If India has to hit terror factories in Pakistan, be ready for a war with China!

It is about 32 hours since the attack on Uri army camp in India, by Pakistani terrorists. There is tremendous amount of anger in India, specifically in the sections of society which I normally don't see overreact on social media.

This was the front page of paper at my home - "We have had enough!"

Front page of New Indian Xpress, the day after Uri Attack

The overwhelming majority are screaming - Dear Prime Minister.. do something. do quickly..

• That "do" can be full fledged war. 
• It can be economic blockade.
• It can be water stoppage for Sindhu and five rivers of Punjab going into Pakistan.
• It can be surgical strikes inside Pakistan like India did inside Myanmar last year.
• It can be as many as there are opinions on social media, papers and TV.

But the big question is.. Can India attack Pakistan this week?

1. I am sure there is military will power. 
2. I am sure there would be enough political will power. 
3. I am sure India has plenty of financial cushion to do this. (Pakistan's GDP is smaller than just one state's in India - Maharashtra)
4. I am sure internally there won't be much opposition to India for a small scale surgical strike. 

But still.. 69 years of handling of Jammu and Kashmir by India is something we have to look at right now. Can India afford to hit Pakistan where it hurts the most, for Pakistan's obsession with Jihadi terror export all these decades?

While I was looking for some pragmatic answers, amidst very loud war cries that I see in press, TV and social media, I happened to see this tweet set. A very thoughtful set of tweets by the user @vadakkus. From here onward, I am merely reproducing the fantastic probing analysis done by @vadakkus, with very little info from my side. Read it fully and then comment on what Indian government can do, should do, and most importantly, when to do. Vadakkus starts off a tweet storm on the entire Pakistan - India fiasco. There is more than what meets the eye here. And issue is NOT Kashmir. It also does not look like anything to do with Islam, Separatism, Human Rights, Army, AFSPA, Track 2 negotiation and many other things we hear on TV.

It is must deeper than that.. Geo politics!

Why is Pakistan obsessed with Kashmir? I have always wondered what makes Kashmir so attractive to Pakistan, that they are willing to keep the issue burning forever. What IS there?
{Prem Shekhar, a well known Kannada columnist informed a few weeks that Pakistan  had even offered to give up East Pakistan in 1950s, in return for Jammu and Kashmir on the sidelines of official discussions with India! So definitely it is not religion or Kashmiris.. it is much deeper than that. It was water sources then, but now much more deeper...}

Why is India so reluctant to hit back at Pakistan? Also why does India always seem to be unable to retaliate to Pakistan in kind (it should, totally) and pussyfoots around Pakistan, despite all the atrocities it commits in India from daily incursions in Kashmir to the Mumbai attacks. They spend too much money on all this and the country, despite no visible revenue-generating industry (terrorism no revenue) has managed to survive until today, develop nukes and has so much international clout? Where does it get its money from? Why?? Why is India reluctant to strike? There must be reasons.

Yes, water is an issue. The Indus and its tributaries. But where do they get money to keep the issue alive? There is more to this than water. Today, someone told me about this thing and I was stumped about how bloody obvious this is, and even then, NOBODY in India talks about this!

It is China... stupid.. It is China and CPEC: The "thing" is the CPEC: China-Pakistan Economic Corridor. If you look at it closely suddenly everything falls into place. Kashmir, Balochistan, India's unwillingness to strike, silence of international community, everything else. Pakistan is just a front.  

The real sponsor is hiding behind.

Maybe it is because Indian method of viewing everything in black & white. Pakistan sponsors terrorism to get Kashmir. It is not that simple. Pakistan kept the Kashmir flame burning until the 1990s to meet their ends, when China conceived the CPEC and decided to take over. A bit on the CPEC as no one seems to have heard about it. China has a huge geographic handicap: no access to southern world oceans.

So Chinese shipments from Europe, Middle East, Africa have to travel all the way around India, Malacca and ASEAN. China has serious problems with most countries in that region due to its aggressive military posture.

CPEC Need. Source - Twitter. Please excuse since J&K map is not as per India's standards.

Why Pakistan is so important for Chinese economy? What if China could get a route through Pakistan to access the Arabian Sea? That line in blue. Look at it, so much distance, money saved! That, is the CPEC. A corridor of highways and railways will run from Kashgar in China to Gwadar in Pakistan (Baluchistan) on the Arabian sea near Iran border. And ALL the infrastructure and associated stuff for CPEC will be constructed for Pakistan by China, free or cost or for negligible loans.

What is CPEC?Four Six-lane Expressways from north to south Pakistan, four different routes. All main railway lines being upgraded to 160 kph double. A six to eight lane super expressway Karachi to Gwadar and Hyderabad Innumerable coal, thermal, solar and hydro power plants all across Pakistan. All of Gwadar, including a mega international airport! Then Hospitals, schools, colleges, tech institutes, even a Metro line in Lahore!

And of course, the capstone: reconstruction of the Karakoram highway to six to four lanes. All projects listed here. Click, zoom and read.

CPEC Map. Source Twitter. Please excuse since J&K map is not as per India's standards.

But why is Jammu and Kashmir involved here?  Now, on the Karakoram highway, this is where it matters most for India. It connects China and Pakistan, though India! Through Jammu and Kashmir, which legally acceded to India in 1947 October.  This is a route map of the Karakoram highway (grey). Look at the top, inside the red circle. It is Gilgit Baltistan area of Jammu and Kashmir state, which legally belongs to India, but illegally occupied by Pakistan. Keep in mind, China also occupies illegally the eastern and northern part of Jammu and Kashmir - Shaksgam valley (gifted by Pakistan in 1960s) and Aksai Chin (occupied by China in 1950s when it annexed Tibet).

