The idea behind Pakistan

In previous posts I explored the idea behind nation states and their idea behind India.
(Also read 58 years old anguish)

In this post I will try to establish idea behind Pakistan. This may be biased because of general state of hostilities between India and Pakistan and as a result negative perception. But unlike Pakistan this bias is not institutionalized in India.

The popular perception of partition in India is as a tragic end to the Indian Freedom Movement. The villain of this tragedy is of course Mohammad Ali Jinnah and the heroes are Mahatma Gandhi/Jawahar Lal Nehru. In this perception then the idea of Pakistan is a great betrayal of Hindu-Muslim utopia, and as usual British is the serpent who brought the evil of discord.

Reality in my view is a little more complicated. The chain of historical events is little tangled than popular perception. But it was not until British had colonized and institutionalized a system of oppression that the Indians begin to realize their identity as Indian which until then had existed in subconscious as a cultural aspect rather than a political unit.

Here I am differing from conventional wisdom of resident anglophiles because for them the very concept of India as a concept came only because of British.

In my view unification of India as a political entity in some form was inevitable once traditional monarchies had declined.

This realization of a unity was a major revolution in Indian psyche. The struggles which had started in various parts of country started to coalesce as one freedom movement. There was a related development, beginning of reform movement's .19th century for India was truly a period of reawakening, great souls like Swami Vivekananda, Guru Narain Swami, Ramachandra Paramhansa brought a upheaval in a stagnant nation. The identity of a future political India was being defined by these movements.

When patriots like Bhagat Singh, Ram Prasad Bismil, Ashfaq ulla Khan and Rajendra Lahiri sacrificed their life it was for this identity, a very real India.

This movement attracted people from all religions, caste and creed.
However at the time when this was happening, there was another churning.

This was of Muslim intellectuals, similar to Hindu counterparts they also came from either land holders or newly emerging middle class. For them there was a dilemma. There were various reasons for it.

One was the realization that a future democracy will inevitably mean preponderance of Hindus as opposed to the past where it was Muslims who held the absolute power. Other view was which was ready to share power, but which could not reconcile that even after 800 years of Islamic rule, India remained Hindu (Mohammad Iqbal lamented about this in one of his couplets).
There was yet another suspicion about the Hindu reform movements, which were also reawakening not only Hindus but influencing Indian freedom movement as well.
These reasons made Muslim intellectual from identifying with the main stream movement, for them the Hindu influence on movement meant sub ordination of Muslim element. Therefore the earliest proponent of a separate homeland for Indian Muslims were not fundamentalists or demagogues but moderates like Sir Saiyyad Ahmed Khan ( who advised Muslims to adapt English customs to the extent of drinking alcohol and eating pork ) and Sir Mohammed iqbal (who ironically wrote one of the most patriotic song).

This group sought to establish a separate political constituency of Indian Muslims.

And therein lies the fallacy viz. what is an Indian Muslim and how is an Indian Muslim different from Indian or how is he different from a Muslim to entail a separate nation.

In my view it is not possible, either Indian Muslim had to learn to adjust within India, or submit to doctrine of Ummah.

Ironically Sir Iqbal wanted to release Islam from clutch of "Arab Imperialism",

However by rooting for a ill thought demand the intellectuals ensured the opposite.
Ofcourse the reason Pakistan was created was because for one a coalition of diverse interest joined the intellectuals. For example Landlords in UP and Punjab went with Muslim league as they were against policy of land distribution. However in East Bangla Muslim peasantry joined Muslim league precisely to grab land from Hindu landowners.
Similarly while Barelvi school of Islamic thought rooted for partition Deobandi was against it. Similarly Aligarh Muslim University was centre of partition movement.

For another myopic policy of appeasement pursued by Mahatma Gandhi led Congress. By supporting Khilafat Movement and ignoring repeated acts of violence by radical Muslims in Bengal and Kerala, he only ensured that separatist elements will be emboldened.Whether Pakistan was possible without Jinnah is a matter of debate ofcourse, in my view it would have been created no matter what, this is however against the conventional wisdom.

