Oh, I see. Thanks for clarifying that, and I agree with you!

To be fair, given all the tripe we’ve been hearing and been subjected to by this TWAT and the armies of filth ridden commentators happy to provide the mortar for the neocon bricks, neatly hides the truth.

The primary focus has to be on how we got here and who benefitted, before we can even begin to rebalance our relationships.

For us to sit here and pass judgement on people who were nothing more than cannon fodder in the cold war, as others had been in other parts of the world at different times, expecting them to fall in line and keep delivering only now to a different tune is not going to deliver any stability.

Its a red herring to suggest that we should dismiss an arbitrary section of muslims to strenghten another, it is after all playing the same old game. Only this time it is intended to ignite a civil war amongst muslims – and would there not be a blowback from that, which we will debate ad infinitum?

I say that we will conclude, in the final analysis, that the US lost the cold war. They lost it AFTER we all thought it was over. And all those minor nations it used to destroy the Soviet Union have not benefitted and consequentially will remain opposed to US hegemony. Those it has used it has broken. Those it continues to use remain anti-democratic or fall in line out of fear.

So I would say its not about muslims, its about supremacy and TWAT was lovely wheeze to get everyone to fall in line home and abroad. It worked – for a while.

By the way El Cid says I am white, others think I am jewish, some sikh and some hindu.

I am delighted to say culturally I am all these things and more.

Jai, although I understand your reasoning for this, to limit this to sufi groups is already a non starter, as they have very little influence in mainstream muslim communities.

I agree with the rest of your points in comment #30, but I was mainly referring to the Asian Muslim population here in the UK. A lot of people (plenty of exceptions, obviously) do seem to have moved away from some of their original cultural reference points in terms of religious identity etc and have moved towards the Arab/Middle-Eastern version of such things, so I was thinking that it may be a good idea for a stronger focus on subcontinental history and Islam (which, to some extent, has obviously evolved independently of the Arab version during the past 1000 years) to help counteract the more extreme ideas such people are taking on-board and put them back in touch with their real roots. The last point obviously overlaps with what you said too.

Also, since all our respective ancestral roots lie in the subcontinent, we do all have a lot of shared history and culture regardless of our religious affiliations, at least those of us who are from the northern half of the region.

I don’t know how much influence Sufi groups in the subcontinent have on Asian Muslims here in the UK, but somehow encouraging this would presumably help to counteract the corrosive influence of the austere Wahabbi/HuT types.

In terms of Pakistan, someone originating from that country (directly or via parents etc) would obviously be in a better position than I am to have an informed opinion on the issue, but my point was that perhaps encouraging Sufi groups there (either directly or via familial/social connections between British Pakistanis and their counterparts over there) would help to mitigate the radicalisation in some quarters of Pakistan too. There’s been a lot of talk about the attempted “Talibanisation” of some parts of Pakistani society and the growing infiltration of such elements; I even read recently somewhere that, to some extent, Pakistan is (in a manner of speaking) now being “invaded” by Afghanistan in this way.

*********

Refresh,

I believe you’re of Pakistani origin aren’t you ? What do you think of the above, is it a good idea or even feasible ?

7. Do something about the internally displaced peoples in India due to ridiculously pricey, yet completely ineffective, if not dangerous, projects.

i.e. not end up a la Iraq which didn’t have WMD, and no way in hell the US or another power would invade a country with a huge nuclear arsenal

4. Make it a priority to remedy, rectify, and/or eliminate the problems that stem from economic globalization. There needs to be something done about this, as the gap between the rich and poor continues to widen, and everyone in between and on the lower end continue to live precariously. This also feeds into issues that we don’t hear about as often as we hear about farmers committing suicide: labor migration both within S. Asia and outside of it, human trafficking, sexual exploitation, etc.

5. Related to #4, ensure that SAFTA does not turn into an incredible disaster like NAFTA; that it promotes social and economic justice and a more symbiotic relationship between S. Asian countries and not turn into a smaller version of the larger global free marketization.

That’s all I can think up of for now.

