Category Archives: Pakistan

Why must India kow-tow to China?

April 18, 2008
For 60 years, China has humiliated India at every step. It betrayed Jawaharlal Nehru’s naive trust in a Hindi-Chini bhai-bhai friendship. It treacherously attacked India from Tibet [Images] which Nehru had implicitly left to the Chinese, humiliating the Indian army which would take decades to recover.

It directly or indirectly encouraged separatist movements in the Northeast; it used Nepal as a front State against India; it armed, and worst of all, gave the nuclear bomb to Pakistan, a crime against humanity.

Today it is still sitting on a million square metres in Aksai Chin (supposedly given to Pakistan), which rightfully belongs to India; it claims Arunachal Pradesh, and sometimes Sikkim, does regular incursions into Indian territory and is still busy encircling India in Burma.

The Chinese despise Indians, witness how they summoned the Indian ambassador at 2 am in the morning as if she was some lower hireling.

Indian leaders are also perfectly aware that the Chinese, in a span of fifty years, have killed 1.2 million Tibetans, razed to the ground 6,254 monasteries, destroyed 60 per cent of religious, historical and cultural archives and that one Tibetan out of ten is still in jail.

As we have entered the Third Millennium, a quarter million Chinese troops are occupying Tibet and there are 7.5 million Chinese settlers for six million Tibetans — in fact, in many places such as the capital, Lhasa, Tibetans are outnumbered two to one…

India has also to wake up to the plain fact that China needs space and has hegemonic aspirations: It got Tibet, it got Hong Kong, it got part of Ladakh; now it wants Taiwan, Arunachal Pradesh, the Spratly islands and what not!

Fifty years ago, during the Korean war, Sri Aurobindo, had seen clearly in the Chinese game: ‘the first move in the Chinese Communist plan of campaign is to dominate and take possession first of these northern parts and then of South East Asia as a preliminary to their manoeuvres with regard to the rest of the continent in passing Tibet as a gate opening to India.’

And magically, for once, India had a chance to get back at China without appearing to do so. It would have been easy to have a little less security for the Olympic torch and let the Tibetans express their anger and resentment in a way that would have once more been flashed all over the world.

Yet, India did exactly the opposite: It went overboard to please the Chinese, giving more security to this sham that was the Olympic relay in New Delhi than it does for Republic Day.

Did anybody see the utter farcical absurdity of this flame, which slept in a five star hotel, had to be guarded by 17,000 security men and ran without spectators, creating unheard off problems for the poor citizen caught in traffic jams?

Is there any peace, is there any sporting and Olympic spirit in such a flame which has become the symbol of Chinese repression, arrogance and thirst for domination in Asia?

Tibet is so important for India: It has always acted as a peaceful, non-violent buffer zone between the two giants of Asia: China and India. And the Dalai Lama [Images] wants it even more peaceful: A demilitarised, denuclearised harmony region.

But it’s exactly the opposite which has happened: According to the CIA, China has transferred one third of its nuclear arsenal to Nagchuka, 250 kms away from Lhasa, a region full of huge caves, which the Chinese have linked together by an intricate underground network and installed nearly 100 intercontinental ballistic missiles, many of them pointed at Indian cities.

The reason for this is that the Chinese, who are probably among the most intelligent people in the world, have always understood that India is their number one potential enemy in Asia — in military, nuclear and economic terms.

Today India is encircled by hostile neighbours, from Pakistan to Bangladesh, from Chinese-occupied Tibet, to a Maoist Nepal.

Never has India faced a darker hour whatever gurus say. Never has she faced so many enemies at the same time — and truly China is one of the most dangerous ones. Yet India always bends backwards to please the Chinese.

Why is that so? Because the Indian intelligentsia, the secular politicians, the journalists, top bureaucrats, are the descendants of these Brown Sahibs, created by Macaulay more than 250 years ago.

The man who thought that all the historical information which can be collected from all the books which have been written in the Sanskrit language, is less valuable than what may be found in the most paltry abridgement used at preparatory schools in England [Images], wished to make of Indians a darker version of the British. He has been immensely successful and has created a nation with a colonised mind.

Many of India’s politicians, bureaucrats and journalists are always aping the West, or are always worrying about what the West thinks of them. They never think Indian, they have no idea about India’s great culture, philosophy and spirituality. Very few have read the Bhagavad Gita, or understood that it encourages yoga in action and that sometimes it is important to defend one’s country, culture and borders, by force if necessary.

