The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewEric Margolis Archive
Beware the Kashmir Volcano
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information


Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

The divided south Asian mountain state of Kashmir is like a volcano: forgotten when quiescent, but terrifying when it comes alive.

After the first India-Pakistan War in 1947, in which the British Indian Raj was divided into Hindu and Muslim-dominated states, India ended up with two-thirds of the formerly independent mountain state of Kashmir, and the new state of Pakistan with a scrubby, poor third known as Azad Kashmir.

Rebellion and attempts at secession have flared ever since in Indian-ruled Kashmir which has a restive Muslim majority, and minorities of Sikhs and Hindus. In fact, the Kashmir conflict is now the world’s oldest major crisis. The UN’s calls for a plebiscite to determine Kashmir’s future have been ignored by India.

A week ago, Kashmiri militants attacked an Indian Army brigade base at Uri that sits near the 1948-49 cease-fire line known as the Line Of Control (LOC). Seventeen Indian regular soldiers died along with four militants. New Delhi rushed 10,000 soldiers to Kashmir, boosting Indian military strength in the mountain state to over 500,000 men.

It is a grave mistake for the world to ignore Kashmir. My first book, “War at the Top of the World,” explored the Kashmir crisis and Indian-Pakistani-Chinese-Tibetan rivalries in the Karakoram and Himalaya mountain ranges ( a work inspired by my talks with the Dalai Lama). A decade ago I called Kashmir the ‘world’s most dangerous crisis.’ It remains so today.

India and Pakistan, both nuclear-armed states with powerful armed forces and medium-ranged missiles, remain at scimitar’s drawn over Kashmir for which they’ve fought two big wars and innumerable clashes.

I’ve been under fire twice along the Kashmir Line of Control and another time further north on the ill-demarcated border leading to the 5,000 meter high Siachin Glacier, the world’s highest war.

Most Azad Kashmiris want union with Pakistan (though a minority favor total independence of historic Kashmir, which is roughly the size of England. ) India insists Kashmir is an integral part of the Indian Union and not open to any discussion. Making matters even more complex, Pakistan gave a strategic chunk of vertiginous northern Kashmir called Aksai Chin to neighboring China. India claims it back. China claims Indian-ruled Ladakh, also known as ‘Little Tibet.’

India calls Kashmiri Muslim militants “terrorists” and accuses Pakistan of waging “cross-border terrorism.” Pakistan accuses India of savage oppression in Kashmir that includes extra-judicial killings, kidnapping, reprisals on civilians and widespread torture, charges supported by Indian human rights groups.

This dispute was not of international consequence until India, then Pakistan, developed nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them by missiles and aircraft. Both states are estimated to have around 100 nuclear devices deployed.


Over the past 20 years, India’s growing economy has allowed it to greatly expand its large military forces, now the world’s third largest. They now outnumber Pakistan by at least 2.5 to 1 in manpower, warplanes, artillery and armor. Granted, a portion of India’s military forces are deployed to watch the long Himalayan border with China. In my book, I suggested that the two Asian superpowers would eventually go to war in the Himalayas and over control of Burma (Mynmar).

Even so India could use its potent armored corps to cut narrow Pakistan in half within days. As a result, Pakistan developed tactical and strategic weapons to offset India’s crushing conventional superiority. So far, Islamabad’s nuclear strategy has worked. India’s government has repeatedly rejected the army’s requests to charge into Azad Kashmir and northern Pakistan Punjab after brazen Pakistani border incursions.

However, another border clash in Kashmir, such as last week’s attack at Uri, could ignite serious fighting between old enemies India and Pakistan, raising the risk of full-scale war and even intervention by China to rescue its old ally, Pakistan. This week, China conducted a small-scale training exercise in Pakistan, a clear warning to India.

For the rest of the world, the most frightening aspect of this tinderbox border, the world’s most militarized along with the Korean DMZ, is that both sides have only three minutes warning time of enemy air and missile attack.

That’s at best. Electronic systems in India and Pakistan are often unreliable and fault-ridden. A false alarm of incoming warplanes and missiles would force a ‘use it or lose it’ response. Risks of accidents are very high.

A nuclear exchange between Pakistan and India would kill or seriously injure tens of millions in South Asia, pollute its ground water for decades or longer, and release clouds of radioactive dust around the globe.

This is not some Hollywood apocalypse. Shooting is a daily event on the Line of Control. Fanatical hatred between India and Pakistan remains a constant. Nuclear war is more likely to start between India and Pakistan than anywhere else. Preventing one should be a primary diplomatic goal for the world’s powers.

(Republished from by permission of author or representative)
• Category: Foreign Policy • Tags: India, Pakistan 
Hide 63 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. Fanatical hatred between India and Pakistan remains a constant. Nuclear war is more likely to start between India and Pakistan than anywhere else. Preventing one should be a primary diplomatic goal for the world’s powers.

    IMV a nuclear exchange between India and Pakistan is a very high probability. There will be little we can do to drain that swamp once the current credit bubble breaks as we will be up to our asses in alligators. I disagree that our primary goal should be avoiding one.

    Our primary goal should be to avoid being dragged in. Same goes for the Muslims and Israel.

    Sauve qui peut.

