Politics of appeasement has crippled India

Date: 12/2/2005


Politics of appeasement has crippled India //// By J.G. Arora //// Central Chronicle, Bhopal: November 30, 2005 //// As per Sir Winston Churchill (1874-1965), the British war-time prime minister, "An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last". Though India is being devoured bit by bit by Pakistan and Bangladesh, it continues to adopt the policy of appeasement toward these nations.//// Poisonous politics of appeasement pursued by various political parties and successive governments has crippled India. //// Genocide and eviction of Hindus from Kashmir to be made refugees in their own country; frequent Pakistan-sponsored terrorist attacks on security forces and civilians; Article 370 conferring a special status on Muslim majority Jammu and Kashmir; infiltration of crores of Pakistanis and Bangladeshis into India, Pakistan's determination to "bleed India through a thousand cuts" and create one more Islamic country on Indian soil are the bitter harvest of appeasement. //// India has lost more soldiers in fighting Pakistan-sponsored terrorists in Kashmir than it lost in 1965 or 1971 or 1999 wars with Pakistan. Shockingly, Pakistan sponsored terrorist attacks all over India are being treated as law and order problems; and not as invasion. //// Congress legacy of appeasement //// Indian National Congress founded self-defeating policy of appeasement. And it started in 1921 with Moplah rebellion and massacre of Hindus. //// Mahatma Gandhi's support to Indian Muslims' demand for Khilafat (to install Sultan of Turkey as the Caliph) led to Moplah rebellion in 1921 in Malabar in which thousands of innocent Hindus were massacred by Muslims. And Hindus had nothing to do with British policy towards Turkey. //// Sir C. Sankaran Nair (1857-1934), a former judge of Madras High Court has described horrors of Moplah rebellion in his book "Gandhi and Anarchy". But Mahatma Gandhi termed the killers as "God fearing," who "are fighting for what they consider as religion, and in a manner they consider as religious." //// Nevertheless, repeated Congress appeasement of Muslim League led to creation of Pakistan and eviction of Hindus and Sikhs from Pakistan and Bangladesh. But even after 1947, same appeasement philosophy has guided successive Congress governments. //// Congress government under Jawaharlal Nehru started the "Haj subsidy" for Haj pilgrimage vides the Haj Committee Act of 1959 though any subsidy for any religious pilgrimage is anti-secular and though even Islamic countries pay no such subsidy. //// And to appease Muslim uproar over the Supreme Court's judgement reported as Mohd. Ahmed Khan v. Shah Bano Begum (AIR 1985 Supreme Court 945), the then Congress government passed the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986; and nullified the said judgement.//// //// After regaining power in 2004, Congress-led government is implementing appeasement with vigour. //// The same Congress which rejected "Communal Award" in 1932 is spearheading in 2005 Muslim reservation in government jobs. Besides, in Kerala and at the Centre, Congress is sharing power with Muslim League which had created Pakistan.//// And instead of implementing the Supreme Court's judgement delivered on July 12, 2005 on Sarbananda Sonowal's petition for deportation of infiltrators, Congress-led government is maintaining "soft borders" and has opened Line of Control (Kashmir border) in November 2005 which will enable more terrorists and infiltrators to walk into India to attack security forces, to kill innocents and to blow up temples. //// BJP's dismal record //// Though gaining power in 1999 on its anti-appeasement agenda, BJP adopted the same fake secularism and appeasement which it had opposed in Congress. And it increased the amount of Haj subsidy. //// Though a few of its ministers did good work, during its six years of rule, BJP forgot rehabilitation of Kashmiri Hindus, uniform civil code, Article 370, and even Ayodhya which had brought it into power. BJP did nothing to deport crores of Pak-Bangla infiltrators or to curb the influx. It did not confront terrorism; and did not punish even the Pakistan-sponsored attack on Indian Parliament in 2001 since the then Prime Minister's 'fight to finish' never started. //// //// Let us face reality///// Pakistan sponsored terrorist attack on 29th October, 2005 in New Delhi which claimed 71 lives is the latest of a long line of attacks Hindus have suffered since Muhammad bin Qasim's Arab army attacked Indian sub-continent in 711. //// Indian sub-continent including the present day India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nepal, Afghanistan and even a part of Iran was Hindu land till Muhammad bin Qasim's Arab army attacked Sind in 711. And though Hindus fought bravely to defend their religion and motherland, they suffered the loss of millions of lives and plunder and destruction of thousands of temples during the repeated terrorist attacks over the centuries. //// And unless terrorists are confronted and defeated, the latest terrorist attack in New Delhi on 29th October, 2005 will not be the last. //// 'Settlement' as against 'appeasement' //// Indian policy of appeasement amounts to conniving at Pakistan and Bangladesh's acts of murder and demographic aggression. //// In March 1940, Muslim League demanded Pakistan for Muslims and exchange of Hindu Muslim population. Immediately thereafter, Dr. Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar (1891-1956) wrote his"Thoughts on Pakistan" (reprinted as "Pakistan or The Partition of India"). Vide Part IV, chapter XI of this book, Dr. Ambedkar has criticized the Congress policy of 'appeasement' of Muslims, and has advocated the policy of 'settlement'. As per Dr. Ambedkar, 'appeasement' sets no limits to the demands of aggressor. 'Settlement' does. Besides, appeasement increases aggressor's aggression. Accordingly, Dr. Ambedkar held that as a 'settlement', creation of Pakistan would end constant appeasement. //// Besides, as a 'settlement' of Hindu-Muslim conflict, Dr. Ambedkar suggested that exchange of Hindu-Muslim population must accompany partition of India. //// Despite Dr. Ambedkar's brilliant analysis of 'settlement' and 'appeasement', Congress continued its policy of Muslim appeasement. But it could not dissuade Muslim League from demanding Pakistan. In the elections held in 1945-46, Muslims voted for the creation of Pakistan. Though Congress conceded Pakistan in 1947, it has continued with its policy of appeasement even after 1947. //// A large majority of Indian Muslims who demanded Pakistan for Muslims and also demanded exchange of population on creation of Pakistan stayed back in India, and did not go to Pakistan. //// With the creation of Pakistan in 1947, it was the settlement of Hindu-Muslim problem in the sub-continent. Accordingly, appeasement must come to an end. //// The only way out //// Because of Indian surrender before terror, countless Pak-Bangla terrorists are stalking all over India. But by appeasing our enemies, we encourage them to annihilate us. //// Instead of persisting with appeasement-oriented "peace process", India must deport crores of Pak-Bangla infiltrators and curb their daily influx. Besides, in keeping with the doctrine of 'hot pursuit' of international law, terrorist training network in Pakistan and Bangladesh must be smashed; and if necessary, an all out war launched with these unreasonable nations. //// It is now or never//// Terrorists must be crushed; not welcomed and embraced.//// Sun-tzu's celebrated Art of War as also countless episodes of world history emphasize the crushing of enemies before the enemies crush us. //// How much more must India lose before it stops appeasing its enemies? //// History teaches that in the clash of civilizations and of nations, the ruthless have always won; and the benevolent have always lost. For example, Prithviraj Chauhan's misplaced magnanimity ultimately brought him defeat. //// There is no alternative to resolute measures. //// Here it is relevant to quote Sir Winston Churchill who deprecated the British policy of appeasement of Germany before the outbreak of Second World War thus, "Still, if you will not fight for the right when you can easily win without bloodshed; if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a small chance of survival." //// ------------------------//// ...................000000000