They are no match for the Chinese, who are proud of themselves and their nation and will use any means, open and covert, legal and foul, to foster their dream of a Greater China. The Olympics [Images] are just such a tool for them.

Francois Gautier

Bush’s five mistakes

President George Bush has committed five major mistakes in the handling of the terrorism crisis which might cost America dear in the long run:

1. He has made the Arab attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon a matter of national ego. ‘How dare a few arrogant terrorists strike at the heart of the great, mighty, and proud United States?’ But Bush forgets two things: The first is that, however, spectacular and deadly these assaults were, America is not the only nation to suffer from terrorism. Countries like India lose thousands of lives to Islamic fundamentalism each year, without the Western world taking any notice.

Secondly, apart from its political angle, the aggression reminded America that capitalism, with all its flamboyant ego, is no more an answer to the world’s problems than was communism. We have to find another way to a more equalitarian and spiritualized society. The frenzied and hysterical reaction of the United States and Western powers (how long is CNN going to brainwash us with its ‘War on terrorism’?) is also completely overdone. What does Mr Bush mean by ‘an attack on freedom’? Did not Western nations often support bloody dictators such as Pinochet or Mobutu who produced bloodbaths on their people, sometimes more deadly than the WTC attacks?

2. George Bush has more or less ignored India, a vibrant, democratic, pro-Western nation. Why? The Asura, which the Mother of Pondichery called the ‘Lord of Nations,’ seem to be presently actively at work in the world. It is ‘he’ who makes men perceive what is true as false and who gives an aspect of truth to what is fundamentally false or even evil; it is he who precipitates countries into war; it is he who was the voice which Hitler heard dictating him what he had to do. Is it this same Asura which makes America think that Pakistan is the answer to solving their problems with terrorism?

How do you eliminate terrorism with terrorism? Because Pakistan is at the root of terrorism. The Taleban came out of Pakistani madarasas and were able to take nearly the whole of Afghanistan with the help of Pakistani officers. Pakistan has made jihad a national enterprise, not only hitting India, but also training militants who struck in the US, Bosnia and Chechnya. By lifting the economic sanctions on both India and Pakistan, the US has also — once again — put on the same footing two nations which, whatever their respective merits (all is not evil in Pakistan), cannot be compared.

India, a giant of a nation, is a bastion of freedom in an Asia torn by fundamentalism and the shadow of Chinese hegemony. Pakistan, a small country, always on the verge of bankruptcy, has been for most of its independence under military dictatorships. This equating Pakistan and India is an old perverse English strategy which had the purpose of dividing Muslims and Hindus so that the British could rule. It is sad to say that 200 years later this policy is still alive in the minds of Western leaders.

3. The third error is to think that by killing Osama bin Laden and bombing Afghanistan, he is going to solve — partly or fully — the problem of Islamic fundamentalism. Bush has also invited Muslim leaders to the White House, telling them that his fight is ‘not against Islam, but against terrorism.’ The first thing Bush should understand is that the problem is not with Muslims, who are like all other human beings in the world — some of are very good, some are okay and some are bad — but with Islam, a religion which teaches that there is only one God and that jihad is justified to convert others to the true religion.

4. The fourth error is to perceive bin Laden as a simple terrorist. If you look at the man’s eyes, you will notice a certain softness, a mystical glow even, that is not far from recalling some of the great Sufi saints. The man has incredible faith and whatever the murderous consequences of that faith, it has to be respected. The US might ultimately succeed in killing him, but will not other bin Ladens surface elsewhere in the world?

You cannot ignore the fact that Islam is the most rapidly spreading religion in the world today when Christianity is on the decline and capitalism shows its ugly, selfish and crass uniformity all over the planet. If only Islam would accept the fact that it has to adapt itself to the world, it could become a wonderful religion. Does it not care for others as no other faith does? It is enough to say anywhere in the world Salam u alli kum, to be treated like a brother, fed, clothed and sometimes helped financially. All Muslims belong to the Ouma, the great universal Muslim brotherhood. Also the pure of Islam do not smoke, do not take drugs, do not drink alcohol; and this is why the Shariat is so successful in Muslim countries.

5. Finally, there is one factor which Bush has completely overlooked. What is China going to do?

At the times of the attacks, Beijing was on the verge of strengthening its ties with the Taleban. Since then, it has closed its borders with Afghanistan for fear that some of the terrorists might spill into Xinjiang and worsen the already simmering Islamic problem there.