The result was creation of a Mothballed Pakistan, Lucknow, Delhi, Hyderabad and Bhopal which were major centers of Muslim influence remained in India. So did a majority of Muslim population. It was ironic as the demand for Pakistan had originated from Muslims of UP.

The Pakistan that was created was doomed to be in eternal dilemma. In order to assert it's distinction from India it adapted a negative mindset. The results are hilarious (asserting that Pakistan represents Indus civilization which is distinct from Gangetic civilization ) to ridiculous (christening missiles after invaders who looted Pakistan ) to tragic (continuing talibanization).

The solution, I am against reunification, Partition was a messy divorce and as Indian I want to
leave it behind. In fact I am more interested in relationship with Japan and USA.
With one billion Indians, I do not feel any compulsion for Bhai – Bhai sloganeering either. In short, Pakistan is free to join Caliphate, India has to go forward and that will mean each and every Indian irrespective of the caste and creed.
For this to happen, Indian Muslims will have to come out of mental ghettos.

Categories : Religion , India , History , Civilization , Culture , Society , Secularism

BJP backs Government

Via Indian Express

BJP stands by Govt on Iran vote

and

BJP welcomes Bush visit but cautions on N-deal


This is a good news, I hope this trend continues. The way for BJP to recover is to act as a responsible opposition rather than play traunt.

Cartoon Brouhaha - II

One of the best quotes is from Instapundit

http://instapundit.com/archives/028567.php

"..When people riot over cartoons as tame as these, you'd think it would be news.."

And

"....As I've said, when you reward violence and efforts at violent intimidation, you'll get more of them.I also think that if the press is this scared of Islamic extremists, claims that Bush is manufacturing an artificial climate of fear regarding Islamic extremism ring rather hollow ....."

and from this

http://instapundit.com/archives/028442.php

"... Once they see how easily media and government officials are intimidated by such threats, of course, that may change -- which is yet another reason why appeasement is a bad approach..."

Also his video of CNN appearence

As I have said western media had failed by its timid response to the controversy.

Meanwhile this link (http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/810) from LGF,

