Frontpage Interview’s guest today is Vijay Kumar, an émigré from India who is seeking the Republican nomination in a Tennessee primary Congressional race set for August. He is running on an anti-Sharia platform. Visit his website at kumarforcongress.com.
FP: Vijay Kumar, welcome back to Frontpage Interview.
Kumar: Thank you.
FP: In our last interview, we discussed the anti-Sharia program you are running on. Today I would like to focus on your political journey from being inside the Left to leaving the Left. Let’s begin with your background. In our last interview, you stated that you grew up in India, in a conservative middle class family, but you also said that you come from a Marxist family. This could, at first, appear to be a bit of a contradiction.
Please explain.
Kumar: This issue is about semantics and of course that gets even more difficult when talking about terms that differ between two cultures. I should have used the word “traditional” as opposed to “conservative.” They are synonymous in meaning but differ in application culturally. So I was using the American term, if you will, which I see could cause confusion. As far as Marxism is concerned, nobody is born Marxist. You embrace Marxist views and ideologies as you grow up as part of external influences of education or in society.
We were a traditional middle class orthodox Hindu family -- very conservative at home. At the same time, Hinduism demands that you are tolerant of other people’s values because there is no such thing as monolithic Hinduism. Therefore you practice your own thing at home while respecting other people of various castes, cultures, and religions. My eldest brother was influenced by Marxist ideologies and I think he still is a practicing communist. He introduced me to their material and to other people radical leftists -- and that is how I learned of Marxism. And there were some genuine points that motivated them in wanting to eradicate the caste system within Hindu society which appealed to many people and they wanted economic justice which was also a valid issue.
But as far as the family was concerned, you had your traditional conservative practice of the father who worked, the mother who stayed at home, and the children who were expected to be disciplined. But within the context of family conservatism and the ideology of Marxism, these were not mutually exclusive or incompatible from a standpoint of social justice which is where most liberalism begins.
I had real issues with castes and class contradictions which were very visible and apparent and sometimes violent within Indian society. And so how do you eradicate those injustices? What are the methodologies? One methodology is leftist radical socialism and I thought at first that it might be the best solution.
FP: So your belief system was tested when you came to America?
Kumar: Very much so.
I came to the U.S. after the Iranian Islamic Revolution in 1979. I was still liberal by the standards of my homeland and I despised any and all forms of racism because of my feelings about castes and class contradictions in India.
But after I came to the U.S., I saw another solution other than socialism and Marxism in the American free market society. Marxism sought to remedy injustice through centralized methodologies. The free market allowed individuals a chance to make it by their own will. I embraced the free market because it did not replace one control system with another. I saw the free market as a far superior solution.
The other thing I noticed right away was that America respects pluralism. Every other ideology I had come to know before tried to solve injustice at the expense of the freedom of others to choose differently. The beauty of America as I saw it was that one idea could be presented and then it is countered, and then ultimately there is a synthesis of the better of the two ideas that creates the solution. And it is a constant and never ending process.
I found that there is no room for totalitarianism in America. And so I had to see Marxism for what is was, a bad idea created, sometimes, for arguably legitimate reasons in unfair circumstances, but still a bad idea. America had the solution with a free market society.
FP: What are some of the things that first stood out for you in American society?
Kumar: I found America to be the most compassionate and open society. I have lived in and visited many countries throughout Europe and also my homeland of India and I found America to be the least racist country I have been in.
When I moved to New York with my imperfect English, my heavy accent, and went for a job, nobody asked about my caste, my culture, or my religion. All they wanted to know was if I could do the job. And for the first time in my life I did not have to worry where my next meal was coming from. I did not have to worry that my opinions would get me physically assaulted or killed.
Some might think it funny but I would see a man who looked like a nobody talk to a man in a very expensive suit and they would both insult each other with profanity. And then the rich man did not have the poor man killed. These same men you could see drinking at the same bar sometimes. This was America to me. And you will simply not find this in many parts of the world.
I felt truly free for the first time in my life. Like a wild horse.
