|
Wednesday, March 28, 2012
Gujarat Pogrom of 2002 condemned by City of Harvey, IL Resolution - Indian American Muslim Council, USA
Monday, March 26, 2012
The inflated terms of the Iran debate By Roger Cohen - The Indian Express
Israel's Iran Bluff to offer US another pretext to impose PAX AMERICANA in the Middle East
Ghulam Muhammed, Mumbai
<ghulammuhammed3@gmail.com>
-----------------
http://www.indianexpress.com/
Each side must make real concessions, instead of the non-negotiation that we have seen for the last 30 years
Roger Cohen
Jeffrey Goldberg of The Atlantic has been perhaps the most vigorous, influential and informed voice relaying the view that Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel sees the Iranian leadership as a “messianic apocalyptic cult” and will bomb Iran to stop its nuclear programme. He predicted Israel would attack Iran in the spring of 2011. This month, he wrote for Bloomberg that Obama’s words — “I have Israel’s back” — meant something but not “enough to stop Netanyahu.” Then came the shift. Goldberg wrote a follow-up Bloomberg piece arguing that “Netanyahu could be bluffing.” All the Israel prime minister was really deploying was “huge gusts of words infused with drama and portents of catastrophe.” The Goldberg variations, coming from a journalist who has interviewed both Netanyahu and Obama on Iran, are worthy of serious note.
I’ve never believed Netanyahu, going it alone without US support, would attack an Iran whose stop-go nuclear programme still stands some distance from the capacity to make — let alone actually produce — a bomb. The cost-benefit analysis does not add up: you don’t have to be the former Mossad chief Meir Dagan to see that. Ignite a regional conflict, infuriate the United States, lock in the Islamic Republic for a generation, and take the modern state of Israel to war against Persia for the first time in order to set back a weakened Iran’s nuclear zigzag by a couple of years at best?
Israelis are not crazy, any more than the Iranians.
On the other hand, it seems to me evident that if Iran ever did move out of its comfort zone (which is dilatory opacity), throw out the IAEA inspectors monitoring its uranium enrichment, combine the elements of its nuclear and ballistic research, and rush for a bomb, it would face assault from Israel and the US together. Neither can permit such a decisive shift in the Middle East strategic equation.
In this sense, the whole Iran debate — with its receding “red lines,” its shifting “zones of immunity,” its threats and counter-threats, its bad metaphors and worse similes — is false. We know what will trigger a war and what won’t. At least we should.
Now, after a buildup in Western sanctions, and after Arabs have done more than the West to undermine the Islamic Republic by demanding that democracy and faith go together, talks are to begin again April 13 between Iran and the United States, Russia, China, Britain, France and Germany.
My sense of Iran’s psychology includes these elements. The nuclear programme is the modern-day equivalent of Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh’s nationalisation of the oil industry — an affirmation of Persian pride against the tutelage of the West and one it is determined will not end with a humiliation.
It is a push for regional influence, a protest against double standards (nuclear-armed Israel, Pakistan and India), a nationalist cornerstone for a tired revolutionary regime and a calculated hedge — the supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, is “the guardian of the Revolution” and so must balance assertion with preservation, hence the brinkmanship that keeps Iran just short of steps that would trigger war.
You don’t spend long in Tehran without someone rolling up a sleeve, pointing to a horrific scar and saying “America.” The wound is from gassing during the Iran-Iraq conflict in which the West provided Saddam Hussein with chemical weapons. The generation of young officers who fought that 1980-88 war now runs Iran. As John Limbert, a former US hostage in Iran, has observed, Iran sees America as “belligerent, sanctimonious, godless and immoral, materialistic, calculating, bullying, exploitive, arrogant and meddling.” America, in turn, sees Iran as “devious, mendacious, fanatical, violent and incomprehensible.”
This is Ground Zero of the negotiations about to begin. It’s what you get after 30 years of dangerous non-communication. Is there a way out of the impasse? Perhaps not: Khamenei is a Brezhnevian figure with a locked-in world-view of America as Great Satan. But perhaps yes, if real concessions are made by both sides and the nuclear issue is not taken in isolation.
The fundamental question the West must answer is how to satisfy Iran’s pride and usher it from historical grievance while capping its enrichment at a low, vigorously inspected level far from weapons grade (I can see no solution that does not allow some enrichment.) The fundamental question for the Islamic Republic is whether it can open itself to the West while preserving its system, a risk China took 40 years ago and won.
All the rest is no more than “huge gusts of words.”