But China is a cold calculator and it will do only what serves its interests regardless of the moral consequences. We have seen how it armed Pakistan to counter India and gave Islamabad the technology to build nuclear weapons — and even the capability to deliver them, thanks to North Korean M-11 missiles. Will China ultimately side — even if temporarily — with the Muslim world, when it starts uniting against American imperialism? Only then will the possibility of a third World War really emerge.

Francois Gautier

The Lessons of Agra

The Lessons of Agra

There are five lessons to be drawn from the Agra summit:

1. Keep the Press away. Sensitive summits, like those held at Camp David between the Israelis and Palestinians, are off bound to the Press, except for a few photo ops and restricted briefings by official spokesman. The hype from the Indian press and the television channels did quite a lot of damage to the summit.

How many times did we hear about Pervez Musharraf’s ‘body language’ and how many so-called ‘experts’ do you need to dissect whether he was smiling or not during his visit to the Taj Mahal? The Pakistanis, who are much better than Indians at public relations, used the Indian press to the hilt. Musharraf’s conference was broadcast live on PTV for the benefit of the Pakistani audience. In this way Musharraf increased his legitimacy in Pakistan, where he is not an elected leader.

surrendered the Haji Pir and Tithwa posts in exchange for a Pakistani pledge that it would never resort to arms against India; or at the Simla summit when Indira Gandhi gave away 93.000 Pakistani soldiers, an immense bargaining chip, and got nothing in return; or recently in Lahore, when Pakistan used Vajpayee’s benevolence to sneak soldiers into Kargil.

2. Prithviraj Chauhan is not dead. In 1191, Prithviraj spared Muhammad of Ghor’s life, in the hope that the invader would see the light. But when Ghor defeated Prithviraj, he made no such mistake and had him executed. Today, the story is not much different. India still shows goodwill and generosity towards Pakistan — and often gets stabbed in the back.

Whether in 1965 when Lal Bahadur Shastri

This time again, the Indian government, the media and the public gave the Pakistani president and his entourage a fantastic welcome. Nothing was too good for him, there was no trace of resentment, bitterness or animosity in the attitude of his hosts. His wife was treated like a queen and feted everywhere, Pakistani journalists were made to feel like brothers by their Indian counterparts and invited at every television show to air their views.

On top of that, the summit was held at Agra, a symbol of Mughal domination of Hindu India, with the Taj Mahal as a background. It may be the seventh marvel of the world, but it was built by a man of infinite cruelty not only towards Hindus, but even towards his own family. Shah Jahan had his brother Shahryar blinded, two of his sons executed and Prince Lodi cut into small pieces …

Pakistani journalists treated India as if they were on conquered territory, heckling external affairs ministry spokeswoman Nirupama Rao after her midnight briefing at the end of the summit on Monday. Musharraf betrayed India’s trust by springing a trap upon them at his press conference, something that must have been pre-planned. At the same time, maybe Prithviraj is dead after all. For the first time an Indian government stood firm and did not succumb to Pakistani blackmail, as Nehru, Shastri, and Indira Gandhi had done before. The Pakistanis had to go home empty handed.

3. Pakistanis should understand they are not the rulers any more. For more than 600 years, Muslim invaders ruled India at will and except for a Prithviraj or a Shivaji or a Guru Gobind Singh, Hindus took it lying down, retreating in the silence of their homes, or in some far-off Himalayan cave to keep their spirituality alive. It is because of that Hindu passivity that a handful of Muslims conquerors could hold such a vast nation at ransom for so long.

Today, whatever her problems, India is an emerging giant in Asia, with a respectable economic growth and 850 millions Hindus, who for the first time in their modern history are beginning to experience a tinge of nationalist pride.

Pakistan, on the other hand, is a tiny state, on the verge of bankruptcy, which lost the four wars (if one includes Kargil) it initiated against India. Islamabad is today threatening nuclear blackmail by saying, ‘If Kashmir is not solved (to their advantage, of course), we might fight a nuclear war against India.’ This is a terrible scenario which frightens us. But even if Pakistan manages to land one bomb on Delhi, it will be wiped out in the process. There will not be anything left worth the name, whereas, India because of its large size and manpower, will survive, as it survived for hundreds of years under Muslim rule.

