Tuesday, July 29, 2008

India-Nepal Relations: When Magnanimity Misfires

(Book Review)
By Gautam Sengupta, Tue, 22 Jul 2008 NI Wire

Less than three years after it helped put Nepal back on the road to democracy, India’s reputation in the Himalayan nation lies in tatters. The mainstream democratic parties and the former Maoist rebels – the two forces that joined hands under Indian mediation to fight royal tyranny – today routinely criticise New Delhi for “meddling” in Nepalese affairs.

The Chinese, whose growing influence under the monarchy partly spurred New Delhi into action, have consolidated their position in the former kingdom. With the Maoists poised to lead the government, the process is likely to deepen. The Americans, too, have quietly extended overtures to the Maoists, something that is likely to raise Chinese anxieties. Simply put, India has lost the initiative in Nepal. Where did we go wrong? The Indian establishment has dug deep for answers ever since the Maoists defied pundits and pollsters to emerge as the single largest grouping in the constituent assembly elections held in April.

As the facilitator of the November 2005 charter that brought together the mainstream political parties and the Maoist rebels, New Delhi has since worked hard to ensure the peace process reached its logical conclusion. At the time, the Nepali Congress, the Unified Marxist-Leninists as well as the Maoists lauded India’s role. New Delhi shed its longstanding reluctance to third-party intervention and agreed to a United Nations role in bolstering the peace process. Now hardly a day goes by without one of the main protagonists berating India for interference.

This phenomenon is not new and India is not entirely at fault, as a new book, “The Raj Lives”, suggests. In this political history of India-Nepal relations, Nepali journalist Sanjay Upadhya tackles the supreme paradox of how traditional closeness has alienated the two countries. The book begins with the evolution of British India’s policies toward the expanding Gorkha kingdom. Indian readers can identify with the injustice Nepal suffered under British colonial rulers. What is certain to baffle them is Upadhya’s contention that independent India virtually upheld British policy.

Three years after Indian independence, Nepali exiles in India rose up against their feudal Rana oligarchy, which had usurped the powers of the monarchy a century earlier to establish a closed and tyrannical regime. King Tribhuvan sought and received asylum in India where he became the leader of the Nepali democratic movement. Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru mediated a compromise under which the monarchy regained its predominant role. The Ranas entered a coalition with the Nepali Congress with the express purpose of inaugurating democratic rule through free and fair elections. Nepali communists immediately denounced the compromise as a sellout, triggering a fresh round of instability.

Admittedly, India had its own motives in facilitating democratic change in Nepal. Mao Zedong’s capture of power in China in 1949 and the People’s Liberation Army’s subsequent invasion of Tibet had endangered India’s security. Sardar Ballabhbhai Patel was more wary of long-term Chinese motives in Nepal. Nehru, however, saw an independent and democratic Nepal as a cushion for India.

Clearly, that was short-sighted. As Nepal’s politicians squabbled for power, the monarchy steadily gained ground. Politicians actively courted India’s mediation in the most mundane of disputes. Those who lost out in the bargain immediately turned against India. During a visit to Kathmandu, Nehru was greeted with black flags. Nepal’s much delayed election did not seem to quell anti-Indianism. Prime Minister B.P. Koirala’s power struggle with King Mahendra, Tribhuvan’s son and successor, culminated in a palace coup.

India once again became the refuge of Nepali politicians and activists that evaded the palace crackdown. From Indian soil, the Nepali Congress, which enjoyed the moral support of leading Indian politicians, launched an armed insurgency. The royal government became increasingly vitriolic in accusing India of fomenting unrest. The war with China in 1962 prompted New Delhi to pursue quiet diplomacy as a means of democratic change. That bore fruit six years later when the royal regime freed B.P. Koirala and key associates from prison.

Shortly thereafter, they slipped into India to step up the fight against the monarchy. The Nepali Congress and the communists had become bitter rivals and the palace took full advantage of the rifts in the 1970s and 80s. King Birendra, Mahendra’s son and successor, announced Nepal’s intention to declare itself a “zone of peace,” a thinly disguised attempt to unilaterally define Nepal’s relations with India. In 1989, he purchased arms from China in a clear violation of agreements with India.

Kathmandu, moreover, raised issues that precluded the renewal/renegotiation of trade and transit treaties. Despite the expiry of the treaties, India granted landlocked Nepal continued access to two transit points, even though it was obliged under international law to provide only one. The royal government used international conferences to accuse India of imposing an economic embargo.

In early 1990, the Nepali Congress and communists finally buried their differences and launched a movement for a return to democracy. Indian political parties extended full moral support to the agitation and several Indian leaders visited Kathmandu. In a matter of weeks, the royal regime crumbled. Multiparty democracy was restored after a three-decade hiatus.

It did not take long for anti-Indian tirades to emanate from Nepal. The communists, as usual, were at the forefront, accusing India of trying to exploit Nepal’s river waters. Amid the infighting in the ruling Nepali Congress, the dissident faction accused Delhi of propping up Prime Minister Girija Prasad Koirala. For much of the 1990s, Delhi was accused of fomenting political instability, sponsoring the Maoist insurgency, engineering the hijacking of an Indian airliner to expose Nepal’s poor security capabilities. In June 2001, India was accused of complicity in the palace massacre of King Birendra and his entire family. When Gyanendra, Birendra’s brother and sole surviving heir, seized absolute powers, India once again became the center of the democracy movement.

