America’s New National Anthem
Sunday, 15. March 2009 - 10:21 PM
Kanchan Gupta’s Sunday pieces are usually above par. Today’s superb article is no exception. Read it in full and tell me if you agree that at this rate, pseudosecularism will soon become America’s new national anthem.
Voice of America curbs freedom
Kanchan Gupta
There is a pattern to the waxing and waning of American hubris. What begins as a shock-and-awe show of power through the unrestrained use of overwhelming force invariably ends with a pathetic whimper. We have seen this happen in Vietnam where a futile war was waged to nobody’s benefit; a war that shall forever be remembered for two indelible images: Nick Ut’s Pulitzer Prize winning photograph of a nine-year-old girl screaming in agony after being scalded by napalm and helicopters evacuating soldiers, officials and collaborators from the US Embassy hours before the fall of Saigon in 1975. The war in Vietnam (and before that in Korea) was meant to contain the spread of communism; it was part of a grand strategy based on the ‘domino theory’, which later turned out to be as spurious as the ‘holy war’ the Americans funded to force Soviet troops out of Afghanistan in the 1980s.
Once that task was accomplished, the homegrown Afghan mujahideen reinvented themselves as the Taliban while the Arab ‘holy warriors’ led by Osama bin Laden laid the foundation and built the base — what we now know as Al Qaeda — to launch a global jihad targeting ‘enemies’ of Islam. Borrowing heavily from Islamic traditions and texts, they created a lexicon of terror, incorporating words, phrases and expressions that have over the years come to represent their dark thoughts and darker deeds. In doing so, the Taliban and Al Qaeda were merely following in the footsteps of the original protagonists of radical Islamism. Let’s not forget that it was Hasan al-Banna who gave a political edge to Islam by coining the slogan, “Islam is the solution.†Syed Qutb used that slogan to fashion Islamism as a political ideology which became the creed of the Ikhwan-ul-Muslimeen or the Muslim Brotherhood. The Ikhwan’s members and supporters wear their faith on their sleeves; one of its offshoots, Hamas — an acronym for Harkat al-Muqwamat al-Islamiyyah, or ‘Islamic Resistance Movement’ — uses the Shahadah as the emblem on its flag.
Neither the Ikhwan nor Al Qaeda, or for that matter the Taliban and the neo-Islamists who are on the ascendent in many Muslim countries, would resent the association of faith with their violent actions. Some may resort to sophistry, but the bulk harshly assert that what others view as terrorism is entirely justified from their perspective. For evidence, recall the crude e-mail sent out by the ‘Indian Mujahideen’ owning up responsibility for the ghastly bombings in Jaipur, Ahmedabad and Delhi. From Bali to New York, the killers of innocent people see themselves as serving the cause of Islam. When the Taliban orders girls to stay at home and not attend school, it insists that the decree is in accordance with shari’ah. For President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, calling for the destruction of Israel is a profound expression of his faith and identity.
But we are told not to associate terrorism and its attendant violence with Islam. The Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind touts a fatwa issued by Darul Uloom Deoband which purportedly denounces terrorism as ‘un-Islamic’. What it forgets to mention is that the practitioners of terrorism, most notably members of the Taliban, the Lashkar-e-Tayyeba and the Jaish-e-Mohammed, are products of Deobandi madarsas. It is equally ironical that Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, who almost single-handedly set up Hamas, was a product of Al Azhar. Had theological sophists who so glibly seek to absolve terrorists of their crimes and paint fanatics as no more than devout Muslims been sincere in separating faith from violence, as they demand of others, then Mohammed Atta would not have flown an aircraft into the World Trade Center, nor would Ajmal Ameer Kasab be nicknamed the ‘Butcher of Mumbai’.
Yet, great offence is pretended to references to jihadi terrorism, Islamic fanaticism and radical Islamism. We are told that this hurts Muslim sensitivities and belittles a great faith. The argument is not without merit, but it is absurd to suggest that criticism of radical Islamism or Islamic fanaticism, which fuel jihadi terrorism, amounts to Islamophobia and hate speech, as has been decided by the Organisation of Islamic Conference, just as it is ridiculous to interpret the war on terror as a war against Islam. Strangely, we are witnessing abject capitulation instead of resistance to this concerted effort to suppress free speech so as to gloss over horrendous atrocities. What is distressing is that the capitulation is more pronounced in those countries which till now have fiercely protected free speech as an inalienable right without which no society can be open and democratic.
