Thursday, September 20, 2007
INDO-US N-DEAL AND INDIAN MUSLIMS
INDO-US N-DEAL AND INDIAN MUSLIMS
LETTER TO THE EDITOR:
Wednesday, September 19, 2007
Wednesday, September 19, 2007
The Editor, The Times of India, Mumbai
This refers to Saeed Naqvi's article: N-deal not about Muslims (TOI, September 19, 2007).
Mr. Naqvi seems to have been completely out of touch with the Muslim sentiments in India that reflected its horror at the way; the US has invaded Iraq and caused hundreds of thousands of civilian casualties in blind pursuit of its own colonizing agenda, by illegal invasion, occupation and spurious legal entrenchment in to all future institutions of the occupied nation. Indian Muslims were part of the most vocal opposition which howled when Advani returned from a 'chance' unscheduled meeting with President Bush in White House and had sheepishly committed India to send troops to topple Saddam. It was the Muslim opposition in the forefront that saved the day for India and India has remained unblemished for any possible collaboration with the now universally condemned US invasion of Iraq. It was the Muslim protest over Bush visit to India that got lakhs of Muslims to gather in a surprising protest meeting in Azad Maidan that shocked the local authorities over their intelligence failure to prejudge the intensity of Muslim feelings against Bush and the US. The third major blunder that US had committed is to assume that India would and should participate in America and Israeli designs to wage another war on a Muslim country. By finalizing a strategic partnership agreement with the US, which clearly binds India to side with the US, in case of any invasion of Iran, Congress government is directly putting its Muslim vote bank or the remains of it, on the line.
Saeed Naqvi cites the example of many Arab countries signing peace treaties with Israel, supposedly according to him, leaving no excuse for Indian Muslims to oppose India opening relations with Israel. Indian Muslims are well aware that all those Arab/Muslim countries that had signed peace treaties with Israel have done it under duress. The anti-Israeli feelings are still very strong in Arab/Muslim masses. It is therefore understandable why Indian Muslims, not under any compulsion to bow down to Israeli dictates over the occupied land of Palestine, should feel no reason to abandon their abhorrence for Israel's Bantustan policies in occupied prison called Palestine Authority. Indian Muslims are not blind to the kind of atrocities and economic hardship Israel is inflicting on Palestinians without any regards for human rights or world opinion.
Saeed Naqvi seems to make a mockery of Congress apprehension of opening Israeli Embassy, over Muslim protests. He very proudly says: Not a squeak! As if that is some kind of victory for Congress or for Saeed Naqvi. If he is really politically experienced analyst, he would not have so categorically ruled out Muslim role in the political fortunes of either Congress or other parties. He should have made an allowance for the fact, there is always a time for everything and since Muslims are not full time political operatives, they may not react at certain point of time. But that should not preclude the danger that any political party may wager against any such explosion in the future. As the proverb goes, when it rains, it pours. As a writer, Naqvi may take a chance. As a political party, Congress cannot take a risk over one of its most sensitive constituency.
Ghulam Muhammed, Mumbai
<ghulammuhammed3@gmail.com>
#5425
Mr. Naqvi seems to have been completely out of touch with the Muslim sentiments in India that reflected its horror at the way; the US has invaded Iraq and caused hundreds of thousands of civilian casualties in blind pursuit of its own colonizing agenda, by illegal invasion, occupation and spurious legal entrenchment in to all future institutions of the occupied nation. Indian Muslims were part of the most vocal opposition which howled when Advani returned from a 'chance' unscheduled meeting with President Bush in White House and had sheepishly committed India to send troops to topple Saddam. It was the Muslim opposition in the forefront that saved the day for India and India has remained unblemished for any possible collaboration with the now universally condemned US invasion of Iraq. It was the Muslim protest over Bush visit to India that got lakhs of Muslims to gather in a surprising protest meeting in Azad Maidan that shocked the local authorities over their intelligence failure to prejudge the intensity of Muslim feelings against Bush and the US. The third major blunder that US had committed is to assume that India would and should participate in America and Israeli designs to wage another war on a Muslim country. By finalizing a strategic partnership agreement with the US, which clearly binds India to side with the US, in case of any invasion of Iran, Congress government is directly putting its Muslim vote bank or the remains of it, on the line.
Saeed Naqvi cites the example of many Arab countries signing peace treaties with Israel, supposedly according to him, leaving no excuse for Indian Muslims to oppose India opening relations with Israel. Indian Muslims are well aware that all those Arab/Muslim countries that had signed peace treaties with Israel have done it under duress. The anti-Israeli feelings are still very strong in Arab/Muslim masses. It is therefore understandable why Indian Muslims, not under any compulsion to bow down to Israeli dictates over the occupied land of Palestine, should feel no reason to abandon their abhorrence for Israel's Bantustan policies in occupied prison called Palestine Authority. Indian Muslims are not blind to the kind of atrocities and economic hardship Israel is inflicting on Palestinians without any regards for human rights or world opinion.
Saeed Naqvi seems to make a mockery of Congress apprehension of opening Israeli Embassy, over Muslim protests. He very proudly says: Not a squeak! As if that is some kind of victory for Congress or for Saeed Naqvi. If he is really politically experienced analyst, he would not have so categorically ruled out Muslim role in the political fortunes of either Congress or other parties. He should have made an allowance for the fact, there is always a time for everything and since Muslims are not full time political operatives, they may not react at certain point of time. But that should not preclude the danger that any political party may wager against any such explosion in the future. As the proverb goes, when it rains, it pours. As a writer, Naqvi may take a chance. As a political party, Congress cannot take a risk over one of its most sensitive constituency.
Ghulam Muhammed, Mumbai
<ghulammuhammed3@gmail.com>
#5425
