In the name of democracy, surrender By Ghulam Muhammed

Monday, April 04, 2011

In the name of democracy, surrender

By Ghulam Muhammed

One of the more intractable questions that is engaging a vast multitude of fence sitters, genuinely skeptics about why the West could or should be ready to throw out a loyal poodle like Hosni Mubarak and call for a change in the name of democracy.

People have little time to take in the wider perspective of how American Jewry has been manipulating American power and resources to fight the demons of insecurities that has been their destiny over the millenniums. They have never found peace and are not disposed to give peace to others.

After the defeat of Hitler’s fascism, they found a new menace in the emerging global expansion of Communism of the Soviet Russia. From day one, the Zionists, who were thrown out by Stalin from their coveted perch in Soviet hierarchy in Russia, Zionists in US, UK and Israel have had to mount tremendous efforts to first demonize the Communists and then get the American people to channel their national goal and national resources to fight the ‘Evil Empire’. Thanks to US President Ronald Reagan’s astute and determined leadership, the two pronged attack, one the military one from Afghanistan and the other media and people’s revolution organized efforts in Poland, the Soviet Union was dismantled in the 90’s.

The Zionists were now looking for another demon to fight, to keep America’s defense industry churning and to see its banks minting money for the Zionist gnomes of Wall Street. Bernard Lewis, the British Jewish historian and Zionist theorist, first came out with the theory of ‘Clash of Civilization’ and fingering out Islam and Islamic World as the next demon to be slayed. Samuel Huntington in fact, took over from Bernard Lewis, to give the idea a mainstream American face, thus keeping the Zionist their strategic cover. The entire aftermath of 9/11 and the subsequent invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan, have failed to get any net advantage to the US and the West, the Zionists of the US, UK, France and Israel, have now picked up the remaining business from the demise of Soviet Union.

Immediately after the disbanding of the Soviet Union, its satellite got the full force of the democratizing treatment to throw out the old communist system of governance in the newly ‘liberated’ Eastern Europe. There so many revolutions and elections, that the media marketers of the Western conspirators ran out of the names of colors and flower to go with their organized ‘Regime Change’ projects.

The strategies and tactical know-how that was available to the US Zionist operators, came out handy, when the mood in American public sagged after getting thorough beatings in Iraq and Afghanistan and it was decided to use ‘peaceful people’s protest movements’ to mount the next stage of overthrowing all the Arab countries that had been de-colonized Arab countries after the Second World War and had on necessity chosen to side with the emerging Soviet power and acquire its patronage and import its governance systems --- one party rule, 99 percent election results, most inhuman security and intelligence practices and its defence armory. Zionists figured out that unless all such Left oriented rulers who had been ensconced on their perches, for decades now, are overthrown, America’s, EU’s and Israel’s security as well as economic recovery will not be achieved. All of them have Arab and Muslim faces, but had been deriving their power from the old Soviet Union connections that had populated their entire governance systems. In the name of bringing in genuine ‘democracy’ with new Constitutions especially crafted to bind them to the West, Zionist reasoned, the world will not be fully amenable to their exploitative demands over territories, trade negotiation, defence rearmaments, cultural inroads. Their entire agenda of re-colonization of the de-colonized Arab and Muslim World was now to be managed through people’s revolution and revolts and new agents with greater public mandate through organized elections, monitored by the Western observers, with the their hand-maiden, the UN dutifully endorsing their every move, every demand.

All the Arab/Muslim, nay the entire membership of NON-ALIGNEMENT movement is target of the new Zionist conspiracies.

A country like India, one of the 3 prominent leaders of the Non-Alignment movement was smoothly taken over with the assassination of Indian Congress leaders, Rajiv Gandhi. Tito’s Yugoslavia was disintegrated and dismantled. Sukarno’s Indonesia was smoothly taken over. The American Zionists, who have a publicly open monopoly of jobs in US State Department and its embassies and consulates around the world as well as in US Defense Department, are running the USA without the rest of the American public being even slightly aware of their exploitation by the Zionists of America.

A black American Obama was supported by the Zionists, to give the US a new face of a nation working for the ‘peace’ of the world. However, that new face was hardly meant to make any paradigm shift to America’s Zionist given policies of ‘perpetual war for perpetual peace’. The people’s revolutions all around the Middle East and Africa are activated through sleeper cells that the US has been nurturing over the years. As in crimes like murders where the beneficiary of the crime is the most obvious suspect, all new rulers so subverted by the Zionist conspirators entrenched in US administration, will first and last will be American stooges. Observe how US officially promotes people like Baradie in Egypt, another US resident Libyan in Libya. The list will be as long as the list of the newly colonized Arab/Muslim nations.

Oil is just the icing on the cake. There are so many other assets that the new Imperial power, the US and its Grand Vizier, the Jewish advisor, will be exploiting to keep their New World Order in full working shape. This is the new coming of the Western colonizer and its sweep will be much more overpowering, much more exploitative and much more dehumanizing. All Non-Aligned Nations of the world beware of the revenge of the departed colonizer. Even China’s superpower pretenses will not save it from the Zionist conspirators who are ruling USA.

