The issue of the vehemence of militant Islamic thought.

I am presently reading a book on India's foreign policy, edited by Mr Sumit Ganguly. The first chapter of the book, on India's relations with Pakistan, is superb, and leaves nothing to the imagination. What made me think, was the second chapter, on India's relations with Bangladesh. I am reading the chapter, and I came across this part, where the writer consciously, or not, made a connection of the rise of the capitalist economic thought in world markets, and the emergence of the vehemence of militant Islamic thought. This immediately caught my attention. How can this be possible, if it is possible? Is Islamic practice against the existence of free trade of goods and services? The Islamic thought encourages minimum interference, perhaps, in the business dealings of the subject, by the state. I emphasize that I have used the word 'perhaps'.

What can the economic thought of the Islamic market be identified as, in the modern world? Can it be, that the Islamic point of view, sees the pursuit of economic interests by the west, as being disassociated with a sense of personal ethics, or something similar?

For example, the west kept cordial relations with both Israel, and the Arab and other Muslim nations, when the west did not necessarily agree with the Arab and Muslim viewpoint on Israel. The western economies were very dependent on machines working on oil. Why did not the west make it's differences with the Arab and Muslim viewpoint on Israel more open to scrutiny, on it's own part?

Also, the Muslim world had the opportunity to interact with the Soviet Union, in the previous situation where The United States and the Soviet Union were bipolar superpowers of the world. The Soviet Union were not friendly with the Arab's, as well as with Israel. Being friendly with the Soviet Union, was not seen as being unacceptable, before the invasion of Afghanistan. After the invasion of Afghanistan, the situation changed. Both the Soviet Union, and the west, became unacceptable to certain Muslim identities. If one looks from the viewpoint of the ex-Mujahedeen, who fought the Soviets in Afghanistan, The United States did, what exactly the Soviet Union did. The United States attacked Iraq, which was a front line state in the previous war against Shia Iran, and also was an enemy of Israel. The logic being, for those embittered by Soviet and United States foreign policy, that it was OK for an Arab nation to invade another Arab nation, but not OK for a non-Arab nation to attack an Arab nation. Perhaps, the United States and the west, was interfering in the business of other states, and in radically different manners, in two separate situations in time. Perhaps President George H. W. Bush was very alarmed by Iraq's invasion of her neighbouring state, and perhaps, the unilateral action of the United States and her allies, was the cause of the rise of the al Qaeda.

The idea of this blog post is, that the West is seen to be entirely influenced by material considerations, in it's dealings with other identities, by some Islamic identities.

On second thoughts, the Gulf War, was the beginning of the transition of the world, from a bipolar world, to a unipolar world, where Russia, China, and the United States, all pursued a market economy, and the rest of the world, was also beginning to follow this trend. Perhaps, today, the world is progressing together on the same path of market reform, and the markets of even the Arab nations, are not in conflict with the west.

The issue of price rise of essential commodities.

Perhaps, measures can be taken, to alleviate or make easier, the burden on the common man, in his day to day business transactions, of buying and selling essential commodities. It is the common man, who is the primary participant in the buying and selling of essential commodities. By the term, 'common man', I describe the man who is responsible for the primary production, distribution, and consumption of essential commodities. I do not refer to those, who are living in poverty, because they have no say, in the production, or distribution, or consumption of essential commodities.

If I may compare the common man, to the not so common, or wealthy man, then what is the difference in the consumption pattern between the two? One does not need neither more nor less of the essential commodities than the other. This is true, of the people who live on, and below the poverty line, too. Then, why do we see the price rise in essential commodities? The reason is very evident to all, which is the unequal remuneration among those who deal in essential commodities. The middle man who sells daal to the shopkeeper, is also a common man, in all but income. What is the issue with the farmer, in his dealings, with the wholesale agent? The farmer cannot bargain with the wholesale agent. Why so? Because, he cannot store his produce. Why was the Amul model, not also experimented with, in respect to farmers? Why do not the farmers, make a common storage facility for their food grain, and act as if the storage facility belongs to them all? After the food grain is sold, then they can distribute the money got from the food grain after selling to the wholesale agent, in proportion to the share of the individual farmer in the produce. Perhaps, the problem, is that the individual farmer acts in his individual capacity, as a dealer of essential commodities. In the same way, all the farmers who grow vegetables in an area, come together, and settle their price, at which they would like to sell to the wholesale dealer, in their individual capacity. It is not as if, the wholesale vendor is at an advantage, if the essential commodities do not reach the consumer, because, then, he will not make a profit, nor have a turnover. Every person in the chain of the business of essential commodities, needs to see, that the essential commodity reaches the common man. otherwise, no one will make a turnover. The farmer is not making a turnover at all, he sells vegetables at a price, where he may not make a profit. This may perhaps be the solution for the farmer.

