archive: Barbarians at the gates
Barbarians at the gates
Rajeev Srinivasan
Rediff
July 12, 1999
Title: Barbarians at the gates
Author: Rajeev Srinivasan
Publication: Rediff
Date: July 12, 1999
American historian Will Durant says in The Story of Civilization: "...
civilization is a precious good, whose delicate complex and freedom
can at any moment be overthrown by barbarians invading from without
and multiplying from within."
And that is precisely where India is today -- threatened by barbarians
from without and by barbarians from within. In this column I shall
look at the external threats; in a companion column I shall consider
the internal threats.
It is instructive to compare India today with the Roman Empire --
soft, decadent, lulled into a false sense of security, the Romans were
helpless when disciplined, ruthless, uncivilized tribes such as the
Vandals, the Huns, the Goths and the Visigoths descended upon them,
destroying one of the most enduring and powerful civilizations of the
world in a few short decades.
Today, India faces similar dangers -- ruthless terrorists from
Pakistan and cunning, diabolical cold warriors from China. Both these
sets of monsters have demonstrated their capabilities amply before --
in Afghanistan and in Tibet, respectively. They are implacable enemies
who will understand only one thing -- force, ruthless savagery. Do
unto them as they do unto others.
The cruelty exhibited by the Pakistanis and their mercenaries is
shocking, but really not suprising. The brutal torture of Lt Saurav
Kalia and five of his men is a blot on humanity -- these Pakistanis
are war criminals, and should be treated as such. There is honour
among professional soldiers, and they treat each other, including the
captured enemy, with respect. And the Geneva Convention codifies this.
The torture and murder of these six men, and that of Squadron Leader
Ajay Ahuja, was done as a tactical manouver. It is hard for anyone to
believe that a professional soldier would descend to this level of
inhumanity -- therefore, it buttresses Pakistan's claim that the
intruders are not their regular armymen, but Islamic mercenaries.
In some ways, the butchery exhibited by the Pakistanis is a mere
reflection of what Semitic monsters have always done -- from Babur to
Hitler, from Timurlane to Pol Pot, from Vlad the Impaler to Mao. They
have used these terror tactics both because they were genuinely
bloodthirsty and also because it would weaken the resolve of their
enemies.
Pakistanis in particular have been brought up on a steady diet of lies
and propaganda. While undoubtedly there is distortion of history on
the Indian side as well -- for instance the inane worship of the Nehru
dynasty -- it is nothing compared to what happens to impressionable
Pakistani minds.
As has been amply discussed by many, Pakistan has only a negative
self-definition -- it is "not-India". Therefore, the impluse is to
reject, and in fact scorn, everything Indian. It is pathetic that
Pakistanis have to invent Arab ancestors for themselves. Ninetynine
per cent of them are the descendants of (forcibly) converted Indian
Buddhists and Hindus, but they all claim Arab ancestry. They do not
look to South Asia, but to West Asia for their role models and
mindsets. In other words, they are Arab wanna-bes. And Arabs disdain
them for this.
Despite the trauma of 1948 and 1965 and 1971, I used to have a
generally benign attitude towards Pakistanis until I began to
encounter them on the Internet, especially on newsgroups like
soc.culture.indian and net.nlang.indian in the old days.
I soon found out that the Pakistanis do not think of Hindus as
individuals. To them, we are the enemy; specifically, the despised and
disgusting enemy. I soon realized that when two Pakistanis fought with
each other on the net, to call the other party a Hindu was the
second-biggest insult they could think of. The worst insult -- of
course -- was to call the other guy a woman. Rhetorical question -- so
where does that leave Hindu women in their scheme of things?
After a few years of observing Pakistanis on the Internet, I find it
hard to get excited about people-to-people contact with them. I feel
no subcontinental solidarity with them -- I view them, collectively,
as brainwashed brutes. A Pakistani reader wrote to me that South
Indians are "infurrier" "ahoots" [sic], whatever that means. My
feelings precisely about them, too. I guess I "infurriated" this
person with my columns.
There are several reasons for this unreasoning Pakistani hatred of
Hindus. First, they are brought up to hate anybody who is not Muslim.
Second, there is a historical religious reason -- it is believed that
Islam prevailed over the old religion in Arabia that was rather
similar to Hinduism. In fact, it is suggested by some that the Ka'bah
itself was once a shrine to a male god and his daughter goddesses.
Third, historically, India was the prize Muslims almost had -- the
missing link in the giant Islamic arc from West Africa to Indonesia.
After having ruled much of India for many centuries, they are amazed
they were unable to convert all Indians to Islam. For they did manage
to overcome imperial Iran with its ancient civilization and remove all
traces of Zoroastrianism; ditto with Egypt and its ancient Pharaonic
religion.