Ghulam Muhammed, Mumbai

ghulammuhammed3@gmail.com

http://ghulammuhammed.blogspot.com

Indian Population Census 2011: Muslims stand strong at 29 %, up from 18 Percent video

Indian Population Census 2011: Muslims stand strong at 29 %, up from 18 Percent video

Hijacking the Arab revolution - By AIJAZ ZAKA SYED | ARAB NEWS

http://arabnews.com/opinion/columns/article338090.ece

 

 

By AIJAZ ZAKA SYED | ARAB NEWS

Hijacking the Arab revolution

SO it has come down to this. After Afghanistan, Iraq and Pakistan, Libya now finds itself in the line of fire of the Coalition of the Willing.

Of course, unlike Afghanistan and Iraq, the West is not fighting “Islamist terrorism” in Libya or is on the quest of the holy grail called Weapons of Mass Destruction. The mission now is to “save lives” and take out the monster that just refuses to fade away like the other friendly, neighborhood dictators in Tunisia and Egypt.

He must hang on in there like a bad dream, an evil spell over Libya. Those who thought Muammar Qaddafi would soon follow his fellow travelers into the sunset were clearly mistaken. The demented author of the Green Book seems to sincerely believe he’s God’s gift not just to the people of Libya but to the whole of humankind. But then Col. Qaddafi, distinctly delusional that he is, isn’t the only one to live in this make-believe world.

There are many out there who have persuaded themselves their leadership is crucial to the survival of their people and their departure would bring on the end of the world. Such is the power of delusions of grandeur. You tend to believe you are at the center of universe.

Those larger than life statues, from Baghdad to Benghazi, are not the celebration of a monstrous ego but the manifestation of a perennial insecurity of the powerful. They have to constantly reassure themselves about their own power.

Some of the biggest and most obscene tributes to human vanity are found in Muslim lands. Islam came to banish all man-made idols and we have replaced them with men who view themselves as divine. They worship themselves and expect their people to do so. Qaddafi is not the only one to believe in his immortality and his right to rule Libya forever. He must kill his people, if need be as he has been doing all these years, to govern them.

There are others out there who have convinced themselves that if they deprive their people of their noble leadership, they will all perish and go to hell. Après moi le déluge, After me the deluge!

After four decades of absolute power, Ali Abdullah Saleh of Yemen believes his people are not still “ready” to govern themselves or determine what’s good or bad for them. ‘I am prepared to step down,’ he reasons, ‘provided people of Yemen prove they have a capable leadership to take over from me.’ Touche!

Bashar Assad of Syria, who and his father between themselves have ruled Syria for nearly half a century, doesn’t fit the description of a tyrant. He insists he and his people are “on the same page.” There’s no problem whatsoever.

What about those angry demonstrations? And why are the Syrian troops firing on peaceful protesters?

Of course, it’s the doing of “conspirators and outsiders,” you know. There’s no trouble in the Baathist paradise of Syria. In fact, a Syrian government spokesperson told CNN’s Hala Gorani with a straight face, President Assad himself has wanted to introduce “reforms” since he took over from his father 11 years ago. Then why hasn’t he? What are we waiting for? End times or another crusader coalition?

Truth be told, whether it is Libya or Syria or numerous other Arab republics, they have all suppressed, abused and persecuted their people for decades — or the lifetime of a tyrant. In addition to perpetual abuse of power and all-pervasive corruption, they all have one thing in common. They’ve all repressed popular democratic movements that turn to Islam for guidance and inspiration, rather than dance to the tunes of London and Washington. And they have all done this with the blessings of Western champions of democracy and freedom.

In Egypt, both Hasan Al Banna, the legendary founder of the Muslim Brotherhood, and his successor Sayyid Qutb were assassinated by the powers that be, not to mention the thousands of its activists who were incarcerated and tortured for years for believing in a better world. From Gamal Nasser to Anwar Sadat to Hosni Mubarak, the most admired grass-roots movement in the Arab world has remained banned and suppressed for half a century.

This is the same story all across the Arab world. From Egypt and Yemen to Syria and from Algeria and Tunisia to Libya, the Islamists have been hunted like animals for decades. In 1982, Syrian forces massacred thousands in the city of Hama in a crackdown on Ikhwan. The memories of Hama massacre are still fresh.

And who could forget how Algeria’s veteran revolutionaries dealt with the Islamic Salvation Front when it swept the first ever multi-party democratic elections in 1991-‘92? The regime not just annulled the historic vote and the verdict it threw up, it unleashed a reign of terror against the Islamists for daring to take the democratic path to change. Nearly 300,000 lives perished in the subsequent civil war whose wounds are yet to heal.

History repeated itself when Hamas wrested power from the corrupt and clueless elites of Fatah in 2006. The Palestinians are still paying the price for this cardinal sin, locked away as they are in the largest prison on the planet.

All this of course wouldn’t have been possible without the active support and cooperation of our Western masters. Even as they have endlessly sung hosannas to the deity of democracy, they have aided and abetted their ever obliging allies to crush and destroy those foolish enough to believe in their rhetoric. Indeed, if the Middle East is still stuck with tyranny in 21st century and men in khaki rule forever, you know who to thank for.

