Sir, I claimed that because while sharing your thoughts about Sadanand's thread opening article to the question "Why Pakistan Produces Jihadists", the following is what you were professing:
Like discussed earlier, the very fact that for sourcing the funds and the resources (both internally and internationally), the term Jehad was used for the Afgan war. Now that is already bringing in the religion. Is it not?
Was it a war for a democratic Afganistan or a benevolent act? In fact to quote your own worlds, you shared your thoughts about Pakistan's reasons for the Afgan war earlier in this thread as the following:
So to achieve its objectives the GoP resorted to creating an extremist version of Islam and enocouraged violence. In the process they created a huge pool of terror talent also in reserve from which it could draw a little bit later to also create a Jehad in Kashmir.
This investment in creating the valuable resource pool also helped bring in the Taliban (Students of Islam?) to power in Afganistan and begin their reign of terror in that country, and hence also achieving the objective of making Pakistan strategically deeper.
So you have to tell us what was it if not the Islamic Identity (canard?) that was used by the Pakistan Army and the GoP while advancing their goals internationally.
Now also internally in Pakistn during this period, a lot of international funds were used for creating "advance terror training schools" and (sadly) these were christened "madrasas".
Madrasas are Islamic institution for the study of the Quran and Islam and to suit the purpose of creating the extremism, the version of Islam being taught at these institutions was increasingly distorted towards creating the terrorist and extremist ideology.
Now tell me if this was not done in the garb of Islamic Identity?
Hence my comments that you are contradicting yourself when you say that the terror factories in Pakistan have nothing to do with the Islamic identity that your country has long espoused to the champion of.
A lot of erroneous assertions in there - the Mujahideen and their training camps were not set up as 'terror factories', they were set up as training camps for rebels fighting an occupation. The same with the Madrassa's, they were not set up and funded, primarily by the Arabs, to create terrorists and suicide bombers, but to preach a particular interpretation of Islam and motivate individuals to fight against an invasion and occupation. I would appreciate it, if you are going to continue this discussion, that you not distort history and the facts and ascribe to Pakistan and its policies attributes that they never possessed. Jihad is not something unique to the form of Islam taught in those madrassas nor is it something unique to Pakistan, and in the context of the Soviet occupation the call to Jihad against the occupation was a legitimate use of that particular religious tenet.
The Madrassas created during that time were not set up because of something specific to 'Pakistan's DNA' or identity, but from an 'Islamic POV. The fact that many of them were funded and created by the Arabs indicates that the creation of the Madrassa's transcended 'Pakistan's Islamic identity', and tapped into a global Islamic sentiment that the occupation of Afghanistan had to be fought, and that there was a religious obligation to fight against that occupation. What Dhume argues is that somehow this was all specific to Pakistan alone - had there been another Muslim nation in Pakistan's place, allied with the US, the policy decisions at the time would have been similar.
That is where Dhume's analysis, questioning Pakistan's identity alone (he specifically goes out of his way to contrast Pakistan with other Muslim nations) is flawed, and why there is no contradiction in my criticism of Dhume.
Though the above situations were surely not the beginning of the use of Islamic Identity by the army and the government of Pakistan (did it not start with Ayub Khan if not by Jinnah when stated that Pakistan will be a state for Muslims?), but is was surely not the last.
Jinnah spoke of a Muslim identity, not an Islamic identity - there is a difference.
As I mentioned earlier, put an Islamic/Muslim state other than Pakistan in Pakistan's place, facing the same geo-political situation and threats, and the response would have likely been the same, since Jihad against injustice and occupation would have been a rallying cry for any Muslim in that situation, especially when the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan could also be extrapolated to represent a threat to the Muslim/Islamic nation bordering it.
Your argument is that because Pakistan was Muslim/Islamic, it chose certain policies of encouraging Jihad and Madrassas to motivate rebels to fight Soviet occupation, but since Jihad is a central tenet of Islam, the only other option would have been if Pakistan was a non-Muslim majority State, which is obviously a ludicrous proposition.
And then we arrive at your following further contradiction.
So what does LeT and JuD claim to represent in Pakistan? Do they not go to the "awaam" saying that they represent the fight for Islam and the Jehad against the Hindus, Zionists, and the Kafir Americans and the world in general? Is their immediate agenda in Kashmir not laced with the hatred that they preach for other religions and countries and claim that they will hoist the "Sabz Hilali Parcham" on the Red Fort and in Washington and Tel Aviv and whatever they claim otherwise?
Yes what does the awaam think LeT and JuD claim? See that is the problem, you have no evidence to back up your argument that the awaam that supports the LeT/JuD believes it is supporting the above, whereas I have clearly pointed to polls that show the overwhelming majority opposes terrorism and attacks on innocents. If you have data indicating that the people who support the LeT/JuD do so because the want to see a 'Ghazwa-e-Hind' or 'elimination of all Kafirs' then please show me - without that all you are doing is engaging in hateful speculation and ascribing hateful views to Pakistanis.
For example, I consider my self well read and informed, yet the first I heard of HS's speeches and the agenda mentioned in the articles you refer to was on this forum, from links provided by Indians. To argue that the people who support the LeT/JuD are aware of all that content and support all of it is a flawed assertion. People don't even vote for politicians because they agree with every thing the politician says or stands for - typically it is because the politician supports something(s) that top the list of priorities for an individual. For most people who support LeT/JuD, from my conversations with them, that is the liberation of J&K from Indian occupation.
