Tag: United States Politics

How does the leading Republican candidate for the US presidency, Donald Trump, square off with Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi at the helm of the so-called Islamic State group?

For many, shoving the two names in the same headline is anathema. Drawing any association between them is an abomination.

After all, how could anyone in their right mind dare to compare the clean-shaven, white businessman and leading candidate to the highest public office in the oldest liberal democracy, with the bearded fundamentalist preacher, former inmate, and head of the world’s most notorious terrorist group, ISIL?

Defining extremism

Extremism is a loaded word. Its use in geopolitical newspeak has never been objective.

Conferring labels such as “extremist” or “moderate” on individuals, movements, leaders and regimes has generally been ideological and therefore unproductive. It has, however, been a useful imperial construct.

Allies of global powers are described as “moderates”, whereas political opponents are classified as “extremists” or “terrorists”.

In this regard, extremism is reliant – mainly if not exclusively – on the actors and not on their actions. For example, if you are a US ally, you are by definition a moderate, because it is assumed that the US epitomises moderation.

Lumping together different peoples and groups as ‘extremists’ out of distaste for their ideas or religion is as wrong as it is counterproductive.

It is irrelevant in this context whether a group or a regime wages wars, commits acts of terror, and occupies other people, or, if they are religiously intolerant and totalitarian. On the contrary, they are defined as being moderate according to their political orientation. Even after the US invaded and occupied Iraq on false pretenses, it continued to label Iraqis as moderates and extremists, depending on their support of its endeavour.

The same applies to Russia and other imperial or regional powers. In Moscow, the Syrian regime is portrayed as moderate despite the government’s brutal policies.

The opposition movement, on the other hand, according to Russia, falls on the “extremist” end of the spectrum simply for not being in line with the Kremlin’s foreign policy. This is as false as it is misleading.

Lumping together different peoples and groups as “extremists” out of distaste for their ideas or religion is as wrong as it is counterproductive.

For the sake of brevity, let me just say that, beyond the realm of imperial constructs and “language control”, extremism as moderation can only be defined in terms of how the moral imperative is found or lost in the use of means and attainment of ends. Or more precisely, how far the “ends justify the means”, regardless of their immorality or wickedness.

Back to Trump and Baghdadi

Trump, in the words of The New York Times, is a “shady, bombastic liar”, who is hardening the image of the Republican party “as a symbol of intolerance and division”.

Trump’s call for banning Muslims from entering the US presumably to maintain security, or his disdain for Latinos under the pretext of protecting the “American” workers are all a case in point. He has even accused Mexico of sending rapists and drug runners to the US.

Two former Mexican presidents, not known for their haste, have compared Trump to Hitler.

Trump’s racist and extremist rhetoric, for the time being, has allowed him to succeed in rallying the support of angry white Americans in order to win the presidency.

On the face of it, such extremism could be seen as no more than a campaign tactic to eclipse his opponents, who have been repeating the same old tired slogans and cliches.

Or, as I wrote previously, Trump’s danger lies not in his political or ideological extremism but rather his vulgar populism. In the process, however, he is further radicalising the American Right.

And yet, Trump’s rhetoric does not measure up to Baghdadi’s actions. The latter has established a totalitarian “rule” that constantly represses non-Muslims and enslaves the likes of Yazidis in the name of a Caliphate.

The Bush-Bin Laden precedence

But when I think of these provocative men dominating global news and of what they may become, I remember George W Bush and Osama bin Laden.

I remember how they drove the world to the brink through terror and by labelling each other “evil”, each claiming to be holier than thou.

They gained no greater legitimacy and support than from feeding into each other’s hatred and incitement.

Each side seemed to sanction the other, and bringing down the evil empire justified all means, including the horrific attacks of 9/11, just as defeating al-Qaeda justified all means, including war and occupation, in addition to torture for good measure.

Trump is yet to be nominated, let alone elected. Yet his incitement is already feeding into ISIL’s conspiratorial propaganda, just as the latter’s actions are pushing more Americans into Trump’s lap.

It remains to be seen if or when a “President Trump” will indeed be as reckless as Bush.

Confronting extremism

There is no doubt that grievances matter, especially to those most affected. But these should not be used as a ploy to inflame the souls, and drive further extremism.

Extremism could have different roots and ideologies, and it could harden in self-defence or for self-preservation, and it can result in minor or devastating damage, but in general, the record shows that extremism on one side is no remedy for extremism on the other.

