NYT - India, France and Secularism

Sudheendra Kulkarni, head of an Indian think tank, was doused with ink by Hindu radicals.

DIVYAKANT SOLANKI / EUROPEAN PRESSPHOTO AGENCY

OCTOBER 27, 2015

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/10/28/opinion/india-france-and-secularism.html?_r=4&referer

Sylvie Kauffmann

The Indian organizers of two concerts by Ghulam Ali, a veteran Pakistani singer, did not want to take chances. They had received local government assurances about security for the Oct. 9 and 10 concerts in Mumbai and Pune. But faced with protests from a regional right-wing Hindu party, Shiv Sena, they decided to cancel the shows. “You know the Shiv Sena people,” the manager of one of the venues explained. “They may still create troubles.”

A few days later Sudheendra Kulkarni, chairman of the Observer Research Foundation, an Indian think tank, was attacked in his car by a group of “Shiv Sena people” who doused him with oily black ink. He had been due to take part in a book launch by a former Pakistani foreign minister, Khurshid Mehmood Kasuri, an event the foundation had refused to cancel. He still appeared with the author, his head blackened and his clothes soiled, his face almost unrecognizable, to condemn this “attack on democracy,” before going to the hospital to have the ink removed.

Intolerance is on the rise in India, where the number of attacks on minorities, particularly Muslims, and on secularist intellectuals by Hindu chauvinists is part of a disturbing trend. Even more disturbing has been the reluctance of the governing party, the nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party, to speak against violent assaults, like the barbaric killing of a 52-year-old Muslim man, Mohammad Ikhlaq, dragged from his home on Sept. 28 in a village near New Delhi and beaten to death by a mob that suspected him of storing beef meat in his fridge. It took more than two weeks for Prime Minister Narendra Modi, the leader who campaigned on inclusive development, to utter a word about the murder. And when he did, his comments were embarrassingly weak: He could only find the incident “really sad” and blame the opposition’s “pseudo-secularism.”

Secularism is, precisely, at the heart of the debate in Mr. Modi’s India. Coming from a country, France, with strong feelings about secularism, or laïcité, I was intrigued to see how it is managed in a nation of 1.25 billion people with a 14.2 percent Muslim minority when I took part earlier this month in a study trip in India set up by the European Council on Foreign Relations.

Like the French, Indians tend to consider secularism as part of their national identity. It is engrained in both constitutions. “If we are less secular, we are less Indian,” said Tarun Vijay, a B.J.P. member of Parliament and one of the party’s ideologues. But while the foundation of French laïcité is to keep the government neutral in religious affairs, the Indian version of secularism “allows state intervention in the dominant religion” — Hinduism — and recognizes minority rights, Professor Niraja Gopal Jayal of Jawaharlal Nehru University told us.

Emboldened by its electoral success, which brought Mr. Modi to power in May 2014, the B.J.P.’s powerful ideological parent, a social organization called R.S.S. (Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh) thus tends to equate secularism with Hindu rule: They would not mind it if the state were allowed to intervene in the affairs of all religions. France, in turn, has enforced laïcité in the public sphere more rigorously with the rise of Islam. It imposed a ban on all religious signs from public schools when the Muslim head scarf became an issue, but girls can wear a head scarf anywhere else, and Jewish boys are free to wear a yarmulke off school grounds. Burqas are banned in public space. A few right-wing politicians are now resisting the idea of school menus offering an alternative to pork, but they don’t get much traction.

Hindu fundamentalists have a more radical view of beef consumption and the slaughtering of cows. Some states, like Maharashtra, have banned the sale of beef, and calls for a national beef ban are growing. The fact that Muslims and Christians are traditional beef eaters is not an obstacle. The B.J.P.’s Tarun Vijay, expressing a more stringent interpretation of secularism on the opinion website Daily 0, sees “beef eating as a challenge to India, its public display as an act of bravado,” adding, “It is a political act that has nothing to do with culinary practice or religion.”

In both countries Muslim minorities complain about discrimination — and with reason. But while many French Muslims, who make up about 7.5 percent of the population, feel targeted by “laïcité,” Indian Muslims see secularism as their best protection. One important difference is that radicalization is an almost nonexistent phenomenon in Indian Islam, while it is a dangerous (but limited) trend among European Muslims. Only 30 Indian citizens are known to have joined the Islamic State so far, out of 176 million Muslims; in France, the number of home-grown jihadists is close to 2,000, out of 4 to 5 million. So while in France, fundamentalism comes from the Muslim minority, in India it comes from the Hindu majority.

India has been home to Muslims since the 8th century; Mughals ruled most of India and Pakistan 400 years ago. In contrast, Islam’s implantation in Europe is only a few decades old; France’s law on laïcité predates their arrival. Today, as minorities, Muslims feel vulnerable. In France, the January terrorist attacks against Charlie Hebdo and a Jewish supermarket deepened the malaise, as many Muslims stayed away from the #JeSuisCharlie movement. When 4 million French people took to the streets in support of freedom of expression right after the attacks, they assumed that French Muslims would make a point to be part of this show of unity. Only a small number did. For many of those who did not show up, laïcité has gone too far. Allowing cartoonists to make fun of religious figures, including their Prophet, may be a French tradition; it is not their idea of secularism.

In India, the threat against secularism goes even deeper, down to the values dear to its founding fathers, Gandhi and Nehru. “This is an India which is crying out for a Mahatma who puts compassion and tolerance above all else,” wrote the well-known journalist Rajdeep Sardesai after the recent attacks. An India that could rally behind #JeSuisIkhlaq.

Sylvie Kauffmann is the editorial director and a former editor in chief of Le Monde.

Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook and Twitter, and sign up for theOpinion Today newsletter.

Predictions about Modi in May 2014 are coming true

History is our reference, those who do the chamchagiri (Yes, sir you are right, we love you, you are our God and you cannot make mistakes) will be the ones responsible for the fall of their leader. Modi has too many chamchas and sadly they will be the ones wrecking the boat. Those of us who are criticizing and commenting really want Modi to get his act together and not take down India with him. I am glad to read this old report, making a similar reference. 

The idea of pluralism and Vasudhaiva Kutumbukum are a reflection of Hinduism, the biggest loser would be Hinduism under Modi, unless he wakes up and does the right thing. 

Mike Ghouse

'Modi's Plan A will be economy. If that does not work, Hindutva'

http://scroll.in/article/766066/meet-the-ghost-sharks-and-deep-sea-demons-that-will-haunt-your-dreams
The BJP has been more democratic than the Congress. But with Modi, a parallel power structure may come up, says French political scientist Christophe Jaffrelot.

Shivam Vij  · May 15, 2014 · 08:38 am

French political scientist Christophe Jaffrelot, author of several books on India and some on Pakistan, is considered a leading authority on Hindu nationalism and caste politics in India. He is a senior research fellow at CERI-Sciences Po/CNRS, Paris, professor of Indian Politics and Sociology at King’s India Institute, London, Princeton Global Scholar and non-resident scholar at Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

On a recent visit to Delhi, he spoke to Scroll.in about the Indian elections. In this first of two parts, he offers an evaluation of Narendra Modi, widely expected to be India's next prime minister.

