US thinker gives unthinking support to anti-India demands A reply to Robert Hathaway

[Guest guest]

>US thinker gives unthinking support to anti-India demands A reply to

>Robert Hathaway > >by Dr. Koenraad Elst > >The American South Asia scholar

Robert M. Hathaway has used the >opinion page of the Chennai-based daily The

Hindu (8-8-02) as a forum >for tendering advice to his own Government. Dr.

Hathaway is the >director of the Asia Program at the Woodrow Wilson

International >Center for Scholars, a famous think-tank in Washington D.C. The

>beautiful think-tank network in Washington D.C. should, to judge from >the

generous amounts of money oiling it, provide the American policy- >makers with

the fullest information and analysis base available to >any government in world

history. And yet, American foreign policy is >by no means the most intelligent

even in the contemporary world >scene. > >Hathaway's article illustrates what

the problem is. Instead of laying >down general principles or specific American

national interests, his >advice concerning Washington's South Asia policy

focuses on sectional >demands whispered into his ear by a foreign lobby whose

nature and >motives he fails to comprehend. In particular, he wants his own

>employer to investigate and eventually to block fund-raising in the >U.S. by

"groups implicated in the Gujarat violence". This is a demand >recently pushed

by US-based Indian Communists such as FOIL (Forum of >Indian Leftists) as their

latest weapon in their struggle against >their nationalistic compatriots. >

>Hathaway correctly reminds us that "terrorism comes in many guises": >armed

assaults, suicide bombings, assassinations and "yes, hate- >consumed mobs

butchering innocent women and children". The latter >expression presumably

refers to the Muslim attack on Hindu pilgrims, >a majority of them women and

children, in a train in Godhra, Gujarat? >Well, no, unfortunately Hathaway is

blind in one eye and exclusively >refers to those phases in the conflagration

when Muslims were the >victims. I will charitably assume that this bias is not

a matter of >considered opinion on Hathaway's part, merely an unreflected

>borrowing from his Indian sources. > >Terror in Kashmir > >Apart from poetry

about a "sore" to be "healed", Hathaway takes no >interest whatsoever in

India's main terrorist problem, Islamic armed >separatism in Kashmir. He merely

warns Hindus not to use Kashmir as >an excuse for Gujarat, and denies that Hindu

exasperation at Muslim >violence in Kashmir has anything to do with the Hindu

reaction in >Gujarat, as if he had investigated the matter. Yet, it is

precisely >on the Kashmiri frontline that America is most directly concerned,

>for it has provided indirect support to the terrorists for more than >a

decade. Many Hindus have been killed with American-made weapons and >bombs. >

>The only act of terrorism in Kashmir which has registered in his

>consciousness is "the assassination earlier this year of Abdul Gani >Lone, who

opposed Indian rule in Kashmir but who in his final years >had come to the

realisation that violence and extremism offer >Kashmiris no way out in their

struggle with New Delhi", a struggle >which Hathaway refuses to take distance

from. > >Outrageously, he insinuates that this murder is the handiwork of the

>Indian Government or its much-maligned Hindutva allies. That indeed >is the

unmistakable implication of his statement: "The Gujarat >violence, Lone's

assassination, and most recently, the designation of >L.K. Advani as Deputy

Prime Minister and most likely successor to Mr. >Vajpayee have all raised new

concerns about India's future among >India's friends in the U.S." >

>Misinformed by Indian "secularists", whose Communist background seems >unknown

to him, Hathaway assumes that the soft-spoken Advani is some >kind of extremist,

and he blames the Indian Government for Advani's >promotion as this is obviously

a governmental decision. (It is of >course none of America's business whom the

democratic Indian >Government nominates; for months after his election, George

W. Bush >rightly gave the cold shoulder to European politicians who had

>overstepped diplomatic decorum by openly supporting Bill Clinton and

>deploring Bush's victory.) Again leaning on secularist sources, >Hathaway

blames the Gujarat violence at least partly on the Indian >Government; why else

should it "raise concerns" as potentially >damaging the inter-state relations

between India and the US? Finally, >in the same breath, in his list of

