HOME | ABOUT US | Speaker | Americans Together | Videos | www.CenterforPluralism.com | Please note that the blog posts include my own articles plus selected articles critical to India's cohesive functioning. My articles are exclusively published at www.TheGhouseDiary.com You can send an email to: MikeGhouseforIndia@gmail.com


Showing posts with label America. Show all posts
Showing posts with label America. Show all posts

Thursday, May 10, 2012

Can Muslim Indian become Prime Minister of India?

http://mikeghouseforindia.blogspot.com/2012/05/can-muslim-indian-become-prime-minister.html


 “Can a Muslim Indian become Prime Minister of India?” The answer is "no" at this time. However, there were three presidents and a vice president since independence.  This essay explores the possibilities. 

Patriotism of Indian Muslims is no different than others, there is nothing less or more about it. Even to think about it is dumb. No one should ask if one loves his or her mother, it is between them and it is none of anyone's business. Muslims are the sons and daughters of the soil as everyone else.

However, the time for an Indian Muslim to become a Prime Minister has not come yet and there are reasons for it.  I am writing this piece particularly to address the questions from non-Indians,  and like all humans,  I defend my country with my heart, mind, and soul. We have flaws, but we are a great nation and we are going to fix it. 

Muslims have gotten behind,  far behind, even behind the Dalits who 'were' not allowed to prosper or even get an education in our society.  Part of it is their own fault, and part of it is the bias in the system.  Dr. Shariff has identified those issues in the Sachar Report; indeed, there are areas where Muslims don’t even have a primary school, let alone electricity, their poverty prevents them from having their own regular school just as it used to happen with the Dalits.  

Fortunately, Dalits have had reservations and incentives to uplift themselves, which Muslims don’t have.  A man living in such areas simply cannot think of anything but getting his or her kid to a school, and unfortunately, the home-based schools do not prepare the child to join the labor force in the market.

The society at large represented by the Government has failed him. It is in the interests of all Indians to pull up those in ditches and bring them up on to a level playing field, and then they can compete, as has happened with the Dalit community. The more we invest in human development – that is investing in making every Indian a productive citizen, which will add him to the consumer market, which in turn will increase production of goods and services which requires employees. Thus, the cycle gets activated and everyone will see the prosperity.

My prosperity hinges on the prosperity of people around me; I will get richer when other people get better financially. Remember Bill Gates? If he was insecure or jealous that his employees are becoming millionaires, he would not have become a billionaire. If more Muslims get the education, India is the beneficiary and every Indian will benefit from the resulting prosperity. It is the patriotic thing to uplift a fellow Indian instead of finding faults. Muslims who are employed are more productive than fellow Indians simply because they are determined to prove, they have to be 150% good to be equal to a 100% Hindu for instance.

Until Muslims are uplifted onto a level playing field, the scope of their interest would remain limited. They cannot think of anything else other than taking care of the bare necessities and getting out of the hole.

Maslow's hierarchy of needs is a theory in psychology proposed by Abraham Maslow in his 1943 paper "A Theory of Human Motivation" in Psychological Review. His theories parallel many other theories of human developmental psychology, some of which focus on describing the stages of growth in humans. Maslow used the terms "physiological", "safety", "belongingness" and "love", "esteem", "self-actualization", and "self-transcendence" to describe the pattern that human motivations generally move through.

It is in the interest of society at large to see everyone on the same plane, we are all Indians, one India, and one community.  The more Indians we can get out of poverty, the more consumers we will add in the marketplace, who will drive the economic engine of producing and manufacturing things and thus creating jobs.  It will have a Multiplier effect, and then prosperity will reach everyone and when it does, it becomes sustainable. Deprive the 15% of the population their basic rights and access to education, employment, loans, jobs, housing and other necessities of life, you have a langda nation. Inequalities continue to create greater imbalance and everyone will lose at the end. 

Once we are out of the ditch, an Indian Muslim would be able to represent the interests of Indians at large without any guilt of ignoring the community.   When that time comes, you can compete with any Indian, regardless of the religion, language or state, and win the hearts and minds of people at large. A Muslim who will bring prosperity for all Indians will become the Prime Minister of India.  It will happen soon and India will shine and that is when sab ka vikas occurs. This is not understood by the right wing politicians in India and we have to work on having them see these values.

Prosperity is contagious and multiplies for the benefit of all.

Mike Ghouse 

Can an Indian American become President of the United States?

An excellent distinction was drawn by a friend, "being successful in America and being successful in politics are two different things."

However, the pessimist assertion that one has to belong to Abrahamic faiths to be politically successful is flawed. It may have to do with two of the successful 2nd generation Indians who chose to be Christians, Bobby Jindal, and Nikki Haley. It is short of making sense with so much anti-Mormon, anti-Semitism and anti-Muslim rhetoric around. Both Jindal and Haley are in the list of possible vice-Presidential candidates, if they would get elected, they stand a chance to become the President of the United States. Hypothetically the Vice President is considered the possible president.

The first generation immigrants (Hindus are a minority in the US like Muslims in India) are still not a part of the society, our interests are narrower, reflective of our own groups, once we become universal in our approach, and put America first, and then we will have universal acceptability from most segments of the American society.

The immigrant Indians, be it Hindu, Muslim, Christian or Sikh, have India's interests first over America's (Remember our behavior after Pokhran?) interests, the Arabs have their own interests over American Interest, and the Jews have Israel's interests first over American interests. Why should the majority of Americans who have American interests in their hearts elect someone whose loyalty to America comes second? Most of us are guilty of dual loyalty. 

A comment was made that a Muslim or a Sikh can be president of India, a Christian can be the defense minister, and would that happen in America? The commentator expressed a doubt if a Hindu or Buddhist will be elected President of the United States.

The story is different with India, where Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs, Christians, Jains, Buddhists and others have fought together for Independence; they have given their blood to earn the freedom. India is theirs, no one has an advantage over the other and thanks God for that. India is indeed an open society, we do have our share of bigots like all other nations, but still, it is not as blatant with the general population as it is with a few. 

Who gets to be the President or Prime Minister of India is not an issue, although the right-wing (insecure) politicians have made an issue from time to time.

A few among the Indian Americans are still prejudiced and totally bigoted. They have no qualms showing their blatant prejudice, they want to deny the full rights of citizenship to 
Dalits, Muslims and Sikhs in India whereas they enjoy the freedom and liberty given to each one of us regardless of our nationalities. I run a group called Dallas Indians with some 1800 Indians, with barely 50 Muslim members, a few bigots (about 10) have made repulsive and disgusting comments in it about other Indians.  

 as they believe, don't do unto us in America, what we do to fellow Indians back home. Some of the most bigoted Indians are 

The American story is different, we are all new here, and our numbers have become significant in the last 20 years and we have ways to go.

However, America is an open society, a true land of opportunity, and has done well giving a Catholic, and an African American a break. Despite a few bigots in the Republican Party, Romney will be the nominee; in fact, those bigots are back peddling now.

Jindal and Haley are Americans first, they will go against India if they have to, you and I don’t have the balls to do that. We are too worried of being branded “drohi” by fellow “Desh drohi’s”. To put it bluntly, our loyalties are yet to be tested.


The day, we the Indian Americans demonstrate America first, no one will stop us from becoming the President of the United States.

Dr. Mike Ghouse is a community consultant, social scientist, thinker, writer, news maker, Interfaith Wedding officiant, and a speaker on Pluralism, Interfaith, Islam, politics, terrorism, human rights, India, Israel-Palestine, motivation, and foreign policy. He is committed to building cohesive societies and offers pluralistic solutions on issues of the day. Visit him (63 links) at www.MikeGhouse.net and www.TheGhousediary.com for his exclusive writings.

Can an Indian American become President of the United States?

Can an Indian American become President of the United States?

An excellent distinction was drawn by a friend, he said, "being successful in America and being successful in politics are two different things."

However, the pessimist assertion that one has to belong to Abrahamic faiths to be politically successful is flawed. It may have to do with two of the successful 2nd generation Indians who chose to be Christians, Bobby Jindal and Nikki Haley. It is short of making sense with so much anti-Mormon, anti-Semitism and anti-Muslim rhetoric around. 
Both Jindal and Haley are in the list of possible vice-Presidential candidates, if they were, and would get elected, they stand a chance to become the President of the United States. Hypothetically the vice President is considered the possible president. 

The first generation immigrants are still not a part of the society, our interests are narrower, reflective of our own groups, once we become universal in our approach, and put America first, and then we will have universal acceptability from most segments of the American society.

The immigrant Indians, be it Hindu, Muslim, Christian or Sikh, have India's interests first over America's (Remember our behavior after Pokhran?) interests, the Arabs have their own interests over American Interest, and the Jews have Israel's interests first over American interests. Why should the majority of Americans who have American interests in their hearts elect someone whose loyalty to America comes second? Most of us are guilty with dual loyalty. 

A comment was made that a Muslim or a Sikh can be president of India, a Christian can be the defense minister, and would that happen in America? The commentator expressed a doubt, if a Hindu or Buddhist will be elected President of the United States.

The story is different with India, where Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs, Christians, Jains, Buddhists and others have fought together for Independence; they have given their blood to earn the freedom. India is theirs, no one has an advantage over the other and thank God for that.  India is indeed an open society, we do have our share of bigots like all other nations, but still it is not as blatant with the general population as it is with a few. 

Who gets to be the President or Prime Minister of India is not an issue, although the right wing (insecure) politicians have made an issue from time to time.

A few among us are still prejudiced, as they hypocritically believe, "don't do unto us in America, what we do to fellow Indians back home."   

The American story is different, we are all new here, and we have ways to go.
However, America is an open society, a true land of opportunity, and has done well giving a Catholic, and an African American a break. Despite a few bigots in the Republican Party, Romney will be the nominee; in fact those bigots are back peddling now. 
Jindal and Haley are Americans first, they will go against  India if they have to, you and I don’t have the balls to do that.  We are too worried of being branded “drohi" (Traitor)” by fellow “Desh drohi’s”. To put it bluntly, our loyalties are yet to be tested. 

The day, we the Indian Americans demonstrate America first, no one will stop us from becoming the President of the United States. 


----------
MikeGhouse is committed to building a Cohesive America and offers pluralistic solutions on issues of the day. He is a professional speaker, thinker and a writer on pluralism, politics, civic affairs, Islam, India, Israel, peace and justice. Mike is a frequent guest on Sean Hannity show on Fox TV, and a commentator on national radio networks, he contributes weekly to the Texas Faith Column at Dallas Morning News and regularly at Huffington post, and several other periodicals across the world. The blog www.TheGhousediary.com is updated daily.

Wednesday, September 9, 2009

Dual Citizneship Woes

How many of you have experienced this? It is a shame that a 70 year old Indian Man in India was not given his due respect. On the top of it, he was a Medical doctor, we Indians give utmost respect to Doctors. This is uncharacteristic of being an Indian. Any one from Bengal wants to take this up? Over 25 comments below

Mike Ghouse - http://www.mikeghouse.net/

Dr. Sujit Pandit's story: My Dual Citizenship Woes

MY DUAL CITIZENSHIP WOES: MY RECENT EXPERIENCE WITH THE IMMIGRATION
DEPARTMENT AT THE KOLKATA AIRPORT AND THE LESSONS I LEARNT

My advice to all my friends who hold an OCI (Overseas Citizen of India) Card
and those who aspire to get one.