  2. @another fred

    I agree. Places like India and Pakistan are going to do whatever they do. Same for the Muslim Middle-east. The fracking/shale revolution gives the U.S. a historic opportunity to disengage from these trouble areas and to focus on doing our own thing. We could share our fracking technology with the Chinese so that they, too, can limit their exposure to the Muslim Middle-east. The fracking revolution, followed by Gen IV fission power (MSR, etc.) as well as start-up developed fusion power (Tri-alpha energy, General Fusion, etc.) coupled with the automation/3-D printing manufacturing revolution – offers to reduce and eliminate our dependence on irrational, unstable regions of the world.

    We can stay home from now on.

    There is no point to our involvement in India/Pakistan or other areas. Indeed, it is our interventionist foreign policy since WW2 that has created many of these problems to begin with, not to mention earning us considerable hatred from large areas of the world (much of which is deserved).

    In any case, the global effects of a regional nuclear war are overhyped. The “nuclear winter” theory bandied about by the likes of Carl Sagan (which never underwent peer review, by the way) was discredited in 1991 when Saddam’s troops set all of the Kuwaiti oil wells on fire.

    A regional nuclear war, say, between India and Pakistan would be a horrific humanitarian disaster, for the region in question. Not for the rest of the world. The key for the U.S. is to stay out of the unfolding Eurasia chaos and trouble during the 2016-2040 time period. Our energy and technology revolutions will make it possible for us to disengage from and to stay home from now own.

    • Replies: @Jim Christian
  3. The two best books for understanding geopolitically what will happen between now and 2040 are 1) “How Civilizations Die” by David Goldman and 2) “The Accidental Superpower” by Peter Zeihan. The trends argued in both books as well as the coming technology revolution, all argue in favor of an non-interventionist foreign policy.

    If the rest of the world chooses to destroy itself through collectivism and irrational belief systems, that is their choice. The policy of the U.S. should be to ride out such a disaster and to emerge as the “last man standing”. Any other policy is utterly irrational.

  4. “Our primary goal should be to avoid being dragged in.”

    Dream on! Name one sh!t-show we’ve managed to not wade into in the last century or so.

    • Replies: @Abelard Lindsey
  5. Eric,
    Look on the bright side. If India and Pakistan do have a nuclear exchange, that will put an end to infuriating call centers and far fewer 7/11’s.

    • Replies: @Numinous
  6. Numinous says:

    The US has no reason to get involved in Kashmir. Just stop bankrolling the Pakistan military, which uses American money and American arms to maintain an extensive terrorist infrastructure in its country with one and only one goal: to destabilize and eventually dismember India.

  7. Numinous says:

    Preventing one should be a primary diplomatic goal for the world’s powers.

    But no mention of trying to prevent Pakistan from sponsoring one of the world’s largest terrorist networks?

  8. Numinous says:
    @Tabasco Jack

    If Indian call centers bother you so much, why don’t you start your own instead of wishing for the annihilation of people, you miserable excuse of a human being?

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  9. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    Easy there, big fella.

    An if/then statement is not a wish. And looking on the bright side is finding the proverbial silver lining to every storm cloud. Humor depends on hyperbole; it’s fairly obvious that Tabasco Jack isn’t speaking literally.

    And it’s “miserable excuse for a human being” not “of”.

    Vaya con Dios

  10. @The Alarmist

    Good point. Our political class is infested with morons who believe in the value of an interventionist foreign policy. The key is for self-sufficient Americans to insulate themselves from the fallout of these morons. Either that or get rid of the morons to begin with.

  11. One of the other hypes that we will hear is that a regional nuclear war, say between Pakistan and India, will somehow prove catastrophic to the rest of the world. This, of course, is a load of hype and it used as justification for the U.S. to somehow involve ourselves in such a conflict to the detriment of the American tax payer.

    The fact is that a regional nuclear war would be a horrific humanitarian disaster for the region in question. However, it would have no effect whatsoever on the rest of the world. Those who argue otherwise seek money and attention from those of us who want nothing to do with these regions of the world and the irrational cultures that inhabit such regions.

    Isolationism, defined as the permanent termination of the interventionist foreign policy, is the best course of action for the American tax payer and citizen.

  12. DB Cooper says:

    India benefits greatly from the general cluelessness of the people of the world at large. Most people in the world know India is dirt poor but probably think otherwise it is a decent country. After all how bad can it be when its national icon is Gandhi, that saintly figure that preached non-violence in its fight against colonialism. Wrong.

    Anybody that pay some attention to the last sixty so years of India existence will know that this is an absolutely disgusting country. Bullying, hegemonic, land-grabbing, delusional, hateful and self-righteous.

    • Agree: Druid
    • Replies: @anon
    , @Anonymous
  13. anon • Disclaimer says:

    Of course Margolis provides no explanations, answers, suggestions, ideas or solutions at to exactly HOW the ‘world powers’ are supposed to prevent war between two bitter neighbours and enemies. The simple fact is there are many problems in this world the ‘world powers’ or the west can NOT fix.

    Still it is amazing that Margolis could write a column about India-Pakistan and somehow not blame everything on the “evil” British.

  14. anon • Disclaimer says:
    @DB Cooper

    As opposed to that Muslim bastion of democracy, freedom, equality, women’s rights, etc., that is Pakistan.