We are being pissed upon

I think it was the long departed H.C. Hansen, one of the great Danish statesmen of the last century, who – as the communists were demonstrating in front of Christiansborg [the Danish Parliament] – cast his gaze across the palace square and remarked: "I will not be pissed upon."
Then he did what was necessary.
I feel that currently my beloved country is being pissed upon rather too much. Denmark has not been neglecting its duties on the international stage. We have supported poor people with acts and advice, we have worked for peace, we have sent soldiers, policemen and experts to all the far flung corners of the world. We have democracy, a rule of law and a welfare state. Not all is perfect, but we harbor no malice towards our fellow men.
And yet Denmark is being pissed upon. The spokesman of the US State Department is pissing on Denmark, the British Secretary of Foreign Affairs is pissing on Denmark, the President of Afghanistan is pissing on Denmark, the Government of Iraq is pissing on Denmark, other Muslim regimes are pissing on Denmark. In Gaza, where Danes for years have provided humanitarian aid, crazed Imams encourage people to cut off the hands and heads of the cartoonists who made the drawings of Mohammed for the Jyllands-Posten newspaper.
Excuse my choice of words, but all this pissing is pissing me off.
What is going on? I am not referring so much to the threats against Danish citizens and Danish commerce. Nor to the burnt down Embassies. I am thinking of a word that keeps popping up whenever the Mohammed cartoons are mentioned.
That word is BUT. A sneaky word. It is used to deny or qualify what one has just said.
How many times lately have we not heard people of power, the Opinion Makers and others say that of course we have freedom of speech, BUT.
They have said it, all of them, from Kofi Annan, the UN Secretary General, to our own Bendt Bendtsen [a Danish Politician]. Once we had to be sensitive to the easily hurt feelings of the Nazis, then came the Communists, now it is the Islamists. The reason I say 'Islamists' is that I do not for a moment believe all the world's Muslims are pissing on us. I think we are dealing with thugs, fools and misled people. Those are the ones we have to deal with, and then the chickenshit politicians.
The cartoons are no longer something Jyllands-Posten can control. They have already been manipulated and misrepresented to the point that few know what is going on and fewer know how to stop it. This affair is artifically being kept buoyant in a sea of lies, suppressions of the truth, misconceptions, lunacy and hypocrisy, for which this newspaper bears no blame. The only thing Jyllands-Posten did was provide a pin-prick which has made a boil of nastiness erupt. This would have happened sooner or later. That it happened more than four months after the publication of the cartoons, raises a question of its own. Are we dealing with random events or with a staged clash of civilizations? One might hope for the former yet be prepared to expect the latter.
That is why I say: Freedom of Speech is Freedom of Speech is Freedom of Speech. There is no but.
Initially I was doubtful of the timeliness of publishing the cartoons. Later events have convinced me that it was both just and useful to do so. That they are consistent with Danish law and Danish custom seem to me less important than this: that we now know that remote, primitive countries deem themselves justified in telling us what to do. Unfortunately we must also note that governments close to us are agreeing with them in the name of expedience.
It was right and just for this newspaper to launch an offensive for Freedom of Speech, and useful, as we have now acquired new knowledge. Welcome to a brave new world where even our Prime Minister – in spite of his laudable firmness – must gaze out upon a scorched political landscape. True, his friend in Washington, George Bush, has uttered the customary condemnation of the torching of our embassies, but his State Department alludes to us as being the guilty ones in this case. The suggestion that Danish troops might contribute to democratization is buried under the charred remains of our diplomatic representations in Beirut and Damascus.
Perhaps it is time we started mopping up this mess. Perhaps Editor-in-Chief Carsten Juste ought to remove his apology which has gone stale sitting so long on the front page of our internet edition and which does not seem to interest the madmen. Perhaps our government ought to announce to Mona Omar Attia, the strange Ambassador of Egypt, that she is persona non grata.
Perhaps the ambassadors that have been called home to fictitious consultations in the Middle East should be told that they may spare themselves the cost of the return ticket.
In so far as possible The Lying Imams probably ought to be expelled. And then we ought to make an effort to support those Muslims who in a difficult situation have proven themselves to be true Citizens.
We, for our part, have no wish to be a burden to the Arab governments. We will happily withdraw our soldiers, policemen and diplomats. If they think our money smells, we will retract our aid. Our trade must make do as well as it can. We promise to not bear a grudge and, in time, we will be glad to return, but we are through with the hypocrisy. We have better things to do than being pissed upon at our own expense.
Cut down our activities in the Middle East. The world holds plenty of other opportunities.

Categories : Society , Civilization , Media , Politics , International , Secularism , Religion

Seeds of division

This will explain why I am not a fan of Congress or Communists.

(Via Indian Express)

In Jan, Army HQ said: such data bad for morale

".. On January 9 this year, the Army Headquarters put on record its objections to the UPA Government panel's questions on Muslims, their ranks and their roles in the armed forces. ...."

"...Sending the list of Muslim officers and their ranks, Army Headquarters wrote to the Defence Ministry that collation of such data could affect troop morale as it could play into the hands of those who wanted to give it a particular political flavour.
Army Headquarters also underlined that the force followed an open, merit-selection system without quota or reservations on the basis of caste, creed or religious denominations...."

Defense forces remain one of the few institutions which inspire Indians irrespective of creed or caste.

However, UPA government in order to pursue narrow minded political interest is trying its best to undermine it.

What is more disheartening BJP which should be pinning UPA government for this, is in a comatose state.

              Categories : Secularism , Politics , Security , India

Cartoon Brouhaha

Originally posted here, but the formatting is going wrong so reposting it

Recent controversy over publication of cartoons of Prophet Mohammed have raised questions about freedom of speech and whether publishing the cartoons was an appropriate action. This post is not intended about freedom of speech, freedom of speech is a complicated subject and I am not yet able to formulate a coherent view on it. This is also not about if there can be a reasonable limit to free speech. This is limited to discussion about cartoons in questions.

There were twelve cartoon in all published by the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten. In addition there were three cartoons which were circulated by Danish Imams during their tour of middle east, one of which depicted Prophet as a pig,these however have been proven as forgeries with a aim to provoke Arab street by Danish Imams.

