Re: The India Doctrine - A Revealing Book from Bangladesh
nkdat...@bigmailbox.net
Actually, the "book" is sponsored by an organization that calls itself
LISA (London Institute of South Asia, UK).
The "book" itself is listed under its list of "current articles" at:
http://www.lisauk.com/default.asp
The "book" review by Isha Khan can be found at at:
http://www.lisauk.com/Articles.asp?aid=289
What is LISA? It is essentially an irredentist Pakistani organization
dedicated to Goebblesian propaganda. LISA believes in Pakistan as a
successor to the Muslim empires in India, so much so, that it doesn't
even recognize the independence of East Pakistan which is considered a
colony of Pakistan temporarily snatched from the imperial masters in
Islamabad by the upstarts in New Delhi.
http://www.lisauk.com/default.asp lists thye principals of LISA as:
(a) Brigadier (retd) Usman Khalid (Pakistan) London - Director
(b) Sami Malik (Pakistan) London UK - Director
(c) V.T.Rajshekar, Editor Dalit Voice, Bangalore, India
(d) Dr. M.Abdul Mumin Chowdhury (East Pakistan) London
(e) Dr Awatar Singh Sekhon (Punjab), Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
(f) Dr Syed M. Inayatullah Andrabi (Occupied Kashmir), London
(g) Abidullah Jan (Pakistan), Toronto, Canada
Notice that this "South Asian" institute has a representative from
East Pakistan but none from Bangladesh!! Doesn't that say it all.
Actually, it is Pakistan's military that has always dreamt of being
the rulite elite in the subcontinent as the successor to the Muslim
empires in India. After winning Pakistan in 1947, it had exulted,
"Haske liya Pakistan, ladke lenge Hindustan". It was this mindset that
gave rise to the wars of 1947, 1965, 1971 and 1999. Pakistan's
irredentist dreams always included a Pakistani flag fluttering atop
the Red Fort at Delhi!
This is how a Pakistani writer summarized the mindset in a 2004
article:
============================================================
http://www.jang-group.com/thenews/aug2004-daily/06-08-2004/oped/o6.htm
The News, Karachi, pakistan
Friday August 06, 2004-- Jamadi-us-Sani 19, 1425 A.H.
A long way since 9/11
By Anees Jillani
..... We were so excited about bleeding the Indians, and in the
process, more than 70,000 Kashmiris got killed. We at times were
anticipating the Pakistani flag officially flying in Srinagar, and
some even visualised it over the Red Fort in Delhi. India kept asking
us to initiate a dialogue and we insisted upon resolving first the
Kashmir issue. We did not let the Indians build a fence on the LoC for
55 long years. But now, the fence is there and we are so keen to
negotiate about anything with the Indians, and the word Kashmir is now
seldom heard anywhere. .....
============================================================
Pakistan's ruling elite never thought of itself as the "weaker" power
in South Asia in danger of being gobbled up by India the bully. In
fact, Pakistan's rulers prided themselves as the bully in the block.
Pakistan's ruling class had only contempt for
Indians who were lumped as "Hindus" in their parlance.
One Pakistani soldier was deemed more than enough to teach ten "Hindu"
sodiers the lessons of their lives.This is how some Pakistani writers
have alluded to this arrogance:
============================================================
DAWN, Karachi, Pakistan
28 July 2000 Friday 25 Rabi-us-Saani 1421
Core issue, my goat
By Ayaz Amir
..... we were victims of our own myths, seriously believing ..... that
one Muslim was good enough for ten Hindus. Hard though it may be to
believe this, in the order for Operation Gibraltar signed by Field
Marshal Ayub Khan (who deserved his rank about as much as Uganda's Idi
Amin did his) it was said that as a rule Hindu morale could be
expected to crack under the impact of a succession of hard
blows. .....
============================================================
The Nation
(Reprinted in Pakistan Link of 9/10/99)
Four Wars, one Assumption
Altaf Gauhar
..... all these operations were conceived and launched on the basis of
one assumption: that the Indians are too cowardly and ill-organised to
offer any effective military response which could pose a threat to
Pakistan. Ayub Khan genuinely believed that,"as a general rule Hindu
morale would not stand more than a couple of hard blows at the right
time and place." (Ayub Khan: Pakistan's First Military Ruler,
page 328). .....
