An End to Pakistan--or a New Beginning?

For some time now, I have familiarized myself with several nationalities living in what is now Pakistan:  Baloch, Sindh, Pashtun, Kashmiris, Gilgit Baltistanis, Punjabi Hindus, and others.  Since Pakistan's creation in 1947--a statement by the Indian Subcontinent Muslim League that Muslims and Hindus cannot live together--these national groups have been chafing under various forms of oppression and the attempted eradication of their national characteristics.

Pakistan is an artificial, polyglot rump state that was once part of a large "Indian" entity; in 1971, its lost its remaining, non-contiguous Bengali portion (then called East Pakistan) when it broke away to form Bangladesh.  What makes Pakistan different from India, the other part of the British Raj's partition of the greater subcontinent?  Although Pakistan did not declare itself an Islamic Republic, with Islam as the official state religion, until 1956; it was in fact created as a Muslim-dominated country.  This is contrary to the history of India, which has maintained its status as a secular state, with no official state religion. Additionally, Indian authorities come from a range of its subgroups and nationalities.  Pakistan is and has been dominated by one:  Punjabis, and specifically Muslim Punjabis.  Further, although India has seen many incidents of serious inter-communal violence by Muslims and Hindus against one another; the minority Muslims enjoy a range of protections that the state has enforced with vigor.  Such has not been the lot for Hindus in Pakistan who complain--with a good deal of evidence--that Pakistan is guilty of an anti-Hindu jihad.  I have been to the camps in New Delhi of Hindu refugees from Pakistan and taken the refugees' testimony of their oppression--both in violent incidents and in regular day-to-day oppression of Hindus, including forced conversion which the government does not criminalize.  Thus, in Pakistan's 1951 census, Hindus were counted at 12.9 percent of the population.  In 2014, they were down to 1.85 percent with a net decrease in population of about 17 percent.  In contract, from 1951 to 2011, Indian Muslims grew from 9.8 percent to 14.2 percent with a net increase in population of almost 400 percent.

Internationally Pakistan has a well-founded reputation for oppressing its own people, supporting an intelligence service that has been defined by some countries as a terrorist group, proliferating nuclear weaponry, massive corruption, and sponsoring worldwide terrorism, especially against India.  These national groups--especially the Baloch (predominantly Muslim), the Pashtun (predominantly Muslim), and the Sindhi (predominantly Hindu)--offer a way out of this morass.  All of them have a history that eschews an official religions and welcomes others as equal members of the same polity; regardless of faith, they are strongly anti-Islamist; they believe in allowing different ethnic and national groups to develop as nations (whether within a confederation or independently); and they are fighting against the human rights atrocities that have become daily life for many inside the nation of Pakistan.  The next few years will be critical.  Pakistan and China have been developing the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC), which the Pakistanis believe will make them immune to demands from democracies and those fighting radical Islamic terror.  That expansion of Chinese dominance all the way to the warm water port of Gwadar in Balochistan, threatens both US and Russian interests and could be the basis for the sort of common interest cooperation suggested by US President Donald Trump.  Many youth among the Baloch and Pashtun, have been looking for the West to support their insurgencies but are finding that the only real support they get is from Islamist groups.  If we do not support these efforts, it's likely that more will join with Islamists in the (probably mistaken) hope that it will bring relief to their peoples.  And there are regional implications:  Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi already has expressed support for the Baloch and has interests in what happens to its perennial rival; Afghanistan often identifies as a Pashtun state; and Balochistan is occupied by both Pakistan and Iran.  There are many restive national minorities in both countries.  Pakistan is only about half Punjabi; and Iran is only about 40 percent Persian.  There is a lot of opportunity to keep those terror-supporting nations busy trying to stay together as states, such that their pursuit of international goals would be suppressed.

We have the opportunity, and many of the leaders of these groups have told me they are hopeful of a change in US policy that will help their causes while they together end up advancing US interests. But the clock is ticking.

Narendra Modi's Game Changing Action Part II

World leaders from the US to Europe and Asia all claim to be fighting the scourge of terrorism.  (US President Barack Obama refuses to call it what it is, radical Islamist terrorism, but that is what they all are fighting.)  One near constant of this fight against Islamists has been the reactive nature
of their actions.  A terrorist tries to blow up a plane with his shoe, and now we have to take off our shoes at the airport.  Terrorists try to use liquid explosives to blow up planes going from the UK to the US, and we have to restrict the size of liquids in our carry-on baggage.  And so on and so on.  They act; we react.  In this war so far, the bad guys usually set the agenda, and we allow them to do it.