Karakoram highway location. Map from Wiki. Not per India's J&K map standards.

The highway passes through Gilgit-Baltistan, Pakistan Occupied Kashmir. The red line is the LOC. Pakistan and China are connected through Pakistan Occupied Kashmir (PoK for short). Pakistan calls this Gilgit-Baltistan area of Jammu and Kashmir, as Northern Territories sometimes. 

More on Karakoram highway: Soon to be a 4/6 lane highway through some of the world's toughest terrain. A high-capacity highway across the Himalayas!

Now, though the CPEC is a recent thing, the idea had taken birth long back. The Karakoram highway started building in 1959, opened in 1979! Possibly Pakistan had refused China access to Gwadar then as they could. But now they have no other choice but hand over to China.

Why CPEC? OIL: Gwadar is just 400 km away from Muscat and 500 from the Strait of Hormuz through which all Gulf oil passes. 12 hours at sea! Proximity to Africa: China virtually owns much of Africa today. Billions in investment, buys natural resources. Nothing better than this. Pakistan as a market: China will flood Pakistan and Gulf with its cheap products and make a windfall there too. Proximity to new friend Sri Lanka.If USA/UK (control Malacca strait - Singapore) or India in Indian ocean decide to choke it, China will have no problem as it has CPEC. 

But, all of CPEC and China's ambitions bearing fruit depends on the Karakoram highway. That depends on PoK continued to be occupied by Pakistan. 

Money Involved: With the CPEC, China has sunk close to 50 BILLION Dollars in Pakistan. Of course, China gets free access to all this infrastructure in Pakistan. With this, 20% of Pakistan's GDP is now Chinese. China has Pakistan now firmly by the b***s, so much so that Pakistan can now be China's 24th province. With so much invested and at stake, China wouldn't even think twice about ruthlessly suppressing any attack on Pakistan, because they own it now. 

Doesn't India know all this? Of course India knows all this. If we were to attack Pakistan, we would have to deal with China. Pakistan is small fry. China is not. 

Who would side with India? Mostly nobody. Why? Because China is involved. How international geopolitics work, most don't get that either. USA wants to support us because China makes it nervous. But US corporations are over invested in China, so Uncle Sam will look the other way. Russia - Don't even think about it. Putin has enough troubles at home, and India's pandering to Obama hasn't got him amused. Europe will sit just and watch (because China), and all of the Middle East will (clandestinely) support Pakistan for obvious reasons (Islam).

People think alliances between countries are forget like high school friendships - on emotional grounds of some sort - No. Not at all. International friendships are always based on "how can I benefit by allying", "what terrible can this guy do to me if I don't ally".

So, India will left out cold if it were to as much as touch Pakistan. We will mostly have to take on BOTH Pakistan and China. Mostly. Can India take on both Pakistan and China alone? From two (or three) flanks? We are surrounded by China's friends. What do we do? Dunno.

A bit more on the Karakoram highway: 1962, remember? What if the Chinese were testing the Indian waters before building the highway? China could've walked through India. Still, they withdrew. They were only testing India's resolve to defend PoK if it came to that. We have all but written off PoK. All Wikipedia articles tell all of PoK as "Pakistan". Not Pakistan administered", but Pakistan. Hurts :(

Here is the Khunjerab Pass (PoK): the "top" of India, the border between India and China, but now Pakistan. 

A sign in Pakistan Occupied Kashmir - Source Twitter

Here is the Karakoram highway near Gilgit in India (PoK) and under construction somewhere in the mountains. It should be obvious by now that China does NOT want India to reclaim its land lost to Pakistan in 1947 and 1948 - the strategic Karakoram ranges in Gilgit-Baltistan area of Jammu and Kashmir. It is as simply as that!

Karakoram Highway in PoK part of Jammu and Kashmir state. Pics - Twitter

Here is the entire map of the Karakoram Highway from Kashgar to Rawalpindi. Look where all it passes through. 

Karakoram highway map. Source - Twitter

China owns Pakistan for most part today: CPEC and all associated stuff are called "China-Pakistan Friendship" something or the other. No friendship there. Just Chinese business. China is not doing business with Pakistan. It is running its business in Pakistan. It is running Pakistan. China pays for protection. If things get push to shove, China can tell US: "We will nationalize your businesses if you don't tell India to withdraw". What will we do? 

What we should first realize is that there is no Pakistan. There is only China. Pakistan is just a front. We should deal accordingly. It is in China's interest to keep Kashmir burning. If there is peace in the valley, India MIGHT set its eyes on PoK. Chinese know that India has a strong Prime Minister today who can think of that. China does not want India to even think of getting PoK back. Of course, China did not light the Kashmir fire, but it certainly looks like it is them who keeps it burning that no consensus is reached. So, in addition to water, religion, ego, demographics and so on there is one more reason behind the Kashmir unrest: China and CPEC. 

Is dialogue with Pakistan sensible? It is utter foolishness to think that in such a case we can resolve this through dialogue! We talk one thing while issue is another! Issue is NOT what we think is the issue! We and our govt should first understand this. I am sure they have. Hopefully they aren't helpless. China is waging a proxy-proxy-deceptive war which we cannot understand or prove or blame. We need to mobilize some other way.