What do you think of this moment in India's politics?
This election is also a critical moment for democracy because the main contender for power, Narendra Modi, has an idea of India that is at odds with the multicultural idea of India theorised by authors like Sunil Khilnani. It is a majoritarian view. That was also the case when Atal Bihari Vajpayee formed government in 1998, but back then, and even in 1999, there was one NDA [National Democratic Alliance] manifesto that was different from the BJP [Bharatiya Janata Party] programme. The BJP had many allies to take along. This time they may be more free to push forth the policies they want.

Now that Narendra Modi has become the man who calls the shots, forcing the party to accept a generational change, what do you think the relationship between him and the party will be like? If he becomes prime minister, will it be an easy time between him and the BJP's parent organisation, the Rashtriya Swayamsewak Sangh?
It is a change not just of generation but also of style. The way Narendra Modi has won over the party is not through an internal party election, not through a scheduled process. It happened in the space of a few months. He will still have to consolidate and remain a legitimate head of the party, because it is not as if the BJP had no structure. The BJP has been more democratic than the Congress if we go by its record of internal elections. With Modi, a parallel power structure may come up in some time.

I don't see Narendra Modi relying on the party or RSS cadres. They'll get positions and the spoil system will work somewhat in their favour, but not necessarily for key roles. If he becomes prime minister, Modi will probably rely more upon bureaucrats, technocrats and professionals. He will have BJP ministers, but he may deal directly with the bureaucrats of their ministries, for instance. In that case, there will be a de-linking of the prime minister's office with the party. This is what has happened in Gujarat to some extent.

It may not be to the liking of the Sangh Parivar if all authority is concentrated in one man, and the others do not flourish. They may not flourish not only because the man in question does not let them flourish, but also because people see that they do not have any authority – so they don't go to them. Why should peasants of Gujarat turn to the Bharatiya Kisan Sabha – the farmers' wing of the RSS – after it was sidelined by Modi? In Gujarat, some of the Sangh Parivar units have declined because of this modus operandum. I don't know how much this method can be replicated in Delhi, but I don't see Modi operating through the party – where some of his rivals are still influential.

They may be gradually marginalised. We have already seen how Modi's right-hand man, Amit Shah, has taken over the Uttar Pradesh unit of the party. Rajnath Singh could not even get tickets for some of his candidates. This is what I call de-institutionalisation of the party.

How similar is that to what Indira Gandhi did to the Congress?
It is very similar. Except that by the mid-'70s Indira had started to woo back to the party the Congress (O) leaders who were prepared to return. But for now it's a lot like 1971 when Indira won by relating directly to voters. That is also what Modi is doing when he says vote for me, don't think about the local candidate too much. That is also what the slogan "Har Har Modi, Ghar Ghar Modi" was saying. This is populism in the true sense of the word, and it implies de-institutionalisation of the party structure. That is dangerous for both the party and the Sangh Parivar. The organisation used to be above man, now they are depending upon one man.

Why are they depending upon this man, why are the going all out to make him win? The Sangh Parivar knew what Modi did to them in Gujarat. Is it wilful suicide, a thought-out plan or a desperate need for power?
It's trade-off. First, they cannot be out of power for too many years. Second, they don't have an alternative. At least, they did not till [Shivraj Singh] Chauhan won in Madhya Pradesh in December 2013 – it was too late. Fourth, Modi has galvanised the local swayamsewaks [RSS volunteers] and the leaders have to listen to them too. Fifth, the RSS and Narendra Modi are on the same page ideologically. There is no denying that today, majoritarian politics is embodied in Modi. The RSS can expect from him, at the national level, some of the things he has done in Gujarat: a new anti-conversion law, the rewriting of textbooks, a uniform civil code – and nothing in favour of minorities… That is part the Hindutva agenda.

Some of the old timers probably know that the organisation is taking a risk by rallying around Modi, but they probably think that the Parivar is too big to be swallowed by one man. And they may also think that they are using him more than the other way round...

So, both Modi and the RSS think they are using each other. In games like these, there is often only one winner.
Yes, that happens. It could be a win-win, but in Gujarat it wasn't a win-win for many subsidiaries of the Sangh Parivar, including the Vishwa Hindu Parishad.

The prospect of Narendra Modi is evoking more fear in the liberal intelligentsia than perhaps even amongst Muslims. How legitimate do you think this fear is?
It depends on whom you speak to – and who you include in the "liberal intelligentsia" whose frontiers are moving... many people are edging already. But this question of fear has much to do with the political strategy Modi will implement. Except in Uttar Pradesh, where polarisation was the repertoire Amit Shah orchestrated for delivering votes in a key state, Modi has projected a rather soft Hindutva-based discourse this time. Whether this style will continue to prevail will largely depend on how his government will succeed in delivering economic growth. If he can quickly achieve positive results on the economic front and revive growth and create jobs, and can thus remain popular – the economy is definitely his top priority – then the development plank will be sufficient for him. If, however, he is not successful on the economic front, there will be strong criticism not just amongst the liberals but in his own camp. He may then resort to the Hindutva-based polarisation strategy.

What is the relationship between Hindutva/secularism/minority rights and development/economic growth/prosperity?
Plan A for Modi is to succeed on the economic front, and if that does not work then emphasising on Hindutva politics may be an important Plan B. It's more a plank the BJP uses when it wants to conquer difficult seats or fears electoral defeat – like in Gujarat in 2002.

Some said that after 2002, the era of large-scale communal violence is over. But Assam in 2012 and Muzaffarnagar in 2013 seem to be disproving that. The BJP has openly used the violence in Muzaffarnagar for electoral gains.
They are not in power in UP and that was probably the best way to make inroads. Muzaffarnagar is a dangerous test case. If riot-driven communal polarisation brings electoral gains once again, it means that the tactic still works.

They are not in power in UP and Bihar mainly because of caste politics. The Mandir-Mandal relationship seemed to have settled with Mandal's victory over Mandir. How, why and when does religion or caste become more important for voters?
Quota politics is exhausted at 49% reservations. The Supreme Court will allow no more. There is also an erosion of caste politics because there is an increasing role of class. Especially where industrialisation and urbanisation are making progress, such as in western India. People migrate to the city or the city comes to them. They find a job in a factory and become part of a different world. During the last Gujarat state elections in 2012, Kolis, who are OBCs, voted for the Congress in the countryside and the BJP in urban constituencies. These urbanised groups of OBCs are aspiring people who haven't arrived yet, but think that they may experienced some upward social mobility thanks to Modi's development-oriented agenda. They are part of what he calls the "neo middle class". These developments have weakened the caste-based parties, which have also been affected by their need to become catch-all parties. The best example here is the Mayawati-led Bahujan Samaj Party, which has diluted its core identity.

The idea of erosion of caste and rise of class identity has gained currency, but are we really there yet? Caste also operates in the city.
True, upper castes and dalits still belong to different worlds. But this huge group called the OBCs does not form a homogeneous category any more. We are not in 1991 when Mandal had fostered their sense of unity, at a time when jobs in the public sector were the main avenues for social mobility. We are in 2014, after almost 25 years of capitalist growth behind us.