On May 26, 2014, all that changed when Narendra Modi was elected India's Prime Minister in a landslide for his Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP).  Perhaps not immediately. In fact, Modi began his tenure as PM with an unprecedented gesture of friendship by inviting Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif to his inauguration and for meetings that would hopefully usher in a new era of Indo-Pak cooperation.  Unfortunately, despite Modi's gesture of friendship, the Pakistanis continued their provocations against their neighbor, and the latest attacks in Uri, Kashmir were the final straw.  They had supported anti-Indian terrorism before during Modi's tenure, but the Uri attacks went to far.

The day after I predicted he would, Modi ordered pinpoint strikes against the Lashkar e-Taiba terror camps in Pakistan occupied Kashmir.  Lashkar has been operating freely with the Pakistani government's tacit and sometimes active support, and Modi's actions sent a strong message to the Pakistanis that--unlike his predecessors--he would not flinch from defending the lives of his people. After the Pakistani directed attacks in Mumbai on November 26, 2008, in which 164 people were murdered and over 300 wounded, the previous Indian government failed to take action; and continued its craven behavior as Pakistan steadfastly refused Indian demands for justice and prosecution of the terrorists.  They continued their obstinacy even after the so-called "American Taliban," David Headley exposed their involvement.  But the recent Indian strikes against the terrorists made it clear that the Pakistanis no longer could act with impunity.  It also sent a message to terrorists and would be defenders that the game has changed.

Moreover, this was not just a reaction against the Pakistani terror attack.  Earlier, Modi had expressed support for a free Balochistan and said that Pakistan would have to answer for its atrocities against the Baloch.  (I work with the Baloch and can confirm the tragic history of Pakistani--and Iranian--human rights violations and atrocities against them.)  There are other restive groups struggling against the Pakistani occupation of their homeland, and Narendra Modi has given them all a new sense of hope.  If they take action, especially cooperatively, it could spell the end of Pakistan.  Look for a Balochistan government-in-exile to form in the coming months.

The world just changed, and we need to thank Narendra Modi for it and for ushering in a new era in the fight against radical Islamists.

Narendra Modi's Game Changing Action Part II

World leaders from the US to Europe and Asia all claim to be fighting the scourge of terrorism.  (US President Barack Obama refuses to call it what it is, radical Islamist terrorism, but that is what they all are fighting.)  One near constant of this fight against Islamists has been the reactive nature
of their actions.  A terrorist tries to blow up a plane with his shoe, and now we have to take off our shoes at the airport.  Terrorists try to use liquid explosives to blow up planes going from the UK to the US, and we have to restrict the size of liquids in our carry-on baggage.  And so on and so on.  They act; we react.  In this war so far, the bad guys usually set the agenda, and we allow them to do it.

On May 26, 2014, all that changed when Narendra Modi was elected India's Prime Minister in a landslide for his Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP).  Perhaps not immediately. In fact, Modi began his tenure as PM with an unprecedented gesture of friendship by inviting Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif to his inauguration and for meetings that would hopefully usher in a new era of Indo-Pak cooperation.  Unfortunately, despite Modi's gesture of friendship, the Pakistanis continued their provocations against their neighbor, and the latest attacks in Uri, Kashmir were the final straw.  They had supported anti-Indian terrorism before during Modi's tenure, but the Uri attacks went to far.

The day after I predicted he would, Modi ordered pinpoint strikes against the Lashkar e-Taiba terror camps in Pakistan occupied Kashmir.  Lashkar has been operating freely with the Pakistani government's tacit and sometimes active support, and Modi's actions sent a strong message to the Pakistanis that--unlike his predecessors--he would not flinch from defending the lives of his people. After the Pakistani directed attacks in Mumbai on November 26, 2008, in which 164 people were murdered and over 300 wounded, the previous Indian government failed to take action; and continued its craven behavior as Pakistan continually refused Indian demands for justice and prosecution of the terrorists; even after the so-called "American Taliban," David Headley exposed the Pakistani involvement.  But the recent Indian strikes against the terrorists made it clear that the Pakistanis no longer could act with impunity.  Beyond that, it sent a message to terrorists and would be defenders that the game has changed.

Moreover, this was not just a reaction against the Pakistani terror attack.  Earlier, Modi had expressed support for a free Balochistan and said that Pakistan would have to answer for its atrocities.  (I work with the Baloch and can confirm the tragic history of Pakistani--and Iranian--human rights violations and atrocities against the Baloch.)  There are other restive groups struggling against the Pakistani occupation of their homeland, and Narendra Modi has given them all a new sense of hope.  If they take action, especially cooperatively, it could spell the end of Pakistan.  Look for a Balochistan government-in-exile to form in the coming months.

The world just changed, and we need to thank Narendra Modi for it and for ushering in a new era in the fight against radical Islamista.

India can expect the media's "Israel treatment"

What is the media's "Israel treatment"?  It is the imposition of a general narrative over the situation, which then mandates that all events be interpreted within its framework; all editorial decisions about what gets covered (and what does not) and how it is covered must come out of that narrative.  Matti Friedman, who was an Associated Press reporter and editor in its Jerusalem bureau from 2006-2011, has done an excellent job of describing how that narrative works to mislead populations whose misinformed actions then seem to validate this "narrative construct that is largely fiction."  How would such a narrative work to distort any actions India might take to save Hindus in Bangladesh?