What makes India such a recurrent theme of Nepali politics? Upadhya does not provide a clear answer. However, he explains how Nepalese sensitivities in a variety of areas such as trade and transit, military/security issues, water resources and the two countries’ open and largely unregulated border have reinforced a collective sense of victimhood. It is only toward the end of the book that Upadhya seems to lament the opportunities missed under entrenched political demagoguery in both countries.

Since India is the larger partner in a unique relationship defined by history, geography, religion and culture, it is tempting to expect us to become more magnanimous. Yet diplomacy cannot be a one-way street. New Delhi long extolled its “special relations” with Kathmandu, but Nepalis resented that description. In the mid-1990s, it applied the Gujral Doctrine of non-reciprocity, but received virtually no cooperation on clamping down on Pakistan-funded militant groups based in Nepal. The Maoists have vowed to abrogate the 1950 Treaty of Peace and Friendship with India, which most Nepalis consider a symbol of Indian hegemonism. Yet Upadhya’s book is replete with examples of how India has remained at the forefront of Nepal’s development process in the face of its own needs.

If Nepalis truly feel the 1950 Treaty is so iniquitous, then New Delhi perhaps would be wise to start a debate that would take relations with Nepal to the same level India’s has with its other South Asian neighbours. In an unintended way, perhaps, “The Raj Lives” provides an interesting framework for such discussions.


The Raj Lives: India In Nepal

Author: Sanjay Upadhya
Vitasta Publishing Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi
350 Pages; Hardbound
Edition: 2008
ISBN: 81-89766-73-2
Price: Indian Rs. 645

India-Nepal Relations: When Magnanimity Misfires (Book Review).



Monday, July 28, 2008

India makes 30 arrests after Muslim terror claims 45 lives

July 27, 2008, 9:02 PM (GMT+02:00)
Eight roadside bombs in the southern “Silicone Valley” town of Bangalore left two dead Friday, followed Saturday by 17 bomb blasts in Ahmedabad, where the death has risen to 43. At least 165 were injured.

Both were claimed by the Indian Mujahideen, which accounted for three of the four blasts in India since 2006, including the May blasts in Jaipur in which in which 65 people died.

The bombings in Ahmedabad and Bangalore were similar in nature, said Indian intelligence sources, using timers, ammonium nitrate, nuts, bolts and nails. Some of the devices were some strapped on bicycles. In Ahmedabad, the explosions were coordinated to maximize the deaths, striking the emergency teams responding to the first blasts and then targeting four hospitals.

Officials in New Delhi have accused Pakistan of a hand behind the recent upsurge of well-planned bomb attacks, including this month’s suicide attack on the Indian embassy in Kabul. Islamabad consistently denies the charge.

Copyright 2000-2008 DEBKAfile. All Rights Reserved.


Unfortunately India and Israel are both suffering with Moslem-placating governments of the Left, and thus, unless viciously attacked by Moslems and responding disproportionally, are little use in the West’s as yet unrecognized struggle against the Islamic demographic and overt onslaught.

Israel has shown that it can defeat Islamic armies as has India in its open warfare with Pakistan. A change in the goverments of Israel and India is mandatory to defeat Islamic intentions. Both countries need leaders who are willing and eager to punish the Islamic enemy so severly and repeatedly that he will realize the hopelessness of ever achieving his goal of killing the Jews of Israel and subjugating and converting the “kufar” of India, and thusly making their countries part of the Islamic world.

[close quote]

Comment by urbanadder22 — December 4, 2007 @ 6:13 am

http://www.israpundit.com/2007/?p=6655#more-6655 as Comment # 22

Entire post at

Islamabad says Mossad, Indian intelligence making trouble for Pakistan
DEBKAfile Special Report

July 27, 2008, 10:36 AM (GMT+02:00)
Pakistan’s intelligence agency Sunday, July 27, accused the Indian Research and Analysis Wing (RAW) and Israel’s Mossad of working hand in glove. They were blamed for stirring up trouble on the its common border with Afghanistan and planning terrorist activities inside Pakistan in conjunction with Khad (the former Afghan secret service).

DEBKAfile’s intelligence sources report that Islamabad, beset by accusations from New Delhi and Kabul of fomenting terror in their countries, injected the Israeli agency into the quarrel as an expedient for deflecting their attacks.

Afghan president Hamid Karzai has bluntly accused Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence (SIS) of engineering an attempt on his life at a parade on April 27, and aiding Taliban attacks in his country.

India has alleged SIS involvement in the suicide blast at its embassy in Kabul on July 7, killing 58 people, including a senior India diplomat and military attaché with the rank of brigadier.

Shortly after that atrocity, Indian foreign minister Shivshankar Menon said: “All our information points to elements of Pakistan being behind the blast.