1. Quit looking at South Asia as some big chessboard that can be played.

2. Quit looking at all problems through the lens of the now yawningly redundant terms of “terrorism,” “extremists,” and “Islamicists.” Not every single fucking thing that happens in, say Pakistan, can be reduced to “Islamic extremists” and “jihadis.” Sepoy over at Chapati Mystery pointed out that there has been very little understanding of what is actually going on in places like Swat (and based on my research, I would add Balochistan): they have their own histories which have resulted in complex dynamics, but you don’t 1) understand that and as such 2) you cannot address those problems because we continue to talk about it as simply a “hotbed” of “fundamentalism”. I will say that this vision also plagues how we talk about Kashmir. Kashmir is not only about Lashkar-e-Toiba (sp?); it’s also about a large civilian population that is at the mercy of a state army.

3. Quit feeding an arms race between India and Pakistan (though this might be tricky, because many nations might not want to give up their arms so as to avoid US invasions– ie not end up a la Iraq

What the heck does counteracting the “Arabization” of subcontinental Islam have to do with forging a better South Asia and improving foreign policy? There are plenty of other places where relations are tense, volatile, and contentious which are nowhere near South Asia, nor do they have significant Muslim countries (We just don’t hear about them as often as we do re: Muslim countries because the GWOT is currently not staged there). And Islamic fundamentalism is certainly not the only impetus that has caused problems in South Asia- so has Hindu fundamentalism, and yes, also Sikh fundamentalism. We can argue why there are so many fundamentalisms in South Asia, but to reduce it to Islam and Wahabism is unbelievably myopic.

Sofia:

“It would rather be to encourage education for Indian/pakistani/bangladeshi muslim children and pride in their cultural heritage instead of leaving religious instruction to madrassah style schools.”

Out of curiosity, I’m wondering what the “cultural heritage” of Indian/Pakistani and Bangladeshi Muslim children would be; and if Desi Muslim children have a “cultural heritage,” is it really that radically different from their other Desi Sikh, Hindu, Jain, Parsi, etc counterparts?

How about not failing basic South Asian geography.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7sdEkNhYkNI

Not evading a question about the crisis in Pakistan by talking about Pakistani illegal immigration.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4aI3y86y0Bs

And finally not using stupid gimmicks to get elected.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MDUQW8LUMs8

Ah the Huckster, another Bushie fundo-freak in waiting.

Britain may well be the worst possible herald for this message, but it remains true: Kashmir is not a possesion, an object, something that can be owned.

1. It is a geographical region within which people live.
2. Those people have natural, inherent and inalienable human rights.
3. there is a natural, inherent and unavoidable obligation on the elected Indian government to work to set up a state structure that minimises violations of those rights.
4. that goverment has no source of legitimate interest or claim on the inhabitants of that geographical region other than the degree to which they accept its ability to defend and enforce those rights
5. if the optimal solution to point 3 turns out to not be a sub-division of the Indian central government, so be it.

If India doesn’t hold to those precepts, it should abandon the label ‘democracy’, and market itself as Empire V2.0.

I agree, and its part of the Full Spectrum Dominance plan.

Well that’s one way of looking at it, but I was referring to the “next generation of weaponry”, whatever that may be.

You know, energy weapons, lasers, warheads with even more destructive power than nukes, that sort of thing.

***********

Kismet, I wonder what Jon Stewart will do when Dubya isn’t in the Oval Office anymore. I can’t imagine him ridiculing Obama if he wins the Presidency (Hillary, maybe, Obama – no), considering the level of high hopes everyone has for him. Unless/until he does something which seriously undermines his idealistic and decent image (God, I hope not).

‘Unfortunately that’s only going to be effective until some enterprising scientist somewhere comes up with a more technologically advanced and more destructive form of weaponry.’

Fair point. Hence Russia’s opposition to the siting of US anti-missile stations across Europe. No point in having a deterrent if someone can counter it.

Until George Bush III comes along to avenge the humiliation of his father that is.

How very Bollywood…..

Hell, how very Asian.

‘Give them all nuclear weapons…..We shall all live by the bomb. It’s the only way.’

Unfortunately that’s only going to be effective until some enterprising scientist somewhere comes up with a more technologically advanced and more destructive form of weaponry.

As far as we know or it could be Georgina Bush III, or it could skip to Jeb’s line.

Until George Bush III comes along to avenge the humiliation of his father that is.