We see this in fast urbanising western UP and in the Muzaffarnagar riots, where violence in villages was being aided by the circulation of videos over smartphones. What is it about urbanisation and industrialisation that attracts people towards a religio-political identity and makes them more right-wing?
Urbanisation makes syncretism more difficult. In the village you can't escape the other. The Muslim hears the bell of the local temple and the Hindu goes to a Muslim dargah if they attribute some power to it. In the city, except in the old core when it exists, that doesn't happen. Ghettoisation of Muslims is making progress, at least in the North and in the West. There is a parting of the ways. In the city, there is greater exposure to propaganda. You can't escape the Sangh Parivar machine easily. Rumours spread faster too, and communal riots are still a predominantly urban phenomenon. But the communal violence that has affected the rural parts of Muzzafarnagar district shows that the gap between village India and urban India is not as wide as before – partly because of the way new forms of communication (including social media) are reaching the countryside. And for the first time, perhaps, villages are experiencing ghettoisation on a religious basis.

There has been some debate in India on the use of the word fascism in the context of Modi. Do you think it is an inappropriate word in Indian politics, or in modern politics generally?
Fascism is clearly a European historical phenomenon. It is not always easy to transpose a notion that is that dated and localised. There are two aspects of European fascism that the Sangh Parivar did not adopt. First of all the priority to the capture of the state. That was not the priority of the RSS, which wanted primarily to frame together Hindu psyche with Indian society. The state was supposed to naturally fall as a ripe fruit in the long term.

The other thing that the Sangh Parivar did not take from European fascism was the cult of the leader. The Shiv Sena did that but the RSS decided not to invest in one main figure as that is doomed to fail – the organisation had to outlive its leader.

Yet they are doing that now with Modi.
Exactly, and we'll have to see how the organisation will evolve if this new configuration is sustained.

What does the Sangh Parivar really want?
It wants to equate the identity of India with Hinduism.

What does that mean in practical terms?
A fusion between the Hindu culture and the public culture of India. This means that Muslims and Christians can remain Muslims and Christians in the private sphere, in the mosque and the church, but in the public sphere they have to show allegiance to Hindu symbols. That is why in the Ram Janmabhoomi movement they asked Muslims to give up the Babri Masjid and chant "Jai Shri Ram". Ram is to be seen as a rallying figure of all Indians, not just Hindus. It also implies that a temple has to be built in Ayodhya, and no special recognition of religious minorities in social programmes. That is why scholarships for religious minorities as recommended by the Sachar Commission have not been given to Muslims in Gujarat. It also means no quota for Muslim and Christian dalits, the rewriting of history of India, new anti-conversion laws and the promotion of Hindu cults – including new Sampradayas and festivals. On the contrary, iftar parties may not benefit from any official recognition. These are some of the ways in which the Hinduisation of India is to be carried out.

So religious minorities need to worry less for their rights and more for their visibility in the public sphere?
Yes, and no. The polarisation strategy can be routinised in the form of a politics of fear. The fear of the other can rely on fake encounters for instance. More importantly, the magnitude of the BJP's success in the long term may be such that, eventually, items which are not on the NDA agenda but on the BJP agenda – like the abolition of Article 370, the Uniform Civil Code and the building of a Ram temple in Ayodhya – may become the order of the day. At least, components of the Sangh Parivar may put pressure on the government on that front with a simple argument: we are now in a position to implement our program. And the government may implement some items of this program for defusing this pressure or if it is losing ground on the socio-economic front. This is the Plan B I mentioned before, which may be seen as a provocation by the minorities, and which may be deliberately offensive.

We welcome your comments at letters@scroll.in

Subramaniam Swamy; is he good for India's long term social cohesion? A video response

We are planning on producing a YouTube response to Subramaniam  Swamy's opinions and assertions, are they good for India or not?

Does he make sense and how?  Does he have fascist leanings, does he understand democracy?

Should we give him a free ride?

Share what is on your mind, I will be selecting at least three individuals representing diversity of opinions, you can come to my office studio in Dallas or we can skype it.

Who should be India's role model? Should India aspire to be a free country like the USA, where  you can breathe, drink, eat, wear or believe whatever the hell you want to believe or like Saudi Arabia's where you are forced to believe what the bullies want?

What kind of India do we want? 

References:

Unite hindus, divide muslims- BJP leader S. Swamy Strategy for 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XIT_rnSdyVM

and this one
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_oel91g02Ts

You can respond at the following links:

1. http://mikeghouseforindia.blogspot.com/2014/03/subramaniam-swamy-is-he-good-for-indias.html
2. www.facebook.com/IndiaPluralism
3. dallasindians@yahoogroups.com 
4. MikeGhouse@gmail.com 

Mike Ghouse,
Pluralism Center | Education, Research and Activism
Pluralism is "Respecting the otherness of others"
Studies in social, religious, cultural and political pluralism
www.Foundationforpluralism.com

Stand with Burmese People

Stand with the Burmese People

I was listening to the Public Broadcasting on the subject, and am saddened with our civilization, particularly, our role in the world. Respect for human life is declining; the terrorists are one side killing hundreds and the civilized nations on the other hand killing millions.

We still have dictatorships, monarchies, fascists, communist and theocracies around. Shouldn't we declare a war on ignorance? Shouldn't we spend the money on education rather than destruction?

What is happening in Burma is sad, the sparkle of goodness is that the Hindus, Muslims, Christians and others are standing by in the support of the Monks. The least we can do is sign a petition of support.

I have just signed the petition, it is your turn now at 272,000, we need 500,000 signatures

http://www.avaaz.org/en/stand_with_burma/tf.php?cl_tf_sign=1

Here are a few Burma Stories:

_____________________________________

1. Beyond Rangoon - Washingtonnote.com

2. Burma Special - Newsweek - UN envoy will stay

3. India's Burma Silence

_____________________________________

Beyond Rangoon: Stories Beneath the Surface of Myanmar Reporting
http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/

As all eyes turn to Myanmar with brutal crackdowns by the military junta (including reports of a Japanese reporter murdered and school children being fired upon), international condemnations, speculation of a "saffron revolution," and China caught between a policy of noninterference and brutal crackdown on its borders that could turn into a public relations disaster, there are stories at the micro-political level that deserve to be highlighted for the inspiration they might offer.

First, the role that technology has played in both mobilizing and broadcasting this information to the rest of the world through cell phones and the internet. News reports abound on the process of gathering reports in Myanmar as much as the actual reports of the brutal crackdowns by the military junta. The Democratic Voice of Burma has been praised for its role at the helm of collecting, hosting, and distributing information from the myriad of reports electronically smuggled out of the country. Despite the internet crackdown which The New York Times The Lede is reporting on, information is still apears to be making its way through to blogs like Global Voices and the Cbox aggregator of on-the-ground reports.

Just like the protests against a chemical plant organized by text messages in China a few months ago, this is not the story of technological triumphalism, but rather, of little victories that are applying pressures and compelling governments and international actors to move in certain, sometimes constructive ways.

The second story that needs be told (and I hope gets reported on more) is the bonds of solidarity formed between the monks and local residents. The lead editorial of the Asahi Shimbun reads:

Sharp increases in the prices of gasoline and other items on Aug. 15 sparked the demonstrations. The price hikes caused bus fares and other fees to soar, hitting the pocketbooks of ordinary citizens. Monks who rely on alms stood up in protest on behalf of the citizens. (...)
In Myanmar, it is customary for men to enter the priesthood at least once during their lifetime. As writer Michio Takeyama (1903-1984) described in his novel "Biruma no Tategoto" (The Harp of Burma), Buddhism is the spiritual mainstay of the people. The fact that monks, who distance themselves from mundane affairs, stood up in protest shows just how precarious everyday civilian life has become.

