Ayodhya

The riots in Uttar Pradesh, India : Islamist provocation backfires.

Posted on September 14, 2013. Filed under: Arab, Ayodhya, Hindu, Historians with political agenda, India, Islam, Islamic propaganda, Jihad, Kashmir, Kashmiri Pundit, Maoism, Muslims, Ottoman, Pakistan, rape, religion, Salafi, Saudi, Sunni, Uncategorized, USA, Wahabi |

In Uttar Pradesh, two Hindu brothers were killed because they beat up a Muslim man harassing their sister persistently for some time – and a result of this “roughing up” the Muslim boy died. A Muslim mob gathered, brutally beating them and killing them. Typically, the pious media and judiciary and the state would solemnly shake their head and denounce the two brothers for taking up the law into their own hands – and that no one has the right to kill another however grievous the perception of injury – for only the state has monopoly over personal violence. However in case of Muslim violence on non-Muslims, the tenor typically becomes that yes it is “unfortunate” and “sad” and “we grieve for the loss” “but” we have to “look at root causes” – which can range from anything and everything including “hurt religious sentiments”, “lack of development”, “poverty”, “deprivation”. In some sense, as if such claimed factors then become ameliorating factors in fixing guilt. The solemn injunctions of “law should not be taken into own hands” do not apply for Muslims in the Indian public game of condemnation and apportioning of guilt and responsibility.

Was this a one-off reaction? A sign of “Hindu” intolerance for innocent Muslim teasing and roughing up of Hindu girls? Mullah inspired and textually encouraged predation on kafir women is now a well-established phenomenon all over the world. With the emergence and exposure of Islam’s core deceptive strategy of expansion at all possible levels on the most primitive and biological of human thought processes – after the same-side goal scored by Islamists on their patrons the Anglo-Saxon axis of global division of power – the hitherto suppressed information on Islam’s consistent record over the centuries and the core doctrines as maintained in the texts have come increasingly into public domain. In particular focus is the so-called “love jihad” – the deliberate targeting of non-Muslim women and girls for sexual predation and violence, under various guises in societies where the Muslim is not yet in state power – and openly and overtly in rape/abduction/forced-marriages/sex-slavery in nations where Muslims are the majority or manage to get near-majority influence and protection out of complicated historical misfortunes for humanity like the British empire with its love for violently jihadi Sunni Wahabis as tools against rival Ottomans, as in India.

The way Islamist shenanigans In India are condoned is by fixing the violence by Muslims as a “reaction” against Hindu provocation or violence. But the possibility of an original Muslim provocation to which the Hindus “reacted” to which the Muslims then again reacted – is never explored. Thus we always get the refrain of the Gujarat riots of the early 2000’s without often even a murmur about the Islamic mob burning a whole train carriage load of Hindu pilgrims that started off the riots in reaction. The Islamic mob that burned Hindu pilgrims were reacting against supposed revival of the Hindu interest for reconstructing their claimed holy temple for their divinity -Rama – at a spot where Islamics had destroyed Hindu structures in the 16th century and put up a mosque of their own. This was in turn a continuation of incidents of a sequence of very public bombings by Islamists in 1993, in turn supposedly a reaction to events in 1992 when Hindu groups destroyed the mosque. But before the 1992 incident, there had been increasing violence by Islamists in the Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir – intensifying from late 80’s and intensifying into early 90’s – with rapes, abductions, massacres and large scale enforced migrations of ethnic Kashmiri Hindus out of the state. No media, no western sympathizers of Muslims, no “deprivation” and “reaction only” theorists will ever connect the rise of Hindu assertiveness to the unchecked and well-protected violence by Islamists in the Kashmir valley and the literal genocide that Muslims of the valley undertook or allowed their ummah brethren to continue unopposed in undertaking –  in sharp contrast to the violent mob reactions they show on international or foreign Islamic interests on the streets of India, as in demanding expulsion of Tasleema Nasreen or the head of Salman Rushdie.

This case was no exception either. Because international or Indian media suppress the ground realities of islamist expansionism, and the grotesque and medieval Middle Eastern methods or tactics employed – when large scale retribution or reactions from non-Muslims happen – they appear surprising or shocking.
Initial source : http://www.hinduhumanrights.info/warning-very-graphic-the-2-hindu-jat-brothers-killed-in-muzaffarnagar/

This link claims to provide pictures of the bodies of the two brothers lynched by the Islamist mob for roughing up the Muslim boy who had been persistently teasing their sister. The report also provides clues to a persistent Islamist campaign of harassing, and teasing or abduction – effectively a kind of generic sexual predatory behaviour unleashed on the Hindus of the area, for many years now.

[1] 30/08/2013 MUZAFFARNAGAR Muslim cleric arrested for abducting 11-year-old girl http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2013-08-30/lucknow/41617399_1_11-year-old-girl-muslim-cleric-muzaffarnagar

[2] 29/12/2012 Muzaffarnagar Girl raped in Panchayat premises (accused Shauqueen and Rahil) http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2012-12-29/lucknow/36050717_1_sexual-assault-muzaffarnagar-police-station

[3] 18/02/2013 Woman gang-raped by four men, filmed in Muzaffarnagar (rapists Naushad, Pravaiz, Kamal Hasan and Nazar ) http://www.dnaindia.com/india/1801209/report-woman-gang-raped-by-four-men-filmed-in-muzaffarnagar

[4] 24/08/13 Class IX student raped by youth (Dilshad) in Muzaffarnagar http://zeenews.india.com/news/uttar-pradesh/class-ix-student-raped-by-youth-in-muzaffarnagar_871331.html

[5] 23/08/12 Muzaffarnagar: Schoolgirl gangraped by 5 youths in Muzaffarnagar (Main accused Salman other names suppressed) http://www.financialexpress.com/news/schoolgirl-gangraped-by-5-youths-in-muzaffarnagar/992134

[6] Islamic Justice as practiced in Muzaffaranagar: Brothers-in-law mercilessly gangrape woman with consent of panchayat http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/24-year-old-woman-gangraped-panchayat-orders-gangrape-uttar-pradesh-revenge-by-in-laws/1/296827.html

[7] 21/12/2012 Muzaffarnagar panchayat offers rape victim Rs 1.5 lakh to keep quiet (accused Tasavvur) http://ibnlive.in.com/news/up-muzaffarnagar-panchayat-offers-rape-victim-rs-15-lakh-to-keep-quiet/311629-3-242.html?utm_source=ref_articlehttp://ibnlive.in.com/news/up-muzaffarnagar-panchayat-offers-rape-victim-rs-15-lakh-to-keep-quiet/311629-3-242.html?utm_source=ref_article

[8] 24/06/2011 Muzaffarnagar Rape Case Mayawati suspends MLA Shahnawaz Rana on rape charge (then joined RLD) http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2011-06-24/india/29698747_1_bsp-mla-bsp-leaders-intikhab-rana

Satyender Kumar Baliyan 24, was among a group of 2,000 villagers returning home after attending the Mahapanchayat [“Grand Assembly” – a traditional ancient Hindu ethnic parliament summoned to settle issues of importance to the community] hosted by several Jat communities of western Uttar Pradesh in nearby Kawal village, when they were ambushed by a mob, armed with assault rifles and other sophisticated weapons leading to a bloody   massacre at Gang Nahar, popularly known as Jolly canal, last Saturday. [Source: http://www.dnaindia.com/india/1888043/report-dna-special-jolly-canal-killings-triggered-the-muzaffarnagar-riots ]

“Since, I was with the NCC for more than three years during my school days, I could easily tell that our assailants were using AK47 rifles and other weapons,” he told dna at the site of the massacre. The mob set on fire 18 tractor trollies and three motorbikes of the villagers. Local people say the Jolly canal massacre turned into the communal riots of Muzaffarnagar, in which the official death toll is 45. But local people say the number is much higher.

Eyewitnesses say after the mass killings, the attackers dumped the bodies in the canal, which meets the Ganges river in adjoining Haridwar district. So far, six bodies have been fished out.  “We were unarmed. And they(attackers) ambushed us like Naxals. They started firing indiscriminately,” Baliyan said. Omkar Singh Rana of Baseda village, cannot find his elder brother Brijpal Singh Rana since the attack on Saturday. “It is not only my elder brother… there are hundreds of people who have gone missing after the massacre. Though six bodies have been found, we are sure there will be many more,” Rana told dna.

The villagers accused the local administration of not acting swiftly and of the police allowing the attackers to escape after the carnage. “The district administration has not made any effort to track the missing persons or find the bodies. Even the water flow in the canal was not controlled; it was deliberately increased to sweep away the dumped bodies,” said Bhanwar Singh, pradhan [“chief”] of Baseda village.