    • Replies: @DB Cooper
  15. @Abelard Lindsey

    Sorry for the double agree. All it takes is a back click to return and pull that trigger again.

    Meanwhile, back at the Persian Gulf, with our newfound tech and oil supplies here at home, why NOT disengage and since it is now Asian oil anyway, let THEM wade into that fray? China unleashed, aided by Korea, Japan and even Russia could inflict the brutality necessary to bring all the factions we have created to heel. None of them would have much tolerance for the Muslim terror and also have none of notions of political correctness we hamstring ourselves with. Then, drink it all up, who cares? We developed it, we paid those mongrels for it, why then should we defend it when we don’t even use it anymore?

    And then, they’ll have their oil, we’ll have ours. We can build refineries for them, more for our industry complete with pipelines so we can do away with the foolish transport by rail. It really could be a new age with the U.S. out of the Gulf and the new Asia in. It’s oil, there is plenty to go around and we also have our coal, which isn’t for burning, it’s for transforming into other products. Let Asia have the Persian Gulf. Then, develop our energy reserves. It’s a bridge to renewable energy and at the same time a way out of the Persian Gulf and perhaps that has been the plan all along. If they found the oil in the Middle East, they damned well knew what was under the ground in the MidWest for the past 75 years.. It all looks so damnably simple, beneficial and economical. Why was Clinton’s economy good? $12.00/barrel oil, for starters. We don’t do well on 80 dollar oil. What am I missing, Lord, where am I wrong?

    India and Pakistan? If we’re smart, at the end of the day, our only response should be, “Ain’t that a shame?”.

    • Replies: @anon
  16. anon • Disclaimer says:
    @Jim Christian

    The USA actually gets very little of its oil from the middle east and the Persian Gulf. It is a huge myth that America is dependent on this region for its energy needs. The “importance” of this area to Washington is due to the all-powerful Jewish lobby and Israel.

    • Replies: @RadicalCenter
  17. Rehmat says:
    @another fred

    Do worry darling – India will never attack Pakistan as it did in the past – in 1947, 1967, and 1971 as Pakistan has a nuclear deterrent now. Just think of US-USSR 50-year cold war – neither the US or Soviet Russia dared to attack each other. America is even afraid to attack North Korea while bullying the tiny state for the last three decades.

    Now, India and Israel are united to attack Pakistan and Iran from backdoor – Balochistan – a mineral rich region shared by both Pakistan and Iran.

    On February 8, 2012 – Israel-Firster Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-Calif), introduced a resolution in US House of Representatives calling upon Islamabad to recognize its province of Balochistan as an “independent state”. Rohrabacher also used the opportunity to attack Israel’s two enemies in single breath.

    Last month, Indian prime minister excused Pakistan of committing human right abuses in order to divert world attention from India’s brutality in the Indian occupied Jammu and Kashmir Valley.

    “It is US policy to oppose aggression and the violation of human rights inherent in the subjugation of national groups as currently being shown in Iran and Pakistan against the aspirations of the Baloch people,” said Rohrabacher.

  18. Rehmat says:

    Eric Margolis is one of the few western war correspondents who has first-hand knowledge of the western wars going-on in Pakistan-India-Afghanistan region.

    Since 1947 India fought two major wars with Pakistan over the disputed Jammu and Kashmir Valley and third over former East Pakistan which became Bangladesh in 1971.

    Booker Prize-winning Indian author, Arundhati Roy, is another scholar who knows the treachery of Indian Hindu Raj.

    “Kashmir’s accession to India was accepted by us at the request of the Maharaja’s government and the most numerously representative popular organization in the state which is predominantly Muslim. Even then it was accepted on condition that as soon as law and order had been restored, the people of Kashmir would decide the question of accession. It is open to them to accede to either Dominion (India or Pakistan) then,” wrote Indian Prime Minister Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru in a telegram to Pakistani Prime Minister Nawabzada Liaquat Ali Khan, October 31, 1947.

    However, later, Nehru did send Indian army to occupy princely states of Hyderabad and Junagarh against the wishes of their Muslim rulers who had decided to join Pakistan.

    On November 29, 2010 – The New Delhi police registered a sedition case against Arundhati Roy for her so-called “anti-India” speech at a conference on “Azadi – The Only Way”, in Sarinagar on October 21, 2010.

    In her speech she claimed that Jammu & Kashmir valley had never been integral part of India and that it is a historical fact. She pleaded with Indian government to abide by the wishes of Kashmiri people……

    • Replies: @Marcus
  19. Marcus says:

    She is a leftist traitor. Kashmir has always been part of the Indian sphere (so were Afghanistan and Pakistan). Why should Pakistan be rewarded for terrorism and ethnic cleansing of the Hindu population there?

    • Replies: @DB Cooper
    , @Druid
    , @Rehmat
    , @KA
  20. DB Cooper says:

    [If you keep changing your handle to disguise your identity, all your future comments may get trashed.]

    There is no such thing as Indian sphere. Had British not colonized the subcontinent, India would never have existed. India should stop its superpower fetish, make peace with its many neighbors and focus its energy in improving the lives of its people. But I don’t think this will ever happen.

    • Replies: @Marcus
  21. DB Cooper says:

    As opposed to that Hindu bastion of democracy, freedom, equality, women’s rights, etc., that is India.

