by G. B. Singh (July 2009)
Defeating Political Islam: The New Cold War (Hardcover)
by Moorthy S. Muthuswamy
(May 6, 2009)
About two years ago, Major General (U.S. Army Ret.) Paul Vallely (Chairman, Stand Up America, US Project) introduced to me a piece of writing authored by a US-based Indian person, named Dr. Moorthy S. Muthuswamy. Reading that article convinced me to alert Gen. Vallely to keep a safe distance from this author. Lately a few of my friends asked me if I had read Dr. Muthuswamy’s latest book “Defeating Political Islam: The New Cold War.” Noting the reputable Prometheus Books as its publisher, and in addition, finding that the book pursues the doctrine of Cold War against Islam persuaded me to procure a copy despite my doubts of its author.
This book is certainly complex and explores various avenues to pursue war against what the author calls the “axis of Jihad” comprising Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Pakistan. Countering this, the author charts a group of Allies: the United States, Israel, and India which are described as suited to lead the fight against the “axis of Jihad”—described as countries practicing the dictates of “Political Islam,”—the sole purpose of which is Islamic expansion at the expense of non-Islamic countries.
I agree with the author’s assessment on the nature of political Islam and its underlying doctrine consisting of the Islamic trilogy–the Quran, Hadith, and the Sira. I also agree with him that the Cold War as was once waged by the United States and its British and European allies against communism should be adopted as a model to be utilized against political Islam worldwide. However, my agreement with the author came to complete halt once I hit upon Muthuswamy’s further analysis and policy recommendations.
The author, like me, hails from India and is now settled in the United States. Nevertheless, much of his analysis pertaining to India is simply unsound. India as a country is portrayed as if it existed from time immemorial. Nowhere is an impression conveyed that India, just like Pakistan, is an artificial country, both by-products of the British Colonialism. Nowhere do we learn the role played by the upper-caste Hindus in thrusting the subcontinent into the hands of Islamic invaders. Nowhere does one get even a hint that the upper-caste Hindus were hand-in-glove with their Islamic brothers in ruling much of the subcontinent for roughly a thousand years and, or that they were instrumental in practicing heinous persecutions against the low castes both before and during the entire course of the Islamic rule. Nowhere do we learn anything about the nature of Hinduism, its political doctrines, and its entrenched caste system designed to keep roughly 85% of its masses in perpetual slavery. Nowhere do we encounter any description depicting the similarities of political Islam to those of political Hinduism.
While mentioning the formation of Pakistan in 1947 at the time of British exodus, and liberally blaming the Muslim populations at every given turn, we learn nothing about the noxious role played by those Hindu leaders under the spell of Modern Hinduism. And I sorely missed reading the nefarious role of Mahatma Gandhi who was dominant in leading those colossal events which led to the formation of Pakistan.
Incredibly, at a number of places the author blames the Islamists for the ongoing poverty among the Indian masses, thereby, willfully neglecting to reveal those doctrines of Hinduism which are chiefly responsible for the perpetuation of India’s poverty. Had the author addressed these pressing issues truthfully, his analysis of India would have carried some weight. Presented as such, his description of the “Siege of India” is terribly flawed from a historic and other analytic point of view.
Similarly, in the case of the Kashmir region which indeed is a “disputed territory” with its own separate history, the author is simply not willing to telling us the truth.
Take for another example, this paragraph on page 83:
Many do not know that Sikhism itself was baptized at the end of the medieval period into a warrior mode in order to withstand the onslaught of the ruling Muslim (Mughal) kings in India. Sikhism was originally founded by Nanak Dev, who was born in 1469. Unable to defend its followers from the relentless Mughal kings, in 1969 Sikhism’s tenth guru (leader) Gobind Singh, converted his people into a warrior order (Khalsa). The order requires the mandatory strapping of a sword by a Sikh male.
Preferring to bypass the obvious errors in the above paragraph, a question needs to be asked: Why does Muthuswamy resort to committing silly errors? Surprisingly, the answer is simple: A number of his references, including the paragraph in question, come directly from Wikipedia. Relying on Wikipedia certainly undermines his scholarship and should, at the very least, have been checked by the editor.
In addition, Muthuswamy has resorted to relying excessively on information put out by media controlled and run by the Hindu nationalists. Such questionable references should be read with extreme caution, and so regrettably, in dealing with India, the author has undermined his own scholarship.
India is repeatedly described as “secular” and “democratic.” At one point, however, the author mentions (on page 124) that the current Prime Minster is “unelected.” A question obviously follows: How could an unelected person becomes a prime minister in a democratic state? This quandary is left unresolved. The answer is a simple one. In accordance with the Constitution of India, there is no requirement for the government of India to be elected before occupying the office. Anyone familiar with the Indian constitution and the realities on the ground in India would refrain from describing India as “secular” or even “democratic” as these terms are understood in the Western sense.
