Jihad Watch: Fitzgerald: Why a jihad in Jammu-Kashmir?
Jihad Watch Board Vice President Hugh Fitzgerald discusses the jihad in Jammu and Kashmir, and on the subcontinent in general:
Why do Muslim terrorists attack in Jammu-Kashmir? Because they can. The Muslim claim to Kashmir differs from their claim to all of India (or for that matter to Spain (Al-Andalus), to Israel, to Sicily, to the Balkans, to Bulgaria, to Rumania, to Hungary, and to all the areas once dominated by Muslims) only in the ability to push that claim. Of course, in the jihadist view the entire world in the end must submit to Islam and be dominated by Islam -- though non-Muslims may, should they accept what many Muslims continue to believe is perfectly just, live under those unambiguous conditions of humiliation, degradation, and physical insecurity whose sum is the status we now describe as "dhimmitude".
Any land area, even within the Western countries where Muslims come to dominate, will by many of them be regarded as "Muslim land." The claims made by various local Muslims may seem comical to us, such as that for the "Caliphate" in Cologne, or the insistence that certain areas in Malmo or Rotterdam or Muslim-populated towns in France are not to be treated as any longer under the control of representatives of the Infidel nation-state, but they are quite serious. That seriousness is being demonstrated even now both by Muslims and by the representatives (police, firemen, teachers) of that nation-state, who are often too afraid not to comply with the Muslim demands that they stay out of what is no longer their territory.
Jammu-Kashmir is part of India. It is not part of Pakistan. And the notion that any part of India in which there is to be found a Muslim-majority population is one where therefore Muslim claims have legitimacy is absurd. For what would follow, logically, would be a turning of all sorts of places within India into little Muslim-ruled areas. And given that the Muslim rate of population growth is always higher, in India and elsewhere, then the non-Muslim population, and given that Muslims have not hesitated to push out large numbers of non-Muslims (think of the 400,000 Kashmiri Pandits forced to flee when threatened with death), either one takes a firm stand and rejects Muslim demands or, by even hinting at "negotiating," one emboldens the mujahedin. The Israelis have done the latter, to their own sorrow. In failing to make their own case, they have also failed to help Infidels in Europe understand that the siege against Israel, that Lesser Jihad, is hardly the only, or even the most important, of the local Jihads now being waged. And it will continue to be waged, using all the instruments now available, unless met with well-informed, implacable, and relentless opposition.
India should not be "negotiating" over Jammu-Kashmir. There is no possibility of such a negotiation satisfying Muslims permanently. Since India now possesses this part of Kashmir (Pakistan also controls part), any negotiation will only lead to further Indian concessions, possibly even the surrender of land. What Pakistan would offer -- a grand agreement to cease support for cross-border terrorism -- is no concession at all. Pakistan cannot offer up as a concession what it has a moral and legal duty to do anyway.
And the same is true elsewhere in the world. One suspects that the outside world will be unsympathetic to the Indians unless and until they all begin, at the same time, to talk about the belief-system of Islam, and why concessions here and there make no sense, given the ultimate unappeasable demands that Muslims must, if they are to be true Muslims, continue to make on all Infidels.
Doesn't it make more sense for Infidels everywhere to recognize this and to discuss it openly? This would force Muslims to discuss their own ideology, and be embarrassed or chagrined by such discussion, so that not only will Infidels start supporting each other in their local conflicts, but so that some Muslims will have to cease the taqiyya-and-tu-quoque, and begin to admit that something in Islam, a good deal in Islam, must change if it is not to make Muslims permanently immiscible and un-integrable and regarded with permanent suspicion and hostility by Infidels everywhere.
Hindu civilization in Jammu-Kashmir should be defended. It is a pity that so many in India among those who are called, quite loosely and often quite comically, "intellectuals" -- all shy away from anything that might conceivably be taken as a defense of Hindu (or Sikh) civilization, or culture. Above all, no thoroughly modern Indian will dare suggest that Islam has done great damage to Jammu and Kasmir, as well as to India as a whole, and to Indian civilization. No, there are exceptions -- such as that cosmopolitan of Indian descent, V. S. Naipaul, who is not afraid of anyone. There are Indian-Americans (Hindu, Sikh, and even disaffected ex-Muslims) and their counterparts in Great Britain, who also know how silly it is not to make the case, to ignore history, or to shy away from the slightest hint of Hindutva, which is often mocked. Why, exactly? Is K. S. Lal to be mocked for "The Legacy of Muslim Rule in India"? Is Sir Jahundath Sarkar? Are all the other Hindu historians of India who have been unafraid to discuss what Muslim rule did to India?
Those of us who are not Indian should find out a good deal more about what happened on the subcontinent, and cease to so readily accept the "advanced" view which holds that anything smacking of "communalism" (a word used to indicate, of course, those who wish to show their sympathetic interest in, and identification with, Hindu India, and who refuse to play the game of sanitizing the history of Muslim rule) is ipso facto evil.
One hopes that those in the Western world who are articulate and aware, and of Indian (Hindu or Sikh descent, primarily) will help to educate others -- but that can only be done once one has educated oneself. Lal and Sarkar should be household words. The two volumes in which Sita Ram Goel simply lists tens of thousands of Hindu sites destroyed should be better known. Those Indians who become internationally famous, and always -- as a matter of course -- are quick to demonstrate that they have absolutely nothing to do with "communalism" (i.e., Hindu causes, Hindu history, Hindu interests) -- one thinks here of Amartya Sen -- would do better to study their own history, and not to assume that intelligent Hindus and Sikhs who show a bit of that supposedly terrible "communalism" must be wrong. They aren't.