blameworthy moves tainting the >Indian Government, Hathaway claims that Lone's

murder is a cause for >worry about the course India is taking. This is simply

despicable. > >Lone was murdered by Islamic separatists more extreme than

himself, >by the very terrorists whom India has been fighting for over a

>decade. The murder was one more anti-Indian blow struck by the >international

Islamic terrorists against whom America claims to be >waging a war. How should

it be a cause for worry among pro-Indian >Americans that India was targeted

once more, now in the person of the >relatively loyalist opposition leader

Lone, by the terrorists? Isn't >the merciless hostility of the terrorists

rather proving that India >is doing something right? > >Sovereignty > >Hathaway

probably doesn't understand why the vast majority of the >human race is fed up

with American arrogance. And by this, I don't >just mean the anti-American

fanaticism and conspiracy theories in the >Muslim world, but also the healthy

skepticism about the boundless >American self-centredness which you may

encounter in India, China or >Europe. He might do well to reread this statement

of his: "Some >Indians, of course, say that the tragic events in Gujarat are a

>domestic Indian affair, and that the United States and the rest of >the world

have no business intruding into a purely internal Indian >matter. This is a

self-serving falsehood." > >No, this is purely a matter of national

sovereignty. India wants no >foreign interference, a principle which America

not only endorses but >takes to inordinate lengths. Just recently, President

Bush has >declared that he will not tolerate the arrest and sentencing of

>American intervention personnel by a non-American court, not even the

>UN-sponsored international tribunal in The Hague. He even reserved >the right

to invade the Netherlands to free American citizens brought >before that Court.

India's insistence on managing its own communal >problems is far more modest

than the bullying American conception of >national sovereignty. > >America and

the Muslim world > >While not providing any reason whatsoever why India should

have an >interest in conceding to America a right in intervene, Hathaway

>focuses on America's own self-interest in supporting the Muslim >pogromchik

side in the Gujarat carnage: "Important American >interests, including the

global war against terrorism, can be >directly impacted by what the U.S. says

-- and fails to say -- about >Gujarat. At this particular moment in history,

the U.S. cannot allow >the impression to take hold that Americans somehow value

a Muslim >life less than the life of a person of another religion." > >In the

Indian subcontinent, there is no danger whatsoever that anyone >will get this

impression, for the reality is too obviously the >opposite. American meddlers,

Hathaway among them, consistently turn a >blind eye towards Hindu victims of

Muslim violence, in India as well >as in Pakistan and Bangladesh. America has

consistently given >material and diplomatic support to the very forces which

have been >butchering Hindus. > >Hathaway insists strongly on this point, that

America is not at all >anti-Muslim: "Sadly, there are those in the Islamic

world who assert >that the present conflict is a war directed not against

terrorism, >but against Islam. That the U.S. does not care about Muslims. That

>Washington seeks to hijack the tragedies of 9/11 to carry out long- >held

plans to repress the Islamic world. These are detestable lies, >but many in the

Muslim world are prepared to believe them." > >If Muslims believe these

"detestable lies", it must be because of >America's anti-Palestinian position

in the Middle East, or because of >its tacit support to Russia's campaign in

Chechnya. It seems that >Muslims just want to have it all and are ungrateful

for the American >support to the Muslim side in many other conflicts: against

the >Greeks in Turkish northern Cyprus, against the Soviets in >Afghanistan,

against the Serbs in Bosnia and Kosovo, against India in >Kashmir. No further

pro-Muslim gesture is going to convince those who >attribute anti-Muslim

motives to an American government which has >already so consistently supported

Muslim interests on many fronts. > >What anti-American Muslims also fail to

understand, is the structural >economic reason for America's preferring the

Muslim world over the >fledgling infidel superpower India. The Muslim world is

not very >dynamic and has a lot of purchasing power, so it is the perfect

>market for American hi-tech (and low-tech, e.g. agricultural) >products.