On the contrary, it provokes more of the same violence and war. And even if it results in short-term gains, the long-term consequences of extremism on the very cause they claim to be fighting for, are generally catastrophic.

That is why it is high time for the true moderates on all sides; those who believe the means are no less important than the ends; those driven by moral imperatives – not religious bigotry and political and geopolitical greed – to stand together against the immoral extremism that has fuelled the cycle of hatred and violence.

——–
By Marwan Bishara at Al Jazeera.

In what is being hailed as a “victory for outsiders”, Bernie Sanders, the underdog in the U.S. Democratic nomination race, stole a march on former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in the first primary elections of the season, in New Hampshire, and controversial property billionaire Donald Trump captured the most Republican votes. Mr. Sanders, a Senator from Vermont, won 60.4 per cent of the primary vote in the State, leading Ms. Clinton by nearly 22 points. In doing so, he scooped up 15 delegates to her nine and almost instantly attracted a wave of donor funding to his campaign, to the tune of$6.4 million. Although New Hampshire is preponderantly white, the self-proclaimed “Democratic Socialist” won a thumping majority across a variety of demographic cohorts, except for those over 65 years of age and for households earning more than $200,000. While he may have benefited from New Hampshire sharing a border with Vermont, this early upset in Ms. Clinton’s presumed-unassailable lead has thrust Mr. Sanders’s campaign into fourth gear and energized his supporters across the U.S. Importantly, his victory has put the Democratic Party establishment, which until now has thrown its weight behind Ms. Clinton, on notice. Although the party’s “super-delegates” are supporting Ms. Clinton over Mr. Sanders by a margin of 355-14, they may well switch their support to Mr. Sanders if he continues to snatch victories in other States.

Yet, by no means is it obvious that Mr. Sanders’s call for a “revolution” will thus sway every State. At the national level Ms. Clinton outperforms Mr. Sanders in the support she enjoys with minorities by 71 to 20 per cent. She has vigorously courted the African-American demographic, with a recent visit to Flint, Michigan, to discuss its water-poisoning crisis; she has announced joint campaigns with the families of unarmed African-Americans who died in controversial encounters with law enforcement; and post-New Hampshire she will likely focus her campaign on systemic racism, criminal justice reform, voting rights and gun violence. Mr. Sanders, who will face his first big test with the African-American vote in the mixed demographics of South Carolina and is possibly aware of the weak link in his campaign strategy, met this week with civil rights leader Reverend Al Sharpton to amplify his message of support to this community. It is unclear what dividends such late man oeuvres could yield. The other critical factor is the rise and rise of Mr. Trump. Although he is the philosophical antithesis of Mr. Sanders, they share certain similarities: their attacks on dark pools of campaign finance dominating U.S. elections; their rejection, albeit for different reasons, of the notion of American exceptionalism; and their anti-establishment positions, including distrust of the mainstream media. If these two men float to the top through the primary races, that must reflect Americans’ frustration with the jaded politics of Washington. But equally they must know that each man holds firm to a radically different vision for reshaping their country.

When Republicans gather for their next thought process before the primaries in 2016, one of the main issues all the candidates should be required to address is what each thinks of the controversial statements and arguments that Donald Trump has made about everything from Russia, Foreign Policy, Domestic Policy & how to fight ISIS.

Playing to fears can help candidates gain attention from the news media and the electorate, and it offers an easy way to depict their opposition as incapable of leading. According to a recent New York Times/CBS News poll, fears of terrorism have boosted Trump’s position.

Trump has a habit of taking campaign rhetoric to more dramatic places. In response to the horrific series of attacks conducted by ISIS, Trump kept saying things that led observers to ask whether he had finally reached the tipping point of going so far that there would be an electoral backlash.

Last month, Trump said that he would ban all Muslims from traveling to the United States. He has called for a federal registry of Muslims, while also promising to “take out” the families of terrorists. Trump says he would bring back the use of waterboarding. If it didn’t work, well, “they deserve it anyway,” he said. Trump has complained that Americans are too politically sensitive about profiling people who could be potential terrorist threats and “that’s part of the problem we have with our country.”

There has been a noticeably tough response from Republicans. “We need to aggressively take on radical Islamic terrorism but not at the expense of our American values,” said RNC Chairman Reince Priebus. “This is not conservatism,” said House Speaker Paul Ryan.