I am an American citizen. I also carry an OCI card (Overseas Citizen of
India) since 2007.

On Saturday, June 20, 2009 , I arrived at the Kolkata Netaji Subhas Airport
from Detroit via Singapore , by Singapore Airlines (SQ 516) at 10:30 P.M.

I presented myself to an Immigration Officer ( Mr. Biswas ) for immigration
clearance. I gave him my American passport and my OCI card. He demanded to
see my visa from the Indian consular office. Unfortunately, that visa was
attached to my old passport and I did not bring it with me.

I explained to him that I am sorry I forgot to bring my old passport but
since I do possess a valid OCI Card that would automatically mean that I do
also possess a permanent (life long) visa for India and there are proofs
that I have traveled multiple times to India after I had received my OCI
card.

Mr. Biswas detained me for two hours inside the airport and then he told
me that he is going to allow me to stay in India for 72 hours and asked me
to report to the Foreign Relations Regional Officer (FRRO) in the city
within 72 hours. He kept my passport. During all that time I had no
opportunity either to approach his OC (Officer in Charge) although I asked
for it, or to contact my relatives who came to the airport to receive me and
were waiting outside and had no idea why I was being held back or if I have
even arrived.

Forgetting to bring my old passport was my own fault but I 'forgot' to bring
it partly because I knew I have my OCI Card with me and I thought, that
means something, I really believed that I am a citizen of India too. Why
would a citizen also need a visa to enter his own country? I thought I
have a dual citizenship for both the USA and India . Other wise, what is the
difference between an ordinary foreigner and the OCI Card holder?

Next day was a Sunday, I called a friend in Ann Arbor who went into my
house, got my old passport and sent me the scanned copy of my old passport
and a copy of my permanent visa by e-mail.

So, on Monday I went to see Mr. Bibhas Talukdar , the FRRO. He hardly
looked at the documents (the scanned visa) that I had with me he simply
asked me to get my old passport by courier mail within another seven days.
He appeared gleeful telling me that it is only out of "pity" that he is
allowing me to stay in India for seven more days. He was totally
unimpressed by either my status as a Professor Emeritus of the University of
Michigan or my age (70+)

I called my friend in Ann Arbor again who then sent my old passport by
FedEx. Three days later the passport arrived. Since I had to leave Kolkata
for prescheduled visit to Bangalore , my niece took it to Mr. Talukdar . But
due to lack of communication between the FRRO office and the airport
immigration department my passport had not arrived at the city office even
after 9 days. My niece had to go to the FRRO's office three times once
waiting until 6 P.M. still they did not have my passport. They only
promised: "it will come soon". At last, 12 days after my arrival, my niece
got my passport.

From this painful and anxiety provoking experience I have learned a few
valuable lessons:

1. The loud talk about "Dual Citizenship" for Indian Americans is just a
political hoax.

2. The OCI card just does not have any value. It is just a piece of
expensive junk. You still need a visa every time you travel to India whether
or not you possess an OCI card. Only difference is that for the high price
of getting an OCI card you will get a "life long " visa. A 10-year visa is
much cheaper.

3. When coming to India always consider yourself a foreigner and bring
your visa with you, there will be no exceptions. Your OCI card is not a visa
substitute.

4. In fact, you will probably be treated worse than an ordinary
foreigner arriving without a valid visa. Because a foreigner especially a
white Caucasian will at least be treated with courtesy and probably offered
a temporary visa if there is no reason to deny it, but not you.

Please feel free to forward this mail to any of your friends who may befit
from my experience. Especially feel free to forward this to any influential
politician or civil servant in India that you may know.

Sujit K. Pandit M.D. Professor Emeritus, Department of Anesthesiology
_______________

OVERSEAS CITIZENSHIP OF INDIA (OIC) SUMMARY

Thanks to Dr. Jayasankar for providing the following information
about OVERSEAS CITIZENSHIP OF INDIA (OCI)

1. The Consulate General of India (CGI) in New York (NY) is pleased to announce the
launching of the OCI (Overseas Citizenship of India) Application procedures and will
commence receiving the applications for OCI on Monday the 9th of January 2006 from
residents of the following States and Territories: New York, New Jersey, Maine,
Connecticut, Massachusetts, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Puerto Rico, Rhode Island, Vermont and the Virgin Islands. (Applications will be accepted only through express mail. For
procedural details and clarifications, please go to link (Steps to Apply for OCI).

2. A foreign national, eligible to become a citizen of India on January 26, 1950 or was a
citizen of India on, or at anytime after, January 26, 1950 or belonged to a territory that
became part of India after August 15, 1947 and his/her children and grand children,
provided his/her country of citizenship allows dual citizenship under the local laws, is
eligible for registration as Overseas Citizen of India (OCI). Minor children of such person
are also eligible for OCI. However, if the applicant had ever been a citizen of Pakistan or
Bangladesh, he/she will not be eligible for OCI.


3. With OCI Status, a foreign passport holder is entitled to the following:
Item Details

(a) Multiple-entry, multi-purpose, life-long visa to visit
India. The holder of the OCI Certificate would still
need to carry his/her foreign passport, but a Visa
"U" ("U" for Universal) sticker would be affixed on
the foreign passport;

(b)Exemption from reporting to police authorities for
any length of stay in India;

(c) Parity with NRIs (Non-Resident Indians) in financial, economic and educational fields EXCEPT in relation Consular Press & Publicity Commerce Culture Education India Information
Press Opinion Issues in Focus Consulate General of India, New York, U.S.A. Page 1 of 3
http://www.indiacgny.org/php/showContent.php?linkid=384 2/17/2008


4. Please note that OCI is not, repeat not Dual Citizenship. The Constitution of India does
not permit the facility of holding Indian Citizenship simultaneously with a foreign
citizenship. The OCI holder would therefore not be eligible for the following rights in
India: (i) Right to vote; (ii) Right to hold constitutional office (i.e. parliament, courts,
cabinet posts, etc.); and (iii) Right to hold posts in government services sector.

5. The OCI Status is a privilege extended only to those persons who qualify for that
privilege. The OCI Status accorded to a person can be revoked by Government of India in
cases that warrant such action. For detailed information on the "Overseas Citizen of
India", visit the web site - http://www.mha.nic.in/ of the Ministry of Home Affairs,
Government of India.

6. Applicant must necessarily satisfy the following criteria in order to be eligible to apply for OCI Status.

7. Additional Notes :
a. A PIO card holder can substitute his PIO Card with the OIC. He or she would
be required to surrender their PIO Card in that event. All PIO Card holders
seeking to substitute their PIO card with the OCI facility must submit a copy
of their PIO Card during submission of the application for OCI.
b. Applying as a family of four (4) members : You may apply jointly in a single
application as spouses and no more than two (2) of your minor children.
The necessary fee would be charged for each applicant.
c. OCI Applications can be made on behalf of a minor child by guardian/parent.


8. Processing of your OCI application is initially a joint effort between you (the applicant)
and the OCI Cell at the CGI. Therefore, you need to clearly understand the process of
filing the application, keep your original documentation complete in all respects and follow
the various steps involved carefully. This would facilitate smooth and quick processing of
your application. an/parent.

9. Visit http://www.mha.nic.in//oci/oci-main.htm and click Online Registration If you are
applying as an individual or as a family, select the appropriate option. A reference number
will be assigned to you by the computer upon completing the online registration. You
must present this number when you arrive at the Consulate.

(Family of 4 (spouses and two minor children) to fill-in part A in one go. If a family
consists of more than 2 minor children, application for third minor child be filled-in as an
individual by selecting option (i). In cases where child/children is/are not minor,
to acquisition of agricultural and plantation properties.

Criteria Details
(i) If you or one of your parents or one of your grandparents was a citizen of India after January
26, 1950.

(ii) If you or one of your parents or one of your grandparents belonged to a former territory (Goa, Daman & Diu, Dadra & Nagar Haveli, Sikkim and Pondicherry ) that became part of India after August 15, 1947.

(iii) If you or one of your parents or one of your grandparents was eligible to become a citizen of
India at the time of commencement of the Constitution of India on January 26, 1950.
Consulate General of India, New York, U.S.A. Page 2 of 3
http://www.indiacgny.org/php/showContent.php?linkid=384 2/17/2008
independent application in r/o of each such child need to be filled-in.)

10. The OCI application consists of Part-A and Part-B. Part-A would be completed online
through Online Registration at www.mha.nic.in/oci/oci-main.htm (Ministry of Home
Affairs) site. Part-B would be completed by typing required information or writing in
capital block letters with black or blue ink. The computer would assign to you a Reference
Number. Retain this reference number as it would be required when you submit your
application at the Consulate.

11. You are required to submit the OCI application (Part-A and Part-B) in duplicate. Part-B is automatically printed out when Part-A is Saved & Print command is selected at the popup window. For each of the two applications, an original PASSPORT SIZE color
photo ( light colour background , not white background ) without
border with front view of person's head and shoulders showing the full face in the
middle of the photograph . At the end of Part-B, there is a list of documents that are
required at the time you submit your application. The fee for the application is USD 275
(in favor of Consulate General of India, NewYork) (USD 25 for PIO Card
holders) . The payment should be in the form of certified checks or money orders in
favour of " CONSULATE GENERAL OF INDIA " ( no personal checks ) .

12. Additional information about photographs:- a) Background colour and the dress
colour should not be the same ( it should be different colour ) . b) If applicant wearing
glasses please make sure that there is no glare on the glasses or take the picture without
glasses. c) Photograph should be front view with shoulder visible. d) Photographs should
be bright ( please note the colour of skin and brightness of the photo is different. ) e)
Photograph should not be stapled and should not have any signature ( no signature on
photo ) . http://ociindia.nic.in/ociindia/ICAO-Photo.pdf

13. For detailed application procedure, see steps to Apply for OCI.

14. For detailed instructions during the review process, see Important Instructions for OCI
Applicant under Review.

15. The application review process may take from one to four months depending on the documents and proofs you provide in support of your application. We appreciate your cooperation.

