Kashmir: a simmering, sometimes brutal small war

[jmm99]

There are a number of threads here at SWC to which you could contribute.

For the benefit of other members/viewers, I don't know Moorthy (his first name, BTW); but I've just looked up his book, Defeating Political Islam: The New Cold War (2009). Here's the Amazon pitch:

Al Qaeda and its sympathizers are often viewed as isolated fanatics outside of the mainstream Muslim population—outlaws not only in the West but also in respectable Muslim nations. This book argues just the opposite: that in fact terrorism is the logical outgrowth of an international Islamic political agenda that is endorsed and funded by Islam’s major players—Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Pakistan. Author Moorthy S. Muthuswamy labels these nations the "Axis of Jihad". For decades, he says, they have been devoted to extending their spheres of influence in the name of religion.

Utilizing a recent groundbreaking statistical analysis of Islamic doctrines and an analysis based upon the outlook of Muslims, he discusses the possibility that Islam is less a religion and more an ideology of conquest.

Muthuswamy urges US policymakers to rethink the War on Terror along the lines of the successfully waged Cold War against communism. The nuclear physicist-author makes the following main point:

Like the Cold War, this war is more a contest of ideas than armed conflict. Rather than placing the emphasis on military might and costly wars abroad, the West should invest the bulk of its effort in a science-based ideological war, one that is directed at discrediting the simplistic, conquest-oriented theological roots of Islamist indoctrination and jihadist politics.

Muthuswamy also emphasizes the importance of a largely non-Muslim India in the War on Terror, in view of its location and size. The India-born author gives a fascinating description of modern Islamic conquest in South Asia. His insights into the Islamist siege and subversion of Indian democracy should be revealing for the citizens of western democracies.

The author asserts that the West needs India in dealing with the conundrum that is Pakistan, as they both share language, culture, and more with each other.

This fresh perspective on the ongoing threat from Islamist terrorism offers much to ponder about the future course of US foreign policy initiatives.

I also found two reviews. One (by Diana West in the WT), BOOK REVIEW: Reversing U.S. policy in AfPak, is favorable. The other (by GB Singh in NER), Dangerous Policy, is unfavorable. The latter attacks Moorthy's message, but also attacks the messenger (IMO). I did take Mr Singh's advice on one point: I will read the book !

Moorthy, the concept here at SWC is to attack the message (ruthlessly), but not to attack the messenger. In short, an officer and a gentlemen standard works best in preventing flaming and in keeping learnable conversations going. In that context and in my opinion, Mr Singh should have left out the last half of his last paragraph.

I encourage you to post here, not only in this thread but elsewhere.

Regards

Mike

[carl]

MoorthyM:

If the 'Preventing AQ expansion' thread gets going you gotta get into the discussion. The US needs some ideas beyond Preds shooting Hellfires.

Moderator adds: new thread created, so please post there and so next two posts have been moved (ends)

[blueblood]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CJHn7GqH1mk

Nice video tried to cover a lot of subjects like stone pelting, Op Sadbhavna, officer-soldier scuffle etc.

[davidbfpo]

I am not sure what the intention of the new Indian central government is here; no doubt it is a mixture of factors:

The new government's only planned initiative in the northern region so far is a mass movement of population. Hundreds of thousands of Kashmiri Pandits – Hindus who had fled the Kashmir valley in the 1990s ....

The author is not impartial and this appears not in the 'news', but in the 'comment' section:http://www.theguardian.com/commentis...u-human-rights

[JMA]

I am not sure what the intention of the new Indian central government is here; no doubt it is a mixture of factors:

The author is not impartial and this appears not in the 'news', but in the 'comment' section:http://www.theguardian.com/commentis...u-human-rights

Can't think of why India wants to hold onto Kashmir which has hisgtorically had 80-90% muslim population.

[Ray]

Can't think of why India wants to hold onto Kashmir which has hisgtorically had 80-90% muslim population.

Kashmir is NOT one entity.

It has the Valley - predominantly Sunni Muslim.

Leh - Buddhists, who want a separate State.

Kargil - Shias who hate the Sunnis of the Valley.

Jammu - Hindu.

It is a misconception that J&K is a Muslim State.

Historically, the Muslims of Kashmir were the highest caste of Hindus - Brahmins!

They were coerced and tortured by the Afghans and the Chak of Central Asia to become Muslim.

The Sufi Muslim saints quoted Hindu Gods in their scriptures and poems.

Read the book, if you can lay your hands on - The valley of Kashmir (1895), by Lawrence, who was a British administrator in J&K.



https://archive.org/details/valleyofkashmir00lawruoft

The Kashmiri Muslims don't eat beef which is a Hindu religious taboo!

It is just this pan Islamic wave and Saudi money through Pakistan that has incited the people.

Money speaks it appears.

[Ray]

I am not sure what the intention of the new Indian central government is here; no doubt it is a mixture of factors:

The author is not impartial and this appears not in the 'news', but in the 'comment' section:http://www.theguardian.com/commentis...u-human-rights

India is a secular country.

If Kashmir goes, thanks to vested interests and not solely Moslem, then there will be a bloodbath in India since none will stomach a Second Partition on religious grounds.

And will Pakistan, which is already tottering with internal confusion and a dead and dying economy, be able to absorb the exodus?

The imbalance will be catastrophic not only to India, but to the world.

All are worried about the same.

[davidbfpo]

One of the BBC's reporters has been to Azad Kashmir Pakistan-administered) and reports:

Pakistani army chief Raheel Sharif's recent statement that "Pakistan and Kashmir are inseparable" has added to tensions between India and Pakistan. The two nuclear-armed neighbours each claim Kashmir in its entirety, and occupy different parts of it. But as the BBC's M Ilyas Khan discovered on a recent visit to Muzaffarabad, the capital of Pakistani-administered Kashmir and the base camp for the insurgency, all is unusually quiet.

Link:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-33359800

[davidbfpo]

A detailed article by Shashank Joshi (RUSI) via the Australian Lowy Institute's email briefing:

On 27 July, three (Kashmiri) militants crossed from Pakistan into the Indian state of Punjab, according to GPS sets they were carrying. They planted five IEDs on a railway track, targeted bus passengers and holed up in a police station in Gurdaspur 20km from the border, eventually killing seven Indians. The attackers were themselves killed by local police after a day's siege.

Link:http://www.lowyinterpreter.org/post/...d-method.aspx?