The media and its slavish followers have decided that Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi is a "bad guy" and that Bangladesh is a "moderate Muslim country,"  both of which are as far from the truth as one can get.  If PM Modi is a bad guy, so must be the overwhelming number of Indians who gave him a landslide mandate in the world's largest democratic election ever.  Moreover, I have the pleasure of knowing him and know that he is sincere in his aspirations for his nation and all of its people.  On the other hand, Bangladesh has fallen under the grip of Islamists, who now control most of its major institutions.  (Al Qaeda and ISIS have recently opened offices there.)  Another of the media's cherished myths is that the current party in power, the Awami League, is the "good party," as opposed to its major opponent, the BNP,  Like the rest of the narrative, that too does not stand up to the reality of ongoing ethnic cleansing of Hindus and others in Bangladesh with the government's tacit support.

Here is one example of how the narrative distorts reality to make good guys into bad and bad guys into good.  Earlier this year, I was in Assam's tribal areas and observed the cultural and ecological damage massive infiltration from Bangladesh has brought to the region.  Forests are being destroyed, poaching is bringing both the elephant and one-horned rhino to the brink of extinction; the natives' children are being sent out of the area for their safety with the parents having little hope that they will return to their tribal culture; an ancient way of life and the ecology that supports it are dying, and the people in the area are restive.  On several occasions, that restiveness has erupted into violence (I've interviewed several elderly tribal victims of the violence); and the only thing preventing another, major eruption is the people's expectation that new Indian PM will protect them.  Yet, I told tribal leaders earlier this year that if they try to expel illegal infiltrators, the media will feature "bedraggled refugees," alleged victims of "nationalists."  Moreover, no major media outlet has covered the devastation to their land and way of life--even after Bangladeshi PM Sheikh Hasina promised a continued flow of illegal aliens to Assam.

The media has left India with three difficult options.  It can cave into the narrative in an attempt to avoid criticism at the price of its people's safety.  It can ignore the narrative and hope that one day people will recognize the reality of the situation.  It can attempt some hybrid that probably leans toward the second option but attempts to mollify its critics. If the Israel experience is any guide, the first option is a disaster and will only invite more anti-Hindu rhetoric; and the third will prevent India from achieving the goals it wants to in order to protect its people. The second road is a tough one that brings potentially high political costs to the leader who follows it.  My own sense is that after centuries of other nations--first the mughals then the British then the West in general--treating India in a patronizing way and lecturing it on right and wrong; India is about to flex its muscles under Prime Minister Narendra Modi and take its rightful place as a world economic, cultural, and military leader.  How it handles the flood of infiltrators from Bangladesh, the Prime Minister's pre-election promise to protect neighboring Hindus from ongoing and state-supported persecution, and similar matters will test its mettle in the face of the narrative makers.

Prime Minister Narendra Modi already thinning India's bloated government

In office only five days, India’s new Prime Minister Narendra Modi is already showing people how a small government, conservative head of state acts.  Without even touching his people’s services or their quality, he began on his very first day in office fulfilling his promise to cut the size of his country’s bloated government.

He began by swearing in only 23 cabinet ministers, combining several portfolios and eliminating others.  It was the smallest number of cabinet posts in 16 years.  Only five days later, the Prime Minister did away with an entire layer of government by summarily abolishing the country’s 30 “ministerial groups.”  These groups were designed to protect entrenched and immediate interests, whether legitimate or not; and stood between India’s citizenry and the cabinet.  They had to give their blessing to any measure requiring cabinet approval before it could even get there for deliberation.  Under the previous, left leaning Congress Party government, ministerial committees numbered as many as 60.

Modi, whose theme has been “minimum government, maximum governance,” got rid of these groups even though in doing so he took on more personal responsibility and the greater accountability that comes with it.  According to The Hindustan Times, their abolition means that Modi himself “will now have to adjudicate matters where there are differences among cabinet colleagues,” rather than having an additional bureaucratic layer to cut deals and run interference for him.  And he will be responsible for those decisions, something his immediate predecessors assiduously avoided.

Reducing the size of government and speeding up the pace of decision-making are two critical elements in the free market conservative Modi’s plans to revitalize the Indian economy and polity and make government responsive to the Indian people.  Modi's method will remove the barriers that until now has kept a lot of people worldwide from participating in India's economic potential.

Accept it America, a Prime Minister Narendra Modi is a good thing

Few Americans are aware of the potentially earth-shaking events currently unfolding in India. The left-center Nehru-Gandhi dynasty, which has ruled India for all but eight of its 67 years of national existence, is about to be voted out of power in favor of the conservative opposition under the leadership of Narendra Modi. Fewer still realize what a fantastic thing it is for the United States.