War with Pakistan? Vadakkus said at the end - I am not generally not a warmonger, but this has gone too far. We should strike. Do something. I only wish something be done about those 17 Indian soldiers who were killed without any provocation. They didn't have to die. Take on both China and Pakistan. Maybe. Can we? I don't know what we should do. Hopefully our hands aren't tied and someone is coming up with a plan to hit them. Hopefully. 

Baluchistan's role: Why Pakistan got all worked up when India raised Balochistan? Gwadar is in Balochistan. Much of CPEC infra passes through Balochistan. The CPEC is China's hope at lifting its sagging economy and securing its strategic position in the region. Its future maybe depends on it. Karakoram- Hindukush- Pamir region since ancient times been strategically sensitive. The Silk Road. China wants control of the new Silk Road. If India were to take PoK we would squeeze the Karakoram Highway shut. No more CPEC, Silk Road. China done for. That is the whole game. Highways are primary military conduits rather than civilian. Whoever controls the highway controls the region. 

Ultimately.. Pakistan's ultimate aim is to establish an Islamic caliphate. Apart from this China helps them through CPEC.  You might disagree with Modi et al but please support the govt right now in whatever action it takes. Politicking can wait. Wait two more months before taking any harsh decisions. Things might change post November.

What do you think India should do now, after reading this fully?

Ten Things about BR Ambedkar That You Probably Didn't Know

Dr. Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar is a tall figure of 20th century Indian  history. Popularly known as Babasaheb, the details about his careers as a lawyer, politician, constitution framer, social reformer and an economist are well known. He's an inspiration to crores of young Indians today of various classes and ideologies.

But there are ten snippets about this famous man, that are not quite highlighted. Time to take a look at them. I will provide references for each as to where I learned about them, and if any of them need correction or contention, please post comments with authentic references.

1: Dr. Ambedkar stood for Sanskrit as the official language of India.

This is not a well known fact, but it is a fact. In 2005, this was revealed by Chamu Krishna Shastry, a well known Sanskrit proponent in India.

"Dr Ambedkar himself wanted to sponsor Sanskrit as the official language of the Indian union along with his supporters Dr BV Keskar, deputy minister for external affairs, and Naziruddin Ahmed. He moved an amendment draft on September 10, 1949. The resolution had to be withdrawn due to political pressure."

Reference: Ambedkar wanted Sanskrit as official language

It is anyone's guess as to who might have exerted " political pressure" on Ambedkar in 1949 to withdraw that historic resolution, which could have changed India in an different direction. Ambedkar's strong support to Sanskrit is something to ponder upon, for those who consider Sanskrit as an "Aryan" language of upper castes, that should not be supported.

2: Ambedkar is actually a Hindu Brahmin surname.

Image from Wiki

Bhimrao's original surname was Ambavadekar. It comes from his family's native village name in Ratnagiri district of Maharashtra, even though he was born in today's Madhya Pradesh region. In Marathi, it is a common practice to add "kar" to the village name as the surname.

In this writeup in the Outlook, Smruti Koppikar describes how his favourite Hindu Brahmin teacher, Mahadev Ambedkar, changed his surname from 'Ambavadekar' to his own surname 'Ambedkar' in the school records. The respect Bhimrao had for his teacher Mahadev, ensured that his borrowed surname continued for rest of his life! It tells us that Bhimrao respected all castes - his fight was against caste discrimination, and not Hinduism or any particular caste.

Reference: Bhimrao Sakpal Ambavadekar became Bhimrao Ambedkar

3. Ambedkar's father was a Vegetarian.

This one really surprised me. In the recent days, whenever there's a protest against ban on cow slaughter, you will invariably see an Ambedkar picture and beef eating "ceremonies".

But after reading Vikram Doctor's blog on the Economic Times, I stumbled upon two surprising details.   

"Nor is it correct to equate all upper-castes with vegetarianism and all Dalits with eating meat – Dr.Ambedkar’s father, for example, was vegetarian."

"I’m not sure if Dr.Ambedkar became vegetarian when he converted to Buddhism – Keer’s book doesn’t seem to make this clear and there is a surprising lack of other biographical material."

It looks like being a Kabir Panthi, Ambedkar's father Ramji was certainly a vegetarian and teetotaler. It also kind of implies that Babasaheb might have become a vegetarian coming from that family and also a vegetarian during the later part of his life. Something that needs a bit more research. And those who follow Ambedkar's path, this is something critical to ask - why was his father and (likely) himself vegetarian?

Reference: The Dalit Meanings of Food

4. Nehru prevented Ambedkar from entering Lok Sabha. Jan Sangh got him to Rajya Sabha.

Ambedkar contested Lok Sabha election twice. Both times Nehru's Congress made sure that he was defeated. Babasaheb Ambedkar contested from Bombay North in the first Indian General Election in 1952 but lost to the Congress candidates Narayan Kajrolkar, who had been his assistant once. He tried to enter Lok Sabha again in 1954 when he contested the by-election from Bhandara but he was placed third in the ballot won by Congress.

"In 1952, the Congress defeated Ambedkar in the parliamentary seat of Dadar in Bombay. It is strange that Jawaharlal Nehru did the sin of campaigning against Ambedkar during the elections.”

"The reason behind this was the Congress mentality of devaluing him. Later, the role played by Jan Sangh in getting him elected for Rajya Sabha from West Bengal is not hidden from anybody,” -  Arvind Menon, BJP.

So much for "love" of Ambedkar by Congress party.

Reference: Babasaheb was close to Jan Sangh, says BJP

Edit on 17th August 2016 - The reported claim by BJP above (see reference) was challenged by many people. Some are giving credit to Muslim League and JN Mandal of Bengal too. But the common theme is still that Congress did not help Dr. Ambedkar, but others did.

