A Changed Landscape of Kashmir Conflict

Re: # 52
Fight, ha ha ha.This is really rich coming from someone who is pissing in their pants over a change in demographics.Stay on and Fight, lol .

#51 ,

Well somebody has to stay on and fight..as I said , not everybody is a dhimmi eunuch like you and your mother`s husband...

Re:Mike # 38
Which is indeed going to be a major problem in 10-15 years time when Indian muslims double their numbers in 10-15 years time and form 40% of India`s population , which given their birth rate is eminently feasible.
Exactly my point.If this scares the shit out of you, why dont you consider relocating to Nepal?

#30, kaalchakra {``When parties begin to discuss their real concerns, as opposed to their stated ones, solutions will come.``}

Exactly. I am glad that we agree. Both India and Pakistan need to get to the table and ask each other what they really want and what they really mean. Pakistan`s concern for its water resources is a valid one as is Indian concern about keeping its portion of J&K as part of the Indian Union. Once they actually start caring for the people of Kashmir and the people of Pakistan and the people of India, they will come to sensible and reasonable decisions. Territory in the end belongs to the people who live there. Maybe there is a solution that protects Pakistan`s water, India`s territorial integrity, and provides for more self-rule for Kashmiris without the presence of all those Indian soldiers. Speaking of soldiers, maybe there is a solution for more self-rule for Pakis without the presence of all those Paki soldiers.

Salim

Re: # 15

Ranjit: What exactly is your concern with Muslims/Islam?

Raja

Re: # 7
Ranjit: Is this for real? YUCK. India would never ever do any of the two you have listed. Indian muslims are Indians why the heck would India kills its citizen for some retards action in kashmir?

Raja

I got nothing against BalluKhan , he is a good man.

This article is rife with mistakes..............it began with a mistake..........

``......General Musharraf has been bending backwards to accommodate the Indian leaders. ..........``

It should`ve read ......... Musharag is bending backwards because the Americans have got him by his tail.........

Capt Clueless...Your hero Imran Khan says Pakiland is capitulating(which, in Pakiland, happens when Pakis accept the reality)...

http://www.dawn.com/2005/07/05/op.htm#1

Kashmir: a new strategy


By Shahid Javed Burki

THE Saturday issue of the Financial Times usually carries an interview with a celebrity over lunch paid for by the newspaper. On June 25, Jo Johnson, the newspaper’s new correspondent for South Asia, wrote about his conversation with Imran Khan in Islamabad’s Serena Hotel. The current effort by the leadership of India and Pakistan to find a solution to the problem of Kashmir was one of the several subjects covered by the cricketer-turned-politician.

His views on the way Islamabad under President Pervez Musharraf is approaching the issue of Kashmir are based on a serious misunderstanding of the reasons why Pakistan should look for a way out of the Kashmir conundrum.

“Lamenting a recent Washington Times cartoon that portrayed Pakistan as a dog being patted by an approving US soldier, Imran says there is despair at Pakistan’s enslavement to the US; like other hardliners, he sees Pakistan’s recent flexibility in the search for a solution to the Kashmir problem, which would bring peace with India, as a self-administered thrashing supervised by the US, a humiliating ‘capitulation’”, wrote Johnson. “Imran, in other words, is tapping into anti-US sentiment at its most inflammatory.”

It is not helpful for a well informed politician to see the search for a solution to the problem of Kashmir in terms of self-humiliation being inflicted by Islamabad in response to Washington’s pressure. It is no doubt in the interest of the United States to cool the long-enduring passions between India and Pakistan and to remove one of the many reasons for the growing power of Islamists in a country such as Pakistan. It is even more important to appreciate that a solution to the Kashmir problem secured on terms different from those Pakistan has sought for a long time is in Pakistan’s own interests.

We have already paid a very heavy price for continuing with this struggle the end result of which is the failure to develop the country economically and socially at a pace which could bring economic relief to the suffering masses. It is this trade-off between the struggle for Kashmir and improving Pakistan’s economy and providing an opportunity for the country’s citizens that I am exploring in this series of articles.

In the article last week, I suggested that Pakistan has incurred a heavy price for the continuing conflict over Kashmir. The cost to it of keeping the dispute alive is much greater than that incurred by India. Some of the costs associated with this dispute are not readily apparent; one of these is the resurgence of extremist Islam. That was the subject of last week’s article.

That Pakistan became an important centre for the activities of the groups that advocated a radical and fundamentalist Islam would have happened even without the Kashmir problem. This form of Islam gained ground in Pakistan over several decades and for a variety of reasons that included opportunism on the part of leaders such as Zulfikar Ali Bhutto and opportunism combined with zealotry on the part of General Ziaul-Haq.

Nonetheless, Kashmir provided an opportunity for the Islamists to continue to gain strength in the country. It became the raison d’etre not only for their existence but for their increasing popularity.

