Regarding “non-Islamist”, I would say rather, “not Islamist”. Many estimate that 30% of the country would vote Islamist in a free election, and I suspect this is true.

I’m not very familiar with Tajikistan so I’ll gladly defer to you on the details. I don’t think that changes the – from a historical point of view – remarkeable nature of this phenomen. The current hostility toward Israel relates to modern events, but all else held equal, if theology is the only factor it is incredible that India would have a base in a Muslim country.

Regarding my “pretty secularized” comment, perhaps a better term could be used. Terminology is difficult in the Islamic context because writing in English we naturally use English-language terms which have different means in an Islamic context, and “secular” is one of those. I could have written “non-Islamist,” which I think would be more accurate even if more cumbersome than “secularized.”

NGOs and businesses nearly always open new projects with prayers, and you hear “bismullah-r-rahmoni-r-rahim” at least fifteen times a day, even walking around the center of town.

People here are very faithful- but they are not usually Islamists, and the Islamists are oppressed.

You also would not see any protests against the killing of an innocent man, the closing of an opposition newspaper, the widespread use of bribery, the closing of necessary bus lines, government takeover of private property.

This is because people are afraid of war. Not that I think they would protest the Indian base even if they could protest- but lack of protests in Central Asia just means that the governments here are still oppressive, not that there is public approval of something.

Anyway, Israelis are “people of the book”, but if you ask members of any Muslim nation whether it would be better to have a military alliance with China, India, or Israel, well. I don’t think I even need to explain here.

As for the historical point, we could debate that. I’m not as familiar with the history of Iran and Central Asia during the Mongol period, but the Arabs resisted the Mongols to the death (see ch. 6 in my book). My understanding is that what was left of the Seljuks in Persia didn’t seriously resist the Mongols, but they adopted Islam pretty quickly. But since the Muslims in our 12th-century example were facing death if they resisted, I’m not sure that is analogous to the India-Tajik alliance here.

The Muslim world is no different from Christendom as far as the natives being unhappy with alliances with powers of a different faith. From the Christian Crusader kingdoms and their Muslim allies, the British alliance with the Ottomans against Russia, to the US alliance with the Saudis, there have and are always people in the West who oppose alliances with Muslim and pagan nations. There are varying reasons for this, based on some sence of morality, religion, values, or whatever. I would surmise that Tajikistan, being probably the (politically) weakest nation in former Soviet Central Asia, wants whatever help it can get. Perhaps some Tajiks do care about this, but I would be surprised if most Tajiks gave more than two figs.

On that note, the concept of countries with different values and religions nevertheless forming alliances for the purpose of peace is most keenly addressed in Kissinger’s Diplomacy in Chapter 4, “The Concert of Europe: Great Britain, Austria, and Russia.”

Elizabeth: Have you heard anything about that?

In the Muslim world religious identity is usually pretty relevant to international relations. The U.S. troops presence in Saudi Arabia, while approved by the rulers, was highly offensive to much of the population. To an extent that was because of a specific rule believed to have been set down by Muhammad that there should be no religion in Arabia but Islam (this is how the KSA justifies banning Bibles). Moving U.S. troops to Qatar and Bahrain releived the controversy. But at least troops from a Christian nation are part of ahl al-kitab, fellow monotheists. I’m pretty sure this is the first time ever in history in which a Muslim country voluntarily allowed the entry of troops from a polytheistic country. I find this pretty amazing.

Uh, you guys have the complete wrong image of Indian Muslims”¦They aren’t random alienated people who are united and hate Hindus and India. They aren’t like European Muslims who seem distant from the majority of the population. They are just like any other Indians. They do the same things other Indians do and have the same feelings for their country.

Now:

Obviously there will be a couple exeptions

My colleague may have been incorrect when he spoke of how India treats its Muslims with the implication that it does not treat them as full citizens. And certainly Muslims in India are an indigenous minority, as opposed to the immigrant minorities of Europe who are barely a generation old. But to deny that several regions in India see very nasty riots and reprisal killings on a regular basis is fact and shouldn’t be ignored. It doesn’t mean India is rascist. Lynchings in Mississippi and anti-Asian measures in California didn’t mean America was racist. But there were racial problems in America and there are sectarian problems in India.