5. Bhimrao's second wife was a Hindu Brahmin.

Ambedkar met Dr. Sharada Kabir, a Saraswat Brahmin, when he needed medical treatment in the late 1940s. He married her on 15 April 1948, at his home in New Delhi. His first wife had passed away a decade ago. Doctors recommended that he needed a companion who was both a good cook and a possessor of medical knowledge and could thus take care of him. She adopted the name Savita Ambedkar and took care of him for the rest of his life.

Pic: photobucket

It is unfortunate that any political or NGO conversations regarding Ambedkar quickly turn into anti-Brahmin mode, when his borrowed surname is that of a Brahmin and his wife who served him during most needy years, was a Brahmin woman.

6. Ambedkar was not against Hindutva or RSS.

Ambedkar actually claimed Hindutva for the Dalits (untouchables or depressed classes) in 1927.

"Hindutva belongs as much to untouchable Hindus as to the touchable Hindus. The temples must be open for all. Efforts were made for the growth of Hindutva by Brahmins like Vasishta, Kshatriyas like Krishna, Vaishyas like Harsha and Shudras like Tukaram. The same amount of efforts for Hindutva were pitched in by untouchables (Dalits) like Valmiki (of Ramayana), Drishthara of Vyadha Gita, Chhokamela and Rohidasa. We have brave Sidnak Mahar kind of untouchable who fought for protection of Hindutva. Both touchable and untouchable Hindus have served the Hindu temples built in the names of Hindutva. So everyone has the right to enter them."

He also also praised Hindutva ideologue Veer Savarkar's efforts to eradicate caste discrimination in his Janata paper in 1933.

"Savarkar's efforts to uplift Dalits are as noble and effective as Gautama Buddha's" 

Ambedkar even visited RSS camp and praised them.

"Ever conscious of Hindu movements supporting Sanghatan – social solidarity, Dr.Ambedkar visited RSS camp in Pune in May 1939. He expressed his satisfaction: “I am surprised to find Swayamsevaks here moving about in absolute equality and brotherhood without even caring to know the castes of others."

References:

• Essays on Dalits book by Raj Kumar, page 72. 
• Kannada Prabha 14-Apr-2015 page 7, by Tejasvi Surya. Need to save Ambedkar from pseudos
• Bodhi Sattva’s Hindutva: Part 4 by Aravindan Neelakandan.  

7. Ambedkar's strong views on Muslim society's evils, Christianity and Partition of India.

When some Dalit youth were supporting the anti-India Razakars of Hyderabad after independence, Ambedkar told them not to take that path:

"Hyderabad state's scheduled castes must not support the Nizam or Ittehad-ul-Muslimeen under any circumstance. No scheduled caste member should join hands with anti India forces, bringing disrepute to their castes"

If you read Ambedkar's book, chapter 10, you would start seeing his absolutely rational arguments condemning the evils of Muslim society in pre-partitioned India.

Read chapter 10 for instance which has a sub title ;- Muslim Society is even more full of social evils than Hindu Society is. 

"the Muslim woman is the most helpless person in the world."

 "No words can adequately express the great and many evils of polygamy and concubinage, and especially as a source of misery to a Muslim woman. It is true that because polygamy and concubinage are sanctioned, one must not suppose they are indulged in by the generality of Muslims; still the fact remains that they are privileges which are easy for a Muslim to abuse to the misery and unhappiness of his wife."

"Take the caste system. Islam speaks of brotherhood. Everybody infers that Islam must be free from slavery and caste. Regarding slavery nothing needs to be said. It stands abolished now by law. But while it existed, much of its support was derived from Islam and Islamic countries.While the prescriptions by the Prophet regarding the just and humane treatment of slaves contained in the Koran are praiseworthy, there is nothing whatever in Islam that lends support to the abolition of this curse..... But if slavery has gone,  caste among Musalmans has remained. As an illustration one may take the conditions prevalent among the Bengal Muslims."

"There can thus be no manner of doubt that the Muslim Society in India is afflicted by the same social evils as afflict the Hindu Society. Indeed, the Muslims have all the social evils of the Hindus and something more. That something more is the compulsory system of purdah for Muslim women."

Regarding Pakistan, if you read the Chapter 14 of the same book, you can clearly see that he wanted transfer of Muslims to Pakistan (east and West) with non Muslims back to India from there.

What about its workability? The scheme is not new. It has been tried and found workable. It was put into effect after the last European War, to bring about a transfer of population between Greece and Bulgaria and Turkey and Greece. Nobody can deny that it has worked, has been tried and found workable. The scheme I have outlined is a copy of the same scheme. It had the effect of bringing about a transfer of population between Greece and Bulgaria and Turkey and Greece. Nobody can deny that it was [=has] worked with signal success. What succeeded elsewhere may well be expected to succeed in India.

The most recent Organiser special edition on Ambedkar notes his view about Christianity and Islam, and conversion in general:

Ambedkar was against Dalits converting to Christianity or Islam because he believed that “if the numbers of Muslims and Christians rise and it will cause danger to India.” 

 References:

• Kannada Prabha 14-Apr-2015 page 7, by Tejasvi Surya. Need to save Ambedkar from pseudos
• Book: Pakistan or the Partition of India by BR Ambedkar - Chapter 10 and Chapter 14.
• Ambedkar a pioneer like Savarkar, Malviya: RSS.