For any further information or clarification on OCI, visit: www.mha.nic.in/oci/ocimain.
htm (Ministry of Home Affairs website) and the Frequently Asked Questions at
OCI link at : www.indiacgny.org . Enquiries on OCI can also be addressed to OCI Cell
at Consulate General of India, 3 East 64th Street, New York, NY 10065 or Tel: (212)
774-0605 & Fax: (212) 734-1595 / (212) 570-9581

or E-mail : visa@indiacgny.org (Please mention your Tel. No. in the email for us to
contact you).Consulate General of India, New York, U.S.A. Page 3 of 3

http://www.indiacgny.org/php/showContent.php?linkid=384 2/17/2008

# #

Tuesday, July 29, 2008

Dismantling Terrorism in India

Dismantling Terrorism in India

Indian government must be applauded and appreciated for handling the terrorism wisely. Ramesh Thakur has rightly pointed out the example of Jaswant Singh, India’s foreign minister who escorted the terrorist to get release of the hostages; it must go down in the annals of history as act of wisdom. While India’s approach towards terrorism has contained terrorism, Bush’s mindless aggression has increased terrorism, and it must be condemned for its stupidity. By the way, it is not an American aggression, as the American public is not with the administration and it is the act of the few, just as terrorism was the act of the few. Unfortunately our laws prevent us to take Mr. Bush off the Presidency and save the nation from further ruin, there is no such thing as a no confidence move to get him off, as we do in Israel, India, UK and other democracies.
If some one murders on the street, his ass must be hauled off to Jail and must be tried for his crimes, and not bomb the whole country. We have to isolate the criminals and not lump them with their community. India has done a lot of wise things that we can learn from, including handling of terrorism and containing the evil to the specific act and has not let it spread to the whole nation, nor has it blamed a religion for the acts of the individuals. It is a good example of not making a mess of the situation.

A snap shot of Iraq in 2001 which had nothing to do with terrorism or 9/11; Neither the Sunnis were killing the Shia’s or vice versa. Except the reign of Terror of Saddam, there was no terrorism in the public square. It was progressive secular society and look at today what is happening.

Our aggression has created over half a million widows, who have no one to support but live their livelihood through the flesh trade, as the only supporters their brothers, fathers or husbands are dead. Our aggression has created massive unemployment causing the youth to resort to vandalism and leading to the Shia Sunni rift, a new phenomenon in Iraq because of our aggression. Unless we admit we are the cause of evil in Iraq, we cannot bring a resolution to our collective guilt and liberation and peace to us and the Iraqis. Our presence has caused so much death and destruction. The world has to be repaired from these ventures. Every war, every evil in the world can always be traced to hate filled insecure individuals; religion is just an easy target.

As Ramesh Thakur has pointed out, there is a lot of anger festering in the youth whose parents were burned alive in front of them, or were made homeless for no fault of their own. It was again like an act of Bush, killing the whole township for the evil acts of the few. India has room to set things right and continue to express and act on its traditional wisdom. It needs to bring justice to the people who have suffered in Gujarat, both the victims and victimizers without regard to the religion they wear. Injustice causes the victims to fester and keeps the spark of the anger alive; it can be extinguished only by bringing justice to every Gujarati. Without justice every one remains tense and alert on their toes and live in paranoia. We have an opportunity to live in peace, it is in our interest as Indians, as Hindus, Muslims, Christians, Sikhs, Jains, Buddhists, Jews, Tribals and others to put things behind. It can be achieved by repentance, justice and forgiveness. We have to move from cautionary living to unguarded living.

When others are not in peace, we cannot expect peace for us.
Mike Ghouse is a Speaker, Thinker and a Writer. He is president of the Foundation for Pluralism and is a frequent guest on talk radio and local television network discussing interfaith, political and civic issues. He is the founding president of World Muslim Congress with a simple theme: Good for Muslims and good for the world. His comments, news analysis and columns can be found on the Websites and Blogs listed at his personal website www.MikeGhouse.net. Mike is a Dallasite for nearly three decades and Carrollton is his home town. He can be reached at MikeGhouse@gmail.com

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080728.wcomment0729/BNStory/specialComment/home/

RAMESH THAKUR
Special to Globe and Mail Update
July 28, 2008 at 11:27 PM EDT

Seventeen bomb blasts in a 10-kilometre radius in 70 minutes on Saturday in Ahmadabad. Nine blasts in Bangalore, outsourcing capital of the world, on Friday. A country on the edge of panic.

The world shares in Indians' pain, anger and determination to face down the terrorists, to not give them the triumph of being cowed or the satisfaction of fomenting communal hatred and bloodletting. For security from acts and the fear of terrorism is indeed indivisible, and the world is the battlefield.


We have been here before. In 1993, twin attacks on Bombay's financial centre and Air India building were dress rehearsals of a sort for the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks in New York. Then, the world ignored how India and Southwest Asia had joined the front line of global terrorism. No longer.

The most immediate tasks will be to help the victims, tighten security, plug the fatal intelligence gaps and prevent outbreaks of violence against Muslims.
Chances are high the perpetrators will turn out to have pan-Islamic links with the banned Students Islamic Movement of India, Pakistan and Bangladesh or similar groups. All the more reason to insist that not all Muslims are terrorists and not all terrorists are Muslim.

Before the Iraq war, the leading practitioners of suicide terrorism were Sri Lanka's Tamil Tigers: Hindus. The most ruthless terrorism in 1980s India was perpetrated by Sikhs. Europe, including Britain, has had its share of Christian terrorists. If anything, India's 140 million Muslims are a salutary negation of the facile thesis about Islam's incompatibility with democracy.

In a billion-strong country with an 80-per-cent Hindu population, the Prime Minister and army chief are Sikhs, the previous president was a Muslim and the power behind the throne is a Catholic of Italian origin — profound testimony to the pluralism and accommodation of India's complex and adaptable power-sharing arrangements. Democratic politics, political freedoms, civil liberties and religious tolerance must be protected at all costs.

But India earned its reputation as a soft state that can be intimidated into meeting terrorists' demands. Jailed terror suspects are released in exchange for kidnapped kin of political leaders. In December, 1999, in a day that will live in infamy in the annals of international terrorism, foreign minister Jaswant Singh personally escorted three terrorists to Taliban-controlled Afghanistan in order to secure the release of passengers from a hijacked Indian Airlines flight. One of the freed terrorists was later implicated in 9/11. In response to an attack on Parliament in December, 2001, India mobilized its defence forces for a year along the border with Pakistan at great expense, only to send them back to barracks with no actual action — war-mongering without war.

It would be difficult to exaggerate the anger and disdain of the people for the tough rhetoric followed by no action of successive governments of all parties.
To break out of this trap, India must eliminate the corruption and politicization of the police forces and their antiquated training and equipment, as well as criminalization of politics. The number of parliamentarians with pending criminal cases is alarming. Terrorism thrives and prospers in such conditions.

India habitually points the finger of criminality at Pakistan, whose offers to help with the investigations are repeatedly spurned. Some foreign footprint — training, financing, arming — is likely. But for a foreign government to be able to infiltrate groups of Indians and recruit them to the terrorist cause indicates failures of intelligence and interdiction, on the one hand, and disaffection among sections of the population, on the other.

The intelligence agencies function as autonomous fiefs with little oversight and virtually no accountability for failures and lapses. This is matched by the flaws of the criminal justice system, which is rudimentary and lamentable by the standards of mature democracies.

Justice has neither been done nor seen to be done with respect to the large-scale atrocities against Muslims in Gujarat in 2002. They spawned a crop of angry and twisted young men whose rage can be channelled into lethal terrorist violence.
India also needs to be tough on the causes of terrorism. Poverty is not a direct cause, but it is an incubator of terrorism and a root cause of corruption. New Delhi needs to implement reform in order to maintain rapid economic growth. It also needs to solve its long-running territorial conflicts — more than 90 per cent of suicide terrorists aim to compel military forces to withdraw from territory they consider an occupied homeland. India's terrorism problem is specific to Kashmir, not generic to Muslims.

External involvement in Kashmiri militancy is not absent, however. The world must coax or coerce regimes that are tolerant of export-only terrorist cells to confront the menace. One group's terrorist cannot be tolerated as another's freedom fighter.
The blowback phenomenon has returned to haunt the West, which supported jihad against the Soviets in Afghanistan. It also consumed Indira and Rajiv Gandhi. Pakistan remains in danger of tearing itself apart from the inside because of armed elements espousing a variety of foreign extremist causes. These South Asian neighbours must pool resources to root out the tyranny of terrorism throughout the region.

Ramesh Thakur is distinguished fellow at the Centre for International Governance Innovation and professor of political science at the University of Waterloo.

Wednesday, May 14, 2008

God's Grace for Najma Ghouse

God has been good to us.
After 9 months of good medical care and God's grace, Najma, my wife is now completely under God's care and surviving with Allah’s grace, your wishes and prayers.

In the foot steps of Prophet Muhammad, as a Muslim, I draw inspiration from all faiths and share this beautiful precise expressive phrase from Jainism “ Michami Dukadam”, the essence of which is, on this day, let’s forgive and ask for forgiveness and start the next breath of life with a clean slate, free from guilt, free from anxiety, free from hate, malice, anger and all those enslaving emotions. ..... The Qur'aan says that God’s favorite person is the one, who forgives and seeks forgiveness. It is also an idea central to the teachings of Jesus Christ. I want to thank every one who has participated and will participate in this heart and mind purifying process with Najma and I..

Please say "Michami Dukadam", it will complete the transaction.

Click the link to continue: http://mikeghouseforamerica.blogspot.com/2008/05/gods-grace-for-najma-ghouse.html

Friday, February 22, 2008

Third Muslim in US Congress

Indiana Democrat Could Become Third Muslim in Congress
Race; Posted on: 2008-02-20 14:46:45 [ Printer friendly / Instant flyer ]

The First 'Muslim' Leader of the West
http://onenewsnow.com/Politics/Default.aspx?id=67807
Jim Brown
OneNewsNow

A black Democrat, seeking to win a March 11 special election in Indiana's 7th district, could become the third Muslim elected to Congress and the second currently serving in Washington.

Democrat Andre Carson is attempting to succeed his late grandmother Julia Carson, who represented inner city Indianapolis for five full terms. Carson converted to Islam more than a decade ago after reading The Autobiography of Malcolm X.

Curt Smith, president of the Indianapolis based Indiana Family Institute, is convinced Carson would closely follow in his grandmother's footsteps. "I think he would continue a pretty, what I would call, liberal outlook in terms of economic and social policies, pro-choice, [and] so forth and a very hands on, retail kind of political style," says Smith.

A concerned Smith points out that Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan delivered a eulogy at Julia Carson's funeral. "Some have suggested that Mr. Carson, the candidate, should renounce Louis Farrakhan and his kind of separatist approach to public life," he continues, "and to my knowledge Mr. Carson has not done that. So it suggests to me that he is positive towards, if not beholden to, Louis Farrakhan."

The Institute spokesman says it is important to note the distinction between black Islam practiced in prisons and inner cities and Middle Eastern Islam. He says the two have a common ideology, but the difference lies in that black Islam tends to be more of a separatist movement that promotes a non-integrated, healthy, positive, and distinct African American community and experience.
A black Democrat, seeking to win a March 11 special election in Indiana's 7th district, could become the third Muslim elected to Congress and the second currently serving in Washington.


Democrat Andre Carson is attempting to succeed his late grandmother Julia Carson, who represented inner-city Indianapolis for five full terms. Carson converted to Islam more than a decade ago after reading The Autobiography of Malcolm X.

Curt Smith, president of the Indianapolis-based Indiana Family Institute, is convinced Carson would closely follow in his grandmother's footsteps. "I think he would continue a pretty, what I would call, liberal outlook in terms of economic and social policies, pro-choice, [and] so forth and a very hand-on, retail-kind of political style," says Smith.