Modi is an unapologetic free market capitalist who turned his state of Gujarat into a pro-business economic miracle that accounts for 72 percent of India’s new jobs and has its lowest unemployment rate.  His foreign policy is based on a strong and assertive India that acts as the bulwark against the expansion of both radical Islam and communism, both of which have taken the lives of many Indians.  I spend a lot of time in India and never once was there when attacks from either or both did not cost innocent lives.  Yet, a small but vocal Congressional coalition of leftists, conservatives, and people who fashion themselves defenders of human rights but do so with blinders; have banded together to keep beating an anti-Modi drum that has been discredited multiple times.  Taken in reverse:

• The uniformed:  Congressmen like Chris Smith of New Jersey have been fed the stale and discredited line that Modi was involved in Gujarat's 2002 riots.  Several commissions and even India's Supreme Court have absolved him noting that much of the "evidence" they encountered was based on fabrications.  Yet, Smith and others believe that they (perhaps as Westerners?) sitting half way around the world know better than the entire Indian judiciary.
• The ill informed:  Several conservatives have been convinced that Modi will be bad for Christians on the basis of hyperbole spread by missionaries some of dubious political leanings.  Most recently, several Christian prelates have noted that more and more Indian Christians have flocked to Modi as the man who can make their lives better.  Moreover, Modi has never been credibly accused of aiding or abetting any anti-Christian actions.
• The misinformers:  Leftists have reason to worry.  Modi once told me that he was anxious to work closely with the US and Israel.  He also will begin dismantling some of the big government programs that have made India one of the most corrupt country in the world and have actually made the lot of most Indians worse.  He recently addressed a crowd in the Indian state of Assam, worried about Islamist infiltration of their homeland, the increased anti-Hindu violence they bring and their environmental destruction.  "Assam lies next to Bangladesh, and Gujarat lies next to Pakistan,” he said. “People of Assam are troubled because of Bangladesh, and Pakistan is worried because of me."

The Indian American Muslim Council has hired a lobbyist to use their influence to get Members of Congress to sign on to this biased resolution.  We do not have their money, but we have the truth. House Resolution 417 is a pack of lies and must be defeated.  On top of that, the World Bank reported last week that India has passed Japan as the world's third largest economy.  With China as Number 2, this is a time to embrace India and its new Prime Minister, not alienate them.

To see if your Member of Congress is a co-sponsor of the anti-India bill, House Resolution 417, and want to urge him or her to withdraw from this ethnocentric, factually flawed, and geopolitical stupid piece of legislation, click this link.  You can also contact me through this blog.

US Should Grant Modi a Visa before it is too late

Imagine the following scenario.  It is mid-year 2014, and India has just sworn in its new Prime Minister--an individual committed to achieving for India its rightful place as an international economic and political giant.  A pro-growth PM, he will likely preside over the time when India's eclipses China as the world's most populous nation; and he has made it clear that this new India will stand for the values we Americans espouse against the forces of international authoritarianism.

The US Ambassador congratulates the Indian people on their new leader, talks about the strong relationship between India and the United States, and extends a hand to the new Prime Minister.  The PM politely accepts it but with a knowing smile of contempt and wondering about my country's duplicity and whether or not we will be a true friend to this resurgent India.

Although the Indian elections are almost a year away, polls and pundits are confident that Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi will become the nation's next PM.  As of today, the US government maintains its position that Narendra Modi is disqualified from receiving a visa to visit the United States; that he was somehow involved in the 2002 Gujarat riots in which over 1000 Hindus and Muslims died.  It is an odd position for us to take sitting atop our perch halfway around the world when people close to the ground have exonerated Modi of any such charges multiple times.

Although the Indian Supreme Court has declared Modi innocent of any wrongdoing, the US State Department, politicians, and self-interested ideologues believe that they know better and dismiss the court's actions.  I'm not sure what happened to our hallowed principle that people are innocent until proven guilty, but it seems we do not apply it in Naredra Modi's case.  Last week, the Indian legal system began the process of hearing the final gasp of Modi's detractors who are demanding that the court reject its own body's final report on their say-so.  It is not certain when it will dispose of this final stab at Modi, but as soon as it happens, the United States government would be wise to announce that if Narendra Modi wants to apply for a visa he will get one; that the charges against him have not been proven despite multiple attempt; that we have listened to those who slandered Narendra Modi's good name.

It is not only an insult to Modi himself and to the millions of Indians--Hindus and Muslims--who have made him Gujarat's longest serving Chief Minister, and one of its most successful.  In maintaining our baseless visa denial, we are declaring in one fell swoop that the entire Indian legal system is without merit; that the highly respected judges on its Supreme Court do not know what they are doing.  Is this how we treat a friend and ally?

