Leaving Islam




India , U.S. must act responsibly

Hi Ali,  

Here is my piece that appeared in San Mateo County Times. I thought you might be interested as it touches upon India 's relationship with Iran . The Nehru family of course reduced India to a Dhimmi state.    

Edited page of San Mateo County Times on 22 Sep 2005

Arvind Kumar


Congressman Tom Lantos of San Mateo has criticized India 's relationship with Iran , calling the statements of Natwar Singh, the Indian external affairs minister, "Stalinist rhetoric."  

Expectedly, this led to an acrimonious response from the Indian government.  

While Congressman Lantos' complaint is certainly genuine, what is of concern is his statement that they "really don't care about what we think" assumes that Indians always ought to behave in a manner beneficial to Americans, while Americans can do what they please.  

American support for avowed Islamic states such as Saudi Arabia and Pakistan is in the same league as India 's support for Iran . Such support hurts innocent people and American self-interest is no excuse for allying with those who indulge in gross violation of human rights and show scant regard for individual liberty. Thus, while Lantos' complaint is valid, it is a case of the pot calling the kettle black.  

It is true that Congress I, the political party to which India 's Foreign Minister belongs, swears by Nehruvian-Stalinism and once shared a close relationship with Josef Stalin. Therefore, "Stalinist rhetoric" is expected behavior from the Foreign Minister. Indians in America realize that they are economic refugees who escaped the harsh conditions imposed by the Stalinist economic system in India , and appreciate that they got the opportunity to unleash their entrepreneurial spirit in America .  

Yet, most Indians do not approve of American foreign policy, especially its aggressive nature and its support for various dictators and Islamic theocracies, as these go against the principles of non-violence. It has pained Indians in the bay area and elsewhere whenever Americans have displayed one standard for themselves while holding others to another standard.  

Americans have routinely rationalized, often with a straight face, their support for violent regimes and occasionally even terrorists, and explained it away as a necessary situation to further their objectives. This assumes that others exist in order to further American interests, even if it means that they die in the process of enriching Americans. Americans also have been guilty of supporting Indian Marxists and recently appointed a prominent Marxist from India to one of the chairs in the Library of Congress. Thus, the complaint about "Stalinist rhetoric" by Congressman Lantos sounds a bit insincere.  

For its part, India 's vote-bank politics has meant that it has extended support to Islamist states such as Iran , and framed its domestic policies to appease its Muslim population even if it meant trampling on women's rights and hurting people of other religions including the religion of the majority of its people. During the cold war, India 's politicians also reduced it to a satellite state of the Communist bloc. Thus, the complaint against India is not completely out of place.  

While India must cease to support Islamists and move away from Stalinism, America too should stop profiting by supporting violent regimes. Until then, criticism by American policy makers cannot be taken seriously. If American politicians acted in a manner consistent with their rhetoric, stopped being aggressive, and withdrew support to violent regimes, Congressman Lantos and his colleagues would find that they would have many admirers and earn the respect of everyone around the world.  

Arvind Kumar is an immigrant from India who lives in the United States . 









Articles Op-ed Authors Debates Leaving Islam FAQ
Comments Library Gallery Video Clips Books Sina's Challenge

    copyright You may translate and publish the articles in this site only if you provide a link to the original page.