If these measures work, for the farmer, then who will be responsible for the prohibitive cost of essential commodities if the cost is prohibitive to the consumer? Will the whole sale agent be able to sell his commodities to the retailer, at a very high price? The profits of the retailer will decrease, because he will have to pass the high costs on to the consumer. This will reduce the profits of the wholesale agent, too.

What then of the commonly perceived as uncommon man, or those who live below and on the poverty line? These people must be integrated into the economy, in the most fundamental way, initially. How can they be imparted vocational training, free of cost, in the most fundamental way?

India's diplomatic relations with Sri Lanka.

The Government of India, cannot afford to take decisions on her cordial relations with Sri Lanka, without taking the opinions of the people and Government of Tamil Nadu with brevity. The Indian Government does not entirely govern India, as much as she represents India. What I find to be a matter of fact, is that all the people of Ceylon are the descendants of Indian ethnicity, as are the ethnic Tamil's living in Sri Lanka. The differences between the Sinhalese people, and the Tamil people of Sri Lanka, are indeed a matter of concern for India. The Tamil people of Sri Lanka have the Tamil's of India, with whom they share a close bond of familiarity, and affinity. The Sinhalese people of Sri Lanka, have no such ethnic identity in India, with whom they can share a similar bond of familiarity, and affinity. It might be possible, that the Sinhalese people were ethnic Tamils, before they developed their own identity. The matter which is the business of difference between the Tamil's and Sinhalese people of Sri Lanka, is that these two people, live, and go about the functions of life, in what is seen as being different from each other. It would be beneficial for the Sri Lankan government to bring the Tamil speaking minority of Sri Lanka, into the mainstream of that nation. The Indian Government could then have any degree of cordiality with the Sri Lankan Government, unfettered by any other influences, in India. I see no other influence on the Sinhalese people, to better their relations with the Tamils, but by the good offices of the Indian Government, because the Indian Government has a prominent Tamil political party as a part of her national coalition. The Tamil's of Sri Lanka, do not emigrate to other nations on a comparatively large scale, as they might, if there is terrible strife in Sri Lanka, for them.

There are other factors, too, that influence the attitude of the Tamils of India, towards their Sri Lankan Tamil brothers. The Tamils of India, and of Sri Lanka, share a very strong tradition of culture, which is unique in the world, as also do the other cultural identities of India. The Tamil people of India are very mindful of their interests, and are very quick to identify situations, when they feel, that their interests may be compromised. Perhaps, they are more ambivalent about issues, which they see as influencing those influenced by their identity as Tamils. This is a natural reaction, and is particular to the Tamil, in the tenor and tone of their expression.

My views on the history of Israel.

