Stop Shaking Your Fists and do Something!

Address to Telugu Association of North America (TANA)
Rosemont, IL (Suburban Chicago), July 4, 2009


I was asked to come here today to talk about the ethnic cleansing of Bangladeshi Hindus: by Islamists—who drive it—“average” Bangladeshi Muslims—who carry it out—and the Bangladesh government—that has encouraged it almost since the day of its birth. That is why I am here. But I grow weary of attending conference after conference where I see the same people shaking the same ineffective fists at the same enemies. What do they think they are accomplishing?

To those who never tire of complimenting themselves for their years of work on the victims’ behalf; to Bangladeshi politicians who cynically claim to be the Hindus’ great hope; and to those international organizations that pretend to carry the mantle of human rights; I ask:

With all of your “heroic” action, have things gotten any better for the Bangladeshi Hindus? Are they any safer today than they were when you started your activity? Has Bangladesh repealed the openly anti-Hindu Vested Property Act that provides the legal framework for ethnic cleansing and rewards the victimizers with the victims’ land?

With all of your “heroic” action, why have Hindus fallen from 30 percent of the population at the time of Partition (1947) to nine percent today?

My God! Have we learned nothing from the Nazi Holocaust? Do we really have to wonder what the end of these sterile actions will be; not for us, but for the Bangladeshi Hindus? Look at Pakistan’s Hindus, who were once one fifth of the population but are only one percent today. Even that remnant is streaming into Indian Punjab ahead of the advancing Taliban; and I saw that for myself in March.

The comparison with the Nazis is not strained; for Islamists want the same thing for Hindus that Nazis wanted for the Jews. And Islamists today, like Nazis in the 1930s, find no shortage of world leaders and diplomats who recommend we overlook their sins as some sort of cultural expression or justified anger; who urge us to cooperate with those murdering innocents. You’ve heard the expression, “If you lay down with dogs, you get up with fleas.” Well, if we do as they suggest, we will have the smell of the charnel house upon us; which is the stench emanating from Bangladesh today.

Albert Einstein famously defined insanity as “doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.” We—no, the Bangladeshi Hindus—cannot afford for us to do the same thing we have been doing for years expecting that somehow things will change. We must understand that making polite protests, putting our trust in Sheikh Hasina’s Awami League, and waiting for the UN, Amnesty International, or the rest of the misnomered human rights industry to act will achieve nothing except more of the same. And what is that? Try this.

On March 23 this year, I was in North Bengal, near Bangladesh’s northern border, taking testimony from refugees. That is not easy because many are reluctant to speak, especially about things happening now. Indian state and national governments refuse to recognize their presence as legitimate. They are “illegal aliens” and so are afraid. They have no rights, no status; and at any time can be told to leave their makeshift encampments and find somewhere else to live because someone wants the land on which they are huddling. I observed this myself in 2008, arriving at one camp just moments after the order came and the refugees were packing up their few meager belongings to find another deserted cluster of huts somewhere down the road. These refugees from Islamist terror are afraid that telling the truth about their situation will anger the local CPIM leader or police (both of whom likely take bribes to allow Islamist infiltration), and be sent back to Bangladesh to meet with any one of several atrocities, possibly death.

Sometimes, they describe what happened then say it occurred a safe number of years ago; I have to figure out which ones really did happen recently. Occasionally, though some brave Hindus speak up regardless of potential consequences, convinced as they are that there is nothing about their current state that makes them happy or promises anything better for their children and grandchildren; and this is what I encountered that day in March. A local teacher and a political activist said they knew of a Hindu family that had crossed into India only 22 days earlier and were willing to talk. They asked if we were interested in meeting with them, and of course, we jumped at the chance. We followed them along the main road until they ordered us to stop and get out of the car. They directed me onto the back of a motorcycle and took me along a narrow, winding path through farmland, then an area covered by banana palms and other growth; and finally to a clearing with a few ramshackle huts where the family awaited to tell their all too familiar story. I’m sure you all have heard it. They were at home on their little farm in Bangladesh when a gang of Muslims broke in and ordered them off their land. When the father protested, they beat him severely and took possession of the family home. Other, extended family reported other incidents, the murder of an uncle and more land grabs; and that the Bangladeshi police refused to help when they went to them. I’ve heard that a lot from refugees in rural India and have experienced it as well after attacks on dissidents in Dhaka. The police frequently refuse to accept their complaints and voice support for the attackers. In fact, in many cases, the police instead act on counter claims by the attackers. Many refugees have told me point blank that the police tell them that they need to do was to get out of Bangladesh.

Getting back to March 23, the family’s young daughter affected me the most. At first, she was silent then her mother stopped her from speaking; but she kept trying to talk. Eventually, she did and told me that “the Muslims… chased” her; her exact words. Her mother clearly did not want her daughter to talk about her experience and tried to take over the conversation. I realized later she just was trying to protect her. But the girl kept talking, looking down and away as she did. There was a lot more to this, so I decided to give her a break turning to some of the others before asking her, “Did the Muslims say anything when they were chasing you?” That question really made her uncomfortable, especially with my camera going, even though, by agreement, I did not show faces or give away our location; so I turned it off. It was only then that, still looking down, she said that they “caught [her and] did bad things.”

Perhaps it was her tragedy; perhaps her courage. It could have been her parents, still trying to spare her, because most of these young rape victims are shunned by their families and consigned to live with their attackers only to be victimized again and again. But I think about that girl and her family a great deal. I thought about them last month when President Obama addressed the Muslim world; and with all due respect, I had to disagree with him about something essential in his speech. The problem we face is not those he termed the “violent extremists.” It was not just extremists who brutalized that family and the many more like them. In fact, most of the attackers in these cases are average Muslim citizens who do it because they know they can. Nor was it a Taliban Afghani, Wahabi Saudi, or holocaust-denying Iranian government that let them get away with it. It was a “moderate” Bangladeshi government—the Awami League government that the West has said would move Bangladesh away from its anti-minority and pro-Islamist past. They are the ones from whom we must demand action if this is ever going to stop; and since the US, India, or the UN, will not, it is up to us, and I am prepared to address that because you will remember I believe that speeches and fist shaking are worthless unless they result in effective action. But I first want to mention another young girl I met; this time in 2008, near the North Bengal-Nepal border.

She told me she wanted to be a schoolteacher. Why? Because she was proud of being a Bengali Hindu and thought the most important thing she could do was to instill the same in other, young Bengali Hindus. Given the world in which she lives, her statement shows an incredible inner strength that any of us would be proud to have. But I wonder if she will get the chance, because the Indian and West Bengali governments are not making it easy for her people to survive, let alone spend time on education. The surrounding villages are becoming more and more hostile to Hindus. As we rode through them, my companions noted that they once had mixed Hindu-Muslim populations but are now all Muslim—and you could verify that by the absence of the small temples common wherever Hindus live in India. From time to time, too, Islamists from across the border will team up with these locals and attack the refugee camps. So, I wonder how much Hindu spirit—like that girl’s—is being snuffed out every day.

Several times every week, I receive reports of anti-Hindu violence in Bangladesh. For the past two months, I have been verifying them and filling in missing data so we can convinced others that human decency demands action by people in power. Here are seven incidents from January alone—remember, there likely are many more, but these are the ones where I have found “smoking guns”:

On 1 January, 14-year-old Subarna Karmakar was on her way home from school in the Barisal district when several Muslim males grabbed the girl, forced her onto a motorcycle, and carried her off. Her whereabouts remain unknown, and police have taken no action to locate the girl or prosecute the perpetrators.

