'India has to go'

[Guest guest]

Hello, I didnt write this article but feel it is interesting.

VRN

 

This article appears in the October 13, 1995 issue of Executive

Intelligence Review.

Terrorism in South Asia:

London's assault on the nation-state

by Linda de Hoyos

'India has to go'

British staunch encouragement of the Kashmiri separatist movements

is

an open secret in New Delhi. Leading mouthpieces of the British

oligarchy make no bones about their desire for the disintegration of

the countries of the Indian subcontinent, particularly India.

 

Map 4: Terrorist Theater of Operations in South Asia (PDF, 96K)

Map 5: Weapons Routes in South Asia (PDF, 88K)

Map 6: Drug Routes in South Asia (PDF, 92K)

 

In a classic case of the arsonist being called in to put out the

fire, the British Special Air Services (SAS) arrived in New Delhi at

the end of August to take charge of operations to free Western

hostages being held by the Al-Faran terrorists in Kashmir. In the

process, according to the Indian press, the SAS is taking in all the

confidential security details concerning Kashmir, including the

Indian security positions, terrorist locations, and all relevant

intelligence.

 

Of course, the Al-Faran, an immediate offspring of the terrorist

Harkat-ul-Ansar (see dossier below), is one collection center for

the

far-flung afghansi networks that have been redeployed to stir up

trouble on behalf of British geopolitical objectives. In this case,

the objective is either to instigate a war between India and

Pakistan

over Kashmir (the disputed territory that has sent the two countries

to war three times already), or to bring about the open secession of

Kashmir from both India and Pakistan, transforming it into a British

intelligence and financial enclave right at the junction of India,

Pakistan, Russia, and China.

 

'India has to go'

British staunch encouragement of the Kashmiri separatist movements

is

an open secret in New Delhi. Leading mouthpieces of the British

oligarchy make no bones about their desire for the disintegration of

the countries of the Indian subcontinent, particularly India.

 

For example, on May 26, 1991, only five days after the brutal

assassination of former Indian Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi, the

Times

of London, the premier voice for the British Foreign Office, put

forward this view in an editorial entitled "Home Truths": "There are

so many lessons to be learnt from sorrowing India, and most are

being

muttered too politely. The over-huge federation of almost 900

million

people spreads across too many languages, cultures, religions, and

castes. It has three times as many often incompatible and thus

resentful people as the Soviet Union, which now faces the same

bloody

strains and ignored solutions as India....

 

"The way forward for India, as for the Soviet Union, will be to say

a

great prize can go to any States and sub-States that maintain order

without murders and riots. They should be allowed to disregard

Delhi's corrupt licensing restrictions, run their own economic

policies, and bring in as much foreign investment and as many free-

market principles as they like. Maybe India's richest course from

the

beginning would have been to split into 100 Hongkongs."

 

Or take Max Madden, presumably less "colonialist" being a Member of

Parliament for the Labour Party. Speaking on June 2, 1993 at a

conference on Kashmir in Denmark, Madden demanded India's self-

annihilation: "I've always wondered why in a world where we've seen

the British Empire disintegrate, the Russian empire disintegrate,

why

is it that alone of the great countries of the world—let's remember,

by the end of this century, India will have the greatest population

in the world—why it alone should be the Union of India and its

present boundaries continue forever? I think there cannot be any

immunity to India to the sort of pressures that we see in the rest

of

the world, and it might well be that the Constitution of India may

be

amended, there could be a new constitutional settlement in India....

We all hear from Indians that they have the largest democracy in the

world; many of us question that very fundamentally."

 

Madden suggests that the United Nations oversee the transition phase

for Kashmir's "independence," a role that could be extended to the

entire region: "The United Nations has a legal and moral

responsibility and obligation to secure the self-determination for

the people of Kashmir. It may require a period of U.N.

administration

of Kashmir. So be it. And it may involve the whole region. So be it."

 

Timebombs left behind

British intelligence has not only the predisposition to foment

separatist and terrorist operations through the South Asia region;

it

also has the capabilities. All of the major conflicts in the region

are explosions along the fault lines deliberately left as the legacy

of direct British colonial rule:

 

The Kashmir dispute arose out of the British-instigated 1947

partitioning of the Indian subcontinent to form the Muslim-majority

Pakistan, the same maneuver that created the Mohajirs, Indian

Muslims

who migrated to Pakistan at that time, and thus laid the basis for

the ongoing conflicts in Karachi, Pakistan and the creation of the

Mohajir Quam Movement (see below).