In return, DVB is reporting that local residents of all religions have been defending Bhuddist monks and thwarting attacks on monasteries, which have been targeted by the military:

In Rangoon, troops encountered resistance from local residents as they approached Sasana Alin Yaung, Sanana Wuntha and Min Nanda monasteries in Daw Pon and Tharkayta townships.
At Min Nanda monastery, which backs on to Pazuntaung creek, troops tried to approach from both land and water but retreated when they saw the strength of local resistance.

"There were not only Buddhist people but also Muslims, Christians and Hindus defending the monasteries," said a resident of Tharkayta township.

A similar story has been played out in other townships in Burma, as residents take action to resist government raids on monasteries.

Despite the much ballyhooed cedar, rose, and orange revolutions that turned out to be far more complex power struggles rather than purely democratic revolutions, there appears to be something qualitatively different about what is happening in Myanmar right now -- a much more organic galvanization of the population -- though I think we lack sufficient information to substantiate it. Nevertheless, the accounts above should provide sufficient cause to hope that a new social contract will arise out the battle unfolding in the country.

--Sameer Lalwani

_____________________________________

http://www.newsdeskspecial.co.uk/burma/

UN envoy will stay until junta leaders talk

Mystery surrounds the generals’ absence from yesterday’s talks
Ibrahim Gambari, UN special envoy, was due to make a second attempt today to meet Burma's two top junta generals, Than Shwe and his deputy, Maung Aye, who avoided a meeting yesterday in their remote, sealed-off capital, Naypyidaw, on Sunday. No reason was given for their absence, writes Edward Loxton.

"Than Shwe and Maung Aye have been accused of snubbing Gambari, the United Nations and the world community, but it could be more complicated than that," said one prominent exile leader, who requested anonymity.

Mystery surrounds the generals’ absence from yesterday’s talks, writes edward loxton
Ibrahim Gambari, UN special envoy, was due to make a second attempt today to meet Burma's two top junta generals, Than Shwe and his deputy, Maung Aye, who avoided a meeting yesterday in their remote, sealed-off capital, Naypyidaw, on Sunday. No reason was given for their absence.

"Than Shwe and Maung Aye have been accused of snubbing Gambari, the United Nations and the world community, but it could be more complicated than that," said one prominent exile leader, who requested anonymity.

"Look at it this way: if there is disagreement between Than Shwe and Maung Aye over how to handle the crisis, the appearance of one or the other at a vital meeting with Gambari would send important signals.

"If Than Shwe appears alone, Maung Aye is out of the picture and Burma descends into deeper disorder and even greater isolation. If Maung Aye appears alone, Than Shwe has been deposed and a newer, more pragmatic policy could emerge."

The UN has indicated that Gambari will insist on staying in Burma until he has seen the two men. He met opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi at a government guesthouse in Rangoon on Sunday, but no details have emerged of their 90-minute encounter.

Reports hardened today that the army's divisional commanders of Rangoon and Mandalay have been sacked because of their opposition to the use of force on anti-government protesters, particularly monks.

"There's clearly dissatisfaction at the effect the bloodshed will have on Burma's image," said the exile leader. "We are hoping that the dissatisfaction will spread through army ranks and lead to the overthrow of Than Shwe."

Rangoon and other cities were relatively quiet this morning. Thousands of troops were deployed around most monasteries, where monks were virtually being held prisoner.

Burma is closed to foreign reporters. Edward Loxton is reporting for The First Post from Chiang Mai in neighbouring Thailand.

_____________________________________

http://www.newsdeskspecial.co.uk/burma/

Junta ‘shows disdain for international opinion’; resident talks of bloodbath in Rangoon
Burma’s two junta leaders, General Than Shwe and his deputy, General Maung Aye, both snubbed UN special envoy Ibrahim Gambari when he flew to their sealed-off capital, Naypyidaw, today for talks to solve the crisis now shaking the country, writes Edward Loxton from Thailand.Observers said the absence of the two leaders from talks Gambari held with lower-ranking military officers did not necessarily represent evidence of a split in the regime. “It’s a snub,” said Burma expert Bertil Lintner, author of several books on the country. “The regime is showing its utter disdain for international opinion.”

Burma’s two junta leaders, General Than Shwe and his deputy, General Maung Aye, both snubbed UN special envoy Ibrahim Gambari when he flew to their sealed-off capital, Naypyidaw, today for talks to solve the crisis now shaking the country, writes Edward Loxton from Thailand.Observers said the absence of the two leaders from talks Gambari held with lower-ranking military officers did not necessarily represent evidence of a split in the regime. “It’s a snub,” said Burma expert Bertil Lintner, author of several books on the country. “The regime is showing its utter disdain for international opinion.”

Gambari also met in Rangoon with opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi, who was taken from her home, where she has spent a total of 11 years under house arrest, to a government guesthouse for the encounter. No details emerged on their talks.Meanwhile, a Burmese businesswoman back in Thailand from a visit to her parents in Mandalay, said it was rumoured that two key generals, including Mandalay’s commander, Kin Zaw, and a Rangoon divisional commander, Hla Htay Oo, had been relieved of their duties. Both were said to have opposed the use of force against monks.In continuing raids on the country’s Bhuddist monks, troops stormed several waterside monasteries from naval vessels patrolling the Rangoon River. “The violence and the looting is on a dreadful scale,” said one resident. “Troops are breaking their way in and lashing out indiscriminately. It’s a bloodbath. When is the world going to act to stop it?”

_____________________________________

India's Burma Silence

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1666859,00.html

We expect China to go easy on thuggish dictatorships such as Burma's because China is a dictatorship itself. But what about Asia's other rising power India, the world's biggest democracy? Surely Delhi has joined the rest of the world in condemning Burma's violent crackdown on anti-government protesters over the past few days.

Well, no. Despite pressure from Europe and the U.S. for India to use its influence with Burma to help end the bloodshed, Delhi has taken a softly, softly approach to the current crisis for the same reasons China has: potential trade with and influence over the energy-rich Southeast Asian nation. "We are concerned at the situation in Myanmar and are monitoring it closely. It is our hope that all sides will resolve their issues peacefully through dialogue," said External Affairs Minister Pranab Mukherjee in the single short public statement he has made on the subject so far. "As a close and friendly neighbor, India hopes to see a peaceful, stable and prosperous Myanmar, where all sections of the people will be included in a broad-based process of national reconciliation and political reform. Myanmar's process of national reconciliation initiated by the authorities should be expedited."

That's a long way from the days when India backed the pro-democracy movement of Aung San Suu Kyi, the celebrated opposition leader who, in 1993, Delhi awarded the prestigious Jawaharlal Nehru Award. Within years, India had begun wooing Burma's junta, a relationship publicly cemented when strongman Than Shwe visited India in 2004.

Delhi's strategy is threefold. Its initial overtures to Burma's military leaders came as India faced a growing insurgency in its northeast. Many of the rebel groups in that region are based and train across the border in Burma. As India has grown friendlier with Burma's generals the two countries have worked together — with some limited success — on eradicating the northeastern insurgents.

Like China, power-hungry India is also keen on exploiting Burma's huge oil and gas resources. This month it signed a production deal for three deep-water exploration blocks off the Rakhine coast. It is also searching for gas in two other blocks. Access to Burma's resources will help boost India's power supplies but it is important for geopolitical reasons as well. The new production deal comes only months after Beijing beat Delhi on securing a deal to build a pipeline through to Burma's gas fields. The race for resources has helped make Burma the frontline in a larger struggle for influence in Southeast Asia. The threat of unfettered Chinese influence in Burma is one of Delhi's main ripostes when western allies question India's ties with Rangoon.

