Israel’s Nuclear Arsenal and Peace in West Asia

Born out of terrorism, Israel has always practiced and employed terror tactics to achieve its defence and strategic goals. Its historical experience in Christian Europe has convinced it that weakness is an open invitation to persecution or to being victimized and oppressed. Israel has, therefore, always sought to dominate so that it can dictate whatever it likes. However, after a long drawn conflict with the Arabs, it has realized that it needs the peace of the neighbour to live in peace. And having practiced only violence as a strategy in its about sixty years of existence, Israel has come to believe that it can terrorize its Arab neighbours into submission and peace.

Israel’s thinking is flawed as well as dangerous. However, Tel Aviv is as much a child of our age as are Washington, London and Paris. Their material gains and worldly successes have blinded them and, as a result, they continue with their philosophy and practice of domination. They think that their awesome arsenal and war machines would give them victory and control over their enemies and create a paradise of peace for them. So, we see Israel as always engaged in all kinds of weapon programmes including the making of atom, biological and chemical bombs. Israel began its nuclear programme in the 1950s, and it is believed that towards the end of the 1960s it had made the atom bomb. Today it is estimated that it has about two hundred nuclear bombs.

The West led by the United States is after Iran nowadays imposing sanctions against it with a view to forcing Tehran to abandon its uranium enrichment programme which they are entitled to carry on under international agreements. Tehran has repeatedly said that its nuclear programme is peaceful and that it has no intention of developing atom bombs. But no one listens to them; instead the world seems eager to go along with what the Americans say ignoring the lies they had spoken on the occasion of invading Iraq.

While the West is out to target Iran, it prefers to keep silence about Israel’s deadly nuclear activities. The West’s double standard is too patent to be missed. There are many people even in the West who remind their leaders and try to draw their attention towards Israel’s deadly nuclear programme and its dangerous consequences. But Washington and European capitals have ignored all these and continue with their Iran bashing. For them Iran, which is perhaps still ten years away from making an atom bomb, is more dangerous and poses a threat to the entire region. Until a few months back, many Arab states, particularly Egypt, used to raise voice against nuclear weapons and demand to declare West Asia as a nuclear-free zone. But today they, too, seem to have launched a verbal attack against Tehran’s nuclear programme. It appears as the Arabs have accepted Israel’s superiority in the region and are ready, to shamefully live with it. However, a nuclear Iran, even if it is vehemently anti-Israel, is not acceptable to them. The Arabs’ mental slavery of the West is, perhaps, complete today.

The fact is that Israel’s nuclear arsenal and not Iran’s attempt to acquire nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, is a grave danger for the region. A sort of arms race would have already begun had there been a Soviet Union. It is also a fact that all previous Arab attempts to acquire nuclear deterrence were made in direct response to Israel’s deadly nuclear arsenal. And today Iran’s insistence on continuing its nuclear programme, despite international pressure, is mainly because of its threat perception caused by Israel and the overwhelming American presence in the region. Thus Israel, and not the Arabs or Iran, is the source of tension and conflict in the region, a fact the West prefers to ignore.

The West has not only allowed Israel to develop nuclear weapons, it has also ignored the dangers posed by Israel’s aging nuclear plants. There are reports that incidences of poisonous gas leakage and other such deadly things routinely occur in Israel’s nuclear plants, causing dangerous diseases including cancer to its workers and citizens. Due to the strict secrecy maintained by Israel, the world is not fully aware of this aspect of its dangerous nuclear programme. However, many Israeli scientists and technicians who have worked on Israel’s nuclear plants are now raising voice and some are even demanding their inspection by international agencies. But we all know that such voices would ultimately prove to be a cry in the wilderness.

But the million dollar question is if Israel’s 200 atom bombs have brought it the security it desires. A sincerely thought out answer to the above question would convince Israel that its philosophy of domination and terrotrization is hollow and doomed to failure.

[October, 2007]

Iran is Being Demonized

Tony Blair is gone, and with his political demise Britain’s honeymoon with Washington has also ended. Mr. Bush, however, is not unduly worried; he has found another mate in Europe for “parroting” and promoting his dangerous policies in West Asia. The French president, Nicolas Sarkozy’s leanings towards Washington were well known, but he would play a Tony Blair so early and so shamelessly was not expected. His warning that a war with Iran over its nuclear programme is imminent shows, among other things, that France is now America’s European ally and it will do exactly what Washington thinks, says and wants.

It is clear now that the West, among other things, is a strategic thinking. There might be, or may emerge, differences among various Western countries regarding the policies and methodologies that they would ultimately adopt for recolonizing the third world. The moot point is that they are one and can go to any extent for maintaining their military, political and economic domination of the world.

It is also clear that Israel is an essential part of the West’s strategic thinking. Yesterday it was developed as a bulwark against the influence of communism and the Soviet Union and today it is expected to help maintain the Western domination in the region. Israel, too, has willingly accepted this role, and this is the reason why it has never tried to be a part of West Asia; instead it has always tried to dominate the region as per the Western scheme. The West, therefore, feels obliged to protect Israel and eliminate all threats to its existence. Iran’s nuclear bomb, if it is ever developed, would, at best, act as a deterrence rather than pose any threat to the West or to the heavily nuclearized Israel. But even a country’s capability of defending itself is against the West’s policy of total domination and, therefore, it has decided to punish Iran.

There is a discernable method in the West’s policy towards Iran. It is more or less similar to the one they had adopted about Iraq before occupying it. The first stage of this policy is to isolate and weaken Iran. The gradual or step by step sanctions are a part of this scheme. The second stage would arrive when the West will try to impose arms embargo against Tehran. And in the third stage they will manufacture reasons for attacking and occupying Iran.

However, if the US, or Israel, feels that the above policy would not deliver the desired results, they might opt for massive air strikes. Perhaps Israel, with American blessings, might have already done it. The problem is that they are yet not sure if just air strikes are enough to put a brake on Tehran’s nuclear programme. Iran’s nuclear programme is being carried out at difference places and most of it is underground, in concrete bunkers which ordinary bombs will find difficult to destroy. This is the reason that Israel is reported to be working on a small nuclear bomb to destroy Iran’s heavily fortified and well-defended nuclear programme.

The West is also not sure about Iran’s reaction to any attack on its nuclear facilities. They know that Iran would not take it lying down and that its military response will surely target Israel. They specially fear the deadly missiles that Iran has developed/obtained from China and North Korea. Israel and America claim that they have developed an affective anti-missile system but the fact is that such a technology has yet not been discovered, or at least it is not as effective as it is being claimed to be. This is the reason that a section of America’s policy-makers is in favour of launching a prolonged and massive air strike against Iran with a view to destroying its entire military capability.

The West’s another problem is Iran’s capability of creating problems for the US in Iraq and opening a military front against Israel in Lebanon. Having learnt its lessons the hard way in Iraq, a section of America’s military leadership is against opening any new war front, specially the one that involves physical occupation of a country.

However, the million dollar question is if the above-mentioned problems will succeed in persuading Bush and Israel to see reasons and desist from attacking Iran. Their agenda is to recolonize West Asia directly or indirectly in order to exploit its economic and mineral resources which are valued to be in trillions of dollars. So, their argument is that the West must take risk of subduing Iran if it wants to maintain its present standard of living.