8. Ambedkar's openly opposed Article 370 of Nehru's Congress, for Jammu and Kashmir. 

Ambedkar opposed Article 370 in the Constitution, which gives a special status to the State of Jammu and Kashmir, and it was put against his wishes. Balraj Madhok reportedly said, Ambedkar had clearly told Sheikh Abdullah:-

"You wish India should protect your borders, she should build roads in your area, she should supply you food grains, and Kashmir should get equal status as India. But Government of India should have only limited powers and Indian people should have no rights in Kashmir. To give consent to this proposal, would be a treacherous thing against the interests of India and I, as the Law Minister of India, will never do it."

Reference: Kashmir problem from Ambedkarite Perspective, by K Jamanadas.

9. Ambedkar was a confirmed enemy of Communists, in his own words!

Read this excerpt from a book on India. 

In another context, presiding over a District conference of the Depressed Classes at Masur in September 1937, Ambedkar declared that he was a confirmed enemy of the Communists who exploited the labourers for their political ends, and there was no possibility of joining them. 

Reference: Book Perfidies of Power: India in the New Millennium, by P Radhakrishnan, page 54.

10. Ambedkar warned India against China's aggression on Tibet and beyond.

The Time issue dated October 22, 1951, noted:

“Ambedkar is the first important Indian official who has openly attacked Nehru for being too friendly to China and not friendly enough to the US”.

On China he disagreed with the Tibet policy and the enunciation of Panchsheel. He said:-

 “If Mao had any faith in the Panchsheel, he certainly would treat the Buddhist in his own country in a very different way. There is no room for Panchsheel in politics”.

Reference: Ambedkar’s views on foreign policy, by Harish Parvathaneni 

Hope you gained some insight after reading these today. Anything else you want to share in comments?

Israel and Palestine Issue – What Indians Should Know

First things first:

I am not a historian. I am not a politician. I am not a peace activist or a war monger. And most importantly, I am not belonging to any of the three religions that have fought over Jerusalem over millenia – namely Islam, Judaism and Christianity. Frankly, I am indifferent to who has Jerusalem at the end, as it is NOT a holy place for me.

That makes it a lot easier and a lot less emotional. Right? Yes, I am a Hindu, a proud and practicing Hindu who is taking a look at Israel and Palestine issue from an Indian view. Don't bracket me into anything beyond this. I respect the rights of Jews to live in Israel. I respect the rights of Muslims to live in Palestine. And in real life, I have worked for long number of years with both Jews and Arab Muslims, so I kind of know the tremendous sensitivity of this topic. If the writeup does not suit your thought or understanding of the problem, then educate me, rather than bracketing me or ridiculing me. Thank you in advance!

Now that there is a lengthy preamble, let's get started. I am presenting here a series of images, taken from some well researched videos and blogs. The references to them provided at the bottom. All credits to the original researchers and documentary makers.

Where did the Israeli Jews come from?

Jews were all around the Mediterranean sea 2000 years ago, when Islam was not born. As with 20th century, they were persecuted during the first century CE too. Romans ruthlessly massacred Jews in large numbers, and if the percentage of population is computed, it may be comparable with Hitler's Nazi genocide. Jews were in today's Israel 1000s of years back. To cut the long story short, during the 20th century when Israel was created, Jews came from Germany, Poland, Russia, Africa and many other parts to their "promised homeland".

Where did the Palestinian Muslims come from?

Contrary to what many people tell us, Palestinian Muslims also came mostly from outside.

The Ottoman Turks brought many from Algeria and Circassia (former USSR) regions, as a part of their Muslim colonization agenda.

Let's cover the Palestinian (Arab) migration later when we see what Jews actually did to a desert land.

In 1875 CE for instance, there was hardly any considerable population living in the entire region of today's Israel. Only 3 lakh people lived, which was a mix of Jews, Muslims and Others.

In fact the British Consulate report from 1859 tell that Muslims did not exceed 25% of total population of Jerusalem. That clearly shows that today's Israel, including the Gaza and West Bank, were hardly Muslim populated as many propaganda tell us today.

Are Jewish feelings for Jerusalem comparable to Hindu feelings for Ayodhya?

There is similarity. For Hindus Ayodhya is a very sacred place, as the birth place of Lord Rama. But for Muslims it is just another city. Nothing is ever mentioned in any of their holy books about Ayodhya. But a conflict does go on.

The same way, for Jews, Jerusalem is a very sacred place. For Jews, it is a the place of King David and the star of David in Israel's flag is derived from him. Jerusalem is mentioned 667 times in the Bible which both Jews and Christians revere. For Muslims too it is a holy place linked to Prophet Mohammed's life history. But compared to Jews, it may not be at the same level looking at the practical aspects. For instance, Quran does not seem to have any mention of Jerusalem (al quds). Corrections welcome if this is not a fact. But the big conflict goes on.

Secondly, Jerusalem has seen its central part demolished and rebuilt many times. The most prominent one being this. 

Here is the supposed before and after scenario of Jerusalem. The temple mount that existed during the time of Jesus is gone. It is now replaced by a Dome of the rock and Al Aqsa mosque. And Jews have a painful history of this place being destroyed not just by Muslims, but Christians and others too during the past 2500 years. For Hindus such destruction of their holy temples, and mosques built over them is all too painfully evident from their long history of seeing Muslim invasions. So you can understand what a Jew must be feeling about this site.