When in 1399 Taimurlane killed 100,000 Hindus in one day, the psychological and physical impact it must have had on the families affected cannot be much worse than the impact of a single nuclear bomb. Finally, are Musharraf and the Pakistanis, who are hostile to India today, the descendants of Taimurlane or Aurangzeb or Ghor? Not at all. Most of them are the offspring of Hindus converted by force by Muslims; they are the ones who suffered the most at the hands of the soldiers of Allah. Why do they adopt a tone even more strident than the Mughals ?

4. Kashmir is the consequence, not the core issue. Pakistan wrecked this summit by insisting that Kashmir is the only issue. There are several flaws in this approach. Firstly, Kashmir, apart from being a symbol for Pakistan, does not have much value for them, apart from its tourist potential. True, Pakistan feels that in the logic of Partition, at least the Kashmir Valley should have come to it. They have a point, because having a Hindu maharaja did not necessarily mean the Valley should have come to India.

What neither Pakistan nor India realize is that Kashmir, like Ayodhya, Kargil, or the three Indo- Pak wars, is only the consequence of the madness of Partition, which was willed and forced upon the sub-continent by the British.

Remove Partition, and automatically all the problems will gradually get solved. The world is moving towards reunion. The two Germanys have reunited, so have the two Vietnams; tomorrow the two Koreas will do so, in spite of the intense hatred between them. Why not Pakistan and India, who share everything, except religion?

A Pakistani Punjabi does not look different from an Indian Punjabi; in Agra, one could not differentiate sometimes between a Pakistani journalist and an Indian one. India and Pakistan have got to start taking the first steps in that direction. Agra was such a small step; but first the two leaders have to start accepting this possibility in their own minds, before selling it to their people.

It is essential for peace in Asia and in the world, as Sri Aurobindo said 54 years ago: ‘The whole communal division into Hindu and Muslim seems to have hardened into the figure of a permanent political division of the country. It is to be hoped that the Nation will not accept the settled fact as forever settled. For if it lasts, India may be seriously weakened, even crippled; civil strife may remain always possible, possible even a new invasion and foreign conquest. The partition of the country must go…’

5. Finally, President Musharraf would be a good man to do business with. During his three days in India, he came across as an articulate person. He was at ease, warm sometimes, and in his own way must be a man of his word, a soldier’s word. His interaction with Indian journalists in Agra was masterly; he did not get flustered at the aggressive questions posed by some editors.

It would be History’s way of being ironic if a dictator and a man regarded by the Western press as the head of a ‘Hindu fundamentalist party’ made History by initiating the indispensable confederation of the two lost brothers of South Asia.

Bhutto resorted to anti-Indianism – Francois Gautier

Bhutto resorted to anti-Indianism – Francois Gautier

<!– Views : 339
–> January 2, 2008


Prime Minister Manmohan Singh described Benzair Bhutto as ‘one of the outstanding leaders of our sub-continent, who always looked for reconciliation between India and Pakistan’.

Most magazines are doing cover stories on her.

Bhutto is on the verge of becoming a ‘martyr of democracy’. It is a sad that a mother of three children was so brutally killed and we all mourn her terrible death.

Full coverage: Benazir Bhutto killed

Nevertheless, truth must be told. For, as usual, what the press says is not exactly what happened.

Firstly, under Bhutto, anti-Indian terrorism in the Kashmir region was fostered and increased. Benazir was also directly responsible for the ethnic cleansing of Hindus in Kashmir.

“She was instrumental in sponsoring jihad, openly inciting militants to intensify terrorism in India,” says Ajai Sahni, the executive director of the New Delhi-based Institute for Conflict Management. “I find it very difficult to discover a single element with her relationship to India that is positive and for the betterment of her country or the region,” he adds.

Remember how she was shouting her slogans of azaadi, and exhorting the people of Kashmir to cut Jagmohan, then governor of the state, into pieces, as in “jag-jag, mo-mo, han-han”. She would say this while making chopping motions with her right hand as it moved from her left wrist to the elbow, leaving nobody in any doubt as to what she meant.

Secondly, under Bhutto, the Taliban formed and, helped by Pakistan’s intelligence service, swept across Afghanistan and later hosted Osama bin Laden. It is a bit of an irony that she may have been killed by the very people she helped foster if at all she was murdered.

We South Asians like our leaders dead

Thirdly, she deliberately increased tension levels and then threatened India with a pre-emptive nuclear strike. The tension peaked when Bhutto repeated her late father’s immortal boast of waging a 1,000-year war against India. Even Rajiv Gandhi was forced to mock her in Parliament, asking if those who talked of a 1,000-year war could last even a 1,000 hours.