Out of the twelve cartoons(Which can be seen here) , I found two (or may be three?) of them tasteless, even derogatory.However others were harmless if irreverent. In fact two of the cartoons did not depict the prophet at all. In my view the mature response would have been to limit the protest and censure to the aforementioned newspaper.

The other aspect is that, how the exercise of publishing cartoon is being painted as bigotry. I don't think it is correct, though in normal circumstances I would have preferred if the cartoons were published with some circumspection.

However, the circumstances were not normal .

To understand the circumstances , From Wikipedia "On September 17, 2005, the Danish newspaper Politiken ran an article under the headline"Dyb angst for kritik af islam"[5] ("Profound fear of criticism of Islam").
The article discussed the difficulty encountered by the writer Kåre Bluitgen, who was initially unableto find an illustrator who was prepared to work with Bluitgen on his children's book Koranenog profeten Muhammeds liv ("The Qur'an and the prophet Muhammad's life").
Three artists declined Bluitgen's proposal before an artist agreed to assist anonymously. According toBluitgen: One [artist declined], with reference to the murder in Amsterdam of the film director Theo van Gogh, while another [declined, citing the attack on] the lecturer at the Carsten Niebuhr Institute in Copenhagen[5]. In October 2004, a lecturer at the Niebuhr institute at the University of Copenhagen was assaulted by five assailants who opposed the lecturer's reading of the Qur'an to non-Muslims during a lecture[6].The refusal of the first three artists to participate was seen as evidence ofself-censorship and led to much debate in Denmark, with other examples for similar reasonssoon emerging. The comedian Frank Hvam declared that he did not dare satirise the Qur'an ontelevision, while the translators of an essay collection critical of Islam also wished toremain anonymous due to concerns about violent reaction."

It is clear that considering the rise of muslim population and the growing Islamic radicalism there has been significant tension in Europe. Already due to declining birth rates of Europeans and rising immigration, there is a widely held belief that coming decades may see a shift of balance towards immigrants.

The adjustment with immigration group who are orthodox creates insecurity in minds of Europians who are accustomed to a much more open culture and moral value system.
In addition there is hardly any attempt from immigrants to integrate with the society, this tendency result in formation of ghettos.
This is ofcourse not unique to Muslims communities ,however this does tend to amplify the effect of radical elements.
Here I think it will be proper to say that from what I read the European attitude to immigration is not without hostility, however that shouldn't distract from the fact that somehow Muslims immigration communities have difficulty assimilating societies worldwide.
It may be said that this is not unique to Muslims, however considering the growth of radical Islam it is of much more serious concern.Also , immigrant communities are recipient of welfare in Europe.
In Europe it was felt that prominent opinion makers and main stream media were shying awayfrom discussing this issue at all, for fear of offending muslim sensibilities and provokingbacklash .
This however was not limited to media or politicians. Due to Van Gogh incident, FrenchRiots and London Bombing an atmosphere of fear was created, combined with increasing incidents of assault and threats many intellectuals were finding it difficult to express any opinion, some times critical on Islam.

People were threatened against translating Quran or depicting Prophet.In particular an opinion was forming that self censorship was being practiced inEuropeeowing to strong arm tactics by radical elements.
There was also opinion that political correctness in effect has become appeasement against the violent mob. In the quoted article,there were incidences where artists were hesitant to draw prophet.
It is in this context that the decision by newspaper must be seen.

By publishing the cartoon the newspaper was asserting the right to be critical ofIslam, in fact right to have critical opinion even if it is offensive to others. The news paper did not do it just for malicious pleasure so it is wrong to attribute ulterior motives to it.

Any second guessing is just a futile exercise to establish moral equivalence. In other words it was a test case for muslim immigrants in particular and adherents to faith in general.

However more than that it was test case for so called liberals in the west.

However considering the consequences I do not think that either managed to pass the test. While muslim countriess indulged in the usual saber - rattling, International media out ofsheer mortification failed in their duty to cover the issue.People have not failed to note that on past occasion liberals had no compunction in covering issues which can be considered downright offensive toChristians (examples like piss Christ or dung Mary).

This is sheer hypocrisy, what is more this is a policy doomed to fail as pastexperiences havee shown that appeasement never works.