France under Nicolas Sarkozy now seems to be replacing Britain as America’s new trusted ally in Europe. His statement that a war with Iran is imminent is not an impulsive one, rather it has been well-timed, well-calculated and has been issued with full American blessings. At a time when Britain is withdrawing its forces from Iran, Sarkozy has come out in favour of military action against Tehran with a view to improving the sagging image of America in Europe. This is aimed at silencing the section of America’s military leadership which is opposed to any attack against Iran.

It may rightly be concluded that Bush and his conservative supports are not willing to learn any lessons from their Iraq fiasco and are hell-bent to attack Iran. Perhaps they would concede to their opponents a bit and would not go for physical occupation of Iran. But a massive air strike is imminent, perhaps sooner than later.

What should be Iran’s response? The best strategy is always the one that understands the purpose of the enemy and tries to frustrate its designs. One only hopes that Iran’s leadership will fully grasp the Western design and will take all possible steps to ensure its defeat and failure. Surely their military response would not be as strong as that of the West but they must employ all their mental capabilities to defeat them in the mind game. Thus they would not only save themselves but would also save the entire third world from being recolonized.

[September, 2007]

Idea and Strategic Planning

Ideas have always mattered in human life. There are ordinary people, always in great majority, who try to belittle and undermine the importance of ideas in human life and development when they say that actions, rather than intellectual discourses, should matter the most. No one can deny the critical importance of actions which need to follow an intellectual planning to enable an idea to achieve success. But it is also equally true that actions delinked from thoughts and strategic plannings often result in failure, even lead to disaster. The fact is that both ideas and actions have their own importance and a fine coordination between the two brings about success in human life.

The misery of a deprived and marginalized group increases many-fold when not only its ordinary folks but also its intellectual leaders ignore the importance of idea and strategic planning and put all the emphasis on actions only. The Indian Muslims have already paid a heavy price for neglecting the crucial roles of ideas and strategic planning and can avoid the use of mind only to further marginalize themselves.

It ought to be borne in mind that all ideas are not important, nor all of them are necessarily correct. In fact, sometimes ideas may even be dangerous both for individuals as well as the society. The possibility is also that an idea might be utopian which would either be difficult or even impossible to realize or implement. But the million dollar important fact is that we must make use of our mind, think a lot as well as deeply, in order to achieve success in life. Sure, some of our ideas may appear like day dreaming, but it should not deter us from dreaming and thinking. In fact, today “day dreaming with open eyes” is required, for it enables us to clearly see our goals and targets.

The problems of Indian Muslims are multiple and to suggest one simple solution is well nigh impossible. Their condition is like that of a caravan which has lost its way in a moonless night. No one can say that in such a grave situation only one candle would be enough to provide light for the entire caravan. In fact, not only a candle, but light from any other source would be welcome in such situations. In plain words what we want to say is that several ideas and strategies may be adopted at the same time to solve the multiple problems of a gravely marginalized community such as Indian Muslims. The only condition is that the burning and light providing candles do not fight among themselves as it might turn them into a dangerous fire.

All debates on the problems of Muslims in India mainly focus on their educational and economic backwardness as well as their political marginalization. We keep aside the matter of political marginalization for the convenience of our present discourse and present before you an idea for discussion. This idea is being conceived with a view to solving the educational and economic problems of the Indian Muslims. The idea may appear like a wild dream but, methinks, even fools need to be heard, for their foolishness will make you wiser, at least.

The idea is simple. Indian Muslims face, among other things, acute housing problems. In cities like Delhi, Mumbai and Kolkata they are living in semi urbanized colonies/areas with few or no modern facilities. Over the years many Muslims have made reasonable fortunes and can afford humble accommodations in developed areas. In fact, some have already started living in such places. And many more are in a position to join them but desist from doing it because of various reasons such as schooling of their children at affordable prices and the absence of mosques and graveyards etc. Is it possible for Muslims to develop or participate in the development of townships with one or two mosques, one or two decent schools, a modern college and a graveyard.

In rural areas there are hundreds of Muslim majority villages, both big and small. These villages with narrow lanes were not planned and built by modern architects and engineers. But one is amazed at the great wisdom of those poorly educated villagers who built them. In most such villages we find mosques with Maktabs (religious schools) and graveyards. The graveyards are normally at a distance from the main village, and in good number of villages there exist Maktabs or primary schools away from the mosque. In modern paradigm we may say that the poor villagers were wise enough to feel their immediate and long-term needs and make arrangements accordingly.

My idea is if we can learn a lesson from our forefathers who had planned and built their villages keeping in mind their immediate and long-term needs. Can today we acquire enough lands in a fully legal manner wherein we may built a township with mosques, schools, a college and a graveyard to fulfil our immediate and otherwise needs. Such townships are not necessarily to be all Muslims only; these may have mixed population also.

The idea presented above may be ambitious or unrealistic, even an utopia but a keen mind can see in it a strategy for educational renaissance of Indian Muslims and their economic regeneration. This idea might be converted into an opportunity by enterprising individuals or it might be grabbed by our socio-religious organizations to refashion their relevance in a more meaningful way. By so doing they would secure and ensure a bright future for Indian Muslims.

[August, 2007]

What They Have Done to Exist in Peace

Ever since the idea of a Jewish home, (and not a state), was conceived in Balfour’s treacherous letter of 1917, which is wrongly called a Declaration, the Zionists and their Western backers have hardly done any thing that would earn them a right to exist or live in peace. Let us detail out what we mean.

The Zionists were active for a Jewish state since late 19^th century. When the Ottoman Empire entered the First World War on the side of Germany, the Zionists saw an opportunity in it. It was natural that they would work for the defeat of Germany which they did. They realized that with Germany’s defeat the Ottoman Empire would be weakened further, if not destroyed. They decided to wait for that opportune moment which they would capitalize upon to create a Jewish state in Palestine.

By the time Balfour wrote his infamous letter to the Zionist financier, Lord Rothschield promising therein that Britain would work for the creation of a ‘Jewish home’ in Palestine, it had become quite clear that Germany would not be able to occupy and annihilate England. In fact, England and France had even started to divide the war spoils among themselves. In this sinister colonial game they, specially Britain, did not think of the glaring contradictions in the promises they were making to all and sundry. They promised to give Syria to France which they had already given King Husain through McMahan’s correspondence with him. Next, they promised to give Palestine to the Jews which they had already committed to be a part of the Arab state that was to emerge after the defeat of the Ottoman.

Britain’s promise of giving Palestine was specially sinister and diabolical. As far as the French were concerned, they had only colonial designs and just wanted to rule over Syria. The Zionists, on the other hand, had a more dangerous plan. Their aim was to create a ‘Jewish State’ in Palestine by settling the Jews there. In plain words it meant the annihilation, dispossession and banishment of the Arab population from Palestine. Britain had no sovereign right over Palestine and yet it gave this land of the Arab nation to the Jews who were still not a nation or a country.

It is a well known history how Britain facilitated the Jewish immigration into Palestine against the express and vehement Arab protest. The Jewish terrorism of late 1930s and 1940s is also a known and well-documented history. They indulged in wide-spread killing of Palestinian villagers and destruction of their properties with a view to terrorize and throw them out of Palestine. Thus Deception, Destruction, terrorization and killing of innocent people have been the Jewish tactics for the creation of Israel. Their purpose has not been to win the hearts of the Arabs and live in peace with them. instead they have always wanted to dominate and subjugate the Arabs which is he anti-thesis of peaceful coexistence.