The current situation is that Jews can't pray inside the area. They are restricted to the outer wall. The laws have kept changing, so you can research the legal sites for the latest information. In fact, this is enforced by Israeli government (yes Jews) by giving the area to Muslim Wakf board. Only Muslims have the right to prayer inside. Not even Christians are allowed prayer inside. Just like in Ayodhya (Kashi, Mathura etc. etc.), the common factor is the destruction of an existing holiest of the holy temples of a different religion, and an Islamic structure built over it or nearby. So Hindus truly understand the pain of Jews when it comes to Jerusalem. Muslims want rights on Jerusalem and Ayodhya holy spots, but won't even let non Muslims inside their holy cities like Makkah. And we hear "Israel commits apartheid" for letting Islamic Wakf board manage the holiest of the religious sites of Jews!

But experts spot that in spite of all the noise, just observing the faith of devotees, one can make out who consider it more sacred.

Jews praying:

Muslims praying:

Not only that, Muslims even end up playing football and eat picnic food at this "very sacred" place.

Have you seen Muslims playing football at Makkah or Madina holy sites? For Jews, even walking over the place is painful as they consider this their holiest of the holy sites. And seeing picnic and football must be really painful.

So the documentary maker clearly sums up: 

If Jerusalem's Jewish links are so obvious, why don't Arabs accept it? 

Same reason as Indian Muslims in general don't want to give possession of Ayodhya's Ram Janmabhumi area to Hindus even after courts clearly showing that there was an ancient temple below the mosque.

And those who brave in the Arab world to tell the truth, are often hounded.
Here is an example. In this book, an essay was written by a prominent academician Sari Nusseibeh from Palestine.

All he said was that there Temple Mount is a Jewish holy site.

Within no time, he got threats. He had to go underground. So you can imagine why Arabs don't come out to speak the facts, even if they know it is truth.

What's common between India and Israel?

Israel was not exactly the case of India, as Hindus never left India ever involuntarily for most part. But Jews left Israel, went all around the world, and then came back in the 20th century.

But the common factor in the past 7 decades is losing land.. Losing lots of land proportional to their country's size. And losing land to Muslims, who don't want to live with the majority (2 nation theory)!

Was Hitler the first one to indulge in Jewish genocide?

No. Jews were systematically persecuted and murdered throughout their 1000s of years of history. Romans conquered Jerusalem and the areas around it and called it Judea, the Homeland of Jews.

 

Later, they renamed it Syria Palestina, with Jerusalem being renamed and rebuilt as Aelia Capitolina. The word Palestina (Greek originally, later Roman) may be a Biblical word, but was a sign of oppression telling Jews that they can't enter the place without facing death. Essentially Romans were the early form of Nazis for Jews. Much more ruthless in their long list of atrocities against Jews, precisely because they feared that Moses' teachings might result in rebellion by poor.

But unlike most people think today, Palestine or Filistine was never an Arab word. It was nothing to do with Islam.

Was there a Palestine “Arab” nation 100 years ago?


Historians disagree. For instance, Arab Historian Philip Hitti says, there is NO such thing as Palestine in history!

The Philistines people that Greek and Romans talked about, were NOT Arabs. They were not Muslims. Also, they lived in a very small portion of today's Israel, around Gaza. And no one knows where they disappeared during the course of history, long long before modern Israel was formed.

It all started with Ottoman Turks' Muslim colonization plan. As expert Arnold Blumberg says, Arab immigration happened during the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

Arnold's theory clearly is proved by the fact that there were not many people in the 19th century there. The famous Mark Twain noted in 1800s that it was a barren vast desert land, with hardly anyone living.

So how did the ancestors of today's Palestinians come to current day Israel region?

It all started in late 19th century. With persecuted Jews returning to their ancient home land in small numbers. They were very hard working and they had faced extreme oppression in European nations. So just a chance to live was great for them. They started transforming an almost vacant barren desert land into a fruitful, livable place. Look at Negev desert and other regions when they arrived to Israel.

Certainly the land does not look like a "prosperous Arab" land that they stole, as propaganda tells us today.

As Jews started working hard to turn a barren Israel into a livable and grow-able land, news quickly started spreading.

Arab Muslims started coming from all corners. It was a boom in economy and Jews needed labour help predictably. So the first part of 20th century was mostly a Jew - Muslim joint effort to rebuilt a desert region into livable country.

As you can see in Israel today, they turned a desert into relatively lush green country, with developed country standard cities! And now everyone wants that place, by "driving out Jews to the sea"!

In fact, United Nations declared that those who stayed in the Israel/Palestine area for two years before the formation of the new states, were eligible to be claimed as Palestinians! Can you believe? TWO years residency is enough. It obviously tells that there was never a centuries or millenia of residency proof from the Palestinian side, or else such a relaxed rule would never be applied.

It is very important to note again. There was hardly 3,00,000 total population in the entire country of Israel 140 years ago. The region of Israel (Gaza and West Bank included) that we know today has well over a Crore people (Israel 80 lakh, Palestine 40 lakh). This was almost all migration of people, both Jewish and Arab. Comparatively the next door Jordan, in spite of being 4 times bigger in land size than Israel + Palestine, is only 60 lakhs or so. That shows how a desert was reclaimed by hard working people in the past 100 years in Israel. And you will be astonished to learn more on how Jews from India, particularly Maharashtra and Kerala, went to Israel and transformed the country side with revolutionary new farming methods.
 
Do Muslims recognize the right to exist for Israel?

You might have heard “From the river to the sea... Palestine will be free”. This is Hamas' favourite line being repeated from "liberal" American college campuses to Indian street protests. Indian "seculars"and communists love singing this as you can see off late. It's called Palestinian solidarity movement. But in reality it is a soft call for genocide of Jewish people of Israel. The river here is Jordan river which separates Israel from Jordan. The sea is Mediterranean.