The conclusion, liberals must grow some spine, if they want to have relevance.
To theMuslims First It is immaterial if depiction of Prophet is considered as blasphemy in Islam,pictures are considered perfectly normal in the world outside islam, so it is better to become used to it.
As an aside prophet has been depicted in Islamic history, so it is not something which is unparalleled in History. Second Even if the cartoons were offensive it is unavoidable during a debate in a free society, so it is better to grow a thicker skin. What is more protest should be in proportion to perceived offense. Third By acting in this manner,Muslims are exhibiting what they criticize that is idolatry.

Here, I would like to give my stand.As a Hindu I consider cows to be sacred, in fact I consider all life to be sacred.That doesn't mean I will expect everyone to turn vegetarian. I do not have the right to force anyone to become vegetarian.In fact it would be foolish for me to hold demonstrations for this.
A second more serious example, I am offended by nude pictures of Hindu Gods and Godesses.If I protest this, it will not by using physical violence but by other means. For example, I can hold demonstration in front of the painter house or the gallery, but I will not use threat of physical violence.

Update: Following Blogs have posted on this issue

Secular Right Here, Here and Here

Deesha Here, Here and Here (Recommended)

Sepia Mutiny Here and Here

Patrix Here

Ashish Here

Here I must mention that Secular Right and Sepia Mutiny seemed to be circumspect and trying to establish moral equivalence.

Another Update:

"Here I must mention that Secular Right and Sepia Mutiny seemed to be circumspect and trying to establish moral equivalence. "

Here by moral equivalence my implication was not justification of violence, but sidestepping the real issue in my opinion.
 

Categories : Society , Secularism , Religion , International , Civilization , Politics

 

Root cause idiocy

[Categories : Civilization , History , Religion , International , Secularism , Society , Politics]

This is easily the one of the most stupid post I saw.

I realize the personal tone is hardly commendable, but it maddens me to see delusional rhetoric on the web, not to say find people who think that Chev Guerra is still cool.
Or that Naxalism is a valid ideology.

At any rate, the blogger in question is making a case for clash of civilization, which is not unusual , however his narrative is highly specious and prejudiced.
To quote from the post

"…Deus lo volt!" (God Wills It!). Said, Pope Urban II about a thousand years ago. This speech, delivered in central Gaul (modern France), started a series of attacks by Christian Europe on Middle East. The soldiers were mostly french but the armies included soldiers from almost all of european christiandom. The purported purpose of these attacks on middle east was to make the christian pilgrimages to the holy land safer. But soon it transformed into a general attack on Arabs and Jews in the area. These attacks, now called the "crusades" collectively, succeeded in planting a small christian kingom in the heart of the middle east….."

In above paragraph a case is made out that Christian Europe was aggressor. This is true, but this is the partial truth. The implication of the above paragraph is that Islam was the victim.
And yet this is misleading, for the reason that Islam itself in middle east spread by edging out Christianity and Judaism sometimes by political alliances sometimes by sword.

Indeed speed at which Islam spread was unparalleled in history of religions so far, while it took Christianity more that seven centuries to spread in Europe, Islam in 50 years had conquered and subordinated Egyptian and Persian civilizations.

Again the Levant owing to being birthplace of Christianity held a special place for Christians as a pilgrim center and it was Islam which usurped the place from Christians by power of sword. Further at the time of first crusade it was a Christian empire (Byzantium) which was under threat from Islamic invasion. In fact the request from Byzantine for protection was one of the reasons (along with desire to recapture Levant in fold of Christian Dom ) which prompted Pope Urban II to declare Crusade.
So it is inaccurate to portray crusade as a quasi - national struggle.

if any thing Christianity had a prior claim to levant

(Indeed the history of crusades is complicated and the above description does not any justice to it. For reference see Wiki)

But apology of introduction is not the worst of it. The description goes downhill from here


1. Western colonism over arab countriesThis includes not only the middle east, but north africa too. Other regions that have arab influence and suffered from western hegemony, include Iran, central asian countries, south eastern asian countries. The colonial era was replete with economic exploitation and mass murders (eg: Algeria). The mass murders may be over now that colonialism is over. But western companies still dominate key industries (Oil, of course) and sustain tin-pot dictators and "kings". The western hypocrisy is so obvious when it talks about democracy and liberty when convenient and then hobnobs with regressive governments and gives strength and legitimacy to these. I dare say that without western props, many countries like Saudi Arabia, Pakistan may be having democracy now.