By using the sinister tactics of heartless terrorism and the politics of dispossession Israel came into existence in 1948. That was the time when Britain had been weakened beyond recovery due to World War II. The Zionists, then, turned to the United States for support which they have been receiving ever since. With Europe’s moral, diplomatic, even military and financial support and all out backing of the United States Israel ahs always adopted and practiced the policy of domination. Its thinking and philosophy has been that it can secure Arab surrender by exhibiting enormous and overwhelming fire power. It has never adopted or practiced the policy of recurring the willing acceptance of the Arabs for a right to exist in peace. As a result it has always tried to defeat and annihilate the Arabs either through warfare or through the politics of dividing the Arabs. Its philosophy has been to be militarily so strong that the Arabs would never dare to attack it. And in this philosophy and programme of military domination it has been well-supported by Europe and the United States.

One wonders if being powerful is enough to win the respect of your neighbour or secure a peaceful neighbourhood? Surely the answer is in negative. By exhibiting sheer and brute power you can momentarily overawe your neighbour and even you might live in peace for a while. But you can not always enjoy peace at the expense of the respect and dignity of your neighbours. Now see what Israel has been doing to the Arabs since the last one century. It has forced large numbers of Palestinians into exile and not only dispossessed them of their homes and lands but has also tried to change the whole landscape beyond recognition. We all know in what miserable conditions the exiled Palestinians are living in Lebanon, Syria, Jordan and in other Arab countries. further Israel has occupied the Gaza Strip and West Bank since 1967. The entire world knows the life of humiliation that the occupied Palestinians are forced to lead. The Israeli kills them with impunity, imprisons them without reasons and tortures them to paralize them, mentally and physically. The Arabs living in Israel proper have also no right. Israel practices a sinister policy of apartheid and has denied its own Arab citizens of almost all the fundamental rights. And yet the West calls Israel the only shining example of real democracy in the region. The million dollar question is if these are the ways to live in peace with your neighbour.

When your life is made a hell, when you lose all hopes of outside help, when your peaceful protests fall on deaf ears, when you are denied your right to self determination, when your people are exiled unjustly, when your leaders are murdered, when your villages are bombed and burnt, when your youth are jailed, tortured and paralized, in sum, when you are subjected to lead a life of indignity under the heavy yoke of occupation, what else would, or should, be your response? Should you surrender or fight by all means? The Palestinians have chosen the second option. Their armed freedom struggle, wrongly called “terrorism” by the West led by the US which is known for practicing state terrorism in Iraq and Afghanistan, has yet not been able to annihilate Israel but has surely denied it the luxury to live in peace. And the struggle must continue till the final victory.

[July, 2007]

Israel, Abbas and America are the Culprits

Palestine is burning, not because of the Israeli fire but due to fratricidal war. Hamas and al-Fatah are at daggars drawn and killing one another. The fratricidal war has caused a deep political crisis. Hamas fighters have taken Gaza Strip under their control, whereas forces loyal to Mahmoud Abbas have full command over West Bank. The President of the Palestinian Authority, Mahmoud Abbas added political fuel to the military fire or conflict when he dismissed the national unity government led by Ismail Haniya, a prominent Hamas leader. Abbas has also declared Hamas as a terrorist organisation and, according to him, people related with this organisation can not be associated with any organ or department of the government. After dismissing the national unity government, Mahmoud Abbas has sworn in Salam Fayyad as new Prime Minister whose cabinet includes one member of al-Fatah and many independent members of the Palestinian Majlis or the so called Parliament.

Ismail Haniya, the “sacked” Prime Minister has said that he is still in office because the constitution that has made Mahmoud Abbas President of the Palestinian Authority, has no clause for dismissing an elected government. Thus the new emergency government led by Salam Fayyad is illegal. With Gaza Strip and West Bank having been virtually under the control of rival factions, the possibility of further bloodbath can not be ruled out. Mahmoud Abbas has already announced that he would extend his authority over all of Palestine. Salam Fayyad’s government has also said that security is their first priority. Israel, on the other hand, is planning to send its forces deep into Gaza to crush the Hamas. It has also stopped fuel supply to Gaza. The implication is obvious. Israel and forces loyal to the new government along with the ousted Fatah fighters will try to retake Gaza Strip which, in plain words, means starting afresh the now stopped bloodbath and fratricidal war.

In view of the recent bloody political developments, many people are raising the alarm that the Palestine may be divided. However, such a possibility has been ruled out by Ismail Haniya who is reported to have said that he can not even imagine of such a scenario.

The present situation is that the US, the European Union, Israel and Russia have supported all the actions of Mahmoud Abbas without giving any thought to their being legal or illegal. The West has also lifted the sanctions it had imposed against the Hamas government. Israel, too, has decided to release the Palestinian fund it collects through taxes on the Palestinian people. It means the new government, despite being illegal, would not face the kind of financial crisis that the illegally sacked Hamas government was facing.

It would be appropriate to analyse the current Palestinian crisis in a dispassionate manner. In fact the genesis of the crisis lies in the Oslo Accord of 1993. That was the time when PLO and Yasser Arafat had been greatly undermined because of their support to Saddam Husain in the Gulf War. Capitalizing on the weakened position of Arafat, the West and Israel decided to call him to the negotiation table. Arafat lost everything when he renounced violence and recognized the State of Israel without securing a Palestinian state. He was satisfied with the promise that in the coming five years (after 1993) attempts would be made to facilitate the creation of a Palestinian State. We all know that promise is yet to be fulfilled.

Before the creation of a full Palestinian State an interim arrangement was to be made. Arafat returned to West Beank. He supervised the framing of a constitution under which elections were held for the President and the Majlis. Hamas had boycotted both the elections as a result of which Arafat and his Fatah members were voted to power with huge majority.

Hamas had rejected the Oslo Accord and continued its struggle against Israel. On the other hand Arafat realised that he was indeed cheated. Although he called himself President, but he knew well that he was not more than a mayor. He also realised soon that Israel was not sincere about creating an independent Palestinian State nor was America a fair peace-broker. Both Israel and America began to demand things that Arafat would have fulfilled only at the cost of betraying his people. He, therefore, refused to follow every Israeli-American command. What happened to him thereafter is a known history. The Israeli army surrounded his palace, destroyed it and effectively prevented him from moving out of his office. Only when he fell terminally ill, he was allowed to fly to France for treatment where he died.

Mahmoud Abbas succeeded Arafat after his death. Hamas did not participate in the presidential election but joined the electoral battle for the Palestinian Parliament which it won with a huge majority. The Hamas victory came despite blatant Israeli-American and Western interference in Palestine’s internal matters. And when Hamas won despite all these, they demanded it to accept Israel’s right to exist if it wanted Western aid. Hamas refused, formed the government and ran it against heavy odds. Israel and America could not tolerate it and encouraged the defeated Fatah to create problems for Hamas including attacks on its prominent leaders. To ward off this conspiracy and fratricidal war, Hamas agreed to form a unity government despite having a clear majority in the parliament. But some elements of al-Fatah continued to play the Israeli-American game and created the huge crisis in which Palestine is embroiled today. It is, therefore, al-Fatah and Mahmoud Abbas, coupled with the US and Israel, who must be blamed for the present Palestinian crisis.