This is where the waning of American hubris that waxed in the aftermath of 9/11 comes in. With Mr George Bush’s grand strategy in Afghanistan all but discarded by President Barack Hussein Obama who proposes to pursue a policy of grand bargain and strike a deal with the ‘moderate’ Taliban, which is an oxymoron, efforts are on to enforce an official code that redefines the war on terror as an engagement with militancy! What began as the US Department of Homeland Security counselling “caution in using terms such as, ‘jihadist’, ‘Islamic terrorist’, ‘Islamist’, and ‘holy warrior’ as grandiose descriptions†has now begun to evolve into what can and cannot be said in public discourse. This is best exemplified by a memo sent out to staffers by Jennifer Janin, the head of Voice of America’s Urdu service, informing them that the “editors & I have come up with the following guidelines on usage of words & phrases related to terrorism & violenceâ€:
“Islamic terrorists: DO NOT USE. Instead use simply: terrorist… Sometimes even the names of the accused themselves point to the identity, and there is no need to specify.†So, VOA will not, for instance, mention the name of Ajmal Ameer Kasab while reporting on the Mumbai terror attack.
“Terrorism/ terrorist: AVOID OVERUSE. Listeners get tired… Militant, militancy, violent etc can be used descriptively as appropriate.†In conformity with this guideline, a VOA report would say, ‘Violence in Mumbai on November 26, 2008, left 173 people dead and 308 wounded.’
“Islamic Fundamentalism/ Muslim Fundamentalists: AVOID… The use of such expressions, more exclusively in case of Muslims, adds to existing misgivings in the Islamic world of an anti-Muslim sentiment … better to use ‘conservative’… â€. VOA report from Swat: ‘Conservative’ Muslims have decreed that girls can’t attend school and victims of rape will be stoned to death.
“Islamist: NOT NECESSARY… Muslims perceive that it has been ‘intentionally’ rhymed with ‘Fascist’, ‘Communist’ or ‘Anarchist’… We just don’t need this short cut in our reporting.†Short cut? Am I missing out on something?
Tags: America, Commentary, Islam Watch, Islamic Terror, Politics, Terrorism, US going the Pseudosecular Way, US Politics
16. March 2009 - 2:21 AM
Connections relations etc
16. March 2009 - 2:21 AM
Sorry for the blank post my bad.
http://www.india-forum.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=2209
Connections relations etc.
Source of link : rajeev blogspot
16. March 2009 - 12:44 PM
http://expressbuzz.com/edition/story.aspx?Title=Religion,+Marxism+and+Slumdog&artid=10ACvtR0cZA=&SectionID=XVSZ2Fy6Gzo=&MainSectionID=XVSZ2Fy6Gzo=&SEO=Danny+Boyle,+Vikas+Swarup&SectionName=m3GntEw72ik=
Article on Slumdog by Francois Gautier very much reflects the idea of your blog.
17. March 2009 - 1:06 AM
Aatish Taseer’s new book could be well worth reading.
http://www.outlookindia.com/full.asp?fodname=20090323&fname=Aatish+Taseer+(F)&sid=3&pn=1
More likely it will simply never be mentioned by the dork media we have in India. For TV anchors and book critics – the litmus test of literary brilliance is either India hating or more specifically Hindu baiting
17. March 2009 - 2:19 AM
VOA might have made it official in writing, but wasn’t it implicit in our own media for quite sometime? I still remember our own anchors practicing “truth by repeated assertion” on the issue of malegaon blasts. Then came 26/11. Lo and behold, terror strictly became a sekoolar phenomena. Terrorism stopped having to do anything with religion. I look forward to the day when these news anchors formally declare Osama, Dawood and and other poor, misunderstood boys from Pak as true sekoolars. After all, they have a lot in common. No?
