Dr. Richard Benkin  Bio

Email Article

Email Us

Print friendly

An Interview with Amitabh Tripathi by Richard Benkin

Opposing Barack Obama

 By Dr. Richard Benkin  Monday, July 21, 2008

It has long been an article of faith on the left that the United States has lost the support of its allies around the world.  It is a major Democratic major talking point, and the mainstream media has never challenged it, even though it is based on a false and Euro-centric premise.  (See my Has America Lost its Moral Authority, CFP, April 25, 2008.)

I was in India this year to advocate for Bangladeshi Hindus, refugees from Islamist terror and ethnic cleansing and spent time in Delhi before leaving for the border areas.  It was there I met anti-Islamist Amitabh Tripathi, introduced to me by Daniel Pipes.  Tripathi represents a point of view shared by many Indians but rarely given voice in India’s mainstream media.  He is profoundly interested in the US Presidential election primarily because he believes the results will be critical for successful prosecution of the war against Islamist extremism.  In this interview, which he insisted on titling Opposing Barack Obama, Tripathi talks about why an Obama victory would be disastrous for Indians and others who live on the front lines of a war for our very survival.

RB: Results of US Presidential elections always have significant implications for the rest of the world.  What makes this one even more significant for Indians?

AT: With it, the world will witness a post Bush America. George W. Bush was the man who initiated war on terror, and both friends and enemies are watching closely to see how his successor will act.  Americans need to know that the war on terror is different for Indians in three ways.  The first is that what Dr. Daniel Pipes calls “lawful Islamism,” which has made great advances in India.  We have Muslim parties, which are all really radicals that want to “return” India to Muslim rule.  They believe that India was Muslim-ruled before the British came and every Muslim party in India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh believes that India must be made Muslim again.  Imagine if the US had Christian or Jewish parties and that their goal was to overthrow the government.  That is what we have in India.

RB: You said there were three ways.  What are the other two?

AT: In the West, the USA defeated Communism, which made most westerners think that Communism is no longer any threat.  But that is not true in Asia.  Communists run three Indian states and Nepal.  All of them are supported by China, which is a bigger threat than Iran or any Muslim state.  The other thing is that there are terrorist attacks in India all the time.  You have said that when you were in India this year there was one almost every day.  That is true.  And then you went to the border areas where Maoists and Islamists are coming in from Nepal and Bangladesh to attack people.

RB: When I was there, the Indian media was little more than an uncritical advertisement for Barack Obama as the inevitable winner in November.  Has that changed at all?

AT: When Barack Obama first entered this presidential race, he was presented by world media as a new phenomenon.  When you [RB] first wrote an article in India that exposed his artificiality and lack of gravity, and later it was translated into Hindi by [my web site] Lokmanch; it was nothing other than a sensation for Indian readers. Since then people have developed some apprehensions about Obama, even in mainstream media.

RB: What do Indians know about Senator John McCain?

AT: We don’t get much news about John McCain.  Some of us know that being a war prisoner in Vietnam he would fall heavily against Islamists forces and give new dimensions to the war on terror.

RB: Do you see any difference between the two American parties?
 
AT: Yes, we have the impression that Democrats are liberal and appeasers in their response to Islamist extremism. In contrast, Republicans are more prompt and preemptive.
 
RB: Yes, but not long ago Obama spoke to the American Israel Political Action Committee, for instance, and said that Jerusalem had to remain Israel’s undivided capital.  Isn’t that a strong signal that he will oppose Islamists?

AT: No because a few days later, he changed his position after [Palestinian leader Mahmoud] Abbas and others criticized him.  Flow of information has changed things to such an extent that leaders cannot hide behind a veil of deceit for long. This incident certified Obama’s artificiality and lack of statesmanship.  Instead of using the disagreement as a way to negotiate from strength, he showed he is weak and vulnerable to pressure.  That proves that he is a moral coward.  If he changes so quickly on an issue so important to US voters, he will change on everything.  So, how can we believe that he will be strong and not let Islamists overtake India?

RB: There is a growing Indian-American population.  Do they share your perspective?

AT: They want the same thing from the US in fighting radical Islam, but they don’t know that Obama would not be good for them in this way.  There are Indian-Americans who understand this, but most of them get the same leftist news that others get about Obama.  There are Indian radio stations and web sites, and Senator John McCain could easily capture that vote bank.

RB: How?

AT: By showing that he will not appease the terrorists we are fighting.  We Indians also have worried about US funds to Pakistan.  Those funds are not used to fight the terrorists, but will certainly be used against India.  And many Indians would be angry if they knew that Obama wants to stop US corporations from outsourcing.

RB: Senator Obama has said that, as President, he would sit down and talk with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad without preconditions. How would Indians see that?

AT: Some Indians consider Iran a longtime ally and ignore his rhetoric; but even many on the right who oppose him really just don’t want another nuclear powered nation in their neighborhood.  Most Indians have little curiosity about Middle Eastern politics and affairs.  We need to educate people about the implications of Middle Eastern politics for us and the Islamist threat facing India.  Ahmedinejad is an ambitious politician who wants gullible people to believe his “intellectual and reasonable” logic of Islamist movement and its goals to abolish Israel and consolidate the Muslim world under a caliphate.  He has realized that Osama Bin Laden’s brand of jihad has its limitations, but consolidating anti-America and anti-Israel forces always works—especially with help from leftists who always aid such efforts no matter who is behind them.  This makes Ahmedinejad more dangerous than any other terrorist.

