From Mao to bin Laden

[Guest guest]

>OFBJP Admin

>vaidika1008 (AT) hotmail (DOT) com >[bJP News]: From Mao to bin Laden >Date:

Mon, 24 Sep 2001 09:25:46 -0400 > >Title: From Mao to bin Laden >Author: Claude

Arpi >Publication: Rediff >September 24, 2001 > > In October 1954, at the

height of the Hindi-Chini Bhai Bhai honeymoon, > Nehru paid a 12-day visit to

China during which time he met Mao Zedong, > chairman of the People's Republic

of China twice. At the first meeting, the > discussions revolved around the

attitude and behavior of the United States with > both leaders strongly

criticising the different aspects of American foreign > policy. During their

second encounter, the discussion veered towards 'war and > peace', and it is at

this point that Mao made his famous remark about the atomic bomb being only a >

'paper tiger'. He added if that even someone would attack China and kill tens

of millions of Chinese, > he could 'replace' them. > > Dr Li, Mao's private

physician, relates in his memoirs how > he could not immediately grasp the

meaning of Mao's words > when Mao repeated to him the content of his discussion

with Nehru: '…it was so hard to accept, > how willing Mao was to sacrifice his

own citizens in order to achieve his goals… he was willing that > China lose

millions of people in order to emerge victorious against so-called

imperialists.' Mao > further told his physician: 'The atom bomb is nothing to

be afraid of, China has many people. The > death of ten or twenty million

people is nothing to be afraid of.' > > Today, a new Mao has emerged on the

world scene: Osama bin Laden. > > After the attack on New York and Washington,

he sent a message to Hamid Mir, editor of the > Pakistani newspaper Ausaf:

'Hundreds of Muslim youths have promised me to die for jehad and > dozens of

scientists have promised to use their knowledge against the countries which are

against > Islam.' > > Hundreds may seem a very small number compared to the

millions of Mao, but 47 years later, > technology has made tremendous progress

and the latest hijacking of four planes in the United > States demonstrates

that with only a few determined and trained mad persons, extensive damage > and

loss of life can be inflicted on the most powerful country in the world. > > Mao

had dreamed of replacing an old 'imperialist' society by a new utopian socialist

one. He told > Nehru, 'If half of humanity is destroyed the other half will

still remain but imperialism will be > destroyed entirely and there will be

only socialism in all the world, and within half a century or a > whole century

the population will again increase by even more than half.' > > The meticulously

planned attack on the twin towers in New York and on the Pentagon shows the >

same determination to make one and only one ideology prevail. > > Indeed, bin

Laden's new jehad is as fanatical as Mao's Cultural Revolution or Great Leap

Forward > which saw 40 million people slain on the altar of pure Marxism. The

Saudi millionaire demonstrates > the same readiness to sacrifice his own people

(though perhaps it is not a sacrifice for them, as it is > likely that they are

promised some kind of eternal paradise for their ghastly actions) and take, >

without blinking an eye, the lives of thousands of innocent people for the

superior cause of jehad. > > The destruction of the Buddhas in Bamyan in

central Afghanistan, like the destruction of the 'old' > culture during the

Cultural Revolution in China, are some examples which illustrates that a clean

> sweep on whatever does not correspond to the 'correct' ideology is the only

response known by > these fundamentalist leaders. > > What is interesting for

us apart from the ruthlessness and the utter contempt for human lives in both >

cases is to look at the reaction of the Indian government 47 years ago and

today. > > Nehru came back from Beijing bewitched: he marveled at the

realisations of a new China and firmly > believed it was a model to emulate for

India. He wrote to his British friend Edwina Mountbatten > how he had been

touched by 'their [the Chinese] courtesy, their artistic sense (so sadly

lacking in > India), their hospitality, their references to old Chinese

literature and culture.' He added, 'Mao is a > pleasant faced person in good

health but looking slightly aged.' > > Either because something in him refused

to understand the real meaning of Mao's words or perhaps > because he did not

want to 'embarrass' the Chinese leaders, the Indian prime minister decided to

not > speak to anybody about Mao's view on human lives and the 'paper tiger.' >

> As a result of the Beijing 'spell', India chose to distance itself more and

more from the United States > in the years to come. However, after the

'betrayal by a friend' in October 1962, it was to President > Kennedy that

Nehru's government turned for immediate rescue. > > Unfortunately for India,

Nehru's strong leaning toward China forced the Americans to find a more >

'reliable' partner in the region. Thus was born their strategic partnership

with Pakistan. It is indeed a > great pity that it has taken more than 40 years

for the Government of India to begin reverting to > what seems a more natural

collaboration between India and the United States. In the meantime, > India had

to go through great suffering, particularly in Kashmir. It is a fact that no

other nation > except Israel has suffered as much as India due to organised

terrorism. > > It was only logical that Prime Minister Vajpayee condemned the

'heinous' crime immediately after > the terrorist attack on New York and

assured the United States of India's cooperation in > investigations. In a

letter to President Bush, Vajpayee stated he was shocked and appalled by >

terrorist attacks and deeply saddened by this enormous tragedy: 'The people of

India and my > government share the sense of outrage with the American people.