A concerned Smith points out that anti-Semitic Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan delivered a eulogy at Julia Carson's funeral. "Some have suggested that Mr. Carson, the candidate, should renounce Louis Farrakhan and his kind of separatist approach to public life," he continues, "and to my knowledge Mr. Carson has not done that. So it suggests to me that he is positive towards, if not beholden to, Louis Farrakhan."

The Institute spokesman says it is important to note the distinction between black Islam practiced in prisons and inner cities and Middle Eastern Islam. He says the two have a common ideology, but the difference lies in that black Islam tends to be more of a separatist movement that promotes a non-integrated, healthy, positive, and distinct African-American community and experience. "That might be more reassuring for someone with concerns; in other ways it might be less reassuring," Smith offers.

According to Smith, during the eulogy, Farrakhan endorsed Andre Carson and urged the community to send him to Congress. He says Carson has a great shot at winning the strongly Democratic 7th district in the March special election, but a number of Democrats have already lined up to challenge him in the May primary.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Haleem1
Date: Thu Feb 21, 2008 6:32 am
Subject: Fwd: Invite to community event - Atlanta Islamic Community
Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2008 07:16:03 -0500

Salaamu Alaikum,

This is an invitation to the entire Atlanta Islamic community to attend the following events:

Friday, April 4, 8 pm Lecture guest speaker Sr. Laleh Bakhitar translator of the Sublime Quran. Masjid Al Mu minun, 1127 Hank Aaron Dr. SW. Requested donation $10 per person. Limited vending available (must pay in advance). The contact for this event is Sr. Hadayai Majeed. You can reach her at 678-705-1241 or 404-684-0016. You can send your donations in advance by mail to: Baitul Salaam Network, Inc., PO Box 11041, Atlanta, GA 30310 or use paypal.com (haleem1@aol.com). If you vend you must pay in advance very few spaces available for this event.

Saturday, April 5, 12 noon to 4 pm discussion topic: Let's Talk: Unity and Coalition Building. Discussion leaders (Sr. Bonita McGee, VA, Dr. Kaukab Siddique, PA and Sr. Hadayai Majeed, GA) will ask questions to stimulate full participation from attendees. Bring a pad, pen and a very open mind. Open to men and young people.

A donation of $10 is requested to defray some of the expenses for both events. Please send the donation in advance to the address listed above.

Since the lecture on Friday is held at a masjid no one will be turned away due to not bring a donation. Copies of the Sublime Quran will be available for purchase for $27.00 each.

Rooms are available at a discount rate at a newly opened motel about three miles away from both venues. If you need a room you just email for details. You will be responsible for placing your reservation and payment to the motel.

To save money we are not doing a hard copy flyer or posters.

This event is open to all in the community. Please send this to all you know.

ma salaam
Supporters of the Baitul Salaam Network, Inc.
www.baitulsalaam.net

End to the Siege of Gaza

JVP's Call for an End to the Siege of Gaza

The people of Gaza cannot leave, even if they have a medical emergency. One and a half million people are packed into an area less than 1/10th the size of Rhode Island. They are being deliberately malnourished because Israel controls the flow of food and supplies. Without crucial filters, the water is becoming a source of sickness and death. A few miles away in Sderot, a working class community of Israelis is caught in the line of fire and is also dying, their suffering manipulated by their own government. Israeli papers are now talking of possible plans for a major incursion into Gaza.

Giving a donation to JVP right now is a way to take action to support an end to the siege of Gaza.

In late January, a convoy of Israeli peace and human rights organizations, in partnership with Palestinian civil society groups, drove to the entrance of the Gaza Strip to deliver badly needed food and medical supplies. Thousands of you wrote letters to your legislators to ask them to help end the siege. JVP supporters across the country stood on street corners, spoke to the media, and raised funds to support the convoy. On February 18, over 6 tons of supplies from the convoy were finally let through.

But the blockade goes on and JVP is not stopping its work on the Call to End the Siege of Gaza.

We are taking out several ads in The Nation, including a full page color ad on the back cover.
We are using online advertising to bring thousands of people to our website to access information they are not getting in the US media.
We will offer resources, posters, action alerts and ways to plug in to local and international nonviolent campaigns being led by civil society groups in Gaza and Israel.
A gift of $35, $80 or $100 will bring thousands of people to support our work.
The larger we are, the more powerful we are!

Click on the thumbnail image to the right to see a larger version of the poster.

Join JVP's Call for an End to the Siege of Gaza.

Donating is easy and will raise our voices to end the injustices in Gaza and the needless deaths of Palestinians and Israelis..

Thank you
Cecilie, Sydney, Rachel

Donation link: https://salsa.democracyinaction.org/o/301/shop/custom.jsp?donate_page_KEY=3335

Learn more:

1. The war on Gaza's children
http://imeu.net/news/article006533.shtml

2. Life must go on in Gaza and Sderot (blog)
http://gaza-sderot.blogspot.com/

3. JVP Gaza Action and Information Center
http://www.jewishvoiceforpeace.org/publish/gaza.shtml

4. Sderot protest, the ISrael they don't belong to
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/953269.html

Accept our values or die

The West to the World: Accept Our Values or Die

http://www.alternet.org/audits/77373

By Abid Mustafa, Middle East Online. Posted February 21, 2008.

The forceful imposition of Western values is far more of a threat to world peace than Muslim nations gaining WMD.

Whenever western governments mention weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and Muslims in the same breath, the western media immediately breaks into a wild frenzy warning its people that a catastrophic event of epic proportions is about to unfold.

Old European fables of Muslims spreading Islam by the sword are reinvented to convey the impression that Muslims are extremely dangerous, highly irresponsible and pay scant regard to human life. Hence the mantra of disarming Muslim countries of WMD has become the rallying cry of the West directed against the Muslim world.

In some cases the arguments are extended to justify the West's ongoing policy of regime change in Syria, Iran and perhaps Pakistan. However, a close study of Islamic rule in the past contradicts the popular western myth that Muslims are bloodthirsty people anxious to wipe out the rest of mankind in the name of Islam.

The same however, cannot be said about the West. The West armed with its secular doctrine and materialistic world-view proceeded to exploit, plunder and colonize vast populations in order to control resources and maximize wealth.

In pursuit of these newfound riches the West succeeded in destroying civilizations such as the Incas, American Indians, Aztecs, and Aborigines. Those who survived colonization were forcibly converted to Christianity, stripped of their heritage and sold into bondage to western companies. For the indigenous people of Africa, India, Asia, the Middle East and others, the promises of freedom quickly evaporated and were replaced by colonial rule. Rather than show remorse towards such atrocities the West could only gloat at its achievements.

Technologies such as cannons, pistols, steam engines, machine guns, airplanes, mustard gas etc only hastened the acquisition of colonies and the exploitation of their people. Resistance offered by the natives towards their colonial masters was met by brute force -- often resulting in the destruction of entire communities. When the West was not destroying the natives they were too busy annihilating each other in a desperate bid to cling on to their precious colonies. World Wars I and II are prime examples of the destructive nature of western values.

This is a description of the Old World where countries like England, France, and Germany built empires and accumulated immense wealth on the death and destruction of millions of innocent people. Is the New World (America leading the West) any different today?

Take the example of the New World and its relationship with Afghanistan and Iraq. Liberation has become occupation; democracy has given way to colonial rule, devastation is termed precision bombing and the slaughter of innocent Muslims is described as collateral damage. Meanwhile, American and British oil companies are queuing up to exploit the oil wells of Iraq and transport the energy reserves of the Caspian Sea to Europe via Afghanistan.

The Islamic Khilafah in the past never treated mankind in such a barbaric fashion. Neither did the Khilafah spread Islam by force nor destroy civilizations. When Islam spread to Egypt, many Coptic Christians did not embrace Islam and today they still number approximately 7 million. Likewise, when India was opened up to Islam the inhabitants were not coerced into accepting Islam. India today has a population of more than 750 million Hindus.

Compare this to extermination of Muslim and Jews in the courts of the Spanish Inquisitors during the much-coveted European renaissance. Those Jews that survived this Spanish holocaust, were warmly welcomed by the Ottoman Caliphate. In Islamic Spain they flourished and became important members of Islamic society.

Today the world has more to fear from the destructive nature of western values than WMD. In the past these values were enforced upon nations either through direct colonial rule or through tyrannical regimes loyal to the West. Presently, the greatest danger facing mankind is the constant threat of the West imposing its values on the rest of the world through WMD.

See more stories tagged with: colonization, europe, afghanistan, iraq

Abid Mustafa is a political commentator who specializes in Muslim Affairs.

Monday, January 7, 2008

Did Senator McCain Betray?

Did Senator McCain Betray America?
http://www.mikeghouse.net/

I am sorely disappointed in our Journalists; each one of them either failed to ask or chose not to ask the tough question to Senator McCain.

In the Presidential debates on Saturday, January 5, 2008 with Charlie Gibson and Chris Wallace, and interviews with Tim Russert and George Stephanopoulos on Sunday January 6, 2008, John McCain was excited to share that “I’ll get Osama bin Laden. I’ll get him even if I have to follow him to the gates of hell”

Here is the piece of interview with Tim Russert:

MR. RUSSERT: “I’ll get him.”
SEN. McCAIN: Mm-hmm.
MR. RUSSERT: George Bush has tried...
SEN. McCAIN: Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm.
MR. RUSSERT: ...for seven years.
SEN. McCAIN: Mm-hmm.

MR. RUSSERT: What will you do differently than George Bush?
SEN. McCAIN: Well, first of all, I will dramatically—I wouldn’t have passed up some of the opportunities we passed up, such at, as at Tora Bora, and President Clinton passed up. But most importantly, I’ll improve our human intelligence.

MR. RUSSERT: How?
SEN. McCAIN: Well, you’re going to recruit, you’re going to train, and you’re going to send people in who can blend into the culture, into the, to the, the tribal communities and in—very tough. Not easy. I didn’t say it was going to be easy. I said it was going to be tough. But I will get him. And why is it so important? One, he killed 3,000 Americans. But two, in the last two weeks he’s gotten out two messages. He is recruiting, motivating and instructing radical Islamic extremists who want to kill and destroy everything we stand for and believe in. This guy is a continuing threat because of his very adroit—as well as other extremists—use of cyberspace.

MR. RUSSERT: If, if your...
SEN. McCAIN: So he’s a continuing threat to America. He isn’t just a guy who’s holed up someplace.

MR. RUSSERT: If your advisers said to you, “Mr. President, this is where Osama bin Laden is.”
SEN. McCAIN: Yeah. Yeah.

MR. RUSSERT: “We can get him tonight.”
SEN. McCAIN: Yeah.
MR. RUSSERT: “But understand, if we go in, we could very well destabilize Pakistan, perhaps bring about the overthrow of President Musharraf.”
SEN. McCAIN: Mm-hmm.

MR. RUSSERT: Would you trade Osama bin Laden for Musharraf as president?
SEN. McCAIN: I would, I would never have that situation arise, because Musharraf and I have an, a relationship that goes back a number of years. I would be in constant communication with him, and I’m sure that maybe publicly or privately he would be working very closely. That’s the benefit...