    • Replies: @anon
  22. Osama was found a few miles away from an Indian military base right? Right?
    Pakistan has exterminated almost all Hindus and Sikhs from its territory. Christians are next, and maybe Shi’ites. Land of the Pure, Indeed!

  23. Marcus says:
    @DB Cooper

    India as a polity =/= Indian cultural sphere, though several dynasties did come close to ruling all of what is now India and they are at peace with their neighbors even Pakistan which is continually trying to provoke them. If you’re Burmese, I’m not sure what your gripe with India is, you share a common enemy with them in Muslim expansionism if anything.

    • Replies: @Rehmat
  24. anon • Disclaimer says:
    @DB Cooper

    Well sport, your the one who started this childish name-calling, but rather then argue with you, I would defer to FREEDOM HOUSE, an impartial ratings agency. It rates India as a free country. Pakistan is only rated as a partly free country, which is still “good” when compared to the vast majority of Muslim countries that are rated as not free.

  25. Druid says:

    You could just as well say that India is a Pakistan Afghanistan sphere!

  26. Rehmat says:

    So was the Father of India – Mahatma Gandhi. That’s why he was murdered by one of your PATRIOTIC HINDU FACIST.

    On May 28, 2014, Narendra Modi and his Hindutva ministers turned up to pay tributes to Vinyak Damodar Savarkar for master-minding the assassination of Mahatma Gandhi on January 30, 1948. Savarkar’s mercy appeal was rejected by the British colonial regime five times. Modi has long been hailed as “the best friend of Israel in Asia” by Netanyahu and the Jewish controlled press around the world.

    Later, Hindu Mahasabha, the Hindu extremist party which supports India’s prime minister Narendra Modi requested land from the Union Government to erect statues and busts of Nathuram Gonde, the assassin of Father of Nation, Mahatma MK Gandhi at public places all over India. The Mahasabha’s national president, Chandra Prakash Kaushik, reportedly told daily The Hindu “There needs to be a thorough investigation of the events that led to the assassination, so that vilification of Nathuram Godse ends and the people of this country know that he wasn’t an assassin by choice but was forced to make the decision to kill Gandhi.”

    Godse, is considered a “traitor” like biblical Judas Iscariot by a great majority of Indian population, but regarded a “Saint” by the Hindutva organizations like the organized Jewry….

    • Replies: @Marcus
  27. Marcus says:

    If Gandhi had gotten his way, Pakistan would’ve never existed!

    • Replies: @moi
  28. KA says:

    I don’t think that partition was a good idea It was bad for thousands of Hundus Muslim and Sikhs and for the entire subcontinent.

    But once the parties agreed ,they should have followed the agreements . India didnot on Kashmir and neither in Gujrat . But the reality is now India has 2/3 and Pakistan has 1/3 They should just let it this fact to become a reality . Unfortunately Indian has been high handed and has been exploitative extractive in it ‘s dealings with Kasmiris . Pakistan hasn’t done a better job either

    Today India is being used against China – so America desires / as was Pakistan against Soviet . But India is more mature and Indian institutions are more independent ( that’s why America likes dictators) India will use US and won’t allow it to be used .
    Pakistan ‘s elite has been bought by America . Muslim League was an offspring of British Raj. If India plays it right ,it can simply buy the Pakistani elite . It doesn’t have to spend a bullet . India has bought Nepal,Bangladesh, Bhutan and has failed in Sri Lanka . India can buy Pakistani Punjabi who rules the country .

    But unless India comes with some understanding with China on Pakistan,it will be extremely difficult . Here all parties- China,India,US,and Pakistan have different aims ,not unlike what is happening in Syria .

    • Replies: @Marcus
    , @a.z
  29. Marcus says:

    It might not have been bad if it had happened while British authorities were still in control, but Gandhi refused to accept it due to his megalomania, hence the chaos when it finally happened.

  30. Singh says:

    Lying scum of author, Un resolution calls for Pakistan to withdraw troops before a vote occurs. Which will never happen,

    Furthermore, you racist Hinduphobic troll what sense does a vote make when millions of Hindus have been cleansed from the valley & millions of muslims moved in?

    You just lend credence that Abrahamics will always stick together & we will need to clean this ideology from your collective psyches before man can reach for the stars.

    Jai Hind

  31. So many misstatements from someone who was allegedly in Kashmir…

    Aksai Chin is on the east of Kashmir, on the opposite side to Pakistan, and has always been under de facto Chinese control. An attempt by India to seize it in 1962 ended in a calamitous defeat. The territorial strip Pakistan ceded to China is in the north, in Gilgit-Baltistan. India only controls a little over 1/3 of Kashmir while claiming it all; Pakistan has 1/3 and China the rest.

    “Azad Kashmir” is only a relatively small part of Pakistan-controlled Kashmir; Gilgit, Baltistan and Skardu are larger, much more mountainous, and easier to defend.

    India didn’t “ignore” demands for a plebiscite; it was India which pledged a plebiscite in the first place but included riders which it knew perfectly well would never be met: first, withdrawal of all “foreign” troops – presumably these would include Indians, which will never happen – from Kashmir and then “normalisation” of the situation. After 69 years of division, that’s the new normal. In any case, this plebiscite would exclude the independence option – Kashmiris would only get to choose India or Pakistan, a lose-lose option for them since both countries have neglected and mistreated them very badly.

