The Christian Example for Modernizing Islam

Catholics and Protestants once killed in the name of God, but eventually liberal ideas took hold.
By KEVIN MADIGAN
Violent. Illiberal. Intolerant. Anti-Semitic. After the tragic, murderous events in Paris earlier this month, these adjectives have been applied not only to murderous jihadists but to Islam itself. Yet these words could just as easily apply to medieval Christianity and to much of Christianity in the 20th century.

Medieval Christians notoriously persecuted, incarcerated and burned religious dissenters. Less well-known is that Protestant Reformers in early modern Europe in the 16th and 17th centuries, despite their differences with the old Western church, agreed that religion was not a matter of private judgment but of deep communal concern and unitary. Reformers believed that religious orthodoxy must be safeguarded, and almost all agreed that dissidents deserved severe punishment and even death. Calvin ’s Geneva was a theocracy; one theologian who doubted the Trinity was burned to death—with Calvin’s approval.

Throughout the late 19th and early 20th centuries, popes habitually fulminated against modernity. One reason that popes like Pius XI (1922-39) supported the fascist dictator Mussolini —he once stated that Il Duce had been sent by “Providence” to rescue Italy—was that they shared antipathy for parliamentary democracy and for freedom of the press and association. Generally speaking, sacred and secular leaders in Catholic parts of Europe loathed modernity and all it represented: liberal democracy, emancipation, tolerance, separation of church and state and freedom of thought.

Only in the early 1960s did the Roman Catholic Church reject this medieval worldview. Only then did it begin to tolerate other world religions, representative democracy and the disenfranchisement of religion. It was only recently that it started to be reluctant to use political agencies to achieve religious objectives—even to accept the idea that the modern citizen is free to be nonreligious.

As Pope Francis recently remarked, reflecting this relatively new attitude of tolerance and pluralism, “Each individual must be free, alone or in association with others, to seek the truth, and to openly express his or her religious convictions, free from intimidation.” It has been said, and not without reason, that the church changed more from 1960-2000 than in the previous millennium. Yet even today, outside Western Europe and the U.S., predominantly Christian states—Russia and Uganda, for instance—have notoriously repressive laws.

All of this is to say that traditionalist Islamic states and Muslims have not, historically speaking, had a monopoly on authoritarianism, violence against apostates, the wholesale rejection of religious pluralism, and the manipulation of religion to realize political agendas. But in the same sad set of facts lies some good news: The startling changes experienced by Western churches over the past several centuries suggest that similar changes might occur within the world of Islam.

As Christianity has taken many twists and turns in its history, so has Islam, and so might it again, only this time moving toward the more open posture of most contemporary Western Christians. The Christian experience should caution us against assuming there is something intrinsic to Islam that mandates that Islamic societies be anti-modern. In fact, in the 16th through 20th centuries, liberal ideas were imported into Muslim societies with remarkable success, and harmonized with Islam, especially in the Ottoman Empire. Less happily, at critical moments in Islamic history, reactionary interpretations—or misinterpretations—of the Quran and Shariah triumphed over others.

Fortunately, some Muslims have begun to reinterpret ancient traditions in light of modernity and begun their own, albeit often-quiet reformations, distressed by the authoritarian elements smuggled into their tradition. They are intent on synthesizing—as have so many branches of Judaism and Christianity—features of their religious traditions with democratic ideas. Such reformations have been institutionalized successfully in several countries with significant Muslim populations, such as Turkey and Tunisia.

We can only hope that, with the quickening pace of historical change in modernity, Islam can adjust more rapidly than Christendom, so that a broad-minded form of the religion will prevail. Muslims will have to recognize what the West, through many centuries of hard experience and reflection, has learned: that religious texts arose in a particular context and must be reinterpreted in the new context of modernity; that pluralism within one’s own tradition and the tolerance of other faiths must be appreciated anew; and, finally, that the coercive imposition of faith will generate only nominal or hypocritical, not authentic, conversions.

This will require patience on the part of the West, and more. Above all, the West must not panic and extend its battle with radical Islam—most of whose victims have been Muslims—to the world-wide population of Muslims. The Christian world passed through its era of repression and theocracy; there is no reason to presuppose that the Islamic world cannot do likewise.