MR. RUSSERT: Could he, could he be trusted?
SEN. McCAIN: Sure he could be trusted.
MR. RUSSERT: You don’t think he’s surrounded by Taliban sympathizers?
The full transcript is at: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22487036/

What Mr. Russert, Stephanapoulus, Chris Wallace and Charlie Gibson forgot or chose not to ask was this major question.

Senator, the why did you not get Osama?
Why did you have to wait to be elected to do that?
Isn’t that a betrayal to your party and to your President?
Isn’t that a betrayal to our nation?

I am disappointed that none of the Journalist asked that question, a total of four times, and none could ask that?

It is not too late now.

Mike Ghouse is a Speaker, Thinker, Writer and a Moderator. He is president of the Foundation for Pluralism and is a frequent guest on talk radio and local television network discussing Pluralism, politics, Islam, Religion and civic issues. His opinions, comments, news analysis and columns can be found on the Websites and Blogs listed at his personal website http://www.mikeghouse.net/. Mike is a Dallasite for nearly three decades and Carrollton is his home town. He can be reached at MikeGhouse@gmail.com or (214) 325-1916

Friday, September 28, 2007

Ahmedinejad's NYspeech

TRANSCRIPT OF AHMADINEJAD'S REMARKS AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY
By Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
Published in: The Israel Project September 24, 2007
http://www.spme.net/cgi-bin/articles.cgi?ID=2917

MODERATOR: JOHN COATSWORTH, ACTING DEAN, SCHOOL OF INTERNATIONAL AND PUBLIC AFFAIRS, COLUMBIA, UNIVERSITY INTRODUCTION BY LEE BOLLINGER, PRESIDENT, COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY

COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY, NEW YORK CITY, NEW YORK
1:50 P.M. EDT, MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 24, 20071:50 P.M. EDT, MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 24, 2007


FULL TEXT:

(Note: President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's comments are through interpreter.)

MR. BOLLINGER: I would like to begin by thanking Dean John Coatsworth and Professor Richard Bulliet for their work in organizing this event and for their commitment to the School of International and Public Affairs and its role -- (interrupted by cheers, applause) -- and for its role in training future leaders in world affairs. If today proves anything, it will be that there is an enormous amount of work ahead of us. This is just one of many events on Iran that will run throughout the academic year, all to help us better understand this critical and complex nation in today's geopolitics.

Before speaking directly to the current president of Iran, I have a few critically important points to emphasize. First, in 2003 the World Leaders Forum has advanced Columbia's long-standing tradition of serving as a major forum for robust debate, especially on global issues. It should never be thought that merely to listen to ideas we deplore in any way implies our endorsement of those ideas or our weakness of our resolve to resist those ideas or our naivety about the very real dangers inherent in such ideas. It is a critical premise of freedom of speech that we do not honor the dishonorable when we open our public forum to their voices; to hold otherwise would make vigorous debate impossible.

Second, to those who believe that this event should never have happened, that it is inappropriate for the university to conduct such an event, I want to say that I understand your perspective and respect it as reasonable. The scope of free speech in academic freedom should itself always be open to further debate. As one of the more famous quotations about free speech goes, it is an experiment as all life is an experiment. I want to say, however, as forcefully as I can that this is the right thing to do, and indeed it is required by the existing norms of free speech, the American university and Columbia itself.

Third, to those among us who experience hurt and pain as a result of this day, I say on behalf of all of us that we are sorry and wish to do what we can to alleviate it.

Fourth, to be clear on another matter, this event has nothing whatsoever to do with any rights of the speaker, but only with our rights to listen and speak. We do it for ourselves. We do it in the great tradition of openness that has defined this nation for many decades now. We need to understand the world we live in, neither neglecting its glories nor shrinking from its threats and dangers. It is inconsistent with the idea that one should know thine enemy -- I'm sorry -- it is consistent with the idea that one should know thine enemies, to have the intellectual and emotional courage to confront the mind of evil, and to prepare ourselves to act with the right temperament. In the moment, the arguments for free speech will never seem to match the power of the arguments against, but what we must remember is that this is precisely because free speech asks us to exercise extraordinary self-restraint against the very natural but often counterproductive impulses that lead us to retreat from engagement with ideas we dislike and fear. In this lies the genius of the American idea of free speech.

Lastly, in universities we have a deep and almost single-minded commitment to pursue the truth. We do not have access to the levers of power, we cannot make war or peace, we can only make minds, and to do this, we must have the most fulsome freedom of inquiry.

Let me now turn to Mr. Ahmadinejad.

First, on the brutal crackdown on scholars, journalists and human rights advocates. Over the past two weeks, your government has released Dr. Haleh Esfandiari and Parnaz Azima and just two days ago, Kian Tajbakhsh, a graduate of Columbia with a PhD in Urban Planning. While our community is relieved to learn of his release on bail, Dr. Tajbakhsh remains in Tehran under house arrest, and he still does not know whether he will be charged with a crime or allowed to leave the country.

Let me say this for the record, I call on the president today to ensure that Kian will be free to travel out of Iran as he wishes. (Applause.) Let me also report today that we are extending an offer to Kian to join our faculty as a visiting professor in Urban Planning here at his alma mater in our Graduate School of Architecture, Planning and Preservation, and we hope he will be able to join us next semester. (Applause.)

The arrest and imprisonment of these Iranian Americans for no good reason is not only unjustified, it runs completely counter to the very values that allow today's speaker to even appear on this campus, but at least they are alive.

According to Amnesty International, 210 people have been executing In Iran so far this year, 21 of them on the morning of September 5th alone. This annual total includes at two children, further proof, as Human Rights Watch puts it, that Iran leads the world in executing minors.

There is more. Iran hanged up 30 people this past July and August during a widely reported suppression of efforts to establish a more democratic society. Many of these executions were carried out in public view, a violation of the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights, to which Iran is a party. These executions and others have coincided with a wider crackdown on student activists and academics accused of trying to foment a so-called "soft revolution." This has included jailing and forced retirement of scholars. As Dr. Esfandiari said in a broadcast interview since her release, she was held in solitary confinement for 105 days because the government believes that the United States is planning a velvet revolution in Iran.

In this very room, last year we learned something about velvet revolutions from Vaclav Havel, and we will likely hear the same from our World Leaders Forum speaker this evening, President Michelle Bachelet of Chile. Both of their extraordinary stories remind us that there are not enough prisons to prevent an entire society that wants its freedom from achieving it.

We at this university have not been shy to protest the challenge -- and challenge the failures of our own government to live by our values, and we won't be shy about criticizing yours. Let's then be clear at the beginning. Mr. President, you exhibit all the signs of a petty and cruel dictator. And so I ask you -- (applause) -- and so I ask you, why have women, members of the Baha'i faith, homosexuals and so many of our academic colleagues become targets of persecution in your country? Why, in a letter last week to the secretary-general of the U.N., did Akbar Ganji, Iran's leading political dissident, and over 300 public intellectuals, writers and Noble Laureates express such grave concern that your inflamed dispute with the West is distracting the world's attention from the intolerable conditions in your regime within Iran, in particular the use of the press law to ban writers for criticizing the ruling system? Why are you so afraid of Iranian citizens expressing their opinions for change?

In our country, you are interviewed by our press and asked to speak here today. And while my colleagues at the law school -- Michael Dorf, one of my colleagues, spoke to Radio Free Europe, viewers in Iran a short while ago on the tenants of freedom of speech in this country -- I propose further that you let me lead a delegation of students and faculty from Columbia to address your universities about free speech with the same freedom we afford you today. (Applause.)

Secondly, the denial of the Holocaust. In a December 2005 state television broadcast, you described the Holocaust as "a fabricated legend." One year later, you held a two-day conference of Holocaust deniers. For the illiterate and ignorant, this is dangerous propaganda.

When you have come to a place like this, this makes you, quite simply, ridiculous. You are either brazenly provocative or astonishingly uneducated. You should know -- (applause) -- please -- you should know that Columbia is the world center of Jewish studies -- us a world center, and now in partnership with the -- Institute of Holocaust Studies.

Since the 1930s, we provided an intellectual home for countless Holocaust refugees and survivors and their children and grandchildren. The truth is that the Holocaust is the most documented event in human history. Because of this, and for many other reasons, your absurd comments about the debate over the Holocaust both defy historical truth and make all of us who continue to fear humanity's capacity for evil shudder at this closure of memory, which is always virtue's first line of defense. Will you cease this outrage?

The destruction of Israel. Twelve days ago you said that the state of Israel cannot continue its life. This echoed a number of inflammatory statements you have delivered in the past two years, including in October 2005, when you said that Israel "should be wiped off the map", quote-unquote. Columbia has over 800 alumni currently living in Israel. As an institution, we have deep ties with our colleagues there. I have personally spoken -- personally, I have spoken out in most forceful terms against proposals to boycott Israeli scholars (in/and ?) universities, saying that such boycotts might as well include Columbia. (Applause.)

More than 400 -- more than 400 -- more than 400 college and university presidents in this country have joined in that statement.

My question then is, do you plan on wiping us off the map too? (Applause.)

Funding terrorism: According to reports of the Council on Foreign Relations, it's well-documented that Iran is a state sponsor of terror that funds such violent groups as Lebanese Hezbollah, which Iran helped organize in the 1980s, Palestinian Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad. While your predecessor government was instrumental in providing the U.S. with intelligence and base support in the 2001 campaign against the Taliban in Afghanistan, your government is now undermining American troops in Iraq by funding, arming and providing safe transit to insurgent leaders like Muqtada al-Sadr and his forces. There are a number of reports that you also link your government with Syria's efforts to destabilize the fledgling Lebanese government through violence and political assassination.

My question is this: Why do you support well-documented terrorist organizations that continue to strike at peace and democracy in the Middle East, destroying lives and the civil society of the region?

The proxy war against the United States troops in Iraq -- in a briefing before the National Press Club earlier this month, General David Petraeus reported that arms supplies from Iran, including 240- millimeter rockets and explosively formed projectiles, are contributing to, quote, "a sophistication of attacks that would by no means be possible without Iranian support." A number of Columbia graduates and current students are among the brave members of our military who are serving or have served in Iraq and Afghanistan. They, like other Americans with sons, daughters, fathers, husbands and wives serving in combat, rightly see your government as the enemy.

Can you tell them and us why Iran is fighting a proxy war in Iraq by arming Shi'a militia targeting and killing U.S. troops?

And finally Iran's nuclear program and international sanctions: This week, the United Nations Security Council is contemplating expanding sanctions for a third time, because of your government's refusal to suspend its uranium enrichment program. You continue to defy this world body by claiming a right to develop a peaceful nuclear power, but this hardly withstands scrutiny when you continue to issue military threats to neighbors. Last week, French President Sarkozy made clear his lost patience with your stall tactics, and even Russia and China have shown concern.

Why does your country continue to refuse to adhere to international standards for nuclear weapons verification, in defiance of agreements that you have made with the U.N. nuclear agency? And why have you chosen to make the people of your country vulnerable to the effects of international economic sanctions, and threaten to engulf the world in nuclear annihilation? (Applause.)