Let us now examine some of the prescriptions that Dr. Muthuswamy has charted for dealing with threat of political Islam:
1. How would he handle the higher breeding rate among the Muslim population of France? On page 208, Muthuswamy details his course of action: Mass deportation of Muslims (whose ancestry is from Algeria) back to Algeria and similarly those from Morocco to be deported back to their homeland. In case Algeria (or even Morocco) refuses to take them back, Muthuswamy recommends that France declare war against Algeria and then after occupying it, complete the task of wholesale deportation. The author never entertains less dangerous alternate avenues to handle the situation nor does he discuss the possibility that France might, after the invasion, embroils itself in a quagmire or could even lose the war. Then what would be the consequences of such a rash and reckless action?
2. Moving on to India: How can India be a counterforce to the “axis of Jihad”? Reading the text, it is not entirely clear if Muthuswamy is recommending that the entire non-Muslim population of India or only the Hindu population should be transformed into a Hindu-Mujahidin military force, trained by the United States, similar to the ones in Afghanistan/Pakistan following the Soviet invasion. In this scenario, claims Muthuswamy, the United States will have at its disposal a 850 million strong guerilla-trained “Hindu-dominated” force, which once unleashed will cause havoc on the Islamic nations. Once again, Muthuswamy’s sweeping recommendations are poorly thought out.
Why, for example, would low-caste Hindus (who form the bulk of the Hindu population) acquiesce to this proposal? They, especially the Untouchables, have nothing to gain, but everything to lose. Educated and well-informed Untouchables will tell you pointblank that in their entire history of subjugation lasting thousands of years, they would actually prefer a Muslim master over a Hindu master. The other castes which make up the bulk of the low caste (Sudra) community will have nothing to gain from becoming new Mujahidin-types. Among the non-Hindu Indian community comprising the Sikhs, Christians, Buddhists, and Jains, nobody would be interested in joining in this venture because they have no love of the Hindu caste system.
Lastly, we are essentially left with roughly 150 million upper-caste Hindus. Given their personal traits which are unsuited for actual warfare, their long history of supporting Islamic rulers, and the fact that their political and religious worldview is similar to that of Islam, why would these bona-fide Hindus support the West in going against their fellow fascist ideologues? How many of them would even volunteer for guerilla training?
There are hosts of other problems in Muthuswamy’s policy recommendations which I will skip discussing for sake of brevity, but let me simply state that Muthuswamy has failed to provide any convincing argument in support of his thesis in light of the fact that neither the Indian government nor the United States government has expressed any interest in such dangerous endeavors.
Strangely, Dr. Muthuswamy sees some further potential benefits that might be derived from this adventure. Bangladesh and Pakistan’s Islamic populations (as one example) might come to embrace “alternate faiths.” Which ones? Which religion would the “Hindu-dominated Mujahidin” be likely to project upon its new subjects? Could it be anything other than Hinduism? Come to think of it, if Muthuswamy’s prescription were to bear fruit Uncle Sam would most likely be found to have subsidized the conversion of millions of Muslims into Hinduism! Muthuswamy is even bold enough to fancy that various Hindu fascist organizations united under the leadership of Mr. Narendra Modi, supported and groomed by the United States and other Western nations, will pay dividends against Islamism!
At another build-up scenario, Dr. Muthuswamy publishes four demands (on page 230) which he prescribes for India to use as an ultimatum against the Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. He listed them as:
* publicize the documentation to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Pakistan and Saudi Arabia have been involved in the indoctrination of the local Muslim community from which terrorist acts originated.
* use this documentation to bring crimes against humanity charges against these nations at the International Criminal Court.
* demand compensation from these nations.
* demand that Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, or other jihad-sponsoring nations require their leading clerics to tell Indian Muslims to deemphasize Islamic doctrine and to instruct Indian Muslims to stop further armed jihad.
Just in case these two countries refuse to buckle, Muthuswamy goes further, elevating the Indian response: preemptive nuclear strikes on both Pakistan and Saudi Arabia!
I think by this time the reader should have enough insight into realizing that Muthuswamy’s prescriptions are outright dangerous, and unworthy of any serious deliberations. I am not alone in saying this. Steven Emerson, Executive Director of the Investigative Project on Terrorism, in his foreword to this book expressed somewhat similar remarks, strongly disagreeing with Muthuswamy’s recommendations and opinions. Having said that, I certainly commend the author for airing the generic version of a “cold war” doctrine against political Islam, which has merits for further study and analysis. Before I conclude, let me introduce to the reader a comment of Winston Churchill, former British prime minister. After exhausting a significant amount of his time reading and analyzing the thoughts of caste-educated Hindus, he concluded by referring to them as “foul race.” What he had in his mind was caste-Hindu’s deep-seated habit of dishonesty, telling lies, committing frauds, deceptions, hypocrisy, and other such characteristics that belittle any human being or any civilization. Whether Muthuswamy exhibited any such traits in his book, the readers should make their own opinion.
G. B. Singh is the author of Gandhi: Behind the Mask of Divinity (Prometheus 2004) and Gandhi Under Cross Examination (Sovereign Star 2009)
To comment on this article, please click here.
To help New English Review continue to publish critical and informative book reviews such as this one, please click here.