Islamic Terrorism in India

Most Muslims are not terrorists, but most terrorists are Muslims

Archive for February 21st, 2010

A weak, unstable Pakistan is in India’s interest. When Pakistan broke up in 1971, India enjoyed peace for 20 years

Posted by jagoindia on February 21, 2010


Via  Link

A strong and stable Pakistan is in India’s best interests.

This argument is as old as the hills. The underlying assumption is that
were Pakistan to break up, thousands of mad militants would attack
India. There is a tiny grain of truth to this view so I will not dismiss
it out of hand but consider the opposite view.

In 1971, Pakistan broke up. Half of the country actually seceded and
became Bangladesh. The immediate consequence of this weak and enfeebled
Pakistan was two decades of peace. Throughout the 70s and the 80s, we
had very little trouble from Islamabad. Plus, with East Pakistan gone,
funding for rebels in Nagaland and Mizoram dried up. Consequently, both
problems were solved and the insurgencies ended.

If Pakistan were to break up, if Sindh or Baluchistan seceded, there is
no way this could do India any harm. Rather Pakistan would be so
obsessed with its own problems that we would have a degree of peace.

Further, the real threat to India is not from freelance jihadis. They
are quite happy killing other Pakistanis. The threat to us comes from
organised terror planned by state and semi-state actors. Such forces are
at their peak when Pakistan is strong and stable.

Posted in India, Islamofascism, Pakistan, Terrorism | Leave a Comment »

Partition was good for India

Posted by jagoindia on February 21, 2010


An undivided India on Jinnah’s terms would have reduced the whole of the region to Pakistan-like chaos. We would have had not just three countries, but more than 20 of them, allowing none to survive as secular nations. By agreeing to Partition, Nehru and Patel saved the rest of the nation from the mess Jinnah created. They did the right thing.

Partition was good
R Jagannathan
Wednesday, August 26, 2009

Excerpts

(Partition) It allowed Pakistan to experiment with its Muslim identity and India with its Hindu-dominated, but secular, ideology. Today it is more or less clear which approach is right. It is also significant that Jinnah, who was so insistent on a Muslim veto in undivided India, did not give the same veto to minorities in Pakistan. His stand was thus totally hypocritical and self-serving.

But it is still too early to declare victory for secularism. The ideological battle will have to be fought to the bitter end, and only one can win. Jinnah’s ideological progeny in India continue to oppose secular laws in India and the army in Pakistan still believes in perpetual conflict with India. The only difference is that the ruling powers in Pakistan have shifted to indirect action — through jihadi terror in Kashmir and elsewhere — against India and secularism. That struggle is not about to end and our prime minister’s pusillanimity towards Pakistan is not going to help. Nothing emboldens Pakistan’s army and the ruling elite more than signs of indecisiveness and confusion in India.

Coming back to the idea of Partition, despite frequent lip-service to the idea of an undivided India by the Sangh Parivar and even secularists, the bitter truth is that it was the best thing to happen to us. An undivided India on Jinnah’s terms would have reduced the whole of the region to Pakistan-like chaos. We would have had not just three countries, but more than 20 of them, allowing none to survive as secular nations. By agreeing to Partition, Nehru and Patel saved the rest of the nation from the mess Jinnah created. They did the right thing.

Posted in Hindus, India, Indian Muslims, Islam, Islamofascism, Pakistan, Terrorism | Leave a Comment »