I consider India extremely important to America’s and the West’s future – as an ally. I care about what is going on in India. Thus when I read http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24138504-25837,00.html about the Indian court overturning a ban on Islamism last month, I was tempted to despair. They are as screwed up as we are over here. Such bans wouldn’t surprise me in such places as San Francisco, but India too?
And then I read that the Guardian writer Muzamil Jaleel was impressed by the latest Islamist activities in Kashmir. He calls the Islamists there “Unarmed Freedom Fighters.”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/aug/31/kashmir.india I read the article and almost smiled. A line from a book I read on Islamist tactics popped into my mind. If one tactic doesn’t work, try another. What, Islamism is to be permitted if they tailor their aggression to Ghandi-like tactics? I am not surprised the Islamists would try that. They are not stupid; which is more than I can say about the Guardian reporter – unless, of course, he supports Islamism – or maybe he is a “moderate” [cough, couch, hack, hack] who only supports peaceful Islamist takeovers.
I don’t know if Jaleel is right when he said that the only objection New Delhi had to the Islamists was there militancy, but if anyone in the Delhi government ever said that, he was being naïve. Islamists will be India’s enemy regardless of the tactic they use. Shall Delhi permit the Islamists to take over Kashmir just because they change their tactics?
Islamism is India’s enemy, just as they are America’s enemy. You do not give into them just because they change their tactics – although Jaleel’s article is sure to appeal to the modern day Liberal who thinks “deaths” trumps “principle.” They do not care about principles only how many people will die in the process. Delhi killed Islamists in clamping down on them, therefore Delhi is wrong. Baloney, Jaleel.
Lawrence Helm
No comments:
Post a Comment