First before petroleum was discovered, there was not much for western colonials to loot from middle east, so I am at loss to understand what can be meant by economic exploitation of middle east which will justify present anger. While it is true that Algeria saw one of the worst crimes against humanity , the present tension has little connection with it.
This is not to say that west did not exploit after discovery of oil, but they did it by controlling the despots/sheikhs and at any rate it can not justify current rage in Arab Street.
Second Iran and central Asia were never under western hegemony. Iran was a independent state and Central Asia for most part of 19th and 20th century remained under Russian control. Indeed the only reason Britain went to Afghanistan was because she was apprehensive of Russian ambitions in Indian subcontinent, this was of course so called great game.

Again it can be said that during the cold war west took some steps which it could have avoided, (by this I mean it shouldn't have supported various despots)

However to say that democracy has not flourished in Middle East due to western hegemony is a falsification of the worst kind. If anything without western props Saudi Arabia will be a theocracy and in hands of crazy wahabist.
Similarly lack of democracy in Pakistan has less to do with western interference and more to do with vested feudal and religious interest. Parvez Musharraf like his predecessors did not come to power due to western support but with the help of military and tactic support of various power centers.

And if someone thinks that current terrorism has anything to do with lack of democracy, then I think there is some serious problem in the thinking.

But the biggest mistake that blogger makes is in assuming that western colonialism was directed against Islamic countries only. If anything Africa, India, China and Indo China were more affected by economic exploitation and brutalities. Vietnam was more ravaged by America than Iraq and still there is no terrorism from Vietnam.

To stress the point While west can b e accused of economic exploitation, and political manipulation, it can not even begin to explain current rage.


2. Breakup of Ottoman EmpireAfter the industrial revolution in europe, Ottoman empire started losing its power and started shrinking - first from europe, then in middle east itself. The WW-I was the final straw for the Ottoman empire. The loss of Khalifa was something many grudged back then (and started a "Khilafat movement" in India too).

Ottomon empire was on the wrong side of war and it was broken from inside itself.
Kamal Ataturk who was a visionary and by bringing down the Caliphate he ensured that Turkey is at present a rarity in this world being a Muslim majority secular nation.
I can not fathom when Turks had no love of caliphate, why should others pine for ottomon.

Khilafat movement was a sham, started by Mahatma Gandhi in naïve belief that it will integrate muslims into main stream of freedom movement, but ended up as one of the significant events leading to partition (ironically Jinnah was not pleased by Khilafat movement)

3. Creation and western sustenance of Israel after WW-III always wonder if it is a coincidence that the map of Israel is almost identical to the crusader kingdom established a thousand years ago. No need to discuss what the creation of this country (and its later land acquisition in 1967) did to relations between the arabs and the west. We can read about the affects of this in the newspaper everyday.

Arguably this is one of the most quoted reason for terrorism. Here I am amused to find the way blogger is trying to connet Israel (which is a Jewish nation) with Chritians Crusades.
Truth is that since its creation arabs are trying to wipe Israel off the map (as the leading light of Iran Ahmenijabad said),1967 war was started by the arabs to destroy Israel however the blogger in question is displaying his ignorance or perhaps deliberately supporting destruction of Israel, inspite of the fact Israel has made sincere efforts for reapproachment only to be rebuffed by arabs.

4. East Timor independenceThe world meditated independence of east Timor was seen by many in islamic nations as an interference and similar reciprocal interference is not there in cases like palestine, kashmir, chechnia etc. (These are not my opinions - but this is how many in islamic nations see it)

Again east timor was a matter of Indonesia, I do not find what is the reason for Muslim counteries to feel aggrieved as . Christians did not support serbs afte break up of Yugoslovakia.

5. 9/11 and War on TerrorThe hundreds of thousands of civilians that have died in Iraq and Afghanistan since the so called War on Terror started, pale the 9/11 casualties (with all due to respect to those who died in 9/11 - they certainly didn't deserve to). The US may find the war justified but the other side almost uniformly sees it as an unjust war doing more damage than good.