Let me close with a comment. Frankly -- I close with this comment frankly and in all candor, Mr. President. I doubt that you will have the intellectual courage to answer these questions. But your avoiding them will in itself be meaningful to us. I do expect you to exhibit the fanatical mindset that characterizes so much of what you say and do. Fortunately I am told by experts on your country that this only further undermines your position in Iran, with all the many good-hearted, intelligent citizens there.

A year ago, I am reliably told, your preposterous and belligerent statements in this country, as at one of the meetings at the Council on Foreign Relations, so embarrassed sensible Iranian citizens that this led to your party's defeat in the December mayoral elections. May this do that and more. (Applause.)

I am only a professor, who is also a university president.

And today I feel all the weight of the modern civilized world yearning to express the revulsion at what you stand for. I only wish I could do better. Thank you. (Cheers, extended applause.)

MR. COATSWORTH: Thank you, Lee.

Our principal speaker today is His Excellency the president of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Mr. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Mr. President. (Applause.)

INTERPRETER: The president is reciting verses from the Holy Koran in Arabic. (Not translated.)

PRESIDENT AHMADINEJAD: Oh, God, hasten the arrival of Imam al- Mahdi and grant him good health and victory, and make us his followers and those who attest to his (rightfulness ?).

Distinguished Dean, dear professors and students, ladies and gentlemen. At the outset, I would like to extend my greetings to all of you. I am grateful to the Almighty God for providing me with the opportunity to be in an academic environment, those seeking truth and striving for the promotion of science and knowledge.

At the outset, I want to complain a bit on the person who read this political statement against me. In Iran, tradition requires that when we demand a person to invite us as a -- to be a speaker, we actually respect our students and the professors by allowing them to make their own judgment, and we don't think it's necessary before the speech is even given to come in -- (applause) -- with a series of claims and to attempt in a so-called manner to provide vaccination of some sort to our students and our faculty.

I think the text read by the (dear ?) gentleman here, more than addressing me, was an insult to information and the knowledge of the audience here, present here. In a university environment, we must allow people to speak their mind, to allow everyone to talk so that the truth is eventually revealed by all. Most certainly he took more than all the time I was allocated to speak. And that's fine with me. We'll just leave that to add up with the claims of respect for freedom and the freedom of speech that is given to us in this country.

In many parts of his speech, there were many insults and claims that were incorrect, regretfully. Of course, I think that he was affected by the press, the media and the political sort of mainstream line that you read here, that goes against the very grain of the need for peace and stability in the world around us.

Nonetheless, I should not begin by being affected by this unfriendly treatment.

I will tell you what I have to say, and then the questions he can raise and I'll be happy to provide answers. But for one of the issues that he did raise, I most certainly would need to elaborate further so that we for ourselves can see how things fundamentally work.

It was my decision in this valuable forum and meeting to speak with you about the importance of knowledge, of information, of education. Academics and religious scholars are shining torches who shed light in order to remove darkness and the ambiguities around us in guiding humanity out of ignorance and perplexity. The key to the understanding of the realities around us rests in the hands of the researchers, those who seek to undiscover (sic) areas that are hidden, the unknown sciences. The windows of realities that they can open is done only through efforts of the scholars and the learned people in this world. With every effort, there is a window that is opened and one reality is discovered.

Whenever the high stature of science and wisdom is preserved and the dignity of scholars and researchers are respected, humans have taken great strides towards their material and spiritual promotion. In contrast, whenever learned people and knowledge have been neglected, humans have become stranded in the darkness of ignorance and negligence. If it were not for human instinct, which tends towards continual discovery of the truth, humans would have always remained stranded in ignorance and no way would have discovered how to improve the lives that we are given. The nature of man is, in fact, a gift granted by the Almighty to all. The Almighty led mankind into this world and granted him wisdom and knowledge as his (kind ?) gift, enabling him to know his God.

In the story of Adam, a conversation occurs between the Almighty and his angels. The angels called human beings an ambitious and merciless creature and protested against his creation, but the Almighty responded, quote, "I have knowledge of what you are ignorant of," unquote. Then the Almighty told Adam the truth, and on the order of the Almighty, Adam revealed it to the angels.

The angels could not understand the truth as revealed by the human beings.

The Almighty said to them, quote, "Did not I say that I am aware of what is hidden in heaven and in the universe?" unquote. In this way, the angels prostrated themselves before Adam.

In the mission of all divine prophets, the first sermons were of the words of God, and those words "piety," "faith" and "wisdom" have been spread to all mankind. Guiding the holy prophet Moses -- may peace be upon him -- God says, quote, "And he was taught wisdom, the divine book, the Old Testament and the New Testament. He is the prophet appointed for the sake of the children of Israel, and I rightfully brought a sign from the Almighty. Holy Koran -- (inaudible word) -- sura," unquote.

The first words which were revealed to the holy prophet of Islam call the prophet to read, quote, "Read, read in the name of your God, who supersedes everything," unquote. The Almighty, quote again, "who taught the human being with the pen," unquote; quote, "the Almighty taught human beings what they were ignorant of," unquote.

You see in the first verses revealed to the holy prophet of Islam words of reading, teaching and the pen are mentioned. These verses in fact introduce the Almighty as the teacher of human beings, the teacher who taught humans what they were ignorant of. And another part of the -- (inaudible word) -- on the mission on the holy prophet of Islam -- it is mentioned that the Almighty appointed someone from amongst the common people as their prophet in order to, quote, "Read for them the divine verses," unquote; and, quote again, "and purify them from ideological and ethical contaminations," unquote; and, quote again, "to teach them the divine book and wisdom," unquote.

My dear friends, all the words and messages of the divine prophets, from Abraham and Isaac and Jacob to David and Soliman and Moses to Jesus and Mohammed, delivered humans from ignorance, negligence, superstitions, unethical behavior and corrupted ways of thinking with respect to knowledge and a path to knowledge, light and rightful ethics.

In our culture, the word "science" has been defined as "illumination." In fact, the "science" means "brightness" and the real science is a science which rescues the human being from ignorance to his own benefit. In one of the widely accepted definitions of science, it is stated that it is the light which sheds to the hearts of those who have been selected by the Almighty; therefore, according to this definition, science is a divine gift, and the heart is where it resides.

If we accept that "science" means "illumination," then its scope supersedes the experimental sciences, and it includes every hidden and disclosed reality. One of the main harms inflicted against science is to limit it to experimental and physical sciences; this harm occurs even though it extends far beyond this scope.

Realities of the world are not limited to physical realities. And the material is just a shadow of supreme realities, and physical creation is just one of the stories of the creation of the world. Human being is just an example of the creation that is a combination of the material and the spirit.

And another important point is the relationship of science and purity of spirit, life, behavior and ethics of the human being. In the teachings of the divine prophet, one reality shall always be attached to science. The reality of purity of spirit and good behavior, knowledge and wisdom is pure and clear reality. It is -- science is a light. It is a discovery of reality, and only a pure scholar and researcher, free from wrong ideologies, superstitions, selfishness and material trappings, can discover the reality.

My dear friends and scholars, distinguished participants, science and wisdom can also be misused, a misuse caused by selfishness, corruption, material desires and material interests, as well as individual and group interests. Material desires place humans against the realities of the world. Corrupted independent human beings resist acceptance of reality and even if they do accept it, they do not obey it.

There are many scholars who are aware of the realities but do not accept them. Their selfishness does not allow them to accept those realities. Did those who in the course of human history wage wars not understand the reality that lives, properties, dignity, territories and the rights of all human beings should be respected? Or did they understand it but neither have faith in nor abide by it?

My dear friends, as long as the human heart is not free from hatred, envy and selfishness, it does not abide by the truth, by the illumination of science and science itself. Science is the light and scientists must be pure and pious. If humanity achieves the highest level of physical and spiritual knowledge, but its scholars and scientists are not pure, then this knowledge cannot serve the interest of humanity, and several events can ensue.

First, the wrongdoers reveal only a part of the reality which is to their own benefit and conceal the rest, as we have witnessed with respect to the scholars of the divine religions in the past too. Unfortunately today we see that certain researchers and scientists are still hiding the truth from the people.

Second, scientists and scholars are misused for personal, group or party interests. So in today's world, ruling powers are misusing many scholars and scientists in different fields, with the purpose of stripping nations of their wealth.

And they use all opportunities only for their own benefit.

For example, they deceive people by using scientific methods and tools. They, in fact, wish to justify their own wrongdoings, though, by creating nonexistent enemies, for example, and have insecure atmosphere. They try to control all in the name of combatting insecurity and terrorism. They even violate individual and social freedoms in their own nations under that pretext. They do not respect the privacy of their own people. They tap telephone calls and try to control their people. They create an insecure psychological atmosphere in order to justify their warmongering acts in different parts of the world.

As another example, by using precise scientific methods and planning, they begin their onslaught on the domestic cultures of nations, the cultures which are the result of thousands of years of interaction, creativity and artistic activities. They try to eliminate these cultures in order to separate the people from their identity and cut their bonds with their own history and values. They prepare the ground for stripping people from their spiritual and material wealth by instilling in them feelings of intimidation, desire for imitation and mere consumption, submission to oppressive powers, and disability.

Making nuclear, chemical and biological bombs and weapons of mass destruction is yet another result of the misuse of science and research by the big powers. Without cooperation of certain scientists and scholars, we would not have witnessed production of different nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. Are these weapons to protect global security? What can a perpetual nuclear umbrella threat achieve for the sake of humanity? If nuclear war wages between nuclear powers, what human catastrophe will take place? Today we can see the nuclear effects in even new generations of Nagasaki and Hiroshima residents which might be witness in even the next generations to come. Presently, effects of the depleted uranium used in weapons since the beginning of the war in Iraq can be examined and investigated accordingly. These catastrophes take place only when scientists and scholars are misused by oppressors.

Another point of sorrow, some big powers create a monopoly over science and prevent other nations in achieving scientific development as well.

This, too, is one of the surprises of our time. Some big powers do not want to see the progress of other societies and nations. They turn to thousands of reasons, make allegations, place economic sanctions to prevent other nations from developing and advancing, all resulting from their distance from human values, moral values and the teachings of the divine prophet. Regretfully, they have not been trained to serve mankind.

Dear academics, dear faculty and scholars, students, I believe that the biggest God-given gift to man is science and knowledge. Man's search for knowledge and the truth through science is what it guarantees to do in getting close to God, but science has to combine with the purity of the spirit and of the purity of man's spirit so that scholars can unveil the truth and then use that truth for advancing humanity's cause.

These scholars would be not only people who would guide humanity, but also guide humanity towards the future, better future. And it is necessary that big powers should not allow mankind to engage in monopolistic activities and to prevent other nations from achieving that science. Science is a divine gift by God to everyone, and therefore it must remain pure. God is aware of all reality. All researchers and scholars are loved by God.

So I hope there will be a day where these scholars and scientists will rule the world and God himself will arrive with Moses and Christ and Mohammed to rule the world and to take us towards justice.

I'd like to thank you now, but refer to two points made in the introduction given about me, and then I will be open for any questions.