[June, 2007]

The Only Way Out

Expectedly Mr. Bush vetoed the war budget through which the US Congress had sought to put some restrictions on him. The purpose of the whole Congress exercise was to pressurize Mr. Bush to pull out of Iraq. By vetoing the Congress-approved war budget Mr. Bush has proved nothing but his rigidity and stubbornness.

There is no point in discussing what will happen next. In American political spirit, now bipartisan parleys and discussions will take place to find out a compromise. Let them do their work the way they like. Let us remain concerned with their foreign policy as it matters to us the most.

With the electoral victory of the Democrats, many people the world over had come to believe that Bush would be compelled to change his Iraq policy. However, soon it became clear that they were underestimating his stubbornness and obstinacy. Mr. Bush refused to budge and argued that pulling out of Iraq without finishing the agenda would send a wrong signal and give the “terrorists” a sense of victory. The underlying implication, interalia, is that there is no resistance movement in Iraq and that the Iraqi freedom fighters are “terrorists”. Instead of getting frustrated with this kind of ridiculous Bush talk the American public should be grateful that their “brave” president did not call them cowards.

Perhaps the world has some mythical opinion about the “American public” also. They are rich and their leaders influence the world out of all proportions, we know. But the argument that they are innocent and are least interested in their foreign policy and, therefore, they can not be held responsible for the bloody and murderous acts of their leaders in foreign lands is no longer acceptable. The American leaders, Bush included, take care of the public opinion before all their adventures or misadventures. The same had happened in the case of Iraq invasion also. The Bush administration first built a case against late Mr. Saddam Hussein in the domestic arena arguing that he had weapons of mass destruction as well as close collaborative links with Al-Qaeda and, therefore, deserved to be eliminated. Some saner elements within and outside the US had tried to convince the American public that Bush’s Iraq policy was wrong and fraught with dangerous consequences but to no avail. The Americans believed their president and overwhelmingly approved of his murderous attack on Iraq. There is not point in saying that they were misled. Today they must face and bear the consequences of the Bush administration’s war on Iraq which they had approved.

The Democrats are equally guilty as they too had approved of Bush’s war on Iraq. They began to oppose Bush’s Iraq policy out of sheer political opportunism. When it became clear that the Iraq war would neither be cheap nor short, they began to criticize Mr. Bush for what they called his misadventure in Iraq. They were quick to realize that the American army would ultimately be caught in the Iraqi quagmire which meant steep rise in American casualties as well as in its war budget. The American public does not like such a scenario. For long they have been fed on the myth that their army is not only invincible but also capable of registering quick victories with few casualties and limited war budgets. The moment it becomes clear that a war is going to be a costly affair, they become wary and start opposing their administration. The Democrats just capitalized on this American mood and gained electorally in the last Congressional elections.

The present Democratic opposition does not mean that they are a peace-loving party. They are opposing Bush’s Iraq policy keeping in mind the forthcoming presidential election. In fact, they are as much war-mongers as are the Republicans. A truer fact is that the American public itself is a great war-monger. But they like a war that does not involve the killing of American soldiers and puts little burden on their national budget. An administration that fails to fulfil their expectations, becomes a villain in their eyes and is ejected out of office. The world, specially the Middle East, has changed in the last three decades. Now no war would be as cheap or short as was the six-day Arab-Israeli conflict of 1967. Countries with sizeable population and national pride such as Iran and Iraq may be defeated militarily but would not tolerate physical occupation of their lands. They would resist and make it very costly for invading armies and countries. Such a realization might have already dawned on the American public as well as their two political parties.

But it would be wrong to conclude that the American public and their two major political parties would learn the right lesson from their costly war in Iraq or from the recent Israeli misadventure in Lebanon. On the contrary, they might change their policies and war tactics. They would undermine the already marginalized United Nations and launch air strikes on flimsy grounds against the countries and outfits they love to hate. Countries like Iran have to be watchful of such new thinking and developments and make their strategic planning and preparations accordingly. This is the only way out for them.

[April, 2007]

Iran®s Only Option

Neo-imperialism is as brutally cruel as was old-fashioned imperialism of 18^th-20^th century. In a sense it is more inhuman and dangerous than the imperialism which believed in physical occupation and colonization of countries. Then, as well as now, the purpose has been economic exploitation of weaker nations. Imperialism, however, was brazen while neo-imperialism is subtle, shrewd and, therefore, more dangerous than its former incarnation.

Neo-imperialism has enormous resources, mental as well as financial. Its minds perversely exploit and manipulate international mechanisms and covenants such as UNO and Universal Declaration of Human Rights etc. to advance their interests. If weaker nations fall in line willingly, and without protest, they are spared of brazen intimidation, invasion and occupation. Those countries which protest against their exploitation are harassed and threatened to surrender. And the ones which oppose neo-imperialism openly, vigorously and vehemently are intimidated, invaded and occupied. This happened to Saddam’s defiant Iraq earlier, and now Iran is in the firing line.

Capitalism-motivated neo-imperialism’s most deadly and sinister design or weapon is their capability of manipulating and exploiting the United Nations to advance their selfish interests. Not long ago, the US and Britain tried to highjack the Security Council to play their game in Iraq. When they failed in their mission, they invaded and occupied Iraq in March-April 2003, and since then they have been exploiting this country’s economy and killing its people to give them democracy. The impotent United Nations which failed to prevent Anglo-American invasion and occupation of Iraq, quickly approved of their rule in the ill-fated country permitting the so called coalition forces to plunder and murder at will in order to establish “enlightened democracy” there. Today, the entire world knows how Saddam’s so-called dictatorially governed Iraq is cruelly misgoverned, even it has been converted into a “killing field”. Moreover, the sinister and wild allegations made against the Saddam regime have been proved to be totally wrong. And yet the United Nations does not seem to be learning any lessons.

Iran has signed NPT, opened all its nuclear facilities for UN inspection and has assured the world time and again that its nuclear programme is peaceful and that it has no intention of making a nuclear bomb. But the UN, dominated by the US-led West, would not believe Tehran and stand by the suspicion of America whose lies about Iraq are still fresh in our memory. Iran is pursuing what it is permitted to do as an NPT signatory. But the American-dominated Security Council of the UN is a law unto itself and thinks it can compel a country to forego the rights guaranteed to it by international agreements. Today no one is questioning if it was legally tenable for the Security Council to undermine international agreements and covenants; instead every one, even Russia, France, Germany and others who had vehemently opposed and tried to prevent American invasion of Iraq, are toeing the American line on Iran. Perhaps this time they do not want to miss the “bus of invasion” which the US is trying to force-enter into Iran and deprive them of the benefits that the “conquest of Iran” will give them.

It may be conceded that the goals of the United Nations are, by and large, noble and have been designed to bring about peace and prosperity in the world. But due to the undemocratic nature and composition of the all powerful Security Council it is well nigh impossible to realize these lofty goals. It is distressing to witness that the so-called great champions of democracy, the US, Britain and France etc., have created a Security Council where they enjoy undemocratic privileges through their veto power. And even more distressing is the fact that the rest of the world has accepted this undemocratically acquired superiority of a few powerful nations. Although a few nations protested against the way the five permanent members of the Security Council and Germany have been treating them in the case of imposing additional sanctions against Iran, there should not be expected any further defiance from them. When it will come to voting against or in favour of the resolution against Tehran, most third world and non-aligned nations would go with America than side with Iran, a fellow third world and non-aligned nation. This is an equally grave tragedy. If the US-led West is cruel, the third world would, in all probability, approve of the cruelties which may be committed soon against a fellow third world country, Iran.