So it’s rather touching to see Uncle Sam and his cohorts come around cheering on the juggernaut of change that is on the march in the Middle East. The folks who are still working with a racist and terrorist regime to wipe out an entire nation in its own land have no shame in pontificating about a people’s right to choose their destiny.

Those who have protected and pampered the Mubaraks and Ben Alis all these years see no irony in coming forward to claim credit for the tide that has turned the Arab world around. Talk of hunting with hares and running with hounds! Some Western pundits even have the cheek to thank the “Cowboy Crusader,” who gave us Afghanistan and Iraq and sent more than a million people to their death, for the Arab revolt.

Is there no limit to Western hypocrisy and duplicity? Why do they think they can fool all the people all the time? Don’t they see the writing on the wall? The tide has turned in the Middle East and Western powers will ignore it at their own peril. For those who have the courage to throw out their corrupt despots are capable of confronting their masters too.

A whopping majority in the Muslim world has no sympathy for Qaddafi whatsoever. They are waiting for his imminent fall and will celebrate his exit — and of others like him — just as they rejoiced over the departure of Ben Ali and Mubarak. But they aren’t going to welcome Janus-faced friends of their tormentors either. So expect no roses in Tripoli Mr. Obama and Mr. Sarkozy and Mr. Cameron!

— Aijaz Zaka Syed is a widely published columnist based in the Gulf. Write to him at aijaz.syed@hotmail.com

 -------------

FROM CRICKET COMMUNALISM TO CRICKET NEUTRALITY - "A primer for Mohali - By Sandeep Dwivedi - Indian Express

FROM CRICKET COMMUNALISM TO CRICKET NEUTRALITY

http://www.indianexpress.com/news/a-primer-for-mohali/769053/0

A primer for Mohali

Sandeep Dwivedi

Tags : sandeep dwivedi, column, indian express, A primer for Mohali

Posted: Wed Mar 30 2011, 01:00 hrs

Such a long journey from being a partisan support to a cricket fan

It was a rare day for us kids, that sultry Saturday evening of April 1986. Forget dividing ourselves in two teams for our usual tennis-ball cricket game, we didn’t even feel like planting the stumps. About 24 hours back, Javed Miandad had a last ball six at Sharjah and the trauma had drained our energies.

Excuse or explanation failed us and the biggest heartbreak of our young lives was way too complex to deal with. That’s when one of us repeated what he had heard at home. “My father said, we can never beat them on a Friday,” said a subdued voice. The impasse was over. Finally, we had an excuse, and an explanation too, that helped us to come to terms with India’s loss. The “Bad Friday” logic suited us and there were slow, wise nods all around.


Suddenly, Chetan Sharma had sympathy as now it was fate that was burdened with the ignominy of bowling a full toss. “Poor Sharma, he was merely attempting to bowl a yorker,” we concluded.

In hindsight, that was our first encounter with cricket’s uncontrollables. Worse, that was also when cricketing communalism silently seeped into our immature minds for the first time. Unseen and unfelt by us, objectivity and cricketing commonsense exited with this new overbearing arrival.

Miandad’s quick reflexes and his unflappable temperament were now seen as incidental happenings in the pro-Pakistan designs that we believed the Maker had penned for all Fridays. Heavy emotional investment in India-Pakistan games and the juvenile interpretation of patriotism had taken a toll on us. The sports fan in us died. With time, he was to take a rebirth within us but not before we had missed several memorable sporting spectacles and failed to acknowledge or appreciate many great individual cricketing feats.

Getting up to switch off the television with Sachin Tendulkar’s dismissal and closing one’s eyes during a stunning spell by a hostile pacer from across the border were rituals strictly followed on big India-Pakistan match days.

Many fellow cricket crazies became mental wrecks. For them, the bat-and-ball skills became irrelevant as they started believing that match fortunes fluctuated by keeping one’s fingers crossed. Some even took great pains to convince others that it was the colour of their garments that had influenced India’s win.

Those were the Sharjah days during the illogical 1980s when absurdities were part of the whole cricketing experience. That was the time when most wanted criminals sat in VVIP boxes with their families, sub-standard commentators were seen to be entertaining and the word shady wasn’t just used to describe the comfortable stands under those desert canopies.

But something changed for us rabid and partisan Indian supporters during the 1992 World Cup. India was to exit early but the supreme Channel 9 coverage was way too entertaining for us Doordarshan addicts to turn our backs on the action from Australia and New Zealand. That’s when we actually saw Pakistan without bias. That’s when we actually made an attempt to know our neighbours. Not distracted by prayer or superstition, we sat wide-eyed to watch those amazing men in green.

They were a very skilful bunch led by a skipper whose walk on the field was similar to the gait that the Big Cats in African jungles flaunt when the National Geographic men pan their cameras on their pride.
There was a teenaged batting prodigy whose limited English vocabulary didn’t include the word pressure. A short and stodgy young leg-spinner with magical fingers who turned veteran batsmen into fumbling novices.

A couple of pacers with speed, guile and skills had a habit of shattering stumps with dream balls. Imran Khan led a team that had several show stoppers like Inzamam-ul Haq, Mushtaq Ahmed, Wasim Akram and Aaqib Javed.

