India out of Obama's peace offensive circuit?
Obama's conviction is that Islam does not preach terrorism and only 'violent extremists' who constituted a tiny, but potent, minority indulge in mass killing of innocents. This is the opposite of the position of hawks in positions of power in India
PRESIDENT OBAMA'S historic Middle East visit in June 2009, was basically to mend fences with the Muslim population of the world and stem their worsening alienation. Obama is convinced that illogical and irrational attitudes of self-styled liberalists toward Islam and Muslims were at the root cause of the situation. About frequent, dastardly suicide attacks across the world, most of which are attributed to extremists professing Islam, he said: “It is costly and politically difficult to continue this conflict.” The President listed hot-button issues like festering Israel-Palestine issue; the Iraq war, which he admitted was a folly of his predecessor Bush; Iran's nuclear ambitions; and ongoing conflict in Af-Pak and described them as priority areas to put an end to the “cycle of suspicion and discord."
That Obama did not mention Kashmir while addressing conflicts with the Muslim world was quite a prominent absence since the Indian subcontinent is home to the biggest chunk of Muslims. This omission has been gleefully highlighted by North Block mandarins of India, living in a cold-war time warp of era. India’s ‘free’ Media triumphantly mentioned that the speech “conspicuously excluded reference to the Kashmir issue.” It has to peddle ultra-patriotism to sustain the interests of the ruling elite to sustain.
Top newspapers informed Indians that this was to the dismay of Pakistan and “the separatist proxies who have made it an issue.” Indians have long been feeding on the lie that the bitter dispute between the two nuclear armed belligerents, lying stalled at UN, was not a pressing issue for the world. They blacked out the President’s assurance that the solutions would be based on his conviction that Islam never preaches terrorism and only 'violent extremists' who indulge in mass killing of innocents constituted a tiny but potent minority.
This conviction is exactly the opposite of the position of the tiny but potent minority of hawks dominating positions of power in India. There are numerous well-off, ultra-patriotic ‘intellectuals’ to maintain that all Muslims are terrorists unless proved otherwise. Thousands of Indians, blessed by God to be born in ‘high castes’, want to “pack off the traitors to Pakistan.” Strategic pundits who mainly hail from this section advocate inflicting a crushing blow upon the neighbouring country if only to “teach a lesson to the disloyal people over here.”
At a time when the US president was seeking partnership rather than confrontation, the newly appointed foreign minister of the 'largest democracy' thought it fit to escalate conflict with the neighbour. The worthy 'doubted' publicly the 'sincerity' of the Pakistan government and ruled out any rapprochement unless that country did the big-brother’s bidding. The Lahore High Court had refused to restrict the freedom of an NGO Chief as allegations against him were found to be without proper basis. He had to be released by the government, unlike in India where the judiciary connives in the denial of basic human rights. The courts have no qualms and convict the accused, based on confessions extracted by police as per draconian laws that no self-respecting judge anywhere else will countenance.
In contrast to New Delhi mandarins, almost all other capitals in the subcontinent, which once constituted unified British India have noted several references in Obama’s speech to the South Asian situation, albeit indirect. The landmark speech did not also refer directly to China, which is under pincers from Europe to stop persecuting followers of Dalai Lama; to Russia, which is inhumanly crushing rebellion of oppressed people; or to Sri Lanka, which could face war crimes enquiry for mass slaughtering of civilians in the guise of fighting terror. But the writing on the wall for them, and India, was clear: “You must maintain your power through consent, not coercion. You must respect the rights of minorities and participate with a spirit of tolerance and compromise.” Obama empathised with quest among people for a homeland and the 'daily humiliation and torture' that comes from occupation by force.
Obama’s declaration: “We can't disguise hostility towards any religion behind the pretense of liberalism. Muslim citizens (must not be prevented from) practicing religion as they see fit, for instance, by dictating what clothes a Muslim woman should wear” amply reflected the intolerance even among the top stratum. An ‘honourable’ Supreme Court judge recently referred to the tendency among Muslims to grow beard and opined that “such Talibanisation” cannot be tolerated.
The President said: “People in every country should be free to choose and live their faith based upon the persuasion of the mind and the heart and the soul.” It applies to the draconian laws and practices prevailing in India to discourage people from propagating virtues of their religion in an attempt to make others to subscribe to the tenets. These laws make it mandatory for individuals to get consent from government minions to follow the faith of their choice and funnily go by the name ‘Freedom of Religion Act’.
Even the ‘father of the nation’ campaigned vehemently to prevent oppressed sections – condemned by the dominant community as pariahs or untouchables– to leave the fold. The emergence, shamefully, of Dalits among Muslims, Sikhs, Christians etc – the faiths that do not recognise birth-based stratification – is the result of the conspiracy against conversion hatched by these elite sections.
The other area of the peace offensive concerning India is nuclear nonproliferation. The President said: “When one nation pursues a nuclear weapon, the risk of nuclear attack rises for all nations. . . When violent extremists operate in one stretch of mountains, people are endangered across an ocean.”
He obviously meant the unabashed manner, in which his predecessor Bush defied the world opinion to partner with the Indian Prime Minister when he said: “You must place the interests of your people and the legitimate workings of the political process above your party. Without these ingredients, elections alone do not make true democracy.” Manmohan Singh had showcased to the world in the deal how ‘valuable’ the MPs were in the greatest democracy of the world while trying to bolster the prospects for his ‘friend’.
If Obama is able to do what he said he will, it will sound the death knell for the nexus of bureaucrats and politicos-of different hues that has ruled the country so far. It has been living off an obsessively self-loving population by flaunting ‘breakthroughs’ on the route to become a superpower. The days of siphoning off scant resources of impoverished masses to pile up weapons of mass destruction and cheating them in the guise of ‘national security’ may soon be over.
.It felt like, someone drank whole night and started writing as soon as woke up. Absolutely clueless. Did you ever pass high school ?
.What a fool ! I see no comments so far, and definitely not worth. Ashamed that he too is an Indian.
Login
 Login through Social ID
|