Mr. Madigan, a professor of history at Harvard Divinity School, is the author, most recently, of “Medieval Christianity: A New History” (Yale University Press, 20)

https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=christian%20reconstructionism

Even today in Western society we see large groups of people that are uneasy with modern technology and want to force living standards back to the 19th century.
There is evidence all over the world that either for religion, language or economic reasons Muslims are failing to integrate into Western Society
We don't have multiple centuries for  religions steeped in third world thinking and dedicated to isolate themselves from Western thinking to catch up when so many efficient ways to kill in mass are available to these creatures.
Is the government going to wait and watch while millions of people are killed in the name of a religion?
I surely hope not!

http://www.wsj.com/articles/kevin-madigan-the-christian-example-for-modernizing-islam-1422578153

The maddening reality of the Middle East

The only guarantee we have at this point is that the dramatic free fall some Arab countries are undergoing is unavoidable and even necessary. Let things fall where they may to see how and with whom the future will rise from there.

In the midst of an ever-changing Middle East, more often for the worst and rarely for the better, it has become more challenging to spearhead resolutions to the raging wars and lingering problems. Where can one get inspiration to end the bloodshed or return refugees to their homes or simply imagine life as it used to be only a short few years ago? It is therefore not surprising that many, including Arabs themselves, are turning their backs.

Power across the region
It is not difficult to see that the extremists have found their way to power across the region. Dictatorships were only replaced by militancy. Tyrants fell only to give rise to brainwashed underground groups. Disoriented, the latters practice intolerance and abuse power exactly as has been the case against them for decades. Their reactions are violent with deadly consequences, but we should expect their hatred to rage on as long as there is no one to stand up to them and stop them.

The situation today is the result of years of carelessness and neglect, blinded tyrannies, failed western foreign policies, old vendettas, hate-driven alliances and a systematic alienation of moderate voices.

Today, the Middle East stands at a crossroad with a major imbalance of wealth and power. Although “Instability” should be the headline of this era, some are still pretending not to be affected by it. A dangerous rise in extremism threatens friends and foes alike. Add to that upcoming Israeli elections and the winding of a confused U.S. administration that made the region worse one bad decision at a time and one late response at a time.

The only way out of this impasse is for the people to take charge of their lives. Not as a region or nation but as individuals coming together to create, grow and defend an independent, sustainable and dignified life for themselves and for the generations after them.

Lucky are those who have already started such process and are ready to apply it even at a small, individual scale. For the future is in their hands.
http://english.alarabiya.net/en/views/news/middle-east/2015/01/27/The-maddening-reality-of-the-Middle-East.html

This article was first published in al-Nahar on January 27, 2015.

_____________________

Why single out Islam for this patronising treatment?

Eric Pickles, the British communities secretary, wrote a letter to Muslim leaders in which he asked them to ‘explain and demonstrate how faith in Islam can be part of British identity’.
A response

Dear Eric,

Walaikum salam warahmatullahi wabarakatuhu.

Serious question. Will you be sending a letter any time soon to members of the Roman Catholic church following the child-abuse scandals in Catholic institutions? Or a letter to the Board of Deputies of British Jews on the subject of illegal Israeli settlements in the West Bank?

No?

Thought as much.

Ten years on from 9/11 and you’re still asking the same questions, questions that have proved worse than useless in the intervening years. Still wondering aloud about the loyalty of British citizens based on their spiritual beliefs. Still demanding that these people prove themselves compatible with the “British way of life”, as defined by you.

In your letter this week, you say that you “know acts of extremism are not representative of Islam”. You mention that “British values are Muslim values”. Yet you insist on asking us to speak to our young people, telling them that “extremists have nothing to offer them”. Do you really think that little of our young people? That they can’t tell the difference between right and wrong? Do you imagine that they are already that different, that set apart from British society, simply because they’re Muslim? Do you think that little of our ability to bring them up to know that taking life is a sin?

To accept the terms of your argument for a moment, we already know that 83% of Muslims living in the UK say they identify with British values. Others are as free not to identify with them as any non-Muslim might be – the right to be disaffected isn’t limited to Christians. That a tiny number of Muslims are also lost to violent extremism says as much about other members of our faith as the conduct of abusers in the Catholic church does about theirs. But still you require our religious leaders do more in “demonstrating how faith in Islam can be part of British identity”.

Rather than send a patronising letter telling Muslim leaders what to do, maybe you should actually sit down with Muslim leaders and listen to them, really listen. You’ve been in the job for nearly five years. They would tell you that since 9/11 we have condemned, apologised and worked tirelessly to expose the incompatibility of the terrorists’ ideology with Islam. We have done what you have asked us to do. But we are like any other citizens of the UK today. We are anxious. Anxious about an increase in intolerance towards minorities, including but not limited to our own. Anxious about the economy. Anxious about whether the NHS can continue to meet our needs. Anxious about whether our children will be able to afford higher education. In general, it seems our fears are not listened to.