The district administration has registered 40 missing complaints till Wednesday. But apparently often cases are not registered because officials decide that people might have “migrated” to other parts of the state. District magistrate Kaushal Raj Sharma admitted that the number of missing persons is more than the registered cases. “In case of the Jolly canal, we have recovered six bodies so far. Work is on to trace others, if any,”  he said. “But in some cases people have migrated to other places. And since there is no contact with family members, they lodge missing complaints.” It is interesting to note that even in the backdrop of unnatural conditions and violence, the official Indian state and government functionaries “think” that missing people are simply “migrating” – which is a longer term phenomenon – and not necessarily trying to temporarily flee from massacres or are simply dead/killed/abducted.

A dozen daily wage farm workers and ordinary villages were travelling in a tractor as usual from Mod Khurd village to Munjhera in search of work. At the entrance to Munjhera is a mosque on the roadside which everyone has to pass through to enter the village. Hiding within the mosque were some 50-60 heavily armed men waiting in darkness to pounce upon any ‘Kafirs‘ who were unlucky enough to pass through on that fateful Friday evening. As the tractor ambled across the mosque road, it was met with scores of flying stones, which took them by surprise. This stone pelting continued for some time, even as the men tried to find cover in the trolley. Some jumped over the sides and melt into the wilderness, but others weren’t so lucky. [Source: http://centreright.in/2013/09/muzaffarnagar-where-riots-turned-into-pathology-from-anatomy/#.UjTKu7zXFok]

The mob from the mosque then surrounded the tractor and pulled down some 6 men and threw them on the roadside. What happened over the next 30 minutes is too graphic to print – “it was the worst nightmare one could ever have” as per one of the survivors who is grievously injured and may not live long. The farm workers were first beaten up mercilessly and were then attacked with sharp weapons by a gang of 50 odd “mushtandey“ [toughs/goons]. Finally, they were shot at pointblank range, to ensure that they did not survive.

Meanwhile, those who had escaped the stone pelting reached the local police station and complained about the attack, but to their utter frustration, the police refused to budge from their seats. For more than an hour the police refused to visit the mosque to rescue the victims and when they finally did reach the spot, they found three bodies lying in a pool of blood. Two of the dead were simply identified as that of Pappu and Joginder, while one other victim was still breathing. Three other farm workers are still missing, 3 days after the incident, and are presumed dead for all practical purposes.

In the same post, Praveen writes that if one went to “any village in Muzaffarnagar” then ” you are likely to find new settlements of outsiders – a euphemism for “Bangladeshis” – who have now become part of the village political-economy. Add to this, the growing reach of the global Ummah philosophy combined with the fanaticism angle of “Islam Katre mein hai” and you have a potent mixture for disaster. In this concoction, when you add a large haul of “sophisticated arms, like hand grenades and AK 47s” smuggled from the Nepal border, you get a deadly syrup of violent riots.”

Praveen reflects the local perception of state administration being hand in gloves with Islamists when he writes, “Over the last few months there have been numerous reports of deadly weapons being circulated in UP, but the government has taken absolutely no action till date. There have been rumours that a powerful minister of the region belonging to the minority community is hand-in-glove with this whole exercise of arming a community to the teeth. In fact, quite a few vehicles have been raided by the police with large quantities of illegal weapons, but the state administration has adopted a “blind eye” policy towards this whole phenomenon. Finally, on Sunday, when the army conducted flag marches in various villages, some of the villagers actually fired back at the army, which eventually led to army seizing a large haul of illegal arms.”

Praveen speculates that the Islamist violence took the mostly Hindu Jats of western UP, a hard working Hindu primarily farming community – completely by surprise, because of their previous longstanding political alliance in this region. Also perhaps the degree of sophistication of the weapons available to the jihadis were a shock factor too – in a country that has assiduously maintained the British imperial policy of as complete a disarming of the civilian population as possible – but where Maoists, Jihadis, and Christian extremist groups in the North East seem to have no significant restrictions on the level and supply of weapons.

Four days after the riots began, on the 31st of August, the Jats first called a Panchayat at Jaansaath Tehsil, but even after trying to organize themselves, they were hopelessly outmaneuvered. It was only after Narendra Tikait and Rakesh Tikait – both sons of the legendary farmer leader, Mahendra Singh Tikait – entered the scene that the fight back began in earnest. As long as the Hindus failed to retaliate in kind, administration and media sat quietly. Then the Hindu farmers organized themselves and struck back. As usual, the Indian state suddenly then jumped into the fray with political parties who protect islamism and islamists now perhaps pressed into service by a desperate islamist leadership.

First, BSP MP Kadir Rana, Congress leader Saiduzzaman and Samajwadi Party leader Rashid Siddiqui made a highly charged communal speech at Khaalapur on the 30th of August, which was attended by more than 15 thousand people, despite prohibitory orders under section 144. Then the Mahapanchayat [the ethnic Hindu parliament] of 7th September was attended by Hukum Singh, Sangeet Som and Suresh Rana of BJP, former Congress MP Harinder Malik and the Tikait brothers of the BKU. [Source : Praveen Patil]

The English language media which gets the lions share of international attention and which was almost totally absent for ten days when the violence was only from the Islamic side, went in their droves to Muzaffarnagar to paint tales of minority victimhood. The news editors zoomed in on Islamic skull-caps and darkly hinted that Narendra Modi of the BJP – the supposed nemesis of the all things positive in India, precipitated this crisis by possibly “hurting Muslim” sentiments by the mere fact of his existence.

 At the end of the day, all this leads to a renewed convergence among various Hindu groups, and a consolidation that the fanatical Muslim will find quite difficult to digest.

The mood of the non-Muslim generations that were not born under the shadow of the Nehruvian Congress has been slowly and steadily changing. The islamist leadership failed to realize this, blinded by the apparent Saudi success in having the west as its prostitute and virtual blank cheque for any jihadi and expansionist agenda as long as it did not hurt the “western interests” directly.  Having a pliant politically subservient national media also does not help. It lulls the planners at highest levels of regime power into a false sense of secure power and assumed acceptance by the majority for ever into the future.

If the international community does not want to be shocked and surprised, it needs to go beyond the official posturings and look into ground realities of Islam in India, and the type of reactions it is generating from the non-Muslims.

Advertisements
Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 5 so far )

Who’s afraid of Afzal Guru’s hanging and “damaging consequences”? The thin shell of India’s self-appointed secularists.

Posted on February 9, 2013. Filed under: Ayodhya, Bangladesh, Bengal, Christians, Communist, Delhi, Egypt, exile, Hindu, Historians with political agenda, History, India, Islam, Islamic propaganda, Jihad, Kashmir, Kashmiri Pundit, Left, Maoism, Muslims, neoimperialism, Pakistan, Politics, rape, religion, Taleban, terrorism |

Seema Mustafa, a noted journalist, wrote a piece on Rediff  http://www.rediff.com/news/column/hanging-could-have-damaging-repercussions/20130209.htm– about the possibly “damaging” consequences of the rather quiet hanging of Afzal Guru – an Indian from the Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir, and an accused as well as convicted of a murderous terrorist attack on the Indian Parliament.

Mustafa’s primary concerns can be summarized as

(1) supposed signs of “bias” in a section of Indian journalists over questions of “nationalism”

(2) supposed allegation that Afzal did not have a fair trial or adequate representation

(3) supposed fear of “damaging consequences” of the hanging.

Mustafa brings out everything that is wrong with the Indian media’s long history of playing and pretending “secularism” which effectively became Hindu/Saffron bashing while selectively whitewashing, even protecting the image of so-called “minority” religions by clamping down on anything negative motivated by such religions. She writes in such frank tones of a sense of betrayal, that she possibly does not realize how she has exposed the underlying religious politics of selective favouritism that plagues her profession.

A television news anchor, shortly after Parliament terror attack accused Afzal Guru was hung by the government in Tihar jail, declared, ‘All nationalist, secular and progressive people support this.’

That was just one statement amidst a cacophony of euphoric reactions to the hanging, but stood out as many of us who have been opposing the death penalty and questioning the fairness of the Afzal Guru trial certainly do not regard ourselves as communal and reactionary or for that matter anti-national.

Quite the contrary really, and so it did sound strange when journalists supporting death by hanging, refusing to question the fact that Guru did not get a capable lawyer through the trial, and blocking out the responses of those raising such issues, so easily put large segments of the Indian population into their self-defined ‘anti-national’ frame.

And so before analysing the possibly disastrous consequences of this hanging, it is imperative to understand the mindset of television news anchors who have successfully managed to convert personal beliefs into news, and trash all voices of sanity and sobriety that seek answers to complex questions. News channels are supposed to report the news and not give their editorial comments to a point where contrary voices are restricted from giving their views.