The economic cost of the Kashmir conflict to Pakistan, the smaller economy compared to that of India, was also considerably higher. It is useful to develop some appreciation of this cost — no matter how rough such an estimate may be — in order to inform the Pakistani people and its political establishment whether it was prudent to pay such a heavy price for this conflict. I will undertake that exercise next week. However, before estimating the overall economic costs of the Kashmir conflict, it would be useful to briefly review how military doctrine and preparedness has evolved in India and Pakistan.

According to the World Bank’s estimates military expenditure in Pakistan in 2002 was equivalent to 4.5 per cent of its Gross Domestic Product, somewhat higher than the estimates provide by the government in the ‘Economic Survey, 2003-04’ and the budget speech for 2005-06. For India, the proportion was much lower, at 2.6 per cent. Over the last 10 years — from 1992 to 2002 — the proportion of GDP committed to military expenditures by the two countries moved in the opposite direction. In the case of India, the expenditure increased from 2.3 per cent to 2.6 per cent. In Pakistan’s case the expenditure was brought down quite significantly, from 6.1 per cent to 4.5 per cent.

These changes not only reflected economic reality but also different roles the countries wished to play in world affairs. India now had developed global ambitions and wished to project itself not only as regional power but a near superpower. As such it decided to spend on weapon systems that were not strictly relevant for its conflict with Pakistan but met the imperatives of a near-global power. Pakistan, on the other hand, continued to focus on the rivalry with India in the context of the Kashmir problem. At the same time it had to contend with a progressively weakening economy.

In 1992, India spent $6.49 billion on its military. The corresponding amount for Pakistan was $2.8 billion. At that time, the Indian expenditure was 2.3 times that of Pakistan while the size of its economy was 6.6 times as large. This situation changed quite dramatically in the next 10 years. The ratio between economic size and military expenditure for Pakistan was 2.87. While the Indian military expenditure nearly doubled, increasing to $12.87 billion by 2002, expenditure by Pakistan declined to $2.5 billion.

By that time, the gap between the Indian and Pakistani economies widened as a result of the much higher rate of growth in India. Between 1992 and 2002, the Indian GDP increased at the average annual rate of 5.8 per cent while that of Pakistan grew by only 3.6 per cent a year.

Consequently, in 2002, the Indian economy was 8.1 times larger than that of Pakistan’s. At the same time, India’s military expenditure was 5.1 times the size of Pakistan’s. The ratio was now 2.2 times as large in favour of India. Pakistan no longer had the economic means to keep pace with India’s military build-up. Parity in capability was once the cornerstone of Pakistan’s military strategy. This was no longer feasible.

Another set of numbers underscores the different defence strategies that were being pursued by the two countries as they entered the 21st century. By 2002, the Indians had a military force estimated at 1.3 million personnel compared to Pakistan’s 594,000, a ratio of only 2.2 compared to a ratio of 5.1 in total military expenditures. The size of the Indian military force was now increasing at only 0.3 per cent a year. While Pakistan was also increasing the number of people in uniform — by an estimated 0.2 per cent a year — the total amount of military expenditure had declined by a significant amount. The Indians were now relying on the capital-intensive approach to defence by equipping their military with heavy equipment.

This was more in line with the approaches followed by such other major military powers as the United States and China. In 2002, the Indians spent $9.8 million per person in uniform. Pakistan’s approach, on the other hand, was much more “labour intensive”. By 2002, it was spending only $4.3 million per person in uniform, or less than 43 per cent of the Indian outlay.

These numbers tell a clear story. New Delhi had decided to use its greater economic muscle acquired in the decade of economic reforms to develop a larger military capability and to do it by spending more on equipment. There was a qualitative change in the Indian military strategy. It no longer saw itself as a country with one major threat — from Pakistan, its northern neighbour — but in terms of a major global power that needed to project its growing military presence way beyond its borders.

For Pakistan, however, defence strategy remained focused on what it perceived as the Indian threat. That notwithstanding, it was becoming clear to the defence planners of Islamabad that given the serious weakening of the economy it was no longer feasible to engage in a full throttle arms race with its neighbour that was now making impressive economic advances.

Now that the rate of economic growth has picked up in Pakistan — in 2004-2005, it was estimated at 8.4 per cent increase in GDP over the estimate for 2003-04. This was higher rate of growth than that of India. With this palpable improvement in the economic situation there will be some temptation to spend an increasing amount on defence. This has begun to happen. The budget for 2005-06 has increased the outlay on the military by 15 per cent in nominal terms, from Rs.194 billion ($3.25 billion) budgeted for 2004-05 to Rs. 223.5 billion ($3.75 billion).

There will also be a sharp increase on equipment as the country begins to re-equip its air force with the coveted F 16s fighter planes. In March 2005, the administration of President George W. Bush reversed the stance of previous White House administrations and announced that it would no longer embargo the sale of these aircraft to Pakistan. There are also indications that Pakistan is entering into various arrangements with China to build sophisticated weapons, including fighter planes, in the country. The recent easing of economic constraints may result in reversing the strategy the military adopted during periods of economic stress to gain strength by relying on the jihadis.