In the last two days, Indian officials have charged Pakistan with backing the Muslim terrorist group which detonated 25 bombs in the western towns Bangalore and Ahmedabad, leaving 45 people dead and 165 injured.

Holding up their “Israel trump card” in reply, Pakistan’s intelligence agencies claimed to the media Sunday that they had asked the government to take “ample measures” to combat terrorism, which they alleged was linked to “Indian diplomatic missions in Afghanistan and Indian and Israeli spy outfits.”

They cited “certain evidence” indicating that Israel and Indian missions were behind “recent acts of terrorism in Balochistan,” where a bombing attack on a mosque in Quetta this month killed dozens of people.

DEBKAfile’s intelligence sources comment that smears of this kind would never have seen the light when president Pervez Musharraf was at the helm in Islamabad. However, Yousuf Reza Gilani’s new government has seriously undercut his authority and his connections in the army and security agencies.

By brandishing the Mossad bogy, the Islamabad regime sought to achieve four objectives.

1. To deflect Indian and Afghan charges that Islamabad is up to its neck in terrorism.

2. To tarnish the pro-Western Karzai government in Kabul, where the Mossad charge had a good chance of sticking in the eyes of Afghan tribal circles.

3. Implicating the Mossad in the Quetta attack was a high-risk stratagem arising from the Gilani government’s deepening ties with Tehran since taking power earlier this year.

Tehran has for some months fingered the American CIA for backing the Baluchi liberation movement’s terror campaign in Iranian Baluchistan next door as a means of getting at the central Islamic regime. Putting an Israeli label to the charge of supplying arms, explosives, funds and intelligence to Iranian Baluchi dissidents would make it hard for the Americans to rally recruits. Most Baluchis are devout Shiites and would have no truck with an Israeli agency.

Pakistan intelligence is therefore performing a valuable service for Tehran by implicating Israel in the Baluchi insurgency.

4. Gilani has hit on the Israeli Mossad as a rallying point for the Pakistan government, army and intelligence to back his negotiations with Taliban.
Copyright 2000-2008 DEBKAfile. All Rights Reserved.

Wednesday, July 23, 2008

Muslims are Not Islam

Bill Warner of politicalislam.com
makes the case:

Hello, Dalai--Muslim-ology is Not Islam

[From jihadwatch.com]

The Dalai Lama said Sunday that "it's totally wrong, unfair" to call Islam a violent religion. This is not the first time that the Dalai Lama has spoken up to say that Islam is not violent. Where does he get his information? He bases his statements on what his Muslim friends have told him.

For the Dalai Lama these Muslims represent the real Islam. They are not violent, and therefore, there is a peaceful Islam.

The Dalai Lama does not recognize the existence of a civilization called Islam. Islam has a highly detailed political doctrine that determines 100% of what a Muslim does to kafirs (kafirs is what the Koran calls unbelievers). This political doctrine includes what being "nice and moderate" to kafirs really means.

His opinions are of no consequence to Islam. Islam defines absolutely everything about a Muslim, down to how to say, "Hello".

Start with the basics. All Muslims believe that there is no god but Allah and Mohammed is his prophet. Simple, but it demands that Muslims follow the Koran and the perfect pattern of Mohammed's words and deeds (his Sunna). The Sunna is found in the Hadith (Traditions of Mohammed) and the Sira (Mohammed's biography). Today, these three texts, the Trilogy, are available in readable editions.

The doctrine of political and religious Islam is contained in these three books. It is very simple--three books--a Trilogy. To know Islam, read the Koran, Sira and Hadith; don't go and ask your Muslim friends.

This "peaceful Muslims = peaceful Islam" statements are actually about Muslim-ology, not Islam. It is perfectly fine to study Muslims, but do not draw conclusions about Islam from them. There is a cause and effect relationship that is confused. Islam causes Muslims. Muslims do not cause Islam. Muslim-ology teaches little about Islam.

This means that you judge Muslims by Islam, not Islam by Muslims. If you want to know anything about Islam read the Trilogy. If you want to know if someone is a moderate Muslim, use Islam to measure them, not personal opinion.

Islamic doctrine says that moderation consists of patterning your life after Mohammed's perfect example and living by the Koran. By this standard of moderation, Osama bin Laden is a moderate Muslim. Osama follows the example of Mohammed, the warrior jihadist, and the later Medinan Koran. The Koran has two parts and the second part is about politics and jihad. A jihadist is a moderate Muslim.

But wait, what about those other moderate Muslims? They follow the Islam of the earlier Meccan Koran. So they are moderate too.

Islam is dualistic and has two different kinds of moderate. Here is the bad news. Islam is a process, not just a name. Both the Koran and the Sira, Mohammed's life, show a process of starting off with civility, then demanding and next moving to violence as Islam grows stronger.

Mohammed preached the religion of Islam in Mecca for 13 years and gained 150 followers. He went to Medina and became a politician and warrior in jihad. In 10 years he conquered all of Arabia and died without an enemy left standing. Just as there are two Korans, there are two Mohammeds. Islam is dualistic in its nature.