On 15 January, nine Muslim males kicked in the door of a family home in the Khulna district, and forced their way in the house. They seized eight-year-old Choyon Bairagee and when his mother Aduri begged for mercy, the kidnappers threatened to kill her. The boy’s whereabouts remain unknown, and police have taken no action to locate him or prosecute the perpetrators.

On 24 January in Khulna, five or six Muslim fundamentalists attacked Thakur Das Mondol, a member of the Hindu Union Council and Chairman of Magur Khali Union Jubo Dal. He was carried to Khulna Medical College Hospital in a “senseless condition.” Police have taken no action.

On 26 January in Faridpur, a group of local, heavily armed Muslim Fundamentalists attacked a Hindu funeral site and a nearby Kali temple, which they destroyed completely. They have seized the temple land, and police have taken no action.

On 28 January, a madrassa was built on the land of a Hindu Temple to the goddess Kali in Dinajpur. Police have taken no action despite numerous appeals, including one to the Prime Minister through AFM Zahid Hasan.

On 30 January in the Chittagong district, 10-15 Islamists attacked the Swaraswait Pandal, destroying the temple and a deity. They also left at least ten worshippers seriously hurt. Police have taken no action despite numerous appeals, including one to the Prime Minister through AFM Zahid Hasan.

Also on 30 January, in the Dhaka district, Md. Hasan Habib, a local Awami League official, noting his position with the new government, forcibly occupied land belonging to Monindra Nath Mondal and threatened the victim should he report the infraction. Police have taken no acion.

In February, there were at least five more, including a murder; and March incidents included rape and a possible anti-Hindu pogrom that police allowed in Dhaka.

For us there can be only one question: What are WE going to do about it.

We need specific goals and a plan to achieve them. I have found that good people are unable to turn their backs when faced with real tragedy and real human rights horrors such as I saw in March. I defy anybody to look in the face of that brave girl and feel nothing. But I am just as firmly convinced that government, press, and even human right activists will do everything they can to avoid getting to that point. For some, it is because they do not want yet one more issue in their very busy lives. For others, an ideological or political agenda drives it. Only we can overcome that. If we wait for it to happen magically, we will witness an end to Hindus in Bangladesh and have that guilt on our heads. Recognize that there is no internal dynamic by which the Bangladeshi government will change things. That includes the Awami League. The only way to effect change is to get to it indirectly through the action of third parties like the United States. We must be ready to act.

First, Indiana Congressman Mike Pence once said that any member of Congress who gets at least ten phone calls (not emails!) from constituents on a particular issue will take notice, convene staff meetings, and likely vote their constituents’ passion. To be ready we need someone or some group to collect names and phone numbers of people in every Congressional District willing to call their Representatives. We must put them into a data base that can be activated as soon as the moment comes; for if we wait to do it until that moment, we will fail. For instance, Bangladesh is heavily dependent on the United States and other western nations for garment imports; trade is a serious issue that can be addressed. So is Bangladesh’s participation in UN peacekeeping missions—to which it provides the second largest number of soldiers. Third parties must be motivated to take action that will “convince” Bangladeshis that supporting justice and opposing ethnic cleansing is in their interests. There are some good people in Washington. Congressman Mark Kirk from here in Illinois, for instance, was also touched by the story of that young Hindu girl. He has helped me with South Asian human rights issues in the past and will support them again.

Our success in any of these things will not just help the particular bill. More importantly perhaps, it will identify us (and Hindus) as an organized and powerful political constituency that no longer can be ignored.

So, who will volunteer? [Identify people.] Meet me after the session, and I will get you started. Give me your name and contact information.

Second, many of us receive regular emails about anti-Hindu incidents. Some are accurate, some not; and even many that are accurate lack specific information needed to make them credible. At the behest of people who can do something about this, I have been reviewing and vetting incidents but the volume of information is much greater than I can handle alone. We need another group to help—existing organizations, students, or a group of individuals making that commitment today. I have developed the methods and a spreadsheet for the information.

So, who will volunteer? [Identify people.] Meet me after the session, and I will get you started. Give me your name and contact information.

And third, sometimes it takes a particular incident for people to recognize a human tragedy. Finding such an incident could be the spark that lights this fire. Throughout May, reports out of Bangladesh told of an anti-Hindu pogrom in Dhaka; a pogrom carried out by supporters and officials of the ruling Awami League; police also participated. Although further investigation shows that the number of people evicted to be fewer than the 400 first alleged, dozens remain homeless still. Worse, the social and political acceptability of and support for anti-Hindu actions in Bangladesh is undeniable. The attackers grabbed ancestral land, beat residents with the police looking on, and purposely destroyed a Shiva Mandir; one of many Hindu temples destroyed this year alone. And the government supports it. It rewarded the attackers with their victims’ land! As an American, I am incensed that my government sends millions in aid each year to such a government. Is this our issue? Is it the face of that young Hindu girl? This should outrage the entire world; but it does not. Has humanity lost any sense of justice, or is this something we can change? I suggest the latter. We can be the engine that drives that outrage, or we can be passive and let it pass. The choice is ours.

Thank you.

Did an anti-Hindu pogrom occur in Bangladesh?

Throughout May, numerous reports coming out of Bangladesh told of a chilling attack on Hindus in an area of the Bangladeshi capital of Dhaka known as Sutrapur. Several human rights groups and small Bangladeshi papers wrote that the community of perhaps 400 Hindu Dalits (more familiarly "Untouchables") was engaged in its daily routine when "hundreds" of Muslims stormed the area, accompanied by police. They started abusing residents, according to the reports, and demanded that they quite the area, leaving the coveted land to the attackers. Several informants claim that the police stood by while residents were beaten, houses sacked and in at least three cases burned to the ground, and a Hindu temple to the god, Shiva, was destroyed. They also claim that the police cited Bangladesh's anti-minority (and especially anti-Hindu) Vested Property Act as the legal basis for evicting the families, who have resided in the area for about 150 years, paying taxes and utilities.

Others, however, claim that "nothing happened," and that the police said there was no temple destroyed "just a few deities." The police refused to investigate the matter at first but eventually relented.

What we have confirmed is that there were at least three attacks on the community on 30 March, 16 April, and 29 April. A good deal of the land was seized by attackers who claim that the land was forfeit to Muslims under the Vested Property Act, a claim supported by Dhaka police. At least a dozen Hindu families remain homeless. There are a number of other facts alleged, which I am continuing to investigate.

One fact remains clear, however: none of the bodies which shouldbe publicizing and investigating the matter has said anything, save for a few mentions in various Bangladeshi newspapers. While some have tried to justify the attack as nothing more than a "land dispute," that denial is even more damning as apologists for the current government in Dhaka seem to think it a proper way to resolve civil disputes!

Anyone who has verifiable information about these incidents or the current status of the victims, possession of the land, or the police investigation, is urged to contact me immediately through this blog, FACEBOOK, or at drrbenkin@comcast.net. By doing so, you will be helping to uncover the ongoing cover-up of the ethnic cleansing of Bangladeshi Hindus.

The Truth WILL set us Free

In January, I helped force an anti-Israel conference to be canceled in Australia. As so many anti-Israel events are, this one too was cloaked in the language of human rights. In fact, the conference organizer, Maqsood Alshams, was known as a human rights activist Down Under, and the conference was to "debate" charging Israel with war crimes for the Gaza War.