We stand ready … to strengthen > our partnership in leading international

efforts to ensure that terrorism never succeeds again.' He > concluded, 'This

dark hour is a stark and terrible reminder of the power and the reach of the >

terrorists to destroy innocent lives and challenge the civilised order in this

world.' > > The prime minister wanted all democracies 'to redouble our efforts

to defeat this great threat to our > people, our values and our way of life.' >

> Indeed, as President Bush and Secretary of State Colin Powell also stated the

attack was not an > ordinary attack, but an attack against democracy and free

societies. > > Of course, one can still hear in India, the same recriminations

against the United States, like the old > refrain: 'Who appointed them the

policemen of the world?' > > There is certainly some truth in the fact that the

Central Intelligence Agency has often collaborated > with the Inter-Service

Intelligence of Pakistan to instruct the future Taleban jehadis. For years, the

> CIA provided them with the most sophisticated weapons and trained one

generation of mujahideen > between 1979 and 1989. > > In Afghanistan, some of

the camps used today by bin Laden have been set up and funded by the >

Americans. When the American agency began to lose control over its own

creatures, like in the > case of Khomeini, the Islamic revolution spilt over to

the Kashmir valley, Chechnya and Central > Asia. One can also argue about the

NATO bombing of the former Yugoslavia, but at the end of the > day, though the

United States are certainly not always above board in their dealings with other

> states, they have more human values in common with India than the Taleban and

the likes of bin > Laden. Democracy, freedom of thought and speech, pluralism

are values shared by India and the > Western world. This should have made them

natural allies long ago. > > In the statement sent by bin Laden from his

hideout in Afghanistan to Hamid Mir, he said he was not > involved in the

attacks, but only 'supported' such actions. However, he admitted he wanted to

halt > the infighting in Afghanistan 'because the real problem lies in

Palestine and Kashmir where > thousands of Muslims are being oppressed by the

states which are against Islam.' This statement > speaks for itself. > > It is

here that India should be bolder and not follow the Nehruvian path. I am always

very surprised > when I visit France or the West at how unaware ordinary people

are of India's problems. On > Western television, there is rarely a day when

you do not see images of the Middle East with one > commentator or another

giving his opinion on the situation. However, Kashmir where the situation is >

often worse, is never talked about. Just after the attack in New York, I

received an email from a > friend in France who wrote: 'You in India, are far

from everything, you cannot understand the terror > bin Laden has spread.' > >

I was shocked. How can the West not realise that bin Laden is India's

neighhbour and the security > forces in Kashmir have to deal daily with some of

his followers? How can nobody be aware of the > situation? The blame in many

ways rest with the Indian government which wants to deal with the > matter the

Indian way, in a restrained and sensitive manner. This is fine, but the result

is the one we > have just mentioned. While Pakistan never hesitates to present

its side of the story in each and every > possible forum, India wants to keep

it a bilateral issue. It is true that Kashmir is a bilateral issue, but >

terrorism is not. > > It is high time India tells the world that bin Laden is

spreading terror on its territory daily, that > Dawood Ibrahim, the gangster

responsible for the bomb blasts in Bombay in 1993, is harboured by > Pakistan,

that the hijackers of the Indian Airlines plane which landed in Kabul on

Christmas 1999 are > working hard in the madrasas of Pakistan to prepare the

next generation of hijackers. Indeed, bin > Laden and his Afghan sponsors are

close and coming closer. > > A recent serious incident shows us the writing on

the wall. Last month, the extremist group, > Lashkar-e-Jabbar, ordered Muslim

women in the Kashmir valley to wear the veil, later non-Muslim > women were

told to apply a bindi on their foreheads and wear saffron-coloured dupattas for

> identification. They pretended that it was well-intentioned; they wanted to

identify without possible > errors 'their Hindu and Sikh sisters' to avoid

their being at the receiving end of any action they would > take against Muslim

women without a veil. > > This can only remind one of the yellow star instituted

by Hitler against the Jews. No doubt that, like > in the case of the Jews, the

'identification' is a first step towards 'deportation'. But do you think that >

Western television or newspaper even mentioned the incident? Of course not! It

is not only the > responsibility of the Indian government. What about our

national leaders such as Ms Shabana Azmi, > Ms Arundhati Roy and others? We

have not heard them so far. Why can't they speak for their > Kashmiri sisters?

India has to tell the world about the terrorism she faces, it is in her

interest and in > the interest of a more humane society.

>---- >

http://www.ofbjp.org

>---- >A

worldwide community of BJP's friends, supporters and activists: >Friends of the

BJP - Worldwide: http://www.ofbjp.org/fob

>---- > > Get

your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com