Will such a stance hurt India's democratic credentials? India's former Defense Minister George Fernandez, a longtime supporter of Burmese democracy activists, thinks so, calling such quiet diplomacy "disgusting." "This government is not concerned with what is happening in its own neighborhood," he says. In one of the few Indian newspaper opinion pieces to question India's stance Karan Thapar asked in the Hindustan Times last week whether a "Cat got our tongue?" "Indian democracy has shrunk because of its unwillingness to speak out," he wrote.

But don't expect to hear Delhi start shouting any time soon. "We have already reacted with a statement and that's all we have to say," an Indian Ministry of External Affairs spokesman told TIME two days after his minister's only four sentences on the crisis. "We are monitoring the situation and if the situation develops we will act appropriately. But I can't get as to when."

_____________________________________

_____________________________________

_____________________________________

I could kill George Bush

I could Kill George Bush
these are the letters in Dallas News, not my words.

Monday, July 16, 2007

Dear Bob and Sharon
Dallas Morning News

Thanks for publishing my letter, although you have taken a few phrases out, the essence is still there. The original is appended below.

I am writing an op-ed honoring the likes of Cindy Sheehan, Betty Williams, Bill Moyers, Keith Olberman, Jodi Williams and a countless other hero's of America (600 Words) who are responsible for sustaining our democracy, would you publish it?

Your paper and my voice would not have been around, if it was not for these protestors, criticizers and agitators challenging the fascism that was creeping and eating away our democracy. I am ashamed of our journalists, every congressman except Murtha and every Senator except Obama who have never questioned our admin or demanded proof and instead happily swallowed what was dished out to them, shame on them for toeing the government line and endangering the freedom of our nation.

The two most emotional events for me in the last decade were: 1) Watching Nelson Mandela released from the Prison and 2) watching the news on midnight of Tuesday, November 6, 2006, when our nation got liberated from the fascists. I have smiled and cried on those two occasions, because freedom is the most cherished value to me, that's what makes each one of us who we are, the 7 billion unique beings as God has chosen us to be.

I did get a few hate calls this morning and several uplifting one's as well. Hate calls do energize me, as we have to do more work to bring light in place of ignorance, and God bless all those who are willing to stand up and speak up for America and its values.

God bless America

Mike Ghouse
A Moderate Republican

Letters: 'I could kill george bush'

08:50 AM CDT on Monday, July 16, 2007
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/opinion/letters/stories/DN-monartletters_0716edi.ART.State.Edition1.436dfd0.html

Americans owe freedom to those who speak up

Re: "Speaker sorry for 'kill Bush' line – Nobel winner's remarks at Dallas peace conference stir up firestorm," Friday news story.

A greater truth has emerged from Betty Williams' words: The most patriotic among us are the ones who keep governments on their toes.

Had it not been for those Americans who opposed the war and criticized the administration, we would have been in deep trouble and would have lost all the respect we have earned over the years as a kind, generous and caring nation. After all, our democracy is the beacon of hope for mankind, and it is these criticizers who have kept the democracy alive.

All those who have pursued the path of challenging the government ought to be honored as the most patriotic Americans, for their relentless battle to keep our democracy alive. What is democracy without opposition?

Mike Ghouse, Carrollton
-------------------------

Betty Williams joins ignoble Nobel recipients

It would be difficult to find words that could discredit the status of a Nobel Peace laureate more than Betty Williams' own or the actual list of the prize's recipients.

Ms. Williams shares her award with such notables as Yasser Arafat, former President Jimmy Carter, Kofi Annan and the United Nations. Maybe the Nobel selection committee could make a posthumous bestowal on Neville Chamberlain.

Name in the Paper, Richardson
______________________

Sadly, speakers veer off topic into Bush-bashing

As a delegate to the International Women's Peace Conference, I was appalled that the keynote speakers turned their speeches into more than talk of peace but into Bush-bashing, such as, "Right now, I could kill George Bush," words spoken by Nobel Peace Prize winner Betty Williams.

I left in disappointment and disgust after the third night. Cindy Sheehan, where were you?

Name in the Paper, Dallas
__________________

Betty Williams and the emergence of a greater truth.

Obviously the leading paragraph in Dallas news “she came all the way from Ireland to kill George Bush” was very misleading. The tone of that paragraph was to sensationalize the report and not present the essence of her speech. I am disappointed in the manner in which it was reported.

There is a greater truth that has emerged from this incident – The most patriotic among us are the one’s who keep the governments on their toes, if not the pied piper would have lead us all into a disaster zone. Had it not been for those Americans, who opposed the war and criticized the administration, we would have been in deep trouble and would have lost all the respect we have earned over the years as a kind, generous and caring nation. After all our democracy is the beacon of hope for mankind, and it is these criticizers who have kept the democracy alive.

All those who have pursued the path of challenging the government ought to be honored as the most patriotic Americans for the year, for their relentless battle to keep our democracy alive. What is democracy without opposition? The freedom that you and I have is owed to the people who speak up.

Mike Ghouse
http://www.mikeghouseforamerica.blogspot.com/
http://www.mikeghouse.net/

Anti Islam Summit

ANTI-ISLAM SUMMIT

Shame on CNN - Shame on Beck

by Mike Ghouse

DALLAS - As a Muslim fighting for reform within our Muslim world, I watchedthe Secular Islam Summit, aired earlier this week on CNN Headline News'Glenn Beck show, with great anticipation. I believe in religious pluralismand the separation of mosque and state. I know Muslims need to speak upagainst Islamic extremism.

But that's not what we got with the "Secular Islam Summit," held atthe Hilton Hotel in St. Petersburg, Florida. The summit was supposed to beabout Islam, yet there was hardly a Muslim at the podium. With the exceptionof two panelists - Hassan Mahmud, director of sharia law at the MuslimCanadian Congress and author Irshad Manji who believes the Qur'an is thebasis for being a Muslim - the summit was filled with Islam bashers, some ofthem ex-Muslims. The event should have been called the Anti-Islam Summit.It's a shame CNN and Beck got suckered into giving so much air time to thisfraudulent gathering of Islam bashers.

The summit was just an attempt by extremists of another persuasion -hatred to Islam - who want to destroy Islam. Whether it was former Muslim"Ibn Warraq" with his book title, "Why I am Not a Muslim," or BanafshehZand-Bonazzi, a political and human rights activist, the theme was the same:They want one-fifth of humanity to disappear. At this "landmark SecularIslam Summit," there were no "moderate" Muslims.

The intent of the conference was bad from the start. Due to thisfact, mainstream Muslims, including progressive Muslims, chose not toparticipate in the conference. Days before the summit, I talked with leadersof groups challenging conservative interpretations of Islam, includingRadwan Masmoudi, president of Islam for Democracy, an organization based inWashington, D.C. We decided not to attend the meeting. None of us wanted tobecome tools in the hands of the anti-Islam extremists. The need to berepresented in the summit became less important than speaking out againstthe intent of the summit, which was Islam bashing.