Last year, I would say two years ago, I raised two questions. You know that my main job is a university instructor. Right now as president of Iran I still continue teaching graduate and Ph.D.-level courses on a weekly basis. My students are working with me in scientific fields. I believe that I am an academic myself, so I speak with you from an academic point of view.

And I raised two questions. But instead of a response, I got a wave of insults and allegations against me, and regretfully, they came mostly from groups who claimed most to believe in the freedom of speech and the freedom of information. You know quite well that Palestine is an old wound, as old as 60 years.

For 60 years, these people are displaced; for 60 years, these people are being killed; for 60 years, on a daily basis, there's conflict and terror; for 60 years, innocent women and children are destroyed and killed by helicopters and airplanes that break the house over their heads; for 60 years, children in kindergartens in schools, in high schools are in prison being tortured; for 60 years, security in the Middle East has been in danger; for 60 years, the slogan of expansionism from the Nile to the Euphrates has been chanted by certain groups in that part of the world.

And as an academic, I ask two questions, the same two questions that I will ask here again. And you judge for yourselves whether the response to these questions should be the insults, the allegations and all the words and the negative propaganda, or should we really try and face these two questions and respond to them? Like you, like any academic, I, too, will keep -- not get -- become silent until I get the answers, so I am awaiting logical answers instead of insults.

My first question was, if, given that the Holocaust is a present reality of our time, a history that occurred, why is there not sufficient research that can approach the topic from different perspectives? Our friends refer to 1930 as the point of the departure for this development; however, I believe the Holocaust, from what we read, happened during World War II after 1930 in the 1940s. So, you know, we have to really be able to trace the event.

My question was simple. There are researchers who want to push the topic from a different perspective. Why are they put into prison? Right now there are a number of European academics who have been sent to prison because they attempted to write about the Holocaust, so researchers from a different perspective, questioning certain aspects of it -- my question is, why isn't it open to all forms of research? I have been told that there's been enough research on the topic. And I ask, well, when it comes to topics such as freedom, topics such as democracy, concepts and norms such as God, religion, physics even or chemistry, there's been a lot of research, but we still continue more research on those topics. We encourage it. But then why don't we encourage more research on a historical event that has become the root, the cause of many heavy catastrophes in the region in this time and age? Why shouldn't there be more research about the root causes? That was my first question.

And my second question -- well, given this historical event, if it is a reality, we need to still question whether the Palestinian people should be paying for it or not. After all, it happened in Europe. The Palestinian people had no role to play in it. So why is it that the Palestinian people are paying the price of an event they had nothing to do with?

The Palestinian people didn't commit any crime. They had no role to play in World War II. They were living with the Jewish communities and the Christian communities in peace at the time. They didn't have any problems. And today, too, Jews, Christians and Muslims live in brotherhood all over the world, in many parts of the world. They don't have any serious problems.

But why is it that the Palestinians should pay a price, innocent Palestinians? For 5 million people to remain displaced or refugees of war for 60 years are -- is this not a crime? Is asking about these crimes a crime by itself? Why should an academic, myself, face insults when asking questions like this? Is this what you call freedom and upholding the freedom of thought?

And as for the second topic, Iran's nuclear issue -- I know there's time limits, but I need time. I mean, a lot of time was taken from me.

We are a country. We are a member of the International Atomic Energy Agency. For over 33 years we were a member state of the agency. The bylaw of the agency explicitly states that all member states have the right to the peaceful nuclear fuel technology. This is an explicit statement made in the bylaw. And the bylaw says that there is no pretext or excuse, even the inspections carried by the IAEA itself -- that can prevent member states' right to have that right.

Of course, the IAEA is responsible to carry out inspections. We are one of the countries that's carried out the most amount of -- level of cooperation with the IAEA. They've had hours and weeks and days of inspections in our country. And over and over again, the agency's reports indicate that Iran's activities are peaceful, that they have not detected a deviation, and that Iran has -- they've received positive cooperation from Iran. But regretfully, two or three monopolistic powers, selfish powers, want to force their word on the Iranian people and deny them their right. They keep saying -- one minute. (Laughter, applause.)

They tell us you don't let them -- they won't let them inspect. Why not? Of course we do. How come is it anyway that you have that right and we can't have it? We want to have the right to peaceful nuclear energy. They tell us, "Don't make it yourself. We'll give it to you."

Well, in the past, I tell you, we had contracts with the U.S. government, with the British government, the French government, the German government and the Canadian government on nuclear development for peaceful purposes. But unilaterally, each and every one of them canceled their contracts with us, as a result of which the Iranian people had to pay the heavy cost in billions of dollars.

Why do we need the fuel from you? You've not even given us spare aircraft parts that we need for civilian aircraft for 28 years, under the name of the embargo and sanctions, because we are against, for example, human rights or freedom? Under that pretext you deny us that technology?

We want to have the right to self-determination towards our future. We want to be independent. Don't interfere in us. If you don't give us spare parts for civilian aircraft, what is the expectation that you'd give us fuel for nuclear development for peaceful purposes?

For 30 years we've faced these problems; for over $5 billion to the Germans and then to the Russians, but we haven't gotten anything, and the worst have not been completed. It is our right, we want our right, and we don't want anything beyond the law, nothing less than what international law. We are a peaceful-loving nation. We love all nations. (Applause, cheers, booing.)

MR. COATSWORTH: Mr. President, your statements here today and in the past have provoked many questions which I would like to pose to you on behalf of the students and faculty who have submitted them to me.

Let me begin with the question to which you just --

PRESIDENT AHMADINEJAD: (In English.) It is one by one, one by one.

MR. COATSWORTH: One by one, it is, yes. (Applause.)

The first question is: Do you or your government seek the destruction of the state of Israel as a Jewish state?

PRESIDENT AHMADINEJAD: We love all nations. We are friends with the Jewish people. There are many Jews in Iran living peacefully with security. You must understand that in our constitution, in our laws, in the parliamentary elections, for every 150,000 people we get one representative in the parliament. For the Jewish community, one-fifth of this number they still get one independent representative in the parliament. So our proposal to the Palestinian plight is a humanitarian and democratic proposal.

What we say is that to solve the 60-year problem we must allow the Palestinian people to decide about its future for itself. This is compatible with the spirit of the Charter of the United Nations and the fundamental principles enshrined in it. We must allow Jewish Palestinians, Muslim Palestinians and Christian Palestinians to determine their own fate themselves through a free referendum. Whatever they choose as a nation everybody should accept and respect. Nobody should interfere in the affairs of the Palestinian nation. Nobody should sow the seeds of discord. Nobody should spend tens of billions of dollars equipping and arming one group there.

We say allow the Palestinian nation to decide its own future, to have the right to self-determination for itself. This is what we are saying as the Iranian nation. (Applause.)

MR. COATSWORTH: Mr. President, I think many members of our audience would be -- would like to hear a clearer answer to that question, that is -- (interrupted by cheers, applause).

The question is: Do you or your government seek the destruction of the state of Israel as a Jewish state? And I think you could answer that question with a single word, either yes or no. (Cheers, applause.)

PRESIDENT AHMADINEJAD: And then you want the answer the way you want to hear it. Well, this isn't really a free flow of information. I'm just telling you where I -- what my position is. (Applause.)

I'm asking you, is the Palestinian issue not an international issue of prominence or not? Please tell me, yes or no. (Laughter, applause.)

There's a plight of a people.

MR. COATSWORTH: The answer to your question is yes. (Laughter.)

PRESIDENT AHMADINEJAD: Well, thank you for your cooperation.

It is -- we recognize there is a problem there that's been going on for 60 years. Everybody provides a solution, and our solution is a free referendum. Let this referendum happen, and then you'll see what the results are. Let the people of Palestine freely choose what they want for their future. And then what you want in your mind to happen, it will happen and will be realized. (Applause.)

MR. COATSWORTH: Which was posed by President Bollinger earlier and comes from a number of other students. Why is your government providing aid to terrorists? Will you stop doing so and permit international monitoring to certify that you have stopped?

PRESIDENT AHMADINEJAD: Well, I want to pose a question here to you. If someone comes and explodes bombs around you, threatens your president, members of the administration, kills the members of the Senate or Congress, how would you treat them? Would you award them or would you name them a terrorist group? Well, it's clear. You would call them a terrorist.

My dear friends, the Iranian nation is a victim of terrorism. For -- 26 years ago, where I work, close to where I work, in a terrorist operation, the elected president of the Iranian nation and the elected prime minister of Iran lost their lives in a bomb explosion. They turned into ashes.

A month later, in another terrorist operation, 72 members of our parliament and highest ranking officials, including four ministers and eight deputy ministers, bodies were shattered into pieces as a result of terrorist attacks. Within six months, over 4,000 Iranians lost their lives, assassinated by terrorist groups, all this carried out by the hand of one single terrorist group. Regretfully that same terrorist group, now, today, in your country, is being -- operating under the support of the U.S. administration, working freely, distributing declarations freely. And their camps in Iraq are supported by the U.S. government. They're secured by the U.S. government.

Our nation has been harmed by terrorist activities. We were the first nation that objected to terrorism and the first to uphold the need to fight terrorism. (Applause.)

MR. COATSWORTH: A number of questioners, sorry, a number of people have asked.

PRESIDENT AHMADINEJAD: We need to address the root causes of terrorism and eradicate those root causes.

We live in the Middle East. For us, it's quite clear which powers sort of incite terrorists, support them, fund them. We know that. Our nation, the Iranian nation, through history has always extended a hand of friendship to other nations. We're a cultured nation. We don't need to resort to terrorism.

We've been victims of terrorism ourselves, and it's regrettable that people who argue they're fighting terrorism, instead of supporting the Iranian people and nation, instead of fighting the terrorists that are attacking them, they're supporting the terrorists and then turn the fingers to us. This is most regrettable.

MR. COATSWORTH: A further set of questions challenge your view of the Holocaust. Since the evidence that this occurred in Europe in the 1940s as a result of the actions of the German Nazi government, since that -- those facts are well-documented, why are you calling for additional research? There seems to be no purpose in doing so, other than to question whether the Holocaust actually occurred as an historical fact. Can you explain why you believe more research is needed into the facts of what are -- what is incontrovertible?

PRESIDENT AHMADINEJAD: Thank you very much for your question. I am an academic, and you are as well. Can you argue that researching a phenomenon is finished forever, done? Can we close the books for good on a historical event? There are different perspectives that come to light after every research is done. Why should we stop research at all? Why should we stop the progress of science and knowledge? You shouldn't ask me why I'm asking questions. You should ask yourselves why you think that it's questionable.

Why do you want to stop the progress of science and research? Do you ever take what's known as absolute in physics? We had principles in mathematics that were granted to be absolute in mathematics for over 800 years, but new science has gotten rid of those absolutism, gotten -- forward other different logics of looking at mathematics, and sort of turned the way we look at it as a science altogether after 800 years. So we must allow researchers, scholars to investigate into everything, every phenomenon -- God, universe, human beings, history, and civilization. Why should we stop that?