The song essentially means, push all Jews to the sea (drive them out) and "liberate" Palestine. And gullible Hindus in India suck up to this propaganda after seeing bloody and gory images of civilian deaths. But they rarely understand the history behind this, as well as what would happen to them, if the "freedom" happens in West Asia. Radical Islamists are 100% clear in their mind. Today they are talking of Israel. Tomorrow, they would talk of all "Muslim land", which for them does not matter if it was Hindu or Buddhist or Jain or Sikh lands for centuries. Pakistan happened the same way. Bangladesh happened. Jammu and Kashmir Hindu ethnic cleansing happened. It's just spreading. It's very dangerous to support such "solidarity" calls without understanding what the hard core Muslims actually think of Israel's right to exist. Here is a glimpse of "tolerance" towards Jews shown by radical Muslims.

Hamas - Government in Palestine today. As a coincidence, his name as "Zahar" in it!

"driving Jews into sea" is not some dream of "Zionist" propaganda. It's been repeated umpteen times by the very top decision makers for Palestinian people.

And their big financial and military supporters in Iran.

And the TV sermons Palestinians are dished out day in and day out about USA, the closest friend of Israel.

Statement of Muslim Brotherhood from Egypt, which helped shape opinion of today's Palestinian leaders.

The list is very long. From North Africa to Arabian peninsula to central Asia to South Asia to South East Asia, the list of those who just don't want Jews in Israel is endless. And the same guys scream "apartheid", "intolerance", "genocide" etc. at the drop of every topi. See the hypocrisy?


Do Jews recognize the right to exist for Palestine and Arab nations?

Yes. It's the exact opposite of how Muslims behave. Israel has 21% Muslims, mostly Arabs.

For instance, Seif el-Din el-Zubi was the Arab member of Israel's very first Knesset (parliament). 

Arabs live throughout Israel. In some places, constituting over 50%. Just like in India (where 15% Muslim population), Muslims enjoy citizenship rights in Israel (some don't opt for it, but just take passport), representation in democracy, representation in parliament and all kinds of rights. Note again, this is not about Gaza or West Bank (grey in the image below). This is about Israel!

And most importantly, No Jewish leader gives parliament speeches to drive Arabs into sea in Saudi Arabia or Egypt or Jordan. They have problems with terrorism and that's the right of every nation to address when your own survival is questioned. Jews have put restrictions on Arabs as you can expect from any majority whose existence itself is questioned in violent means. But they do not say no right for Jordan or Syria or Egypt to exist.

This is a very big difference. Israel wants to live with Arabs as neighbours. Israel wants to live with Arabs as citizen! But Arabs don't even let Jews live in their countries. Arabs want to push Jews into sea and clear the "occupation", forgetting that Arabs in Palestine are also mostly migrants from other countries!


Did PLO claim Gaza and West Bank in 1964 as a part of “liberation” goal?

PLO, the Palestine Liberation Organization, was in forefront for decades to liberate Palestine from Jewish control. Very interestingly, when PLO formed its charter in 1964 (Article 24), before the 6 day war of Israel with Egypt and other Arab nations, there was NO mention of Judea and Samaria (today's West Bank), and Gaza to be "liberated"! Guess why? Because the Gaza was under Egyptian control and the West Bank was under Jordanian control. So the whole "liberation" of Palestinians from foreign control was not the priority as long as the occupier is a Muslim :)

There's a lot more in this Francisco Gil-White's book, based on which the quoted documentaries here were made.

Has anyone fought for Palestinian rights in Jordan?
(80% area of 1922 Palestine Mandate)

Absolutely not. For Indians, particularly Hindus and Sikhs, this will remind their plight in Pakistan Occupied Kashmir, and later in the Kashmir valley within Indian part of Jammu and Kashmir.The claims, the terrorism, the systematic ethnic cleansing of Hindus and Sikhs. It's all too familiar.

And whenever you hear "Azaadi" or freedom in Kashmir, it's usually the small portion of Jammu Kashmir state in Indian control. No one ever talks of the more than 50% of original Jammu and Kashmir that is under Pakistan and China's occupation!

Here is a starting point. This is the map heavily circulated by anti  Israel groups across the world, showing how Israeli Jews have "oppressed" Palestinian Muslims by pushing them to a smaller region. Green in here is supposed to be Palestinian Arab areas.

But the reality is that the 1946 map to start with is completely inaccurate. It's plain propaganda without any factual basis. There was never a state of Palestine in 1946, even remotely looking like what the anti Jew gangs show.

This was the Ottoman Turk empire prior to World war 1. This collapsed after the World War 1. As you can see they had huge tracks of land, including the Muslim holy cities of Makkah and Madina. Yes, Turks controlled the Islamic holy cities, and not Arabs till about 100 years ago. There was a huge battle of Makkah in 1916 when the local Hashemite Sharif of Makkah, rebelled against the Ottoman Turk Muslims, for which he took help from European Christians like British. It was the beginning of the end of the Ottoman Empire and it was the beginning of a Hashemite kingdom whose capital was Makkah. Gradually it expanded northward. This battle left deep scars on the Middle East. Arab states came under strong European influence. Many people in India still don't know that this was a war between Arabs and Turks, both being Muslims, in which the Arabs took help from Christians of Europe.