A few days before it was to begin, however, the conference organizer made some blatantly anti-Semitic remarks and used them--not human rights--to explain his rationale for the conference. With the help of several Australians, we exposed him. (Now, to be sure, that faux human rights language is more times than not a fig leaf for anti-Semitism, which we exposed in this case. But it was not the rabid Israel haters (and Jew haters) who were the key. If anything, they would have cheered Alshams' remarks. The key was the academic institutions and liberal participants, including Jews who justified their participation by "compassion for the Palestinians.

Even after Alshams' anti-Semitism was exposed in one of Australia's most widely-read dailies, they were not planning to pull out of the conference. It took another day of emphasizing the poison that was the rationale for the conference before they did. "I don't want to confuse the Palestinian issues that I care about with any form of racism or anti-Semitism," said one of the academics, explaining his pullout. "As a Jew who condemns anti-Semitism I though it would be inappropriate to engage in a debate in that kind of environment," said another.

And that's the key. Regardless of how chic it has become in those circles to be anti-Israel, it is still difficult for participants to associate themselves with open and blatant "racism or anti-Semitism." As the Australian conference is far from unique (we have seen recent examples of the same in Canada, for instance), Israel's supporters world wide should be vigilant and ready to act in similar situations. It is not all that difficult if we (1) have truth and justice on our side; (2) are active in smoking out these things; and (3) have an organized effort ready to act whenever we do.

The elements are all there, too, and I offer to work with anyone who wants to see the same results we gained in Australia this January.

Pro-Peace Muslim threatened the day President Obama speaks to the Muslim world of peace

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: June 4, 2009
CONTACT: Richard L. Benkin, Ph.D.; +1-847-922-6426;
drrbenkin@comcast.net; http://www.InterfaithStrength.com

Dhaka, Bangladesh—The Bangladeshi government resumed its harassment of pro-peace journalist Salah Uddin Shoaib Choudhury, despite repeated promises not to. Intelligence agents have been staking out his house “past few days,” according to neighbors; and the family cornered a man insisting that he was from Bangladesh’s DGFI intelligence service. “Sergeant Rafiq” was ask when Choudhury left and returned home, his license plate, and so forth. Choudhury called numerous government agencies, but only one replied, denying it had sent anyone. With crimes by persons claiming to be from the government increasing daily in Bangladesh, the family was concerned. Ultimately, however, the agent admitted being charged with investigating five dissidents, including Choudhury. Bangladeshi’s Washington Embassy agreed that our concern was especially justified Choudhury’s tenuous position. Such visits often are meant as threats in Bangladesh. As of tonight, the police refuse to take any action in the matter or even accept Choudhury’s complaint.

The Muslim world’s only self-proclaimed Zionist, Choudhury was arrested in 2003 by government agents and Islamist forces after advocating relations with Israel, religious equality, and exposing the rise of radical Islam in Bangladesh. He was tortured and held for seventeen months and only released after strong pressure by human rights activist Dr. Richard Benkin and US Congressman Mark Kirk (R-IL). The government then charged Choudhury with the capital offenses of sedition, treason, and blasphemy “for praising Christians and Jews,” regularly admitting that the charges are baseless and maintained to appease radical Islamists. Though the government has not produce a single piece of evidence for the charges, and its sole witness keeps refusing to appear, the government continues the case in an effort to intimidate him into Choudhury and to drain his financial resources. As one DC insider put it, “They’ve made the process the punishment.”

The life of this courageous dissident journalist is in danger unless the world renews the protests it lodged during previous governments.

For further information, contact Dr. Richard Benkin at the telephone or email above.

Hey Sheikh Hasina, no one's forgotten Shoaib Choudhury!

Salah Uddin Shoaib Choudhury’s struggle once played out in dramatic events: his 2003 arrest; my storming Washington’s Bangladeshi embassy in 2004; his 2005 release after a tense meeting involving Bangladesh’s ambassador, US Congressman Mark Kirk (R-IL), and me; middle of the night battles to prevent his re-incarceration; international accolades for the Islamic world’s only “Muslim Zionist” and supportive resolutions from the US Congress and others in 2006 and 2007. But five and a half years since Shoaib’s arrest, things have settled into a Kafkaesque holding pattern with no end in sight. As one Washington insider quipped, "The Bangladeshis have made the process the punishment."

In 2003, Shoaib Choudhury broke Bangladesh's blackout on positive, or even objective news and information about Israel and the Jewish people. The ever more powerful Islamists there were already furious with him for exposing their rise to power and use of madrassas, or Muslim religious schools, to radicalize young Bangladeshis. So, for doing nothing more than his profession as a journalist, they engineered his arrest and torture, getting the government to try in vain to extract a false confession from him that he was an Israeli spy.

After 17 months, with the help of US Congressman Mark Kirk (R-IL), I succeeded in forcing his release, but though multiple government officials have promised to drop the charges against him--charges they admit are false--the charges remain. More than one Bangladeshi official also admitted that they fear dropping the charges because they do not want to anger Islamic radicals. No less an expert than Professor Irwin Cotler--former Canadian Law Minister and attorney for luminaries like Nelson Mandela and Andrei Sakharov--has identified over a dozen violations of Bangladeshi law in their prosecution of Shoaib Choudhury.

Yet, May 26th marked his 50th court appearance in the 49 months since his release. As usual, he was forced to wait outside for hours only to be told that his case was continued because the government’s sole witness did not show. This is draining his economic and emotional resources; the possibility of reincarnation or even execution is ever present.

His defenders have tired of waiting and are ready to do battle again--just as we forced Bangladesh's notorious RAB to release him last year after only a few tense hours. We will continue to oppose--successfully--all legislation designed to reward Bangladesh with tariff relief or other trade benefits when its government continues to play fast and loose with human rights while allowing Islamists to take over every social institution in the country. We will seek to implement Foreign Ops language that would strip Bangladesh of US aid for its defiance of international outrage and norms of civilization. And we will look to exclude Bangladesh from participating in UN Peacekeeping Missions since it cannot even keep the peace within its own borders.

To appease Islamic radicals and reward its own cronies, the Bangladesh government has continuedthis false prosecution--not so much at their own expense, but at the expense of their people. Their willful infliction of misery on their own people is contrary to what every civilized people expects of its government.

We have stood by Shoaib for five and a half years, and we have no intention of abandoning him--not now, not ever.

Memorial Day, 2009

This is Memorial Day weekend in the United States. It is a time of a three-day weekend and respite from work on Monday. But the purpose of that respite is to honor those Americans who have fought and died in the cause of freedom. As we hear people try to minimize or even stand in opposition to what they accomplished, we should remember that people worldwide live in freedom today because of them. Without them, the two great scourges of the twentieth century--fascism and communism--might have triumphed; thanks to them, they did not.

The march of freedom worldwide over the past decades--freedom from colonialism, genuine imperialism, and despotism--has been possible only because of their sacrifice; and the sacrifice of citizens from other nations as well. On Memorial Day, I honor them, too.

Today, we face another scourge with the same objectives as fascism and communism: to force their own version of life on the rest of the world, and to grab the power that comes with it. Right now, there are people fighting and dying to stop them. And so on Memorial Day, 2009, I think of them, too, and pledge to stand and defend theirhonor when others try to besmirch their sacrifice. It's the least they deserve.

To all of those who died in the cause of freedom, I offer my humble prayers and sincere thanks.

Concern Mounting again for pro-Israel Muslim, Salah Uddin Shoaib Choudhury

The fact that the fight for Bangladeshi journalist Salah Uddin Shoaib Choudhury has reached an impasse should lead no one to conclude that his defenders have given up. Not a week goes by when I do not receive at least one interrogatory about it; and even as I have been speaking about saving the Bangladeshi Hindus from government-tolerated discrimination, the host always begins by asking me for an update on Shoaib.