During that time the Pakistani military evolved a two pronged military strategy. First, it chose to rely on the jihadi groups to counter the growing disparity between its military strength and that of India. As a consequence, a new theory of military preparedness began to evolve in Pakistan, supported in part by the extraordinary success of the Afghan resistance in the 1980s fighting the Soviet occupation of their country. Since Pakistan — in particular its main intelligence service, the Inter-Intelligence Service, the ISI — was deeply engaged in that enterprise, the country’s military strategists drew the conclusion that they could use the same tactics against the Indian threat. The jihadi groups, therefore, became an essential part of Pakistan’s military doctrine.

Second, the military invested heavily in equipping itself with a nuclear arsenal and a delivery system that could carry atomic weapons to some of the population and economic centres of India. While the concept of nuclear deterrence against India was authored by Prime Minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto in 1974, right after India tested its first nuclear device, it was readily bought by the Rawalpindi military establishment once it became clear that it was no longer feasible to balance India’s rapidly growing and improving conventional capability.

Pakistan today stands at another cross-road in its turbulent history. Should it jeopardize its economic revival by re-engaging itself once again in Kashmir as it did in the mid-1960s, or spend its resources and the energy of its government on economic growth and poverty alleviation? Before answering this question it would be useful to estimate the economic cost that has already been incurred by pursuing the type of approach that politicians such as Imran Khan would have Islamabad follow. I will cover the subject of the economic cost of the Kashmir problem next week.

#39 by ballukhan on July 5, 2005 5:40am PT

Who else....gujjubania...

It`s been repeatedly emphasized that the only realistic option before us is to be brutally honest in all our discussions. Yet, some outburts on this board have been regrettable. Brutal honesty must never turn into support for ill will against any people.

To any Hindu who would care to listen, here`s a small appeal. Whenever we speak of `Muslims,` we must ask ourselves whether we could ever promote any ill will against a Muslim like Ballukhan, or against a Faruk.

Or if one thinks in larger historical terms, against Khan Abdul Gaffar Khan?

These are utterly humbling names. With such people, as with other family members, we may have discussions, differences of opinion, different perspectives, but no personal issues.

Sorry for cut and paste,but I thought this may be of some relevance on this board.


The Legacy of Jihad in India
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=4616
July 2nd, 2005


The phenomenon of modern Islamic terrorism has forged an inchoate strategic
alliance between the Israeli and Indian governments, while heightening the
awareness of a common threat-the institution of jihad-among the civilian
populations of these nations.

Rarely understood, let alone acknowledged, however, is the history of brutal
jihad conquest, Muslim colonization, and the imposition of dhimmitude shared
by the Jews of historical Palestine, and the Hindus of the Indian
subcontinent. Moreover, both peoples and nations also have in common, a
subsequent, albeit much briefer British colonial legacy, which despite its
own abuses, abrogated the system of dhimmitude (permanently for Israel and
India, if not, sadly, for their contemporary Muslim neighboring states), and
created the nascent institutions upon which thriving democratic societies
have been constructed. Sir Jadunath Sarkar (d. 1958), the preeminent
historian of Mughal India, wrote with admiration in 1950 of what the Jews of
Palestine had accomplished once liberated from the yoke of dhimmitude. The
implication was clear that he harbored similar hopes for his own people.

Palestine, the holy land of the Jews, Christians and Islamites, had been
turned into a desert haunted by ignorant poor diseased vermin rather than by
human beings, as the result of six centuries of Muslim rule. (See Kinglake`s
graphic description). Today Jewish rule has made this desert bloom into a
garden, miles of sandy waste have been turned into smiling orchards of
orange and citron, the chemical resources of the Dead Sea are being
extracted and sold, and all the amenities of the modern civilised life have
been made available in this little Oriental country. Wise Arabs are eager to
go there from the countries ruled by the Shariat. This is the lesson for the
living history. [1]

Earlier, I reviewed at length the legacy of Muslim jihad conquest and
imposition of the Shari`a in historical Palestine. The current essay
provides a schematic overview of the same phenomena in India, focusing on
the major periods of Muslim conquest, colonization, and rule.

A Millennium of Jihad and Dhimmitude on the Indian Subcontinent

The 570 year period between the initial Arab Muslim razzias (ordered by
Caliph Umar) to pillage Thana (on the West Indian coast near Maharashtra) in
636-637 C.E., and the establishment of the Delhi Sultanate (under
Qutub-ud-din Aibak, a Turkish slave soldier), can be divided into four major
epochs: (I) the conflict between the Arab invaders and the (primarily) Hindu
resisters on the Western coast of India from 636-713 C.E.; (II) the Arab and
Turkish Muslim onslaughts against the kingdom of Hindu Afghanistan during
636-870 C.E.; (III) repeated Turkish efforts to subdue the Punjab from 870
C.E. to 1030 C.E. C.E. highlighted by the devastating campaigns of Mahmud of
Ghazni (from 1000- 1030 C.E.); and finally (IV) Muhammad Ghauri`s conquest
of northwestern India and the Gangetic valley between 1175 and 1206 C.E. [2]