But some are skeptical about where the GOP stands. The New York Times editorial board published a blistering piece about Trump’s influence, writing, “The Republican rivals rushing to distance themselves from his latest inflammatory proposal … have been peddling their own nativist policies for months or years. They have been harshening their campaign speeches and immigration proposals in response to the Trump effect.”

Trump’s embrace of the politics of fear is not that surprising. There is a long tradition in campaigns of candidates who have played to the worst sentiments of the electorate during times when there are serious national security threats.

History’s lessons
Historically, when politicians recklessly use the politics of fear, bad things happen. On the most basic level, damaging rhetoric results in injustices being committed to innocent citizens. For example, World War I had a devastating impact on many German-Americans. Other immigrant groups were harassed and saw their loyalty questioned. In April 1918, Robert Prager, a German coal miner who had applied for U.S. citizenship, was lynched by a mob. In 1919 and 1920, Attorney General Mitchell Palmer led a massive crackdown on individuals and groups associated with the left during the “red scare.” In the years that followed, nativism fused with anti-communism to produce a severe crackdown on immigration.

Japanese-Americans were forced to live in internment camps during World War II, an action that has remained a huge black mark on Franklin Roosevelt’s record as commander in chief, as was his adminstration’s refusal to admit Jewish refugees who were desperately fleeing from Nazi Germany.

In 1968, George Wallace’s independent campaign for president stirred up racial and social resentment against the gains on racial equality and civil rights in the 1960s.

There are also political dangers for the Republican Party in using this kind of rhetoric, even though it often seems appealing in the short term. For decades, Democrats paid the price for being the party that intensified the war in Vietnam.

In the early 1980s, when Ronald Reagan used pointed language to speak about the “Evil Empire” of the Soviet Union, advisers urged him to be more proactive in pursuing peace after fears emerged in 1983 of the possibility of a nuclear war. President George W. Bush’s war in Iraq dragged down his presidency. It is not clear right now, even if polls temporarily show support for ground troops in Syria, that the nation would really be willing to take on another protracted ground war that will cost human lives and a big chunk of our national budget.

Finally, there are huge policy dangers that come from this kind of fear strategy, as it has historically stimulated a dynamic that drives political parties into poor decision-making. This undermines the nation’s ability to effectively combat threats.

During the 1950s, too many members of both parties sat by silently as Joseph McCarthy and his allies cast an extraordinarily wide net in the search for alleged communists in the United States, violating civil liberties and damaging lives in the process. These actions polarized and divided a nation otherwise united in the fight against communism.

The end of the conservative party

If you look beyond Donald Trump’s comprehensive unpleasantness – is there a disagreeable human trait he does not have? -you might see this: He is a fundamentally sad figure. His compulsive boasting is evidence of insecurity. His unassuageable neediness suggests an aching hunger for others’ approval to ratify his self-admiration. His incessant announcements of his self-esteem indicate that he is not self-persuaded. Now, panting with a puppy’s insatiable eagerness to be petted, Trump has reveled in the approval of Vladimir Putin, murderer and war criminal.

Putin slyly stirred America’s politics by saying Trump is “very .?.?. talented,” adding that he welcomed Trump’s promise of “closer, deeper relations,” whatever that might mean, with Russia. Trump announced himself flattered to be “so nicely complimented” by a “highly respected” man: “When people call you brilliant, it’s always good.” When MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough said Putin “kills journalists, political opponents and invades countries,” Trump replied that “at least he’s a leader.”

Besides, Trump breezily asserted, “I think our country does plenty of killing also.” Two days later, Trump, who rarely feigns judiciousness, said: “It has not been proven that he’s killed reporters.”

Well. Perhaps the 56 journalists murdered were coincidental victims of amazingly random violence that the former KGB operative’s police state is powerless to stop. It has, however, been “proven,” perhaps even to Trump’s exacting standards, that Putin has dismembered Ukraine. (Counts one and two at the 1946 Nuremberg trials concerned conspiracy to wage, and waging, aggressive war.)

Until now, Trump’s ever-more-exotic effusions have had an almost numbing effect. Almost. But by his embrace of Putin, and by postulating a slanderous moral equivalence -Putin kills journalists, the United States kills terrorists, what’s the big deal, or the difference? – Trump has forced conservatives to recognize their immediate priority.

Certainly conservatives consider it crucial to deny the Democratic Party a third consecutive term controlling the executive branch. Extending from eight to 12 years its use of unbridled executive power would further emancipate the administrative state from control by either a withering legislative branch or a supine judiciary. But first things first. Conservatives’ highest priority now must be to prevent Trump from winning the Republican nomination in this, the GOP’s third epochal intraparty struggle in 104 years.