It wasn’t a tough call when the super-entertaining Pakistan bunch played the bland English unit in the final. As Imran lifted the spherical crystal trophy we saw cricket in a new light.

The cobwebs had cleared, our neighbours were suddenly the cool guys. The transformation from a fanatical India fan to a more mature cricket follower took time, but it was a change for the better.

The mind is at peace, the brain works logically and even in these days of mad frenzy the sanity is intact. Having experienced the edgy life on the other side, I can vouch that the present state of semi-neutrality with a certain soft-corner for India is pleasant. I have availed the power to smirk and walk off with a smile when some Shahid Afridi vs Yuvraj Singh kind of debate ceases to be a cricket discussion and dissolves into ugly rhetoric. Since the game is always the winner, you can never be a sore loser.

After appreciating a classic Tendulkar cover drive, in case an Umar Gul in-cutter makes way between the Indian opener’s bat and pad, he too deserves at least a few claps. And if Zaheer Khan loses the race to be the leading wicket-taker to Afridi, it would not be the end of the world. Zaheer and Afridi have done enough to be judged by their showing in one tournament.

The idea here isn’t about being saintly, but it is the best way to deal with the war references and attempts to turn a cricket game into a gladiatorial duel. With the rulers of the two nations present in the stands, Mohali on Wednesday will have a perfect coliseum feel to it.

It is a challenge to cut out clichés and stereotypical sentiments from an Indo-Pak cricketing contest. But in case one achieves that blissful higher plane of cricketing neutrality, watching two sides with unique and outstanding skill sets would be a serene experience, and not necessarily a nerve-jangling ordeal.
sandeep.dwivedi@expressindia.com

------------------------------

http://epaper.timesofindia.com/Default/Scripting/ArticleWin.asp?From=Archive&Source=Page&Skin=TOINEW&BaseHref=TOIM/2011/03/30&PageLabel=4&EntityId=Ar00403&ViewMode=HTML

Stars indicate a nail-biter

Chittaranjan Tembhekar | TNN

Mumbai: The situation appears to be fluid, even among the stars. Astrologers indicate that the stars do not favour any team outright in today’s World Cup semi-final at Mohali, which means that a nail-biting finish could be on the cards. Some numerologists, though, are veering towards an India win.

    Hundreds of people have begun consulting astrologers and numerologists to know in advance who will win the Indo-Pak clash. Some Mumbaikars are even deciding whether to watch the match or not after consulting the pundits.

    Astrologer Ajai Bhambi said the match is starting at 2.30 pm, while at 4.07 pm the moon will change position and move from Capricorn to Aquarius. “This may trigger sudden changes and offset equations in the early part of the match. However, there will be no major changes in the second half.” Bhambi said the team batting first will have to weather the early problems.

    “If you compare the players’ stars, both teams have equal chances. However, Dhoni’s stars are down, which is a cause for worry. I wish him the best,” said Bhambi.

    Pandit Suvashit Raj, an astrologer said the position of Saturn is not in India’s as well as Tendulkar’s favour. “It seems that Pakistan has better chances of winning. But the position of Shani, which remains uncertain, will decide the game’s fate,” he added.

    Numerologist Sanjay Jumaani, who has been getting calls from several people who want to know the possible result, said the numbers were in India’s favour.

    Normally, if India has to do well, the numbers 3, 6 and 9 matter the most as India’s number is 3 (Jupiter) and Bharat’s number is 6 (Venus). This is proven if you look at past victories and defeats, said Jumaani.

    “Since the match is being held on the 30th, that means the numbers are in India’s favour. The Australia match was on the 24th (adding up to 6). India had a target of 261 (9). Ahmedabad is 27 (9) and the Man of the Match was Yuvraj, whose jersey is 12 (3),” said Jumani. He added that Mohali is again 21 (3). Mumbai, where the final will be held, is 18 (9).

    On the other hand, Jumaani said that Pakistan’s number is 7, which does not favour the venue of Mohali. However, he added that 2011 is Pakistan’s lucky year. “Afridi’s number is 1 and he is the dark horse. Players like Kamran Akmal and Mohammed Hafeez need to be watched,” added Jumaani.

    Aniket Gupte, a Bandra resident, said his astrologer told him that India will have the edge in a nail-biting finish. “My astrologer has told me that the result will be decided in the last two hours, so I am going to watch it with total concentration,” he added. Meanwhile, Dilip Mehta, a Colaba resident, will skip the match as his astrologer friend predicted a defeat for India.

--------------

The Libya campaign - The coalition has begun its self-appointed task. But what is the aim, and what is the endgame? - THE ECONOMIST

http://www.economist.com/node/18442119?story_id=18442119

The Libya campaign

Into the unknown

The coalition has begun its self-appointed task. But what is the aim, and what is the endgame?

Mar 24th 2011 | from the print edition

EVEN as French warplanes set off on March 19th, under a United Nations mandate, to stop Muammar Qaddafi’s tanks and artillery reaching the Libyan rebel stronghold of Benghazi, it was clear that the hastily assembled “coalition of the willing” would have to make it up as it went along. The pace of events on the ground had left little time for reflection.