    While Hindus, Sikhs and Buddhists are a minority in Kashmir *overall*, they form a majority in Jammu and Ladakh areas of Kashmir, while Shia (who do not like Pakistan) form the majority in Kargil. Sunni Kashmiris, who also do *not* all like Pakistan, form a majority in the Valley of Kashmir *only* (I am talking of Indian Kashmir here). There was a substantial Hindu presence in the Valley but they were ethnically cleansed in 1989-90. Almost none are left now.

    If a referendum was to be held in all Kashmir, there’s a very good chance Pakistan would lose. Pakistan itself knows that and so these days wants to have a referendum in the Valley only.

    The attack on the Indian army base didn’t come out of the blue. Since July, Kashmiris have been out in the streets in an intifada against Indian rule after a militant leader called Burhan Wani was killed in a firefight. Wani was a mythologised hero and India made the incredible blunder of acting as though by killing him it was a victory over the Kashmiri movement itself. The riots that followed were met by Indians firing buckshot into the faces of protestors and bystanders, killing many and blinding more, which only led to greater unrest.

    In actual combat, Indian military performance has been underwhelming to say the least. If there is a war, India can’t fight its way across heavy Pakistani fortifications to take Kashmir. It could only have a chance of success in the desert far to the south. And that would lead to a nuclear exchange where Pakistan has far more and likely better weapons. Almost all of India’s industrial and commercial centres are in the north and west of the country, within easy range of Pakistani missiles and planes. Modi’s home state Gujarat especially wouldn’t stand a chance. That is why there will be no war.

  32. @Singh

    “Millions of Hindus” cleansed from the valley?

    The actual figures are 100000 at the low end of the scale to 800000 at the maximum. Not even one million.

    Where did these “millions of Muslims” get moved in from? Please explain with sources. Who are they, where did they come from, and what is your proof?

    “Hinduphobic troll” – ha, you Hindunazis have done infinitely more to harm Hinduism than any so called “Hinduphobic troll”.

  33. By the time independence happened, Gandhi was a virtual irrelevant back number; it was his proteges Nehru and Patel who were calling the shots. Gandhi in fact suggested allowing Jinnah’s Muslim League to head the government of an undivided India; it was Nehru and Patel, who wanted to eliminate a dangerous political rival to their own plans to rule, who refused.

    • Replies: @Marcus
  34. Marcus says:
    @Fiendly Neighbourhood Terrorist

    Yes, Gandhi’s final surrender in a long career of Muslim appeasement, it didn’t even change what Muslims thought of him as a person

    However pure Gandhi’s character may be, he must appear to me from the point of view of religion inferior to any Mussalman, even though he be without character. He repeated it later, saying, ‘Yes, according to my religion and creed, I hold an adulterous and a fallen Muslim to be better than a Mr. (no longer Mahatma) Gandhi.

  35. moi says:

    The issue is Kashmir–the people there were promised and have the right to decide their future.

    Suggest you read “The Indian Ideology,” by Perry Anderson for a more accurate picture of Gandhi and Nehru and their machinations that led to the creation of Pakistan. Their Congress party was Hindu to the core and unwilling to consider the reasonable demands of the Muslim League, which sought only security for the minority Muslim population. The current prime minister, Modi, is a Hindu bigot.

    • Replies: @Marcus
  36. Anonymous [AKA "Zabala Zoron"] says:
    @DB Cooper

    India use to be decent country but not now, beef is banned , if you are minority you are 2nd grade citizen.

  37. Marcus says:

    Kashmir could’ve easily been part of Pakistan if they hadn’t preemptively invaded it, prompting its ruler to ask for India’s help. Congress was majority Hindu because the territory itself was, they were/are quite “secular,” even rewriting history to. Gandhi bent over backwards over and over to appease the Muslims, even after massacres of Hindus, to no avail. It was the Muslims who always wanted a separate state
    “I confess to be a pan-Islamist. The mission for which Islam came into this world will be ultimately fulfilled. The world will be purged of infidelity and worship of false Gods, and true Islam will be triumphant. This is the kind of pan-Islamism I preach.”
    – Iqbal

    The current prime minister, Modi, is a Hindu bigot.

    Ridiculous and also impossible, he’s quite moderate though the media is constantly defaming him. Hindus would have every right to expel all Muslims based on risk and historical experience, but they haven’t even established a state religion (as almost all Muslim-majority countries have).

  38. Marcus says:

    ETA Anderson is apparently a communist, big surprise.

  39. @Anonymous

    “Beef is banned”?

    Actually, the ban was only in certain states and even there it has been overturned by the courts.

    “if you are minority you are 2nd grade citizen.”

    Depends on the state and the state government. In the Christian majority tribal states of North East India it’s Hindus who face massive and systematic discrimination.

  40. @Marcus

    “Hindus would have every right to expel all Muslims based on risk and historical experience”

    And how do you intend to go about doing this? Hindunazi keyboard warriors, apart from being snivelling cowards, don’t seem to have any actual plans, just frothing mouthed invective.