Again it is deliberate case of falsifying the history, most of the civilian casualities in Iraq and Afghanistan have occurred due to terrorist attacks by Baathist and Al Qaeda.
Also terrorism was very much alive before 9/11, just not noticed by west.
By blaming US for casualities the implication is that Afghanistan and Iraq were better under Taliban and Saddam respectively. Also I am puzzled by what blogger means by other side , because if it is meant to be Iraqi and Afghani citizens, they seem to approve of American efforts.Again I do not understand when Iraq and Afghanistand do not have problem with American action why should Muslims in general should feel aggrieved.


6. Cartoon controversyAgain, it is being seen as a general western attack on muslim sensibilities. While I am all for freedom of press, it is hypocritical to jail someone for an anti-semitic remark while allowing gross insult to Prophet Mohammad (PBUH). Keep a single set of rules for everyone on all issues. I am not condoning the violence conducted by protesters in Syria but western countries are not blameless.

First the limits to freedom in Europe are hardly balanced as Ashish posted here.

However to compare the case of Jews who were threatened with extinction in Europe to current controversy is unjustified in my opinion. If anything the comparision should be made with attitude towards Christianity, and Europeans are hardly forgiving of christians either.

And yet the deranged ramblings of the blogger miss a very crucial point.
That this jihad is not againt west only. It is also against Kashmiri Pundits, Hindus of Bali, Buddhists of Thailand and Christian of Indonesia and Phillipines .

So present situation is not a direct result of west

Others counteries besides Islamic were colonized. Hindus and Buddhists also faced brutality and ruthlessness of the west. Even today, they may harbour ill feelings against "gora log" and yet it does not translate into terrorism.

To paraphrase Shakespeare "there is something rotten in state of Islam "

I have pointed towards it earlier and I will like to come back to it at some later time.

My fear is that Bush administration and such other brainless western regimes will take the world towards another series of wars akin to the original crusades.

It is this falsification and equivocation for ideological oneupmanship by apologists of terrorism which aggravates situation, pushing it towards a frightening scenarios.
As long as the attempts such as above are made to whitewash Jihadi terrorism as an exercise in victimization, any attempt to solve the menance will fail.

I will like to add that I find it disappointing that DesiPundit which claims to represent best of blogosphere linked to this tripe

And yes it can not be Crusade 2.0 as there were already six or more crusades, some directed against heretics and jews as well.

Cartoon Controversy

Recent controversy over publication of cartoons of Prophet Mohammed have raised questions about freedom of speech and whether publishing the cartoons was an appropriate action.
This post is not intended about freedom of speech, freedom of speech is a complicated subject and I am not yet able to formulate a coherent view on it.
This is also not about if there can be a reasonable limit to free speech.
This is limited to discussion about cartoons in questions.

There were twelve cartoon in all published by the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten.
In addition there were three cartoons which were circulated by Danish Imams during theirtour of middle east, one of which depicted Prophet as a pig,these however have been proven as forgeries with a aim to provoke Arab street by Danish Imams.

Out of the twelve cartoons(Which can be seen here) , I found two (or may be three?) of them tasteless, even derogatory.However others were harmless if irreverent. In fact two of the cartoons did not depict the prophet at all.
In my view the mature response would have been to limit the protest and censure to the aforementioned newspaper. The other aspect is that, how the exercise of publishing cartoon isbeing painted as bigotry. I don't think it is correct, though in normal circumstances I would have preferred if the cartoons were published with some circumspection.

However, the circumstances were not normal .