Ghulam Muhammed, Mumbai
<ghulammuhammed3@gmail.com>
-----------------
http://www.indianexpress.com/
Updated: Mon, 26 Mar 2012 14:53 IST
The inflated terms of the Iran debate
Each side must make real concessions, instead of the non-negotiation that we have seen for the last 30 years
Roger Cohen
Jeffrey Goldberg of The Atlantic has been perhaps the most vigorous, influential and informed voice relaying the view that Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel sees the Iranian leadership as a “messianic apocalyptic cult” and will bomb Iran to stop its nuclear programme. He predicted Israel would attack Iran in the spring of 2011. This month, he wrote for Bloomberg that Obama’s words — “I have Israel’s back” — meant something but not “enough to stop Netanyahu.” Then came the shift. Goldberg wrote a follow-up Bloomberg piece arguing that “Netanyahu could be bluffing.” All the Israel prime minister was really deploying was “huge gusts of words infused with drama and portents of catastrophe.” The Goldberg variations, coming from a journalist who has interviewed both Netanyahu and Obama on Iran, are worthy of serious note.
I’ve never believed Netanyahu, going it alone without US support, would attack an Iran whose stop-go nuclear programme still stands some distance from the capacity to make — let alone actually produce — a bomb. The cost-benefit analysis does not add up: you don’t have to be the former Mossad chief Meir Dagan to see that. Ignite a regional conflict, infuriate the United States, lock in the Islamic Republic for a generation, and take the modern state of Israel to war against Persia for the first time in order to set back a weakened Iran’s nuclear zigzag by a couple of years at best?
Israelis are not crazy, any more than the Iranians.
On the other hand, it seems to me evident that if Iran ever did move out of its comfort zone (which is dilatory opacity), throw out the IAEA inspectors monitoring its uranium enrichment, combine the elements of its nuclear and ballistic research, and rush for a bomb, it would face assault from Israel and the US together. Neither can permit such a decisive shift in the Middle East strategic equation.
In this sense, the whole Iran debate — with its receding “red lines,” its shifting “zones of immunity,” its threats and counter-threats, its bad metaphors and worse similes — is false. We know what will trigger a war and what won’t. At least we should.
Now, after a buildup in Western sanctions, and after Arabs have done more than the West to undermine the Islamic Republic by demanding that democracy and faith go together, talks are to begin again April 13 between Iran and the United States, Russia, China, Britain, France and Germany.
My sense of Iran’s psychology includes these elements. The nuclear programme is the modern-day equivalent of Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh’s nationalisation of the oil industry — an affirmation of Persian pride against the tutelage of the West and one it is determined will not end with a humiliation.
It is a push for regional influence, a protest against double standards (nuclear-armed Israel, Pakistan and India), a nationalist cornerstone for a tired revolutionary regime and a calculated hedge — the supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, is “the guardian of the Revolution” and so must balance assertion with preservation, hence the brinkmanship that keeps Iran just short of steps that would trigger war.
You don’t spend long in Tehran without someone rolling up a sleeve, pointing to a horrific scar and saying “America.” The wound is from gassing during the Iran-Iraq conflict in which the West provided Saddam Hussein with chemical weapons. The generation of young officers who fought that 1980-88 war now runs Iran. As John Limbert, a former US hostage in Iran, has observed, Iran sees America as “belligerent, sanctimonious, godless and immoral, materialistic, calculating, bullying, exploitive, arrogant and meddling.” America, in turn, sees Iran as “devious, mendacious, fanatical, violent and incomprehensible.”
This is Ground Zero of the negotiations about to begin. It’s what you get after 30 years of dangerous non-communication. Is there a way out of the impasse? Perhaps not: Khamenei is a Brezhnevian figure with a locked-in world-view of America as Great Satan. But perhaps yes, if real concessions are made by both sides and the nuclear issue is not taken in isolation.
The fundamental question the West must answer is how to satisfy Iran’s pride and usher it from historical grievance while capping its enrichment at a low, vigorously inspected level far from weapons grade (I can see no solution that does not allow some enrichment.) The fundamental question for the Islamic Republic is whether it can open itself to the West while preserving its system, a risk China took 40 years ago and won.
All the rest is no more than “huge gusts of words.”
Thursday, March 22, 2012
http://www.freepressjournal.
A nuclear Iran in perspective
By M. V. Kamath
. If the hypocritical western world is against Islamic Iran going in for nuclear bombs, why was the United States silent when Pakistan was accumulating them openly? If Pakistan can have nuclear bombs, why can't Iran?