Fourth, Pakistani propaganda has it that Muslims are severely
oppressed in India. A small news item recently evidently escaped
Pakistani attention -- the richest Indian in the world is now Azim
Premji, a Muslim from Kutch. He heads Wipro, he is worth $ 2.8 billion
and he did this all out of Bangalore, India. So much for the alleged
institutionalized discrimination against Muslims in India.
It is in their role as the self-appointed 'purest of the pure' that
Pakistan has been extorting money from Saudi Arabia, Libya, and other
wealthy Muslim nations. They have, in the name of the worldwide Muslim
ummah or brotherhood, stood by Pakistan in all its misadventures, for
example rubber-stamping a Pakistani resolution at the recent
Organization of Islamic Countries meeting.
I personally think this is a failure on the part of Indian Muslims.
After all, there are more Muslims in India than anywhere else except
Indonesia. They really have the wherewithal to become a power center
in Islamic affairs, developing a liberal Muslim ethic that can
co-exist with other religions and also be nationalistic. Furthermore,
the Shia-Sunni divide is less acrimonious in India than elsewhere, if
I am not mistaken. Indian Muslims should be leaders in the affairs of
Islam.
And the time for this is ripe. It appears, at long last, that almost
everyone is tiring of Pakistan's form of extreme, medieval, Taliban
narco-terrorist tactics. In two separate essays on July 9th, C Raja
Mohan writing in The Hindu and Saeed Naqvi writing in The Indian
Express suggested that Saudi Arabia and Morocco (a relatively liberal
Muslim nation) have shown signs of having had it with Pakistan's
belligerence, which, quite frankly, is giving their religion a bad
name.
Those who support fundamentalist movements are in danger of losing
control over them. Indira Gandhi realized this to her chagrin, and she
paid with her life. The Arabs, the Americans and the Chinese are now
beginning to realize that the Taliban and similar madmen that they
have supported via covert assistance to Pakistan are now becoming a
liability. These are loose cannon who owe no allegiance to anything
but their lunacy, which they claim is the true Islam.
Ironically, it looks as though people are now beginning to believe
what Pakistan has been claiming: "we have no control over these
militants". The Arabs, the Chinese, and the Americans are worried that
they have created a Frankenstein -- a set of uncontrollable automatons
armed with deadly weapons. Saudi Arabia is fearful of Osama bin Laden.
Chinese are apprehensive for Xinjiang. Americans worry about repeats
of the World Trade Center bombing and worse.
Muslims around the world need to rescue their religion from the
poisonous grip of the Pakistani army and its surrogates.
Now to take a look at my favourite country of all time, China. As
Francois Gautier says in his perceptive column, China is really the
villain of the piece. I have argued that they are essentially the
Nazis of our time, and that India has to fight them at every turn (see
my column The Danger from China). They are also the biggest
imperialists of our time -- although their empire is rather fragile,
and may collapse like the Soviet Empire.
When the Chinese recently met with Jaswant Singh and made some noises
about a 'strategic dialogue', India's 'progressives' could hardly
contain their joy. They forecast wonderful tidings -- about how we
will be One Big Happy Socialist Family all over again. Utter nonsense!
All we can expect from the Chinese is betrayal. India has to be
prepared for the worst sort of hypocrisy from them. George Fernandes
said they are India's No 1 threat; in fact, they are the No 1 enemy.
China has systematically 'contained' India, partly because they have
no respect for India. Apart from strategic considerations of keeping
in check their only potential rival in Asia, the Chinese are racists
too -- they think their yellow skins somehow make them superior to
Indians. Mao Tse-Tung despised Jawaharlal Nehru, but used him: Nehru
was the biggest campaigner for getting China into the United Nations.
And what did India get for her pains? 1962, of course.
Although I have noticed in the Indian media a tendency to equate the
Kargil affair with the surprise Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour,
("the day that will live in infamy"), I think this is an emotional
reaction. Kargil is a mere skirmish; besides the Pakistanis are
short-term thinkers. In 1962, the Chinese attack was much more of a
betrayal: and the long-term consequences are much worse.
The Chinese triumph has led to the creation of the Karakoram Highway,
the major conduit for the Sino-Islamic Axis and its covert arms
transfers, including Chinese nuclear and missile proliferation to
Pakistan. It is increasingly clear that Pakistan's arsenal of missiles
and nuclear bombs are not indigenous, but screwdriver-technology
assembly of tested Chinese components sometimes channelled through
proxy North Korea. As evidence, consider the North Korean ship,
currently in Indian custody, carrying missile parts to Pakistan.