My country has made peace with some of the worst world leaders imaginable:  Joseph Stalin who the Roosevelt Administration wanted us to call "Uncle Joe," Mao Zedong who was openly proud of the tens of millions he sent to their death, Palestinian terrorists and their Holocaust-denying "President," "moderate" Taliban, and Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood.  Yet, we hold firm against a man declared innocent time and again; a man who actually stopped Gujarat's annual that have not recurred under his administration?

My country's leaders need to acknowledge truth over politics and ideology and begin the same discussions with Modi that the UK, EU, and others already have.  Yes, it will be embarrassing if we suddenly extend a hand of friendship while holding the position that the man to whom we are extending it is worse than the rogues' gallery above whom we have taken into our bosom.  Worse for everyone, however refusing to budge in the face of facts threatens the quality of that friendship and the fate of the world going forward.

Ignorance is not Bliss

Perhaps because I maintain close track of events in South Asia, I am constantly amazed at how little most Americans know about events there.  Moreover, it is clear that India will likely to become one of the US's most important allies--if we proceed appropriately--and that South Asia is the really critical battleground between freedom and Islamist totalitarianism.

To be sure, we in the West are blissfully ignorant of perhaps the largest case of ethnic cleansing in modern times:  the elimination of Hindus in Bangladesh, who even after being driven from almost a third of the population to under eight percent, still number around 15 million souls--15 million souls at risk and facing brutalization every day.   This quiet case of ethnic cleansing, as I have dubbed it, is now spilling into India, particularly in West Bengal and the Northeast where radicals and appeasers now seem to hold sway.

A small number of Americans know a little about mass murders in Bangladesh during its 1971 revolution by Pakistani troops and local collaborators--around two to three million; and a smaller number will avidly point to the current Bangladeshi government's prosecution of those decades old crimes.  That might be true--and it comports with the ruling party's ideology--but almost none of my fellow Americans know that those prosecutions cover only the highest profile offenses, and specifically ignore some of the most egregious examples of anti-Hindu activity.  According to Rabindra Ghosh of Bangladesh Minority Watch and a tireless foe of government-enabled ethnic cleansing in his country, 22 Hindus were killed for their faith at Motbaria Upazilla of the Perojpur District of Bangladesh in 1971; and due in part to pressure by a Member of Parliament, not a single charge has ever been filed in the case.  Several newspapers have highlighted the murders and lack of prosecution, but no Bangladeshi government has ever taken action.  As a result of his activism, Advocate Ghosh and his family have been attacked by radicals with impunity.

In December, Indians were horrified at the gang rape-torture of a 23-year-old student on a public bus in Delhi.  The nation was agonizing over the incident as the young woman clung to her life.  When she lost that battle some days later, the reaction from Indians regardless of party or ideology was one of shock and anger.  They demanded that the perpetrators be brought to justice and that the country seriously examine why India has been ranked as "the worst nation to be female" among the G20 countries.  The intense pain and serious re-consideration has the potential to re-set gender roles in an area of the world where such change lags seriously behind much of the globe.  But it remains to be seen if those who claim the mantle of women's rights have even taken notice, let alone offer help in what could be a real watershed in gender equality.

Is it political alliances, ignorance, or a bias that considers victims worthy only if they have been defined so?  No matter, as far as most westerners are concerned, the brutalization of Hindus can proceed apace--even while strengthening our most inveterate enemies, as can the brutalization of women.

India--Our True Friend in South Asia

The killing of Osama bin Laden in a compound less than 100 km from the Pakistani capital of Islamabad caused many Americans to question just how much of an ally the Muslim Islamic State is. We've heard all the arguments--that Pakistan provides invaluable help for our anti-Islamist efforts in South Asia, that it has suffered major losses at the hands of our enemies, and so forth. We also know that Pakistan was more of an ally during the Cold War than its rival India, whose premier PM, J Nehru, took it on a pro-Soviet course that did not vary until the USSR's fall. Times have changed, however; international alliances have shifted; and both countries could proffer charges against one another. But there is too much at stake to do that.

The withdrawal of US forces from Afghanistan, which begins next month, will create a power vacuum that the Karzai government is incapable of filling. Candidates to do so include China (which has been making strong moves in that direction), the Taliban (which remains active in the country--and the Obama administration is even looking to cut a deal with the Islamists), Iran (which has a Shi'ite group there in need of its "protection"), and Pakistan (which at the very least is suspect and unstable). None of them would make for a friendly South Asia. Yet, the Obama administration continues to dismiss the one regional power that would: India. Its interests are largely the same as the US, as are its major enemies; the specter of its increased influence is the one thing that scares the pants off the Pakistanis; it has the economic and military strength to check Chinese expansion; and it is, like the US and unlike the other candidates, a committed democratic republic.