I have read the history of Israel when reading Encyclopaedia Britannica, or the online edition of the Encyclopaedia. The history of modern Israel has been tragic, not only for the state of Israel, but also for her Arab neighbours. When communicating with israel, the communication of the Arab states among themselves, particularly, and then with Israel, has not been satisfactory, either to their own interests, nor to Israel.
When Jews began to emigrate to the areas which they did, in the Middle East, then which Arab leader had the authority, to disprove of the immigration? Which Arab entity had the authority, or which Arab entities had the authority? Syria, Egypt, Transjordan, Iraq, and other Arab, and non Arab states protested, but did they have the legitimacy to do so? Was Syria, Egypt, Transjordan, etc, ruling over the areas, which were experiencing immigration? Was there a leader in what is now Israel, who was an Arab, then, and who was supported by all the Arab leaders, of the nations named? The forefathers of are now Israeli's, were hounded and despised because of their religion. Why were Christian Arabs allowed to stay in what is now Israel, in those times? Why was England allowed to have a mandate over Palestine, then, by the Arab entities? And yet, when England allowed the emigration of Jews from various diasporas, and when Arabs were not forced away, or chased away from their property, then why was there resentment, among Arabs, all over the world? Perhaps, the Arabs did not expect to see a free Palestine, over which the British Crown did not have her suzerainty. And yet, when there was a chance to have a united Palestine, with Jew's, Christian's and Muslim's to live together, then the Arab's of Palestine protested about an issue, over which they had no issue to protest.
The Israeli's, are doing to the Arabs of the West Bank, and Gaza, what the Arab's wanted to do to them. This is even more wrong. For example, would it have been acceptable, if the Jew's had exterminated the Nazi's in gas chambers, instead of the Nazi's exterminating Jew's, because the Jew's have been persecuted throughout the tenure of history? Did the God whom Jew's pray to, give them the mandate to exist in disharmony with their neighbours?
No Jewish politician has been a statesman. The jewish politician has been as his Arab foe, because he has lived in proximity, and close proximity, to his Arab foe. The Jewish politician was perhaps, more endowed than his Arab counterpart, but what was expected, was a superman of the Israeli politician. How do the Israeli's hope to keep their nation by making outcastes of their close neighbours?

Encyclopaedia Britannica on China, and Aksai Chin.

It is said, that Aksai Chin has passes which connect Aksai Chin, to Tibet. It is solely because the Chinese Administration does not understand India's position in full measure, that the issues between the two nations are unresolved. India has no designs on Tibet, and India does not need Tibet as a security measure to deal with China. The people of Tibet have the right to live in peace with their Chinese brothers, as much as the people of China have a right to live in peace with their Tibetan brothers. India does not support ethnic Tibetans from India to foment strife in Tibet, however, she allows Tibetans who would like to stay in India, to do so. 'Allow', is the wrong word. However. If Aksai Chin connects Tibet, to XinXiang, Then what does India, gain or loose by this state of affairs? Even though Tibet was a vassal of China, before Tibet became a part of China, the Tibetans recognised the McMahon Line as the border between India, and Tibet. How can China refute the claims of the administrators of Tibet, before 1950, when Tibet was administrated by them?

The recent developments on Kashmir.

From what I surmise, the Jammu & Kashmir administration has decided to allow those who were involved in militancy in Jammu & Kashmir, to return back to their homes, subject to certain considerations. I believe, that this is the right approach, and it has the consideration of the Indian administration. Perhaps, those who will return back home, under this agreement, will have something to go back home, to, according to them. This is the biggest factor going for this approach. If Jammu & Kashmir is one state, then let the people choose to live, wherever they choose to live. What I wonder, is, that how has Pakistan incited these minds to go against their own way of living, and become fugitives? How did they go to Pakistan, and leave their families at the mercy of those whom they did not trust? And, after leaving behind their families, at the mercy of their enemies, they still waged war against their enemies? If these people come back, it can be assumed, that India was not their enemy, and that they wantonly committed acts, which made them leave their own land. This should be the surmise, of the Indian administration, and they should act with whatever goodwill that they can muster, on this regard. If any innocent people have lost their lives, then what has been the contribution of these people? What was the issue with the Indian administration? Did these people feel, that there was going to be restraint shown, because Indian's would not want to fall in their own estimate? Did the militants fall in their estimate? More than the Indian government, they have to make their own families understand their behaviour. How did they make others, join their fold? What dastardly forces from outside, made them act the way that they did? Did their families tell them to wage a war from outside the border, and leave them, (the families), at the mercy of enemies?

India will certainly show understanding, but what if there are issues after the return of the militants? If there are incidents of violence, then that would be a major injury to the self confidence of India, perhaps she would introspect on her decision. Perhaps, many others, who would live in peace, and want to belong to their land, would feel like they do not belong in Jammu & Kashmir.

Thoughts on Pandit Nehru's foreign policy.