Security Council Resolution 1973, passed less than 48 hours earlier with Russia, China, Brazil, India and Germany abstaining, was a triumph for French and British diplomacy. France’s president, Nicolas Sarkozy, had worked energetically to persuade Arab countries to make an appeal through the usually fairly useless Arab League for the UN to come to the aid of Libyan civilians. David Cameron, Britain’s prime minister, had done his part by nudging the Americans to overcome their reservations about military intervention. Remarkably the resolution, which was co-sponsored by Lebanon, gave the allies an almost free hand, short of a full-scale invasion and occupation, to use “all necessary measures” to protect civilians from Colonel Qaddafi’s advancing forces.

Yet those words have led to some confusion, among both allies and rebels, about what could or should be done. There has been wrangling, too, over who should lead the operation when the Americans carry out their pledge, supposedly within the next few days, to withdraw to a merely supportive role.

It already looks as if establishing the no-fly zone was the easy part. The first barrage of nearly 120 Tomahawk cruise missiles from American warships and a British submarine, which struck 20 command-and-control sites, severely damaged the regime’s ability to operate its air-defence system. Further salvoes of cruise missiles and attacks by British, American and French aircraft over the next few nights appear to have finished the job, although Colonel Qaddafi may have saved some of his radar simply by turning it off.

By March 22nd a no-fly zone covered most of the rebel-held eastern coastal region. Combat patrols were being flown by aircraft from countries including Canada, Spain, Denmark, Italy and Belgium. Planes from Qatar were expected by March 27th. Over the next few days the aim is to extend the zone eastwards until it covers the whole of the coast to the capital, Tripoli. A de facto maritime exclusion zone has also been imposed, preventing Colonel Qaddafi from either re-supplying his forces or shelling rebel-held cities from the sea.

How useful the no-fly zone will be in halting the regime’s counter-offensive is debatable. Colonel Qaddafi may have had fewer than 40 operational combat aircraft at most, and has many fewer now; but his fleet of attack helicopters (also vulnerable to “all necessary measures”) has provided close support for ground troops, which at times has given him a critical advantage.

In some ways, the no-fly zone is as much a diplomatic as a military tool—a way of binding together a visibly fragile 14-nation alliance. But as the drafters of the resolution realised, it was never going to be enough on its own to prevent Colonel Qaddafi from killing his people.

Even without their combat aircraft and helicopter gunships, Colonel Qaddafi’s paramilitaries are proving too well-trained and well-equipped for the motley rebel forces to withstand on their own. The spectacularly destructive results of the first French attack on the loyalist forces descending on Benghazi may have led the rebels to think that their fighting would be done for them, and that their enemies would quickly crumble. But it had its effect because Colonel Qaddafi’s men, in their desperate attempt to reach Benghazi before the allies could get their act together, had allowed their supply lines to become dangerously overstretched, leaving tanks, transporters and rocket launchers strung out as sitting ducks along the desert road. 

Benghazi and other rebel towns in the far east of the country, such as Tobruk, are now relatively secure from any attempt by the regime to recapture them—a huge change from only a few days ago. But the picture in towns already controlled by Colonel Qaddafi’s forces is less clear-cut. The rebels’ attempt on March 21st to relieve the strategic crossroads town of Ajdabiya, 145km (90 miles) south-west of Benghazi, showed what they are up against and the limits of their military capability.

Emboldened by the coalition’s demand that the regime should pull back from Ajdabiya, which was retaken by government forces last week, the rebels hoped that air attacks would do the same job for them as they had outside Benghazi. When jets were heard overhead, followed by big explosions, a few hundred rebels, toting a variety of light weapons from pick-up trucks, charged forward. But as shells and rockets began raining down on them they fled as quickly as they had come. Without discipline or training, adequate communications or a unified command structure, they are no match for Colonel Qaddafi’s men.

Repulsing government forces from Ajdabiya, which controls the water supply to Benghazi, is a key objective for the coalition and the rebels. Coalition aircraft began launching strikes on the loyalist forces on March 22nd, but they have so far proved hard to dislodge.

The situation in Libya’s third-largest city, Misrata, only 130 miles east of Tripoli and with a population of more than half a million, appeared even more desperate. After more than a week of heavy fighting in which well over 100 people are said to have died, the government announced on March 21st that it was in full control of the town. That now looks premature. Loyalist tanks and artillery that had been sporadically bombarding the city for several weeks were silenced (at least temporarily) after pinpoint air strikes on the 23rd. According to reports from within Misrata, many of the tanks were destroyed and many of Colonel Qaddafi’s men were seen fleeing. Snipers, however, continued their deadly work in the centre and around the main hospital.

In Tripoli, despite the nightly attacks on the regime’s command-and-control centres, there is not much sign of the government losing its grip. The regular pro-Qaddafi demonstrations do not accurately reflect feeling within the capital, but there is no way of knowing how strong opposition to the colonel may be.

A further complication for the coalition is the predictable exploitation of “human shields” (apparently, mostly volunteers) to protect high-value government targets. On March 21st an RAF Tornado aborted its mission close to Tripoli after it was warned that civilians, including some foreign journalists, were close to its target.