But it is difficult for them to make their voices heard, given the received ideas, and cliches, of the day -- both those concerning Jammu-Kashmir, and those concerning the Jihad in general.
Why do Muslim terrorists attack in Jammu-Kashmir? Because they can. The Muslim claim to Kashmir differs from their claim to all of India (or for that matter to Spain (Al-Andalus), to Israel, to Sicily, to the Balkans, to Bulgaria, to Rumania, to Hungary, and to all the areas once dominated by Muslims) only in the ability to push that claim. Of course, in the jihadist view the entire world in the end must submit to Islam and be dominated by Islam -- though non-Muslims may, should they accept what many Muslims continue to believe is perfectly just, live under those unambiguous conditions of humiliation, degradation, and physical insecurity whose sum is the status we now describe as "dhimmitude".
Any land area, even within the Western countries where Muslims come to dominate, will by many of them be regarded as "Muslim land." The claims made by various local Muslims may seem comical to us, such as that for the "Caliphate" in Cologne, or the insistence that certain areas in Malmo or Rotterdam or Muslim-populated towns in France are not to be treated as any longer under the control of representatives of the Infidel nation-state, but they are quite serious. That seriousness is being demonstrated even now both by Muslims and by the representatives (police, firemen, teachers) of that nation-state, who are often too afraid not to comply with the Muslim demands that they stay out of what is no longer their territory.
Jammu-Kashmir is part of India. It is not part of Pakistan. And the notion that any part of India in which there is to be found a Muslim-majority population is one where therefore Muslim claims have legitimacy is absurd. For what would follow, logically, would be a turning of all sorts of places within India into little Muslim-ruled areas. And given that the Muslim rate of population growth is always higher, in India and elsewhere, then the non-Muslim population, and given that Muslims have not hesitated to push out large numbers of non-Muslims (think of the 400,000 Kashmiri Pandits forced to flee when threatened with death), either one takes a firm stand and rejects Muslim demands or, by even hinting at "negotiating," one emboldens the mujahedin. The Israelis have done the latter, to their own sorrow. In failing to make their own case, they have also failed to help Infidels in Europe understand that the siege against Israel, that Lesser Jihad, is hardly the only, or even the most important, of the local Jihads now being waged. And it will continue to be waged, using all the instruments now available, unless met with well-informed, implacable, and relentless opposition.
India should not be "negotiating" over Jammu-Kashmir. There is no possibility of such a negotiation satisfying Muslims permanently. Since India now possesses this part of Kashmir (Pakistan also controls part), any negotiation will only lead to further Indian concessions, possibly even the surrender of land. What Pakistan would offer -- a grand agreement to cease support for cross-border terrorism -- is no concession at all. Pakistan cannot offer up as a concession what it has a moral and legal duty to do anyway.
And the same is true elsewhere in the world. One suspects that the outside world will be unsympathetic to the Indians unless and until they all begin, at the same time, to talk about the belief-system of Islam, and why concessions here and there make no sense, given the ultimate unappeasable demands that Muslims must, if they are to be true Muslims, continue to make on all Infidels.
Doesn't it make more sense for Infidels everywhere to recognize this and to discuss it openly? This would force Muslims to discuss their own ideology, and be embarrassed or chagrined by such discussion, so that not only will Infidels start supporting each other in their local conflicts, but so that some Muslims will have to cease the taqiyya-and-tu-quoque, and begin to admit that something in Islam, a good deal in Islam, must change if it is not to make Muslims permanently immiscible and un-integrable and regarded with permanent suspicion and hostility by Infidels everywhere.
Hindu civilization in Jammu-Kashmir should be defended. It is a pity that so many in India among those who are called, quite loosely and often quite comically, "intellectuals" -- all shy away from anything that might conceivably be taken as a defense of Hindu (or Sikh) civilization, or culture. Above all, no thoroughly modern Indian will dare suggest that Islam has done great damage to Jammu and Kasmir, as well as to India as a whole, and to Indian civilization. No, there are exceptions -- such as that cosmopolitan of Indian descent, V. S. Naipaul, who is not afraid of anyone. There are Indian-Americans (Hindu, Sikh, and even disaffected ex-Muslims) and their counterparts in Great Britain, who also know how silly it is not to make the case, to ignore history, or to shy away from the slightest hint of Hindutva, which is often mocked. Why, exactly? Is K. S. Lal to be mocked for "The Legacy of Muslim Rule in India"? Is Sir Jahundath Sarkar? Are all the other Hindu historians of India who have been unafraid to discuss what Muslim rule did to India?
Those of us who are not Indian should find out a good deal more about what happened on the subcontinent, and cease to so readily accept the "advanced" view which holds that anything smacking of "communalism" (a word used to indicate, of course, those who wish to show their sympathetic interest in, and identification with, Hindu India, and who refuse to play the game of sanitizing the history of Muslim rule) is ipso facto evil.
One hopes that those in the Western world who are articulate and aware, and of Indian (Hindu or Sikh descent, primarily) will help to educate others -- but that can only be done once one has educated oneself. Lal and Sarkar should be household words. The two volumes in which Sita Ram Goel simply lists tens of thousands of Hindu sites destroyed should be better known. Those Indians who become internationally famous, and always -- as a matter of course -- are quick to demonstrate that they have absolutely nothing to do with "communalism" (i.e., Hindu causes, Hindu history, Hindu interests) -- one thinks here of Amartya Sen -- would do better to study their own history, and not to assume that intelligent Hindus and Sikhs who show a bit of that supposedly terrible "communalism" must be wrong. They aren't.
But it is difficult for them to make their voices heard, given the received ideas, and cliches, of the day -- both those concerning Jammu-Kashmir, and those concerning the Jihad in general.
Labels: Hindutva, Islamic Terrorism
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home