In 1912, former president Theodore Roosevelt campaigned for the Republican nomination on an explicitly progressive platform. Having failed to win the nomination, he ran a third-party campaign against the Republican nominee, President William Howard Taft, and the Democratic nominee, New Jersey Gov. Woodrow Wilson, who that November would become the first person elected president who was deeply critical of the American founding.

TR shared Wilson’s impatience with the separation of powers, which both men considered an 18th-century relic incompatible with a properly energetic executive. Espousing unconstrained majoritarianism, TR favored a passive judiciary deferential to elected legislatures and executives; he also endorsed the powers of popular majorities to overturn judicial decisions and recall all public officials.

Taft finished third, carrying only Utah and Vermont. But because Taft hewed to conservatism, and was supported by some other leading Republicans (e.g., Sen. Henry Cabot Lodge, one of TR’s closest friends, and Elihu Root, TR’s secretary of war and then secretary of state), the Republican Party survived as a counterbalance to a progressive Democratic Party.

In 1964, Barry Goldwater mounted a successful conservative insurgency against a Republican establishment that was content to blur and dilute the Republican distinctiveness that had been preserved 52 years earlier. Goldwater defeated New York Gov. Nelson Rockefeller for the nomination, just as Taft had defeated TR, a former New York governor. Like Taft, Goldwater was trounced (he carried six states). But the Republican Party won five of the next seven presidential elections. In two of them, Ronald Reagan secured the party’s continuity as the custodian of conservatism.

In 2016, a Trump nomination would not just mean another Democratic presidency. It would also mean the loss of what Taft and then Goldwater made possible – a conservative party as a constant presence in U.S. politics.

It is possible Trump will not win any primary, and that by the middle of March our long national embarrassment will be over. But this avatar of unfettered government and executive authoritarianism has mesmerized a large portion of Republicans for six months. The larger portion should understand this:

One hundred and four years of history is in the balance. If Trump is the Republican nominee in 2016, there might not be a conservative party in 2020 either.

Travelling from east to west in the US, from the Atlantic to the Pacific, gave one an occasion to see the world’s sole superpower totally preoccupied in dealing with the aftermath of a terrorist strike. This terrorist attack, in which 14 innocent people were gunned down in the small town of San Bernardino in southern California, was executed by an immigrant couple of Pakistani origin. The uproar and outrage that followed, led to strident calls for ending immigration of Muslims, who are facing personal attacks, insults and desecration of their places of worship across the country. It is ironic that in the recent past, the US has been pontificating on the need for “tolerance” in India.

One consequence of these developments has been the admiration in important sections of the American Establishment at how India, with an estimated Muslim population of 180 million, has maintained communal peace and harmony. It has been noted, that unlike in the US and Europe, few, if any, Indian Muslims have shown interest in joining the ranks of global terrorist organisations like the Al-Qaeda earlier, or the IS now. While visiting the US recently, Defence Minister Manohar Parrikar asserted that India is confident that its Muslim citizens will not be radicalised. Meetings with well-connected US friends in Washington and New York revealed a marked improvement in the climate of relations and widespread bipartisan support for India in the US Congress. The India-US relationship is, however, viewed by the Obama Administration in predominantly transactional terms. There is little empathy, or understanding, for India’s policies and concerns in its western neighbourhood, ranging from Pakistan and Afghanistan, across the Mediterranean, to Turkey. There are also questions about the reliability of the US to abide by commitments made on India’s “Act East” policies.

Whether in New York, Washington or California, one could not help noting the widespread feeling that Prime Minister Narendra Modi has introduced qualitatively new dimensions in reinvigorating the US-India relationship. This was especially evident in the growing confidence about India in large sections of the business, industrial and high-tech establishments. The target of expanding the levels of bilateral trade in goods and services from $100 billion annually to $500 billion is no longer regarded as a pipe dream. There is confidence that India will continue on the path of perhaps being the fastest growing economy in the world in the years ahead. American business is, for the first time, seriously taking note of Indian determination to emerge as a strong industrial power by enhancing its manufacturing capabilities. American industries, in areas ranging from aerospace to motorcars, are now showing increasing confidence in India’s emergence as a significant industrial partner.

