Posted on 07/15/2002 9:53:04 AM PDT by traditionalist
Edited on 04/13/2004 2:07:59 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
Whereas Vajpayee was the human face of the Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party, which has led a coalition government for four years, Advani is more in tune with the party's base of radical nationalists who seek to undermine the secular India of Jawaharlal Nehru and Mahatma Gandhi. In addition, Advani's policy towards Pakistan is larded with nuclear threats and bellicosity.
(Excerpt) Read more at boston.com ...
Right now, yes. The problem is that there are elements withing the BJP that don't want it to fit that bill. My only point is that we should be aware of them and not ignore them.
"Election to the presidency would make Kalam supreme commander of the armed forces under the constitution but analysts say effective military control resides with the government."
And these analysts are?
This is a case of journalistic doublespeak. They acknowledge a flaw in their arguement and then say it is irrelevent by saying that some analysts told them so.
AFTER we wipe the Muslime and Islamazis off the planet, we can turn to the next group of inhuman scum that pop up.
Where is the threat? The problem is with those who believe it's their God given duty to make you Muslim or die. In that case there is no common ground and no negotiating, only war. If it lies with any side, that has been the Ottoman (and now the neo-Ottoman) M.O., at least, for the last 600 years and I doubt they are going to rest any time soon. (In the Balkans during the 15th Century, the Ottoman Sultan took the youngest child of non-muslim families and raised them as Muslims) I would reexamine where that threat lies, all you have to do is look at Chechnya, Kosovo, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Philippines, Congo... Look at the History!
Peace in central Asia is essential to American security interests. An expansionsit India run by Hindu Nationalists would threaten that peace.
The problem is with those who believe it's their God given duty to make you Muslim or die. In that case there is no common ground and no negotiating, only war. If it lies with any side, that has been the Ottoman (and now the neo-Ottoman) M.O., at least, for the last 600 years and I doubt they are going to rest any time soon.
The West had no major conflicts with the Ottomans from the 18th century until WW1, and that would not have happened had the British accepted an alliance that the Ottomans had proposed. Rebuffed by the British, they allied themselves with the Germans, and the rest is history. The Ottomans never attacked the British, but rather the British used their alliance (signed before the war) with the Germans as a pretext for invading the Middle East.
In earlier times the Ottomans assisted the British in defeating Bonaparte. There exist many examples of Islamic countries that are at peace with the West: Jordan, Egypt, Malaysia, and Turkey to name a few.
(In the Balkans during the 15th Century, the Ottoman Sultan took the youngest child of non-muslim families and raised them as Muslims)
I'm not endorsing this practice, but it was not as if anyone was killed, and it was not from every family. Those children later made up an elite force in the Sultan's army and were highly decorated members of his court, if I remember correctly. Many empires, Islamic and non-Islamic, had similar practices.
Your contention that the Ottomans believed it was their "God given duty to make you Muslim or die," as you put it, is simply untrue.
I would reexamine where that threat lies, all you have to do is look at Chechnya, Kosovo, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Philippines, Congo... Look at the History!
Contrary to what some people think, history does not show the West in constant conflict with the Islamic world.
Saddam Hussein is not an Islamist, but a secularist and a socialist. Radical Islamists want to overthrow regimes like his. Chechnya wants independence from Russia, so that conflict is driven by nationalism, not religion, though as in Afganistan's war against the Soviets and most other wars of independence, religion is employed in the service of nationalism.
Of course, there are certain forms of Islam that are a threat, one much greater than Hindu nationalism, and that form of Islam is dominant in the places you mention. But just because one threat is greater than another does not mean that the lesser one is to be ignored.
Your right, Islam and the West have little conflict with one another, directly anyway. But wait. We have yet to border an Islamic nation and we have yet to see a giant Islamic majority in the US.
the reason why I bring up the Balkan region is because it an excellent example of Western political failure. There, Islam and Christianity are at a front with on another, causing this friction. The Easter Orthodox Church has experienced the full force of Islam to the amusment of the Western cousin.
I also agree that Islam can only be peacefully coexisted with when it is at arm's length. That's why we should have as little to do with the Islamic world as possible.
As I understand it, it was a member of the RSS that killed Gandhi. (apparently Gandhi was insufficiently Hindu)Yep. His name was Nathuram Godse.
The irony is that today's India is not run by the philosophical heirs of Gandhi, but by those of Godse.
-Eric
Let's see, who are the Hindus mad at? The Christian West? NooooChristian missionaries in India would definitely disagree. Some RSS activists are so fanatical they assault people for celebrating Christmas or even Valentine's Day.
-Eric
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.