Calls and emails come from media and from average citizens wanting to know if he is all right and what they can do to help. And people still ask about boycotting Bangladeshi goods, something I have opposed to this point. And there is continued concern from governments, as well. The Australian Foreign Ministry expressed interest in meeting with me for an update on the case and to see what might be proper for it to do. In a recent letter to Australian Senator Ursula Stephens, it wrote that “The Australian Government will continue to encourage the Government of Bangladesh to ensure that Mr. Choudhury’s trial is conducted in an expeditious and transparent fashion in accordance with proper judicial process and that his human rights are respected at all times. A high ranking member of the ruling party, Stephens is close to Prime Minister Kevin Rudd and has been an outspoken advocate for Shoaib Choudhury.

The Foreign Ministry’s letter points to the next phase of the international struggle for justice in this case. First focused on gaining Shoaib’s release from imprisonment and torture, we shifted after that success when several government officials admitted that the charges against him were “false…and only maintained to appease the radicals.” We exposed the truth behind the prosecution, but the former (BNP) government went forward with the case; and in doing so, decided their political need to “appease the radicals” was more important than the damage they were doing to the people of Bangladesh. Their decision has meant that every piece of legislation intended to provide tariff relief for Bangladeshi imports to the United States has been defeated. (The United States imports about 70 percent of Bangladesh’s garment exports, and has free trade agreements and other relationships with several garment exporting countries that are steadily eroding Bangladesh’s place in the US market as a result.) Several members of the Bangladeshi government were told that these consequences would follow their continued need to placate radicals, as “the American people do not intend to spend their money to support their enemies.”

Once the legal proceedings began, internationally famed human rights attorney Irwin Cotler filed an amicus curiae brief that identified almost two dozen ways in which the case violated Bangladesh’s own laws and international human rights laws. Dr. Cotler has defended such luminaries as Nelson Mandela, Andrei Sakharov, and Saad Ibrahim, as well as Shoaib Choudhury. Moreover, the proceedings have been carried out contrary to accepted principles of justice worldwide: in five and a half years since the charges were brought, the government has been unable to provide one shred of evidence to support them; on August 6, 2008, when it made a completely fictitious allegation alleged that Shoaib wrote an article entitled, “Hello Tel Aviv” for USA Today, the trial judge demanded proof of the article, or he would dismiss the case; the government never provided any, and the judge never raised the issue again. The government had one witness, the officer in charge of Shoaib’s 2003 arrest, and he has not shown up to testify for the past several court dates. There is a legal principle in civil societies world wide that “justice delayed is justice denied”; and so in any society of laws, the court would have issued a warrant for the witness to testify or dismissed the case. Bangladesh has done neither. These various illegal irregularities on the part of the Bangladeshi government, prompted one US official to suggest to me in April that “because they have no case against Shoaib, the Bangladeshis are making the legal process his punishment.”

Many people have wondered if Bangladesh’s Awami League government will break from the policies of its predecessor or continue them, making only cosmetic changes to enhance it own image. On January 12, several members of the US Congress (Republicans, Democrats, and committees that determine appropriations and trade legislation) sent a letter to the then newly elected Prime Minister. They congratulated Sheikh Hasina on her electoral victory and noted that her first step in bringing “democracy, integrity and prosperity to Bangladesh” should be “to quickly drop all charges against Bangladeshi journalist Salah Uddin Shoaib Choudhury.” “Doing so,” they noted, “will take a significant step toward restoring faith in the Bangladeshi government and removing a significant obstacle in Bangladeshi-American relations.”

It has not, which means that Bangladeshi goods will continue to be assessed higher tariffs than those of its competitors. The fact that the Awami League government has done nothing to demonstrate that it is any different from is prompting some legal experts to explore a case against Bangladesh at the International Court of Justice in The Hague, Netherlands. Others are looking to see if Shoaib’s persecution should exclude Bangladesh from UN peacekeeping forces.

In a meeting at the Bangladeshi Embassy in Washington, Ambassador M. Humayun Kabir addressed Bangladesh’s inability to gain favorable trade status in the US by asking me, “How can you hold up aid for 150 million people because of one man?”

“How can I? How can you?” I responded. “You’re the ones prosecuting a case you have admitted to be false. You’re the ones telling the rest of the world that you place the feelings of the radicals above your own laws. All you have to do is stop it. How can I? How can you do this to your people?”

Does the US Support Pakistan over India?

From Nehru to Obama: Why the US supports Pakistan

Poll after poll shows that Americans view India, not Pakistan, as their ally; a kindred democracy fighting a common Islamist enemy. Nevertheless, when I was in India throughout March, the question I was asked most frequently was “Why is the United States supporting Pakistan?” Even before President Obama’s March 27 speech, trepidation had been building. Admitted supporters of the US President told me in Delhi’s Connaught Place that Obama’s pro-Pakistan tilt varied from their pre-election expectations. One aspiring journalist expressed a growing sentiment that Obama’s actions are meant to “insure that the American people are safe,” regardless of “lives of other people of other countries.” But Obama’s speech pledged an addition $1.5 annually to Pakistan and identified it—not India—as an ally in fighting the Taliban.

That baffled Indians since Pakistan has shown a decided inability and lack of desire to take on Islamist terrorists, while Indians have been laying down their lives in that struggle. Even Assistant Secretary of State Richard Boucher seemed uncomfortably aware of the inconsistency. Shortly after Obama spoke, a CNN-IBN correspondent asked Boucher if he thought the Pakistanis had the “ability and willingness” to fight the Taliban as Obama said they would.

“Let me put it this way,” Boucher replied. “We talked to all the senior people there…and they said they wanted to.”

They “wanted to”? That was Boucher’s ringing support? No wonder Indians are concerned. Many Americans are working to change that policy, but India has a role in that, too. For US policy can be traced in part to Indian decisions decades ago.

People in the US State Department are no different than their counterparts elsewhere. They depend on contacts and authoritative people “on the ground” worldwide; people with inside information and expertise impossible to garner from halfway around the world. In the 1950s, Indian Prime Minister, Jawaharlal Nehru made a critical decision to minimize contacts with the US and thereby gave Pakistan that exclusive role. In 1955, he founded the Non-Aligned Movement, which was nonaligned in name only. Look at Nehru’s cohorts: Gamal Abdul Nasser, whose Egypt was a major Soviet ally and large recipient of Soviet aid; and Josip Broz Tito, while a communist gadfly, solidly in that camp; Marxist Kwame Nkrumah; and Indonesia’s Sukarno, aligned with China and North Korea. India itself became dependent on Soviet aid and welcomed legions of Soviet advisors and experts. Only in the early 1990s did India realize it backed the wrong side in the Cold War and had to re-orient its policies.

For almost four decades, when US diplomats and advisors needed someone with inside information, they would call their contacts who all were Pakistani and who helped their careers. It is no wonder that experts advising Obama see the world through that Pakistani prism and believe them when they say they will fight the radicals. Those decades-long relationships still hold sway. Moreover, Indian leaders often allow their desire to be politically correct on other issues—such as Iraq and at times Israel—take precedence over Indian interests. But all is not lost.