RB: Senator Obama has said that he will begin withdrawing American troops from Iraq soon after taking office. Senator McCain has said that there will have to be a US presence in Iraq for many years to come. What do these policies mean for India and its fight against terrorism?

AT: The presence of American troops in Iraq has little to do directly with India’s fight against terrorism, which is based in Pakistan, Bangladesh and Nepal.  But America is portrayed in media as [having broken with the] consensus on Iraq.  Whether this is right or wrong, it is the only thing most Indians hear, giving ammunition to Islamist apologists who justify anti-American terrorism as fighting the enemy of Islam.  The radical Muslim seminary near Delhi, Deoband, just made big headlines with fatwa against terrorism. But we will see how they will not condemn terrorism against US troops in Iraq.  They will call it defending Islam.  People in media and leftist governments use these things to justify terrorism and are not fighting it.  If America starts pulling out of Iraq quickly after the new President takes office, it will make the situation everywhere worse.  It will give al Qaeda and all Islamist forces a sanctuary, like Afghanistan under the Taliban.

RB: Both of us have written about the alliance among leftists and Islamists. How do you think an Obama victory would affect that alliance in South Asia?
 
AT: In last assembly elections in [southern province of] Kerala, the Communist Party won by making foreign policy the key issue and condemning the Indian government for voting against Iran in IAEA.  They carried pictures of Yasser Arafat to gain Muslim support.  They appealed to the international Islamic Ummah, and garnered huge support among Muslims as a result.  An Obama victory would be a big setback in our fight against Islamism, especially “lawful Islamism” and its leftist allies. They would take Obama’s victory as their own, and the resistance forces against Islamism will become demoralized.  Islamist and leftist forces will say they defeated the US and will defeat their common enemies of Israel, US, and pro-Hindu Indians.

RB: Are you saying that the radicals are hoping for an Obama win?

AT: Yes, they see McCain as a successor to George W. Bush, and they don’t expect any concession in the fight against Islamism.  They also fear preemptive actions against the promoters of terrorism.  In contrast to McCain, Obama is a natural ally for them, not only because they see his Muslim childhood, but because he acts as if we can become friends with them.  I have had a chance to see several comments and articles where Muslims declare Obama as their man who will allow them to see the whole world under Islam.  They know that America is the only country that is stopping them now.  In South Asia, they believe John McCain will make India the major ally in the war on terror.  Obama will ignore Islamist terrorism in South Asia.

Media and leftist government tell one story about Barack Obama, but more Indian people are seeing the other side.  We are not sure about the future course of US action if he is elected.  He seems to be a very deceptive person that we can’t trust.  We have learned of many controversies that prove him a man with leftist and Islamist leanings.  His leftist leanings are very clear.  His Islamist sympathies are hidden though, but his policies would make for an America that tolerates Islamist actions and sees Islamists as just another political party.  Obama has proved himself a good orator who can draw a crowd, but who changes his positions because he is very vulnerable to pressure. We have our own experience of such leaders who succumb to pressure, and they are basically moral cowards who normally compromise on critical issues.

RB: There seems to be a terror attack in India almost every day. Is India at risk of an Islamist or Communist takeover or at least greater influence by these groups in the Indian government?

AT: Your second assessment is the one to watch.  Islamist forces have influence because of what we call pseudo-secularism.  In India, all parties are supposed to be secular; that is in the constitution.  The [ruling] Congress and [right-wing opposition] BJP are; so are the Communists.  But the whole system is pseudo-secularism because what they call secularism really means Muslim appeasement, which is very blatant here, and favoring all minorities over Hindus.  Every party is bound to give maximum concessions to Muslims; they are all afraid of losing vote banks and of the public riots that Muslims are known for.  The so-called secular constitution gives Muslims special privileges, too.  They do not have to follow the law of the land and instead are governed by their religious Shariyat law.  Even Supreme Court of India cannot interfere with their Shariyat in divorce, polygamy, and other matters. Communists are their natural allies in India as both target Hindus, Jews, and Americans.  The ruling coalition is dependent on them, and they have held Indian foreign policy hostage for the past four years.  It now looks like they have killed the US-India nuclear agreement, placing their interests over the national interest.  But regardless of who is in power, the real problem is Muslim appeasement.  In the last four years Islamist terrorists have killed more than 3,000 people, but no one in politics, media, or academia is willing to identify the Islamist nature of these attacks. Even the right wing BJP is afraid to point out the ideology and inspiration behind these ghastly acts is Islam. We are working day and night to make people aware of this threat.
 
RB: What can the next American president do to strengthen the forces fighting to preserve a free India?

AT: First of all, the new American president should identify its friends and foes and then work to root out the enemies of a free South Asia.  Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Nepal are the emerging hub for the Islamist-Leftist nexus. New American president should contain Islamists in Pakistan and Bangladesh with those forces in India fighting this menace.  Nepal is a surrogate for China that uses our open borders to infiltrate India.  Containing China’s ambitions in Asia in general and South Asia in particular should be a priority of the American president.

To reprint article, permission of the writer is required. Please email us at cfp@canadafreepress.com.


 This piece is in Category: Cover Story