In the end, Iran would be left alone to fight against the US, and it should not expect any worthwhile support from the rest of the world. But let us hope that Tehran would not commit the mistake that Mr. Saddam committed and would respond to any invasion with all the force it has at its command. Let us also hope that Iran’s missiles will be at least as dangerous as the “deadly inaccuracy” of Hizbullah’s missiles which created panic among Israelis and defeated the habitual aggressor for the first time.

[March, 2007]

Options and Opportunities for Muslims

For deprived individuals a secure job means more than what it means to persons belonging to an empowered community. Men with financial resources, who mainly come from empowered sections of the society, always have more opportunities for earning their livelihood. With proper education they can even create opportunities for themselves with the help of financial resources they have in such sectors as industry and production, banking and finance, hotel business and tourism, wholesale and retailing, construction and housing, education and health etc. But all these sectors are almost closed on a person who has education but no financial resources. Therefore, the best option for him is to go for a secure job. This very psychology is compelling Muslims to demand reservations in government jobs and educational institutions.

A thinking mind, however, can find openings even where the doors of opportunities are closed. And a thinking mind is what the Muslim community needs the most at this moment. This is specially required because the signs are already visible that implementing the recommendations of the Sachar Committee would not be a smooth sailing for the central government. For, one of its own ministry has come out with the opinion that even the Muslim Dalits can not get reservation under the existing law. The central government has suffered another setback as well. The RBI and the public sector banks have responded negatively to the proposal of disbursing loans to the Muslims on a priority basis. Their argument is that they do not take into account the religious background of a prospective borrower but only look at his credit worthiness. The finance minister is also reported to be in agreement with the banks’ thinking.

The banks’ worry is understandable. Already the government has compelled them to loan out to those, such as the formers, whose credit worthiness is doubtful. They would, therefore, not like the rank of such borrowers to swell. After all they are in a loss and profit business; they are not running a charity organization.

Then what can be done? Well, the government may ask its ministers, officers and banks to fall in line. But why should we bother about the job that the government has to do. Let our minds think about and find out other options.

Can Nobel Laureate Mohammad Salim’s experience help us? Many Indian organizations are already running the small credit scheme and perhaps they are doing well. The government, too, has an option here. It can create a financial corporation with sufficient fund which conducts itself on the line of Muhammad Salim’s bank in Bangladesh. There is every possibility that the successful Bangladeshi experiment will succeed in India as well.

Another option is to help Muslims establish cooperative banks. Many Muslims suffer the denial of a bank loan because they reside in areas which the banks have declared to be negative zones. A cooperative bank does not demand that only the people of legally developed areas can become its members. Yes, there are rules that cooperative banks have also to follow. If the RBI leaves it to the cooperative banks to decide which area is negative and which one is otherwise, the Muslims will stand to gain a lot from such financial institutions. The cooperative banks should also have the liberty to relax some other rules while deciding about a particular loan. For example there are hundreds of illegal colonies in Delhi whose residents fail to get housing loans from traditional banks. The irony is that the RBI has allowed cooperative banks to operate in such unauthorized areas but would not allow them to give loans to their members living therein. The RBI should be lenient and allow the cooperative banks of unauthorized areas to relax the rules for giving housing loans to the members residing in the so called negative zones.

Many cooperative banks charge a high rate of interest. The government needs to intervene here and compel the banks to follow the Muhammad Salim line. Even otherwise government intervention is required, for most cooperative banks have become the business ventures of some clever people. The government should see to it that the cooperative banks function as a source of help for the poor and do not become the financial institutions of a few rich people. And why not our traditional banks can have windows for Islamic or interest-free banking? Islamic banking is no longer an utopia, no longer even an economic feasibility but has become a living reality. The banks in the West have not opened Islamic windows because of a blind love for Islam but they have done so on the basis of economic merit. The experiment of Islamic bank or of Islamic window in traditional banks has met with success in the West. The story would not be different in India if the idea is honestly implemented here as well. So far we have discussed how the banking sector can help the Muslims to redeem their poor condition. It should not be difficult for an imaginative mind to know how other sectors can also help them. The government can play a big role here if it is indeed sincere in its concern for the Muslim minority in India.

[February, 2007]

Israel Can Not Survive Peace

Born out of violence Israel has an addiction for violence. Its philosophy is that violence can solve all its problems, specially the ones coming from its immediate neighbours, the Arabs. The purpose of the violence, state terrorism in other words, is to secure peace for the Israelis. This philosophy and its purpose, therefore, clearly exclude all possibilities of an enduring peace between the Jews and the Arabs in the Middle East. Surely there exist peace agreements between Israel and Jordan and between Israel and Egypt, but these were “purchased” by American money and are continuously “financed” by the so called “American aid”. Moreover, Egypt was pressured/persuaded to sign “peace agreement” with the Jewish state in order to divide and weaken the then united Arab world. As far as Jordan is concerned, it is a creation of the West and survives on its charity. Furthermore, Jordan’s peace agreement with Israel is not like the one signed between two equal sovereign states but it resembles the one which has been dictated by the victorious to the vanquished.

Why Israel has addiction for violence? A combination of factors has convinced it that nothing but violence can buy it the peace it needs so much. The first factor is a “historical factor”. That the Jews have been persecuted all over the world because they happened to be weak. So, in order to be powerful “they created” Israel, and to show their power they unleash violence against the Palestinians and other Arabs on regular basis. The second factor is their fear that they might be wiped off the face of earth if they do not keep their enemies weak forever for which they indulge in violence time and again. The third factor is internal. That the Jews living in Israel are a badly divided lot, politically as well as religiously, and they can be kept united only through a constant fear of external threat. And if no such threat exists, it has to be created through war and terror which Israel manufactures expertly from time to time. The last factor is the Jewish inability to make Israel attractive enough for American and European Jews to migrate to and settle in the so called “promised land”. As a result they have been forced to drop the idea or project of creating the so called “historical greater Israel”, at least for the time being. This inability often results in frustration which makes the Zionists unleash violence against their opponents.

But one thing is mighty clear. That violence can succeed or triumph temporarily but it can never secure peace for the violence-mongers. This has been made abundantly clear by the recent Israel – Hizbullah war. The entire world knows that Hizbullah “attacked” Israel in response to its brutal violence against the Palestinians who were unable to retaliate. We also know that Israel failed miserably in defeating Hizbullah which, according to large number of people across the globe, has emerged victorious. The victory is not only psychological but it is also strategic. The Israeli defeat is not that its fighter planes and missiles failed in finding their targets but it lies in their inability to spy on and locate the Hizbullah fighters accurately. This explains why the Isareli bombs and missiles killed more civilians than the Hizbullah fighters. Israel’s defeat and misery is further aggravated by the fact that the largely ineffective and short-range Hizbullah missiles were more accurate in finding their targets as they killed more soldiers than Israeli citizens. Moreover, the inaccuracy of Hizbullah missiles became a potent psychological weapon as it instilled fear in the hearts of Israelis who escaped in panic from the war zone, and thus for the first time a huge refugee problem was created in Israel, and they too, like the Palestinians, were made to feel what life means in a refugee camp.