In explaining his decision, Masmoudi told me, "The need for a new,progressive and modern interpretation of Islam for the 21st century is realand undeniable, as is the need for real reforms and democratization inMuslim societies. However, for that reinterpretation and reform to occur,the effort must be led by Muslims who are proud of their heritage, religionand culture and who are credible within their community. The people whoattended the 'Secular Islam Conference' are neither, and that is why thisconference was a complete waste of time and money, except perhaps to providesome anti-Islamic voices a podium from which to speak."

The speakers present were Islam haters such as Wafa Sultan, aSyrian-American who achieved notoriety when she slammed Islam on Al-Jazeeralast year. The Syrian-American Sultan was filled with rage and hatred forMuslims and Islam, even going so far as to declare, "You cannot be Americanand Muslim at the same time," an obviously false notion in a nation where aMuslim now sits in Congress.

If the intent was honest, at least half of the speakers would havebeen Muslims. The integrity of the organizers and the intent of the summitare questionable, and, indeed, downright dishonest. In its coverage, the St.Petersburg Times appropriately gave time to those who looked at the meetingwith a skeptical eye, noting that Georgetown University scholar YvonneHaddad said, "Legitimate scholars are horrified by the lineup. The speakersare extreme in their views. Basically, it's everyone known for damningIslam."

In contrast, CNN's Beck paraded these personalities on TV as if they carriedweight in the Muslim world. CNN and Beck were had. In an hour-long report,Beck featured the supposed dangers the organizers faced. A woman who calledherself "Raquel Saraswati" claimed she was a practicing Muslim and expressedfears about being No. 4 on a list of Muslims ashamed of being a Muslimbecause she used to model.

As Ahmed Bedier, an official of the Council on American IslamicRelations in Florida, said: These were folks who are "cashing and bashing."I have differences with CAIR on some points, but he was in tune with mostMuslims opinion about the summit.

Beck brought Manda Zand Ervin, founder and president of Alliance ofIranian Women, a group which describes itself as a human rightsorganization, on camera, and she went so far as to say that Muslims want aglobal caliphate in which we will throw Christians and Jews into the sea.I'm a Muslim. I do not want a global caliphate. And I absolutely do not wantto throw Christians and Jews into the sea. Beck failed to ask her toughquestions to find about the not so hidden agenda that appears to motivateher and so many others at this supposed Muslim gathering: fear mongering.

Shame on CNN.

Shame on Beck.

Mike Ghouse is a home builder and activist based in Dallas. He is presidentof the Foundation for Pluralism and the World Muslim Congress, organizationsdedicated to peaceful co-existence. He can be reached atMikeGhouse@gmail.com.

###

Dealing with Extremists

Dealing with the Extremists

By Mike Ghouse

How do you deal with extremists? You have to have to have dynamite confidence. The first lesson I learned in my childhood was dealing with the Monkeys, the second one was on Tim Russet’s “Meet the press” program called “Interfaith in America” which is available at www.FoundationforPluralism.com.

In the program, a Catholic Nun says that the reason people are wooed towards neo-cons is because they give confidence. When there is fear, people do not really care about logic or reason; they fall for hope from any given source.

There is a famous story I've heard, where a boat load of people got caught in a rough patch in the middle of the ocean. Giant waves rocked the boat and the passengers feared for their lives. One man makes an attempt to get up, when his friend pulls him down and asks what he was doing, he says, he is going to pray. The friend laughs at him, because he was never a sincere person nor he practiced religion. The man stands up any way and loudly asks people to pray with him, he invokes (Jesus, Allah, Ganesha or.... fill in your own affiliation) God and starts asking God to help them steer through the storm. People were in awe and joined in the prayers with him. He promises safety to every one. About an hour later, the storm calms down and they safely reach the coast. As the man got out, passengers anxiously thanked him and fell on his feet (tradition) and admired him for his holiness.

The friend pulls him over and points that the promises made were false, how would you have made them, what if the boat had capsized? The man stares at his friend blankly and says “There would not have been any one to question me then".

There was no one to know, how many boats have sunk? Only those that survive can tell the story. The neo cons, Islamofascists, Hindutva are precisely that. Create the element of fear and act with confidence.

This element of confidence has not germinated in most of the moderates, they cannot fathom that hope is crucial to survival. They will laugh at themselves if they said anything silly like that man in the boat or our President.

The neo-cons use this formula every day. Our President talked about the dangers of terrorism with confidence, the neo-cons manufactured the data with ease and our gullible Congresspersons and the Senators bought the idea without even questioning it. When our President said “they hate us for our freedom” every one bought it because 9/11 was a proof that blinded our ability to think clearly. They did not ask, not a single Journalist ever asked for proof or counter “ Sir, is it our freedom or the administration’s policy that they hate?” Then our Senators and Congresspersons lost the guts to say no to invading Iraq, our President had the podium and the frightened public was ready to pray in the boat. No one dared question for the fear of being labeled un-patriotic. Thanks God for November 6th 2006. Americans are free again. It is our duty to speak up when we are wrong, we could have saved 3000 of our sons and daughters and 650,000 Iraqis and destruction in Lebanon. Our patriotism hinges on our duty to prevent our nation from going on the wrong road. Speaking up the truth, however harsh it is, is Patriotism.

“Newt Gingrich now admits that he was carrying on with another woman at the same time he was leading impeachment proceedings against Bill Clinton -- proceedings based on the president's actions during an investigation born out of his carrying on with another woman.” - AOL News. This is the confidence that all the neo-cons portray, they knew there were no WMD and many other things, still they had the gall to tell it like a fact. Of course, the moderates shy away from telling bold face lies, because, they know the truth triumphs at the end.

Now, to get back to the monkeys; the very first lesson I learned in life about dealing with extremists was dealing with the Monkeys. The town I grew up was blessed with a lot of Monkeys, they were every where. As kids whenever we stopped at the fruit or snack shop and picked up some little morsel to eat, without fail, a monkey would come down and snatch the food right out of our hands and run. When chased, they would stop and stare at you and growl. That is the defining moment in that relationship; getting scared or scaring off. Over the years, I have watched it over and over again – There will be a deadly pause for a few seconds, if you stand firmly, without flinching the eyelids, the Monkey will walk away. However, the one who flinches first loses. Monkeys have strong antennas to recognize the fear in you, the thought of taking a step backwards or flinching gives the signal to the monkey that he rules.

Humans are no different, I have experimented with this work several times, and one was standing face to face with a 6.3” 250 pound guy who threatened to thrash me. I was only 5.8, and at that time 150 pounds. He backed off. I am sure one of these days some one will punch me hard.

As a moderate, when we talk about the peaceful co-existence, or stretching a hand to the extreme conservatives, I get jumped on by the other extreme. I have a choice of saying to myself “Why do I need to be in this” and simply not deal with it or I have to ask myself, if I believed in what I opine, what is my commitment to it?

I am a big fan of Tom Hopkins, the motivational trainer, who says, look at the numbers, if you have a goal of helping one in ten people, and if the first one says no to you, thank him to let you climb the first step, 9 more to go. If you lose at the first step, and fail yourselves, only you have to blame yourselves.

When you are set out to do good things, and are held back by the ultra conservatives, think about this – only 2 or 3 or 4 are opposing, let’s check if we are wrong, if we are not, thank them for caution and march forward with confidence to do what you have committed to do. As long as your leadership is not for a personal gain, you will succeed.