Most interesting to read! Now did the colleagues of Mustafa, only report the “news” and not give their editorial comments to the point of restricting contrary voices from giving their views when it came to talking about the rape, eviction, enforced migration – each and every element of genocide by most current standards of definition of a genocide – on the Kashmiri pundits? How many of Seema Mustafa’s colleagues practised what she wants them to – when the targets were Hindus from Kashmir Valley, or did they care to give space to view from the “other” side of what is alleged to have happened in the burning of returning Hindu pilgrims in a locked train compartment at Godhra, that is supposed to have led to the inter-community clashes in Gujarat which has been mad einto an international issue. I remember watching a news report from a well-known “secular” channel of India based in New Delhi – during the heyday of the Kandhmal (Orissa) conflict, when Hindu tribals hiding out in the forests express their fear of being lynched by Christian mobs or their Maoist collaborators – but the news-anchor comments before them along the lines of “look how much they have been threatened so that they they lie out of fear”.  What reports have ever been covered by Mustafa’s secular colleagues on the atrocities carried out by Muslim gangs in Kerala, or West Bengal, or Assam? Did they go and ever give any space to any views on the “other” side, if that other side did not happen to be Muslim or Christian? It is exactly these sort of biased behaviour that strengthens the more radical among the Hindu!

There was a time when reporters followed the news, reporting it as it was, communicating and informing the public, without wearing their prejudice, bias or for that matter, views on their sleeves.

How many times have details of religiously motivated atrocities been ever objectively and impartially reported by the media – without considering the supreme objective of not allowing the tarnishing or exposure of the on-ground modus operandi of extremist religious movements if and only if those movements happen not to be “Hindu”? Riots have been frequent in the state of Uttar Pradesh, atrocities by organized muslim gangs in Kerala, or Bengal – but Mustafa’s colleagues never find the space to report them. By accusing her colleagues of biased and ideologically motivated reporting, Mustafa confirms that Indian media can be and does operate on religious and ideological bias in reporting. In fact many like us draw the inference that it must have been this or that Muslim gang that started a riot – if the media reports it as a violent clash between “two communities”. One way or the other, if the responsibility can be or needed to be – put on “Hindus”, the names or details will be leaked to the sufficient degree to make sure that the conclusion or impression holds.

Afzal Guru has been hung. And apart from the main story the news media has a responsibility to:

one, trace his story with the facts of the case highlighted;

two, review the trial through important voices to see whether he had the best legal advice at hand or whether he was virtually left unrepresented;

three, to find out (and not just from official quotes) whether his family was informed in time, and were asked to meet him as per the humane provisions of law;

four, to seek answers to the commonly asked questions as to why the rush now, has it been prompted by political considerations;

five, to look at the possible political consequences of the hanging at this point in time and analyse whether the death of one man was worth what might follow.

This constitutes responsible reporting. As for the beating of the drums, this can be safely left to the political parties and the government who have held innumerable press conferences to applaud the act.

Has this ever been done by Mustafa’s colleagues when the victims of religiously motivated violence were non-Muslims or non-Christians? Even Sikhs were not always given the benefit of “unbiasedness”! Recently unusually (for Indian courts in such cases) harsh sentences were passed on BJP political leader for her alleged complicity in riot violence against Muslims – and a woman to boot – in Gujarat, on a peculiar legalistic claim that her “crimes” deserved exemplary punishments (I thought law was usually claimed to be about “fairness” and not about “examples”). Did Mustafa and her colleagues go and research the “other” side’s views? Did they report allegations of one “victim” having been in the habit of pulling out his firearm on previous occasions to threaten non-muslims or even use the firearm [I did not see any follow-ups, even debunking attempts, of this by any of Mustafas  secular colleagues]. Significantly, she uses an expression that has often been used in the past by the Indian state, predominantly the Congress and the Leftists, and in some cases – ideology-less regional charismatics, to clamp down on protests against Islamic claims of immunity from even verbal criticism. The ubiquitious claim is that “any crackdown on Islamic violence, protests, or outrage, or even protest or criticism of an Islamic gang coercive street rampage behaviour – is going to lead to a deterioration of law and order problem”. On this excuse Indian state regimes often pre-emptively strike on opposition to Islamic claims, and such an attitude has been primarily responsible for the threats and attacks on writers the Islamic shariacracy in India think of as damaging to their agenda of Islamization of India – like the banning of Salman Rushdie’s book, or the hounding out of the exiled woman author from Bangladesh – Tasleema Nasreen.

Journalists are supposed to play the devil’s advocate, be on the other side of the fence as it were, and review the story in all its dimensions. Indian democracy has many views, and a media that insists only on one view as ‘nationalist’ promotes a monolith that is in contradiction to the pluralism and diversity of this country..

Unfortunately, Mustafa’s case seems to rest on having all these benefits as privileges of the Islamic only – and her voice comes out when she effectively sees these privileges being taken away from the Islamic. Mustafa even does not realize that “nationalism” has its boundaries and terms of debate that cannot be allowed to be infinitely stretched. Otherwise, no attack on the “nation” can be opposed logically, for there will always be a “diversified” view that supports exactly such attacks as valid becausee they do not agree to “our” definition of  “our nationhood”. One day, the presence of non-Muslims will become problematic for “nation-hood” – the argument used by the jihadis of Muslim League and Jamaatis to unleash the partition genocide and carve out “Muslim” nations.

The terror attack on Parliament was heinous. And could have been far more disastrous had the terrorists been able to enter the building.

But Mustafa fails to say that 12 people were killed in that attack. Is this part of merely factual reporting too?Is not “heinous” a qualitative expression and not an objective one?

It was clear at the onset that the police had no clue about the attackers. Finally, Delhi [ Images ] university lecturer S A R Geelani was arrested, and then Afzal Guru was picked up. Geelani’s trial took a chequered course, but because of the support in Delhi and the involvement of wellknown lawyers, he was finally released.

Guru was from Kashmir and unable to afford a decent lawyer. He did not have the money and as senior advocate Kamini Jaiswal managed to say hastily on a news channel, he went virtually unrepresented.

Geelani, contacted by Rediff.com, one of the news sites doing its job professionally, said, “Afzal Guru was denied a fair trial. This has been proved in his last moments. I do not understand the attitude of the government. They have done nothing but play to the gallery.”

“Do you know there is a case pending in the Supreme Court of India ? The court has been looking into the delay into this case, arguments are going on and the matter is pending justice.”

‘Do you think it was right to hurry up the matter?’

“The due process of law has not been followed. This is nothing but a flawed process.”

But somehow we have becomes so blood thirsty as a nation, so wedded to war and violence (largely because of TRP ratings) that we do not like to ask any questions. After all, even a death row convict has rights, or is the case now that all these chaps should be shown no mercy and hung the moment they are convicted by the courts?

As wellknown women rights lawyer Indira Jaising said, while arguing against the death penalty, is there not a right to reform, and if even reform for some is seen as impossible, is there not a right to remorse? And should not it be the job of the sane voice of journalism to ensure that at least the rule of law is respected, and the rights of an individual acknowledged?

The interesting piece about Indian journalism is revealed in the way the “facts” are presented here. Somehow the Indian “police” are seen to be “obviously” not having a clue “right from the beginning”. I am not sure how many police forces of the world have clues to crimes being committed “right from the beginning” – for such details in prior knowledge would in most case lead to prevention of the crime actually being committed. From this “obviousness” in the eyes of the journalist, an ominous silence hangs to the onset of the next statement about Afzal being picked up after the arrest of another. The insinuation perhaps intended is that somehow this allegation of “obvious lack of clue” should encourage the reader to suspect that the police arrested Afzal without any proof or evidence.  If the evidence gathering process was so good and reliable in passing sentences on Kandhmal and Gujarat riot accused after long delays and twists and turns that could have raised even more serious concerns about police “capabilities or intentions” – why is it suddenly so unreliable when the accused is implicated in a violent terrorist attack on the very symbolic seat of Indian democracy?

The impact of the hanging can have damaging repercussions at different levels, and far more than this government will be able to handle. The media informs us, through the usual sources, that the decision was taken after top-level meetings and discussions. So one is led to believe it was a considered decision.

Instead of instilling confidence, this actually evokes fear, fear of being led by a government that clearly is unable to make the right assessments and basically does not care if parts of the country go up in flames.

The government has bitten the bullet as channels screamed with joy, but there is every possibility of the bullet exploding in its mouth. And this is what makes one wonder at a political leadership that willfully invites trouble.