India, by contrast, has only limited purchasing power but >is a very dynamic

competitor in all advanced industrial sectors. For >this reason, and also to

compensate the Muslim world for the >permanent grievance over American support

to "the Zionist entity", >America is bound to take the Muslim side in

purportedly peripheral >conflicts, especially against India. The peptalk about

India and the >US being "natural allies" as "the biggest and the oldest

democracy" >has little impact on real-life policies. In practical terms, Bush

and >Hathaway are the running-dogs (or rather, to borrow another Leninist

>term, the "useful idiots") of Pakistani jihadism. > >War against terrorism >

>Hathaway's concept of a "war against terrorism" is flawed: terrorism >is a

strategy, not an enemy. As Daniel Pipes has remarked, "war >against terrorism"

makes as much sense as "war against trenches" >or "war against carpet-bombing".

If American policy-makers cannot >define their enemy more properly, their

mindless muscle-flexing dooms >them to misdirected aggression and ultimately to

humiliation and >defeat. You can bomb only so many Afghan wedding parties by

mistake >without paying a price. > >But at least Hathaway is aware of India's

consistent stand against >terrorism: "Following the trauma Americans

experienced on September >11, India was one of the first countries in the world

to step forward >with a pledge of unconditional and unambivalent support for the

U.S. >in its quest to bring to justice those responsible for the terror >attacks

in New York and Washington. The administration of George W. >Bush, already keen

to upgrade relations with Delhi, took notice." > >Unfortunately, it is unclear

to what this "notice" has amounted in >practice. True, the US has lifted the

sanctioned imposed against >India for conducting nuclear tests in May 1998. But

this gesture of >goodwill toward an anti-terrorist frontline state was

counterbalanced >by the same gesture towards Pakistan, the prime sponsor and

organiser >of terrorism, eventhough Pakistani links have been proven in a

number >of terrorist attacks against not only Indian but also American

>targets. Just recently, the US has resumed the delivery of advanced >weaponry

to the Pakistani Army, whose prime target is not terrorism >but India. >

>Impact of Gujarat riots > >We may quote here without comment the following

secularist platitude >by Hathaway: "So leaving aside the moral issue, it is

essential that >India's friends in the U.S. speak out to condemn the injustice

and >hatred so prominently displayed in Gujarat, and to lend support to >those

Indians, of all religious beliefs, who are working to >strengthen the forces of

secularism, tolerance and >multiculturalism." > >Hathaway has two opinions about

the consequences of the Gujarat riots >for Indo-American relations. The first

one belongs to >Realpolitik: "Some have asked what impact the recent events in

>Gujarat will have -- should have -- on the new and healthier >relationship

that the U.S. is developing with India. (...) Prior to >the February 27 Godhra

attack that touched off the bloodshed in >Gujarat, this new and more sanguine

relationship between the U.S. and >India was widely viewed by Americans as in

the national interest. It >remains so today; Gujarat has not changed this

calculation." > >In Pakistan, terrorists with links to the CIA-trained secret

service >ISI have recently killed Americans and allied French citizens posted

>there for purposes of the "war against terrorism", as well as a few >dozen

Pakistani Christians, deemed a pro-American fifth column. Yet, >this has not

led to any American reprisals against Pakistan. It would >be odd if internal

Indian troubles which have not hurt any American >citizens or direct allies

would jeopardize Indo-American relations. > >And yet: "And yet, it is neither

possible nor practical simply to >pretend that Gujarat did not happen. The

violence in Gujarat, and the >steps the Indian Government might take in coming

months in response >to those events, could have a significant impact on

American views of >India, and hence, on political and public support in the

U.S. for a >close and collaborative U.S.-India partnership." > >Here, Hathaway

is clearly abandoning Realpolitik and seeking a >moralistic scapegoat, a

pretext for keeping Indo-American relations >in lower key than they ought to be

if America meant business with >its "war on terrorism". Why should America bring

a moral >hypersensitivity to bear on its relations with India when it has

>always turned a blind eye to Pakistani human rights violations, open >and

proxy aggression against India, open interference in Afghanistan, >and

unmistakable covert involvement in international terror? Clearly, >morality or

concern for communal harmony in a distant country is not >what moves American

policy-makers. Hathaway is cynically playing this >up in order to justify the

American refusal to take the side of the >Indian victim against the Pakistani