Israel is bitter and has launched an official investigation in its military’s failure. Whatever the result of the investigation, one thing is clear. That Israel, born out of violence, will remain addicted to violence. The reason is that it can not survive peace, specially an honourable peace with the Arabs, as such an eventuality will eliminate the external threat that keeps the badly divided Israeli society united. It means that Israel will continue to believe in and practise its false philosophy of violence.

This also means that the West, because of its support to Israel, will remain embroiled in the vicious cycle of Middle Eastern violence and pay a heavy price for it. Stray voices have already started questioning the West’s unqualified support to Israel. The need, however, is that sooner than later the West must realize that Israel is not in their interest.

[September, 2006]

Towards Muslim Empowerment

Justice Rajindar Sachar Committee Report has yet not been submitted, though some of its findings have appeared in a section of the media. Two of the numerous findings are especially disturbing. First, it has been found that the Muslim enrolment rate has gone down since 1965 and today it stands below that of the scheduled castes. The reason is that the scheduled castes have achieved a comparatively better educational progress.

Second, jails are the only place or area where Muslims are over-represented. That their share in jail population is more than their share in India’s population. This shows that poverty and illiteracy have compelled Muslims to enter the world of crime and land in police custody and jails.

There is a strong link between illiteracy or lack of education and crimes. Poor education, caused by whatever factors, internal or external, is instrumental in keeping Muslims backward, economically and otherwise. And it is a known fact that poverty or economic deprivation compel people to indulge in criminal activities. This explains why Muslims are over-represented in jails.

Another interesting finding is that even in states ruled by the so-called secular parties, the Muslim community has fallen way behind the others in every sphere of life. And it is their educational backwardness which accounts for their decline in every other field. Therefore, the Sachar Committee’s suggested/ recommended solution is to empower Muslims educationally which would ensure and facilitate their empowerment in all other fields.

The data collected by the Sachar Committee shows that West Bengal is the state where the Muslims are the most backward. Before people jump to the conclusion that the prolonged left parties’ rule in the state has done no good to the Muslims, they have swung into action to preempt any adverse effect that it might cause. So, the left leadership has proposed that every ministry in the Central Government reserves 15% of its allocated budget for Muslim advancement and development. May be, it is just an attempt to take credit for what the Sachar Committee is reported to have already recommended in its yet to be submitted report.

It is certain that there would be more politicking in the days to come, especially after the final report of the Sachar Committee is submitted. A section of the population would surely make a lot of hue and cry condemning it as yet another attempt of Muslim appeasement. But the data collected by the Sachar Committee prove it beyond doubt that both due to internal and external factors Muslims have fallen behind in terms of empowerment and development. It would have just an academic relevance if we try to know whether the Muslim decline and backwardness is because of their own commission or has been caused by outside inimical forces or a combination of both the factors has brought about this sorry state of affairs. What matters is the fact that they are indeed the most backward section of the population.

Let us hope that the Sachar Committee’s report, whenever it is submitted, unlike the reports of many other Committees and Commissions, would not be consigned to the Government archives to gather dust. The right-thinking citizens must ensure that the report is thoroughly discussed, within and outside the Parliament, leading to the formulation of a concrete and pragmatic programme of actions for Muslim empowerment and development.

It is universally accepted by social scientists and thinkers that the perennial backwardness of a community is not good for the society they are living in. Either the community itself or the society at large has to remove their backwardness for improving and maintaining the social health of the country. Already the country has chalked out programmes, including reservations in government services and educational institutions, for the empowerment of some social groups which are comparatively less privileged and less-developed. If backwardness of one group warrants special programmes for its development and empowerment, why the some benefit can not be extended to the equally or even more backward Muslim community. This is an argument as well as a demand which deserves to be appreciated and accepted.

[October, 2006]

A Complete Package is Needed

The Sachar Committee’s report, submitted to the Prime Minister in November, 2006, has been tabled in the Parliament within a month. As expected, it has generated a good deal of debate in the media, and people belonging to various walks of life have expressed their opinion on the subject. Barring the avowedly anti-Muslim BJP, almost all other political parties have welcomed the report. There also seems to be increasing consensus that the report is exhaustive and has brought into focus the all round Muslim marginalization in the country. There also appears to be near-unanimity that some thing must be done for redeeming the pitiable conditions in which the Muslims have fallen today.

As can be imagined and expected, various quarters are offering various solutions which, they think, would solve the problems of Muslims. Many among Muslims have come out in favour of reservation in government jobs and educational institutions. Even the Sachar Committee had varying views on the subject. While an esteemed member of the Committee argued for reservation for all Muslims, the rest felt otherwise saying it was against the terms and reference of the Committee. Keeping the importance of consensus in mind, the lone member–a known educationist and champion of the Muslim causes – dropped the idea of attaching a dissenting note and allowed the report to be presented to the Prime Minister in its present form. Perhaps it was an impact of his insistence on recommending reservation for all Muslims, that the Committee at least decided to recommend reservation for the Dalit Muslims.

The Sachar Committee has rightly concluded that over 90 per cent Muslims are living below the poverty line as they have no access to education and health services etc. Their condition, therefore, is as bad as that of the Dalits, the scheduled castes and the scheduled tribes. If the criterion of deprivation and marginalization is applied, the Muslim community, barring a mere four per cent, deserves reservation as much as any other deprived community. This is a point that not only the political class of the country but also the esteemed judiciary ought to realize sooner than later. Yes, the constitution does not permit religion-based reservation. However, if there is a will, there can be a way, at least we may find one either by amending the constitution or by declaring the entire Muslim community as backward.

As the Sachar Committee failed to recommend blanket reservation for the Muslim community whose 96% members it found to be living below the poverty line, there is now no point in beating about the bush. Let us look forward to what we can get out of this report.

The report brings home the point that the Sangh Parivar’s propaganda of Muslim appeasement is a myth and deserves to be rejected with the contempt it deserves. It is heartening to note that barring the BJP the rest of the country’s political class has come round the view that the Muslim community has fallen behind and that special measures ought to be taken for its socio-economic, educational and political empowerment. It is natural that there would be differences of opinion on how to ameliorate the Muslim condition. But a threadbare and dispassionate discussion on the report is the need of the hour with a view to preparing at least a special package for bettering the economic and educational conditions of the Muslims.

The Ministry of Human Resource Development organised a one-day consultative meeting on December 3, 2006 to discuss the feasibility of setting up a Madrasa Board. Let us make it clear that while Madrasa education is important, it alone is not enough or it is not the only thing that Muslims need for their educational empowerment. In fact, what the community needs is a grand educational package that envisions to establish more and more schools in Muslim areas, provide special assistance to existing minority colleges for starting professional courses and declare some Muslim-managed institutions of higher learning such as Jamia Millia Islamia and others as minority institutions so that they cater for the community’s needs of higher education. Along with the above measures, steps should also be taken to encourage and prepare Muslims for taking admission in mainstream colleges and universities of the country. Coaching institutes like the one operating in Delhi under the auspices of Hamdard Education Society may also be opened by the Central Government in big cities where sizable Muslim population resides. Above all, not just one ministry but either all ministries or the Central Government should chalk out a wholistic, time-bound and pragmatic programme for improving the Muslim condition on all fronts, social, economic, political and education. The Prime Minister’s Office should specially play the leading role at this juncture in order to ensure that the love’s labour is not lost and the report serves the purpose for which it was commissioned. It should also be ensured that the report is not sacrificed at the altar of dirty politics.