You are communities secretary. You have a duty of care to the diverse peoples who make up Britain and define British values. Sadly, it seems the only time you engage with us is under the rubric of counter-terrorism. With attacks against Muslims taking place across the country, more than ever before we need your reassurance and protection.

Instead we get a letter suggesting we’re not doing enough.

I would say it’s you, communities secretary, who hasn’t done nearly enough. I’m afraid your letter will be received respectfully, but with disappointment, up and down the country.

Yours sincerely,

Areeb

"Dear Eric Pickles – why single out Islam for this patronising treatment?"
theguardian.com | January 19

Causes of Islamist militancy

AS terrorist violence from ‘Islamic’ militants spreads across the world, from Peshawar to Paris, affected states are struggling to devise effective responses. So far, most of their responses have addressed the visible symptoms of the terrorist threat through military, police and intelligence measures. These are, of course, essential to stem the terrorist tide. Unfortunately, these responses are often insufficient or incorrect.

To develop the right responses, it is essential to honestly analyse and address the principal causes of ‘Islamic terrorism’.

The fundamental origins of Islamist extremism and militancy lie in the failure of Muslim states, and other states with Muslim populations, to deliver jobs, justice and dignity to a growing army of young people. The economic, social and demographic indicators in Muslim countries are some of the worst in the world. Their societies are imbued with inequality and injustice. Similarly, Muslim youth in the advanced Western countries have not become integrated in the social and economic mainstream. Poor, unemployed and disaffected youth have always provided ready recruits for radical and rebellious movements.

The basic rationale for radicalism has been provided by the political and economic suppression of Muslims for so long in many places. The plight of the Palestinians and Kashmiris are two examples. The memories of brutal colonial actions in Turkey, Algeria, Iran, Indonesia and other Muslim countries, are part of historical Muslim grievances. The oppression and discrimination against Muslim minorities in India, Burma, Russia etc, have added to these grievances. These real and perceived historical injustices provided the basic justification and support for ideologies that advocate antipathy towards the West and the active propagation and ‘defence’ of Islam.

The rise of radical Islamist movements was gradual and fitful. At some periods in the post colonial era, some of these Islamists were sponsored and supported by Western powers. However, with the ‘failure’ of the Western capitalist and the Soviet communist models, Islamic movements, financed often from abroad, were able to move into the political mainstream in many Muslim countries. Tolerant societies, like Pakistan, saw the rise of parties propagating a narrow and exclusivist version of Islam.

The basic rationale for radicalism has been provided by the suppression of Muslims.
A major turning point was the use of Islamist zealots to combat the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. The seven-member mujahideen alliance, sponsored by the US, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, other Arab countries and Iran, was composed exclusively of ‘Islamist’ groups. Forty thousand ‘Islamic’ radicals were imported from across the Arab and Muslim world, including Osama bin Laden and Ayman al Zawahiri. These original ‘foreign fighters’ also included Muslim rebels from Uzbekistan, Chechnya and Xinjiang.

After the Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan, this deadly cocktail of hardened local and foreign ‘jihadists’ either stayed on in Afghanistan-Pakistan or returned to their countries to spread their toxic ideology and fighting experience. These fighters and their descendants form the core of Al Qaeda and its franchises in the Arabian peninsula and North Africa as well as the IMU, ETIM and TTP.

With the Soviet withdrawal and an equally hasty American withdrawal from Afghanistan, Islamist groups ran amok in Afghanistan, Pakistan and their ‘home’ countries. The first attack was engineered by Al Zawahiri against the Egyptian embassy in Islamabad. He later joined Osama bin Laden to form Al Qaeda. The mujahideen, meanwhile, split into several factions, vying for control of Kabul. A struggle for influence ensued between Pakistan and Iran in Afghanistan. Pakistan became the battleground for externally sponsored Sunni-Shia violence. Meanwhile, Iran sponsored Shia groups in Lebanon, Iraq and elsewhere.

During the 1990s’ Afghan civil war, many mujahideen groups became criminalised, raising money to finance themselves through drug production and trafficking, kidnapping and extortion. Criminality opened the door to the infiltration of these groups by state intelligence agencies, including those of Pakistan, India, Saudi Arabia, Iran and the West. Such infiltration of certain Kashmir groups by India was critical in transforming the legitimate struggle for freedom in Kashmir into a ‘terrorist’ threat.

Notably, it was Mullah Omar’s Taliban who restored order in southern and eastern Afghanistan, overcoming or winning over the warring groups, except those in the Iran-India backed Northern Alliance. Mullah Omar’s association with Al Qaeda came about only after the US and Western decision to isolate the Taliban. His adamant refusal to surrender Osama bin Laden or expel him led to the Taliban’s ouster by the US with the help of the Northern Alliance.