aggressor in the "war on >terrorism". > >At the recent meeting of the

Indo-American Friendship Council (16 >July), two spokespersons for the US

National Security Council >likewise refused to take the side of India against

Pakistan. They >picked up the quarrel in the middle, as if there could be a

moral >equivalence between democratic India and dictatorial-theocratic

>Pakistan, one of the world's prime sponsors of terrorism. Not that >India is

in such terrible need of American support, but America >itself is in need of

reliable allies, and at present American policy- >makers are fooling themselves

by assuming that General Perwez >Musharraf is their friend and will deliver the

goods in the struggle >against the Taliban, Al-Qaeda and his own Islamist

militias >terrorizing Indians in Kashmir. > >Cut the money supply > >The

practical bottom-line of Hathaway's paper turns out to be a plea >for cutting

off the flow of donations to Hindu charities such as the >Ekal Vidyalaya scheme

of village schools. US-based Indian Communists >have recently opened a campaign

against Hindu charities, and Hathaway >offers to serve as their loudspeaker in

Washington: "Credible reports >have recently suggested that substantial sums of

money are sent from >Indians resident in the U.S., and from American citizens of

Indian >origin, to groups and organisations in Gujarat and elsewhere in India

>that are directly linked to the violence in Gujarat. I do not know if >these

accounts are true. But respected Indian journalists have >uncovered disturbing

linkages. If these reports prove accurate, then >it is possible that such

financial transactions violate U.S. anti- >terrorism statutes." > >How does Dr.

Hathaway know that the reports which have reached his >eye are "credible"? How

does he know his sources are "respected" >except in the purely conventional

sense of enjoying prestige within >the existing establishment? It is, at any

rate, not hard to find out >that these sources are extremely partisan, for they

themselves aren't >exactly keeping it secret. > >At any rate: "It is probably

advisable for the American Government to >hold an official inquiry into

fund-raising in the U.S. by groups >implicated in the Gujarat violence, to

ensure that U.S. laws are not >being violated. (...) Nor would such an inquiry

be new or unusual. >The U.S. has acted in the past to regulate or even to ban

fund- >raising activities by groups advocating violence and ethnic or

>religious intolerance in other countries, as well as activities where >fraud

may be an issue." > >Hathaway's concern goes beyond terrorism. Even non-violent

religious >bigotry should be curbed by Amerivcan governmental >action:

"Responsible sources report that some U.S. residents make >financial

contributions to overseas religious groups in the belief >that these funds are

to be used for religious or humanitarian >purposes, when in fact the monies so

raised are used to promote >religious bigotry." > >If Hathaway wants to thwart

religious "charities" promoting >both "religious bigotry" and "violence and

religious and ethnic >intolerance", he can start much closer to home. American

Baptist and >Evangelical groups are financing the propagation of Christian

>religious bigotry of the most obscurantist kind in India's Northeast >and

tribal belts. Much of this bigotry has resulted in armed >separatism, terrorism

and ethnic cleansing of tribes refusing to >become Christians. > >Hathaway

patronizing conclusion adopts a false formula of even- >handedness: "An

official U.S. investigation into Gujarat-related fund- >raising, voluntarily

facilitated by the Government of India, would go >far towards easing those

concerns and further strengthening the new >partnership between our two

peoples." > >The Indian people is not financing movements violently disrupting

>American society. By contrast, American citizens are financing Church

>activities in India which often shade over into armed separatism, >social

disruption of tribal societies and ethnic cleansing. The >American state is

arming Pakistan, and even if it were to fully stop >arms deliveries to

Pakistan, it still carries a legacy of having >armed the Pakistani Army and

trained the Pakistani secret service, >agents of terror against Indian citizens

and the Indian state. The >guilt for keeping Indo-American relations unfriendly

is entirely on >the American side. If Dr. Hathaway believes in a "new

partnership >between our two peoples", he had better advise his Government to

>investigate American private support to missionary-cum-terrorist >subversion

and to halt every form of American state support to >Pakistani jihadism. > >

> >--- End forwarded

message --- > > > >------------------------ Sponsor

---------------------~--> >4 DVDs Free +s&p Join Now

>http://us.click./pt6YBB/NXiEAA/RN.GAA/.1VolB/TM

>---~->> >To

from this group, send an email to:

>EnlightenedChristians > > > >Your use of

Groups is subject to Send and receive Hotmail

on your mobile device: Click Here