    • Replies: @Marcus
  41. Marcus says:
    @Fiendly Neighbourhood Terrorist

    I don’t think they should, it would be sinking to the level of Muslims and Christians. Also Hitl0r himself opposed Indian independence, otoh he spoke warmly of Mahommedanism several times, though the Wehrmacht was infinitely more humane than Muslim hordes that ravaged India and so many other nations:
    “I consider only the Mohammedans to be safe [in Russia]. All the others I consider to be unsafe.”
    “The Mohammedan religion too would’ve been much more compatible to us [than Christianity]”

    • Replies: @anon
    , @KA
  42. a.z says:

    they thought they got bangladesh hook line and sinker after 71 it did not work out that way before and chances are it will not work that way in the present either

  43. Aman says:

    There are only approx one million population of all people (minus army) in Kashmir valley of that Hindus constitute approx 10% ie about 1,00,000 now there are 52000 Hindus living in srinagar. True Hindus left the valley but approx half have returned though not to the rural areas. I suspect even of there was no militancy most would not return except for holiday s just as many Muslims have migrated for better opportunities. Those who will return AR the super rich and the super poor of which there are extremely few among Hindu kashmiri.

  44. anon • Disclaimer says:

    Hitler was irreligious.

  45. bunga says:

    In his Karamyog (2007), Modi writes that those castes fated to do sanitation work (clean gutters, sweep houses and cart away refuse), such as the Balmikis, do so as an “experience in spirituality.” “I do not believe that they have been doing this job just to sustain their livelihood,” says Modi, who anoints them to this despicable work because it is their “duty to work for the happiness of the entire society.” Subhash Gatade, who edits Sandhan, points out that when confronted by Modi’s logic a leading Dalit poet asked, “Why didn’t it occur to Modi that the spirituality involved in doing menial jobs hasn’t ever been experienced by the upper castes?”

  46. bunga says:

    The BJP’s Giriraj Singh is the sitting Member of Parliament from Nawada. During the 2014 election, he said – on many occasions – that anyone who dissents from Modi should go to Pakistan. India is not for them.
    After the parliamentary election, Modi’s followers would hound dissenters – the murder of Communist leader Govind Pansare and the scholar M. M. Kalburgi forms part of the outcome of Modi’s politics. So too does the lynching of Muslim men alleged to have been part of the cattle market.

    Today, in Faizabad, he proclaimed that “this is Lord Ram’s land.”

    “It is ironic,” wrote Khushwant Singh, “that the highest incidence of violence against Muslims and Christians has taken place in Gujarat, the home state of Bapu Gandhi.”

    “Communalizing Relief: VHP seizes earthquake opportunity,” Statesman, Kolkata, 12 February 2001 and Vijay Dutt, “Discrimination in Distribution of Relief against Dalits in Gujarat Causes Concern,” Hindustan Times, 27 February 2001

    Human Rights Watch’s 2002 report calls attention to the way the RSS and Mr. Modi have used Gujarat as “Hindutva’s laboratory,” stacking the higher administration with RSS-VHP cadre. No Muslim police officer has a field posting. As Frontline reporter Praveen Swami wrote at the time, “Chief Minister Narendra Modi has become something of a hero for many Hindus because he presided over the pogrom.”

    peaking in West Bengal, “Modi declared that only Hindu migrants from Bangladesh were welcome; the others would be repatriated.” And in Uttar Pradesh his ‘henchmen’ made it clear “that anyone who did not support Modi should go back to Pakistan, where they belonged.” [The Guardian]

  47. KA says:

    Well ,its working in Sikkim and the same ” work” is feared by Nepalese . Unfortunate but true I dia has very poor relations with all of its neighbors .Inia also has militarily occupied various lands just like US and China have – Goa, Hyderabad of Nizam ,part of Gujarat and Kashmir against the wishes of the locals . India has been instrumental in destroying Nepal and now effectively running Bangladesh.

    India some claim is a secular country . But it is a country where Hindus get preferential treatment in jobs ,education,in media . The Hindu charecters and pictures of Hindu goddesss line the walls of the school buildings colleges,railway station ,government offices and puja is celebrated everyday ( mini puja) in every Governmnet office and most private businesses .
    India is stilly noshing 1993 bombing culprits but have not those echo killed Muslim from 1986 onward covering areas from Delhi to Bihar and stretching to Bombay .

    BJP came to power by killing Muslims . BJP still employs anti Muslim rants before election . Last election in 2014 was preceded by riot against and displacements of Muslims in norther India only 100 miles away from Delhi.

    Only a moron will subscribe to the view that Hitler respected Arab or Muslims. Only a moron will ignore the connection between RSS and Naxi ideology.
    Only a moron will say that India was ravaged by Muslim
    Only a moron will ignore the overrepresentation of Hindu elite in Muslim administrations of Mughal , Siraj,Tipu sultan. and of royal families of Nizam and Oudh.

    • Replies: @Marcus
    , @Numinous
  48. OutWest says:

    Wow!! Great discussion. The only thing that could make the situation worse is would be a failure by the U.S to disengage and keep its nose out of the mess.