============================================================
This country deserves me
By Altaf Gauhar
The Nation, Lahore, Pakistan
Sunday Nov 14,1999
..... What were Yahya's assumptions when he ordered military action in
East Pakistan? His first assumption was that the Bengalis would not
have the guts to face the tall, muscular, West Pakistani jawans. His
associates would recall how Ikhtiaruddin conquered Bengal with only 17
Muslim soldiers in 1203-1204 A.D. .....
===========================================================
The arrogance of power in South Asia is unambiguously Pakistani. When
Pakistan's military swears by:
(a) the "martial race theory"
(b) asserts that one Pakistani soldier can take care of ten "Hindu"
soldiers or,
(c) promises compatriots that they will unfurl Pakistan's flag at the
Red Fort,
it does so, not because it believes in the bluster, but because that
makes it easier for the military to usurp a disproportionate share of
the country's wealth for the Kakul kleptocrats.
In real life, Pakistan's military has always been far tougher on its
own citizens, most of them unarmed, than on armed soldiers of "enemy"
countries. Thus, General Tikka Khan is far better known to the world
as the Butcher of Bengal and as the Butcher of Balochistan than as the
Knight in shining armor who will ride his big white horse to the Red
Fort to unfurl Pakistan's flag.
When Pakistan's military breathes fire, it is to "prove" to Pakistani
citizens that the military is indispensable to the nation's welfare.
But this is nothing but a fraud because the primary aim is to make
sure that Pakistan's army can continue steal a disproportionate share
of the country's wealth for itself.
Here's an article by Professor Ishtiaq Ahmed (himself a Punjabi
Pakistani and currently a faculty member in National Singapore
University) that details the mindset that have made the Pakistan
military behave like bullies in the block right from the days of the
1947 partition (it continues even after the 1971 partition):
============================================================
http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_1-1-2004_pg3_2
[As a doctrine of expansion and conquest jihad will never again get
the free hand which it enjoyed for a few hundred years after the
advent of Islam. It is time to stop dreaming impossible dreams because
they have invariably proved to be delusions]
Daily Times, Pakistan
Thursday, January 01, 2004
Learning To Live In Peace
By Ishtiaq Ahmed
..... In 1956 when I was only nine years old the khaksars had put up a
camp on the outskirts of our locality of Mozang, in Lahore, inviting
volunteers to join a jihad against India. We were to march on towards
the Wagah border and keep going until we reached Delhi’s Red Fort,
where we were to unfurl the Pakistani flag from the rampart and thus
declare the victory of Islam over kufr.
I remember being deeply moved by the demagoguery and wanting to go on
that long march but was left behind because of my tender age. The
khaksars, true to their salt, marched to the Wagah border where the
Pakistani authorities quickly dispersed them and they returned home in
a triumphant mood. They were garlanded and praised as if they had
really returned victorious from battle. I suppose everyone enjoyed
that charade.
Now, the khaksars were devoted but simple folk. The supreme leader of
the khaksars was Allama Inayatullah Mashraqi, a mathematics wizard
with a degree from Cambridge, whose politics was prone to quixotic
acts of bravado. The classic khaksar tale also dates back to 1956. The
Suez Canal dispute had erupted into a war and Egypt was attacked by
French, British, and Israeli units. Anti-imperialist Third World
leaders strongly condemned the attack but our prime minister, Hussain
Shaheed Suhrawardy when asked to explain why Pakistan was not
supporting the Arabs made the notorious remark ‘Zero plus zero is
equal to zero’.
This greatly angered the people of Pakistan and not surprisingly a
group of khaksars dressed in khaki, carrying spades on their shoulders
and kaffans [the shroud Muslims are buried in] tied around their
heads, went marching down the Mall Road in the direction of Gol Bagh.
The poet Zaheer Kashmiri was among the spectators watching them.
Zaheer could not resist asking the leaders loudly: “Where are you all
heading, great leader of the mujahids?”
He replied, “We are marching to the Suez Canal to fight the infidels.”
Zaheer remarked, “Are you going to walk all the way to the Suez
Canal?” “Yes,” answered the leader of the khaksars with great
emphasis. “Then, please, take the turn to Beadon Road. It is a short-
cut and you will reach the Suez Canal more quickly,” advised Zaheer
Kashmiri.
Things have indeed moved far ahead and although we still have a
problem marching on to Delhi or to the Suez Canal, such a mindset is
no longer confined to tiny groups of simpletons. At least since the
time of the Afghan war of the 1980s Pakistani society has increasingly
been brutalised with huge dozes of jihadi propaganda about conquest,
violence and expansionism.