Aspects of the case, as has been pointed out by lawyers as well, were before the Supreme Court and the government could have easily ridden the issue out instead of converting it into a storm that will hit it, in all likelihood, in Kashmir.

The military has clamped down in Jammu and Kashmir. As a resident there said, “Not even a leaf is fluttering here.” But while the state can be confident of maintaining control in normal circumstances, and beating down demonstrations, it also realises that one civilian death will snowball into a major uprising.

The February 11, 1984 hanging of Jammu and Kashmir Liberation Front leader Maqbool Bhatt led to a decade of the worst violence that India has ever seen. It is true that Afzal Guru does not have the same stature in terms of a leadership profile, but in terms of sympathy and support he was probably far ahead.

Besides, the alienation and anger in Kashmir is in a heightened stage, more so after the death of the young boys in the 2010 stone pelting incidents. A Facebook post by this columnist on Afzal Guru’s hanging has elicited a volley of responses reflecting this anger and alienation and asking why those responsible for the death of the boys have not met with similar punishment.

Now that sounds like a threat, isn’t it? It is time that the pretenders of secularism who actually effectively, on the ground, promote and protect Islamism by their selective reporting or campaigns at manufacture of social consensus in favour of Islamist agenda – realize, that a new generation is coming up. They are seeking to search out the reality of religious politics, especially of the medievalist brand of religiosity represented by modern Islamism. Even a Morsi cannot easily take an Egypt back to the 7th century one-sided propaganda that targeted all other cultures and human freedoms or civilizational achievements for erasure.If Mustafa is so concerned about the Kashmiri boys trained to give a Intifada style uprising – is she also concerned about the Kashmiri Hindus murdered, raped, looted at the start of the Shariafication drive of the Valley in the late 80’s – long before the excuse of all Muslim reaction stemming from the destruction of the disputed structure at Ayodhya could be given ?

The only logical explanation, thus, for the sudden hanging of Afzal Guru is the fact that general elections are around the corner.

And the Congress in its usual cynical manipulation of the votes is trying to eat into the majority constituency with this action. As for the Kashmiris they do not figure in Delhi’s plans. As for the secular forces, the argument voiced by Congress leaders is: ‘Where will you go. If there is Modi as prime minister you will have to be with us.’

So the minorities do not figure either, as they are the bechaara who can easily be made to run into Congress arms while fleeing from communal shadows. The secularists too, in the Congress analysis, will not be far behind as there is no Left and hence no Third Front alternative that could attract them in the polls.

So all in all a cozy scenario, except for the fact that the dynamics of India and the aspirations of the people cannot be controlled and tend to upset the most careful calibrations.

Tut -tut! why such a frustration? Is it so bad to be on the receiving end of the religious politics which had been so good for so many decades in expanding the network of madrassahs and Islamism spreading structures fueled by Gulf money and complicity by Islamophile regimes of the Left and Congress? If the Congress is really the supreme popularists they are made out to be, if saffron is really the outcast of Indian politics, and yet the Congress feels the pressure to need to appease the “majority” of the populations of India – that appeasement politics has run its steam off? That no longer should any population be hostage to the type of totalitariansim represented by Islamism – under excuses or threats of “potential damage”?

Take Islamist threats of damaging more liberal societies, and the tactics of emasculating entire societies by trying to raise apocalyptic visions of destruction and “damages” if terrorists are not pampered – with yourselves away from the public space! Nay! Better – speak more about this – because by doing so, the cozy arrangement to manipulate public opinion through clever manipulation of appeal to liberal values to progress non-liberal agenda  and veiled threats of violence otherwise – gets more and more exposed.

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 1 so far )

Allegation: Hindu husband of a Muslim woman murdered by Islamists – and an Indian provincial government covers up for the Islamists.

Posted on December 8, 2012. Filed under: Afghanistan, Ayodhya, Christians, Hindu, India, Islam, Islamic propaganda, Jihad, Kashmir, Kashmiri Pundit, Muslims, terrorism |

I had to write allegedly in the title. First I have no real means of verifying the allegation, especially if any Islamophile regime in India decided to bring its full coercive power behind Islam. Second, I would not have needed the allegation qualifier – if it was say the case of a Muslim husband Rizwanur, being “murdered” (and no need for “allegedly” here) by Hindus for marrying a Hindu woman in the same province. As shown by the media of West Bengal, the then governments at centre and state, and the then fiery activist and the current Chief Minister of the province – who made it a public issue, offering namaaz e janaaja lamenting Rizwanur – and whose current police administration is now alleged to be suppressing the current incident from taking legal course.

For all those on the net, who believe in the supposed one-sided repression and violence on Muslims by Hindus in India, here is version that looks at cases on the ground from the other direction.  This might not have been what really happened, this might be an exaggeration, murderers and criminals have no religion, yadda, yadda. But do we allow such doubts to creep in when we accuse non-Muslims on supposed atrocities on Muslims?

http://southbengalherald.blogspot.ie/2012/12/hindu-man-marries-muslim-woman-shot.html

Dipankar Roy, 22 years old (Hindu) was brutally murdered as he had married Salima (Muslim). Both of them had been in love for a while. The victim was riding his motorbike coming back from Chandpara to his own house, when he was lynched and shot dead by Muslim activists led by Aamir Mandal, a member of the local Islamist organization. Dipankar’s body was found in a pool of blood and bore multiple bullet wounds in the chest, abdomen and shoulders. But West Bengal police has not bothered to arrest the murderers, as there is intense pressure from the local Muslim religious bodies. Instead, the police is trying to shield the perpetrators. District: North 24 Parganas.  Subdivision: Bongaon.   Near the Bangladesh border.

The alleged role of the provincial administration:

on December 5th, 2012, 05/12/2012 when the relatives of Dipankar Roy, who was killed by Aamir Ali on 03/12/2012, went to RG Kar Hospital morgue. At first, Shri Malay Roy (cousin brother of the victim) and Shri Haridas (brother in law) remained unattended for several hours. Later, when they insisted for the dead body, local police under Tala police station informed them, off the record, that it is instructed from the higher position to delay the process so that no sentiment can be created amongst Hindus while returning to their home town.

According to the blog-poster, the West Bengal police, under pressure from the local Muslim clergy-mafia nexus, is now barging into Dipankar’s house and intimidating / creating mental pressure upon the family members of the victim to cremate his body at the dead of the night without post-mortem, to avoid any further investigation into this issue.

After intervention of Hindu Samhati activists, the deadbody was finally released at around 4pm, post mortem was done, but that too without a medical certificate. One police from Bangaon police station Mr. Ranjan was posted in the hospital for passing minute by minute report to Bangaon police station. He insisted to accompany the deadbody in the small truck but family members objected to that citing very small place inside the truck. Then he called In-Charge Bangaon police station and forcibly entered into the truck under his instructions.

Later, the body of the victim was brought at Barasat. Activists of Hindu Samhati paid their homage to the victim. Then similar kind of program was also organized at Chandpara, Nera Pukur Pas en route to their house.

Late in the night, police came to the house of the victim and forced the family members to perform the last rites in the night itself as the Administration was scared of any communal tension in the area arising out of the cremation of the victim. Sisters and brother-in-laws of the victim strongly turned down the proposal of the administration and stuck to their demand for cremation in the morning. Then, local MLA (member of legislative assembly) came to their house at around 2330 hours and again, for half an hour, tried to convince the family for early cremation but it went in vain.

According to the blog, on 6th December morning, the family members proceeded  towards the crematorium for last rites.

Police had been deployed in huge numbers, especially in front of houses of Hindu Samhati activists. 500 plus people blocked the road in front of SDPO office at Bangaon town, as they carried Dipankar’s corpse. They were demanding immediate arrest of the killers of Dipankar.

This is not an isolated story in India. There is a huge propaganda machinery that runs in overdrive about supposed atrocities on Muslims in the Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir. The reality is that the troubles in Kashmir started long before the so-called 1990’s demolition of the disputed structure at Ayodhya, or the so-called one-sided riot on Muslims in Gujarat, with several cases in the Kashmir Valley in the 60’s and 70’s whereby Hindu girls were abducted and raped systematically by Muslim gangs. Throughout northern India, especially in places of high muslim concentrations, riots and conflicts frequently break out on instigation by Islamics. They know, that their specific religious agenda and role will be protected by the politico-business-mafia interests that control the Gangetic Valley – and since the media is under constant threat unless it toes the regime lines (two Zee news functionaries were recently dragged to jail on allegations of extortion by a Congress MP) – no reports on any Islamic atrocity gets ever published or aired in India. A string of recent atrocities in the southern state of Kerala against Hindus, where a spate of gruesome ritualistic slaughter of animals, especially dogs, have also taken place and been interpreted to reflect the Islamic hatred and love for torturing dogs out of their founder’s possible hatred of Hekate. (There have been reports of the Afghan National Army members bringing in stray dogs into their compounds to torture and mutilate them to death.)