In regard to the current US- Israel tussle under the patronage of the US, there are some things that both the countries and Jews everywhere should know. One: India, primarily a Hindu country has never been against Jews. On the contrary, down the centuries India has provided security and stability to them in plenty as it did to Parsis and, in the last few decades, to Tibetans. We are a civilized nation.
Two: It was Christian Europe that prosecuted Jews and forced them to stay in ghettos. The history of Christian- Jewish relations has to be read to be believed.
Jews were heavily persecuted in Christian Europe after 1300 A. D. The persecution hit its first peak during the Crusades ( 1096).
Massacre of Jews was frequent. England banned all Jews in 1290. In 1396, one lakh Jews were expelled from France. In 1421, according to reports, " thousands" were expelled from Austria. Following the Spanish Inquisition, the entire population of 2 lakh Saphardic Jews were expelled from Spain. In the 17th century almost no Jew lived in western Europe.
Following the Second World War, according to reports, six million Jews were murdered methodically and with horrifying cruelty in what came to be known as holocaust. In Poland, more than one million Jews were murdered in gas chambers at the Auschwitz concentration camp alone. It is the European Christian world alone that was responsible for the creation of Israel. Does anybody remember Adolf Hitler? India had nothing to do with Jewish persecution. It is purely a barbaric European invention. It is the Christian world that is responsible for the clash between Jewish Israel and the Islamic world. India has nothing to do with it.
Three: If the hypocritical western world is against Islamic Iran going in for nuclear bombs, why was the United States silent when Pakistan was accumulating them openly ( it now apparently has about ninety bombs) all these years? Because it paid Washington to look the other way, even if India was to be Pakistans target? Why did the US support Pakistan in all its anti- Indian activities, giving it billions of dollars in aid which were used against India by a vicious Islamabad? So, if Pakistan can have nuclear bombs, why can't Iran?
Four: Iran reportedly has terrorist gangs actively working against many countries, including India. India, surely, will warn Iran against such criminal activities but that would be in an entirely different context. Doesn't Pakistan use terrorists against India? What have the US and Israel done to stop that? Five: India does not want to get involved in any anti- Iran activities just to please the US and let it be known that if India buys oil from Iran, it also simultaneously buys defence equipment from Israel. Washington would do well not to bully India which has its own national interests to protect.
Six: If the US wants to stop Iran from making nuclear bombs, the right approach is first to de- nuclearize Pakistans nuclear weaponry.
Seven: Furthermore, if the US wants to prove its concerns over nuclear proliferation, it must first tell Britain and France to get rid of their nuclear weapons and, at the same time get rid of its own stock of over 10,000 nuclear bombs. Then Iran will have no reason to go for nuclear weaponry. And let that be a for all nuclear states to follow, including Israel, Russia, China and India. There can't be one law for the US and its allies and another for its opponents.
Eight: India does not want to antagonise the US, let alone any other nation in the world. It wants to live in peace with every country, including China and Pakistan for mutual benefit. But it would fight to the finish any effort by any power, western or eastern, to limit its freedom and endanger its security. Its message to all UN members is: 'Don't fool around with us. It would be an unwise thing to do'.
Nine: Is there any way to peacefully resolve the current conflict that could end up with Israel going in for a unilateral attack on Iran? Can one find a way to bring Iran into the international mainstream? If there is any one who can help, it is surely India. Approach India positively, not antagonistically. Think it over, Mr. Obama.
Ten: It is not in Indias interests to have a fundamentalist Islamic state become nuclear- armed. It is bad enough to have an immediate neighbour as a nuclear state. It would be worse to have another Muslim state go nuclear. To bring stability, one must find suitable ways to improve interstate relations and India has a role in pursuing this. In the circumstances, the West, especially the US, must think twice before hurting Indias feelings and worse still to force India into taking what will ultimately turn out to be an anti- Islamic stand. It is not in Indias interests to let itself be pushed to the wall.
Eleven: We are dealing with historical antagonisms that cannot be resolved overnight. Wars do not help. Israel would be wise in not taking a unilateral decision to hit out at Iran. India can never be a party to such action and this must be clearly understood. To say that in supporting Iran, India is supporting terrorism is to befool oneself. Let it be remembered that terrorism was encouraged first in South Asia by the US itself to get rid of Russia from Afghanistan. It is the United States that is the father of terrorism and it is India that has also suffered as much, thanks to American thoughtlessness. India has suffered silently. The greatest Axis of Evil is one between Washington and Islamabad. What is worse is that the United States continues to finance Pakistan to the tune of $ 2 billion every year, knowing fully well that this amount is used by the ISI for its own sinister anti- Indian activities.