17. March 2009 - 11:30 AM
why is america supplying arms to a state that is supporting terrorism and why did western countries felicitated slum dog ?just to shift the focus of brainless terrorists towards our country.This is the truth.
17. March 2009 - 12:30 PM
why is america supplying arms to state that is supporting terrorism and why did western countries felicitated slum dog?just to shift the focus of brainless terrorists towards our country.This is the truth.
18. March 2009 - 2:07 AM
Sandeep, for the life of me, I cannot figure out what Kanchan really wants.
First of all I’d like to say point blank that there is no such thing as “pseudo” wrt Secularism. It’s either it or nothing. Hindus should resist this temptation of cushioning their options.
That said, Secularism has already become the anthem in the US, at least the establishment is afflicted if not all of their civil Society. Obama and Geert Wilders sort of illustrate this point.
Next, I cannot understand why the author goes hammer and tongs against anti-Communist wars? Would he have rather the Soviets exported their “Revolutions” undisturbed? Or did he want the US to negotiate peacefully with the Communists? Does he think it would have worked? I look at these wars as defensive in nature.
I only hope that Kanchan does not think the USSR innocent.
The “Domino Theory”, I submit, was made spurious only because of US military interventions and it’s proclaimed readiness to make war when required.
Kanchan essentially would give the US two choices. Sit at home or come out and play.
Am I glad they came to play!
I don’t think the US would have looked at Pakistan if India had taken it’s natural place. Moreover, how can we complain now when all the while we rooted for NAM marinated in Soviet sauce? We even supported the invasion of Afghanistan as if that invasion was really required?!
The Taliban grew in Pakistan not because of US support but because of diversion of US originating resources by Pakistan.
This is not to say that the US has been able to read the Islamic mind very well. They have been much like Hindus in this regard.
“Yet, great offence is pretended to references to jihadi terrorism, Islamic fanaticism and radical Islamism. We are told that this hurts Muslim sensitivities and belittles a great faith. The argument is not without merit, but it is absurd to suggest that criticism of radical Islamism or Islamic fanaticism, which fuel jihadi terrorism, amounts to Islamophobia and hate speech, as has been decided by the Organisation of Islamic Conference,***just as it is ridiculous to interpret the war on terror as a war against Islam.***”
Oh come on!! I mean, what is this? Interesting ways of deceiving ourselves?? How can Kanchan accuse anybody of pseudo anything now? Was it not the Turkish Erdogan who said all talk of a moderate Islam was childish? If this is childish, then what else is Radical Islam? Islam is Islam. That’s it. Let’s deal with it the way it is without making stupid stories!
Sandeep, how different was Bush, ideologically, from Obama now? Do you see any difference at all?
Take two critical positions;
1. Immigration (Illegal or not)
2. Islam
They are on the same track. One is just faster and smarter, that’s all.
In my opinion, Afghanistan and later, Iraq, were bound to fail because of flawed war-aims. Regimes changes and Democracy insertions will never work in Islamic environments and especially not when they are sought to be imposed by infidels.
The US had two sensible choices.
1. Utterly and completely devastate and get out
Or
2. Take over and rule with the intention of staying a-la Empire.
PS – Sorry for the slight heat but it’s late and am sleepy and irritable
18. March 2009 - 4:57 AM
hey, is that Pallahali from Churumuri? Can you believe it, Churumuri never allows my comments anymore–they do not agree with the thought police that is in charge of it. I think we are in need of a good blog to air opinions of the Hindu political right.
18. March 2009 - 1:04 PM
Hello Larissa! Yup, it’s the same Palahalli. Yeah, I know Churumuri can be different but you’ve got to stick and reason with them. They usually come round. We need you there too you know..
Sandeep’s is a great blog and he doesn’t moderate.
Enjoy yourself!
18. March 2009 - 8:15 PM
Larissa,
Same here. Even my comments werent accepted. I got a mail from churumuri that I should look out for other blogs to air my opinions. Gave them a fitting reply, they gave in.
Palahalli,
They closed comments on the Vibrant Gujarat post .
Escapism @ the best is what I can say .