And my life time favorite quote that has inspired me to speak about doing things whole heartedly is as follows. “Until one is committed, there is hesitancy... Concerning all acts of initiative (and creation), there is one elementary truth the ignorance of which kills countless ideas and splendid plans: the moment one definitely commits oneself, then Providence moves too. All sorts of things occur to help one that would never otherwise have occurred.… Whatever you can do or dream that you can do, begin it. Boldness has genius, power, and magic in it. Begin it now." – Goethe”.

Dealing with extremists, I have found that confidence is the key. Like the man in the boat or the one facing the monkey. Whoever is committed stays the course.

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, discussing interfaith, political and civic issues. He has appeared on the local affiliates of CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, PBS and FOX and has been written up in the news papers. He founded the World Muslim Congress with a simple theme “good for Muslims and good for the world." The organization is driven by Qur'aan, Al-Hujurat, and Surah 49:13: O mankind! We have created you male and female, and have made you nations and tribes that ye may know one another. The noblest of you, in sight of Allah, is the best in conduct. Allah Knows and is Aware. Mike believes that if people can learn to accept and respect the God given uniqueness of each one of the 7 billion of us, then conflicts fade and solutions emerge. His articles can be found at http://www.foundationforpluralism.com/ , www.MikeGhouse.net and http://mikeghouse.blogspot.com/ and he can be reached at MikeGhouse@gmail.com

The Fall of Fascism

The Fall of Fascism
Mike Ghouse Feb 15, 2007

Jimmy Carter is condemned unanimously by all the Jewishorganizations, when he used the word Aparthied to describe Israel'spolicies. I have not seen any dissenting voice from the Jewishcommunity yet, those who do, they get hounded immediatly. After all it isa discussion. I must congratulate the Jewish group in UK to dispelthis myth of monolithic ascribe to the Jewish community.

The Jewish community ought to learn from India, our PM related thetreatement of our downtrodden to apartheid. I have not heard suchcondemnations as we have heard about Jimmy Carter. Even the Fox andCNN idiots did not have the guts to question them.

Islam's monolithic appearance got shook up after 9/11. Dissentingvoices were brutally suppresed, as it is practiced in the Jewishcommunity. Fatwa carried the weight and frightened the dissenters.They threatened Rushdie and Nasreen and harassed Nomani, Wadud, Manjiand a few others. Today, the fascits have lost the steam and themoderate normal common Muslims are gaining the ground.

No Muslim is afraid of questioning anything about Qur'aan, theprophet (pbuh), the hadith and the Sharia. At least it is happeningin all the democracies, it is yet to happen in Iran, Afghanistan andSaudi Arabia, the bastions of literalism and centers of intolerance.It is not the people, it is sadly their governments, given thefreedom, most people are moderates.

Gujarati Hindus are not a monolothic group either, but the loud onesare intolerant to hear one single criticism of Modi. You will beharassed endlessly, you will be even called un-patriotic. In ademocracy like India, you cannot show certain movies, such is thepower of fascism there, or rather fear of fascim is prevalent. Themajority of Gujarati's are caring people like every other group andare moderates. However, they are scared to criticize.

We may want to label this decade - but I think we can comfortably saythat it is "the decade of quick rise and fall of fascism" in manynations but at least in India, Israel, United States, Iraq, Iran,Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan.

India was getting there, but thanks to the Indians, they did not putup with the fascist government and they got rid of them. With theunprecedented growth we are experiencing, we don't need people whosefocus is dividing India up and stirring trouble where there was none.I trust my people, they will keep the lid on the fascists.

Israel was getting to be a virtual fascist nation, it is also losingthe ground now. Nov 7th has brought our Unilateral king to groundrealities in the United States and he will be out soon. Saddam is gone, Talibans are going to be gone, Ahmedinejad will be voted out by 2008 that leaves Saudi Arabia - where even today the governmenteither tolerates fatwas or encourages them from the back. Don't knowwhen they will fall, but they will.

Fascim is a dangerous virus, we need to prepare the society to beimmune to it. Any time, any one frightens us with the threat of a manufactured enemy, we need to guard ourselves, a fascits leader will be taking birth.

Yes, Muslims should do their part, the engine was jump started on 9/11and we have a long way to go, but go, we will. The ride will not be a smooth one, at least until it reaches the freeway, that is about 10 years away.

I thank the authors of the following two pieces " British Jews take on Israeli Lobby" and " No Muslim Peril". I urge you to read them.

MikeGhouse
www.WorldMuslimCongress.com
www.FoundationforPluralism.com

British Jews take on Israeli lobby
http://www.hindu.com/2007/02/13/stories/2007021301591000.htm
Hasan Suroor

Their campaign is meant to challenge the claim of the Israeli state and its proxy institutions abroad to represent the opinion of all Jews, especially on the Palestinian issue.

SOME OF the leading British Jewish intellectuals such as Nobel Laureate Harold Pinter, Marxist thinker Eric Hobsbawm, and film-maker Mike Leigh have come together on a common platform with a cross-section of others from the community to start a debate on free speech. This, they hope, will encourage independent voices in other communities also to stand up against attempts to gag them in the name of religious, ethnic, and national "solidarity."

In what has been billed as a "unilateral declaration of independence" from the Jewish Establishment, their campaign is meant to challenge the claim of the Israeli state and its proxy institutions abroad to represent the opinion of all Jews, especially on the Palestinian issue. More significantly, it questions the idea that any criticism of Israel is, ipso facto, an attack on the Jewish people and therefore amounts to anti-semitism.

It is this aspect of the campaign, launched by the newly created Independent Jewish Voices (IJV) last week, that has wider resonance. No doubt, Jewish sensitivities around race identity and nationhood are particularly acute because of the history of their persecution but it is not something unique to Jews. We have all met Muslims who see any criticism of their community as an attack on Islam itself; Hindus who regard critics of Hindutva as anti-Hindu; and Sikhs who are quick to dub the slightest criticism of Sikh practices an insult to their faith.

Novelist and writer Lisa Appignanesi, joining the IJV debate on The Guardian's Comment is Free website, makes an interesting point saying that many of the coordinated attempts to silence public expression have come from faith or immigrant groups and have been directed against their own people. "It was young Muslims who, back in 1989, burned Salman Rushdie's The Satanic Verses. It was Sikh rioters and a critical community who managed to close Gurpreet Bhatti's play Behzti, because the rape she depicted of a girl by an elder was considered shaming. The filming of Monica Ali's Brick Lane had to move to a secret location after protests from a small group of local Bangladeshis. Groups — who may in some way feel vulnerable — confound dissent with disloyalty," she says.

Given the long and robust tradition of argument and debate among Jews, she feels sad that they too should have been "infected" by the same "spirit of intolerance, the same attempt at silencing dissenting views" as the more vulnerable immigrant groups.

What the IJV has set out to challenge is the attempt to force people into medieval-style tribal loyalties by calling them disloyal and unpatriotic if they don't sing from the same sheet. For example, if an Indian is not seen cheering the current hype over India's "great" future his nationalistic credentials become immediately suspect; a Pakistani must share the Establishment view on Kashmir or be open to the charge of sleeping with the enemy; and in George W. Bush's America the stark choice is: either you are with "us" or with the enemies of America.