 

 

To the south, the "Tamil problem" was foisted on Buddhist and

Christian Sri Lanka, when the British brought Hindu workers over

from

Tamil Nadu in southern India, to work on British colonials'

lucrative

tea plantations. Although the British used the Tamils as virtual

slaves, they also ensured that handpicked Tamils would dominate the

colonial bureaucracy. At the point of independence for Sri Lanka,

the

British-revived Buddhist chauvinists demanded an enemy, and the

enemy

was the Tamils, not the British. Thus, the Liberation Tigers of

Tamil

Eelam (LTTE, or Tamil Tigers, see below), are the product of a

conflict induced by British colonialism.

 

 

In Northeast India, the cauldron of contending ethnic entities—all

mixed up together in the drugs-for-arms trafficking—stems directly

from the British division of Bengal, which led finally to the

creation of Bangladesh, and a strict colonial policy of apartheid

between "tribals" and "non-tribals."

Headquarters: London

Is it any surprise, then, that many of the leaders of the insurgent

operations against the nations of South Asia, are found at

headquarters in London? Such leaders enjoy British intelligence's

active and public protection, as the record shows.

 

In 1991, for instance, British judge Popplewell revoked the

deportation order of Khalistani campaigner Karamjit Singh Chahal,

charged with terrorism in India. Amnesty International and other

human rights organizations have also taken up Chahal's case for

asylum.

 

More recently, Britain turned down a request from Pakistan's Prime

Minister Benazir Bhutto in August to extradict Mohajir Quam Movement

leader Altaf Hussein, headquartered in London. "When Altaf sits in

London and he gives a call for a strike [in Karachi] and his

militants enforce that strike and kill 30 innocent people a day, I

think the British government has a moral responsiblity to restrain

him," Prime Minister Bhutto said. British intelligence doesn't see

it

that way. In fact, a British Foreign Office spokesman declared that

Britain was not aware of any evidence of Hussein's involvement

in "terrorism" in Pakistan.

 

Drug traffickers are also favored. In April 1995, the notorious

Iqbal

Mohammad Memon, reputed to be a drug-traffick financier, was

arrested

by Interpol in London. Five months later, Memon walked out of a

London court a free man, India's request for his extradiction denied.

 

As the reports and dossiers that follow demonstrate, these cases are

not aberrational, but consistent with British geopolitical aims. As

the interview with Lord Avebury (see below) shows, British

intelligence has at its command an entire array of hundreds of non-

governmental organizations (NGOs) to function as the propagandistic

and often financial support for the hard-core terrorists and

insurgencies. On the ground level, such agencies as Prince Philip's

World Wildlife Fund (WWF, now the World Wide Fund for Nature)

provides the "animal sanctuaries" for guerrilla-terrorist protection

in India and Sri Lanka, in particular. Unless counterinsurgency

efforts begin to focus on this reality, the erosion of the nation-

states of South Asia will continue, at its currently increasing

tempo.

http://www.larouchepub.com/other/1995/2241_asia_terror_intro.html

 

A Case Study: South Asia

London' runs terrorism to destroy the nation-state

 

Lord Avebury: human rights for the raj

British lord sees end of nation-state

http://www.larouchepub.com/other/1995/2241_avebury_intro.html

An interview with Lord Avebury.

http://www.larouchepub.com/other/1995/2241_avebury_interview.html

Northeast India:

Target of British apartheid

http://www.larouchepub.com/other/1995/2241_ne_india_history.html

Insurgent groups in Northeast India

http://www.larouchepub.com/other/1995/2241_ne_india_groups.html

Pakistan, Northwest India insurgencies

http://www.larouchepub.com/other/1995/2241_nw_india_groups.html

London runs cover for terror in South India

http://www.larouchepub.com/other/1995/2241_south_india_intro.html

Southern India, Sri Lanka terrorist groups

http://www.larouchepub.com/other/1995/2241_south_india_groups.html