This summary chronology necessarily overlooks the very determined and
successful resistance that was offered by the Hindus to both the Arab (in
particular) and Turkish invaders, for almost four centuries. For example,
despite the rapidity of Mahmud of Ghazni`s conquests-spurred by
shock-tactics and the religious zealotry of Islamic jihad-his successors,
for almost 150 years, could not extend their domain beyond the Punjab
frontiers. Even after the establishment of the Delhi Sultanate (1206-1526),
and the later Mughal Empire (1526-1707), Muslim rulers failed to Islamize
large swaths of Indian territory, and most of the populace. [3] The first
Mughal Emperor, Babur (1483-1530), made these relevant observations upon
establishing his rule in India: [4]

[Hindustan] is a different world.once the water of Sindh is crossed,
everything is in the Hindustan way- land, water, tree, rock, people, and
horde, opinion and custom.Most of the inhabitants of Hindustan are pagans;
they call a pagan a Hindu.

Buddhist civilization within India, in stark contrast, proved far less
resilient. Vincent Smith has described the devastating impact of the late
12th century jihad razzias against the Buddhist communities of northern
India, centered around Bihar, based on Muslim sources, exclusively: [5]

The Muhammadan historian, indifferent to distinctions among idolators,
states that the majority of the inhabitants were ``clean shaven Brahmans``,
who were all put to the sword. He evidently means Buddhist monks, as he was
informed that the whole city and fortress were considered to be a college,
which the name Bihar signifies. A great library was scattered. When the
victors desired to know what the books might be no man capable of explaining
their contents had been left alive. No doubt everything was burnt. The
multitude of images used in Medieval Buddhist worship always inflamed the
fanaticism of Muslim warriors to such fury that no quarter was given to the
idolators. The ashes of the Buddhist sanctuaries at Sarnath near Benares
still bear witness to the rage of the image breakers. Many noble monuments
of the ancient civilization of India were irretrievably wrecked in the
course of the early Muhammadan invasions. Those invasions were fatal to the
existence of Buddhism as an organized religion in northern India, where its
strength resided chiefly in Bihar and certain adjoining territories. The
monks who escaped massacre fled, and were scattered over Nepal, Tibet, and
the south. After A.D. 1200 the traces of Buddhism in upper India are faint
and obscure.

Three major waves of jihad campaigns (exclusive of the jihad conquest of
Afghanistan) which succeeded, ultimately, in establishing a permanent Muslim
dominion within India, i.e., the Delhi Sultanate, are summarized in the
following discussion. The imposition of dhimmitude upon the vanquished Hindu
populations is also characterized, in brief.

The Muslim chroniclers al-Baladhuri (in Kitab Futuh al-Buldan) and al-Kufi
(in the Chachnama) include enough isolated details to establish the overall
nature of the conquest of Sindh by Muhammad b. Qasim in 712 C.E. [6] These
narratives, and the processes they describe, make clear that the Arab
invaders intended from the outset to Islamize Sindh by conquest,
colonization, and local conversion. Baladhuri, for example, records that
following the capture of Debal, Muhammad b. Qasim earmarked a section of the
city exclusively for Muslims, constructed a mosque, and established four
thousand colonists there. [7] The conquest of Debal had been a brutal
affair, as summarized from the Muslim sources by Majumdar. [8]

Despite appeals for mercy from the besieged Indians (who opened their gates
after the Muslims scaled the fort walls), Muhammad b. Qasim declared that he
had no orders ( i.e., from his superior al-Hajjaj, the Governor of Iraq) to
spare the inhabitants, and thus for three days a ruthless and indiscriminate
slaughter ensued. In the aftermath, the local temple was defiled, and ``700
beautiful females who had sought for shelter there, were all captured``. The
capture of Raor was accompanied by a similar tragic outcome. [9]

Muhammad massacred 6000 fighting men who were found in the fort, and their
followers and dependents, as well as their women and children were taken
prisoners. Sixty thousand slaves, including 30 young ladies of royal blood,
were sent to Hajjaj, along with the head of Dahar [the Hindu ruler]. We can
now well understand why the capture of a fort by the Muslim forces was
followed by the terrible jauhar ceremony (in which females threw themselves
in fire kindled by themselves), the earliest recorded instance of which is
found in the Chachnama.