The 2001 US military intervention in Afghanistan and its 2003 invasion of Iraq provided a second life to Al Qaeda and other Islamist movements, offering a rallying cause and proximate targets for ‘jihad’. Al Qaeda received new recruits. Zarqawi’s Al Qaeda in Iraq was born, a predecessor to today’s Islamic State. AQAP, AQIM, TTP, Al Shabab, Boko Haram and several lesser known groups all emerged in the renewed jihad generated by opposition to Western interventions in Afghanistan and Iraq.

The recent spread of jihadi movements across the Muslim world has been made possible by three factors. One, the weakness of most Muslim states, in terms of their police, military and intelligence capabilities, political laxity towards extremist movements and official corruption. Two, misguided Western-engineered overthrow or erosion of authoritarian regimes in Muslim states including Egypt, Libya and Syria, which opened the door to Islamist groups. Three, the external sponsorship of some of these groups, like the IS and TTP.

The ‘successes’ of jihadi movements and their narrative — Muslim rights can be regained only through violent struggle — have attracted thousands of alienated youth in Western countries. Reportedly, there are over 5000 ‘foreign fighters’ from Europe who have joined the IS. The Paris attacks have brought the war home for the Europeans, transforming a foreign policy challenge into a domestic priority. These attacks have also laid bare the cultural and religious divisions within these advanced countries, manifested by the anti-Islam Pegida movement in Germany, the National Front in France and burning of mosques in traditionally tolerant Sweden.

Addressing ‘Islamic terrorism’ is thus now a global challenge and priority. However, unless the origins and causes of this phenomenon are fully understood, it will prove difficult to formulate and agree on comprehensive policies and actions to meet this challenge.

Causes of Islamist militancy
by Munir Akram, dawn.com
The writer is a former Pakistan ambassador to the UN.

Paris attacks: Jean-Marie Le Pen says French terror attacks were work of western intelligence

The Charlie Hebdo massacre may have been the work of an “intelligence agency”, working with the connivance of French authorities, according to Jean-Marie Le Pen, founder of the far right Front National.

In an interview with a virulently anti-western Russian newspaper, Mr Le Pen, 86, gave credence to conspiracy theories circulating on the internet suggesting that the attack was the work of American or Israeli agents seeking to foment a civil war between Islam and the west.

His comments – only partially retracted in an interview with the French newspaper Le Monde today – provoked outrage amongst French politicians. They will also infuriate Marine Le Pen, his daughter, and successor as leader of the FN, who has been trying to distance the party from her father’s extreme and provocative remarks.

Mr Le Pen stood down as FN leader three years ago but remains President-for-life. He made the comments in an interview with Komsomolskaïa Pravda , a newspaper which had already blamed the United States for the terrorist mayhem in France.

Charlie Hebdo: Mourning in Paris

“The shooting at Charlie Hebdo resembles a secret service operation but we have no proof of that,” the newspaper quoted Mr Le Pen as saying. “I don’t think it was organised by the French authorities but they permitted this crime to be committed.  That, for the moment, is just a supposition.”

To justify his comments, Mr Le Pen pointed to the fact that one of the Kouachi brothers, who carried out the Charlie Hebdo massacre, left his identity card in a crashed getaway car. He compared this to the “miraculous fact” – beloved by conspiracy theorists – that one of the passports of the 9/11 hijackers was found on the ground in New York after two planes collided with the twin towers of the World Trade Centre in 2001.

Read more: Suspected terrorists shot dead in Belgium
A continent on the edge - terror raids across Europe
Cameron and Obama vow joint anti-terror measures
Mr Le Pen made two other provocative remarks in the interview. He said that the 1,500,000 who marched “against hatred” in Paris last Sunday were not “Charlies” but “Charlie Chaplins” (ie clowns). He also said that there were 15,000,00 to 20,000,000 Muslims in France – three or four times the generally accepted figures of 5,000,000 people who are practising Muslims or have Muslim backgrounds.

In an interview with Le Monde today, Mr Le Pen repeated his suspicions about the identity card but said he “could not recall” talking about “secret services” to the Russian newspaper.

Mr Le Pen’s original quoted remarks run directly counter to the official line of his daughter and his party. They have suggested that the attacks on Charlie Hebdo and a Jewish supermarket are the final proof that France faces an  “enemy within”, which has been created by immigration and open EU borders.

Conspiracy theories of the kind espoused by the elder Le Pen sprang up on the internet within hours of the Charlie Hebdo attacks. They have been repeated in recent days by some – not all - young Muslims in France,  torn between identifying with the Kouachi brothers and insisting that they were stooges of the French authorities, Washington and Israel.