And finally, Twelve: Don't make an enemy of India because it refuses to play the western game. If there is one country in the world which can hopefully act as a moderator between Christian West and Islamic Middle East, it is India. Iran has been indulging in sabre- rattling, obviously in retaliation to American provocations.
- India
- Mar 22, 2012
. If the hypocritical western world is against Islamic Iran going in for nuclear bombs, why was the United States silent when Pakistan was accumulating them openly? If Pakistan can have nuclear bombs, why can't Iran?
In regard to the current US- Israel tussle under the patronage of the US, there are some things that both the countries and Jews everywhere should know. One: India, primarily a Hindu country has never been against Jews. On the contrary, down the centuries India has provided security and stability to them in plenty as it did to Parsis and, in the last few decades, to Tibetans. We are a civilized nation.
Two: It was Christian Europe that prosecuted Jews and forced them to stay in ghettos. The history of Christian- Jewish relations has to be read to be believed.
Jews were heavily persecuted in Christian Europe after 1300 A. D. The persecution hit its first peak during the Crusades ( 1096).
Massacre of Jews was frequent. England banned all Jews in 1290. In 1396, one lakh Jews were expelled from France. In 1421, according to reports, " thousands" were expelled from Austria. Following the Spanish Inquisition, the entire population of 2 lakh Saphardic Jews were expelled from Spain. In the 17th century almost no Jew lived in western Europe.
Following the Second World War, according to reports, six million Jews were murdered methodically and with horrifying cruelty in what came to be known as holocaust. In Poland, more than one million Jews were murdered in gas chambers at the Auschwitz concentration camp alone. It is the European Christian world alone that was responsible for the creation of Israel. Does anybody remember Adolf Hitler? India had nothing to do with Jewish persecution. It is purely a barbaric European invention. It is the Christian world that is responsible for the clash between Jewish Israel and the Islamic world. India has nothing to do with it.
Three: If the hypocritical western world is against Islamic Iran going in for nuclear bombs, why was the United States silent when Pakistan was accumulating them openly ( it now apparently has about ninety bombs) all these years? Because it paid Washington to look the other way, even if India was to be Pakistans target? Why did the US support Pakistan in all its anti- Indian activities, giving it billions of dollars in aid which were used against India by a vicious Islamabad? So, if Pakistan can have nuclear bombs, why can't Iran?
Four: Iran reportedly has terrorist gangs actively working against many countries, including India. India, surely, will warn Iran against such criminal activities but that would be in an entirely different context. Doesn't Pakistan use terrorists against India? What have the US and Israel done to stop that? Five: India does not want to get involved in any anti- Iran activities just to please the US and let it be known that if India buys oil from Iran, it also simultaneously buys defence equipment from Israel. Washington would do well not to bully India which has its own national interests to protect.
Six: If the US wants to stop Iran from making nuclear bombs, the right approach is first to de- nuclearize Pakistans nuclear weaponry.
Seven: Furthermore, if the US wants to prove its concerns over nuclear proliferation, it must first tell Britain and France to get rid of their nuclear weapons and, at the same time get rid of its own stock of over 10,000 nuclear bombs. Then Iran will have no reason to go for nuclear weaponry. And let that be a for all nuclear states to follow, including Israel, Russia, China and India. There can't be one law for the US and its allies and another for its opponents.
Eight: India does not want to antagonise the US, let alone any other nation in the world. It wants to live in peace with every country, including China and Pakistan for mutual benefit. But it would fight to the finish any effort by any power, western or eastern, to limit its freedom and endanger its security. Its message to all UN members is: 'Don't fool around with us. It would be an unwise thing to do'.
Nine: Is there any way to peacefully resolve the current conflict that could end up with Israel going in for a unilateral attack on Iran? Can one find a way to bring Iran into the international mainstream? If there is any one who can help, it is surely India. Approach India positively, not antagonistically. Think it over, Mr. Obama.
Ten: It is not in Indias interests to have a fundamentalist Islamic state become nuclear- armed. It is bad enough to have an immediate neighbour as a nuclear state. It would be worse to have another Muslim state go nuclear. To bring stability, one must find suitable ways to improve interstate relations and India has a role in pursuing this. In the circumstances, the West, especially the US, must think twice before hurting Indias feelings and worse still to force India into taking what will ultimately turn out to be an anti- Islamic stand. It is not in Indias interests to let itself be pushed to the wall.
