate living under Sharia? Moslem countries are almost completely "Judenrein"--free of Jews. The land given to the Arabs that call themselves "Palestinians" are 100% free of Jews. Jews either do not understand Islam--koran, ahadith, etc. or they are suicidal. I believe the former holds true. It is way past time to educate the Jewish communities about Mohammed's plan for the Jews. The Moslem jihadists follow that plan--as in the case of "Mein Kampf"--what Moslems intend to do to Jews is spelled out in the koran. Jews better believe it. They pooh-poohed Hitler's intentions. Let them not make the same mistake again. The price they pay is too high.]

Prof Israeli, an expert on Islamic history at Hebrew University in Jerusalem, has been brought to Australia by the Shalom Institute of the University of NSW.

He said Muslim immigrants had a reputation for manipulating the values of western countries, taking advantage of their hospitality and tolerance.

"Greeks or Italians or Jews don't use violence," he told Fairfax.

"When there are large Muslim populations who are prepared to use violence, you are in trouble.

"If there is only one or two per cent they don't dare to do it - they don't have the backing of big communities.

"They know they are drowned in the environment of non-Muslims and are better behaved."


Copyright © 2007. The Sydney Morning Herald.


[Another view on at what % Moslems become an ever-present danger can be found at