Mohammed's life was a dualistic process, an Islamic process of success. Those "moderate" Muslims represent the early stages of Islamification. In Islam, doctrine matters, and doctrine is what the Dalai Lama doesn't understand. What is his justification for ignoring it? Read his statements and comments. He never, ever, not even once, quotes any Islamic doctrine. He merely asserts that his Muslim friends have told him what Islam is. What if he asked different Muslims? He would get different answers.

The Dalai Lama is a hypocrite. In addressing Buddhism, he is very careful to quote doctrine and facts. When he talks about Islam, he just repeats what his Muslim friends say.

Here is the real tragedy. The Dalai Lama is not different from George Bush or any other politician. They know absolutely nothing about Islam, just what their Muslim "friends" tell them.

When will we have leaders who can talk from knowledge about the doctrine of Islam found in the Koran, Sira and Hadith? Hello Dalai, if you want to be a leader quote the Koran, the Sira and the Hadith, not your Muslim friends.

Bill Warner

Signup for our weekly newletter.

copyright 2008, CBSX, Inc. dba politicalislam.com

Use this as you will, just do not edit and give us credit.


Monday, July 21, 2008

Nepal Maoists lose presidential vote:

state TV Mon Jul 21, 5:59 AM ET

[see "NEPAL: Should Indians Care?"]

Lawmakers in Nepal on Monday voted in the country's first post-royal president, Ram Baran Yadav, rejecting a candidate backed by the Maoists, state television said.

Yadav, who was backed by the centrist Nepali Congress party, won 308 out of 590 votes cast in Nepal's constitutional assembly.

Die-hard republican Ramraja Prasad Singh, the candidate backed by the former rebels, won 282 votes, state television said.

Although the presidency is a largely ceremonial position, the development could delay efforts by the Maoists -- who hold the most assembly seats but not a majority -- to form Nepal's first republican government.

The selection of a president, who can accept the resignation of caretaker prime minister Girija Prasad Koirala, is seen as a vital step to ending weeks of political deadlock after the assembly ousted unpopular King Gyanendra and ended the 240-year-old monarchy in May.

But the Maoists had threatened to refuse to form a government if their choice for the presidency was not elected, a move that would plunge the new Himalayan republic into more political turmoil.

The former rebels say that with a hostile president, they will have little chance of implementing key platform pledges like land reform and and will face constant risk of being toppled by rivals.

Copyright © 2008 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The information contained in the AFP News report may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without the prior written authority of Agence France Presse.
Copyright © 2008 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.


Nepal assembly votes in presidential run-off
by Deepesh Shrestha
Mon Jul 21, 3:51 AM ET

Nepal's lawmakers voted Monday in a run-off to elect the country's first president, in a vital step to ending weeks of political deadlock following the abolition of the country's monarchy.

The selection of a first post-royal head of state could bring Nepal's Maoists, who hold the most seats in a recently-elected assembly but do not have a majority, a step closer to finally forming a government.

But the Maoists -- dismayed after a first round of voting Saturday gave a rival candidate the edge -- threatened more turmoil by suggesting they would refuse to form a government if they lose the run-off.

"Most probably we will not join the government if our candidate loses the presidential post," Maoist party chief Prachanda told reporters after he voted Monday.

A loss would mean the rebels, who had earlier been slated to lead the next government, may not have the support to push a prime minister through a similar vote in the assembly.

Even if they manage to get a prime minister elected, the Maoists would have little chance of implementing any of their key pledges, including land reform and integrating their rebel fighters into the national army.

"We don't want to run the government in a state of blockade," said Baburam Bhattarai, the top-ranked Maoist leader after Prachanda, according to a report in the Himalayan Times daily Monday.

All but four of the 594 sitting lawmakers voted in a three-hour secret ballot, with results expected later Monday.

"We have received 590 ballots," chief election commissioner Manohar Prasad Bhattarai told AFP. "Four abstained from the voting."

If the rebels do lose and pull out of the government, Nepal would remain in the political limbo that began when the assembly abolished the 240-year-old Hindu monarchy in a landmark first meeting on May 28.

Interim prime minister Girija Prasad Koirala has since resigned, but with no one in power to accept his resignation, the elderly centrist has lingered on as a weak caretaker.

Political parties have squabbled for weeks over who should get the largely ceremonial but top-ranked post.

On Saturday, the candidate with the biggest number of votes, Ram Baran Yadav, fell 15 ballots short of the 298 needed to win.

Diehard republican Ramraja Prasad Singh, the candidate backed by the Maoists, won 270 votes.

A candidate fielded by Nepal's third main party won no votes, leaving Yadav and Singh to battle it out in the run-off.

Both candidates are ethnic Mahadhesis who hail from the troubled lowland area bordering India known as the Terai, where demands for an autonomous federal state have seen frequent deadly clashes.

"I am confident about my win today as I have gathered support from small leftist and rightist parties who had boycotted the earlier election," Yadav told AFP Monday.

The political infighting among Nepal's three main parties bodes ill for a two-year-old peace process that saw the Maoist rebels lay down their arms after waging a decade-long war for a republic.