FP: Tell us a bit about your outlook before and after 9/11. How did September 11 change you?
Kumar: Well, after I fell in love with the free market, I felt that everybody had a right to participate in the market of free ideas. But I slowly began to notice how static and totalitarian ideologies can take advantage of democratic or pluralistic societies. A free society can offer them a place to sell their ideas but once they gain power they suppress all dissent.
September 11th reminded me of that reality. And so when an ideology uses pluralism only as a conduit to supplant and destroy the free exchange of ideas, then that ideology has no right to be welcomed at the seat of civilization. The problem is that until we are personally affected by totalitarianism, we tend to turn a blind eye to it because it is someone else’s problem far, far away.
Allowing an ideology to take root that serves as judge, jury, and summary executioner, even in a nation with the most liberal of civil liberties is like saying that every known disease like small pox has a right to be taken out of quarantine to feed upon the human population no matter the toll on human life.
For me, September 11th drew a distinct line that we cannot afford to ignore. Would you call a person at risk of dying from cancer intolerant for seeking to irradiate it from his body? Today, a leftist in America is like an apologist for fatal diseases. I became a conservative when I realized that my liberal views would ultimately lead to the destruction of the very society that gave me voice. I am still passionately pluralistic. I am not, however, passionately suicidal.
FP: So how would you crystallize why you left the Left?
Kumar: Perhaps the most important reason I left the Left was this: the Left has betrayed humanity in the sense that it does not seek to eradicate or resist the threat of totalitarian ideology. If the Left had any cause for social justice, if it had to justify its own existence, it would be on the front lines of defending against totalitarianism. But it is the right, the conservatives, that is speaking up against the threat of radical Islam. And they are doing so based upon their real belief in social justice. The leftists were supposed to be on the forefront in terms of what they pretend they stand for.
This is a confliction the Left cannot reconcile within itself because it hates George Bush more than totalitarianism. Look, I voted for Al Gore. I supported Al Gore. I consider him a friend. I worked on his campaign. But Gore does not speak about radical Islam. He mostly speaks about one thing: the environment. And he does this because it is fashionable. Now I don’t disagree with Gore on the need to address environmental issues, but we have a greater threat right now from Islamic terrorism and demographic invasion.
I am, by the way, more afraid of demographic invasion than terrorism. Demographic conquest is absolute -- the most permanent form of conquest. Liberal ideological tolerance which fails to put at its center assimilation actually foments its own annihilation.
FP: Is America missing something in its approach to the terror war?
Kumar: Yes, there has to be more focus on fighting the ideology of radical Islam. This is a philosophical crisis, a conflict between ideas, a conflict between reason and dogmatism.
FP: What is the best way to fight an idea?
KUMAR: Well, first you have to do what any first year military cadet is taught. And that is to define who the enemy is. They are not terrorists. They are not “the evil doers.” As a government we started off calling them everything but what they were. The enemy is Islamic totalitarianism -- Universal Jihad. Whether you are talking about Serbia, Kashmir, Chechnya, Thailand, or Israel -- all these peoples are resisting one thing and one thing only, Universal Jihad. The problem is when a nation or a leader does not get the idea before it consumes its resources or becomes demographically overwhelmed, as is the case in all of the nations who are suffering now.
The thing to understand about Universal Jihad within Islam is that they love to believe in pluralism in Europe, in the United States, in India and in all infidel lands -- they insist upon tolerance. But when it comes to places like Saudi Arabia, where they have total control, they deny basic human value to non-Muslims, and even non-Arab Muslims like a Pakistani Muslim immigrant to Saudi Arabia.
FP: What would you recommend for U.S. policy?
Kumar: American foreign policy must first begin demanding that countries like Saudi Arabia, Iran and Pakistan allow the same human rights to others within their societies which they enjoy when engaging the Western world. Otherwise these nations cannot be given favor, economically or otherwise, as partners in the civilized world community.
Our foreign policy at the moment rewards and funds Jihadist ideologies, therefore emboldening the idea rather than us standing upon the principles that we claim to believe.
FP: Who are our enemies?