It is fortuitous that after an era when the Pentagon showed little interest in understanding India’s defence needs and strategic compulsions, the present Defence Secretary, Ashton Carter, recognises that India cannot be treated like Pakistan or Turkey. New Delhi has well-established defence partnerships with major arms suppliers like Russia, Israel, France, Germany and the UK. Japan has now joined this list of strategic partners. It is in this background, that readiness is now being shown by the US arms industry and the Pentagon to expand areas of cooperation into fields like aero-engines for multi-role combat aircraft, aircraft carriers, artillery and attack helicopters. This development has to be assiduously utilised to leverage our relations with other partners like Russia, where we have been experiencing problems of escalating prices and poor serviceability of critical weapons systems.

These developments do not mean that relations with the US are free of problems. In our immediate western neighbourhood, we are seeing the emergence of a tripartite US-China-Pakistan partnership to promote reconciliation with the Taliban, in a process from which India has been deliberately excluded. A return of the Taliban to the corridors of power in Afghanistan will have serious consequences for India’s security, given the Taliban’s past record and close ties with anti-Indian groups like the Jaish-e-Mohammed and the Lashkar-e-Taiba. In deference to Pakistani exhortations, the US has left the Afghan armed forces ill-equipped to face the Taliban-ISI challenge to the country’s sovereignty. While India is providing three attack helicopters, it needs to do far more to strengthen Afghan capabilities in areas like artillery, armoured vehicles and aircraft. Proactive diplomacy with Russia, its Central Asian partners neighbouring Afghanistan and Iran is required to achieve this.

The US shows little interest in a meaningful dialogue with India on developments in West Asia, evidently because of its traditional policy of looking at this region through a Pakistani prism. Washington needs to be reminded that India has crucial interests in this region, where six million Indians live, remitting back around $50 billion annually. India, which is a major importer of oil and gas, is one of the few countries which enjoys cordial relations with all three major regional powers – Saudi Arabia, Iran and Israel. India can play a useful role in encouraging de-escalation of regional tensions. Moreover, unlike its western neighbours, India is not afflicted by Shia-Sunni tensions.

There are indications that even in India’s eastern neighbourhood, President Obama is backtracking on promises he made on India’s quest for greater integration with institutions across the Indo-Pacific Region. This includes Mr Obama’s written commitment to back India’s membership of APEC. Trade lobbies in the US are now linking APEC membership for India to New Delhi diluting its stand on a host of issues, ranging from Intellectual Property Rights to trade liberalisation. It is being pointed out that Indian policies do not permit it to get membership of the American-led Trans-Pacific Partnership – a free trade area in which all major trading partners across India’s eastern shores, except perhaps for the present China, are set to join. This could lead to a loss of about $50 billion in India’s exports, including crucial areas like textiles. While President Obama is determined to push through legislation approving the setting up of the Trans-Pacific Partnership, he has just over a year left in office. This is a period India should utilise to determine how it would deal with the incoming Administration. India is now well positioned to have a business-like relationship with anyone who comes to power, be it Hillary Clinton, or even the mercurial Donald Trump!

(A former diplomat the author is Visiting Professor at the Centre for Policy Research, New Delhi, and a Senior Fellow at the Centre for Strategic and International Studies in New Delhi)

After Trump’s call to ban Muslims from America drew comparisons with the Nazi dictator, Adolf Hitler, some have started refereeing to him as “The New Fuhrer”. A spokesperson for the Council on America-Islamic Relations compared Trump’s  venomous attack on Muslims to Nazi rhetoric from the 1930s, saying the Republican candidate “sounds more like a leader of a lynch mob than a great nation like ours.”

Whatever one may think of it, businessman Donald Trump’s recent call for a temporary ban on Muslim immigration is in no way directly comparable to the very genuine horrors of the Holocaust, or the murderous regime of Adolf Hitler; however, it does share some early signs of the horror to come which Hitler showed in his book “Mein Kampf”.

Words can be wielded both for good and for evil. Mr. Trump’s continuous use of dark powerful words in his bid for the White House  will have an everlasting effect on American way and the values we are known for.

Free speech Vs. Hate speech Vs. Plan Sedition – His way with words has rarely been seen in modern politics, except used by the very people that Trump is trying to save America from. He continues to move on hate politics with his potent language to connect with, and often stoke the fears and grievances of Americans.

Difference of Opinion Vs Right to Co-Exist – We have seen this grow into the WWII and must see this together from the philosophical as well logical viewpoint.