The three parties had pledged to work closely together to write a new constitution for Nepal, as well as resolve years of human rights violations by both the army and rebel fighters.

Copyright © 2008 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The information contained in the AFP News report may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without the prior written authority of Agence France Presse.
Copyright © 2008 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.

NEPAL: Should Indians Care?
Once Hindu Nepal to give Muslims rights

Monday, July 14, 2008

The Largest Hindu Communities

Top 10 Most Hindu Countries -Countries with the Highest Proportion of Hindus


Two Unlikely Allies Come Together in Fight Against Muslims
Click on the above to read the article!

See http://hinduunity.org/, which is the website that was shut down.

''We are fighting the same war . . . . Whether you call them Palestinians, Afghans or Pakistanis, the root of the problem for Hindus and Jews is Islam.''

[Caveat! Beware! This comes from the New York Times, which is prejudiced as concerns non-Leftist Jews as well Hindus who do not knuckle under to Moslems]


Militant Jews and Hindus in New York find common bond in anti-Muslim feelings; Jews in Brooklyn, who are members of Meir Kahane's organization advocating expulsion from Israel of all Arabs, rallied to aid of Hindu fundamentalists, whose Web site was closed down by server because of violent views expressed; members of both groups intend to return to homes in Israel and India to fight what they see as encroaching threat of Islam;

photos June 2, 2001



Friday, July 11, 2008

Post-royal political deadlock drags on in Nepal

Thu Jul 10, 11:55 AM ET

Nepal's Maoists said Thursday they were still unable to form a government and fill a post-monarchy political vacuum because ethnic parties from the south were holding up the process.

The impoverished Himalayan nation has effectively been without a proper government since May 28, when a newly-elected constitutional assembly voted to sack unpopular king Gyanendra, abolish the 240-year-old monarchy and proclaim a republic.

Two weeks ago interim prime minister Girija Prasad Koirala -- who steered the country through a two-year long peace process -- also resigned to make way for the Maoists to form a government.

The former rebels won most seats in the constitutional assembly elections, but not enough to form a government by themselves.

Senior Maoist official Krishna Bahadur Mahara said the process was now being blocked by ethnic Mahadhesis from the southern plains, a community that has long complained of being left out of the corridors of power by Nepal's hill elite.

The Mahadhesis from the Terai lowlands on the border with India -- home to around half of the country's 27 million population -- want an autonomous federal state, and hold 81 seats in the 601-member assembly.

"The demands from Mahadhesi community has certainly delayed the formation of the government," Mahara told AFP, but said progress was being made in closed door talks with representatives of the ethnic group.

"We are looking forward to end the ongoing political vacuum as we have reached the deal with the Mahadhesi leaders to incorporate their demands in the amendment of the interim constitution," he said.

"The process to form the government will begin as soon as the interim constitution is amended by the assembly," he said, but added debate on that would not start before next Monday.

Nepal's constitutional assembly is tasked with rewriting the country's constitution, and will also function as a de facto parliament until that work is complete.

Copyright © 2008 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The information contained in the AFP News report may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without the prior written authority of Agence France Presse.

Copyright © 2008 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.


Thursday, July 10, 2008

Once Hindu Nepal to give Muslims rights

10 Jul 2008, 0007 hrs IST,PTI

The Times of India

Thanks to
Dhimmi Watch

KATHMANDU: The Nepal Maoists, who played a key role in abolishing the 240-year-old Hindu monarchy and turning the country into a secular state, have vowed to ensure special rights to the minority Muslim community in the Himalayan nation.

"It is not enough to provide equal rights to the Muslims but they should be given special rights as compensation for having been suppressed," CPN-Maoist chairman Prachanda told a gathering of the Muslim Mukti Morcha (MMM), an organisation affiliated to the party of the former rebels.

Prachanda's support for special rights for the Muslims is seen as an attempt to garner the sympathy of the minority community, which mainly resides in the Terai-plains bordering India where the Maoists suffered setbacks in the April constituent assembly polls.

Declaring Nepal a secular nation was one of the 40-point demands put forth by the Maoists in 1996 when they started their insurgency in the country. Prachanda, who is poised to become the PM, promised to form a ‘Muslim commission' for the welfare of the minority community and develop pilgrimage sites of the community as tourist destinations.

In the past, the Maoist cadres were known to slaughter cows in remote villages and even punish people for celebrating Dusshera and Diwali. Despite being a Hindu nation, the government provided equal opportunity to the Muslim and Christian minorities.

17 comments on this story. Read them and post your own.


Sunday, July 6, 2008


War Models
By Prof. Paul Eidelberg

Nazi Germany never attacked, killed or wounded a single American on the American continent. Yet the U.S. declared war on Germany, bombed its industrial and civilian centers, invaded its territory, but not before invading and liberating France – at the necessary cost of killing civilians. America’s war policy? “Unconditional surrender.” The outcome? Germany surrendered, unconditionally.

North Korea, a Soviet proxy, never attacked, killed or maimed a single American on the American mainland. Yet the U.S., under United Nations auspices, waged war against North Korea (some 10,000 kilometers away), bombed and invaded its territory, killing many thousands of civilians in the process, until driven out by the Chinese. America’s war policy? Restoration of the status quo ante. The outcome was precisely that: Korea remained divided. The U.S. did not win the war and did not lose – except tens of thousands of American soldiers.