And fourthly, in her last speech before she died, she alluded to India as one of the threats Pakistan had to face, implying that if she was elected she would deal firmly with it.

Then why is it that Prime Minister Manmohan Singh calls her a friend of India and that Indians mount candlelight vigils in the Gateway of India for her?

I interviewed Benazir Bhutto twice, the second time as she was campaigning to be re-elected for a second term. The first question I asked, was about Kashmir, as she was the one who had called for Azad Kashmir, a Kashmir free from India, which had triggered the ethnic cleansing of most of the Hindus of the Valley of Kashmir — 400,000 of them had to flee their ancestral land.

“You know,” she answered, “You have to understand the Pakistani point of view on Kashmir. If one goes by the logic of Partition, then at least the Kashmir valley, which is in great majority Muslim — and it should be emphasised that for long the Hindus Pandits in Kashmir exploited and dominated the Muslims, who are getting back at them today — should have reverted to Pakistan. But let us say that officially we want to help grant Kashmiris their right to self-determination.”

“That’s the only reason?” I continued.

“No,” answered Benazir. “It should be clear also that Pakistan never forgot the humiliating loss of Bangladesh at the hands of India, although India claims it only helped Bangladesh to gain its freedom in the face of what the Bangladeshis say was Pakistani genocide. Zia’s emergence was a result of that humiliation.”

“But Zia hanged your father?” I interrupted.

“Yes and I hate him and god the almighty already punished him for that,” said Benazir, alluding to Zia’s death in a plane crash. “But Zia did one thing right, he started the whole policy of proxy war by supporting the separatist movements in Punjab and Kashmir, as a way of getting back at India.”

“What about Pakistan’s nuclear bomb?” I asked.

“That’s my father’s work,” she said proudly. “He realised, after having lost the 1965 and 1971 wars with India, that both numerically and strategically, we can never beat India in a conventional conflict. Thus he initiated the programme by saying that ‘We will get the nuclear bomb, even if we have to eat grass’.”

“But is it not a dangerous weapon if it falls in the hands of the fundamentalists of your country?” I asked.

Anti-Bhutto army factions behind the murder?

“No such danger,” Benazir answered. “Anyway, it is not only a deterrent against India’s military conventional superiority and an answer to India’s own nuclear capability, but also the ultimate weapon to re-assert Islam’s moral superiority.”

“We in Europe are going to unite in a Common Market, why don’t Pakistan and India forget their differences and form some kind of confederation with other South Asian countries, instead of killing each other?” I asked.

“Pakistan and India were never one country,” answered the imperious lady. “They were only kept together by force, whether by Mauryan, Moghul or British rule. Hindus have recognised the reality of Islam, and we needed our own country to feel free.”

I was flabbergasted: here was a lady educated in Oxford and Harvard, who mouthed such irrational statements. She spoke good English, was pretty, articulate and pleased the press.

But when in power, she had to resort to anti-Indianism to please her voters. Her husband was known as Mr 10 Per Cent. She was hounded out of power twice for incompetence and corruption.

Is she then a martyr of democracy?

History will tell.

Francois Gautier is the editor in chief of Paris-based La Revue de l’Inde

Source :

The Kurukshetra War of the 21st Century


” There is nothing wrong about war”, once said Sri Aurobindo. And it is true that throughout the ages, war has been an essential part of man’s life on this planet and there have been very few periods in modern history which have not seen strife. The French fought three bloody wars against the Germans in the last 125 years, India has battled five wars in 55 years, four against Pakistan, if you count Kargil, and one against the Chinese.

Of course the horrors of war, the devastation it creates, have been documented enough so that there is no need to delve upon them. In the olden times, it was accepted as a fact of life and very few people protested. Actually, of all the nations in the world, India is the one who handled best the business of war, as Sri Aurobindo points out: “Vedic India allowed for men’s inclination to war, but made sure that it never went beyond a certain stage, for only professional armies fought and the majority of the population remained untouched”. Indeed, at no time in ancient India, were there great fratricidal wars, like those between the British and the French, or even the Protestants and the Catholics within France itself.