Washington is a city crawling with lobbyists. Everyone has them, including India. The challenge facing them must be to make India Washington’s major source of information; to convince people to call an Indian, not a Pakistani, when they need good information about South Asia. That must be a priority for everyone from the Indian embassy to paid lobbyists and Indian officials who meet with their US counterparts. They also should push their own plans to counter Pakistan’s. For instance, Obama spoke of regional cooperation. Since Indian troops were so successful against Kashmiri terrorists, let them take on that fight, so Pakistan can move its troops from there to fight the Taliban. That only makes sense if Obama and the Pakistanis were serious about cooperating and fighting terrorists.

There are a myriad of ways to do it and people in the US ready for it. That is the challenge facing those who want to see a change in US policies in South Asia.

More Empty Words from Bangladesh

I recently received an email from an individual involved in the struggle for minority rights in Bangladesh. It trumpeted “a new development” in the Bangladeshi government’s attitude toward minorities. But what was its evidence? A statement by Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina Wajid that her “government believes in peace and prosperity of the mass of people, freedom of all religions and equal rights of people of all walks of life”; and a promise to repeal Bangladesh’s discriminatory laws.

When will people learn to look at one’s ACTIONS and not be lulled into complacency by their words? Complacency means disaster for the minorities.

I have heard the same pious-sounding statements from Bangladeshi officials of both major parties and none were ever reflected in action. I wondered why these leaders continued to say such things when all they did was confirm that the speakers were either unwilling or unable to carry out their promises, if not both. No one in Washington believes them anymore, as evidenced by the fact that knows that every single piece of legislation designed to give Bangladesh favorable trade status here failed. That government even sent Nobel laureate Mohammed Yunis to lobby for one of them, but the bill never even got out of committee. As long as Bangladeshi governments allow rampant oppression against minorities, they will remain so.

Yet, Hasina’s empty words are enough for those who ignore history and prefer to hope that she might be serious this time. Well, good for them; it’s nice to have hope. But “a new development”? Hardly. Hers was a statement to a visiting foreign; and if there was any substance to the countless hopeful statements that national leaders make when speaking to foreign dignitaries, our world would have long forgotten the scourges of war, poverty, and minority oppression. Even Adolf Hitler told foreign leaders in 1937 that Czechoslovakia was the last of his “territorial demands.”

Mouthing empty words is easy, taking action is not. And Hasina’s party has been as complicit in minority oppression as any. Both it and its more openly Islamist rival have shared equally in the spoils of it: minority land and property confiscated under Bangladesh’s racist Vested Property Act. Worse, attacks on Bangladeshi minorities have increased since the AL took power; and are carried out with the knowledge that the government will not stop them. I have interviewed dozens of victims (some who have been attacked as recently as February), and most report that local officials refused to help them or even participated in the attacks.

Unfortunately for the victims, those who should be forcing the government to keep its word seem content with the words alone. Bangladeshi Hindus have been reduced from almost one in five Bangladeshis at independence to less than one in ten today. Words will not protect those who remain, but if advocacy groups pretend they are, they will be condemning Bangladesh’s minorities to the same fate of non-Muslims in Pakistan; where those who have not been murdered, forced to convert, or forced out now pay the jizya for the “privilege” of being tolerated. Regardless of her words, Sheikh Hasina must be held accountable for what her government does. And if it lacks the will to act, people of goodwill need to help her get it. Otherwise, they all will be guilty of making minority oppression permanent.

For more information on this, visit My Web Site.

Extra! Extra! Make bad decisions; get paid for them.

The Taliban are cutting through Pakistan like a knife through butter; the Pakistani government has responded by ceding parts of the country to the terrorists and ignoring the extensive Talibanization of its intelligence service, military, and bureaucracy. David Kilcullen, former adviser General David Petraeus, recently said that Pakistan could collapse within six months; and February report from a task force chaired by no less than former Nebraska Senator Chuck Hagel and Massachusetts Senator John Kerry said: “We are running out of time to help Pakistan change its present course toward increasing economic and political instability, and even ultimate failure.”

So, what is the Obama administration’s response? Throw US taxpayer money down the rat’s hole. Or in the words of one mainstream Indian journalist regarding US policy: “Terrorism pays!” Obama’s policies are alienating South Asian allies who are laying down their lives fighting the same Islamist enemy we face. They are enabling a Pakistani government that is using our tax dollars to fight our Indian friends; a government that is content to see its country thoroughly Talibanized and to come down on the wrong side of every international conflict, helping the people they are supposed to be fighting; a government that again has agreed to cede parts of the country to the Taliban and let Sharia become the law of those lands. And Obama’s actions tell the Islamists that they can continue “cleansing” Pakistan and Bangladesh of their Hindus, and we will not say a word.

The same philosophy underlies Obama’s foreign policy and domestic blunders. Pakistan’s difficulty is the product of bad and self-seeking decisions. For years, radical Islam has been making serious inroads throughout Pakistani society, but its leaders deliberately chose to ignore it. They did so partly out of fear—fear that radicals might assassinate them; fear that they might alienate a bloc of voters; fear that the radicals would successfully use their opposition to paint them as Zionists or pro-American. And they did so out of greed—greed for the graft that would continue flowing from the minions that were taking direction from the radicals; graft from the billions in petrodollars that were funding radical activities. They did so out of wishful thinking that the radicals would either fade away or join the ranks of other civil servants, more concerned with personal enrichment than any philosophy or social goal. And they did so in some cases because they agreed with the radicals’ short term goals. Now Obama is paying them for a promise (to undo the damage their bad decisions have wrought.

America’s crisis, like Pakistan’s, has an ideological component. The ultra-liberal Community Reinvestment Act forced banks to loan money to people who did not qualify for them with draconian consequences for any bank that dared stay with traditional mortgage criteria even if the applicant was a minority. There was also a greed component in the cushy roles and extensive contributions by lenders to Senator Chris Dodd (D-CT) and Representative Barney Frank (D-MA) to ignore warnings about the system and use their positions to rubber stamp rather than oversee. But most importantly, our problems stem from bad decisions: bad decisions by the auto makers which turned once gold standard businesses into train wrecks; bad decisions by lenders to continue making bad loans; and bad decisions by home buyers to borrow more than they could repay and pretend that their incomes supported the lifestyles they demanded. And how has Obama “taught them a lesson”? By paying them for it.

Rewarding bad behavior—whether in Pakistan or the United States—will do only one thing and that is encourage more bad behavior. Obama did not tell the Pakistanis, “You knew Islamists were taking over your society but chose not to oppose them. Now, in order to get the aid we can offer and become a true ally, you have to change.” Nor did he tell those Americans who made bad business, lending, or borrowing decisions, “The one thing we will not do is enable your bad behavior with the money of Americans who made good decisions.” Instead, he has committed the United States to a policy that seeks to make the untenable viable; that promises not to force people to take responsibility for their bad decisions; that insures bad behavior will continue with regular rewards compliments of US taxpayers.

The Death Throes of Pakistan's Hindus

I just returned from a month in India during which time an incredible number of significant events were occurring. My primary mission in going was to document and raise awareness of the ethnic cleansing of Bangladeshi Hindus. I found plenty, including evidence of ongoing attacks on them both in Bangladesh and in West Bengal, India. The border between the two is so porous that terrorists and contraband move freely with and without the help of India's Border Security Force or West Bengal police. But I also witnessed the tragic beginning of the end for Pakistan's Hindus. Once one in five Pakistanis, they have been reduced to one percent of the population.

But as the Taliban take over ever larger chunks of that country, that remnant of a people is streaming across the border into Indian Punjab. The stream became a torrent with the Taliban's seizure of the Swat Valley earlier this year. Hindu refugees report attacks and threats by the Taliban, as well as officials telling them to leave the country "or else." The February agreement between the Taliban and the Zardari government ceded the area to the former and allowed Sharia law to be imposed on Swat's 1.2 million inhabitants.