Practical, expedient considerations lead Muhammad to desist from carrying
out the strict injunctions of Islamic Law [10] and the wishes of al-Hajjaj
[11] by massacring the (pagan) infidel Hindus of Sindh. Instead, he imposed
upon the vanquished Hindus the jizya and associated restrictive regulations
of dhimmitude. As a result, the Chachnama records, ``some [Hindus] resolved
to live in their native land, but others took flight in order to maintain
the faith of their ancestors, and their horses, domestics, and other
property`` [12] Thus a lasting pattern was set that would persist, as noted
by Majumdar, until the Mughal Empire collapsed at the end of Aurangzeb`s
reign (in 1707), [13]

.of Muslim policy towards the subject Hindus in subsequent ages. Something
no doubt depended upon individual rulers; some of them adopted a more
liberal, others a more cruel and intolerant attitude. But on the whole the
framework remained intact, for it was based on the fundamental principle of
Islamic theocracy. It recognized only one faith, one people, and one supreme
authority, acting as the head of a religious trust. The Hindus, being
infidels or non-believers, could not claim the full rights of citizens. At
the very best, they could be tolerated as dhimmis, an insulting title which
connoted political inferiority.The Islamic State regarded all non-Muslims as
enemies, to curb whose growth in power was conceived to be its main
interest. The ideal preached by even high officials was to exterminate them
totally, but in actual practice they seem to have followed an alternative
laid down in the Qur`an [ i.e., Q9:29] which calls upon Muslims to fight the
unbelievers till they pay the jizya with due humility. This was the tax the
Hindus had to pay for permission to live in their ancestral homes under a
Muslim ruler.

Mahmud of Ghazni, according to the British historian Sir Henry Elliot,
launched some seventeen jihad campaigns into India between 1000 and his
death in 1030 C.E. [14] Utbi, Mahmud`s court historian, viewed these
expeditions to India as a jihad to propagate Islam and extirpate idolatry.
[15] K.S. Lal illustrates this religious zeal to Islamize by force, as
manifested during a 23 year period between 1000 and 1023 C.E.: [16]

In his first attack of frontier towns in C.E. 1000 Mahmud appointed his
own governors and converted some inhabitants. In his attack on Waihind
(Peshawar) in 1001-3, Mahmud is reported to have captured the Hindu Shahiya
King Jayapal and fifteen of his principal chiefs and relations some of whom
like Sukhpal, were made Musalmans. At Bhera all the inhabitants, except
those who embraced Islam, were put to the sword. At Multan too conversions
took place in large numbers, for writing about the campaign against Nawasa
Shah (converted Sukhpal), Utbi says that this and the previous victory (at
Multan) were ``witnesses to his exalted state of proselytism.`` In his
campaign in the Kashmir Valley (1015) Mahmud ``converted many infidels to
Muhammadanism, and having spread Islam in that country, returned to Ghazni.``
In the later campaign in Mathura, Baran and Kanauj, again, many conversions
took place. While describing ``the conquest of Kanauj,`` Utbi sums up the
situation thus: ``The Sultan levelled to the ground every fort. and the
inhabitants of them either accepted Islam, or took up arms against him.`` In
short, those who submitted were also converted to Islam. In Baran
(Bulandshahr) alone 10,000 persons were converted including the Raja. During
his fourteenth invasion in 1023 C.E. Kirat, Nur, Lohkot and Lahore were
attacked. The chief of Kirat accepted Islam, and many people followed his
example.

These continuous jihad campaigns were accompanied by great destruction and
acts of wanton cruelty. Utbi describes the slaughter which transpired during
the attacks on Thanesar and Sirsawa:

The chief of Thanesar was.obstinate in his infidelity and denial of Allah,
so the Sultan marched against him with his valiant warriors for the purpose
of planting the standards of Islam and extirpating idolatry. The blood of
the infidels flowed so copiously that the stream was discoloured, and people
were unable to drink it. Praise be to Allah. for the honour he bestows upon
Islam and Musalmans. [17]

[at Sirsawa] The Sultan summoned the most religiously disposed of his
followers, and ordered them to attack the enemy immediately. Many infidels
were consequently slain or taken prisoners in this sudden attack, and the
Musalmans paid no regard to the booty till they had satiated themselves with
the slaughter of the infidels. The friends of Allah searched the bodies of
the slain for three whole days, in order to obtain booty [18]

Mahmud`s final well-known expedition in Hindustan, to Somanath in 1025 C.E.,
was similarly brutal, and destructive:

Mahmud captured the place [Somanath] without much difficulty and ordered a
general slaughter in which more than 50,000 persons are said to have
perished. The idol of Somanath was broken to pieces which were sent to
Ghazni, Mecca, and Medina and cast in streets and the staircases of chief
mosques to be trodden by the Muslims going there for their prayers [19]

Over 900 years apart, remarkably concordant assessments of Mahmud`s
devastating exploits have been written by the renowned 11th century Muslim
scholar Alberuni (a counselor to Mahmud), and the contemporary Indian
historian A.L. Srivastava. First Alberuni, from about 1030 C.E.: [20]

Mahmud utterly ruined the prosperity of the country.by which the Hindus
became like atoms of dust scattered in all directions, and like a tale of
old in the mouth of the people. Their scattered remains cherish of course
the most inveterate aversion towards all Muslims. This is the reason too why
Hindu sciences have retired far away from those parts of the country
conquered by us, and have fled to places which our hand cannot yet reach, to
Kashmir, Benares, and other places.