But today, as there is a new awareness of the value of life, both human, animal and vegetal, man often recoils from the terrors of conflicts and its consequences on the human being and its environment. Naturally also, humanity aspires to a more harmonious life, where not only will it not be necessary to kill each other to survive, but also where all human beings would love and respect each other, regardless of their colour, religion and nationality. Thus, particularly in the United States during the Vietnam war, there manifested amongst the youth this longing for “no war, but peace”, as symbolized by the famous photo of a young American girl sticking a flower in the barrel of the gun of a national Guard. This antiwar pressure was so great that it took out the wind of the Unites States to fight this bloody conflict in a faraway country. and ultimately it surrendered meekly Vietnam to the Vietcongs. Since then, although there is no more such antiwar movement in the United States, American soldiers seem to have lost their valour and now their wars are fought from the safety of supersonic planes and very rarely on the ground. And as soon as a few American, or French, or English soldiers are killed, the will to fight goes, because of intense media and public pressure on Governments. This is why hijackers and kidnappers have such a field day now: they kill one or two people and whole governments surrender, as seen during the hijack of the Kathmandu-Delhi flight in December 1999. It takes Israelis soldiers to keep on fighting with their own public, press and government behind them, when suicide after suicide bombers kill scores of innocent people every month.

In India too, there has risen a strong, coherent antiwar lobby. Intellectuals such as Arundhadi Roy have brilliantly pleaded for a peaceful and restrained India, powerful but benevolent, who learns not to retaliate, to be merciful and generous towards her smaller neighbours. The spectre of a nuclear war has of course come as a strong argument for the antiwar lobby in India and we have seen in the last two weeks how both foreign correspondents and Indian magazines have used the available data on the horrendous consequences of a nuclear war to put pressure on the Government to back out from a conflict with Pakistan.

At any rate, Indian Governments have not been exceptionally bold militarily. Two factors appear to have inhibited the Indian courage to face adversity when faced with threats: the first is Buddhism, which made out of non-violence a rigid creed; and the second is the Mahatma Gandhi’s equally unbending theorem of non-violence, which may have precipitated India’s partition. And this is why maybe, under the guise of non-violence and peace, so many Indian intellectuals and politicians have shied away from war since independence, witness Nehru’s refusal to heed warnings about China’s hostility, which triggered the humiliation of the Indian army in 1962.

But will there be a nuclear war? Musharraf, whatever his obsession about Kashmir, which is basically a revenge for the loss of Eastern Pakistan, now Bangladesh, thanks to India’s support, is an intelligent man: he knows that if he does manage to drop one nuclear bomb on Delhi or Bombay, there will no more Pakistan worth the name, as all major Pakistani cities will be wiped off the face of the earth. Islam, who has made of the use of violence a near religious practice, understands the language of violence: see how it kept quiet when America showed its muscle after the 11th September attack, or when the Allies invaded Iraq. Thus Musharaff is doing a nuclear blackmail on the world… which is unfortunately working, as so many nations have evacuated their nationals and so much pressure is brought upon (successfully?) on India by the US and the EC.

If there is a war between Pakistan and India, whatever the politicians say, it will be a war between two brothers, for except for their religion, everything unite Indians and Pakistanis: their colour, ethnic origin, food habits, language… In fact, some Indian Muslim soldiers might have to shoot on some Pakistani cousins, or uncles. Will they pull the trigger when their commander says so? Will not their conscience tell them that it is wrong to shoot on one’s brothers? Does not that remind you of something? Did not Arjuna face the same dilemma five thousand years ago in Kurukshetra? Did he not throw his bow on the ground and tell Krishna: “no I will not fight, because war is such a horrible thing and I refuse to kill my bothers”.

But what does Krishna tell him: “not only you are not killing the soul, but merely the material body; but also sometimes, when all other means have failed and it is necessary to protect one’s borders, wives, children and culture, war can become dharma. And that brings in the final question: is a war against Pakistan justified? Would it be dharma? Well you have to decide for yourself: for nearly twenty years Pakistan has waged a proxy war against India in Punjab, in Kashmir and now more and more in the North-East; it has killed thousands of innocent people, raped women dismembered children, mutilated Indian soldiers in the most horrible manner… Several Indian Prime Ministers have made one-sided attempts at peace, without getting reciprocity from Islamabad.

Indeed, a war between Pakistan and India might be the Kurukshestra of the 21st century, the ultimate war which will set right fifteen hundred years of Islamic terror and both redeem the Hindus’ karma of cowardice, as well as the Muslims’ karma of bloodshed. This war, if it ever happens, will also pave the way for the reunification of India and Pakistan, by force or by natural means. For the two brothers can fight for a time, but ultimately they have to embrace each other anew, as they are basically one, beyond time and body, as Krishna once told Arjuna.

Francois Gautier