Eleven: We are dealing with historical antagonisms that cannot be resolved overnight. Wars do not help. Israel would be wise in not taking a unilateral decision to hit out at Iran. India can never be a party to such action and this must be clearly understood. To say that in supporting Iran, India is supporting terrorism is to befool oneself. Let it be remembered that terrorism was encouraged first in South Asia by the US itself to get rid of Russia from Afghanistan. It is the United States that is the father of terrorism and it is India that has also suffered as much, thanks to American thoughtlessness. India has suffered silently. The greatest Axis of Evil is one between Washington and Islamabad. What is worse is that the United States continues to finance Pakistan to the tune of $ 2 billion every year, knowing fully well that this amount is used by the ISI for its own sinister anti- Indian activities.
And finally, Twelve: Don't make an enemy of India because it refuses to play the western game. If there is one country in the world which can hopefully act as a moderator between Christian West and Islamic Middle East, it is India. Iran has been indulging in sabre- rattling, obviously in retaliation to American provocations.
Media reports indicate that an anti- India campaign is gaining ground in the US for the US to foster it from behind the scene, it must be warned, would not be in its own interests. The West supports Israel out of a guilt complex arising from past sins and present security concerns. India has no desire to become part of western machinations, in its own interests which would be in the interests of peace in a strife- torn region, as well.
FOR THE RECORD: US House RESOLUTION 569 - Recognizing the tenth anniversary of the tragic communal violence in Gujarat, India.
FOR THE RECORD:
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/
112TH CONGRESS
2D SESSION
H. RES. 569
Recognizing the tenth anniversary of the tragic communal violence in Gujarat,
India.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
MARCH 1, 2012
Mr. ELLISON submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the
Committee on Foreign Affairs
RESOLUTION
Recognizing the tenth anniversary of the tragic communal
violence in Gujarat, India.
Whereas, on February 27, 2002, in the city of Godhra in the
western state of Gujarat, India, 58 Hindus were tragically
burnt alive in a train coach fire;
Whereas, immediately following the train fire, communal violence
erupted in several towns in Gujarat;
Whereas, in the International Religious Freedom Report of
2003, the United States Department of State found that
‘‘In Gujarat the worst religious violence directed against
Muslims by Hindus took place in February and March
2002, leaving an estimated 2,000 dead and 100,000 displaced
into refugee camps. It was alleged widely that the
police and state government did little to stop the violence
promptly, and at times even encouraged or assisted Hin-
dus involved in the riots. Despite substantial evidentiary
material, the judicial commission responsible for investigating
the riots reported inconclusive findings. No Hindus
have been charged for the violence.’’;
Whereas a 2002 Human Rights Watch report entitled ‘‘We
Have No Orders to Save You’’ stated that ‘‘Between
February 28 and March 2 [2002] the attackers descended
with militia-like precision on Ahmedabad by the
thousands. Chanting slogans of incitement to kill . . .
they were guided by computer printouts listing the addresses
of Muslim families and their properties . . . and
embarked on a murderous rampage confident that the
police was with them. Portions of the Gujarati language
press meanwhile printed fabricated stories and statements
openly calling on Hindus to avenge the Godhra attacks.’’;
Whereas Brown University Professor Ashutosh Varshney, one
of the world’s experts on riots in India, wrote in a 2004
article that ‘‘Unless later research disconfirms the proposition,
the existing press reports give us every reason to
conclude that the riots in Gujarat were the first fullblooded
pogrom in independent India.’’;
Whereas the Indian magazine Tehelka reported that many of
the people who participated in the violence said it was
possible only because of the connivance of the state police
and Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi;
Whereas the United States Government denied Minister Modi
a visa to the United States in 2005 on the grounds of
a religious freedom violation under the International Religious
Freedom Act of 1998, the first and only time such
a denial has been issued;
Whereas February 27, 2012, was the tenth anniversary of the
train fire and start of the communal violence in Gujarat,
India;
Whereas Human Rights Watch reported on February 24,
2012, that ‘‘Where justice has been delivered in Gujarat,
it has been in spite of the state government, not because
of it.’’;
Whereas minorities in Gujarat continue to experience religious
and socio-economic discrimination; and
Whereas the Department of State reported in its International
Religious Freedom Report of 2003 that ‘‘Christians
were also victims in Gujarat, and many churches
were destroyed.’’: Now, therefore, be it
1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives—
2 (1) recognizes the suffering of all those persons
3 who were affected by the 2002 violence in Gujarat,
4 India, including those persons who lost their lives in
5 the Godhra train fire;
6 (2) shares the opinion of the United States De-
7 partment of State that the Gujarat government has
8 not adequately pursued justice for the victims of the
9 2002 violence;
10 (3) remains concerned by reports from journal-
11 ists and human rights groups about the complicity
12 of Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi in the
13 2002 violence;
14 (4) commends the United States Government
15 for denying a visa to Minister Modi in 2005 on the
1 grounds of a religious freedom violation under the
2 International Religious Freedom Act of 1998;
3 (5) applauds the Department of State and the
4 United States Commission on International Reli-