Srivastava in 1950, wrote: [21]

To the Indian world of his day Mahmud was a veritable devil incarnate- a
daring bandit, an avaricious plunderer, and wanton destroyer of Art. He
plundered many dozens of.flourishing cities; he razed to the ground great
temples which were wonderful works of art; he carried thousands of innocent
women and children into slavery; he indulged in wanton massacre practically
everywhere he went; and.he forcibly converted hundred of.unwilling people to
Islam. A conqueror who leaves behind desolate towns and villages and dead
bodies of innocent human beings cannot be remembered by posterity by any
other title.

K.S. Lal believes that by the late 12th century, Muhammad Ghauri was
consummately prepared for the conquest and rule of India. Well-elaborated
theological justifications for jihad, and comprehensive writings on India`s
geography and sociopolitical culture were readily available to him,
complementing his powerful army of Turks, Persians, and Afghans.

He now possessed Alberuni`s India and Burhanuddin`s Hidayah, works which
were not available to his predecessor invader. Alberuni`s enecyclopedic work
provided to the Islamic world in the eleventh century all that was
militarily advantageous to know about India. Equally important was the
Hidayah, the most authentic work on the laws of Islam compiled by Shaikh
Burhanuddin Ali in the twelfth century. These and similar works, and the
military manuals like the Siyasat Nama and Adab-ul-Harb, made the Ghauris
and their successors better equipped for the conquest and governance of
non-Muslim India. There need be no doubt that such works were made
available, meticulously studied and constantly referred to by scholars
attached to the courts of Muslim conquerors and kings. [22]

Muhammad Ghauri launched his first expeditions against Multan and Gujarat
(in 1175 and 1178 C.E., respectively). By 1191-92 C.E., following Ghauri`s
defeat of a Rajput confederation under Prithviraj Chauhan (and Prithviraj
Chauhan`s death),

Sirsuti, Samana, Kuhram, and Hansi were captured in quick succession with
ruthless slaughter and a general destruction of temples, and their
replacement by mosques. The Sultan then proceeded to Ajmer which too
witnessed similar scenes. In Delhi an army of occupation was stationed at
Indraprastha under the command of Qutub-ud-din Aibak who was to act as
Ghauri`s lieutenant in Hindustan. Later on Aibak became the first Sultan of
Delhi [23]

Qutub-ud-din Aibak`s accession in 1206 (consistent with Muhammad Ghauri`s
desires and plans), marks the founding of the Delhi Sultanate.

Finally, the imposition of Islamic law upon the Hindu populations of India,
i.e., their relegation to dhimmi status, beginning with the advent of Muslim
rule in 8th century Sindh, had predictable consequences during both the
Delhi Sultanate period (1206-1526 C.E.), and the Mughal Empire (1526-1707
C.E.). A.L. Srivastava highlights these germane features of Hindu status
during the Delhi Sultanate: [24]

Throughout the period of the Sultanate of Delhi, Islam was the religion of
the State. It was considered to be the duty of the Sultan and his government
to defend and uphold the principles of this religion and to propagate them
among the masses.even the most enlightened among them [the Sultans], like
Muhammad bin Tughlaq, upheld the principles of their faith and refused
permission to repair Hindu (or Buddhist) temples.Thus even during the reign
of the so-called liberal-minded Sultans, the Hindus had no permission to
build new temples or to repair old ones. Throughout the period, they were
known as dhimmis, that is, people living under guarantee, and the guarantee
was that they would enjoy restricted freedom in following their religion if
they paid the jizya. The dhimmis were not to celebrate their religious rites
openly.and never to do any propaganda on behalf of their religion. A number
of disabilities were imposed upon them in matters of State employment and
enjoyment of civic rights.It was a practice with the Sultans to destroy the
Hindu temples and images therein. Firoz Tughlaq and Sikander Lodi prohibited
Hindus from bathing at the ghats [river bank steps for ritual bathers] in
the sacred rivers, and encouraged them in every possible way to embrace the
Muslim religion. The converts were exempted from the jizya and given posts
in the State service and even granted rewards in cash, or by grant of land.
In short, there was not only no real freedom for the Hindus to follow their
religion, but the state followed a policy of intolerance and persecution.
The contemporary Muslim chronicles abound in detailed descriptions of
desecration of images and destruction of temples and of the conversion of
hundreds and thousands of the Hindus. [Hindu] religious buildings and places
bear witness to the iconoclastic zeal of the Sultans and their followers.
One has only to visit Ajmer, Mathura, Ayodhya, Banaras and other holy cities
to see the half broken temples and images of those times with their heads,
faces, hands and feet defaced and demolished.

Majumdar sees a continuum between the Delhi Sultanate and the subsequent
Mughal Empire, regarding the status of the Hindus: [25]

So far as the Hindus were concerned, there was no improvement either in
their material and moral conditions or in their relations with the Muslims.
With the sole exception of Akbar, who sought to conciliate the Hindus by
removing some of the glaring evils to which they were subjected, almost all
other Mughal Emperors were notorious for their religious bigotry. The Muslim
law which imposed many disabilities and indignities upon the Hindus.and
thereby definitely gave them an inferior social and political status, as
compared to the Muslims, was followed by these Mughal Emperors (and other
Muslim rulers) with as much zeal as was displayed by their predecessors, the
Sultans of Delhi. The climax was reached during the reign of Aurangzeb, who
deliberately pursued the policy of destroying and desecrating Hindu temples
and idols with a thoroughness unknown before or since.