To understand the circumstances , From Wikipedia,
"On September 17, 2005, the Danish newspaper Politiken ran an article under the headline"Dyb angst for kritik af islam"[5] ("Profound fear of criticism of Islam"). The article discussed the difficulty encountered by the writer Kåre Bluitgen, who was initially unableto find an illustrator who was prepared to work with Bluitgen on his children's book Koranenog profeten Muhammeds liv ("The Qur'an and the prophet Muhammad's life"). Three artists declined Bluitgen's proposal before an artist agreed to assist anonymously. According toBluitgen: One [artist declined], with reference to the murder in Amsterdam of the film director Theo van Gogh, while another [declined, citing the attack on] the lecturer at the Carsten Niebuhr Institute in Copenhagen[5]. In October 2004, a lecturer at the Niebuhr institute at the University of Copenhagen was assaulted by five assailants who opposed the lecturer's reading of the Qur'an to non-Muslims during a lecture[6].The refusal of the first three artists to participate was seen as evidence ofself-censorship and led to much debate in Denmark, with other examples for similar reasonssoon emerging. The comedian Frank Hvam declared that he did not dare satirise the Qur'an ontelevision, while the translators of an essay collection critical of Islam also wished toremain anonymous due to concerns about violent reaction."

It is clear that considering the rise of muslim population and the growing Islamic radicalism there has been significant tension in Europe. Already due to declining birth rates of Europeans and rising immigration, there is a widely held belief that coming decades may see a shift of balance towards immigrants.
The adjustment with immigration group who are orthodox creates insecurity in minds of Europians who are accustomed to a much more open culture and moral value system.In addition there is hardly any attempt from immigrants to integrate with the society, this tendency result in formation of ghettos. This is ofcourse not unique to Muslims communities ,however this does tend to amplify the effect of radical elements.
Here I think it will be proper to say that from what I read the European attitude to immigration is not without hostility, however that shouldn't distract from the fact that somehow Muslims immigration communities have difficulty assimilating societies worldwide.It may be said that this is not unique to Muslims, however considering the growth of radical Islam it is of much more serious concern.Also , immigrant communities are recipient of welfare in Europe.In Europe it was felt that prominent opinion makers and main stream media were shying awayfrom discussing this issue at all, for fear of offending muslim sensibilities and provokingbacklash .This however was not limited to media or politicians.

Due to Van Gogh incident, FrenchRiots and London Bombing an atmosphere of fear was created, combined with increasing incidents of assault and threats many intellectuals were finding it difficult to express any opinion, some times critical on Islam.
People were threatened against translating Quran or depicting Prophet.I
n particular an opinion was forming that self censorship was being practiced inEuropeeowing to strong arm tactics by radical elements.There was also opinion political correctness in effect has become appeasement against the violent mob.

In the quoted article,there were incidences where artists were hesitant to draw prophet.

It is in this context that the decision by newspaper must be seen.By publishing the cartoon the newspaper was asserting the right to be critical ofIslam, in fact right to have critical opinion even if it is offensive to others.

The news paper did not do it just for malicious pleasure so it is wrong to attribute ulterior motives to it.Any second guessing is just a futile exercise to establish moral equivalence.

In other words it was a test case for muslim immigrants in particular and adherents to faith in general.However more than that it was test case for so called liberals in the west.

However considering the consequences I do not think that either managed to pass the test.
While muslim countriess indulged in the usual saber - rattling, International media out ofsheer mortification failed in their duty to cover the issue.People have not failed to note that on past occasion liberals had no compunction in covering issues which can be considered downright offensive toChristians (examples like piss Christ or dung Mary).

This is sheer hypocrisy, what is more this is a policy doomed to fail as pastexperiences havee shown that appeasement never works.

The conclusion, liberals must grow some spine, if they want to have relevance.

To theMuslims First It is immaterial if depiction of Prophet is considered as blasphemy in Islam,pictures are considered perfectly normal in the world outside islam, so it is better to become used to it. As an aside prophet has been depicted in Islamic history, so it is not something which is unparalleled in History.

Second Even if the cartoons were offensive it is unavoidable during a debate in a free society, so it is better to grow a thicker skin. What is more protest should be in proportion to perceived offense.

Third By acting in this manner,Muslims are exhibiting what they criticize that is idolatry.

Here, I would like to give my stand.As a Hindu I consider cows to be sacred, in fact I consider all life to be sacred.That doesn't mean I will expect everyone to turn vegetarian. I do not have the right to force anyone to become vegetarian.In fact it would be foolish for me to hold demonstrations for this.

A second more serious example, I am offended by nude pictures of Hindu Gods and Godesses.If I protest this, it will not by using physical violence but by other means. For example, I can hold demonstration in front of the painter house or the gallery, but I will not use threat of physical violence.