President Obama has used this agreement as a model in his stated quest for "moderate Taliban." But not only does the agreement countersign ethnic cleansing, it also failed even before Obama's anticipated speech on US policy in the region. Just hours before the President spoke, one of the Taliban parties to the agreement, Tehrik e Taliban, abrogated it with a terror attack on a mosque in Pakistan's Northwest Frontier Province, and has engaged in other terrorist attacks subsequently.

One Hindi language channel quoted a Taliban spokesman confirming that his group was pulling out of the agreement not to attack elsewhere in Pakistan because, he said, it would be contrary to Allah's wishes to limit Sharia to the Swat Valley. Yet, no major media in India, the US, or elsewhere made this connection.

Even more shameful, no media or government has protested the ethnic cleansing of Pakistan's Hindus, who are being finished off by the Taliban. All governments involved in the region are just allowing it to happen,too. What kind of a world do we live in when India will not defend Hindus attacked for being Hindus; when the US ignores the atrocity; when not a single human rights group or the UN utters a word of protest?

What is happening to Pakistan's Hindus is a crime, but a crime that is largely accomplished. There remain 13,000,000 Hindus in Bangladesh subject to the same attacks, the same racist laws, and the same intention to eradicate them. Worse, the battle is spilling across the open border into India, and it is changing the demographic balance in the region. It is also allowing terrorists into the country whose intention is to undermine the very nation of Hindustan.

My mission is to prevent that, to prevent the murders and other atrocities, even if I am the only voice of protest to cry out about this crime against humanity.

Obama's Afgh-Pak Policy Already Unraveling

Delhi, India. United States President Barack Hussein Obama unveiled his much awaited South Asian strategy in a globally televised speech last night (Indian time). Today many Indians told me, as one put it, that Obama “lived up to his middle name by showing the face of a pro-Pakistan US policy,” a critical component of which that policy is to find “moderate Taliban” with whom the United States and its allies can negotiate a peace. Imagine if in 1942, Franklin Roosevelt said the US was going to look for moderate Nazis who could negotiate peace. Americans would have been outraged then, and history would show the policy to have been a calamitous mistake. Fortunately, we do not have to wait for the passage of history since those moderate Taliban have already provided evidence that the policy is terribly flawed.

Obama’s template for it is the agreement earlier this year between the current Pakistani government and the Taliban that gave the latter control of Pakistan’s Swat Valley and accepted the imposition of Sharia law there. In exchange, the Taliban “promised” not to launch further attacks against the Pakitani government. Yet just hours before Obama’s speech, a suicide bomber blew himself up in a mosque located in the Khyber region near the Pakistan-Afghan border. So far, the dead or injured number at least 170 of the 250 worshippers. The mosque was completely destroyed. Most news outlets reported the event as a message to Obama that defeating the Taliban will not be easy and that the “militants” could strike at Pakistan pretty much at will. The media also said that no group has yet claimed responsibility for the attack. All of that is true, but very few outlets reported the fact that several security sources have evidence that the attack was the work of Tehrik-e-Taliban, a deadly Islamist group headed by Batullah Mehsud. What makes that especially significant is that Tehrik-e-Taliban and Mehsud were one of those “moderate Taliban” that entered into that agreement in the Swat Valley. One of the Hindi language channels reported that the group’s spokesman claimed it abrogated the treaty because “it is against the will of Allah to fight for Sharia only in Swat Valley, that all of Pakistan must be under Sharia.”

It took only a month for these “moderates” to do what Hamas, Hizbollah, and other radical Islamists terror groups have done consistently; treating all agreements with us as nothing more than temporary respites valid only until they believe it in their interests to fight. It is a clearly established pattern among these groups yet no one in the Obama Administration seems able to make a connection.

Clinton Smiles in the midst of South Asian disaster

Rudrapur, India. If Americans (or anyone else) needed proof that our government is hopelessly lost in South Asia, this morning’s Indian papers provide all the confirmation they need from a beaming Secretary of State Hillary Clinton praising the Pakistanis for “themselves resolving [their] difficulties.” What idiocy! While President Asif Ali Zardari and his political rival Nawaz Sharif resolved their personal rivalry (because the military “convinced” Zardari that it would be in his best interests to give into Sharif), Clinton’s belief that this deal can “stabilize civilian democracy and the rule of law” in Pakistan would be laughable were it not so tragic.


Despite apologists for the Pakistani mess, the Taliban is cutting through that country like a knife through butter. Moreover, as it does, this government that Clinton praises cut a deal with “moderate Taliban” that ceded Pakistan’s Swat Valley to the it, allowing its imposition of Sharia law on over 1.2 million people. This is precisely the course now recommended by the Obama Administration and Obama himself! The Swat Valley, it should be noted, is only 100 miles from the Pakistani capital of Islamabad. While we worry about Iran, we might soon see an Islamist State that already has nuclear weapons. And Obama and Clinton smiling about it like a couple of Cheshire cats.

Their allies who made the deal claim that it was “not capitulation but the price of peace.” Yeah, much like unconditional surrender was the price of peace for Germany and Japan after World War II. But that’s Pakistani democracy for you—and Obama’s surreal notion of finding moderate Taliban.

All the while, they are content to allow what has become a river of misery to flow from Pakistan to India’a Punjab: a mass exodus of Pakistani Hindus. This remnant of a community was once one in five Pakistanis and has been reduced to one percent of the population. With Taliban forces in effective control over greater portions of the country, the Hindu population is fleeing fast, either after atrocities have been committed or just ahead of them. According to several informants among them, Taliban officials told them to get out of the country fast or face “dire consequences.” Those officials had a personal stake in that, too, as Pakistan’s Enemy Property Act then gives them the right to seize that “non-Muslim” land and distribute it to a Muslim; likely a relative, ally, or purchaser. Clinton’s praise for this government under which this problem has only grown is consigning the Hindus of Pakistan to extinction through death, forced conversion, or flight. The Pakistan government said this was not “capitulation but the price of peace.” Tell that to the millions streaming across this sad border. They are also victims of a deal with “moderate Taliban,” such as President Obama said he wants to make elsewhere in South Asia.

Are we still smiling Secretary Clinton?

Islamist Nuke Coming Soon!

Maybe the sky isn't falling right now, but Pakistan is. I'm in India, so I do not know how widely this is being covered back in the United States, but there is a major crisis in Pakistan right now--which, for those who might not know, is an Islamic Republic that already has nuclear weapons. It also has longstanding conflicts with India and is right next door to nuclear wannabe, Iran.

Last year, that country held elections which ousted a military strongman who--for all his faults and limitations--cooperated with the US in the war on Islamist extremism, while keeping a lid on Al Qaeda expansion and anti-Americanism in his country. Many in the West hailed this as a triumph of democracy, forgetting that elections are the last step, not the first to democracy. There followed a veritable cottage industry of apologists who were quick to offer excuses every time the government behaved in an undemocratic, incompetent, or anti-American fashion.

Well, in words made famous by President Obama's former pastor, "the chickens have come home to roost." That government is days away from a complete collapse. Al Qaeda forces are marching through the country like a knife through butter, and the government already has agreed to its demands for a state within a state that imposes Sharia law on populations where it has taken power. The Pakistani government said that this was not "capitulation but the price of peace." Yes, as was unconditional surrender for Germany and Japan in World War II.