There's still time--not a lot, but some; and the only path that has any chance of keeping Afghanistan and most of South Asia from falling under Islamist or Chinese control is a mature relationship between these two great powers: the United States of America and India. For more, see: India as the Solution to Afghan Power Vacuum.

An End to a Hindu India?

Jihad has come to India. The Obama administration and the State Department will tell you that it is nothing more than isolated acts by individuals and the New Delhi government will say you are stirring up anti-Muslim sentiment. But I have seen it for myself first-hand and know that this studied denial will find us caught as flat-footed in India as we were in Lebanon, Egypt, Libya, and elsewhere. The difference is that India is an economic and military giant, with nuclear weapons and could be a cornerstone of any effective fight against radical Islam.

I have spent several years along India's 2545 mile-long frontier with Bangladesh, and have seen the impact Bangladesh's radicalization has had on its giant neighbor to the west. Amitabh Tripathi, who has been fighting against what he calls his country's "soft policies," noted that Bangladesh's Muslims "are not radicalized but their institutions are." Mixed with corruption on both sides of the border, that radicalization has produced demographic change in many strategic areas of India and given Muslim activists carte blanche throughout the country.
Each year in states like Uttar Dinajpur and West Bengal directly across from the Islamic state, we find that increasingly more mixed Hindu-Muslim villages are now all Muslim or Muslim-dominated. Gone are the roadside temples characteristic of places where Hindus practice their faith openly; gone are the sights of Hindu women dressed in their colorful saris and other vestments. They have been replaced by mosques and burqas. Last year, Tripathi and I met with Bimal Praminik, Director of the Kolkata-based Centre for Research in Indo-Bangladesh Relations who has studied these population changes and is convinced they are integral to the jihad's that threatens us all, noting that the dominant culture for South Asian Muslims has become more "Arabic," than South Asian.

Hindus in Pakistan and Bangladesh have been disappearing for years; now we are seeing Hindus being replaced by radicalized Muslims all in India. Between 1981 and 1991, Muslim population growth in West Bengal actually exceeded its growth in Bangladesh. India’s Muslim population growth outstripped government predictions based on demographic factors (fertility and mortality). There had to be another element driving the change, which Pramanik and others identify as "illegal immigration from across the border."

Statistics might be the "smoking gun," but jihad's impact is more powerful in the testimony of its victims. In places as far afield as Deganga and Meerut, Hindu populations are fleeing Muslim violence and government inaction. Elsewhere, an elderly Hindu in the Howrah district told us how Muslims are taking over her property piece by piece. She even showed us a wall with a star and crescent on it that local Muslims built to identify it as dar al Islam. In another village, residents showed us the remains of a Hindu temple that Muslims recently destroyed after urinating on its holy objects. Most poignant was the testimony of a crestfallen mother in Norit whose 22-year-old daughter was abducted weeks ago by local Muslims. Abduction of Hindu women and girls in the name of Islam has been common in Bangladesh for years and is a key element in jihad: eliminating females of childbearing years from the gene pool and forcing them to "produce" Muslim offspring instead. It is now happening in India, according to victimized parents who told me about it in India's North and Northeast.

Our State Department will tell you that there is no jihad in India. They will hew the official line that the liberal Awami League government in Bangladesh has put an end to anti-Hindu actions there. A similarly weak government in New Delhi will parrot the same platitudes. Yet, their false palliatives bring no comfort to the scores of victims who have told us their stories; or the many others now unable to do so. Imagine what an Islamist India would mean.

Corruption finally getting its Due in Indian Media

For several years, US President Barack Obama has been pressing Afghanistan President Hamid Karzai to end corruption in his country; and he really will not get off that demand. Now, besides the fact that Obama comes from my home town, Chicago, which makes Obama's demand particularly ironic; anyone familiar with governments in South Asia knows that corruption is almost endemic and makes us Chicagoans look like rank amateurs. Remember the glee with which US leaders hailed the election of Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari even though Zardari's monumental corruption had earned him the dubious title of "Mr. 10 Percent"? Obama had no problem sending Pakistan billions of dollars more (courtesy of US taxpayers) in care of Mr. 10 percent.

But winds of change might be blowing. I just returned from a few weeks in South Asia and witnessed something new. Previously, most Indian media coverage focused on terror attacks by Islamists and Maoists; or the budget; or elections; and all of it took a back seat to cricket. This February, however, they covered the Maoists' kidnapping one minor official, but corruption scandals (called scams) dominated the media--except of course for cricket.

The big fish caught in this net was India's now former Commonwealth Games Organizing Committee Chairman, and still high official of the ruling Congress Party, Suresh Kalmadi. There are a host of allegations against the once seemingly untouchable giant, but he says that all is well. He probably has not spoken with a couple of his aides recently who were arrested and subsequently denied bail in the matter. There is at least on sworn statement on record testifying that the witness was forced to pay a million rupee bribe. The probe was initiated after relentless investigations by the news channel Times Now. The channel has vowed to press on with its independent investigations in this any "many other scams."