1998 data India Pakistan China
Total armed forces, m 1.18 0.59 2.82
Air force 140,000 45,000 470,000
Nuclear tests 6 6 45
Estimated warheads 50-60 12-18 400
Defence spending 3.3% of GDP 5.8% of GDP 5.7% of GDP
Source: May 22, 1999 The Economist
I have received as number of queries from people commenting on my
theory of the Sino-Islamic Axis. It is not something I made up -- it
is quite obvious to the casual observer, and certainly to strategic
thinkers such as Samuel Huntington and Caspar Weinberger. Also, note
in the table above (data from The Economist magazine) that China
spends a significantly larger percentage of its GDP (which itself is
much larger than India's) on its armed forces. They are arming
themselves to the teeth, preparing for the big showdown with the West.
India is only a dress rehearsal.
In the context of the Sino-Islamic Axis, the storm troopers are
Pakistani regulars and Arab, Afghan and Sudanese mercenaries in the
garb of the Taliban or some such. The goal for China is their historic
empire -- which is generously defined as stretching from Southeast
Asia to the gates of Vienna (for that was the extent of the great
Mongol Empire of Genghiz Khan. Although Han Chinese are not Mongols;
this they consider a mere detail. In fact the Mongols of Inner
Mongolia are an oppressed minority being swamped demographically by
the prolifically breeding Hans).
The dream for Pakistan is an imaginary Greater Pakistan -- consisting
of ex-Soviet Central Asia, Kashmir, Xinjiang, Afghanistan. A
fundamentalist Islamic Empire, which will then presumably wage war
with the infidels of Europe. Or at the very least control the mineral
riches of Central Asia.
Now, therein lies the opportunity for India. I received some
interesting mail from reader Santosh in Italy. He suggests, following
in the footsteps of Chanakya, that it is profitable to create bheda,
or dissent, amongst the ranks of the enemy. For example, the idea of
Xinjiang (where the Chinese have put down insurrections by Uighurs
with a increasing savagery) becoming a bone of contention between
China and Pakistan would be great.
Well, India should do everything possible to incite the Uighurs. How
about information warfare -- printing and distributing leaflets in
Xinjiang exhorting Uighurs to join hands with Pakistanis to create the
Greater Pakistan? How about printing fake Chinese currency (that can
be traced back to Pakistan)? How about giving arms to the Uighurs
marked "Made in Pakistan"? The Chinese will doubtless take a dim view
of their pals taking their Kashmir tactics into China.
Incidentally, some Chinese Muslims have been found amongst the dead
intruders in Kashmir. This may partially explain why the Chinese did
not enthusiastically endorse the Pakistani cause recently despite a
desperate airdash by Nawaz Sharief. Of course, that is for public
consumption; privately, the Chinese, I am sure, are continuing to
supply logistical and information support to them.
Therefore, India's two biggest barbarians are Pakistan and China. If
India's ruling classes ever get themselves out of their woolly
Urdu-poetry-reciting benignness towards Pakistan, and away from the
pathetic Hindi-Chini-bhai-bhai nonsense (why wasn't that buried with
Nehru?), I do hope they will make some serious efforts to,
Chanakya-like, do something to contain the two. It is truly a matter
of life and death for India. Brutes deserve brutal responses.
Postscript and Errata. I was pleasantly surprised to receive several
hundred email messages from readers responding to my two previous
columns, Himalayan Blunder, and Kargil: The China Connection Thank you
-- I am overwhelmed: almost 99% liked the columns. Despite the
injunction from the Bhagavad Gita, tulya nindau stutir maunam
(indifferent to praise, abuse or silence) I must admit I am pleased.
But it would be impossible for me to respond individually to every one
of them, although I have read them all, so I beg your indulgence.
Several people have sent me good suggestions, and I shall gladly steal
their ideas for future columns. But, dear reader, note that if you
wish your letter to be considered for publication by rediff.com, you
should copy it to news@rediff.co.in and not just to me at
rajeev@rediffmail.com.
A couple of people, no doubt of the 'progressive' persuasion, pointed
out a factual error with unconcealed glee. Mea culpa, mea maxima
culpa. I had said something about Mahmud of Ghori being defeated by
Prithviraj Chauhan seventeen times. It turns out I mixed up Mohammed
of Ghori and Mahmud of Gazni. It was the latter who came seventeen
times to sack Somanath. Ghori was let go once by Chauhan. I am
chagrined -- I usually check my facts with my historian mother, but
did not this time. But my point remains -- Chauhan let Ghori escape
after the First Battle of Tarain. Ghori considered this a weakness;
chivalry had no place in his scheme of things.
Back
Top
|