The strikes on Tripoli also raised the question of whether trying to kill Colonel Qaddafi himself was consistent with the terms of the Security Council resolution. The legal advice appears ambiguous. “Regime change” is not an allied goal, even though nobody believes that a peaceful, democratic Libya is possible while the colonel is around. On the other hand, if it is clear (as it surely is) that Colonel Qaddafi has given orders that have resulted in the butchering of Libyan civilians, he is indeed a legitimate target. This seems to be the position of the British government, which on March 21st was quick to slap down the chief of the defence staff, Sir David Richards, who had grumpily told a BBC journalist that going after Colonel Qaddafi was “absolutely…not allowed”.

Who leads?

All this means that the coalition urgently needs to work out what its strategic objectives are and what it is prepared to do to achieve them. But before that, it must sort out who is going to lead it.
The Americans were willing to accept that role in the first phase of the campaign because of the range of assets (from the opening cruise-missile barrage, to electronic jamming, intelligence-gathering, mission co-ordination and fuel supply) that only they could bring to the speedy establishment of the no-fly zone. But in line with the new humility and commitment to multilateralism that Barack Obama preaches, they were adamant that they would then hand over to somebody else.

That did not, however, mean falling in with Mr Sarkozy’s preference for a Franco-British command. Mr Sarkozy argued from the start that he did not want the operation led by NATO, because NATO is seen in the Arab world as a tool of American power, and Arab support for the coalition is already weak. The Americans and the British, however, were reluctant to sideline NATO. The result was a fudge agreed late on March 22nd. Mr Sarkozy and Mr Obama agreed that NATO would assume day-to-day military command of the no-fly zone under Admiral James Stavrides, the American supreme allied commander in Europe; but that, reflecting some of NATO’s own divisions, particularly the ambivalence of Turkey and Germany, political control would lie with the members of the coalition rather than with the North Atlantic Council, the main decision-making body of the alliance. However, late on March 23rd Turkey’s opposition to coalition ground attacks stalled the signing of the compromise.

Obstructions of this sort make it all the harder to settle other essential matters swiftly. The first is to devise a realistic set of strategic goals. One may already have been achieved. With no more than about 10,000 troops available and with any advance across the desert acutely exposed to coalition air strikes, Colonel Qaddafi has almost certainly lost his chance to reimpose his authority in the east.

However, there have been doubts about how far attacks from the air could help the civilians who are within Colonel Qaddafi’s reach. The position of the government forces besieging Ajdabiya looked precarious after air attacks on March 22nd, and they were said to be running out of ammunition. But the big test is bringing help to Misrata. Admiral Samuel Locklear, a coalition commander, said that all options were being considered.

Misrata is important not just for humanitarian reasons. If it cannot be saved, or the cost of doing so is deemed too high, the coalition would be sending a signal that for now there is not much it can do to prevent Colonel Qaddafi consolidating his position in the western half of the country. But if coalition air strikes are able to take out government heavy weaponry in urban areas without significant risk to civilians, as appears to be happening in Misrata, the pessimists may be confounded.

What happens to Misrata, in other words, could define the extent of the coalition’s objectives, at least in the short term. It must decide whether there is any realistic prospect of the rebels taking on Colonel Qaddafi’s forces and power structure in the west. The rebels themselves are reported to be divided between those who believe that the regime can be toppled with one more push, as long as they are supported by coalition air power, and those who believe that a temporary stalemate makes more sense. During such a stalemate, the rebels’ national council in Benghazi could turn itself into a government-in-waiting capable of speaking with one voice, and much-needed military capabilities could be developed.

There may also be some tension within the coalition between those keen to attempt a speedy resolution and those who are resigned to a lengthier engagement. Patience is still likely to be the better bet, unless the regime collapses from within.

Misrata makes that outcome just a bit more likely. Colonel Qaddafi’s troops and supporters are rapidly learning just how devastatingly effective western air power can be. But without substantial defections from the loyalist army, the rebels cannot hope to become a cohesive military force unless they receive weapons and training from outside, which would seem to be in breach of the UN arms embargo.

A short-term partition of Libya might be bearable, but a long-term one raises the prospect of an arms race, rapid economic decline and Colonel Qaddafi resuming his sponsorship of international terrorism. Algeria, which disavows the Arab League declaration, might start rearming the colonel across his western border.

Two further pressing issues for the coalition will be the enforcement of sanctions against the regime and the question of whether the rebels can gain access to Libya’s (diminished) oil revenues. The biggest refinery, at Ras Lanuf, lies in what is likely to be the rebels’ area of control; so too do many of the oilfields. On the other hand, if reports that the colonel has $6.4 billion-worth of gold stashed away in the country’s central bank in Tripoli are true, he has a potential advantage in any war of attrition. If he can liquidate this hoard into cash, arms and food, his chances of clinging on indefinitely will be boosted.

Given the range of uncertainties, the question of targeting Colonel Qaddafi himself becomes more relevant. Without him, it is hard to see the regime surviving for more than a few weeks. The coalition will not change its declared position that killing the Libyan war leader is not on its list of objectives. But were it somehow to happen, few would complain.