Our experience in the United States and elsewhere is that the success of this sort of investigative journalism is like an addictive drug. Once the media recognizes that it has the power to effect such a sea change and help the people immeasurably, it is unlikely that they will put the toothpaste back in the tube. (Personally, I was very impressed by the Times Now on air personnel and their commitment to quality journalism.) Moreover, the people will soon see that what they once thought they had to accept can be fought--and those who try to rob the people brought down, no matter how influential they are. Hence, the importance of a case against the political heavyweight Kalmadi.

Having spent a great deal of time in South Asia, I'm familiar with the fatalism with which the people accept massive corruption. Spouses of local officials boast to each other about how much money their official/spouses have been able to pocket. In at least one case I investigated, I found that some West Bengal police stations even have a semi-official post for the person who coordinates all corruption activities. Yes, that really is the case! At the same time, you can see the effect of corruption in the horrible roads, infrastructure failings, and various other indicators that government money is not getting to the people. (I've also seen instances of corruption first-hand carried out openly.

Once the people of India recognize that they do not have to live with these injustices, it will be quite a trick if anyone on the corruption gravy train will be able to convince them that they do.

Ending Ignorance: Jewish Studies in India

In early 2009, I was at Lucknow University in India and had just concluded two days of talks. On my way to the car, an individual stopped me and insisted I join him and his colleagues in the Islamic Studies Department for some tea and conversation. While there I met a Muslim journalist who said quite matter-of-factly that "every Muslim child knows that the media is controlled by seven powerful Jews."

"Oh, I must have missed that meeting," I replied. Besides, I told him it was nonsense and challenged him to name the seven powerful Jews. He began with Rupert Murdoch.

"Not Jewish," I said, "a friend, but not Jewish. Who's next?"

"Ted Turner," he replied.

"Ted Turner? I'm not sure he even likes Jews!"

You get the point. This man was an influential Urdo journalist and a guest in the Islamic Studies Department of a major Indian university. He helps shape Indian Muslim opinion yet is so woefully ignorant about Jews.

For two days prior, as I spoke to Indian students at Lucknow, I was peppered with questions about Israel and the Jewish people. There was a real hunger among students for information about both. One of the questions I receive regularly (there and elsewhere) is: "How has tiny Israel defeated the terrorists when giant India cannot?" Unfortunately, they cannot easily find that or other unbiased information about Israel and the Jews from the elites in media and academia who, for the most part, enforce a rigidly anti-Israel perspective. Almost every Indian university has an Islamic Studies Department, but none offer much on Jewish studies.

Dr. Navras Aafreedi was responsible for my time at Lucknow University, and he is trying almost single-handedly to get students the information they crave. With the support of Forcefield, a human rights not-for-profit of which I am the President, Rabbi Howard Gorin of the Washington, DC area, and others' Navras is assembling information resources that he is making available to students. Congressman-elect Robert Dold (R-IL) has also expressed his support for the effort and desire to help it succeed.

Navras Aafreedi continues to seek out new or used books and other resources. The need is great, and the cost of shipping is also significant. Rabbi Gorin's synagogue raised money (http://www.interfaithstrength.com/Navras.htm), and Forcefield has assisted both in book donations and in shipping costs. Navras perseveres despite continued obstacles; and even though this effort is not likely one that will endear him with the powers that be in academia, he continues with it because he sees the need and hears the cries of the students. People wanting to help this effort can contact Dr. Aafreedi directly (aafreedi@gmail.com), through me (drrbenkin@comcast.net), or through Forcefield (http://www.forcefieldnow.org). The cause is just, and it is an important case of hasbara that can have a profound impact on a key population at a critical moment in time.

Assam Government to Deport Victims of Islamist Terror

For several years, I have been traveling around West Bengal, India, in an effort to gather evidence about the plight of Bangladeshi Hindus and bring that evidence to human rights supporters in the United States Congress and Senate. The Bangladeshi Hindu population has fallen from just under a fifth of the Bangladeshi people at independence in 1971, to eight percent or less today. Contrary to apologists, there has been no corresponding increase in the Hindu share of West Bengal--the Indian state that borders Bangladesh and shares its ethnicity. In fact, the Hindu proportion of West Bengal has fallen during that time as well.

While we receive a steady stream of reported atrocities against Hindus in Bangladesh (reports which we investigate and almost always verify) and West Bengal; we are now receiving new reports from the neighboring Indian state of Assam, which stretches along Bangladesh's northern border. For years, and especially during times of unrest in Bangladesh, Hindus have fled to Assam for safe haven. In fact, the Assam Supreme Court has issued rulings of special protection for them.