Majumdar also makes this interesting juxtaposition of Hindu cultural
advancement under the lengthy period of Muslim colonial rule, compared to
the much shorter interval of British colonial rule: [26]

Judged by a similar standard, the patronage and cultivation of Hindu
learning by the Muslims, or their contribution to the development of Hindu
culture during their rule.pales into insignificance when compared with the
achievements of the British rule.It is only by instituting such comparison
that we can make an objective study of the condition of the Hindus under
Muslim rule, and view it in its true perspective.

Andrew Bostom is an Associate Professor of Medicine, and the author of the
forthcoming The Legacy of Jihad on Prometheus Books (2005).

Notes

[1] Jadunath Sarkar ``The Condition of Hindus under Muslim Rule``, The
Hindusthan Standard, Calcutta, Puja Annual (Deepavali special) 1950.
[2] A.L. Srivastava. ``A Survey of India`s Resistance to Medieval Invaders
from the North-West: Causes of Eventual Hindu Defeat``, Journal of Indian
History, 1965, pp. 349-350.
[3] A.L. Srivastava., The Sultanate of Delhi (711-1526 A.D.) , Agra, 1950,
p.127; R.C. Majumdar (editor). The History and Culture of the Indian People,
Vol. 6, The Sultanate of Delhi, Bombay, 1960, p.xxiii, states, for example,
with regard to the Delhi Sultanate:

The popular notion that after the conquest of Muhammad Ghauri, India
formed a Muslim Empire under various dynasties, is hardly borne out by
facts.barring the two very short lived empires under the Khaljis and
Muhammad bin Tughlaq which lasted respectively, for less than twenty and ten
years, there was no Turkish empire of India. The Delhi Sultanate, as the
symbol of this empire, continued in name throughout the period under review
[ i.e., 1206-1526] but, gradually shorn of power and prestige, it was
reduced to a phantom by the invasion of Timur at the end of the fourteenth
century A.D.

For discussions of the limits of the Mughal Empire, see: A.L.
Srivastava.,The History of India (1000 A.D- 1707 A.D.), Agra, 1964, pp.
674-676; and K.S. Lal. Indian Muslims-Who Are They? , New Delhi, 1990, pp.
122-123, 127, 136-137.
[4] Baburnama. Translated by A.S. Beveridge, Lahore, Sangmeel Publications
(reprint), 1976, pp. 484,518.
[5] Vincent Smith, The Oxford History of India, Oxford, 1928, p. 221.
[6] Al-Baladhuri. The Origins of the Islamic State (Kitab Futuh Al-Buldan).
Part II, Translated by F.C. Murgotten, New York, Columbia University, 1924,
pp. 217-224; Al-Kufi. The Chachnama, excerpts translated in H.M. Elliot and
J. Dowson. A History of India As Told By Its Own Historians-The Muhammadan
Period, 1867-1877 (reprinted 2001, Delhi), Vol. 1, pp. 157-211.
[7] Al-Baladhuri. The Origins of the Islamic State, Part II , p. 218.
[8] R.C. Majumdar (editor). The History and Culture of the Indian People,
Vol. 3, The Classical Age, Bombay, 1954, p. 458.
[9] Majumdar, The Classical Age, pp. 458-459.
[10] From a translation of Ziauddin Barani`s Fatawa-i Jahandari, circa,
1358-9 C.E., in Mohammad Habib. The political theory of the Delhi
sultanate., Allahabad, Kitab Mahal, 1961, pp. 46-47.
[11] Chachnama, Elliot and Dowson, pp. 173-174.
[12] Majumdar, The Classical Age, pp. 460.
[13] Majumdar, The Classical Age, pp. 461-462.
[14] Elliot and Dowson, Vol. II, Appendix Note D, pp. 434-484.
[15] Srivastava. The Sultanate of Delhi, p. 52.
[16] K.S. Lal. The Legacy of Muslim Rule in India , New Delhi, Aditya
Prakashan, 1992, pp. 96-97
[17] Elliot and Dowson, Vol. II, 40-41.
[18] Elliot and Dowson, Vol. II, 49.
[19] Srivastava. The Sultanate of Delhi, p. 59.
[20] Alberuni. Alberuni`s India- An Account of the Religion, Philosophy,
Literature, Geography, Chronology, Astronomy, Customs, Laws, and Astrology
of India (about 1030 C.E), Edited by E.C. Sachau, 1888 (reprinted New Delhi,
1993), p. 22.
[21] Srivastava. The Sultanate of Delhi, p. 61-62.
[22] K.S. Lal. Theory and Practice of Muslim State in India, New Delhi,
Aditya Prakashan, 1999, pp.20-21.
[23] Lal. Muslim State in India , p. 21
[24] Srivastava. The Sultanate of Delhi, pp. 304-305.
[25] R.C. Majumdar (editor) The Mughul Empire, Bombay, 1974, p. xi.
[26] Majumdar Vol. 6, The Sultanate of Delhi, p. 623



Andrew G. Bostom

If these ba$tqard Paki Jehadis are representative of muslims from any part of the world.....then by the same logic so are those 10000 hindu marauding rioters in Gujrat the representative of hindus.................

this is exactly the logic that these right wing extemists want all of us to believe..............that they ``represent`` some community.........................