Just because the Indian state machinery manages to suppress the release of such information in the public domain, does not necessarily mean that Islamist atrocities on non-Muslims in India, are not  happening. Non-Hindus might rejoice secretly if Muslims eliminate Hindus, imagining that the space might then be clear for other proselytizing religions to harvest new slaves of their respective religions. But the fact remains that once mullahcracy takes over a country – Christians are constantly tortured and eliminated too, and the supremely confident Christian evangelists in the west, who boast such spectacular success on “pagans”- fail completely and abjectly and run with their tail behind their hind legs where it comes to harvesting Muslims.

It is crucial for the non-Muslims to unite in their perception of the totalitarianism represented by Islamism.

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Why the Indian Left fails to understand religious extremism

Posted on August 25, 2012. Filed under: Ayodhya, Bangladesh, Christians, Communist, Hindu, Historians with political agenda, History, India, Islam, Islamic propaganda, Jihad, Kashmir, Kashmiri Pundit, Left, Macaulay, Maoism, Marxism, Muslims, neoimperialism, Pakistan, Politics, religion, terrorism, Uncategorized |

For some time now, the Indian state of Assam has been on the news due to its large-scale civilian strife and internal displacement of communities. But even more spectacularly, the internet and the media to an extent – has been ablaze with the issue of alleged threat mails and texts that perhaps forced a lot of migrant labour and students from the North Eastern ends of India. Following up, the government of India apparently has moved on in its bid to control the net, just like almost any other government on the planet, on the formal platform of protecting vulnerable people.

I will not go into the details of the Assam ethnicity, migration, religious divide problem that is essential to get a perspective of what is happening there and why. But in this Kafkaesque world of interest groups, doublespeak, hidden motivations shaped in their outward expression by complicated legacies of history and concocted morality, what is much more revealing is what the intellectuals and the self-acknowledged voices of nations and communities say on the issue.

I will pick on a very interesting voice pointed out to me by a friend, that of Amaresh Mishra in his timesofIndia blog. Mishra gives a good clue to his ideological lens in the very beginning lines

Before joining the Times of India in 1993 as a roving correspondent, I was part of the radical Left movement led then by the CPI-ML (Liberation). However, sufferings of dalits, adivasis and the working classes—natural Left constituencies—did not contribute to my early, personal radicalization. Still a student leader in the Allahabad University, I took active part in debates, discussions concerning national-international topics—and agitations mainly—on student issues.

In 1984, the day our Prime Minister Indira Gandhi was assassinated, I was in Calcutta. I had gone there to take part in the national conference of the Indian Peoples Front—the only attempt of its kind—of a Communist Party sponsoring  a democratic-peoples party in India—made under the leadership of late comrade Vinod Mishra—the then general secretary of the CPI-ML (Liberation).

Mishra, says much more about where his mindset comes from – that of the Maoist strand within Indian communism, which typically frantically tries to distinguish itself from the second attempt at puritanism within Indian Marxism – that of CPI(M=Marxist), by adding the claim to be closer to Lenin in the L of its CPI(ML). In so many ways, the communists seem to uncannily reflect the classical search for ever more purity and a return to the golden mythical pure origins of all totalitarian and monoiconic ideologies including totalitarian religions – through evermore stringent factional and sectarian schisms.

Eric Hoffer writes : “Whence comes the impulse to proselytize? Intensity of conviction is not the main factor which impels a movement to spread its faith to the four corners of the earth. …Nor is the impulse to proselytize an expression of an overabundance of power. …The missionary zeal seems rather an expression of some deep misgiving, some pressing feeling of insufficiency at the center. Proselytizing is more a passionate search for something not yet found than a desire to bestow upon the world something we already have. It is a search for a final and irrefutable demonstration that our absolute truth is indeed the one and only truth. The proselytizing fanatic strengthens his own faith by converting others. …It is also plausible that those movements with the greatest inner contradiction between profession and practice – that is to say with a strong feeling of guilt – are likely to be the most fervent in imposing their faith on others.”  (The True Believer, Psychology of Mass Movements, 1948, p. 110-111)

This sense of inadequacy and insufficiency, minus the humility of spirituality, leads to a constant instability and inequilibrium that leads the communist radical as much as a religious one, into a permanent search for something to feel guilty about and atone for that guilt by extreme action on a focused enemy, the “other”, the devil of his instantaneous ideology. Note that Mishra is perhaps subconsciously aware of this – in that he claims that his radicalism did not stem from communism per se but had existed even before – that his innate fanaticism and radicalism perhaps only found an appropriate vehicle to express itself.

Mishra explains his “anti-right wing” radical thoughts based on his glimpse of communal violence in 1984, when according to him he witnesses an atrocity:

Back then, I was only 18 years of age; the incident traumatized me so deeply that after I got back to Allahabad I fought with everyone—including my close relatives—who—as per the norm those days—were abusing Sikhs incessantly.

For several days, I was unable to sleep; I was full of rage; it was good that I did not have access to a gun those days—I would certainly have used it on some right-wing, communal/anti-Sikh element in Allahabad, Uttar Pradesh.

I am expressing my inner most urges to make a point—that during desperate/unjust times—a sensitive human being—belonging to the majority community—can be driven to anti right-wing violence. Being a ruling class  brahmin—whose family had protected Muslims during the 1947 riots—and who took any violence against minorities as a challenge to his sense of honour directly—also must have contributed  a lot to my aggressive stance.     

So, imagine the plight/mindset of minority communities who saw unspeakable crimes—raping of daughters and mauling of children—being committed on their kith and kin.

It is most illuminating that Mishra always thinks of the “majority” in the context of the “Hindu”, and never ever expresses similar thoughts about the plight of the “minority” Hindu or Buddhist in Muslim majority areas or societies. In his memory and narrative, the “majority” member Hindu-Brahmin ancestor of his, is and does what is expected of the “majority” in any society. However, he conspicuously avoids the issue of duty of similar muslim majorities to protect the humanity and dignity of minorities in Muslim majority countries – even on the subcontinent and as neighbours, as in Pakistan and Bangladesh, where minorities have been systematically targeted for elimination and have been constantly dwindling from the time of Partition. Mishra of course needs to be completely silent about similar trauma and reaction in the “Hindus” seeing similar action during the Partition – when a future luminary of Pakistan, and icon of Bangladesh , Hussein Suhrawardy allowed a planned pogrom of Hindus to go through in Noakhali and Calcutta. Mishra cannot cite Liaqat Khan’s role in organizing a pogrom of Sindhi Hindus and what effect such memories should have had on Hindu survivors!

Amaresh Mishra then goes on to list the long tale of alleged woes of Muslims in India and allegations of state connivance in supposed “right-wing” torture. For Mishra’s deracinated guilt-ridden conscience, however, it does not pay to remember the case of the Kashmir Valley and the state sponsored “Muslim” “right-wing” atrocity on the Kashmir Valley Hindus from as early as late 60’s and early 70’s.  Mishra has never heard of a certain Kashmiri Pundit girl who was abducted and the consequences thereof – long, long before the destruction of the disputed structure at Ayodhya.

Mishra accepts that in India, it was possible to flourish as an “upper-caste” “ex-Naxalite”. He fails to realize, that in his clever self-pity, he shows that even after passing through “Naxalism”, it was impossible for someone to leave behind his awareness of privileged birth. Or therein lies the tragedy and the real failure of the Indian leftist, the failure to realize that his leftist radicalism often has its roots in an imperfect digestion of his Hindu cultural roots. The reason that the ranks of leftism are dominated by “upper castes” and Hindus, but not Muslims or Christians – who only make rare appearances, lie in Hindu threads of a pervasive universal humanism that has remained alive through texts and folk belief in spite of the louder voices of so-called elitism of caste or jaati-varna hierarchies. Islamic culture theologically endorses property, and the imperialism shaped later Christianity similarly endorses authoritarianism and property, and discourage rebellions against the theologically approved regimes which protect those very things that the Left seeks to destroy.

The remainder of Mishras’ article goes on to repeat the allegations in the current Congress led Indian regime’s attempts at sticking the blame for almost each and every terrorist atrocity on Indian soil at the door of Congress’s hated “other”, the apotheosis, the “devil” – of the saffron, or the “Hindu”. Mishra’s political project therefore does not wait to mention the fact that many of these alleged cases against the so-called saffron terror themselves suffer from allegations of torture, political witchhunts, use of state machinery to serve electoral calculations, and that some of the accused could very well be agents provocateurs sent deliberately by the state – like a certain Col Purohit.