The  French “pope of conspiracy theories”, Thierry Meyssan, now based in Damascus, insisted that the Charlie Hebdo massacres were “ordered by US neo-cons and liberal hawks”. An American conspiracy site, McLatchy, has claimed that the Kouachi brothers were working for French intelligence.

By John Lichfield, independent.co.uk

The attack on Charlie Hebdo: the problem is the Middle East, not Islam

The deadly attack in Paris by French Islamists with ties to the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) provokes several basic responses.

One major response is a broad affirmation that the actions of the violent few in no way represent Islam as a global religion of over 1 billion adherents.

Indeed, the vast majority of Muslims are no less broadly humane and no more fanatic than anyone else, as was clear in Paris with the heroic actions of a Muslim employee of the besieged Kosher grocery store, or the death of a French Muslim police officer defending Charlie Hebdo.

Underscoring that this is the case might be less necessary if Islamophobia were not a genuine global issue.

But, however true, the response that Islam is not about violence is unlikely to satisfy.

People are asking why – at least at this moment in global history – the most frequent and dramatic violence explicitly undertaken in the name of religion seems to occur in Middle East and North Africa countries and/or in the name of a particular branch of Islam.

Even for a scholar like myself – who has studied the diversity of orientations in Islam – and has many Muslim friends, the question still nags: why are a tiny minority of Muslims with connections to the Middle East and North Africa committing violent attacks against religious and other pluralism?

The answer may actually be the MENA geographic piece of the equation, rather than the Muslim one.

What is special about the Middle East and North Africa?

Put it this way: if Islamist violence linked to the Middle East and North Africa is the issue, then looking at the regional, rather than religious piece of the puzzle may be more fruitful, particularly in light of the diversity of Islam worldwide.

The question of why the MENA has bred so much recent violence might have many answers, but there is one that I want to highlight here.

Colonialism in the region and the authoritarian governments that followed the withdrawal of the British, French and Ottoman empires, have specifically prioritized the violent suppression of dissent. It is this violent clampdown that has influenced many of today’s Islamist opposition movements.

Several points from “Middle Eastern Politics 101” are worth keeping in mind,

First, there is the idealization of Islamic civilization before colonialism and nostalgia for its intellectual and cultural pre-eminence – think the oft-cited example of the Arab-invented navigational tool, the astrolabe. In contrast, relations with Europe were never easy – they were, in fact, violent from the beginning. And this only got worse with the arrival of colonial rule.

The relative aimlessness of today’s states in the Middle East and North Africa is often blamed on the legacy of such colonial practices as theEuropean powers' drawing arbitrary borders and practicing “divide and rule” to help their control over the region’s diverse ethnic and religious groups. All of this helps explain why political cohesion in Iraq, Libya, Syria and Yemen has not survived the fall of coercive dictators.

Second, although Middle Eastern authoritarianism can not be completely blamed on the colonial legacy, it’s convenient for Middle Easterners to say the West’s past and present actions have contributed to the relative lack of democracy in the MENA. Citizens’ political and economic aspirations are repressed across the region. This widespread frustration, in turn, had much to do with the 2011 Arab uprisings – as well as with the backlash that followed in Egypt and elsewhere.

Third, this repression has been particularly acute in the arena of free expression, where governments – and the opposition movements they have spawned – have often justified harsh treatment of political dissenters and journalists in the name of enhancing social solidarity.

What all of this means in a nutshell is that the Middle East and North Africa has been a region with an unusual level of popular resentment towards governments, and with many examples of force being used against any open opposition to political orthodoxy.

Before and after the Arab spring

Before 2011 the usual pattern was to force Islamist political groups underground. This often resulted in these groups being a mirror image of the states that had outlawed them.

With the broad disillusionment after the uprisings of 2011, states like Egypt have gone back to their pattern of violently repressing groups – mostly Islamist – who, it is claimed, undermine social solidarity.

At the same time, and somewhat ironically, Egypt, and several other MENA states, have been in the forefront of clamping down on journalistswhom they deem dangerous to national values or cohesiveness. Journalistic self-censorship, and media censorship more generally, have been a well-known aspect of MENA politics for decades.

Given this regional context, violent actors like the Islamists in France are not as much representative of Islam, as they are of a specific political context with far too many concrete and well known examples of using of violence to silence dissent.

An alternative perspective

If violence can breed violence, then the legacy of both Western colonialism and post-colonial repressive authoritarianism in the Middle East and North Africa should be confronted – and more clearly connected to the broader context of the tragedy of Paris.