[November, 2006]

Muslims and the Great Reservation Debate

Anti and pro-reservation protests and debates have right now caught the imagination of the entire country. The whole nation is divided indeed in seemingly two irreconcilable camps, opposing or supporting reservation in higher education. The people on both sides of the divide know just one thing: to score debating points against the opponent. No sincere effort has been made by either side to understand the problems of the other side in an objective and dispassionate manner. As a result we see partisan and argumentative conversations all over. The anti-reservation elements say that they want merit and equality of opportunity to prevail. The supporters of reservation, on the other hand, say that such arguments are nothing but a ploy to keep them backward in every sphere of life.

No doubt the constitution visualizes an India that offers equality of opportunity to all its citizens. But that very constitution also provides for reservation for some marginalized sections of the society. Once marginality, historical or otherwise, was accepted as the criterion for reservation, it was just natural that the left-out marginalized groups will also demand the same treatment for themselves. As the OBCs took their time to rise, the issue of reservation for them remained dormant for a while after independence. But any perspective observer would have seen it coming some three decades ago when the Janata Party had come to power at the centre with strong support from the OBCs.

Today the other Backward Classes are not only alive but also demanding, even threatening. The OBC leadership is also alive and ready to do what ever is required to fulfil the dreams of the classes they belong to. This is a scenario that no government or political outfit can dare to ignore. This explains why the Manmohan Government has decided to implement the OBC reservation from the academic session 2007-08 ignoring the vociferous protests of the anti-reservation elements.

The wisest strategy for the general category students would be not to oppose reservation but ask for more space for merit to survive, if not flourish. The government, too, is thinking on these very lines but is facing resource crunch. Increasing general category seats would not be easy as the present infrastructure, physical as well as human, is not sufficient, and to create it in a year time would require huge funds which the government would find difficult to manage.

But we leave it to the government to solve the problem which is its prime duty. Let us discuss the fallout of the reservation. It is no secret that the general category students usually outshine the SCs and the STs. The reason is that we have not set up a minimum marks limit that reserved category students must score in order to get admission in specialized courses. This, on the one hand, will encourage reserved category students to work harder and excell along with others and, on the other, would save merit from being plagued with perpetual decline.

There are three other issues that the country’s intelligentia as well as its political leadership must address sooner than later. First, it is a well-known fact that only few castes of the scheduled category have so far benefited from reservations. Steps, whatever they might be, must be taken to benefit the most marginalized of the marginalized, and it needs to be done before they, too, rise in protest. Such a policy may be adopted for the OBC quota from the very beginning.

The second issue relates to the poor among the so called forward classes. Many people of this class were poor at the time independence and many well to do of the past have become poor due to a variety of reasons. The last point specially applies to the Muslim citizens of the country. If deprivation and marginalization are the sole criteria for making reservation for backward classes, why the same yardstick should not be applied to benefit the poor among the forward classes.

The last issue concerns the Indian Muslims. It is an open secret that they have been discriminated against after independence. Their present condiction is pathetic indeed. They are tired of promises being made to them ever since independence. The time has come to stop treating Muslims as a mere vote bank and do something concrete for their all round development. If reservation is panacea for the poverty of others why it can not be applied to treat the malaise of poverty and deprivation afflicting the Muslim community all over the country.

[May, 2006]

For the Sake of Survival

The third anniversary of American invasion and occupation of Iraq has just passed by. The American leadership, now almost intellectually bankrup, seems to be at the end of its wit and is behaving in an abnormal manner. An overwhelming majority of Americans today feels that the war in Iraq is purposeless and must stop here and now. But George Bush still seems determined to carry on with this highly unpopular war ignoring the express opinion of his fellow countrymen. It appears as he is out in Iraq to pursue and carry out some personal agenda and therefore wants to fight to the finish. He has tried to link the deposed Iraqi president, Mr. Saddam Husain with Al-Qaeda and believes that the pro-Husain elements in collaboration with the Al-Qaeda “terrorists” are behind all the acts of violence in Iraq.

The victors never see their own mistakes or turn a blind eye to their own acts of violence. This is what exactly is happening in Iraq. The Americans are killing large number of innocent people and yet shamelessly claim that their drive is directed against some terrorists. Their violence is not a violence but a response to the terror of the insurgents and, therefore, it is justified, they argue further.

The third anniversary should have been the occasion for the American leadership to properly evaluate and analyse their gains and losses in Iraq. Without doubt, they opened their eyes but only to see their “gains” as they have suffered no losses there. And the gains they have enumerated include the toppling of Saddam regime and the establishment of a new government in its place, though the elected members of parliament have failed to form a national government despite the fact that the general elections were held in December, 2005. The country seems to be on the verge of a civil war as Shias and Sunnis are fighting bloody battles all over Iraq. At least and at last the Americans have succeeded in dividing the Iraqi society on sectarian lines which had not witnessed such untoward incidents for centuries.

The American public may think that the war in Iraq is not worth the billions of dollars their government is spending on it. But the neocons seem quite determined and want to win this war at any cost. At stake is their ideology as well as their dream of making the twenty first century an American century. Way back in early 1990s Francis Fukuyama, a noted neocon thinker, had advanced the argument that the end (purpose) of history was to achieve perfection with regard to human society and governance. And with the end of communism the capitalist economy and democratic polity as practiced in the United States have not only come to dominate the world but they also mark the end of the evolution of man’s mind. In plain words Fukuyama argued that the human civilization has achieved its pinnacle in the form of American society and governance.

Fukuyama’s was an intellectual exercise which George Bush and his neocon associates want to put in practice. Immediately after the collapse of communism and defeat of Saddam Husain in early 1990s, the neocons had started arguing that the future of humanity depended on how quickly America was able to fashion a world order of its own liking. Their thinking, however, could not be put into practice as they lost to Bill Clinton in the presidential election. But with coming to power of George Bush, the neocons were able to revive their old scheme and chalk out a strategy to make the new century an American century.

West Asia is significant owing to its huge oil resources. The neocon strategists, therefore, decided to first create a “Middle East” that would willingly serve their purpose. As some nations were/are resolutely opposed to being subservient to the US, the neocons have decided to subdue them one by one. They have got rid of a defiant Saddam Husain, marginalized Syria and now want to cut Iran to size.

But making a scheme on paper is one thing and putting it in practice is an altogether different ball game. In their thinking the neocons had assumed that Egypt and Palestine were already on their side. But recent elections have thrown up forces which can frustrate the neocons’ agenda for the Middle East. Iran, too, is not going to be a soft target. The Iranians seem to have learned their lessons from the fate of Saddam Husain. That cooperation with a politically motivated and American-dominated United Nations is a sure recipe for disaster. Therefore the gem of wisdom to acquire is to achieve the level of power that will ensure your survival in the American-dominated world order.

[March, 2006]

Bush, Blair and BJP

What is common between the three Bs or Bush, Blair and BJP? The three, in fact, represent a dangerous negative thinking about the “other”. They need an enemy to hate and thrash to prove that they also exist. Moreover, they do not have any positive achievement that they could be proud of. The purpose of their life is to think negatively about the enemies whom they have created for themselves.