5 gious Freedom for their monitoring of religious free-
6 dom in India and throughout the world;
7 (6) salutes the role of Indian police officers
8 who, despite personal risk, provided honest testi-
9 mony about the violence in Gujarat;
10 (7) supports the role of independent media in
11 India that continue to highlight the Gujarat issue;
12 (8) commends the role of the National Human
13 Rights Commission and the Indian Supreme Court,
14 which has led to some convictions in Gujarat riot
15 cases, and also the arrest of a few high-level leaders
16 in the Modi administration;
17 (9) recognizes the work of Indian and Indian-
18 American civil society groups for their tireless devo-
19 tion to educating people about human rights and re-
20 ligious freedom in India; and
21 (10) calls on the Gujarat government to heed
22 the recommendations of the State Department to re-
23 store religious freedom for all citizens in Gujarat.
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/
112TH CONGRESS
2D SESSION
H. RES. 569
Recognizing the tenth anniversary of the tragic communal violence in Gujarat,
India.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
MARCH 1, 2012
Mr. ELLISON submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the
Committee on Foreign Affairs
RESOLUTION
Recognizing the tenth anniversary of the tragic communal
violence in Gujarat, India.
Whereas, on February 27, 2002, in the city of Godhra in the
western state of Gujarat, India, 58 Hindus were tragically
burnt alive in a train coach fire;
Whereas, immediately following the train fire, communal violence
erupted in several towns in Gujarat;
Whereas, in the International Religious Freedom Report of
2003, the United States Department of State found that
‘‘In Gujarat the worst religious violence directed against
Muslims by Hindus took place in February and March
2002, leaving an estimated 2,000 dead and 100,000 displaced
into refugee camps. It was alleged widely that the
police and state government did little to stop the violence
promptly, and at times even encouraged or assisted Hin-
dus involved in the riots. Despite substantial evidentiary
material, the judicial commission responsible for investigating
the riots reported inconclusive findings. No Hindus
have been charged for the violence.’’;
Whereas a 2002 Human Rights Watch report entitled ‘‘We
Have No Orders to Save You’’ stated that ‘‘Between
February 28 and March 2 [2002] the attackers descended
with militia-like precision on Ahmedabad by the
thousands. Chanting slogans of incitement to kill . . .
they were guided by computer printouts listing the addresses
of Muslim families and their properties . . . and
embarked on a murderous rampage confident that the
police was with them. Portions of the Gujarati language
press meanwhile printed fabricated stories and statements
openly calling on Hindus to avenge the Godhra attacks.’’;
Whereas Brown University Professor Ashutosh Varshney, one
of the world’s experts on riots in India, wrote in a 2004
article that ‘‘Unless later research disconfirms the proposition,
the existing press reports give us every reason to
conclude that the riots in Gujarat were the first fullblooded
pogrom in independent India.’’;
Whereas the Indian magazine Tehelka reported that many of
the people who participated in the violence said it was
possible only because of the connivance of the state police
and Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi;
Whereas the United States Government denied Minister Modi
a visa to the United States in 2005 on the grounds of
a religious freedom violation under the International Religious
Freedom Act of 1998, the first and only time such
a denial has been issued;
Whereas February 27, 2012, was the tenth anniversary of the
train fire and start of the communal violence in Gujarat,
India;
Whereas Human Rights Watch reported on February 24,
2012, that ‘‘Where justice has been delivered in Gujarat,
it has been in spite of the state government, not because
of it.’’;
Whereas minorities in Gujarat continue to experience religious
and socio-economic discrimination; and
Whereas the Department of State reported in its International
Religious Freedom Report of 2003 that ‘‘Christians
were also victims in Gujarat, and many churches
were destroyed.’’: Now, therefore, be it
1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives—
2 (1) recognizes the suffering of all those persons
3 who were affected by the 2002 violence in Gujarat,
4 India, including those persons who lost their lives in
5 the Godhra train fire;
6 (2) shares the opinion of the United States De-
7 partment of State that the Gujarat government has
8 not adequately pursued justice for the victims of the
9 2002 violence;
10 (3) remains concerned by reports from journal-
11 ists and human rights groups about the complicity
12 of Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi in the
13 2002 violence;
14 (4) commends the United States Government
15 for denying a visa to Minister Modi in 2005 on the
1 grounds of a religious freedom violation under the
2 International Religious Freedom Act of 1998;
3 (5) applauds the Department of State and the
4 United States Commission on International Reli-
5 gious Freedom for their monitoring of religious free-
6 dom in India and throughout the world;
7 (6) salutes the role of Indian police officers
8 who, despite personal risk, provided honest testi-
9 mony about the violence in Gujarat;
10 (7) supports the role of independent media in
11 India that continue to highlight the Gujarat issue;
12 (8) commends the role of the National Human
13 Rights Commission and the Indian Supreme Court,
14 which has led to some convictions in Gujarat riot
15 cases, and also the arrest of a few high-level leaders
16 in the Modi administration;
17 (9) recognizes the work of Indian and Indian-
18 American civil society groups for their tireless devo-
19 tion to educating people about human rights and re-
20 ligious freedom in India; and
21 (10) calls on the Gujarat government to heed
22 the recommendations of the State Department to re-
23 store religious freedom for all citizens in Gujarat.