Is there are hardcore following of these organizations that is aware of everything they stand for and supports that entire agenda? Certainly, but to then argue that EVERYONE who supports the LeT and JuD falls in that category is illogical. To show that you will have to ask more than just 'do you support the LeT/JuD', and instead ask people specifically 'why they support LeT/JuD', or whether they support the position of 'Ghazwa-e-Hind' or 'kill the Kaafirs' or 'are attacks on innocents, non-Muslim & Muslim' justified?
The leader of the banned outfit, who clearly timed his rally ahead of the Indo-Pak talks, told a huge gathering of his supporters that jihad was the only option left as India would never let go of Kashmir. Threatening India with dire consequences he further said that India would suffer the same fate over Kashmir as the Soviet Union in
Afghanistan and the US reverses in Afghanistan.
Exactly - this is his major selling point, given that Kashmir is an important issue for a lot of Pakistanis.
I am not creating a definition of the LeT in own "luldicrous" way Sir. These are a mere sampling of the informaiton available on the net from several sources alike that I quoted above for your kind perusal. And that will be the case because the above is what LeT and JuD profess in their pamplets and their ideology when they make the speeches to the masses in Pakistan.
I did not say your definition of LeT/JuD's agenda was ludicrous, I said your argument that everyone who supports the above two organizations does so while being aware and agreeing with the entire LeT/JuD agenda as described in the articles you posted is ludicrous. I don't support the LeT, am pretty internet savvy and informed, and even I haven't read most of the stuff you posted.
In fact all of that points exactly opposite to the fact that in their quest to achieve their political and terrotarial objectives the army and government of Pakistan yielded space to such extremist ideology of Islam in the Pakistani society. Unfortunately they were very successful and we are asking the questions "Why Pakistani Produces Jehadists".
Correct, the GoP and Military did utilize these groups and Islamic ideology to achieve political and military objectives, but that was a policy decision influenced by geo-political dynamics and threats, and not something inherent to 'Pakistan's DNA or identity' while not being so for other Muslim nations.
As I said before, put another Muslim nation in Pakistan's place facing the same geo-political dynamics and threats and you might have the same results. Alternatively, change the course of historical events - no dispute over Kashmir, no Afghan refusal to accept Pakistan and support for terrorism in Pakistan, a Pakistani alliance/friendship with the Soviet Union, different leadership, no military coups etc. and with the same Pakistan there might be different results.
The problem with your and Dhume's contention is that you take a myopic approach to the situation, and because of an anti-Pakistan bias/prejudice automatically blame 'Pakistan's identity and DNA', when the reality is that any Muslim nation in Pakistan's position might have done the same, and Pakistan's policies were the result of complex geo-political dynamics and threat perceptions.
It is a highly flawed and narrow minded approach, that seeks to bolster an existing anti-Pakistan mindset and narrative.
So how did his country choices work on his thinking. You mentiond that he wanted to go in to Afgan Jehad. Now why would he do that. Surely the objective of the Pakistani army and government at that time were being achieved very clearly because the informational and educational environment at that time would have clearly put such thoughts in the mind of a child coming from a very educated and open disposition thinking type of family.
And then you ask me if the Islamic identity (not a canard anymore please Sir), was not used in shaping the thoughts and perceptions of the people of Pakistan by their government and the army (sort of what would sound like "brainwashing" to us un-informed individuals?)
Our learning is cognitive and also reactive/responsive.
Flawed argument, because were his decisions based on a Pakistani narrative, why did he not do so in his teens or twenties? Why did thousands of Arabs, Chechens, Turks and European born and bred Pakistani and non-Pakistani origin Muslims join both the Jihad in Afghanistan during Soviet times, and after the US invasion, and continue to do so?
Were the participants in these events solely Pakistanis, you might have a valid argument. Were a majority of Pakistanis subscribing to these views, you might have an argument. You pose a question that you left unanswered, 'Now why would he do that?'
He would do that because of a perception that his people were under attack from the US, because of a perception that his people were being massacred by the US, because some Imam somewhere, directly or indirectly (at this point some suggest a Yemeni, but it is not confirmed) influenced him in his later life to commit a crime to avenge a perceived crime.
So all of the above points exactly to the fact that the biggest challenge at hand for the polity of Pakistan is that they thin and moderate this Islamic Identity and ideology that has now brought their nation and its mostly innocent citizens to this precipice and retreat before all is lost for their nation and also for this region.
No it doesn't - the Islamic identity is not the problem, the problem remains eliminating havens for militant groups, and acting against extremist Islamic ideology, whether spread through a neighborhood mosque or through the internet, and working to negate its effects.
By accepting the problem, I am sure that solutions and also diverse help from several quaters will be more than forthcoming. Using religion as a tool to gain politcal and territorial ambitions never worked.
An improper diagnosis that misses the woods for the trees, as you have suggested, won't help much at all. The problem is reversing the loss of State control over various regions and entities, and winning the ideological battle against extremism, not against Islam or an Islamic identity.
My only argument is that Pakistan's army and its government unbashedly corrupted the religion and its preachings and its systems thereby creating a twisted Islamic Identity (still a canard Sir?) to achieve their political, dictatorial, regional and territorial ambitions.
Pakistan and its government did no such thing as a matter of policy, that is an outright lie. Distortion and corruption of religion happened on its own accord, given the peculiar cultural and political environment in which it evolved. I will warn you once again to not ascribe false attributes to Pakistan's policies - there was never any intent to corrupt or distort, to produce suicide bombers and terrorists. The intent was solely to utilize a central tenet of Islam to motivate rebels to fight against occupation and subjugation, a noble cause. That it evolved into the monster it is today is unfortunate, but not something forecast or planned by those that devised the policy.