  49. Marcus says:

    I am not making any claims, but letting the words and actions of the Nazis speak for themselves. The meeting of Hajj Amin al-Husseini with Hitler is well known. Nazi theorist Sigrid Hunke preferred Islam to Christianity. Also Heinrich Himmler said “I have nothing against Islam because it educates the men in this division for me and promises them heaven if they fight and are killed in action. A very practical and attractive religion for soldiers.” He formed two Muslim SS divisions: the 21st and the 13th. After the war, Otto Skorzeny found sanctuary in Egypt and Alois Brunner to Syria. The rest of your post isn’t worth responding to, Muslim historians themselves bragged about their slaughter and destruction, the fact they had to hire Hindu administrators out of necessity during peace means nothing.

    • Replies: @KA
    , @bunga
    , @Talha
  50. KA says:

    Subhas Chandra met with Hitler. German Zionist met and made deals with Hitler. Churchill’s father met with Hitler
    Hitler was met by Chamberlian . Hitler was met by Pope . Saddam was met by Rumsfield
    Roosevelt met Stalin or shall I say Stalin met Rosevrlt . Butcher of Japan ,Truman is still met by people with admiration.

    Long before Haji met he was hounded out of Palestine by British forces and by other players operating in Palestine. He was denied what he felt was not British’s to possess but was the right of his fellow people .

    Britain didnot prosecute him desire attempts to kill him .Britain had nothing to convince anybody to prosecute him.

  51. KA says:

    Reagan called Mujghaeddin of Afghan as freedom fighter and compared them to the founding fathers in spirit and actions.Those Neo ” founding father ” were feted in White House and their propaganda books for Madrasha were printed in Nebraska

    Go and figure out what powerful people do advance their terrible agenda .
    You can’t answer because you don’t have history on your side.

  52. bunga says:

    In 1984 BJP had 2 seats. By playing anti Muslim cards ,it gained many seats later Then its started organizing pogrom in differnet parts of Northern India over Sha Banu case and over Babri Masjid . It soon increased its seats to 180 in Parliament Since then every elections it has fought has been on anti Muslim canard and on anti Muslim violence Even the election in 2014 was preceded by violence against Muslim in Dec 2013 in large parts of India .
    You can write it down that in next election also ,same will be repeated . There will be riot against either Christian or mulsim or both. They will find some “transgression” from Muslims before election.
    Indian Express editor and Hindustan Time Editor in mid 80s provided ideological support, distortions of history and emotional ingredients against Muslim for months.

  53. Talha says:

    Hey Marcus,

    Few points…

    I actually like that photo. Had the communists been friendlier toward religion, they may have found more Muslim allies. As it was, they suppressed all religion (the Orthodox Church being the greater victim). I think the Muslims seem quite balanced from that article:
    “The Nazis tried to cater to the Muslim religious needs of their recruits, but the soldiers themselves cared more about protecting their homeland (as promised by the Nazis), than anything else the SS and Himmler told them about racial equality/superiority to the inferior Jews…The soldiers were only interested in protecting their homeland in Bosnia, so any incursions into Croatia or Serbia to help the Nazi allies or war effort there met with consternation among the soldiers, and even more desertions.”

    Seems they were only interested in protecting their turf – maybe the Nazis could have learned a couple of things from them and not committed the blunder of Operation Barbarossa or invading Norway, etc.

    The truth is the truth, no matter who speaks it:

    A very practical and attractive religion for soldiers.

    Sure thing, our history is full of warrior-saints. Almost all of the early Companions were known for their martial efforts as well as their night-vigil prayers. Fathers need guidance, merchants need guidance, and soldiers are no different. Soldiers will always be around and they need examples of conduct and models of inspiration. I remember reading these words years ago from the journalist Tom Junod and they struck me as quite perspicacious:
    “Christianity seeks to remake human nature, and its great ambition is its great fault. It is unambiguous in its prohibition of violence for any purpose, including self-defense, and so it makes hypocrites of its warriors. Islam’s great advantage is that it seeks only to govern human nature as it is, and so it doesn’t ask its warriors to be conflicted about conflict, as long as conflicts are conducted according to the principles of the Koran.”

    War is an inescapable part of our reality and is likely not going to end. What are we going to do about it?

    I believe Nietzsche also said something along the lines of; Islam assumes it is dealing with men.


    • Replies: @Marcus
  54. Marcus says:

    There were certainly Muslims in the Yugoslav partisans, Tito tried to downplay communism though. I think the Nazis could’ve won if they had exploited dissatisfaction with the Soviet regime more thoroughly: they didn’t really use anti-communist Russians at all until the last year of the war (because of supposed racial inferiority), and they didn’t give the people of the Caucasus or the Ukraine any reason to think they were preferable to the USSR. They did attract volunteers from virtually all nationalities, but they often proved more interested in trying to surrender to the western Allies to avoid Stalin’s wrath!,_Caucasian,_Cossack,_and_Crimean_collaborationism_with_the_Axis_powers

  55. Numinous says:

    Well ,its working in Sikkim and the same ” work” is feared by Nepalese . Unfortunate but true I dia has very poor relations with all of its neighbors .Inia also has militarily occupied various lands just like US and China have – Goa, Hyderabad of Nizam ,part of Gujarat and Kashmir against the wishes of the locals .

    A poor and militarily weak region of the world cannot afford hundred of statelets, especially in the shadow of a hegemonic power like China. Sikkim chose to join India to protect itself from Chinese hegemony. Bhutan maintains close ties with India and not with China. Guess why?