I'm not saying that it didn't happen at all. This is not (the ?) judgment that I'm passing here. I said in my second question, granted this happened, what does it have to do with the Palestinian people? This is a serious question. They're two dimension. In the first question, I --

MR. COATSWORTH: Let me just -- let me pursue this a bit further. It is difficult to have a scientific discussion if there isn't at least some basis -- some empirical basis, some agreement about what the facts are. So, calling for research into the facts when the facts are so well-established represents for many a challenging of the facts themselves and a denial that something terrible occurred in Europe in those years. (Applause.)

Let me move on to -- (pause).

Mr. President, another student asks, Iranian women are now denied basic human rights, and your government has imposed draconian punishments, including execution on Iranian citizens who are homosexuals. Why are you doing those things?

PRESIDENT AHMADINEJAD: Those in Iran are genuine true freedoms. The Iranian people are free. Women in Iran enjoy the highest levels of freedoms. We have two deputy vice -- well, two vice presidents that are female at the highest levels of speciality; specialized (roles ?) in our parliament and our government and our universities, they are present in our biotechnological fields and our technological fields. There are hundreds of women scientists that are active in the political realm as well.

It's not -- it's wrong for some governments, when they disagree with another government, to sort of -- try to spread lies that distort the full truth. Our nation is free. It has the highest level of participation in elections. In Iran, 80 percent -- 90 percent of the people turn out for votes during the elections, half of which -- over half of which are women, so how can we say that women are not free? Is that the entire truth?

But as for the executions, I'd like to raise two questions. If someone comes and establishes a network for illicit drug trafficking that affects the (use ?) in Iran, Turkey, Europe, the United States by introducing these illicit drugs and destroys them, would you ever reward them? People who lead the lives -- cause the deterioration of the lives of hundreds of millions of youth around the world, including in Iran, can we have any sympathy to them? Don't you have capital punishment in the United States? You do, too. (Applause.)

In Iran, too, there's capital punishment for illicit drug traffickers, for people who violate the rights of people.

If somebody takes up a gun, goes into a house, kills a group of people there, and then tries to take ransom, how would you confront them in Iran with -- in the United States? Would you reward them? Can a physician allow microbes, symbolically speaking, to spread across a nation? We have laws. People who violate the public rights of the people by using guns, killing people, creating insecurity, sell drugs, distribute drugs at a high level are sentenced to execution in Iran, and some of these punishments -- very few are carried in the public eye, before the public eye. It's a law based on democratic principles. You use injections and microbes to kill these people, and they are executed or they're hung, but the end result is killing.

MR. COATSWORTH: (Off mike) -- and drug smugglers. The question was about sexual preference and women. (Applause.)

PRESIDENT AHMADINEJAD: In Iran, we don't have homosexuals like in your country. (Laughter.) We don't have that in our country. (Booing.) In Iran, we do not have this phenomenon. I don't know who's told you that we have it. (Laughter.)

But as for women, maybe you think that being a woman is a crime. It's not a crime to be a woman. Women are the best creatures created by God. They represent the kindness, the beauty that God instills in them. Women are respected in Iran. In Iran, every family who's given a girl is given -- in every Iranian family who has a girl, they're 10 times happier than having a son. Women are respected more than men are. They are exempt from many responsibilities. Many of the legal responsibilities rest on the shoulders of men in our society because of the respect culturally given to women, to the future mothers. In Iranian culture, men and sons and girls constantly kiss the hands of their mothers as a sign of respect, a respect for women, and we are proud of this culture.

MR. COATSWORTH:(Off mike) -- one is, what did you hope to accomplish by speaking at Columbia today?

And the second is, what would you have said if you were permitted to visit the site of the September 11th tragedy?

PRESIDENT AHMADINEJAD: Well, here I'm your guest. I've been invited by Columbia, an official invitation given for me to come here, but I do want to say something here.

In Iran, when you invite a guest you respect them. This is our tradition required by our culture, and I know that American people have that culture as well.

Last year, I wanted to go to the site of the September 11th tragedy to show respect to the victims of the tragedy, show my sympathy with their families, but our plans got overextended. We were involved in negotiations and meetings `till midnight, and they said it would be very difficult to go visit the site at that late hour of the night. So I told my friends then that we need to plan this for the following year, so that I can go and visit the site and to show my respects. Regretfully, some groups had very strong reactions, very bad reactions. It's bad for someone -- to prevent someone to show sympathy to the families of the victims of the September 11 event -- tragic event.

This is a respect from my side. Somebody told me this is an insult. I said: What are you saying? This is my way of showing my respect. Why would you think that? Thinking like that, how do you expect to manage the world and world affairs? Don't you think that a lot of problems in the world come from the way you look at issues because of this kind of way of thinking, because of this sort of pessimistic approach towards a lot of people because of certain level of selfishness, self-absorption that needs to be put aside so that we can show respect to everyone, to allow an environment for friendship to grow, to allow all nations to talk with one another and move towards peace?

I wanted to speak with the press. There is 11 September -- September 11 tragic event was a huge event. It led to a lot of many other events afterwards. After 9/11, Afghanistan was occupied and then Iraq was occupied, and for six years in our region there is insecurity, terror and fear. If the root causes of 9/11 are examined properly -- why it happened, what caused it, what were the conditions that led to it, who truly was involved, who was really involved -- and put it all together to understand how to prevent the crisis in Iraq, fix the problem in Afghanistan and Iraq combined.

MR. COATSWORTH: A number of questions have asked about your nuclear program. Why is your government seeking to acquire enriched uranium suitable for nuclear weapons? Will you stop doing so?

PRESIDENT AHMADINEJAD: Our nuclear program, first and foremost, operates within the framework of law, and second, under the inspections of the IAEA, and thirdly, they are completely peaceful. The technology we have is for enrichment below the level of 5 percent level, and any level below 5 percent is solely for providing fuel to power plants. Repeated reports by the IAEA explicitly say that there is no indication that Iran has deviated from the peaceful path of its nuclear program. We're all well aware that Iran's nuclear issue is a political issue; it's not a legal issue.

The International Atomic Energy Organization -- Agency has verified that our activities are for peaceful purposes. But there are two or three powers that think that they have the right to monopolize all science and knowledge. And they expect the Iranian people, the Iranian nation, to turn to others to get fuel, to get science, to get knowledge that's indigenous to itself -- to humble itself. And then they would of course refrain from giving it to us too.

So we're quite clear on what we need. If you have created the fifth generation of atomic bombs and are testing them already, what position are you in to question the peaceful purposes of other people who want nuclear power? (Applause.) We do not believe in nuclear weapons, period. It goes against the whole grain of humanity.

So let me just tell a joke here. I think the politicians who are after atomic bombs or are testing them, making them -- politically they are backward, retarded. (Applause.)

MR. COATSWORTH: I know your time is short and that you need to move on.

Is Iran prepared to open broad discussions with the government of the United States? What would Iran hope to achieve in such discussions? How do you see, in the future, a resolution of the points of conflict between the government of the United States and the government of Iran?

PRESIDENT AHMADINEJAD: From the start, we announced that we are ready to negotiate with all countries. Since 28 years ago, when our revolution succeeded and we established -- we took freedom and democracy that was held at bay by a pro-Western dictatorship, we announced our readiness that besides two countries, we are ready to have friendly relations and talks with all countries of the world. One of those two was the apartheid regime of South Africa, which has been eliminated, and the second is the Zionist regime. For everybody else around the world, we announced that we want to have friendly, brotherly ties.

The Iranian nation is a cultured nation. It is a civilized nature. It seeks, it wants, new talks and negotiations. It's for it. We believe that in negotiations and talks, everything can be resolved very easily. We don't need threats; we don't need to point bombs or guns; we don't need to get into conflict if we talk. We have a clear logical about that.

We question the way the world is being run and managed today. We believe that it will not lead to viable peace and security for the world, the way it's run today. We have solutions based on humane values and for relations among states. With the U.S. government, too, we will negotiate. We don't have any issues about that, under fair, just circumstances with mutual respect on both sides.

You saw that in order to help the security of Iraq, we had three rounds of talks with the United States. And last year, before coming to New York, I announced that I am ready, in the United Nations, to engage in a debate with Mr. Bush, the president of the United States, about critical international issues. So that shows that we want to talk, having a debate before the world public -- before all the audience, so that truth is revealed, so that misunderstandings and misperceptions are removed, so that we can find a clear path for brotherly and friendly relations. I think that if the U.S. administration -- if the U.S. government puts aside some of its old behaviors, it can actually be a good friend for the Iranian people, for the Iranian nation.

For 28 years they've consistently threatened us, insulted us, prevented our scientific development, every day under one pretext or another. You all know Saddam the dictator was supported by the government of the United States and some Europeans countries in attacking Iran. And in -- he carried out an eight-year war, a criminal war. Over 200,000 Iranians were -- lost their lives. Over 600,000 Iranians were hurt as a result of a war. He used chemical weapons; thousands of Iranians were victims of chemical weapons that he used against us. Today, Mr. Nobal Vinh (ph), who is a reporter, an official reporter, international reporter, who was covering U.N. reports in U.N. for many years, he is one of the victims of the chemical weapons used by Iraq against us.

And since then, we've been under different propaganda sort of embargoes, economic sanctions, political sanctions. Why? Because we got rid of a dictator? Because we wanted the freedom and democracy that we got for ourselves? But we can't always tell. We think that if the U.S. government recognizes the rights of the Iranian people, respects all nations, and extends a hand of friendship with all Iranians, they too will see that Iranians will be one of its best friends.

Will you allow me to thank the audience a moment?

I -- well, there are many things that I would have liked to cover, but I don't want to take your time any further. I was asked, would I allow the faculty and Columbia students here to come to Iran? From this platform, I invite Columbia faculty members and students to come and visit Iran, to speak with our university students. You are officially invited. (Applause).

University faculty and the students that the university decides are the student association's chosen select are welcome to come. You're welcome to visit any university that you choose inside Iran. We'll provide you with a list of the universities. There are over 400 universities in our country, and you can choose whichever you want to go and visit.

We'll give you the true platform. You can -- we'll respect you 100 percent. We will have our students sit there and listen to you, speak with you, hear what you have to say.

Right now in our universities on a daily basis, there are hundreds of meetings like this. They hear, they talk, they ask questions, they welcome it.

In the end, I'd like to thank Columbia University. I had heard that many politicians in the United States are trained in Columbia University, and there are many people here who believe in the freedom of speech, in clear, frank conversations; I do like to extend my gratitude to the managers here in the United States -- at Columbia University -- I apologize -- the people who so well-organized this meeting today. I'd like to extend my deepest gratitude to the faculty members and the dear students here. I ask Almighty God to assist all of us to move hand in hand to establish peace and future filled with friendship and justice and brotherhood. Best of luck to all of you. (Applause.)

MR. BOLLINGER: I'm sorry that President Ahmadinejad's schedule makes it necessary for him to leave before he's been able to answer many of the questions that we have or even answer some of the ones that we posed to him. (Laughter, applause.) But I think we can all be pleased that his appearance here demonstrates Columbia's deep commitment to free expression and debate. I want to thank you all for coming to participate. (Applause.)

Thank you.

END.