Let me illustrate with an example. A few months before 9/11 a Swedish
student wanted to write her research paper on the Kashmir Dispute and
approached me for advice. She collected information from the JKLF and
Indian sources rather easily from the Internet, but I wanted her to
look at the Pakistani position too so that a balanced and
scientifically valid study could take place. Upon my suggestion, she
scanned some websites to learn the official Pakistani position. While
working through various Internet links she reached the website of the
Laskhar-e-Toyba, accessing some of their statements. This I thought
was very good because all sides and angles of the problem needed to be
included.
Five weeks later when she presented the first draft she pointed out
that whenever she opened the website of the Laskhare-e-Toyba a chill
ran down her spine. At the top of their homepage were Quranic verses
stating ‘In the name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful’. Blood
seem to drip all over the screen, and the only news given everyday was
the number of Indian soldiers and Hindus killed in Kashmir and
elsewhere. She could not understand how one could talk about God’s
mercy but report with relish the deaths of non-Muslims every time.
I found her observation quite embarrassing and forthwith wrote to the
Laskhar-e-Toyba beseeching them either to remove the Quranic verses
from their homepage or get rid of the ‘blood’ and report the killing
of Indian soldiers and Hindus less crudely. I never received any
reply. The student who had originally entertained a great deal of
sympathy for the Kashmiris wrote in her conclusion that Pakistan was
being used as a base for mounting terrorist attacks in Indian-
administered Kashmir. .....
============================================================
On May 14, 7:21 am, Javed Iqbal Kaleem <JavedIqbalKal...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> There is not a single nation in the South East Asian sub-continent
> that has not suffered at the hands of India. Being the largest country
> in South East Asia, India is a bully in the block. Barrister Munshi
> has very painstakingly narrated the history of Indian high handedness.
>
> By S A Hannan
>
> In India Doctrine, the writer Mr. Munshi has tried to lay emphasis on
> the point that India from the very beginning has been pursuing a
> policy of establishing hegemony in the region.
>
> Mr. Munshi through evidences, arguments and her practices has tried to
> prove that the intentions of India are nothing short of this. To
> materialize India€ ¦’²s objective the EU and the USA have also joined
> hands with her. The USA has concluded a treaty for cooperation in the
> nuclear field with India although it (USA) propagates non-
> proliferation of nuclear weapons.
>
> This nuclear agreement she did to contain the Chinese influence in the
> South Asian region. This is a direct threat to peace in the region.
> Besides the propaganda onslaught against Bangladesh and other
> countries here through some persons and media is on. The visit of
> Shaikh Hasina to India in 2003 and again in 2005, were of considerable
> significance. The 2007 election was also important for them since it
> was the desire of India that Awami League should come into power. The
> insurgency in Chittagong Hill Tracts was creation of India. In brief
> India has been instrumental in destabilizing situation in Bangladesh
> as well as in other countries of the South Asian region like Pakistan,
> Nepal and Sri Lanka etc.
>
> The book says India was partitioned in 1947 but India followed the
> undeclared policy of re-unification or Akhand Bharat since then. The
> skirmishes along the borders, the unabated killing of innocent
> civilians of Bangladesh, insurgencies in Nepal, Pakistan (Baluchistan)
> Sri Lanka are pointer towards this.
>
> India does not believe in two nation theory since they consider that
> there are other common cultural, ethnic grounds for forming a nation.
> India viewed emergence of Bangladesh as an independent state which
> negates the division on the basis of religion.
>
> Nehru€ ¦’²s ideology centred round non-partition of India or the
> Akhand Bharat as detailed in his book, € ¦’³The discovery of India€
> ¦’´ (1947). And this policy has been followed subsequently even after
> partition in 1947. Nehru/ruled from 1947 to 1964 and his successors
> were no different from him. The situation of Sikkim in 1973-75 was
> similar to that of Nepal€ ¦’²s in 2006. In both cases the rulers were
> over thrown. The former became a constituent part of India while the
> latter (Nepal) began to be ruled by the persons of choice of India.
>
> As regard Pakistan, Indira Gandhi at a public meeting on Nov, 30, 1970
> observed, € ¦’³India has never reconciled with the existence of
> Pakistan, Indian leaders always believed that Pakistan should not have
> been created and that Pakistan nation has no right exist€ ¦’´.