North Vietnam, another Soviet client, never attacked, killed or wounded a single American on American soil. Yet the U.S. waged an undeclared war against that distant nation, bombed it by air and by sea, but, most significantly, refrained from sending ground forces into North Vietnam. America’s war policy? Withdrawal of Communist forces from South Vietnam and restoration of the status quo ante. The outcome? A “political solution” leaving Communists in the south. After a “decent interval,” the Soviet client conquered America’s ally.

Now a brief commentary on these wars examined in reverse order.

Both as a private citizen and presidential candidate, Ronald Reagan regarded the Vietnam War as “immoral” Why? Because it was based on what he and others called a “no win” policy (precisely the policy of Israeli governments). Informed by expert military opinion, Mr. Reagan took the position that if two U.S. divisions had been sent into North Vietnam in 1965 – and there was then no sound reason to fear Chinese intervention – the war would have soon been over.

More than 50,000 Americans would not have lost their lives. North and South Vietnam would not have suffered a million civilian casualties. South Vietnam would not now be living under a Communist tyranny.

And the world, so conscience-stricken about civilian casualties resulting from Israel’s retaliations against Arab terrorists, would not have witnessed – without evincing a breath of moral outrage – the genocidal murder of an estimated three million Cambodian women, men, and children.

Returning to the Korean War, most of the American casualties occurred during the protracted negotiations with the Communist at Panmunjom. It’s not easy – indeed, it may be inane – to negotiate with Communists, or with any group ideologically committed to your ultimate demise.

With that as their long-range objective, such enemies are infinitely more patient than democratic politicians. Besides, they don’t have to worry about the next election, about public opinion or about sensation-seeking journalists who can count trees without seeing the forest.

Nor do they have to concern themselves about pacifists, leftists, multinational corporations, and, sad to say, opportunists in rival parties animated by partisan and personal interests.

It’s not easy to negotiate with Communists who scorn the bourgeois prejudice that all conflicts can be solved by peaceful means. And so the Communists dragged out the negotiations at Panmunjom, waiting for divisive elements in the U.S. to do their work for them.

The only thing Communists (and their Arab counterparts) respect is force. In dealing with such people, nothing is more cruel than kindness – or what democrats like to call “self-restraint” or “moderation,” qualities despised as weakness by these enemies of democracy.

If any conflict refutes the bandied-about notion that wars solve no problems, it is World War II. That war resulted in the destruction of what was then the most dangerous tyranny on earth, Nazi Germany.

Now, if Israel were looking for a war-making model against the successors of the Nazis – not only Hamas but also the Fatah-led Palestinian Authority adored by the Condoleezza Rice – surely one would not recommend the Vietnam model devised by Henry Kissinger, for which he received a Nobel Peace Prize. The Vietnam Accords left 140,000 Communist troops in South Vietnam. Nor would one recommend the Korean model in which interminable negotiations resulted in the mere restoration of the status quo ante.

If any model is appropriate in dealing with Israel’s implacable enemies, it is the model used by the United States against Nazi Germany.

[color emphasis mine. lw]

Thursday, July 3, 2008

NEPAL: Should Indians Care?

Yes, if you believe in an India not controlled by Communists in league with Moslems!

How do these apparently opposing political movements (quasi-religion [political ideology] vs. atheism) work hand-in-hand to impose Leftist control on a country?

It is happening in all "democracies"--all over the world: from Israel to India, and of course including the United States in a big way as well as those oh-so-Liberal EU countries.

The Left and the Islamics are working hard to bring countries under their control. But the Left does not appear to be aware that once it has destroyed opposition to a sharia dictatorship, it will follow, as sure as day turns to night.

Mutant Pacifist blog brings up this subject near to India's heartland):

from http://mutantpacifist.blogspot.com/2008/06/nepals-hugo-chavez-on-route-to-absolute.html

Prepare to see Nepal go the way of Venezuela

For those who have forgotten, Nepal has been subjected to a series of odd and disturbing incidents in the last decade. First, there was the mysterious massacre of nearly the entire royal family, which allowed a nasty royal uncle to come to power. His gross misrule encouraged the China-sponsored Maoist terrorists roaming Nepal's hillsides to gain popular support. In the guise of restoring democracy and fighting feudalism, the Maoists joined other groups across Nepal to demand new elections.

Nepal's own would-be Hugo Chavez, the terrorist and aspiring tyrant Prachanda, agreed to allow elections because he was confident his party would do well. And if it hadn't done well? He had a contingency plan. In that case, he would have denounced the elections as "fraudulent" and returned to terrorism. All went smoothly for Prachanda however. The king was not only chased into exile, the monarchy itself was abolished.

And now Prachanda is one step closer to creating his dream of a Communist dictatorship, with himself as head of state:

Nepal's interim Prime Minister, Girija Prasad Koirala, has announced that he has resigned.