Kumar: I would say that the true axis of evil is Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Pakistan. These three have been the primary exporters of Jihadists throughout the world.
But the most important thing is that we have to admit that demographic conquest is the most permanent form of conquest. Therefore, we must support all nations currently struggling with radical Islamic footholds within their societies. The reality is that no place in the world where radical Islam has gained demographic dominance, has it ever been extricated. And it has been its goal for over 1400 years to aggressively spread and multiply by birth or by sword. America needs to openly face up to this reality.
The Islamists are clever. They begin by first exporting their surplus population to free and open societies. Then those immigrants begin to demand ideological tolerance and conformity to their views and then use the democratic process to change the laws. Then what laws they cannot change, is followed by civil disobedience, then unrest, then Jihad, but is was always Jihad even from the innocuous beginning.
We have seen Islamic unrest in Denmark, in France, and in England and the pattern can be clearly seen. In Copenhagen, there are places where a woman cannot even walk alone on the street. There are similar Islamic enclaves in the Netherlands and in England. In England, if an Englishman marries a second woman he goes to jail, but a Pakistani can legally immigrate with his two wives, practice Sharia, and even go on welfare and it is ok.
We have to learn from the failed experiment of Europe. A large portion of Muslim immigrants have absolutely no interest in assimilating into their host societies. Tolerance in a western culture that fails to require assimilation is an open door to internal demographic annihilation. My point is that in all of history, there is a post Communist society, there is a post Nazi society, but never a post Islamic society. Wherever Jihad has displaced a society, it has remained.
We are at a point in history that domestic and foreign policy are now inextricably tied together because of immigration which it should be the foreign policy of any free society to first address the issue of internal assimilation of existing immigrants. Then, we need to enforce human rights compatibility between the U.S. and nations with citizens wishing to immigrate.
FP: What is your stand, then, on America’s immigration policy?
Kumar: We should stop immigration from any nation that practices any form of Sharia. I am not, of course, referring to instances where, let us say, dissidents, refugees or others are fleeing Sharia, want to free themselves from it, are threatened by it etc. I am referring to those who believe in Sharia and want to impose it on the host society to which they come. It is useless for America to have laws and an ideology but then allow people to come into the country who fundamentally disagree with the very ideal of America and want to destroy it. The first moral responsibility of any nation is to protect its way of life as chosen by its citizenry.
FP: What is it that led you to run for public office?
Kumar: I love this country. I did not love this country instantly. I was a leftist. To me my love for this country was like the experience of Paul on Damascus Road. That is the only analogy I can give you. It did not happen instantly. This is one of the few countries that treats human beings like human beings. It does not ask you of your caste or culture or who was your grandfather and what did he do. I did not have to present a family resume to be accepted here. Of course there are elements of racism here as it is a part of human nature but as an overall society, it is not cliché that America is truly a land of opportunity. But this society, when it makes mistakes, it allows for correction. Under other regimes, mistakes are placed under the carpet. Mistakes become blunders and blunders become theology.
I am running for Congress not because of a personal need for power. I tried already to talk to our existing politicians but, sadly, they do not appear to see the danger as I see it. Now it is up to the American people to look at my message, and decide what is right. I am just the vehicle of the message. If there was another messenger from my district representing these concerns in Congress, I would not be running. All I am asking of every American is to defend democracy, freedom, liberty and pluralism.
FP: Vijay Kumar, thank you for joining Frontpage Interview.
Kumar: Thank you.
To read Vijay Kumar's last interview with Frontpage click here.
Jamie Glazov is Frontpage Magazine's editor. He holds a Ph.D. in History with a specialty in Russian, U.S. and Canadian foreign policy. He is the author of Canadian Policy Toward Khrushchev’s Soviet Union and is the co-editor (with David Horowitz) of The Hate America Left. He edited and wrote the introduction to David Horowitz’s Left Illusions. His new book is United in Hate: The Left's Romance with Tyranny and Terror. To see his previous symposiums, interviews and articles Click Here. Email him at jglazov@rogers.com.
No comments:
Post a Comment