Emphasizing the influence of repressive political structures in the modern Middle East and North Africa is an approach that does not get to the social psychological issues of the attackers or the particular context of contemporary French culture.

However, acknowledging that authoritarian repression of dissent in the Middle East and North Africa replicates itself elsewhere, and that it fosters networks that can abet terrorist attacks globally, offers an alternative view on last week’s shooting of the journalists at Charlie Hebdo. It is a different argument to the usual one that the problem lies in Islam or with Muslims – an argument that is only likely to further heighten conflict.

The key point is that excessive repression by a politically-dominant group (governmental or non-governmental) is central to breeding violence, in the Middle East and elsewhere.

• theconversation.com

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Humanity, Religion, Culture, Ethics, Science, Spirituality & Peace

Peace Forum Magazines
Over 1,000,000 Visits

http://PeaceForumNet.blogspot.com
http://AftabKhan-net.blogspot.com
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *...

http://FreeBookpark.blogspot.com

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Ajit Doval: The Indian who wants to ‘destroy’ Pakistan?

After reading the title you must wonder, so what? There are plenty of Indians who want to ‘destroy’ Pakistan - there always were and there always will be – that is the sad reality. But this one, my friends, is a little different. He has the knowhow, the expertise, and most importantly, now he has the resources and power to inflict damage upon not only the people of Pakistan, but also countless, defenseless Indian minorities. And he has done it before. So all peace-loving people from Khyber to Kerala – sit up and read carefully.

Ajit Kumar Doval was born into an Indian Army family in Uttarakhand in 1945. After graduating in 1967 with a degree in economics from Agra University, he joined the Indian Police Service (IPS). His early years were spent fighting against the Mizo National Front (MNF) insurgency in Assam where he earned a reputation for bribing and turning insurgent operatives into counter-insurgents.During this time he also operated within Chinese sovereign territory, staging terrorist attacks against the Chinese government, leading to civilian deathsin the process. A colleague of his from that time, Haba Ram, (TOI) detailed thathis main motivation was not strictly professional but stemmed from a deep hatred of anyone and anything non-Hindu which he perceived as a threat to his notion of Hinduism - a misguided notion of the religion which is advocated today by ultra-right-wing Hindu fascist organizations such as the RashtriyaSwayamsevakSangh(RSS) and to which the new PM of India, NarendraModi also ascribes to. (However, there is no evidence that he was actually a member of any such organizationat that time.)

After the Mizo Insurgency ended in 1986, Doval was transferred to Indian Punjab which was in the midst of a freedom struggle by the persecuted Sikh minority, called the Khalistan movement. In 1989, during Indira Gandhi’s Operation Black Thunder, security forces were sent to storm the Golden Temple at Amritsar, the holiest site for the Sikh religion. Several weeks before the storming, Doval, posing as a friendly agent, entered the holy site (source needed)and reported back the positions of the defenders. Even though he was aware of the large presence of civilians inside he did nothing to avoid civilian casualties – leading to the Indian Army massacring hundreds of women and children in an unprecedented and unprovoked catastrophe. For his ‘heroism’ he was promoted and was soon organizing the rigging of the 1992 Punjab State Elections in favour of parties who were controlled by the ruling Hindu majority.

Doval was then sent to Indian Occupied Kashmir (IOK) in the early 90’s, where there was another freedom struggle underway. He once again used his expertise in blackmail, bribery and intimidation to convert a small group of insurgents into counter-insurgents. This though proved ineffectual; however it did sow confusion amongst other groups of freedom fighters, leading them to go further underground for a time.

For his efforts, in 2000, he was appointed Director of the Intelligence Bureau (IB) – the 2nd most powerful Indian spy agency after RAW. This allowed him to go on the offensive. From 2001 to 2005 he planned terrorist acts in Pakistan, Afghanistan and China. Specifically, he was instrumental in increasing the amount of funds and weapons going to Indian trained terrorists in Balochistan who then killed countless Pakistani civilians in indiscriminate bombings. Such attacks also occurred in Lahore and Karachi and were part of Doval’s and the Indian Intelligence communities’ strategy of violently destabilizing Pakistan from within. In China, he provided funding to Tibetan secessionists. Doval had to retire in 2005, because the right wing government that had appointed him lost power.