Now, however, the Assamese government has begun issuing orders of eviction to many of these Hindus, all victims of Islamist (and Islamist fellow travelers) atrocity. It is doing this contemptuously of the longstanding supreme court rulings. It has not, by the way, issued any such orders to the growing number of Muslims now in the state. These infiltrators are attempting to replicate the same demographic shift in Assam as we are seeing in West Bengal.

Several local groups are forming to stop this double victimization. One of them, The Protection Forum for Bengali Hindus of Assam, has asked us to join them in this fight; and we will be standing with them in a matter of months. Some have also appealed to the national Indian government and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh. But it is clear that the only thing with a chance of stopping this is the pressure that comes from shining a light on these actions and forcing the world to confront what is happening to these perpetually victimized people before it is too late.

That has become one of our goals, and it is a major aim of our next trip to the region. If you want to help, contact Dr. Richard Benkin at drrbenkin@comcast.net.

Ignore Indian events at our own Peril

For the past year, I have been saying that the political center in India is collapsing. The re-election of the left-centrist Congress Party last year only masked this inevitable decline because the finale might not come this year, or maybe even next; but it is coming, and when it does it will be with an explosion heard round the world. I was in India for just over two weeks in February, and during that time noted:

• Relations with fellow nuclear power Pakistan deteriorated in a hail of harsh rhetoric and threats such that the Obama administration sent Senator John Kerry to try and “calm” tensions.
• Pakistan first refused to join in scheduled talks with India about the former’s involvement in a 2008 terror attack that killed almost 200 Indians.
• Later, they agreed to talk only if they focused on Kashmir—a territorial dispute between the countries that has sparked skirmishes, continued terror and counter-terror operations, and all out wars between the two. India wanted to focus on terrorism, but acquiesced and said they would consider the matter but insisted the talks concentrate on terrorism.
• While this was happening, Islamists launched another deadly Islamist terrorist attack, this time on Pune, a major Indian city of over 5,000,000 people, that at last count took 13 lives and left over five dozen injured.
• Initial investigations identified the terrorists as Indian citizens, known as Indian Mujahedeen who are committed to replacing India with an Islamist state.
• Subsequent investigations confirmed that fact and added that the operation likely was directed from Pakistan.
• The Indian government announced that American Islamist David Headley gave his captors information about the “Karachi Project” that was carried out by Pakistan’s intelligence agency, the ISI. He said the ISI brought sympathetic Indian Muslims to Pakistan, trained them in terrorist techniques, and returned them to India where they were to await further instructions to carry out terrorist attacks.
• Communist insurgents, known as Naxalites, abducted a government official in the state of Bihar and refused to release him until the government caved into their demands, one of which was for the Indian government to end its, very effective, military crackdown on the Maoist revolutionaries.
• Naxalites carried out a half dozen military operations against the government and people of India. Among the many terror operations were at least two of particular note. They launched a particularly gruesome attack on an unarmed paramilitary camp in which more than two dozen soldiers were shot or burned alive; and an unknown number of wounded were seized and taken to undisclosed locations as hostages. They also attacked an unarmed village in the Jamui district of Bihar because its inhabitants refused cooperate with their insurgency. They murdered several villagers, including some who were burned alive when the Maoists torched homes in the village.
• Islamists carried out several terror attacks, mostly in Kashmir, but in other areas of India, as well. The attacks killed both civilians and military personnel indiscriminately.
• The government’s anti-terror squad prevented another half dozen Islamist terror attacks, seizing 200 kilograms of ammonium nitrate, 600 detonators, and 200 gel sticks from known Muslim terrorists, in one raid in Gujurat (a state that has been a rallying cry for Islamists after violence there in 2002. The government also detained two British nationals caught at a hotel near the international airport with high-tech devices for monitoring and tracking air traffic.
• Students rioted—and as of the time I left were still rioting—at an Indian university in Hyderabad in the South of the country At the time I left India, one student was near death after self-immolating as part of the protest.

Imagine the media coverage if any one of those things occurred in the United States. Yet, from what I could glean from the Internet and elsewhere, it appears that our own media (except for a few journals that ran my articles) devoted far more ink to Tiger Woods than to all of these events combined. India is a nuclear power, as is the United States. India, like the US, is a major target of international jihiadis. Its other primary adversary also has nuclear weapons as do those of the United States. Both countries are among the largest and most populous nations on earth. Both are among the world’s most important economic powers. And both countries are critical if Islamist and communist imperialism and terror are to be defeated.

Indians are questioning the United States' reliability as an ally in the war against radical Islam. Our continuing aid to Pakistan--aid which even former Pakistani strongman Pervez Musharraf admitted had been channeled against India--is incomprehensible to most Indians without relying on cynicism about politics; and the Obama administration's policies have led most anti-Islamists to conclude that his administration would sacrifice allies like Indian and Israel if it meant even a superficial friendship from America's worst enemies.

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.

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 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.