Philosophical view tells us that to have dissent is a way of life and logically if everyone shared the same view, then there would not have been any disagreement  ever. There is no limit to how much a person can rise or fall when it comes to morals and we have had plenty of examples from the last 2000 years of documented history on this.

But it is because of history that our society has evolved and it has taken us a long time to break from the clutches of slavery, oppression and dictatorship.

In this era  where radicalization /suppression has become the tool to justify one man’s fight for justice to become terrorism for another man words play a much larger role and have to be weighed properly.

Still Donald Trump has said he will never leave the 2016 race despite widespread criticism of his remarks, especially about Muslims. Mr. Trump is the current frontrunner among the Republicans running for president, six weeks before the primary contests begin for each party to pick their nominee. Republican Party officials fear a third-party Trump campaign would spilt the Republican vote, and give Democrats a winning advantage.

A White House spokesperson said Mr. Trump was “disqualified” from running after he said the US should ban Muslims from entering the country.

The latest world leader to reject his remarks was Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who said Israel “respects all religions”, hours after Mr. Trump announced he will be visiting the country this month.

Here are some of Mr. Trump’s comments :

• Arab Americans cheered on the 9/11 attacks, despite a lack of evidence
• A “great, great wall” should be built between the US and Mexico
• Many Mexicans in the US are criminals and rapists
• There should be a mass deportation of illegal migrants in the US
• Muslims should be banned from entering the US solely on grounds of their religion

5 Ways Donald Trump Perfectly Mirrors Hitler’s Rise to Power

● 5. He blames a Specific Group of Immigrants for all our problems (and promises to eliminate them from our society)

● 4. He’ll sell his hate as hope for the poorest citizens in this country

● 3. Don’t think concentration camps; just think prisons

● 2. Not taking him seriously makes him more dangerous

● 1. He used to keep a copy of Hitler’s sequel to Mein Kampf by his bed

Reasons Why Trump might  just Win

• Despair: Imagine if on almost every issue important to you over the last eight years you’re watching the other side win. It is hard to underestimate the anger of the Republican primary voter. First, The President and then the Pope and it feels to you like the world is collapsing. Think about gay marriages and socialized medicine.
• Issues: Three of the main issues animating Trump’s candidacy?- ?immigration, free trade, and political corruption.
• Desire: One of the things about political campaigns is that generally speaking the candidate who wants it most tends to win. You have to really want it.
• Poll trends: Opinion Polls don’t always tell the truth in a snapshot but that the trends in polls over time are worth trusting.
• Confidence: Trump sticks to his guns and seemed untroubled even after making wrong statements. He doesn’t apologize

Republican Party voters will begin voting on 1st  February in Iowa, followed by New Hampshire and then a bevy of other states, to decide who will represent the party against the Democratic nominee.

Ideally, time will prove if there are more crazy comments in store, but approaching the Trump candidacy as a comedy sketch that will never come true could potentially be the most tragic mistake this country will ever make, and you don’t need to look any further than the publicly documented words and actions of the man himself to see just how true that is.

My Opinion: No to nomination or presidency. 

For the avoidance of doubt, we are merely comparing rhetoric here. Whatever the perceived similarities  in the things they say, there remains a vital difference in what they do: Hitler caused the deaths of millions; Mr. Trump has no criminal record and is a democratic politician running in a free election.

Since November 13, when seven coordinated attacks in Paris causing 130 deaths, reminiscent of the 26/11 carnage in Mumbai in 2008, shook Europe and made the world pause, public opinion in Western Europe and the US has lurched more to the right. The December 2 shooting spree by a couple of Pakistani origin in Bernardino, California, that left 14 dead has raised questions about the role of Islam in the West.

In the US, a paroxysm of anti-Islam sentiment has erupted, reflected in the 24 Republican governors, almost half the total, plus a Democrat, refusing to admit any of the 10,000 Syrian refugees that President Barack Obama announced will be admitted. They refused to take even infant orphans, compelling the President to dub such behavior “potent recruitment tool” for the Islamic State. President Obama, quoting Pope Francis in support, added that the US must “protect people who are vulnerable”, irrespective of their faith.

France reacted to the attack with unforeseen ferocity, with French President Francoise Hollande asserting they will act “without pity”. The unprecedented success thereafter in regional polls of right-wing National Front, combining star power of niece Marion and aunt Marine Le Pen, sweeping six out of 13 regions, had the German Social Democrats declaring it as “wake-up call for democrats in Europe”.