18. March 2009 - 10:48 PM
Nice! nice! It’s starting to feel like home
That was sad about the “Vibrant Gujarat” thread getting closed. Lucky Heckler
Sandeep, I hope you don’t mind these side conversations…we’re just pals hanging out some..:)
18. March 2009 - 10:49 PM
Btw, kharaharapriya/Larissa, if you’re in Bangalore maybe we can meet sometime. What do you say? I’ll post my email if you’re game.
19. March 2009 - 12:02 AM
Palahalli, Larissa, kharaharapriya,
IMHO – Why do you stick (and add value) to blogs that don’t air your views. There are lots and lots of blogs coming along that airs the voice of the right. We should not crib for space in blogs that asks us to leave. They only way to turn them around is to just leave them alone and let them preach to themselves. Of course, I don’t go to churumuri much so I can’t say if they are reasonable or not.
Bhavananda.
PS – I take it that ya’ll from B’lore. The way k’taka has turned around is spectacular and an ideal example for places like TN and WB. Good luck!
19. March 2009 - 5:39 AM
Hi Pallahali,
My husband’s family is settled in Delhi after being forced to leave Kashmir by the terrorism in Srinagar on the Pandits. I keep up with Indian politics because I would like to see Kashmir open for the Hindus again, and the displaced Hindus able to live there again in peace…I think the BJP needs more imagination to have a larger following and they do not seem to be doing that…they do not really have good PR..they waste time talking about Ram when they should be focusing on other issues and attracting more support…
I feel that the way the BJP organizes itself, is wrong. They have a very bad press internationally, a reflection of the domestic Indian press. They need a better strategy to attract more people. If anyone wants my e-mail, I am open to making friends interested in the same things. You can get it from the host of the website.
19. March 2009 - 12:52 PM
Bhavananda – I think the problem is of admin policy and the public. Much like our elite and masses. They are so at variance.
Plus, there is little merit in “preaching” to the converted.
Larissa – Thank you. I’ll keep in touch.
19. March 2009 - 8:13 PM
Larissa, I think BJP needs to take up both Ram and the rajya to reach Ram-rajya, because its Dharma that leads us to Artha, not vice versa.
As for BJP’s wrong image in international press, it is very much expected for a nationalist party. Look what they have to say of Putin. The republican party in US is far more extremist but they address them as “conservative”. When it comes to BJP they use words “hindu fundamentalist” “extremist” etc etc. We will have to choose between nationalism and getting accolades from the west. I choose the former.
But, I agree that they need better strategy to attract more people, esp. youngsters. Fortunately, lka website is rocking! In fact it is listed within top 5000 website (by alexa) – something few political website have attained.
20. March 2009 - 10:19 PM
Well I find that a lot of Hindutva people are very uneducated…there are exceptions to this and the BJP got some good people like ARun Shourie. But how do you argue with ignorant HIndus of the kind that believe everything came from India? This extreme attitude also comes from lack of self-respect and lack of education. You cannot understand another people’s culture until you properly understand your own–
As for Putin you are right—he stood firmly and declared Russia a Christian nation and rightly so…you cannot blame him for that, for what have Russians got if you remove their religion?…But he had the support of the majority of Russians, even though the liberal press hated him…Hindus are too divided. This I find is the biggest problem with India. And now the secular forces are trying to make it as if India has no unified culture at all, ever in history—of course it did, it might not have been a unit politically but India always had a unique identity made of the outlook stemming from the religions that are native to it: Hinduism, Sikhism, Buddhism, Jainism and even Zoroastrianism in that the last respects the indian way of life.
22. March 2009 - 8:52 PM
Pala,
Surely we can meet up sometime. I am from Bangalore.
Bhavananda,
I am not cribbing. For all the freedom of press, freedom of going to pubs , freedom of speech that they profess, its shocking to see all hindutva supporters were asked to prove their identity and all posts where the “secular” commentators were making a fool out of themselves, comments were closed.
We can always discuss in like minded forums, but we should also take part in other forums to expose the double standards , else the “secularists” will be in their own wonderland bashing hindus and we will be in our world bashing “secularists”:)