The last book that I have purchased has been 'The Penguin Book of Modern Indian Speeches'. I am very much desirous of reading this book. Indeed, those who have made the speeches, have spoken, on matters of importance to the nation, and consequence to themselves. The speeches are of importance, furthermore, because only the speeches of luminaries have been recorded. India has had an embarrassment of riches when the number of her great people have been counted. The book is testimony to this fact, having nine hundred pages in it's volume. I have recorded in my observation, that I hold the speeches of luminaries as very significant. No less significant is the opinion of the person, who is honest in his observation, and wanting to see appropriate changes according to his observation. I feel, that what is to pass, will pass. But, I would like to see in my observations, what is acceptable not to me, but generally acceptable to the whole world, as an identity. This is indeed a Utopian want, or need.

The speech was abridged, in the volume that I speak of. What stands out, is that the speech was delivered very soon after the provisional government had taken power after the end of British rule in India. By the tone, and tenor, of the speech, it seems to me, that Pandit Nehru was a stranger to the leaders of the nations he mentions in his speech. He may have been well known, but not as the Prime Minister of India, and his dealings with the other Heads of State, was not between Heads of State, previously. In fact, it seems to me, that he did not know the Chinese leaders either personally, or formally, or in any other way. This might be a mistake of my perception, since Mr Nehru was not communicating his acquaintance with other world leaders. However, I surmise from the speech, that he had communicated adequately with Mr Roosevelt, and of course, with the leaders of Great Britain. He does not mention the people who resisted Apartheid by name in South Africa, nor does he mention the leaders of Cambodia, who were wanting their own freedom. He mentions, that India then, was in close proximity to other South East Asian nations, and that in the times, India was going to emerge with the other nations, or suffer the fate of the rest of the globe(?), if that was the adversity. I found nothing inspiring in the tone, or tenor of the speech, but the message of the speech, was very inspiring. The speech on the eve of India's Independence was more inspiring. What does this say, about what might have been Mr Nehru's approach to foreign affairs? I believe, that Mr Nehru had an extremely pragmatic foreign policy view. Mr Nehru had a view, of India's foreign policy, which was inclusive of interests. What is interesting, is that Pakistan is not mentioned in the speech. Perhaps, Mr Nehru felt that India's relationship with Pakistan would become more amenable with the passage of time. Or, then, he looked at the relationship with foreboding.

Another interesting part of the speech, expresses that Afghanistan should find her mooring along with Saudi Arabia, and Iran. Perhaps, Mr Nehru saw Afghanistan as a nation which would bring the Sunni-Muslim nation of Saudi Arabia, and the Shia-Muslim nation of Iran, together. India was to partner with other South Asian, and South East Asian nations.The fulcrum of Asian affairs, was Central Asia, of which India was a fulcrum. In Mr Nehru's vision, the spheres of influence in Asia, were delineated between East Asia, and West Asia, of which Central Asia was a fulcrum, and further, to which India acted as a fulcrum to Central Asia. Where exactly, is Central Asia? The area of Asia, above the Indian sub continent, presumably, which was the Soviet Union, previously. Again, there is no mention of Pakistan, in the scheme of things. Pakistan, is as different from the land-mass and the people of Afghanistan, as chalk and cheese. Perhaps, Mr Nehru saw Pakistan not in concord with Afghanistan, but this is conjecture. In another great speech on 23rd October, soon after the independence of India, the great Indian leader Maulana Azaad, addressed the Muslims of Delhi, at the Jaama Masjid. In a particular moment, full of pathos towards his audience, he expressed, that the Muslims of India, were seeming to be clutching at their own throats. Perhaps, he saw the nation of Pakistan in a similar light. Maulana Azaad was not only a leader of the Muslim community. He was a leader whom perhaps Hindu's would like among their present day leaders. The speech of Maulana Azaad on 23rd October, is one of the most inspirational speeches of India, ever delivered.

If one looks at the geo-political vision of Mr Nehru, he perhaps saw, that Afghanistan was of too independent a spirit, to depend on Pakistan, for friendly relations. Pakistan and Afghanistan had not a lot to offer each other, in strategic terms, naturally. Pakistan and Afghanistan, would need to work, and find different avenues for their relationship. Pakistan is a nation, which is completely different from Afghanistan in topography, culture, and apart from the Pashtuns, in the ethnic mix of their peoples.