Indeed, the provocation that led to the formation of IJV happened on American soil when an influential Jewish lobby, which wants all Jews to be unquestioningly loyal to the Israeli state and its policies, picked a fight with those who insist that they have a democratic right to make legitimate criticism of the Israeli Government's policies without inviting the charge of "disloyalty." The trouble started a few weeks ago when the American Jewish Committee (AJC), one of America's oldest and most powerful Jewish advocacy groups, published an article calling upon the community to "confront" Jews who, according to it, were engaged in attacking Zionism and the Jewish state. It also attacked playwright Tony Kushner and the U.S.-based British historian Tony Judt — both prominent liberal Jews — denouncing their criticism of Israel as "anti-semitic." Professor Judt hit back with an interview in The New York Times accusing AJC of trying to stifle dissenting views about Israel. "The link between anti-Zionism and anti-semitism is newly created," he said calling it a "political defence of Israeli policy."

Last October, a lecture Professor Judt was to give at the Polish consulate in New York was suddenly cancelled under pressure from AJC and other Jewish lobby groups protesting against an article in which he called for the creation of a secular bi-national state of Jews and Palestinians. The Polish consul general at the time acknowledged receiving telephone calls from hardline Jewish lobby groups. "The phone calls were very elegant but may be interpreted as exercising a delicate pressure," said Krzysztof Kasprzyk.
In Britain, the Institute of Jewish Policy Research, an independent think-tank, was embroiled in a controversy when a number of its high-profile members resigned protesting the remarks of its director Tony Lerman reportedly questioning the viability of Israel and arguing for a Jewish-Arab state. The comment, made long before he joined the institute, was seen as anti-semitic and tantamount to proposing the "suicide of the state of Israel."
It was against this background that IJV was launched. In its manifesto published, the group says that its aim is to promote alternative Jewish voices particularly in respect of the "grave situation in the Middle East which threatens the future of both Israelis and Palestinians as well as the stability of the whole region."

The group, comprising Jews from diverse backgrounds and political affiliations, is united by its members' "strong commitment to social justice and universal human rights." It is also defined by what a prominent member of the group called its "abhorrence" of a "culture of vilification" in which anyone who does not support the official Israeli policies is denounced as a "traitor" or a "self-hating Jew."

The IJV sees itself as a response to a climate in which many Jews feel frightened to speak openly about Israel's approach to the Palestinian issue for fear of being vilified by Jewish organisations such as the Board of Deputies of British Jews, whose aim ostensibly is to promote the interests of British Jews but which, its critics say, has effectively become a mouthpiece for the Israeli government.

"People are anxious about contravening an unwritten law on what you can and cannot discuss, may or may not assert. It is a climate that raises fundamental questions: about freedom of expression, Jewish identity, representation, and the part that concerned Jews in Britain can play in assisting Israelis and Palestinians to find their way to a better future," wrote Brian Klug, a Jewish Oxford academic and an IJV activist, in The Guardian.

Not monolithic

Apart from seeking to uphold the right of individual Jews to speak openly about Israeli actions, IJV campaigners want to highlight that Jews are not a monolithic entity with a collective worldview. Equally importantly, they want to expose the "fallacy" of Israeli claims that the worldwide Jewish community supports all its policies whether in relation to the Palestinian territories or elsewhere. Many Jews in Britain and elsewhere — indeed including Israel — were angry when during the Israel-Lebanon crisis last summer, Israel's Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said: "I believe that this is a war that is fought by all the Jews."

They questioned Mr. Olmert's claim saying it was misleading and part of Israeli claim to represent Jews all over the world. "This is a fallacy; and moreover a dangerous one, since it tars all Jews with the same brush. Yet this misconception is reinforced here (in Britain) by those who, claiming to speak for British Jews collectively or allowing that impression to go unchallenged, only ever reflect one position on the Middle East," said Professor Klug.

The view is echoed in the IJV manifesto, which says that the group believes that the broad spectrum of opinion among British Jews is not reflected by those institutions that claim authority to represent the Jewish community as a whole. "We further believe that individuals and groups within all communities should feel free to express their views on any issue of public concern without incurring accusations of disloyalty," it says.

A five-point charter, which will guide the group, stresses that human rights are universal and indivisible, and the rights of Palestinians living in occupied territories are as important as those of Israelis. This principle, it points out is "contradicted" when those who claim to speak on behalf of Jews in Britain and elsewhere consistently put support for the policies of an occupying power above the human rights of an occupied people. The IJV declares support for the Palestinian struggle and opposes any attempt by Israel to impose its own solutions on the Palestinians.

However, the significance of such an initiative lies not so much in the position it takes on individual issues but in its attempt to reclaim the great Jewish intellectual tradition from Israeli propagandists and lobbyists. Britain's Jews have set an example. Will Muslims care to follow?


No Muslim Peril
by Charley Reese by Charley Reese

Let's suppose that I interviewed David Duke, the Louisiana politician who rails against what he calls Jewish supremacy, and also interviewed the lunatic preacher who disrupted the funerals of American servicemen with his message of killing all the gays.

And let's suppose I presented these men's views as typical of American Christian thought.
You'd say, and rightly so, that these men are not representative of mainstream Christianity, much less mainstream America. Well, the same thing applies to Islam. There are 1.2 billion Muslims in the world. Broadcasting or reporting the words of a few extremists does not reflect mainstream Muslim thought.

Yellow journalism is never all right, but as long as it's confined to celebrities and other nonimportant matters, it is at least not too harmful. But yellow journalism applied to national security and to foreign affairs should be considered unacceptable.

A number of irresponsible journalists and broadcasters, egged on by the crazy neocons, are trying to duplicate the mass fear of foreigners that characterized earlier times in America when demagogues spoke of the "yellow peril." Now demagogues speak of the "jihadi peril." And, as was inevitable, the demagoguery slips away from Muslim extremists and talks about Muslims and Islam as if there were no difference.

Yes, there are some Muslim extremists, just as there are some Christian extremists, Hindu extremists, Jewish extremists and so forth. Extremism is a personality disorder not confined to any one religion or political system. Anyone can become infected with it.

Islam has been around for more than 1,300 years. The overwhelming majority of Muslims are peaceful people, just like you and I, and they are not plotting to storm the citadels of the West. Muslim countries are full of universities, professors, poets, novelists, scientists and engineers. It was the Muslims who preserved the wisdom of the classical world and passed it on to the Europeans, thus making the Renaissance possible.

And there have been American Muslims since at least the late 1800s. Most of them so assimilated into American society that no one noticed them. They are as patriotic as any other American.

Most of the conflict in the Middle East – at least until we stirred the caldron in Iraq – is about secular matters, not religion. Hamas and Islamic Jihad oppose Israeli occupation of Palestine. Hezbollah opposes Israeli occupation of Lebanon. Even Osama bin Laden, if you bother to read what he says, opposes us on secular matters – support for Israel, the invasion of two Muslim countries and our massive military presence in the Persian Gulf.

The neocons would like to convince you that it is a war over religious matters so they won't have to address the real causes, which are our own bad policies in that part of the world.
You should know that the wealthy powers in this world wouldn't waste a dime on a religious conflict. It's control of the world's oil that interests them, and also the arms business. War to them is a profitable enterprise, especially since they and their children don't have to fight the wars.

These elite almost panicked when communism collapsed. How could they maintain power and make money without an enemy at the gate? Then bin Laden gave them exactly what they wanted with the attack on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Now they have an enemy so ill-defined, their "war on terror" can go on forever, provided they can keep the American public ignorant and ill-informed.
February 10, 2007

Charley Reese [ send him mail ] has been a journalist for 49 years.
© 2007 by King Features Syndicate, Inc