    Your other examples are stupid. Goa has always been majority Hindu and Konkani-speaking. People there wanted to join India. Hyderabad and Junagarh (in Gujarat) were and are overwhelmingly Hindu, with Muslim rulers, and landlocked within India to boot. People there considered themselves Indians; there was no question of those territories going to Pakistan.

    Kashmir (ok, just the valley) probably ought to have gone to Pakistan in ’47. Our region would probably be a much more peaceful place today had that happened. But as Marcus pointed out earlier, the Pakistanis are responsible for that not happening, by stupidly and unilaterally inciting a tribal invasion of Kashmir (one that resulted in plunder and rape of civilians.)

    Today, an overwhelming majority of Indians considers any compromise on the status of our portion of Kashmir (talk of secession, that is) to be a direct attack on the very existence of the Indian nation. Hence we are not letting Kashmir go, period. If Pakistan agrees, the LoC can be accepted as the international border. And Indians will generally be ready to offer any concession to, and appeasement of, Kashmiris short of secession. Beyond that, the attitude is that if Kashmiris don’t want to be part of India, they are welcome to leave and go to Pakistan.

    • Replies: @DB Cooper
    , @KA
  56. DB Cooper says:

    “Sikkim chose to join India to protect itself from Chinese hegemony. Bhutan maintains close ties with India and not with China. Guess why?”

    Sikkim didn’t choose to join India. India invaded and annexed Sikkim and put its monarch in house arrest for life. Bhutan is force to have close ties with India to the exclusion of almost all countries for fear of becoming the next Sikkim. One of the first things India did after its creation is to resign a series of unequal treaties the British Raj had with its neighbors. Making clear that the new regime sees itself as the new imperial power in the block. Sikkim and Bhutan demonstrates India’s land grabbing and hegemonic mindset.

    Don’t be delusional. India is poor, backward, brutal and filthy. Why would any country want to be part of this hellhole?

    • Replies: @Marcus
  57. Marcus says:
    @DB Cooper

    Maybe they don’t want to endure the Maoist yoke like their neighbors? It’s true that India is still largely poor, but it has been making progress over the last decade

    • Replies: @DB Cooper
  58. DB Cooper says:

    Maoist or not, China has settled amicably twelve of its fourteen land borders with its neighbors. India has border disputes with every single of its neighbors except Bangladesh. China is not a land grabber. India is. Since its creation in 1947 India has annexed its neighbors land, among them Sikkim, Goa, Manipur, part of Nepal, South Tibet including Tawang..etc.

  59. KA says:

    I support the view that Kashmir should be part of India . Pkistan for various reasons wants to maintain chaos . Kashmiris dont have to be subjected to brital sufferings
    . India can and should stop discriminating against Kashmiris which inspires and sustains this agitation.

  60. @another fred

    We can’t avoid being dragged in to the radioactive dust in the entire world’s air, nor can we avoid being dragged in to the poisoning of our own water due to an India-Pakistan nuclear war.

    For most non-nuclear disputes, yes, we should not get involved.

  61. @anon

    You’re right. We buy a larger share of our oil and natural gas from Canada and Mexico than from the middle eastern or central Asian nations.

    Mexico, however, is not going to be able to keep exporting much longer. They will need all their domestic production for their own population’s energy needs.

    • Replies: @KA
  62. KA says:

    That reality doesn’t work for America . Oil is needed for the military and economy of Japan,S Korea,China,and India . Having the ability to turn that off through the leverage that America enjoys over Qatar Kuwait Saudi and Algeria gives US a binding veto power over these countries .
    This behavior is the equivalent to imposing sanctions on Iran by forcing other nations to toe US lines through quasi Western organizations or mechanism like UN IAEA ,SWIFT ,Banking IMF and WB.
    PArt of the reason of the WW1 was this fear of Turkey and industrial Germany entente that would have resulted in open access to oil of Azerbaijan and Iraq .

  63. Rehmat says:

    India like Israel is a colonial entity. The ruling classes in both entities refuse to acknowledge the rights of the minorities under their rules. Both persecute the Muslim minorities – the former rulers.

    Hindu extremists have not come to terms after 70 years that Pakistan has the right to exist. They have already break-up the 1947 Pakistan agreed by the British colonial power and United Nations into Pakistan and Bangladesh in 1971 with the help of the US and Israel.

    These Hindu extremists want Kashmiris to accept Brahmin Hindu supremacy as God’s will.

    “Whereas the inhabitants of the Indian peninsula are Hindus whose hearts have been full of hatred towards Muslims, therefore, India is the most important base for us to work there from against Pakistan,” David Ben-Gurion, quoted in the Jewish Chronicle, August 9, 1967.

Current Commenter

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone

 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments have been licensed to The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Commenting Disabled While in Translation Mode
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Eric Margolis Comments via RSS
Personal Classics
Bin Laden is dead, but his strategy still bleeds the United States.
Egyptians revolted against American rule as well as Mubarak’s.
“America’s strategic and economic interests in the Mideast and Muslim world are being threatened by the agony in...
A menace grows from Bush’s Korean blind spot.
Far from being a model for a “liberated” Iraq, Afghanistan shows how the U.S. can get bogged down Soviet-style.