Narendra Modi's Game Changing Action

Indian Prime Minister has been talking about Balochistan--a lot, including this on August 13, 2016, Pakistan "bombs its own citizens using fighter planes [and will] have to answer to the world for the atrocities committed by it against people in Balochistan and POK."  To be sure, it was another clear message that the craven days of Modi's predecessors are gone, and that India will no longer roll over for Pakistan.  It also was something that few democratically elected leaders have done in this existential war against radical Islam and its enablers:  Prime Minister Modi took the fight to the enemy.

How reactive and predictable are we in the face of this enemy!  Some sad sack tries to set his shoe on fire on a plane, and we have to take off our shoes before we can board.  A few amateurs try to blow up planes with liquid explosives, and we can't take our bottle of water with us.   For years, New Delhi danced to Islamabad's tune, allowing Pakistan to commit regular violations in Kashmir then accusing India of "atrocities"; driving out Hindus then saying "popular sentiment" demands an Indian withdrawal--and India does nothing.  I saw the previous government give on point after point even after Pakistan trained and funded terrorists to attack India.

No more; not with Prime Minister Narendra Modi.  Adding to the man's accomplishment, his enemies, foreign and domestic, were ready to paint him as a racist, warmonger, and anything else they could use; but he has been able to bring India to this self-respecting position without acting in ways that make those screeds at all credible.  Even here in the United States, there is a strong current to replace our decades long Pakistan-ties with Indian ones.  And Modi's politically-motivated detractors on Capitol Hill have gone silent.

Returning to Balochistan, much of the world has been obsessed with a non-existent occupation in the Middle East while ignoring a very real and brutal one in Pakistan.  Baloch, Pashtun, Gilgit Baltstanis, Sindhi, and Kashmiris all will tell you that.  Perhaps other world leaders need to take a lesson from Modi ji and stop letting our enemies define the agenda or tell us what is just

Nationalist Muslims: Antidote to Islamists?

Most Muslim-majority nations are stitched together nations; that is, forced marriages of several other peoples with independent and even conflicting existences.  Most people, for instance, know that Iraq was formed with Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds.  Few of them, however, realize the Iran is only about 60 percent Persian.  The other 40 percent are comprised of different national groups, most Muslim, many still yearning for independence.  Pakistan's dominant ethnic group, Punjabis, make up only about 45 percent of that country.  Both Iran and Pakistan both have several Sunni Muslim peoples straining under their oppressive yokes and looking for their independence.

I've been one of the characteristics of radical Islam is that it owes no allegiance to any national entity, except perhaps for temporary, strategic reasons.  Its view is universal; we refer to a worldwide Caliphate.  The groups mentioned above reject that and emphasize nationalism.  Moreover, part of their nationalism virulently rejects Islamism and seeks to re-establish nations that are equally welcoming to people of all faiths.  They also believe that the current nations of Iran and Pakistan are tied to radical Islam; and they oppose that as much as the occupation of their countries.

Is the West missing an opportunity if it does not support these peoples?

Do they also provide a real alternative to the flailing about for non-radical Muslims, which often settles on faux moderates?

Islam's diversity opens gates for victory over Islamism

Many people in the west are desperately trying to find an answer to the scourge of radical Islam.  There are at least two problems facing them:  many push back at the thought of identifying a religion with terrorism (which often finds people at the poles of bigotry or fecklessness); lack of thorough and uncluttered information about Islam and Muslims has prevented a more complex understanding.  There is an answer to both problems.

Muslims are as diverse as any other group of people.  Many not only reject Islamism (or Islam as a political ideology); quite a few are trying to combat it, often at their peril.  If we recognize that diversity, it is a lot easier to square the recognition of Islam's role in modern-day terrorism and tyranny with our liberal western values of not vilifying people because of their faith.

By now, many people understand that many Middle Eastern countries (e.g., Iraq) were post-World War II creations of European colonial powers that threw diverse populations together without regard to their distinctions--Shia and Sunni, Kurd and Arab, Kurd and Persian, etc.  There's more than--much more--and it can be the basis of a strategy for victory over Islamism.