Correspondents say the move paves the way for the former rebel leader, Prachanda, who heads the Maoist party, to succeed Mr Koirala.

It hasn't taken Prachanda and his fellow puppets long to accede to the string-pulling of their paymasters in Beijing. The "United States expressed concerns over the harsh treatment meted out to the Buddhist exiles by the security forces in..." Lhasa? No. Kathmandu.

The United States has expressed serious concerns over the harsh treatment meted out by Nepalese security forces to Tibetans, particularly three leaders of the Buddhist community, linked to the anti-China protests in Kathmandu.

Nepal police has arrested Kalsang Chung, Ngawang Sangmo and Tashi Dolma, raiding their houses and accusing them of instigating anti-China activities in Nepal. They have been put in jail under the draconian Public Security Act with three month sentence.

Note that the "Public Security Act, which allows for preventive detention for up to 90 days, with a possible extension of up to 12 months, while authorities investigate alleged criminal offences" used to arrest the Buddhists is the same law used by the previous regime to silence protest. (See the HRW link, above.)

Newspapers have also had to suspend operations after attacks and death threats from Maoists.

Journalist Hemanta Paudel was threatened on 27 May, and journalist Lucky Chaudhari was assaulted on 28 May, for publishing news reports about incidents involving Maoists which had occurred at the Beheda Temple and Mahadev Pond.

Due to these threats, journalists approached the DAO to ask for protection.

However, Rana and Fulram Chaudhari called upon villagers to gather and attack the journalists again. They were entering DAO by force, upon which DAO security officers opened fire to control the violence. Three people were killed in the clash. Lucky Chaudhari has had to stop working at his workplace.

FNJ denounces the incident saying that it is shameful that journalists are being attacked by top local leaders of a political party who should be committed to protecting journalists and press freedom.

Watch things get worse.
Posted by Mutant Pacifist at 2:49 PM
Anand said...
Thanks for covering Nepal. It doesn't get nearly enough coverage.


Thousands are dying in Nepal and no one seems to care.

Is Prachanda really a nut? I wish he were a Chinese puppet. At least then he would be a free market globalizing capitalist.

But if Prachanda is insane then that is bad for India, China, and the rest of the world--because failed states facilitates organized crime against everyone.

India and America should try to formulate a joint strategy with China to deal with Prachanda if possible. There are some older Chinese who see Prachanda as a way to bleed India (hence his past patronage.) But younger more pro business Chinese don’t see it that way, and might be open to collaboration.

[color emphasis mine. lw]

Monday, June 30, 2008 6:02:00 PM PDT

Mutant Pacifist said...

Is Prachanda crazy enough to believe his own propaganda, or merely a power-hungry pragmatist? I fear the two are not incompatible.

Trying to coordinate with China to control Nepal may soon be as fruitless as trying to get China to control North Korea. Sure, maybe it's the only game in town, but you have to realize that China is the one propping up the regime in the first place.

Frankly, if I were India, I wouldn't be willing to cede that much power to China just yet. Maybe Nepal can still be brought back from the brink. I think that rather than put too much faith in high-level diplomacy to control Prachanda, India should focus on supporting grass-roots, nonviolenct resistance to any attempts to turn Nepal into a full fledged dictatorship.

Monday, June 30, 2008 11:43:00 PM PDT

Anand said...

China "DID" help with North Korea, and "DID" help with Pakistan and Afghanistan after 9/11. China informed Pakistan that they had to act against AQ linked networks.

China also publicly pledged themselves alongside Iran, Russia, India and the Stans on 9.12.01 that they would support the Northern Alliance as the legitimate government of Afghanistan and assist them against the Taliban. This was invaluable.

China did this because AQ linked networks are a major threat to China. Similarly North Korean nuclear weapons are a major threat to China (since it causes Japan, South Korea and possibly Taiwan to go nuclear, since it destabilizes the Korean peninsula in ways that make a North Korean collapse and millions of North Korean refugees fleeing to China more likely, and because North Korea has a habit of selling dangerous weapons to the highest bidder and China didn’t want to risk North Korea selling weapons to terrorists.)

Similarly, today India’s largest trading partner is China (#2 is America.) China’s economic relationship with India is critical to the regime. Bad relations with India threaten China. A collapsed failed Nepalese state could lead to millions fleeing Nepal (mostly to India, but some to China as well.) Finally, organized crime and terrorism are major challenges confronting China. For these reasons China may not want to risk a failed Nepalese state.

In any case, I think India and America should collaborate closely on Nepal and as far as possible speak with one voice on the issue.

Other topic:

B Raman thinks Prachanda is bad news. Doesn't trust Prachanda as far as he can throw him. I hope B Raman is wrong, but we have to accept the possibility that he is right.

Monday, June 30, 2008 11:59:00 PM PDT
Mutant Pacifist said...

Yes, China can help with North Korea and Pakistan, but China's goals and the goals of free nations only coincide so far. China actually has an armed border with North Korea; they don't want that state doing anything crazy. (A war between China and NK is not impossible.) But even less, I suspect, does China want that border to become the border with a free, united and democratic Korea.

