Western media stands by Two-Nation theory

Will NYT or Guardian demand that non-Muslims should not be allowed to settle in those locations in Detroit or Bradford where there is a majority of Muslims?

 

 

Among the numerous unsung achievements of Prime Minister P.V. Narasimha Rao was the quiet way in which he resisted the fierce pressure

of President Bill Clinton to hand over at least the Kashmir valley to the terror groups sent across the border from Pakistan. As any exhaustive investigation into the actual sources of the billions that have flowed into the Clinton Foundation would demonstrate, the 43rd US President was—and remains—as consistent a backer of the Wahhabi International as Senator Lindsey Graham and the numerous other prominent policymakers who mill around the Wahhabi trough, always generously supplied with funds by HNIs, especially in Qatar, a country that is particularly close to both Graham as well as the Clintons. During a visit to Washington, Prime Minister Rao was mercilessly prodded by President Clinton to sign an Instrument of Surrender that would replace the Instrument of Accession signed in 1947 by Hari Singh, of course after a delay caused by Jawaharlal Nehru’s insistence that the Maharaja of Kashmir function as a subordinate of Sheikh Abdullah. Whether it be Abdullah or Mountbatten or Patel (whose wise suggestions on Kashmir and on other geopolitical matters were serially ignored by Nehru), the emotions of India’s first Prime Minister were decisive in the fashioning of policies whose effects cast a terrible shadow over India even after the lapse of seven decades. At a joint press conference after Clinton’s fortunately futile efforts at convincing Rao to hand over Kashmir to the Wahhabis, the Indian Prime Minister was, somewhat tauntingly, asked by a journalist how he felt after having his “arms twisted by President Clinton”. Looking at President Number 43, Rao laughed and held out his arm, asking if it looked twisted. Throughout his tenure, Rao worked at ensuring that Pakistan-sponsored efforts at detaching Kashmir and Punjab from India failed, empowering those such as KPS Gill and General K V Krishna Rao who he felt could reverse the slide created by defective policy in the past. During the 1990s, whether it be CNN or BBC, the New York Times or the Washington Post, report after report came out that painted India as the villain and Pakistan-sponsored terrorists as saints. Even visible genocide, such as the expulsion of Kashmiri Pandits from Kashmir, or the systematic destruction of Sikh and Hindu places of worship in the disturbed areas, were ignored by these and other foreign television channels and newspapers in contrast to the laudatory stories which appeared almost daily about GHQ Rawalpindi proxies.

Despite 9/11, despite such atrocities of Wahhabi extremists as the genocide of Sunni Kurds, Christians, Yazidi, Shia and Druze in Iraq and Syria, despite the numerous terror attacks in North America and Europe, the same media outlets that stood by the GHQ Rawalpindi terror gangs in the 1990s have rallied yet again, this time to condemn the move of Prime Minister Narendra Modi to finally remove that monument to the “Two Nation” theory, Article 370. This columnist had pointed out more that once that Modi 1. 0 was 20% Modi, 40% Vajpayee and 40% Manmohan Singh. With the Balakot operation and now with the scrapping of Triple Talaq and Article 370, the percentage of “The Real Modi” in Modi 2. 0 has risen from 20% to 80%. The balance 20% is the continuing persistence of Chidambaram-style policies in North Block, the effect of which has been to deprive the country of what may be regarded as the “Modi Rate of Growth”, which is 12% per annum. In contrast, the Nehru Rate of Growth ( misnamed the Hindu rate of growth by Raj Krishna) is around 2%, the level of GDP growth witnessed during the Nehru years. North Block should be made by the PM and by the Finance Minister to remember that Gujaratis around the world did not prosper because of police methods, but because they were given freedom to do business, and were treated with respect, including by Chief Minister Modi. Hopefully, the time will not be long distant before the “Real Modi” quotient in the Modi Sarkar rises to the needed level of 99%.

And what of the New York Times, the Guardian, the Global Times, the Washington Post, the BBC and CNN (Al Jazeera is in a special case because the channel makes no secret of its affinity to the Wahhabi cause) that are daily airing reports that are a facsimile of the kind of reporting that was indulged in by them during the 1990s? Do the editors overseeing such reports even know what Article 370 is? It is an affirmation of the theory that Muslims and Hindus come from different planets and cannot live in peace together. Unfortunately for India, successive Prime Ministers accepted this toxic theory by continuing with Article 370, thereby walling off Jammu & Kashmir from the rest of India simply because the state has a Muslim majority. Will the New York Times or the Guardian demand that non-Muslims should not be allowed to settle in those locations in Detroit or Bradford where there is a majority of Muslim inhabitants? Or that Muslims in the US or the UK should be allowed to divorce simply by uttering “talaq” three times, or each have four wives? Both Russia and China have provinces where there is a “majority of the national minority”, but will the GHQ Rawalpindi-backing Global Times demand that people from the rest of China should not be allowed to settle in Xinjiang? If the editors of that newspaper find such an idea absurd, why are they backing it in India? Physicians of the media, first heal thyself. Demand an Article 370 in “minority as majority” locations in your own countries before heaping obloquy on Narendra Damodardas Modi for being the first Prime Minister since 1947 to jettison the “Two Nation” theory from the only state in the country where the Jinnah-Churchill doctrine still ruled supreme. Hindus, Muslims, Christians, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains, Parsis are all the same in a secular and democratic India.