[dropcap color=”#008040″ boxed=”yes” boxed_radius=”8px” class=”” id=””]L[/dropcap]iberals’ capacity to deceive themselves, and others, is practically limitless. So, despite a mountain of evidence to suggest that jihadists are embedded in Pakistani society, India’s bleeding hearts continue to peddle the dangerous lies that perverted our foreign and defence policies for decades.
Then there is the cricketer-turned-politician Imran Khan who supports Taliban, arguably the most articulate Islamist—a jihadist in a suit and tie.
Sagarika Ghose is a typical liberal, whose mission in life is to fool anybody who is credulous enough to swallow her fancies as truths. She writes in The Times Of India (October 12), “Who is India at war with? Is India at war with the terrorists who have not only struck India but have also attacked a Peshawar school and killed over 100 children, who have gunned down Pakistani rights activists like Sabeen Mehmud, who have taken thousands of lives across Pakistan? Or is India at war with Pakistani actors, singers, academics, cricketers, journalists, many of whom on pain of death, are trying to lead normal lives, raising ever-weakening voices against the deadly ISI linked religio-terror virus raging through their land?”
Notice the nice binary she has conjured up — the ‘good’ Pakistani actors, singers, academics, cricketers, journalists, and the ‘bad’ terrorists who have not only struck India but slaughtered thousands in Pakistan. She may want us to believe that the two groups are mutually exclusive. But the reality is that there are popular journalists, academics, and crickets in Pakistan who are as jingoistic and excitable as any of their Indian counterparts. Then there is the cricketer-turned-politician Imran Khan who supports Taliban, arguably the most articulate Islamist—a jihadist in a suit and tie.
[dropcap color=”#008040″ boxed=”yes” boxed_radius=”8px” class=”” id=””]T[/dropcap]he long and the short of it is that jihadists are as much part of Pakistani society as Ghose’s good Pakistanis are. In fact, there is no Wall of China between the two imagined communities; instead, there is a process of osmosis between her good and bad Pakistanis.
The dialogue-seeking guys are mostly the supremacists who—while engaging India in dialogue and selling fairytales about our common heritage—want to inflect a thousand cuts on our country.
Even more dangerous is Ghose’s view—actually, it is the view of the Pakistani establishment—that Pakistan itself is a victim of terrorism. The fact, however, is that its suffering is self-inflicted; it is akin to the suffering of a drug-lord whose own children become addicts. By unquestioningly accepting the perspective of Islamabad as truthful, and then further disseminating it, Ghose has proved to be Pakistan’s useful idiot.
According to Ghose, “the dwindling liberal, soft-liner, dialogue-seeking Pakistan constituency is in dire need of empowerment.” Actually, these are two constituencies: one that is liberal, which is victimized by the mullah-military alliance, the second constituency. The dialogue-seeking guys are mostly the supremacists who—while engaging India in dialogue and selling fairytales about our common heritage—want to inflect a thousand cuts on our country. They are wolves in sheep’s clothing.
Yes, there are genuine liberals in Pakistan, the people who boldly challenge the mullah-military narrative, the people who accept the pre-Islamic past of Pakistan, the people who often face the wrath of the establishment. But, unfortunately, India can do little for them; in fact, if we somehow address their “dire need of empowerment,” they would get into greater trouble; they would be permanently branded as traitors. In this context, the US can do something, but then President Barack Obama is too politically correct to do anything that may be construed as anti-Muslim.
[dropcap color=”#008040″ boxed=”yes” boxed_radius=”8px” class=”” id=””]I[/dropcap]t is unfortunate that liberals like Ghose, instead of taking a cue from their Pakistani counterparts and campaigning against Islamism, usually play into the hands of jihadists. Abhijit Banerjee, Ford Foundation International Professor of Economics, and director, Abdul Latif Jameel Poverty Action Lab, MIT, is another such liberal.
The guy doesn’t know, or doesn’t want to know, the basic difference between the Punjab and Kashmir problems: the former was the result of Sikh militancy, while the latter is a manifestation of Islamism.
He wrote in Hindustan Times (October 12), “The best way to secure the border is to get local people to start looking out for terrorists—which is what ultimately helped us in Punjab. For that we need the local people on our side. The most compelling case we can make to the Kashmiri people is that the real alternative for them is to be swallowed up by the mess called Pakistan, and we can surely offer them better than that. But we severely undermine that case every time we tolerate anti-Muslim hysteria, or some arm of the India State shoots an unarmed student in the Valley.”
How ignorant can a professor get! The guy doesn’t know, or doesn’t want to know, the basic difference between the Punjab and Kashmir problems: the former was the result of Sikh militancy, while the latter is a manifestation of Islamism. Sikhs are an Indian community, with which Hindus have had all kinds of relations (including matrimonial) for ages; it is not unusual to find Sikhs and Hindus in one family. With Muslims, however, Hindus have only formal relations.
Jihad is more than the elephant in the room; it is the Godzilla rampaging through the entire world.
Second, Sikhism is an egalitarian faith that preaches peace and amity, despite their 10th Guru, Gobind Singh, being a warrior saint, despite the fact that the Sikhs are a martial community, disproportionately represented in our military and famous for their valor. Islam, on the other hand, is not a supremacist religion.
Banerjee doesn’t want to acknowledge the fact that at the heart of the trouble in Kashmir is not some regional aspirations or sub-nationalism that that the Indian state is brutally repressing; it is jihad.
Jihad is more than the elephant in the room; it is the Godzilla rampaging through the entire world. Its signatures—the mangled bodies in Nice, slaughtered men and women during 26/11, the incinerated victims of September 11—are everywhere for everybody to see. And everybody is seeing the trail of blood, gore, and devastation. That is, everybody except the liberal.
- Liberty Is Penalized, Violence Goes Untouched - December 21, 2019
- Rahul’s Howdy bloomer - September 22, 2019
- Chidambaram’s hypocrisy - August 22, 2019
If some one wishes expert view on the topic of running a blog then i recommend him/her
to pay a visit this website, Keep up the good job.
The likes of Sagarika Ghose must be exposed for what they are.How is India concerned if there are good/bad terrorists or good/jihadi gentry in Pakistan as long as they are contained inside their self determined borders without infecting the mind of Indian Muslims and executing attacks inside India.
If Pakistan has created its own problems despite the so called sober elements should India be made responsible or should we be solving their problems.
The rogue and failed nation after forcing a division of Bharat on religious lines, implementing enmity with India all the times must solve its own problems and India must in its interest exterminate all separatist/ terrorists from its territory.
These so called liberals are mercinaries on hire. They will write what pays them.
Please do not mention Sagarika as a liberal. Refer her as an anti-national.
And if NIA goes a step beyond, they can find the voice and reason behind; I know there is no supporting ideology but instead supporting ideologues behind their blinkers.