Same with Nepal. A truly free, democratic and stable Nepal would almost certainly gravitate toward India, and definitely become a stepping stone for Tibetan activism. China doesn't want Nepal to become a failed state, but they don't want it to be a successful democracy either. So, I really, really think it's a bad idea to give China too much power or credit when it comes to stopping Nepal's slide into dictatorship. A strong, stable dictatorship is what China wants there.

I guess I should do a little more digging into Prachanda. What I've read of him so far has made me very uneasy.

Tuesday, July 1, 2008 10:09:00 AM PDT

Post a Comment


Nepal Becomes Federal Democratic Republic

Wednesday, July 2, 2008



". . . there were hardly any Moors left in Spain. The re-conquistadors also destroyed all mosques, and reconverted them into Churches"

sic semper musulmanes (ojala)


Tuesday, July 1, 2008

Indian Kashmir revokes decision to hand over land

1 July 2008

SRINAGAR, India - Indian Kashmir formally revoked Tuesday a decision to hand over land to Hindu pilgrims after days of violent protests that left four dead and nearly 350 injured in the Muslim region.

The decision was taken by the state cabinet which met in Srinagar, summer capital of the scenic Himalayan state where a bloody revolt has raged against Indian rule for nearly two decades.

The government order 'is hereby cancelled,' an official statement said.

The statement said the state government had taken charge of logistics for a major annual Hindu pilgrimage to a mountain grotto, scrapping a move to allocate land to a religious trust so it could build accommodation.

That decision provoked the riots in and around Srinagar.

Revocation of the order came as top separatists were placed under house arrest by police in a bid to avert more protests and a strike shut shops, schools, banks and post offices for a ninth day here.

The entire separatist political leadership was under house arrest, except for hardliner Syed Ali Geelani who managed to evade police, police officer Pervez Ahmed said.

Among those detained were the region's leading cleric Umar Farooq, Shabir Shah, known as Kashmir's Nelson Mandela for the years he has spent in Indian jails and Yasin Malik.

The protests had continued despite a weekend promise by Chief Minister Ghulam Nabi Azad that his cabinet would scrap the plan to allow a Hindu trust to build accommodation for visitors to a Hindu shrine.




Published: June 28, 2008

SRINAGAR, Kashmir (AP) — Tens of thousands of Muslim demonstrators filled the streets in Indian-controlled Kashmir on Friday, burning flags and effigies of Indian leaders on a fifth day of protests against the transfer of land to a Hindu shrine.

Protesters clashed with riot police officers in several parts of Srinagar, the main city in the region, which has a Muslim majority. The police responded with tear gas, said Prabhakar Tripathi, a spokesman for the Central Reserve Police Force.

Three people have died and dozens of others, including at least 22 police officers, have been wounded since Monday, as the police have struggled to control angry mobs protesting the transfer of 99 acres of land by the state government to the Shri Amarnath Shrine Board, a trust running the popular Hindu shrine.

Protesters accuse the Indian government of planning to build Hindu settlements in India’s only Muslim-majority state in an effort to change the demographic balance in the region.

Anti-Indian sentiment is strong in Kashmir, where nearly a dozen militant groups have been fighting since 1989 for independence or a merger with neighboring Pakistan. But Kashmiris had been enjoying a period of relative calm until this week’s protests, which rank among the angriest displays in two decades.

In an effort to ease tensions, the chief minister of the state of Jammu and Kashmir, Ghulam Nabi Azad, promised Wednesday that there would be no construction on the transferred land and pledged to meet with local political parties to address the protesters’ grievances.

The Amarnath shrine is a cave that houses a large ice stalagmite revered by Hindus as an incarnation of Siva, the god of destruction and reproduction. Hundreds of thousands of Hindus are descending on the area as part of an annual pilgrimage to the cave.

This year, as in the past, thousands of soldiers are guarding the pilgrims’ route. In previous years, the pilgrims made tempting targets for militant Islamist separatists, who claim that India, which has a Hindu majority, uses the event to bolster its claim over the Kashmir region.

from http://islamicdangerstill.blogspot.com/2007/12/even-more-drastic-times-call-for-even.html:

As a rule of thumb, muslims are peaceful as long as they are below acertaincritical thresholdAs soon as they cross that threshold, they are a menace
The key then is to dilute muslims below the critical mass
This critical mass is a function of the local kafir community
For example, among a sikh host, the critical % for muslims is about 65%Among PC infected white Europeans, this critical % is 5%
Next is a policy of active containment
For example strict law enforcement
In Gujurat, Modi has tamed the muslims by periodically cutting off
electricity to muslim areas
and getting them to sweat in the hot Indian sun
and giving the police a free hand to thrash muslims
Strict law enforcement has a side effect, each time the more jihadist
elements come out to protest, thrash them
and the rest get tame

Interestingly the only 2 areas in India free of islamic terrorism is
Indian punjab, where sikhs solved the problem in 1947 and Gujurat where Modi used
islamic methods on muslims

Also another tactic used by hindus in India is economic boycott
For example even in Mumbai, no hindu rents a house to a muslim.


Also See . . .

Islam Hit India First in the Sindh