I have never seen the Sabarmati Express, says Godhra 'mastermind' - By Abu Zafar -IANS - Ummid.com

http://www.ummid.com/news/2011/March/26.03.2011/godhra_mastermind_interview.htm

I have never seen the Sabarmati Express, says Godhra 'mastermind' Saturday March 26, 2011 02:25:33 PM, Abu Zafar , IANS

Related Articles 'How will they get back their 9 years' Asks mother of 3 acquitted in Godhra case Bibi Khatoon from Godhara district, Gujarat, is the mother of the three, who have been acquitted by the court February 21.   » Acquitted in Godhra case, he dies before meeting his family Forensic report on Godhra train burning dents Govt./VHP claims Godhra train carnage: 31 convicted, 63 acquitted Godhra verdict travesty of justice, says lawyer Prashant Bhushan Godhra (Gujarat): The man who spent eight years in jail on charges of burning the Sabarmati Express in Godhra and killing 59 people has now been declared innocent and walks free. But Saeed Umarji is a bitter man and says he is a social worker who had never even seen the train. Maulana Hussain Ibrahim Umarji, popularly known as Saeed Umarji, said that the only reason authorities had punished him was because he spoke on behalf of innocent fellow Muslims. "I have never seen the Sabarmati Express because it passes from Godhra only at night," the 65-year-old Umarji told IANS in an exclusive interview. Umarji said he was a social worker who was at the forefront of relief efforts when a devastating earthquake ravaged Latur in Maharashtra in 1993 and Kutch in Gujarat in 2001. "I also ran several relief camps after the Gujarat riots of 2002. A total of 3,500 people took shelter. We also took care of people who got arrested in the Godhra case," said Umarji, who runs educational institutions in the town of Godhra, about 115 km from Gujarat's main city Ahmedabad. A mob targeted the Sabarmati Express's Coach S6 Feb 27, 2002, near the Godhra station burning to death 59 people, mostly Hindu activists who were returning home from Ayodhya in Uttar Pradesh. The incident, later dubbed a conspiracy, triggered one of the worst communal riots in Gujarat leaving over 1,000 people, mostly Muslims, dead. Thousands were injured, and thousands of others uprooted from homes. Umarji was one of the many arrested for the train burning. After eight years in jail, a judge last month acquitted Umarji and many others of the charges. A graduate from Darul Uloom, Deoband, Umarji is a bitter man today. "Jail is a graveyard of living people," Umarji said. "I lost eight years of my precious life. No one can return it now. I and my family were mentally tortured. "Our ladies normally never stepped out of home. But after my arrest, for several days my wife couldn't stay at home. My sons lived in fear," Umarji told IANS, referring to fears of reprisals from Hindu radicals. While he was in prison, and with no sign when -- if at all -- he would be released, four of his sons and two daughters got married. But there was an unusual spin-off because of his stay in the Sabarmati Central Jail at Ahmadabad. "Before my arrest, I could walk only to the nearby mosque. But I exercised in jail. Now I walk around 10 km daily." The social worker says he was implicated in a false case because he tried to blame the state government of Narendra Modi for the 2002 violence. "My biggest sin was that that I gave a memorandum to Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayeei and explained in detail the role of the state machinery during the riots. That was when he visited Godhra. "I mentioned the problems we (Muslims) faced after the Godhra incident, but they (authorities) wanted us to keep quiet and not to complain." Later, he was asked to meet Vajpayee at Gandhinagar. "I refused. I didn't want to meet him because it was of no use." Umarji recalled how police treated him in captivity. One question he was repeatedly asked was why he gave a statement against the Gujarat Police on the human rights situation. Even as he laments over his fate, Umarji is sympathetic to those who died in the Sabarmati Express. "I condemn that incident and I express my sympathy to them and their families." (Abu Zafar can be contacted at abuzafar@journalist.com)

Keeping the inclusive faith By Sadia Dehlvi - The Times of India | Comments by Ghulam Muhammed

Friday, March 25, 2011

Comments posted on Times of India website over Sadia Dehlvi’s article: Keeping The Inclusive Faith:

Since when majority becomes the basis for any change in Islamic fundamentals? The idea of democratic majority to subvert the basic monotheism of Islamic percepts can not be the criteria to judge or justify 'Indian Islam'. Any deviation have to addressed in its entirety and reforms instituted. Those who are set in some deviant ritualistic practices borrowed from outside influences, have to be examined and discarded. In our secular polity, state has no role to play in individual religions. It remains the duty of the people themselves to examine how far we have strayed from the right path and do everything to restore the letter and spirit of Islam as presented to the World by our Prophet (PBUH). 'Indian Islam' is viewed with big apprehension by the rest of the Muslim world. Sadia Dehlvi has articulated that deviations in a manner, as if that are the virtues that should be adopted by rest of the Islamic World. That is an erroneous exercise. In its long history, Islam has witnessed many an upheavals in the name of reforms and modernity. However, basics of faith have always survived and will survive in the future, inshallah. That is a divine commitment.