The military has given the government the sort of ultimatum that says it's time to start clearing out its desk and looking for asylum in one of those havens for deposed and corrupt rulers. And in fact, it is clear that only a military takeover will prevent an Al Qaeda takeover of nuclear Pakistan. Meanwhile, politicians are squabbling, calling each other traitors, and threatening to action against one another instead of acting against their common enemy.

People expect the military to take power in Pakistan around March 16. Unfortunately, that will only delay the Islamist victory there, especially with senior elements in the military and in Pakistani intelligence already sympathetic to that end. This could pose a serious if not grave threat to the United States and our allies. But do we have any indication that our government is acting; or even has a plan?

Genocide in the Making -- and the World is Silent

For over thirty years, Islamist radicals have been engaging in a systematic program of ethnic cleansing in Bangladesh. When they began, Hindus accounted for somewhat less than one in five Bangladeshis; today they are fewer that one in ten. Professor Sachi Dastidar of SUNY has estimated that the number of "lost" Hindus (that is, those murdered and those never born as a result of the ethnic cleansing) could be as high as 35 million!

Nor is it only the radicals who are culpable. The first partner in crime is the succession of governments in Bangladesh. It did not matter if they were right of center, left of center, a dictatorship, civilian or military. Every one of them maintained a blatantly racist law that has been a cornerstone in the Islamist plan: The Vested Property Act.

Imagine if the United States had a law allowing the government to seize the land of non-Christians and distribute it to Christians of their choice. Imagine the outcry not only from Americans (Christians and non-Christians alike), but from around the world. Every NGO; every country on earth; every blogger on the internet would scream "Racism!" And they would be right. While the US has no such law, Bangladesh does, except it seizes the land of non-Muslims and gives it to Muslims close to whichever political party is in power (including the currently ruling Awami League). It has been on the books for 34 years, and there is no effort to repeal it; even though several otherwise cautious Bangladeshi officials have admitted that "it is racist and must be repealed."

But that brings us to the second partner in crime: the rest of us. For 34 years, self-styled champions of human rights have been silent. Amnesty International's web site devotes several articles to Guantanamo but not a single one to this openly racist and jihadist law. The UN, too, has been silent. As its "Durban II" conference opens, millions will be victimized by this legalized form of ethnic cleansing in Bangladesh; this proudly announced form of racism.

And we know--we know with biblical certainty--that the racists who are running Durban II will not even mention this terrible atrocity whose victims will one day dwarf in number those in Darfur, Rwanda, and elsewhere if this is not stopped. And the UN, Amnesty International, and the rest of the world will wring their hands, cry over the victims, and wonder how such a thing could have happened!

New Bangladeshis' True Colors: Anti-Radical Muslim Attacked

Dhaka, Bangladesh (Feb. 22, 2009)—At 10am today, local time, internationally-acclaimed journalist Salah Uddin Shoaib Choudhury, was attacked as he was working in the office of his newspaper, Weekly Blitz, by “a gang of thugs” from Bangladesh’s ruling Awami League. I spoke by telephone with Choudhury as he awaited medical treatment for eye, neck, and other injuries suffered in the attack. The renewed violence marks the first against him since he was abducted by Bangladesh’s dreaded Rapid Action Battalion a year ago. After Choudhury was released unharmed, the military was able to assure that he was not attacked--until today under the auspices of the self-styled "moderate" politicians in charge.

A large group stormed Blitz premises and attacked newspaper staff until they found Choudhury. At that point, he said, “they dragged me [and two staff] into the street” where they beat them “in broad daylight…looted my office and stole my laptop” with “all my sensitive information." According to another reliable source, the attackers held Choudhury at gunpoint. As of this writing, they continue to occupy the Blitz office.

According to Choudhury, the police were impassive and seemed intimidated when the attackers emphasized their party membership and accused him of being an agent of the Israeli Mossad. They later threatened to attack his home should Choudhury go to the police again.

Choudhury was arrested in 2003 by government agents, in cooperation with Islamist forces, because of his advocacy of relations with Israel and religious equality, and his articles exposing the rise of radical Islam in Bangladesh. He was tortured and held for seventeen months and only released after strong pressure by human rights activist Dr. Richard Benkin and US Congressman Mark Kirk (R-IL). In 2007, the US Congress passed a Kirk-introduced resolution 409-1 calling on Bangladesh to stop harassing Choudhury and drop capital charges against him after extensive evidence confirmed them to be false, contrary to Bangladeshi law, and as admitted by successive Bangladeshi officials, maintained only to appease Islamists. The Bangladeshi government continues to remain in defiance of that resolution and its provisions.

In December, Bangladesh elected a new left of center government that had promised to make a clean break from Bangladesh's corrupt past, end oppression of minorities, and stop harassment of dissidents and journalists. Thus far, its actions have been contrary to those promises. Leftist apparatchik, meanwhile, in many cases at the behest of pro-communist Shahriar Kabir, are leading a violent effort to silence Shoaib Choudhury and other rights activists who are not part of their anti-US and anti-religious cadre.

Individuals are urged to phone their representatives in the US Congress and inform them of the attack and of their outrage that Bangladesh continues to spurn House Resolution 64 and instead side with radical Islamists and anti-US communists. They also can contact Dr. Richard Benkin through this blog or at drrbenkin@comcast.net.

“The fault, dear Brutus, lies not in the stars but in ourselves.”

When historians look back on our era and wonder how a relatively small group of Islamist radicals controlled the international agenda for great countries across the globe, they will ask why we failed to heed those words that William Shakespeare wrote four centuries earlier. Last week in Kolkata, India, police arrested the editor and publisher of the city’s most prestigious English-language daily for “hurting the religious feelings” of Muslims. That’s right, we now live in an age where the state can muzzle press freedom because the newspaper hurt someone’s feelings. Ravindra Kumar and Anand Sinha of The Statesman were hauled before a judge on February 11 and charged under Section 295A of the Indian Penal Code which outlaws “deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings.” The law is unclear, as one might imagine when it comes to specific and objective criteria for determining one’s intentions. It appears that Section 295A trusts this Solomon-like task to whichever bureaucrat happens to take a fancy to pursuing a case.

The Statesman’s offending action took place on February 5 when it reprinted an article that began, “The right to criticise religion is being slowly doused in acid.” Its thesis is that criticizing religion is essentially different from criticizing other ideas because its evidence is faith, which is neither verifiable nor replicable; and religion gets special treatment that erodes essential and hard-won freedoms. He cites the changed role of the United Nations Rapporteur on Human Rights who “has always been tasked with exposing and shaming those who prevent free speech.” But the UN Human Rights Council has charged the role to identifying “‘abuses of free expression’ including ‘defamation of religions and prophets’….Instead of condemning the people who wanted to murder Salman Rushdie, they will be condemning Salman Rushdie himself.”

The article’s motley collection of ideas is within the tradition of the anti-religious European left. Were it not, action of the UN Human Rights Council would have come as no surprise. No doubt, the author was not one of those people outraged by the Jew-hating fest that was the Council’s Durban Conference. He offers ideas with which I agree and those with which I disagree. And that is his point: that our reaction to words should determine their legality. But it is not mine.

The Indian government did not act because these words were particularly heinous. It has remained passive in the face of far worse. For instance, it took no action against the Mumbai publisher of “The Jewish Fifth Column in India” or against those responsible for bringing India the anti-Jewish forgery, The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. The government acted in this case because Muslims made it an issue and orchestrated several days of riots—which subsided as soon as Kumar and Sinha were arrested. It did the same thing during when a paper published the famous Mohammed cartoons. It is part of successive Indian governments’ policies of appeasement and what nationalists call pseudo secularism. That refers to the fact that India is supposed to be a secular nation but out of fear places Islam in a privileged position; hence, pseudo secularism.