Is it so that Mishra perhaps needs a devil, a satan, on whom he can put the sense of all his inadequacies, and transfer all his guilt to? The underlying Hindu memes of equality of all mankind – amritasya putra of the Upanishads, the persistent and recurring post-Vedic Indian thinkers who repeatedly fought with the elite against claims of hierarchy and superiority, prepare him to expect social justice for all humanity- something a predominantly Muslim society never, ever feels towards the non-Muslims. But the established social hierarchy that gave birth to him practices differently from the underlying memes, and this contributes part of the guilt.

But the major part of the guilt comes from the colonial project of Macaulay, prompted by his dear friend Sir William Jones, and other missionaries aligned to the imperialist project on British India. Jones’s favourite textual representation of “Hinduism” was the work attributed to Manu, even though at the time, there was ample evidence that in India, various other Hindu texts were actually followed – like the various grihya sutras of Apastambha, Baudhayana, or Gautama – many far more liberal than that of Manu. In fact modern scholarship excavates increasingly the reality of 18th and 19th century Indian “Hindu”legal practice as far more heterodox and non-Manu like than the British colonial project wanted it to be. For the British empire, demonizing the “Brahmin” was a primary necessity – just as it was for the centuries of Muslim invaders before them. The cultural and intellectual legitimacy of the “Hindu” needed to be undermined and associated with guilt before the colonial project could succeed fully. The source of Mishraic guilt lies in that colonial project. Even the very fact of his “Brahmin” upper-caste ancestor behaving very un-Brahmin-like during 1947 fails to stir him to question the Islamist and British colonial stereotype of the evil caste-repressive “Brahmin” exploiter.

The intellectual limitations that lead to Mishra’s feverish imagination of conspiracy theories could have been overcome had he allowed himself to look at news items like the following:

Hindu Bengali Muslim refugees in Myanmar moved for protection away from Bengali Muslim refugees in Myanmar.

Khine Myo Min: Myanmar government authority in Sittwe evacuated ninety eight Hindu refugees from Bengali Muslim dominated refugee camps to downtown Sittwe on Wednesday.

98 people from 18 Hindu families were moved from their current shelter of Thae Chaung and Thak Kay Pron camps to Sittwe city due to increased threats by Bengali Muslim extremists after many reported rapes and attempted rapes and tortures committed by the Bengali Muslims who are majority in the camp.

A mind more used to logical dissection without ideological preoccupations, would have immediately noted the peculiarity by which even the horrors of a common refugee existence fails to suppress the Islamic urge for genocide or repression/exploitation of the non-Muslim.

In constructing grand saffron conspiracies, Mishra ignores news items that come from his trusted “secular” side of the narrative construction business :

Rogue sms’s traced to Kerala and Bangladesh

Cyber security agencies have apparently detected the hand of radical groups, such as the Popular Front of India (PFI) in Kerala and Bangladesh-based Harkat-ul-Jehad al Islami (HuJI), while tracking SMSs that led to the exodus of Northeast people[…] they have been successful in detecting forwarding of bulk messages going viral from Bangladesh groups and PFI activists. Some of the messages hold out communal threats of retribution for alleged atrocities on Rohingya Muslims in Myanmar, a community in the Arakan state linked with Bangladesh, traditionally backed by Islamist and jihadist groups, such as the HuJI.

The Arakan state, in west Myanmar, lies on the route for supplying guns to Northeast insurgents through Cox’s Bazaar, in Chittagong in the past. The HuJI, formed by former Bangladeshi jihadists who took part in the Afghan civil war, was involved in the attack on Sheikh Hasina, now Bangladesh PM, in 2004.

The agencies, monitoring Facebook and Twitter, are also examining the possible role of the Hindu radical groups and the underworld.

Mishra, if he had retained his critical intellectual faculties, would have noticed that the “security” agencies could give much greater details in case of Islamist outfits, and could only add the “possibility” of “Hindu radicals” too being involved. Such equating of Islamism with saffronism seems to have become a requirement of Indian political correctness, often resulting in hilarious columns. Actually, such perspectives should have led to exploring the “possible role” of “Christian” groups in the North East too, with some prominent insurgent groups in the past having paraded their Christian identity a lot possibly in the hope attracting international sympathies from appropriate corners.

It is understandable as to why Mishra cannot quote the following items, or even dismiss them as concoctions of a right-wing state. His devil then has to be extended to icons he needs to clutch on to as the last remaining helpless wronged victims of his limitless guilt. If he has to acknowledge the reality, he loses the fulcrum of his life.

http://www.hindustantimes.com/India-news/Guwahati/Assam-refugees-head-for-West-Bengal-Meghalaya/Article1-917351.aspx

When armed communities are at each other’s throats in the three violence-hit western districts in Assam, the unarmed and unorganised are fleeing the state — mostly to West Bengal and Meghalaya. The fear factor has gripped Bengali Hindus — the softest target whenever violence takes over the state’s fragile peace — and Koch-Rajbonsi tribals are fleeing the Muslim-dominated Dhubri district over the last one month since the Bodo-Muslim clashes broke out on July 20.

 Curfew in Allahabad

Curfew was today clamped in an Allahabad locality as a precautionary measure while stray incidents took place in Lucknow during a street protest against the ongoing ethnic strife in Assam.

“The curfew was imposed in Kotwali police station area from 7 P.M. And will remain in force till midnight when further decision will be taken after reviewing the situation,” Additional District Magistrate (City), D P Giri told PTI. Trouble began this afternoon when a procession was being taken out by some members of a minority community in localities falling under Kotwali police station.

However, policemen deployed in the area objected to the procession pointing out that no prior permission had been obtained and that order had to be maintained in view of large crowds expected at places of worship on the occasion of the last Friday prayers of Ramzan.
The agitators allegedly reacted strongly and tried to proceed with the procession with some of them indulging in heavy stone-pelting which left several persons, including some policemen, injured and caused damage to a number of shops in the vicinity and vehicles parked nearby.
[…]
Earlier, the protest march in Lucknow after the Friday prayers turned violent here as a group of people, shouting slogans against alleged atrocities on minorities in Assam and Myanmar, resorted to stone pelting and vandalism. The protest march which started from near the Tile Wali Masjid created a ruckus on its way forcing business establishments to close down and vandalising parks and vehicles, a senior police official said.

When the RAF and PAC tried to stop them they indulged in brick batting damaging public properties and vehicles. The protesters also took offence to the presence of media covering the event and damaged their vehicles and equipments, police said.

Later police resorted to baton charge as the protesters tried to march towards Vidhan Sabha.

With such a single-track focus, Mishra therefore shows no grasp of the longer social processes of history and reconstruction of history by both the colonial forces as well as those to whom the colonialists handed over power. He shows in exemplary detail, why the Indian Left had long stopped thinking and questioning themselves, their very own belief systems and values – to check for how those very concepts and values were shaped. In thinking how others wanted them to think for their own geo-strategic purposes and projects, projects which themselves are now defunct – there might still have been a way out.

But indulging in such conspiracy theories actually helps the neo-imperialist strategies to succeed. Mishra will be nowhere to defend whatever is left of his society when the time comes, a society which people of his ideology have helped undo out of unthinking and politically created guilt.

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 1 so far )

Rahul, Roemer allegedly and Wikipee : who is conning whom?

Posted on December 21, 2010. Filed under: Ayodhya, China, Christians, Hindu, Historians with political agenda, History, India, Islam, Islamic propaganda, Jihad, Kashmir, Kashmiri Pundit, Muslims, Rahul Gandhi, USA |

Recently, the net and the news media has been abuzz with a certain founder of a certain website that claims to release into the public domain supposed secret communications between American diplomats and Washington. Using some journalistic license in lampooning I will use the keyword “Wikipee” – since in some casually polite English circles “taking a leak” is an euphemism for a natural and essential mammalian act. Apologies in advance if anyone feels offended – both from the supporting or the opposing side.

Having said that, there is no alternative verification possible about the truth, reality or reliability of the information posted, so we can neither accept them at face value, nor reject them at face value. There are wild speculations about the possibility of these being a selected list of items which have been manufactured to create a certain opinion in favour of US foreign policy itself or help the US attain specific foreign policy objectives. Attacking the apparent source in public could then be seen as increasing the credibility of the source. On the other hand, it could also be simply a random act of omission, carelessness, negligence combined with various personal grievances and ideological dissent from among American personnel at various levels. It could even be an act of penetration and sabotage by opposing international forces like China which has been alleged many times as behind hacking attempts against national governments.