``Just saw the news that heavily armed jehadis stormed the Ayodhya Ram Mandir. I wonder if harish, arjun, stuka, rahul and other ``secular`` folks would like to comment``

These acts prove the point that Paki Jehadis are actually enemies of IM...they want to make it appear as if the IM are in deadly armed conflict with other communities and the TNT is very much alive and kicking.................they want to prove that TNT is right because its predictions about the IM-s has not come true and now they want to prove that now the IM-s are ``retaliating`` back with much power.........................this is actually the act of the Paki Deen-e-Fasaad jamaat which is being supported by that rascal called Musharaff.

Who is this %@% called Mike spewing RSS propoganda about IM-s??

``So Indian muslims are only interested in joining organisations devoted to India , like the Laskkar-e-Toiba , Hizbul Mujaheedin and Jaish-e-Muhammad. The intention is clear. Top bring back the good old days of 800 year odd muslim rule , the days of Ghaznavi , Ghori , Babar and Auranzeb ....when the idolators knew their place , surrendering their women and wealth to the good merciful muslim rulers in gratitude for being allowed to stay alive . ``

I can see that he has been reading a lot of Togodia speeches!!!

Rahul-Capri ,

`` what do you say about the ULFA separatists?``

Thats a different set of problems with its own permutatations which can be discussed at length if needed . Events are happening fast in Assam , and the ULFA separatists stand discredited by the people of Assam themselves , who have lately woken up to their hindu identity enveloped as they are by the ever increasing illegal migration from b-desh. ULFA - today a virtual pot bellied dad`s army as most of its members are in their middle age with no fresh recruitments - has alienated the assamese public as it is seen to be sympathetic to illegal B-deshi muslim migrants.


`` There are more muslims in India than in Pakistan. ``

Which is understandable because Indian muslims breed like pigs under orders to convert dar-ul-harab to dar-ul-islam.


``If all of them really wanted jihad, just imagine how long we can keep Kashmir or any other part of India in India.``

Which is indeed going to be a major problem in 10-15 years time when Indian muslims double their numbers in 10-15 years time and form 40% of India`s population , which given their birth rate is eminently feasible. Kashmir is being held by India inspite of tremendous sustained pressure put by Indian muslims thanks to the bravery and fortitude of the Indian armed forces.


``Also, the only Al Qaeda recruitee I know of from India is a person who was born Hindu, and then converted to Islam.Some Dheeraj Barot.``

There are two issues to this. One is that Al Qaeda is global Islamic terrorist network which is mainly US-centric. India figures much lower in the pecking order of Al Qaeda targets. Indian muslims have no major beef against US or Israel ..atleast not as much as to being willing to die fighting those two countries. Indian muslim hatred is restricted to India and its multitudes of idol worshipping polytheist kufrs . The Holy Quran is very particular about the absolute neccessity for a good muslim to torture , humiliate , dishonor and murder idol worshipping kufrs if the said good muslims has ambitions of booking a room in Heaven , enjoying the company of 72 virgins , under the auspices of his Maker , Mr. Allah. (la ila ilallah muhammad rasul ullah).

So Indian muslims are only interested in joining organisations devoted to India , like the Laskkar-e-Toiba , Hizbul Mujaheedin and Jaish-e-Muhammad. The intention is clear. Top bring back the good old days of 800 year odd muslim rule , the days of Ghaznavi , Ghori , Babar and Auranzeb ....when the idolators knew their place , surrendering their women and wealth to the good merciful muslim rulers in gratitude for being allowed to stay alive .

The second point is about Mr. Dheeraj Barot. As you so nicely mentioned the fact about Mr.Bardot being a hindu who converted to Islam. Historically the neo-converts to Islam have always been more eager than the muslims themsleves to carry out the orders of their new master Muhammad the Prophet (P be upon him). So undoubtedly Mr.Bardot did what he did in order to prove his credentials to the doubtful Ummah. The usual rites of passage. Its not enough just to get circumsized . You gotta plant RDX in a couple of school buses too.


``You do realize that you are not convincing anybody.``

Not everybody is a dhimmi eunuch like you (and your mother`s husband...)


``I think it would be better for you to move to the hindu country called Nepal if you are so concerned about your Hinduism.``

You mean to say hinduism is extinct in India already ? Saare hindu log mar gaye kya Hindustan mein ? Boy ..those mullahs are quick...