Tuesday, March 20, 2012
When General Grant Expelled the Jews - By Jonathan Sarna - The Tablet
http://nextbookpress.com/books/248/
—Sean Wilentz, author of The Rise of American Democracy: Jefferson to Lincoln “An excellent study [from the] gifted and resourceful historian Jonathan D. Sarna . . . His account shines brightest around the edges of the story, offering valuable new insights into ethnic politics, press power, and the onetime ability of leaders to flip-flop with grace . . . A compelling page-turner.” —Harold Holzer, The Washington Post “Thoroughly researched and crisply written, this is a very fine work that will interest students of both American and modern Jewish history.” —Publishers Weekly “Sarna expertly navigates the repercussions of Grant’s shocking order, which galvanized the American Jewish community into action, reminding many who were refugees from European expulsions how insecure they were even in America. . . . Sarna weighs the short-lived order against important Jewish appointments in Grant’s administration, his humanitarian support for oppressed Jews around the world, and lasting friendships with Jews. A well-argued exoneration of a president and a sturdy scholarly study.” —Kirkus Reviews “In this compelling and focused study, Jonathan D. Sarna explores the causes—and assesses the little-known impact—of one of the most troubling incidents in the life of the Union's greatest commander.” —Geoffrey C. Ward, coauthor of The Civil War “An absorbing account of a lamentable act by the North’s greatest general, a dishonorable act committed by an honorable man. This fair and balanced treatment of the event places the commander and the Jews in the context of great conflict. Fortunately, redemption and rapprochement would follow.” —Frank J. Williams, president, Ulysses S. Grant Association
Copyright 2011 Nextbook Inc. All rights reserved.
When General Grant Expelled the Jews
Overview
“Ulysses S. Grant’s order expelling Jews from his war zone has long helped insure his eternal disgrace. Supposedly, the drunken, bloodthirsty crook was also an anti-Semite! Jonathan Sarna’s excellent, painstaking reevaluation of what really happened helps rescue Grant’s reputation; it is long overdue. It also affirms Sarna’s unsurpassed standing as a historian of American Jewry.”—Sean Wilentz, author of The Rise of American Democracy: Jefferson to Lincoln “An excellent study [from the] gifted and resourceful historian Jonathan D. Sarna . . . His account shines brightest around the edges of the story, offering valuable new insights into ethnic politics, press power, and the onetime ability of leaders to flip-flop with grace . . . A compelling page-turner.” —Harold Holzer, The Washington Post “Thoroughly researched and crisply written, this is a very fine work that will interest students of both American and modern Jewish history.” —Publishers Weekly “Sarna expertly navigates the repercussions of Grant’s shocking order, which galvanized the American Jewish community into action, reminding many who were refugees from European expulsions how insecure they were even in America. . . . Sarna weighs the short-lived order against important Jewish appointments in Grant’s administration, his humanitarian support for oppressed Jews around the world, and lasting friendships with Jews. A well-argued exoneration of a president and a sturdy scholarly study.” —Kirkus Reviews “In this compelling and focused study, Jonathan D. Sarna explores the causes—and assesses the little-known impact—of one of the most troubling incidents in the life of the Union's greatest commander.” —Geoffrey C. Ward, coauthor of The Civil War “An absorbing account of a lamentable act by the North’s greatest general, a dishonorable act committed by an honorable man. This fair and balanced treatment of the event places the commander and the Jews in the context of great conflict. Fortunately, redemption and rapprochement would follow.” —Frank J. Williams, president, Ulysses S. Grant Association
On December 17, 1862, as the Civil War entered its second winter, General Ulysses S. Grant issued a sweeping order, General Orders #11, expelling “Jews as a class” from his war zone. It remains the most notorious anti-Jewish official order in American history. The order came back to haunt Grant in 1868 when he ran for president. Never before had Jews been so widely noticed in a presidential contest, and never before had they been confronted so publicly with the question of how to balance their “American” and “Jewish” interests. During his two terms in the White House, the memory of the “obnoxious order” shaped Grant’s relationship with the American Jewish community. Surprisingly, he did more for Jews than any other president to his time. How this happened, and why, sheds new light on one of our most enigmatic presidents, on the Jews of his day, and on America itself.