I don’t think any of us should confuse domestic affairs and personal prejudices with the international relations between states. The Islamic Republic of Iran is good friends with Christian Armenia. The US loves the Saudis. India’s moves in Central Asia are all about national interest, and who is Muslim or Hindu or whatever is pretty irrelevant.

As for those 2 girls who were killed in the new “Hindu/Muslim” conflict. It’s important to note that right now the relations are at a temporary low because foreign terrorists (let’s not be naive, you and me both know that they are from Pakistan and/or Bangladesh) have realized that they can cause conflicts by attacking both sides (look at the recent Jama Masjid bombing, Ayodhya attack, now this). It’s a temporary exeption that will get dealt with as the Indian security gets better and the people realize that it’s foreigners who cause problems, as there is no real problem between Indian Muslims and Hindus.

But yes, I’ll admit that Hindu nationalists are definitely suspicious of all Muslims and Muslim religious leaders are generally suspicious of all Hindus. But this hardly trickles down to the people.

Mosque destruction… I challange you to give me one other example of Mosque destruction outside of that Babri Mosque (once again, in the city of Ayodhya). You can’t, right?

Where are you coming up with this stuff? How do you explain Muslims being India’s Presidents, Ministers of all sorts (even Cheif), representing us on the Cricket feild, tennis court, the UN and in different nations, running the entire movie industry as actors, directors, producers, etc, and being the nation’s richest men (Azim Premji)?

The thing you guys don;t realize about India is that there are no “two communities” in India. India is not Hindu and Muslim. It is a country made up of Tamil, Gujrati, Punjabi, Marathi, Hindustani, Bengali, Assamese, Bodo, Telugu, etc people. Ethnic lines have much more impact than religious lines. And all the ethnicities get along. Obviously there will be a couple exeptions, but for the most part what I said is true.

Muslims are easily treated better in India than any other country where Muslims are a minority. That I easily guarantee.

Treated better by who? I cannot comment on political or legal rights, but with regular riots, the occasional destruction of Mosques, and death tolls from regular unrest reaching the hundreds, you’d be hard-pressed to argue that there isn’t a lot of mutual suspician and animosity between two communities.

Try checking the latest news.

I’m more persuaded by your point about the “Muslim problem,” but not in the since that you and Elizabeth are discussing. I’m thinking support for Kashmiri jihadists. Pakistan has an active Central Asia foreign policy, and the jihadist groups stretching from Kashmir to Chechnya rely on the same elan – the Islamization of secular Muslim states and the expulsion of non-Muslim rulers where relevant. Radicalization in Central Asia would be very, very bad for India.

I think it should be noted how amazing it is that India has a military base in a Muslim country – they are considered polytheists, those who commit the worst sin in Islam, shirq, associating others with God. This would be inconceivable in the Arab world.

And Chirol, can you please describe to me what “treatment” India has given it’s Muslims? I never heard of anything India has done to it’s Muslims. Muslims are easily treated better in India than any other country where Muslims are a minority. That I easily guarantee.

Also, there is no question of India projecting its “joint heritage”. Why would they have to? It’s common sense that India has a strong heritage of Muslim/Hindu syncretism. For example, when you think of India, what do you think of? Yoga and the Taj Mahal!

Meanwhile the US frets about how it will cut consumption, in the teeth of political opposition.

Beats me- I’m far from an India expert (I’ve never even been there), but it seems to me not a bad idea.

As for recognizing India’s joint heritage, that’s a very interesting idea. In fact, could that the angle that India uses to help placate its Muslims and to get into Central Asia?

Yes, Hindus have a reason to worry about Muslims from outside supporting theirs, but one wonders how much of this is due to their treatment of Muslims. The country, and even Hindus, would do better to emphasize India’s Muslim-ness and joint heritage with Central Asia than to treat Islam as a problem.

Perhaps that’s what it’s trying to do here?

However, I would disagree that India has a “Muslim problem”. India has a fundamentalist problem. Hindus have carried out more terrorist attacks than Muslims in India.

An Uzbek merchant I talked to at a GUM knew where I was talking about when I said I was from Portland, Oregon. Turns out he was a big fan of Arvydas Sabonis, and therefore, the Portland Trailblazers.