Bush wants an America that must dominate the world. Had he a positive thinking, he would have desired an America that will excell in all walks of life. But, blinded by his negative thinking, he has developed the fallacious philosophy of American supremacy which, he feels, is good for the world. Misguided by this false philosophy, he always thinks and also desires that the world must accept American supremacy. Anyone who opposes American perceptions or their worldview is surely an enemy who must be thrashed and defeated.

It is Bush’s erroneous philosophy that compels him to divide the world in two blocks of “us” and “them”. The world for him is either black or white and he wants that the entire world must share his narrow vision. You have to be either with him or against him as he has no regard for neutrality.

The biggest problem with Bush is that he thinks that the neutral is as great an enemy as the one who is vehemently opposed to him. Therefore he treats both the neutral and the enemy on equal footing and wants to eliminate them by using military force. Bush’s negative thinking further compels him to work for the elimination of all those who dare to compete with the US. For him the American supremacy is sacrosanct and no country has the right to challenge it. And if someone commits the folly of challenging or competing with the US, he must prepare himself for what has been done to Iraq and Afghanistan. In plain words the Bush doctrine demands the world to be inferior to the US, and if any one dares to go the other way, he must be ready to face the consequences. He would be first “persuaded”, then sanctioned against and finally beaten into submission. Saddam Hussein is the living example of what Bush would like to do to all of his enemies.

Blair does not deserve a better description than being an alter ego of Bush in Britain. The problem with the British elite whom Blair represents is that they have not reconciled with the loss of empire that they had over fifty years ago. A feeling to rule over the world still lingers somewhere in their mind. Obviously such a thinking is destined to fail miserably specially in the awakened world we are living in. Like the old-fashioned imperialism the so-called neo-imperialism will also disappear sooner than later. But Bush and Blair are not ready to accept this natural course of things. With the military firepower they have at their command, they feel that they can fashion a world of their own liking, a world that will submit to their imperialistic design. In their scheme of things no country outside their alliance should dare to raise its head, and if any one “commits the folly” of defying them, he would be thrashed and defeated.

What Bush and Blair are doing at international level, the BJP is trying to accomplish at national level in India. They, too, have a negative thinking and have created a “Muslim enemy” whose appeasement they can not tolerate. India is plagued with lots of problems from poverty to illiteracy but such issues never bother the BJP as its sole agenda is to establish and maintain the upper caste supremacy. Nursing any such idea or implementing any such scheme in the awakened India we are living in is surely impossible. There was a time when the upper caste dominated the Indian political scene. But see how things have changed in recent years. People acquainted with the philosophy of social change know for sure that the upper caste’s domination in such fields as media and economy will also disappear in the course of time. This, in fact, is the natural course of things. But the BJP would not accept it and would indulge in activities, including mindless violence against the Muslims, which are born out of their negative thinking.

What Bush, Blair and BJP must realize is that the world we are living in, specially the third world, does not believe in domination and the resultant violence. The overwhelming majority of youth specially has developed a positive thinking. The common belief is that the world has enough opportunities or more and more opportunities can be created which all sections of the society should capitalize upon for their genuine welfare. The majority also thinks that the ones left behind in the race of life should not be ignored but they deserve to be taken care of. In such an environment of opportunity and hope no negative thinking has a chance to prosper, flourish or succeed. But Bush, Blair and BJP do not seem to be learning their lessons. They, therefore, must get ready to be consigned to the dustbin of history.

[June, 2006]

Aggression Must Fail

The Israeli aggression against Lebanon and Palestine continues unabated with open American support. The world has not condemned the Israeli aggression as strongly as it used to do earlier. The Arab regimes are bickering as ever. Indeed many of them are happy that Hizbullah, whom they regard as an ally of Iran, is being destroyed. Husni Mubarak went a step ahead and declared that the Egyptian army is to defend Egypt and not Lebanon and thus he hit the final nail in the coffin of Arab nationalism.

Meanwhile Lebanon and Palestine continue to suffer daily Israeli bombardment which has killed or injured hundreds of people and destroyed property worth billions of dollars. The Israeli-American thinking is that violence can bring them peace or get for Israel secure borders. Ever since humanity began its journey violence, brutal and mindless, has never succeeded in achieving peace. The violence of the unjust strong and powerful has specially failed, and yet the Israeli-American leadership has no other strategy except aggression to advance their interests in the Middle East.

Violence and aggression have failed in rooting out insurgents in Iraq. They have also failed in Palestine and Lebanon in suppressing the freedom-fighters. But the Israeli-American leadership is not willing to learn any lesson. They still believe that hitting the opponents hard would terrorize them into silence or make them surrender. As a result they continue pursuing their policies of aggression in Iraq, Lebanon and Palestine.

It is obvious that the Israeli-American thinking is dangerously wrong. For over fifty years Israel has tried to suppress the Palestinians without success; and for over three years the U.S. is trying to bomb the Iraqi insurgents in to surrender but, as we see, the Americans too have failed miserably.

On the contrary the Israeli-American violence and aggression have strengthened the resolve of the freedom fighters from Iraq to Lebanon and Palestine. Of the three groups of freedom fighters, the Palestinians are the weakest as they have no worthwhile weapon with which to respond to the Israeli invasion and aggression. But even the Palestinian freedom fighters seem to be conveying the greatest message to Israel that you can break our hands and legs, you may completely paralyse our body, and yet we would refuse to surrender. This refusal is important. This would never give the Israelis the joy of being victorious, and would also not give them the peace of mind without which they can never think of being a safe and secure country.

There is another important point that deserves to be noted. Hizbullah was not as strong a few years back as it is today. Their missiles are no match to those of Israel and America, neither in technological sophistication nor in their capacity to cause destruction. And yet now they can hit targets over hundred miles away. Earlier the Hizbullah missiles could not hit their targets beyond a few miles. But now the militia is talking about hitting Tel Aviv and even beyond. There are several reasons behind Hizbullah’s growing military power. But the point to be noted here is that it is not Israel’s or America’s monopoly to be powerful; others too have mind which they can use to grow in strength. Hizbullah is the case in point.

The problem with Israel is that it always thinks in terms of power and strength which can enable it to unleash aggression against its opponents. It came into being by using violence and terror, and has always believed that only through this method it can survive as a nation. Yes, it has survived, but has never lived in peace. In fact, it can never live in peace, specially as long as it continues to believe in the “philosophy” of violence and terror. For, small-scale reprisal from Hamas or stray missiles of Hizbuallh hitting deep into Israel have the potential to disturb the peace which the Israelis need so desperately to lead a normal life.

It is time for both Israel and America to see the writing on the wall. Their long history of aggression in which they often succeeded militarily, and also sometimes reaped economic benefits, is no guarantee that they would always remain powerful. Hizbullah’s challenge to Israel is not like that of an equally powerful nation. But the way they have progressed militarily and the damage they have caused to Israel in the ongoing conflict should make Tel Aviv and Washington wiser than before. With its present military might Hizbullah can not defeat Israel but surely it can make their life miserable. Therefore both Israel and America must think that violence and aggression can give you temporary victory but not a peaceful country or secure borders within which you can sleep without fear of being attacked.

Yes, aggression can give a people temporary victory, but it should not be allowed to triumph for ever. In fact, it should be punished and repulsed so that humanity’s faith in peaceful international relations may survive, if not flourish. We also must realize that aggression is a violent expression of the rage within which ultimately devours the aggressor. And what succeeds ultimately is not aggression but resilience which Hamas and Hizbullah seem to possess in abundance.

[July, 2006]