India is not alone in stifling free expression for fear of upsetting Muslims. When Toronto demonstrators attacked Jewish students and yelled that “Hitler should have finished the job [and killed all the Jews],” police told the Jewish students to disperse, and Canada’s “Human Rights Commission” refused to entertain their complaints. Other, mostly leftist, governments, too, are undermining their principles of free expression to appease growing Islamic populations and their countries of origin. Moreover, they are taking these actions when these populations take to the streets because, they say, they are upset. That is the very moment when doing so is most dangerous; when appeasement in 2009 could have the same consequences it did in 1937. For if history has taught us anything, it is that rewarding bad behavior produces, not peace, but only more bad behavior.

Are my Sources better than CNN's?

My news sources must be so much better than CNN’s and others’ because I keep coming across things that they do not have. The most recent item was the death of an Islamic clergyman this week in Dhaka, the capital of Bangladesh. Moulana Hafez Hamidullah passed away quietly at his residence at the age of 63. He was an influential member of the Bangladesh Khelafat Andolan (BKA), a religious and political association of fundamentalist Muslims, very prominent Islamic clergyman, and Vice Principal of a madrassa. Despite the media’s seeming obsession with Islam, there was no mention of Hamidullah’s passing anywhere.

Yet, this very religious Muslim cleric was consistently outspoken in condemning “all forms of militancy in the name of religion.” He preached interfaith harmony based on mutual respect and was (along with the BKA) outspoken defenders of Bangladesh’s “Muslim Zionist,” Salah Uddin Shoaib Choudhury, who was arrested and tortured after exposing the rise of radical Islam in his country and urging relations with Israel, continues to publish Bangladesh’s only openly Zionist newspaper. The BKA also joins with Choudhury in urging an end to Bangladesh’s prohibition on travel to Israel and in promoting relations with the Jewish State.

While I never met Hamidullah, Choudhury and I met with two of his colleagues in Dhaka in 2007. The first part of our hours-long meeting was rather tense and focused on our profound differences, especially about Israel and the United States’ role in fighting Islamist terror. Although we remained at odds on many points even after our uncensored interfaith dialogue, as I remarked, “Well, we’re not throwing bombs at each other, are we.” We thus “agreed to disagree” and actually found several shared values. Thus followed a warm relationship marked by rigorous honesty and mutual respect. They even published a statement that “neither the Zionists nor the Americans are the real enemy of the Believers and the Muslims.”

Yet prominent media and organizations do not even mention these or other Muslims who have stood against terrorism carried out in their name. For if they did their agenda of what Judea Pearl called “normalization of evil” fails. Like President Obama’s pledge to speak respectfully with Iran’s Mahmoud Ahmedinejad, who espouses goals that are contrary to the principles of freedom and justice for which people have struggled for centuries; that agenda is premised on accepting those goals as a reality we must acknowledge. It is the same philosophy that attempts to turn Hamas into a legitimate player in the Middle East. Those who push dialogue with the world’s Ahmedinejads have, by doing so, turned any war on Islamist extremism into a war on Islam itself by incorrectly accepting extremism as basic to Islam. The existence of Muslims—especially highly religious Muslims—who are fighting that extremism, upsets their ideological apple cart.

So, is it the media’s and their political cronies’ ideological agenda; or does my unfunded, one-man operation just have far more extensive news resources than CNN, the networks, AP, and everyone else put together?

Victory over Anti-Semitism!

An anti-Israel conference scheduled for an Australian government building was canceled after a several individuals revealed its leader’s anti-Semitic motives. Maqsood Alshams, an illegal immigrant from Bangladesh, planned the conference to debate charging Israel with war crimes for its recent actions in Gaza. Alshams has become known Down Under as a “human rights” advocate, his stated context for relentless anti-Israel venom. On December 30, he circulated an email, calling Israel’s defensive war a “crime against humanity” and demanding international intervention to “stop the Israeli carnage.” In an email response, I asked Alshams why he did not call for “international intervention when Palestinians--and Hamas in particular--thanked Israel for leaving Gaza by making it a terrorist base to lob missiles onto civilian populations in Southern Israel?”

Alshams replied, “The simple answer is that you the Jews are real motherf***ing bast*rds.” He claimed the Mossad abused him in Turkey’s “Jewish Consulate” and told me to “keep your dirty mouth shut calling any Bangladeshi a brother, you guys are simply as*h*les….keep your dirty mouth shut…I wonder why God himself (sic) hate the Jews…” Now Alshams did not share these sentiments with the larger group as it would sully his carefully crafted image and reveal his actual motives; so I did.

I also asked Bangladeshi journalist, Salah Uddin Shoaib Choudhury, to investigate Alshams’ claims of being a persecuted journalist in need of asylum, which many Australians believed. Choudhury found no one at the National Press Club who knew of Alshams or could verify that he “ever worked with any newspaper here.” He did, however, find a connection between Alshams and the radical Jammat e-Islami. Choudhury, the Bangladeshi Alshams told me not to call brother, was imprisoned and tortured for writing pro-Israel, anti-Islamist articles. While I led the campaign that freed him, Alshams and his ilk did nothing. So when he emerged from the hell of that confinement, it Choudhury who said, “When my own people abandoned me, my Jewish brother protected me, stood with me.”

Anna Berger is a child of Holocaust survivors, outraged by Alshams anti-Jewish tirade and again when he called Israel’s actions worse than the Nazis’. We exposed him to others, including the New South Wales Jewish Board of Deputies. Soon, the Sydney Morning Herald, one of Australia’s largest newspapers, picked up the story. They verified my accusations, and I sent them Alshams’ damning email. The next day, it ran the story exposing Alshams. He first defended the hate-speech as private then claimed “I have many Jewish friends.” When he saw that no one was buying his “some of my best friends” defence, he blamed his tirade on being “intoxicated and angry.” While that might explain Alshams’ bad judgement in revealing his motives, it would not explain away the motives themselves. Conference participants distanced themselves from him, and the conference was cancelled. The revelations spoiled its public façade of being s fair debate engaged of the purest of motives.

Israel’s enemies have successfully—and fallaciously—appropriated the human rights high ground. Talking heads in academia, the media, and government have allowed them to engage in the worst sort of illogic and bigotry by adopting their version of history and morality. No hyperbole is out of bounds for them. They compare Israelis to Nazis and Palestinians to Jewish holocaust victims, though there is no similarity between the two. They have so terribly skewed the ideological playing field that Hamas can use Arab civilians as human shields then accuse Israel of human rights violations when those civilians become casualties of war. This incident exposed the Israel-bashers’ real motivations by stripping away its cynical use of human rights language.

This lesson must not be lost. We were just a group of individuals--no different from so many other people on just about every continent--who encounter the hate-filled and often genocidal words of the Israel-hating crowd. But how often are people silent? More to the point, how often do people take their outrage to lengths that expose the truth of so many in the anti-Israel crowd? And so many of them would do so if the hatred was about any group other than their own. Good for them, but not good for us. Those who engage in honest debate and dialogue are welcome to join verbal battle with us. As my fundamentalist Islamic friend and brother say, we "agree to disagree." And because of that, Bangladeshi Kazi Azizul Haq and I have found many points on which we do agree.

But those who cloak genocidal aims in false human rights language must be exposed for who and what they are and for the danger they represent. The media does not do it, so we must.