Take Iran, for example.  To westerners, it might seem like a country divided at times across political lines, something that the government suppresses ruthlessly.  Few westerners know, however, that only about 60 percent of the country is made up of ethnic Persians.  The remaining 40 percent is divided among several national and often restive minorities.  Some, like the Azeri, have an independent nation as well (i.e., Azerbaijan).  Others (e.g., Kurds) have been fighting for one while being spread across multiple Muslim-majority giants.  The Baloch, once had an independent state of their own (Baluchistan), which has been occupied by Iran, Pakistan, and Afghanistan for decades.  These and other non-Persian groups aspire to be free of Iranian hegemony that suppresses their culture and forces an alien form of Islam on them.  Some have even taken action, such as the killing of 18 Iranian Guardsmen in 2007.

Pakistan is another polyglot state with restive minorities.  The largest part of Baluchistan is occupied by Pakistan; and although Baluchistan is rich in minerals and other resources, Pakistani plunder has left it the nation's poorest province.  Other national groups--Sindhi, Pashtun, and Gilgit Baltistanis--long for independence or at least autonomy and have their own independence movements.  Many of their operatives look to regional leaders like Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi for inspiration; and almost all look to Israel as a model and ally.

Finally. as ISIS has begun establishing itself in South Asia, there is division even among Islamists.  Many look at the Taliban as their indigenous movement and ISIS as a foreign entity that is attempting to take over their movement.

One of the biggest drags on western support (even clandestine) for these groups is fear by some in ruling circles that these efforts will "destabilize" the region and risk putting Pakistan's nuclear arsenal in ISIS or Taliban hands.  Both arguments are weak.  You can't destabilize something that is not stable to begin with.  Pakistan has faced Islamist attempts at a takeover at least since 2008; its intelligence service is already listed as a terror supporting organization by the United States and others.  We also have seen that ignoring nationalist movements like these only delays the struggle.  Do any of those fearful westerners see peaceful and democratic resolution of these conflicts in Pakistan's history.  And their nuclear arsenal is already at risk from both internal and external Islamist threats.  Hopefully, the United States and others have secured them in case the worst happens.  Finally, most people believe that a good part of those nukes are located in Baluchistan.  Wouldn't it be nice if they were controlled by friendly forces and not just those that tolerate us for convenience and personal gain?

US Congress Resolution to Protect Bangladeshi Minorities

On July 29, 2015, U.S. Congressman Robert Dold and Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard introduced a bipartisan resolution calling on the government of Bangladesh to increase human rights protections, strengthen democratic institutions and prevent the growth of extremist groups in the country. The resolution comes as ISIS and other trans-national radical Islamic groups continue to grow their influence in areas like South Asia. This represents an historic shift in U.S. policy toward Bangladesh.  It discards the inaccurate view of the world's eighth largest nation as a democratic ally and opponent of radical Islam; for one that recognizes the reality of its role in the spread of Islamism and ethnic cleansing of non-Muslim minorities.

“Religious persecution is on the rise around the world, with 77% of the world’s population now living in countries with high restrictions on religious freedom,” "As the greatest force for human dignity in the world," said Dold, "the United States has an obligation to send the unequivocal message that we will not tolerate countries that fail to protect the fundamental freedoms of all citizens, especially minorities."  He called on the Bangladeshi government "to protect the rights of minorities, eliminate violent extremist groups and restore the rule of law.”

After noting her concern about attacks on religious minorities, Gabbard added, "All too often perpetrators of crimes against minorities go unpunished. It’s up to the government of Bangladesh to take action to stop those who incite and commit violence and protect the rights of these minorities."

The resolution is now with the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, of which Gabbard is a member.  Its Chairman, Congressman Ed Royce, is on the record with his concern about the persecution of minorities, especially Hindus, in Bangladesh.

Since 2007, I have been urging the U.S. government to recognize the "ethnic cleansing of Hindus in Bangladesh" and take a clear stand against the atrocity itself and against the fairy tale that Bangladesh is a "moderate" nation.  Rather, Bangladesh has become Islamism's petri dish for additional campaigns internationally, as well as a test of our will to oppose its commitment to atrocities.

House Resolution 396 is an important step not only for human rights; it is also an important step in our open-eyed fight against our most implacable enemies.