>
> The book says that, keeping the above in view it could be said that
> India€ ¦’²s role in 1971 war to help Bangladesh was according to her
> own policy consideration of Akhand Bharat. The later events like
> looting and taking away of military equipments after Pakistanis were
> defeated, unequal distribution of Farraka water, killing of
> Bangladeshis at the borders, inciting insurgencies within Bangladesh
> territories, indirect interference in shaping Bangladesh foreign
> policy, creating problem for garment industries etc. loudly speak of
> the Indian intentions.
>
> The book says that, Henry Kissinger, the then National Security
> Advisor and Secretary of State thought that India€ ¦’²s help for the
> then East Pakistanis in their struggle for liberation was purely
> motivated by self-interest guided by the dream of claiming of all
> territories ruled by the former British colonial power. J. N. Dixit,
> the vet-ran diplomat in his book, € ¦’³Liberation and beyond€ ¦’´,
> gives the impression that it was Pakistan which wanted to break India
> and created condition in the former East Pakistan to make a cause to
> attack India. This is an absurd proposition for it was India which
> impeded the return of refugees when a political settlement was in the
> offing in the later part of 1971. Further, after 9/11, there were
> sufficient reasons to believe that India instigated insurgences
> through JMB out-fit as the confessional statement of its deceased
> leader proved. This was done to tarnish the image of Bangladesh as a
> terrorist state.
>
> After liberation of Bangladesh in 1971, India started propaganda
> offensive both within and out side India against Bangladesh. Noted
> left leaning writers are on their pay rolls in Bangladesh. This is
> done to materialize their goal of Akhand Bharat. Hence it is felt
> necessary that against their propaganda offensive, RAW€ ¦’²s
> clandestine activities, counter offensive both through media measures
> and active intelligence surveillance are must.
>
> The book says that the six points became a great plea for going into a
> tougher movement. Had that been accepted, it was presumed that
> Pakistan would not have broken and nor independent Bangladesh emerged
> in 1971. After 1971, India became more active to make the newly
> emerged state its part. For this she appointed Chittarangan Sutar as
> Shaikh Saheb€ ¦’²s representative in India. Sutar had direct access to
> Indian Prime Minister and other high officials there. His plans
> however failed following assassination of Shaikh Saheb in August 1975.
>
> India entered into a 7 point agreement with the then Bangladesh
> government in exile (located in Calcutta) which contained provisions
> like no standing army for Bangladesh, Joint forces for Bangladesh with
> the command lying with the Indian Army Chief, identical foreign policy
> etc. The defeat of Pakistani army and its surrender to the Indian
> General, (Sans Bangladesh Army Chief) and the terms having never been
> shown to Bangladesh, apparently spoke that virtually Bangladesh
> belonged to India since India won the war with Pakistan and took its
> soldiers captive. The Mujib Bahini, the Rakhi Bahini etc. were created
> to seek their assistance in consolidating the Indian Government€ ¦’²s
> authority in Bangladesh and also to use them when the appropriate time
> had come as thought by India. Their authority was further strengthened
> by the 25 years treaty of friendship which also fortified the 7 point
> agreement made by the government in exile. As said before the plan of
> subordinating Bangladesh
> failed following assassination of Shaikh Saheb. India could have
> walked over but restrained itself for fear of international
> condemnation etc. It however continued its effort to destabilize it
> and others by harboring insurgencies through RAW and other agencies in
> Bangladesh, Sri Lanka Nepal and Pakistan. The insurgencies in
> Chittagong Hill Tracts are worth mentioning.
>
> The book has been further enriched by the valuable contributions from
> the eminent writers of both home and abroad. Professor Khodeja Begum
> in her article laid emphasis on the India€ ¦’²s concept of Akhand
> Bharat or united India quoting authentic references like the 7 point
> agreement made between Indian government and Bangladesh government in
> exile. She also quoted the Ananda Bazar Patrika€ ¦’²s observation
> following 1991 election. The Patrika said that the people in
> Bangladesh should raise their voice for merger with India. Brig Gen
> (Retd) Shakhawat laid emphasis on geopolitical condition of Bangladesh
> and suggested for careful move for making relationship with USA, China
> and more importantly India.
>
> Other Nepalese and Sri Lanka writers have also blamed India for
> inciting insurgencies and instability in the neighboring countries.
> Maoists in Nepal and LTTE in Sri Lanka are the beneficiaries of the
> Indian government.
>
> --
> Javed Iqbal Kaleem