Today's Israel is just about 20% of the Palestine Mandate of 1922, that the winners of World War 1 formulated (legal document) to be under League of Nation (UN then) control till the countries are stable enough to rule themselves. Even within that 20% marked as Palestine, nearly 20% of the overall land belongs to Muslims today. So Jews are in just around 15% of the 1922 map of greater Palestine or Palestine Mandate! But they are the only "occupiers" per all propaganda, which never talks of Hashemite Jordanian rule on the rest.

Look closely again. This is from a different source. Along with Israel becoming a new nation, Jordan became an independent sovereign state officially known as the Hashemite Kingdom of Transjordan. The key here is to note Hashemite. They are a very tiny minority Arab tribe, from Prophet Mohammed's great grand father's lineage, ruling majority Palestinians in Jordan. By any conservative estimate, more than half of Jordan is Palestinian. But rulers are not Palestinians!

No Muslim is questioning loudly.. "Is Jordan the Hashemite-occupied Palestine?". It's worth reminding again that Jordan is 80% of the Palestine Mandate from 1922, but it does not have any great population at all. It's population is just 35% more than the densely packed West Bank plus Gaza population. If the United Nations gave 80% land of Palestinians (going by Arab argument) to Jordan, why is not letting Palestinians in Gaza and West Bank live in the larger country of Jordan?

Also, why is there no movement to "liberate" Palestine under Hashemite control, which is 4 times the area of Israel? Tough to answer. Right? Now you know why this can be compared with the sparely populated Pakistan Occupied Kashmir, which no one tries to "liberate" from the predominantly Punjabi Muslim rule?

Did Arabs sell land to Jews in 1920-40 period?

This is one other aspect that no one talks about. Jews when they came to Israel from all around the world, they were allowed inside the territory, but did not have much land. They bought land from many locals living there, whoever they might be. And in fact, Arabs sold lot of land at exorbitant prices to Jews then. In the 1937 Peel Commission setup by Britain to probe into the land deals in today's Israel, Haj Amin al-Husseini, one of the founding fathers of Palestinian Arab nationalistic movement, told Laurie Hammond that large amount of land were sold, willingly, by Arabs for money to the Jews. In fact, historians say that his own family collected large amounts of land from smaller owners at throw away price, and sold them to Jews at very high prices. Familiar Land Mafia anyone?

So all those who scream "occupation" by Jews, forget the simple fact that a lot of land owned by Jews today were legally bought by them by paying exorbitant prices. As we have seen earlier they were barren desert land in most cases, so Arab land owners (and others) made lot of profit. Now that the lands have been transformed into fantastic livable pieces, their descendants scream "occupation".

And soon, the same Arabs went to war with Jews. Hypocrisy anyone? First sell the land and the "liberate" the same!

Even some Arabs know that the whole Palestinian identity is a political and tactical weapon against Zionism, and not truly for any "freedom" of Palestinian Arabs. There are so many Arab nations and they hold on to 100s of times the Gaza land if they really want to settle this matter.

As Nathan Weinstock says, the hyper nationalist propaganda of Palestinians now is more of a racket.

What was India's contribution towards liberating Israel from Ottoman Turks?

We should know this really well. Haifa in Israel was liberated from Turks by Indians. Communists who formulated school books totally eliminated India's contribution in World war 1 and 2.

The bravery of soldiers from Karnataka, Telangana and Rajasthan helped liberate Haifa, the port city of Israel from Ottoman Turks' occupation of 400 years. Israel remembers this great help from India in 1918. Indian army celebrates Haifa day.

Teen Murti Bhavan in New Delhi is precisely for one soldier each from Mysore, Hyderabad and Jodhpur.

But we are not taught about this bravery in schools. In fact, this was the LAST time a horse mounted lancer brigade won against machine guns and tanks!

What to do next for Indians, particularly Hindus? 


In summary, India helped create Israel. Indian soldiers (Hindus, Sikhs and Muslims - yes Muslims also) have given up their lives right from Haifa port capture in 1918. India and Israel both are democracies surrounded by hostile neighbours. India and Israel both have the same Islamic radicals as common enemy. The common enemy (in the form of ISIS, Hamas, Hizbollah, Lashkar e Taiba, Indian Mujahideen, Taliban, Al Qaeda et al) is always dreaming to destroy these nations for its well stated goal of occupying their lands. India gains nothing by supporting the radical Islam of Hamas which openly uses terrorism for its survival. Unlike India, Israel crushes terrorism via violent backlash. This is an area tough for many Indians to accept as they are used to sending dossiers to enemies who indulge in terrorism on Indians. India gains everything from technology to business to cultural survival in the long run, by partnering with Israel. Yes, the Israel where mostly Jews live and Palestine where (only) Muslims live. The borders are already drawn. The countries are in place. India must certainly work towards the welfare of Palestinian Muslim civilians who are caught now between the cross fire of Israeli army and Hamas rockets. But do not forget the long history and the RIGHT of existence of Jews in their holy land.


There is a way out of this conflict. But the way out is not by "pushing the Jews to the sea" as Hamas radicals and their sympathisers preach. Hope this long essay has given enough pointers to understand where we have come from, and how Indians should start working towards the Israel Palestine conflict resolution.

Share your thoughts please.

References: 

What is Palestine? Who are the Palestinians? 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W9ReF4UUa4E

Is Jerusalem a holier place for Jews or Muslims?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xU9CauJP4Pg

The Palestinian Wall of Lies - False Palestinian propaganda exposed
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rc9v5gLXP4w

India's role in liberating Israel from Ottoman Turks:
http://haifa-history.blogspot.in/2010/09/haifa-day-in-indian-army-memory-for.html