About the Author
Jonathan Sarna
Jonathan D. Sarna is the Joseph H. & Belle R. Braun Professor of American Jewish History at Brandeis University. He also chairs the Academic Advisory and Editorial Board of the Jacob Rader Marcus Center of the American Jewish Archives in … Continue reading-
Prelude and Fugue
There are men who leave you for another woman, and there are men who leave you for a man. Then there are those who dump you for God.
Was Sheikh Mujib ur Rehman born a Hindu? - Sheikh Mujib’s birth history as per affidavit filed in Kolkata in 1923.
Was Sheikh Mujib ur Rehman born a Hindu?
Sheikh Mujib’s birth history as per affidavit filed in Kolkata in 1923
An Appeal sent to the P.M. of Bangladesh
The Minister for Education (of Bangladesh) has instructed that in the new text books Sheikh Mujibur Rahman’s life history must be included. It is universally accepted that no one can write history at his will or whims; History always evolves in the natural course of time. Therefore, Madam Prime Minister, appreciating this directive we the people of Bangladesh would humbly appeal with a caution to the Minister that a true and factual history of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman should be incorporated in the text books as the nation deserves to know how we were gifted with a leader of his stature who is being proclaimed as the ‘Father of the Nation’.
To help the Minister in his discourse, I would like to put forward some relevant facts acquired from the preserved documents in the archive of the Indian government not known to many of our countrymen.
In those preserved documents, some relevant information is recorded about the birth history of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman and his childhood.
In early nineteen twenties, one Mr. Chandi Das was a practicing lawyer in the Civil Court at Kolkata. He had a young beautiful daughter named Gouribala Das. One Mr. Aronnyo Kumar Chakravarti was working as a junior assistant to Mr. Chandi Das. Mr. Chakravarti had a free access to Mr. Das’s residence at his will and used to visit the family frequently. In the process he developed intimate personal illicit relationship with Gouribala. Consequentially, Gouribala became pregnant. When pregnancy was confirmed Gouribala and her father started pressing hard on Mr. Chakravarti to get married. But Mr. Chakravarti being a high cast Brahmin was not only outraged and flatly denied his illicit relationship but audaciously refused to marry Gouribala who belonged to a lower cast. He also disowned the claim that the child was sired by him. Such behavior of Mr. Chakravarti came as a rude shock to the entire family particularly to Mr. Das and he became seriously ill thinking about the ill fate of his beloved daughter’s future.
Finally, Gouribala gave birth to a son on 12.12.1920. The son was named after Mr. Aronnyo Kumar Chakravarti as Dev Das Chakravarti. Thereafter, Mr. Das kept on requesting Mr. Aronnyo to accept Gouribala as his wife and Dev Das as his son but of no avail. In this melee the boy became three years old.
At that time, having no way out Mr. Das begged Sheikh Luthfur Rahman, his Muhuri (Document Writer) to marry Gouribala. The obedient Muhuri obliged Mr. Das and married Gouribala after she and begotten son Dev Das, sired by Mr. Chakravarti got converted into Islam taking the Muslim names Sahera Begum and Sheikh Mujibur Rahman.
An affidavit No118 dated 10.11.1923, was registered with the Kolkata Magistrate Court in this regard.
WITNESSES IN THE AFFIDEFIT REGISTERED
1. Mr. Abdur Rahman Shafayet, Court Daroga
Police Station (PS): Vandaria
Post Office: Vandaria
District: Erstwhile Barisal
2. Shree Anil Kumar, Court Daroga
District: Erstwhile Barisal
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)