But now he’s back. India’s new right wing PM, Modi, appointed him National Security Advisor (NSA) this June – a position that grants him tremendous influence over Indian foreign overt and covert policy and a plethora of resources to wage his crusade of madness. State controlled media in India is terming it as the ‘return of the superspy’and ‘the spy who came in from the cold,’ - But Doval has never been far from influential intelligence circles in Delhi. Since his retirement he has been advising RAW chiefs and also publishing papers on intelligence. In 2009 he was the founding member of the Vivekananda International Foundation, a group of right-wing Hindu nationalist ‘commentators’ with close ties to the RSS and RAW, who are masquerading as a think-tank. In one of his many anti-Pakistan papers titled‘Internal Security — Need for Course Correction’, he wrote that ‘the Indian security establishment has become lax in its attitude towards Pakistan…Indian foreign policy must re-gear itself to go on the offensive against its enemy Pakistan by funding, arming, training and directing non-state actors to wage a campaign of chaos within Pakistan by exacerbating existing sectarian and ethnic differences through violence…India will never be secure until Pakistan is destroyed, China is silenced, and Muslim and Sikh anti-state groups in India are forever extinguished.’

With such blatantly fascist and racist views Ajit Kumar Doval now joins a growing number of anti-Pakistancampaigners in the new BJP government. The world must sit up and take notice. If Doval and his goons have their way, they will unleash a torrent of suffering upon the innocent people of the subcontinent - Muslim, Sikh and Hindu alike. The only thing standing against the barbaric machinations of such men will be the actions of good men. That is why, most importantly, Pakistan’s government and its security establishment must be on their guard. The world cannot afford to ignore another Nazi party.
Ajit Doval: The Indian who wants to ‘destroy’ Pakistn. By Hassan Qureshi
Source PKKH.tv

Videos: http://goo.gl/CJFkvx

What will the big stories be in 2015?

With the new year upon us, several of the BBC's experts have been asked to give their predictions on which stories to follow in 2015.

Security, refugees and the battle against Islamic groups

Lyse Doucet, chief international correspondent

2015 will be another year of global consequence in the Middle East and just beyond.

The year ended with major security challenges in both Pakistan and Afghanistan. This situation will be further aggravated in 2015. Better relations between Pakistan, India and Afghanistan will be essential but difficult.

2015 will be a critical year in the battle against Islamist groups on many fronts.

The US will strive to limit its military engagement but won't be able to pull away despite President Obama's best laid plans to do so.

In Iraq, the US will strive to strengthen Iraqi forces to take back iconic cities seized by the Islamic State group. Iraq will remain fragmented, as will Syria, where a deadly stalemate will continue.

The UN predicts continued hardship for refugees, such as this 4-year-old Afghan girl in Islamabad, in 2015
Financial pressures stemming from a sustained slump in oil prices will not cause key players to abandon their allies but will increase pressure to find a way out.

Oil producers Russia and Iran - President Bashar al-Assad's key backers - will weigh new political approaches including the UN plan for a local "freeze" in Aleppo. The West, Arab states and Turkey will continue to back different forces, impeding any united opposition front. Assad's own forces are stretched, and strained.

2015 is a pivotal year on other fronts. There are reasons to believe a deal will be reached on Iran's nuclear programme. US Secretary of State John Kerry will try to revive Israeli-Palestinian talks after Israel's elections but there are too many tensions in the mix to make real progress possible.

This will be another year of global hand wringing over the inability of world powers to resolve many major crises. And, all the while, the armies of the desperate will continue to swell with ever more people forced to become refugees or migrants risking their lives at sea.

Bridget Kendall, diplomatic correspondent

Western diplomats face two major challenges as 2015 dawns: how to contain contagion from Syria's collapse; and how to tackle a resurgent Russia.

On the first, in theory a nuclear deal with Iran could unveil a new paradigm in the Middle East, transforming Tehran from pariah into partner.

Many hope a long-term deal with Iran over its nuclear programme can be reached in 2015
The West and Iran already share a common enemy - the IS jihadists currently dismembering Syria and Iraq. Both sides desire a deal, the West to avoid a nuclear-armed Iran, President Rouhani to get sanctions lifted.

But the window for compromise is closing: sceptical Republicans now controlling Capitol Hill encumber President Obama and Tehran conservatives would rather block than back a deal ahead of parliamentary elections.

Then there is what to do about Syria's President Bashar al-Assad, Iran's key ally, but unacceptable as part of any compromise in many Western capitals.

So the most likely outcome is continued mayhem, contained somewhat by air strikes, with the hydra-headed problem left for the next American president, while Iran seeks other ways to breach the stranglehold of sanctions.

Likewise a deal with Russia over Ukraine may appear preferable to an escalating conflict. And you might think Russia's economic worries would make Mr Putin more pliant.