The most politically incorrect statement came from Donald Trump, front runner amongst US presidential Republican candidates. He said if elected, he would shut the door for all Muslim immigrants, pending a proper review. The White House reacted saying this disqualifies Trump from the race.

Against this backdrop, India chose to allow its National Security Adviser meet that of Pakistan in Bangkok on December 6-7, accompanied by the foreign secretaries. Questions were raised by the Indian media and the Opposition how this squared with BJP’s much-professed red-lines. In reality, both nations readjusted their positions for mutual accommodation. The Indian condition that the Ufa statement only required terror to be discussed first was dropped as the joint statement indicated discussions having covered peace and security, terrorism and Jammu and Kashmir.

Pakistan’s insistence to mainstream its proxy, the Hurriyat, was negated by the dialogue moving overseas. On the positive side, Pakistan has positioned Lt Gen Janjua, recently retired corps commander based in Quetta, overseeing operations in Baluchistan, as their NSA, in lieu of Sartaj Aziz. This opens a line to the Pakistani military, though it could also backfire if an obdurate line is adopted by the nominee, who may not be amenable to urgings from the civilian government.

Literally hours after this meeting, Ms Sushma Swaraj, External Affairs Minister, landed in Pakistan to attend a 14-nation Hearts of Asia conference, pursuant to the Istanbul Process on the regional nations acting in concert to stabilize Afghanistan via confidence-building measures. As is normal, the focus was more on Ms Swaraj’s interaction with Pakistani leaders than the conference. Counting on Pakistani assurances on curbing India-specific terror machinery on Pakistani soil will be risky till concrete change is visible. Afghanistan in this context can be either a bridge for India-Pakistan cooperation or a theatre for lethal contestation.

In an unprecedented move, Anton Blinken, visiting US Deputy Secretary of State, in a press interview in Delhi, revealed that the US had urged Gen Raheel Sharif, Pakistan’s chief of army staff, during his Washington trip to act against Lashkar-e-Taiba and Jaish-e- Mohammed with the same vigor he was showing against the Tehrike Taleban Pakistan. The US planned to hold the general to his promise.

The conclusion from these choreographed events is that much spade work has gone into reviving the India-Pakistan parleys and mutual commitments on each side addressing the other’s core agenda. However, the lesson from observing the flip-flops in the Modi government’s Pakistan policy, with bonhomie suddenly dissipating into public acrimony, is that there may be more turbulence in the future, particularly once electioneering commences for the polls in W Bengal and Assam.

The bigger danger to India is from succumbing to the mindless majoritarianism being witnessed in the US and Europe. The debate in India on tolerance has been dismissed by figures close to the Modi regime as baseless. Also ignored is the reasoning that making any group – religious, ethnic or ideological -insecure causes its alienation and increases the possibility of it resorting to extra-constitutional means. Many Donald Trumps occupy responsible positions in India today, but there is no President Barack Obama to confront their bigotry. Even during his state visit to India in January this year, one of Obama’s last messages to PM Modi was for India to retain its commitment to freedom of faith and expression.

India has, so far correctly, focused on Pakistan-sponsored terror. But today, global jihad emanating from the caliphate of the ISIS is a parallel danger to the entire South Asia. Its initial manifestation is visible in Bangladesh with attacks on foreigners by self-starter groups. As the IS finds itself starved of funds and recruits in its current catchment area, due to migration of population and military pressure by the US and its allies on the one side and Iran and Russia on the other, it may seek to expand to new domains like South Asia.

Thus the BJP must not ignore when its misguided elements stir the communal pot. Punjab has just seen the shadows of old passions swirling at the behest of politicians losing relevance or others seeking to re-emerge from the sidelines where history cast them. Let two examples suffice. The Congress let the Punjabi Suba agitation persist from 1956 to 1966 before finally conceding a linguistic state, obtained by other regions a decade earlier. It was, in fact, PM Lal Bahadur Shastri’s gift to a state that proved more than its loyalty in the 1965 War. But after his demise, a moth-eaten award was handed out, leaving bitterness and alienation that eventually allowed the radicals to seize control of political processes. Secondly, the fate of Kashmiri Pandits shows that majoritarianism crushing a minority’s way of life is not religion specific.Hopefully, PM Modi having imbibed the Bihar lesson will now deliver on his own slogan – Sabka saath, sabka vikaas, not just nationally but regionally.