But whoever has selected the items to be released must have selected it out of some purpose, some aim at creating some impression. Here I will look at one item that has raised a huge storm in India : the alleged quote of Rahul Gandhi alleging much greater threat of supposed “Hindu Terror” compared to Pakistani or Islamist terror. The concerned text can be found here : http://cablesearch.org/cable/view.php?id=09NEWDELHI1624

5. (C) Responding to the Ambassador’s query about Lashkar-e-Taiba’s activities in the region and immediate threat to India, Gandhi said there was evidence of some support for the group among certain elements in India’s indigenous Muslim community. However, Gandhi warned, the bigger threat may be the growth of radicalized Hindu groups, which create religious tensions and political confrontations with the Muslim community. (Comment: Gandhi was referring to the tensions created by some of the more polarizing figures in the BJP such as Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi.) The risk of a “home-grown” extremist front, reacting to terror attacks coming from Pakistan or from Islamist groups in India, was a growing concern and one that demanded constant attention.
Comment

If true, Rahul is actually causing some severe logical problems for both himself as well as his party.

(a) Alleged “Hindu terrorists”—who are so completely penetrated, rounded up and cases put up in a jiffy by the Indian anti-terror organizations currently under the Congress led government in contrast to the lackadaisical pursuit of cases, penetration and rounding up or even absence of proper cases by the same government agencies if a single Indian Muslim name appears in connection with any terror atrocity — are accused of bomb blasts in 2007 and 2008 in Andhra Pradesh, Rajasthan and Maharashtra that killed 17 people. According to the South Asia Terrorism Portal, the toll in India from about two dozen radical Islamic terrorist attacks since 9/11 stands at more than 950 dead and many hundreds more injured.

The principal Hindu groups accused have little or no international presence – no theological support within Hinduism similar to the doctrine of violent Jihad (yes violent, as amply borne out by the core texts of Islam, where one ambiguous citing for “conditional peaceful treatment of people of the book” is propagandized by modern hagiographers compared to numerous references where Jihad is only mentioned in the context of violence). But those alleged to have a hand behind incidents like the 26/11 Mumbai attacks, have a wide ranging support network and connections of Islamist Jihad.

No Islamist government whose territories have been used to perpetrate terror on India has seriously taken any steps at all to try and book the culprits or even properly investigate the organizations. India under the Congress on the other hand jumps up and down ardently to pin the blame on its majority community.

Nowhere in the alleged report by Roemer, Rahul Gandhi is quoted as saying similar things about Jihadi terror. Significantly there is no hint of any importance being given to the Maoist terror or Left wing radicalism, which has consistently claimed lives and property damages. No mention either of outfits in the North East with open affiliations to Christian beliefs or who appear to tout their religious affiliation as a means of attracting obvious international interest and support.

(b) Rahul is a shame on his “historian” great-grandfather, who at least selectively quoted histories existing at his time and predominantly created by colonial historians with their own imperialist agenda in mind.

He tries to blame all Islamist Jihadi reaction against India as a reaction to supposed Hindu atrocities or provocations. But then can he answer what Hindu provocation in Jammu and Kashmir provoked the violent rapes and massacres and ethnic cleansing of Kashmiri pundits in 1989 – a full three years before the supposed incident over the disputed structure at Ayodhya?

Moreover, if Islamist reaction has only started as reaction to Hindu provocation, then did his great-grandfather Jwaharlal Nehru – who became the sole and supreme leaders of the Congress, its legislative wing, and key figure in the transitional government for independence of India – provoke the Muslims so much so that they went into Direct Action (rather Direct Rape and Genocide Action) Day leading to the Partition in 1947? The majority of Hindus made up the Congress at the time.

If every violence is due to historical trauma, why cannot Hindus have a similar justification and only Muslims are allowed to use such an excuse? If every historical atrocity event has a precursor provocation  event, why does not Rahul try to apply the same logic to alleged Hindu violence?


¶6. (C) Gandhi was forthright in describing the challenges faced by the Congress Party and the UPA government in the months ahead. Over the past four years, he was an elusive contact, but he could be interested in reaching out to the United States, given a thoughtful, politically sensitive and strategic approach on our part. We will seek other opportunities to engage with him and with other promising young members of the new generation of parliamentarians. Gandhi mentioned that in the recent election 60 members of the new Parliament were 45 or younger. In a system long viewed as relatively static, the influx of new faces and the rising profile of young leaders like Rahul Gandhi provides us an opening to expand the constituency in support of the strategic partnership with a long term horizon.

What is however more seriously damaging for Rahul Gandhi and the US itself is however here. If the US feels that reaching out to Rahul will ensure securing US strategic interests, that damns both Rahul and the US and their mutual strategic interest.

(1) Rahul’s desirability for the US makes him rather dubious as a candidate to win the future trust of Muslims.

(2) For India’s Hindus, US approach to enlist Rahul on their side is discomforting. His religious affiliations have been publicly ambiguous, unlike her illustrious grandmother Indira Gandhi who at least had no discomfort in display her Hindu affiliation, and there are increasing concerns in many quarters of India about the aggressive proselytization and conversion activities of Christian missionaries funded by Evangelicals from the USA – activities often seemingly protected by state machinery whereas any attempt at reconversion back into Hinduism is treated as “violence”.

USA forgets that the record of Christian missionaries and the Churches have often been actions in favour of colonial and imperialist designs, and that perception remains in the general Hindu society although it always does not come out in the Abrahamic violent intolerance of the “other” because of the inherent pluralistic nature of Hinduism.

(3) USA also should keep in mind that if the majority Hindu is sought to be disempowered and its faith undermined or attacked, then there are two fallouts that the USA will not be able to control.

First, removal of the Hindu from India will mean that there will be no moderating influence to mediate between the Islamists and the Christians, and these two have never been able to flourish together. No country exists today where this has been so. The only known example where it comes close to co-existence is Lebanon, which however speaks for itself. Removal or weakening or attacking the Hindu will mean civil war between Islamist Jihadis and Christian Jihadis – and who will ultimately win that war – Chinese or the Russians or it will become all a part of the grand Islamic Caliphate.

Second, Hindus have never proven easily digestible. They have not always gone the Abrahamic sectarian, non-pluralistic way – but neither have they always succumbed to onslaughts. Islamics made the error of treating the Hindu as a single category to be wiped off, and the Sikhs and the Marathas were the result who practically made the Mughals their slaves. Timely intervention of British saved the Muslims to an extent, but if US lends a hand to a similar attack against the “Hindu” – will it not do the opposite of what USA or its Evangelists want? What if it only consolidates the moderates and the conservative Hindu together more?

USA has often proved its shortsightedness in dealing with nations by concentrating on individual apparently pliable fanbois. Most of the time they turned out at the head of corrupt and unpopular regimes, supporting which even the US became ultimately unpopular in that country. It would be better sense to look at the national fabric, its majority culture and framework – which in case of India will provide a much better long term security for US strategic interests in Asia.

I hope there is more sense in one of the few remaining hopes for democracy and freedom of thought and words – that is the American “conscience”.

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

So-called eminent Historians of India : in their own words under cross-examination in the court over the Ayodhya dispute -1

Posted on October 7, 2010. Filed under: Ayodhya, Hindu, Historians with political agenda, History, India, Islam, Islamic propaganda, Muslims |

Post-updated…….

Exhibit historian Sri Suresh Chandra Mishra : (bold parts are due to me, and not highlighted as such in the original judgment).

Hon’ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.
Vol 6,
http://www.rjbm.nic.in/sa/Judgment%20RJ … vol-06.pdf

Page 1468 (219/251)
Quote:

1338. P.W.13 Sri Suresh Chandra Mishra in his cross examination has said:
At the time when I visited the site, I considered only these records, viz., inscriptions to be important. But they were in Arabic language. As that is an additional and credible information, I am telling it now. I did not make mention of these things in the symbols and objects earlier stated to be important.” 

“These records were in Arabic and I do not know Arabic language. It is not that I am a habitual liar. I on 14.07.98 gave my statement in this court. In the statement I had caused it to be recorded that ‘the inscription which was there, was written in Persian language but I had been in the know of that from earlier’. My today’s statement is correct that the record was written in the Arabic language. Actually it was a record, not an inscription. My earlier statement to the effect that it was written in Persian language, was incorrect. It may be due to mistake in understanding it, because I know neither the Persian language nor the Arabic language. I do not know Latin either.” (E.T.C.)

“I have read a journal ‘Epigraphica Indica’ in regard to inscription…… One of its editions makes mention of an inscription and contains an article which makes mention of inscriptions with 14 lines inside the Babri mosque. It makes mention of three pillar inscription. Yesterday I gave a statement in this very court that there was just one pillar inscription there. Actually, that statement of mine was due to slip of tongue and under the impression that there should not be any mention of any new fake inscription.”