The Ukraine crisis has put Russia's ties with the West are at their lowest ebb since the Cold War
But loss of trust on all sides makes a breakthrough unlikely. Kiev and Western powers now view Moscow with the utmost suspicion. And President Putin welcomes reduced contacts with the West as an opportunity for Russia to become more self-reliant.

A de facto border already divides Ukraine proper from the self-styled eastern enclaves next to Russia. Expect a broader barrier to take shape over 2015, reminiscent of the Iron Curtain, but virtual not actual.

The West will blame Russia. And Mr Putin will blame the West, while encouraging Russians to turn inwards, away from the malign influence of foreigners.

The pressures of globalisation will mean fragmentation of our more integrated world.

The US will boom, Europe will stagnate or worsen, and China is the wild card. Inequality will rise, and no-one will know what to do about it. That will feed the feeling that politics doesn't work.

The debate about Western intervention will heat up
The conflicts of 2014 will deepen and probably worsen and new ones will erupt - both that, and the US election around the corner in 2016 will intensify the debate about Western intervention.

The next US president will have to work out if there is a middle way between Bush's adventurism and Obama quietism. Other countries may start to reflect that, prompting a better, less dangerous world.

Europe will have to decide if it wants to stick at its current borders - if Ukraine and Turkey will never join, the EU will have changed course. Like many other political projects the EU may start to deflate if is stops expanding.

The internet will become a philosophical battleground as it increasingly freaks out the gerontocracy, unnerved by a lack of control, faced by a younger generation who largely think the good of the medium outweighs the bad of any messages it may contain.

China: Political purge, high growth and internet governance

Carrie Gracie, China editor

China's rulers have much to grapple with
2015 will be dominated by the ongoing anti-corruption campaign, a drive to make the Communist Party fit for purpose, clearing President Xi's remaining political enemies from the field and scaring the bureaucratic machine out of its habits of self-serving greed and cynicism.

The "new normal" economics slogan is about weaning China off a high growth model after more then 30 years. Reform is more urgent than ever, but putting it off is making it ever harder.

Hong Kong's Legislative Council will or won't approve rules on electing the territory's next leader. Whichever way, the divisions exposed by the Occupy movement will be hard to bridge.

Clean air, soil and water go on being big challenges for the long term. Expect some progress on emissions pledges made during the Xi-Obama summit in November 2014, especially as we get closer to the big Paris conference in autumn 2015.

Prince William's visit at the beginning of March will be a moment to push public education on protecting elephants, rhino and species at home. Conservation is one of the few areas where NGOs are permitted to operate in China.

With China's tech market impossible to ignore, expect to see Mark Zuckerberg back in Beijing, working his Mandarin and making compromises for Facebook access. Watch China use its new leverage with the Californian tech companies to push harder for a stake in global internet governance.

Lots happening in terms of defence, for example China's nuclear armed submarines will become operational and its big defence companies will go looking for global arms sales.

Another year of energetic diplomacy by President Xi and Prime Minister Li to push China's geopolitics and commerce, particularly the Silk Road Economic Belt to control China's backyard: energy, transport and security dominance in Central Asia.

A tougher line from a Republican-controlled Congress may make US-China engagement bumpier than ever in 2015, while the US electoral cycle weakens President Obama just as President Xi cements his authority for year three of ten.

Chinese companies are closing in on their Western competitors
Globally significant is the business power shift from west to east. Chinese companies and banks are all expanding rapidly westward, with many of these businesses not simply aping Western companies but beating them.

Alibaba (online commerce) is now closing in on US behemoth Walmart as the most valuable retailer in the world. 2015 could see it become one of the top ten most valuable businesses in the world.

China's move to significant global business player has been rapid, with it now the second largest foreign investor in the US behind Canada. It raises significant questions about the use of soft, economic and business power and how that plays into China's political influence across the globe.

The West needs money. China, a nation of savers with a $260bn trade surplus with the rest of the world in 2013, has it.

In 2015, the West will face many of the challenges experienced by African nations which have seen major levels of investment from China, often to service the latter's growing demand for food.

This raises challenges for Western businesses at just the time when the political discussion in many Western nations is more about de-globalisation and cutting businesses "down to size".

That's the anti-markets trend which has been strong in the West since the financial crisis, and will still be very visible throughout 2015.

Watch for significant developments in artificial intelligence and computers that think, fresh troubles in the eurozone and a major breakthrough in the hunt for an Ebola vaccine led by GlaxoSmithKline and Johnson & Johnson.

There will be continuing good economic news from the US (still the world's global powerhouse), support for global growth from the commodities price squeeze and, in general, a more optimistic economic and business mood at the end of the year compared to the beginning.
BBC.com