Ghulam Muhammed, Mumbai

ghulammuhammed3@gmail.com

http://ghulammuhammed.blogspot.com  

 --------------------

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/home/opinion/edit-page/Keeping-the-inclusive-faith/articleshow/7781965.cms

TOP ARTICLE

Keeping the inclusive faith

Sadia Dehlvi | Mar 24, 2011, 07.44pm IST


Imam Al Sudais's India visit to lecture at the Deoband seminary is sending some sections of the Muslim community into overdrive. I received a card from the India Islamic Cultural Centre (IICC) in Delhi to attend an address by 'His Holiness', Imam-e-Haram, Dr Sheikh Abdul Rahman Al Sudais, presently imam of the mosque in Mecca. The accompanying letter details the imam's achievements including his educational degrees in sharia law. In 2005, he received 'The Islamic Personality of the Year' award and stood nominated for the Dubai International Quran Award, which he accepted.

The 'His Holiness' came as a jolt, for no such prefixes have ever been added to Prophet Muhammad's name or that of his companions, who rank the highest in Muslim piety. As one devoted to Islam, i believe using the Quran to name an award belittles the sanctity of God's word and borders on blasphemy. Legitimising such an award by its acceptance seems a worse action. The early history of Islam contains no examples of spiritual or religious leaders accepting state or private awards. On the contrary, sharia and prophetic traditions frown upon those who seek or allow public adulation, for all righteous deeds are for God alone.

The Deoband leadership has requested that Al Sudais not be frisked during his visit to Parliament. Due respect must be accorded to the visiting imam, because he leads the prayers at the Kaabah. This reverence flows from 'where' the prayers are led and not because of 'who' the imam is. To quote Arshad Madani of the Jamiat-e-Ulama-e-Hind, "Sheikh Al Sudais is the highest religious leader of the Muslims". This is misleading because Al Sudais merely represents the highest-ranking sacred space. The worldwide Muslim majority does not subscribe to the radical Wahhabi ideology propagated by Saudi clerics.

This political, narrow, legalistic and literalist interpretation of Islam emerged from the desert wastelands of Najd in Saudi Arabia from among the followers of the Bedouin Abdul Wahhab, an 18th century self-claimed reformist. The trajectory of the Wahhabi movement is rooted in violence, legitimising jihad as an armed conflict to kill fellow Muslims in disagreement with their vision of Islam by declaring them kafirs, infidels. Related to the ruling family through matrimonial alliances, Abdul Wahhab's family continues to control the ministry of religion, quashing many reforms desired by the political leadership, particularly by the present moderate King Abdullah.

The Wahhabis, who call themselves 'Salafis', have a limited following in the subcontinent. It includes the Deoband seminary, Tablighi Jamaat, Ahle Hadith and the Jamaat-e-Islami in Pakistan. Together, they constitute not more than 15 to 20% of the total population. Unfortunately, the government and the public fall prey to media-driven stereotypes. The perceptions of these factions representing majority Muslim opinion are baseless. Muslims are not monolithic communities but adhere to varied interpretations of Islam. In India and Pakistan, the Ahle Sunnat wal Jamaat represented by the Barelvi creed has the largest following.

Saudi clerics, including Al Sudais, face international criticism for inciting passions against the Barelvis, Shias, other Muslim minorities and non-Muslims. The Saudi state outsources its Wahhabi ideology by spending billions of dollars in patronising the building and running of mosques, madrassas, journals and cleric training programmes. It remains the fountainhead of the extremism infiltrating Muslim communities, tearing their local cultures apart. The bombing of dargahs and Shia mosques in Pakistan is one such manifestation.

The Saudi state has robbed all Muslims in the world of their legitimate cultural, historical and spiritual legacy, both in the physical and spiritual realm. In 1925, despite global outrage, all mausoleums including those of the Prophet's family at Jannat-ul Maali and Jannat-ul Baqi, the sacred graveyards of Mecca and Medina, were demolished. Once reflecting Islamic glory and heritage, the bulldozed compounds are now typical Wahhabi burial grounds with rows of featureless unmarked graves. Several other historical sites continue to be obliterated.

Throughout history, Sufis and their disciples from different parts of the globe inhabited Mecca and Medina, the first centres of spiritual Islam. Now, the constant patrolling by the mutawwah, the religious police, ensures that pilgrims do not participate in collective spiritual gatherings. Forced to follow Wahhabi practices, devotees in Medina are not allowed to face the Prophet's chamber in supplication. Women face severe restrictions of time and space at the sacred mosques. It is decreed sinful and therefore criminal to write, read, sing or listen to 'naat', poetic praise, of the Prophet. Enforcements have washed away these traditions commonplace during Prophet Muhammad's life. Thirty-five among the Prophet's poet companions composed 'naat', Hassan ibn Thabit being his favourite.

The aims and objective of the IICC is to preserve and promote the composite and inclusive cultural traditions of Indian Muslims. Since its inception, the Centre has been trying to decode which cultural activities are sharia compliant and those that are not. Therefore, it is ironic and worrying that the IICC is one of the venues for the imam's address. I hope Al Sudais's discourse triggers a genuine and long overdue intra-faith dialogue amongst Indian Muslims as to what the rightful traditions of Islam are.

( The writer is a commentator and an author.)