1339. The witness has claimed himself to be an Expert Historian…also claimed that he may be placed in the category of Expert in “Epigraphy”. His statement on page 54…Babar was his favourite subject However, he admits that he did not find any reference of construction of the disputed building/Babari mosque in Baburnama..contains no reference of Mir Baqi. On the one hand he accepts of being expert in Epigraphy (page 111) but simultaneously he admits that neither he knows Arabic nor Persian nor Latin, therefore, he had no occasion to understand the language in which the alleged inscription was written…he claims that the inscriptions were written in Persian but later on page 72 he retracted and said that the inscriptions were written in Arabic and his earlier statement was wrong for the reason that neither he understand Persian nor Arabic
.
The slipshod and casual manner in which he made inquiry about inscriptions is further interesting. On page 79 he says that he carried inside the disputed building, the book “Baburnama by Beveridge” and therefrom compared the script of the inscriptions with the text quoted in the said book and since the matter relate to 1989/1990 he is not able to tell the correct date but thereafter on page 79/80 he admits that for security reasons his entire belongings were made to be left outside the premises and he went inside the disputed building empty handed. The book was also left outside where police checking was going. On page 80 when his statement about comparison of the text of the inscription with the book was further examined he says that he kept the text after reading the book in his mind and compared it with the inscription. This wonderful memory of the witness has to be seen in the light of the fact that the witness admits that he knows neither Persian nor Arabic. On page 79 he also admits that he also do not know Urdu language.

1341. Further, he claims to have read “Baburnama by Beveridge” but on page 197 could not tell whether the names Baqi Shaghawal and Baqi Tashkandi are mentioned therein ornot. His lack of knowledge in this matter is writ large from the fact that Mrs. Beveridge has suggested that it is probably Baqi Tashkandi whose name was mentioned in the inscription as Mir Baqi but PW 13 on page 197 says that even if the names of Baqi Tashkandi and Baqi Shaghawal have been mentioned in Baburnama that cannot be connected with the army chief Mir Baqi.

1344. …Dr. S.C. Misra (PW 13) did his Ph.D. under Prof. D.N. Jha (page 49) and claims to be closely acquainted with him On page 53, he says that he has also studied the “History of India” written by “Romila Thaper” and has also consulted her in the course of so called deep study on the dispute in question and believed whatever she has written is correct. On the one hand he claims to be a man of scientific temperament and in order to believe anything he looks into the matter and several things, analyse them and only then come to aconcrete finding (page 49) but on page 56 he says that on the basis of general conception among majority of people and also because of acceptance on the part of scholars he accepted that Islam emerged through revelation.On page 57 he admits that neither he know what “revelation” means nor has read the process of such revelation and, therefore, he is wholly ignorance of the term “revelation” and its meaning.

1347. The defendants sought to highlight the fact that PW 13 was a paid witness and made certain questions about the manner in which he comes from Delhi. On page 185 he said:
….I never came by air but on my way back from Lucknow to Delhi I went by air two times. Even today I want to go back by aeroplane. …

1348. However, later on he retracted and made a different statement on page 201 as under:
” I travel by rail and get my seat reserved while making to and fro journey. I travel in second class A.C., to which I am entitled. It is true that I told the court last time that I had gone back to Delhi by aeroplane two times.”

1349. His statement fails to inspire confidence and lack independent, fair and impartial opinion.

Hon’ble Sudhir Agarwal, J
Vol 6, Page 1487 (238/251)
http://www.rjbm.nic.in/sa/Judgment%20RJ … vol-06.pdf

Next expert witness – Sushil Srivastava

“Neither I can read nor write Persian. I can also not read Arabic Language nor can write it. I have no sound knowledge of Sanskrit also.” 

It is correct that my father-in-law helped me a lot in reading and writing, i.e., in interpreting the Persian language, which neither I can read nor write,..father-in-law is a scholar of Arabic and Persian languages..father in law felt that the translation of articles on disputed site made by Bevarage is not wholly correct…can not say whether out of three inscriptions one was in Persian and two were in Arabic, as I had no knowledge of these two language..In my book I have written about the three inscriptions after getting the same translated in English. For English transcription I have requested my father-inlaw and got it done from him….he know Arabic and Persian…style of Calligraphy on inscriptions creates doubt whether this mosque was constructed by Babar or not…basis of the aforesaid fact is that my father-in-law realized so. I have written this fact in my book.”

“I have not the least knowledge of art or science of calligraphy…true that, in the foot note of my book, I have mentioned those books too which I have not read…true that I have a very little knowledge of history.”

Vol 7, Page 1511 (12/251)
1352. Learned counsel for the defendants have stressed upon the motive of this witness certain facts antecedents to the publication of his book
“The name of my wife is Mehar Afshan Farooqui. My marriage has been solemnized as civil marriage, i.e., under Special Marriage Act. When I adopted Islam religion, at that time, I was given a new name Sajid. Presently, I am neither a Hindu nor a Muslim..I married according to Islamic rites.”

My wife encouraged me for this work.” “ In the Preface of my book I have written that Mehar Afshan Farooqi started persuading me to popularize the historical truth.” 1354. They also pointed out that the wife of PW 15 is well qualified being M.A. in Medieval History and D.Phil. with specialisation in “Economic Policy of Delhi Sultanate” which she did in 1988 but her father was not a Historian..

1357. ..Though the witness has been produced as Expert Historian but on page 222 he admits that he had a very little knowledge of history. That being so according to own statement of the witness his statement cannot be taken as an opinion of an Expert Historian and, therefore, inadmissible under Section 45 of the Evidence Act…We in fact find it surprising with the kind of dishonesty, such person has shown..

1357.[…]On page 106 on the one hand he admits that he lacks knowledge of Epigraphy, Numismatic, Archeology, Survey of Land, Science of Architecture, Turkish, Arabic and Persian language yet simultaneously he says that though the period of construction of the disputed structure, he could not conclude but according to him it relates prior to Mughal period. We are sorry to find that a person like PW 15 has written a book on such an important and sensitive matter without having made an in-depth study on the subject and hasdeposed before us claiming himself to be an Expert Historian though simultaneously admit that he has a very little knowledge of history.

On page 218 and 219 again contradicting his earlier statement he said that he has made research on the question as to how much old and of which period the inscriptions are and found that the inner inscription appears to be new from the style of calligraphy while the outer one is old. Despite admitting the fact that he has no knowledge of calligraphy he has made such comments on calligraphy of the text of inscription which is not expected from a responsible Expert Historian.

 

Next expert witness Prof. Suraj Bhan
Hon’ble Sudhir Agarwal, J
http://www.rjbm.nic.in/sa/Judgment%20RJ … Vol-07.pdf

Page 1513 (14/251)
Vol 7
1359. PW 16, Prof. Suraj Bhan in his cross-examination has said: “Except for an inscription carved by Mir Baqi, I did not come across any other epigraphical evidence on the basis of which the disputed site may be called Babri Masjid. This inscription is as old as this masjid.”“Inscriptions were engraved at two places in the disputed structure. Both of the inscriptions were engraved in the stone but the slab of the outside inscription was fixed in the wall. Both these inscriptions were written in Persian language. I do not know Persian. It is true that I can not read Persian. So I, could not read both the inscriptions at the site and could not even see the inside inscription.”

“This mosque not built by Babar on his own; rather, it was built by Mir Baqi with the permission of Babar, and for this very reason, the Babri mosque was built only as per the means of Mir Baqi…It was so written in the stone inscription at the mosque and the same had also been seen by me before demolition of the mosque”

1360. The statement of PW 16 … is solely based on two inscriptions which he claims to have affixed on the disputed building in Persian language though neither the witness can read Persian nor could see the inner one. ..though the witness claims that the inscriptions which were installed when he visited the premises were the same as were installed at the time of construction of the building..shows that he has not read the text of the inscriptions as published in different books..but the statement has been made on pure conjecture and surmises.

Next expert witness PW 15, Sushil Srivastava,, on behalf of muslim parties
J. Sudhir Aggrawal
Vol 15

Page 3061- (102/251) para 3603
http://www.rjbm.nic.in/sa/Judgment%20RJ … ol-15.pdfA

3603. About PW 15, Sushil Srivastava, we have already dealt in detail while considering the issues about the date of construction of the disputed building. The aforesaid witness has given a new theory that the building in dispute was constructed much earlier from the period when Babar came to India and must have been constructed before commencement of Mughal period. It is clearly against the pleadings of Muslim parties on whose behalf he has appeared as an expert witness. He also admits of teaching “Modern History” and on page 220, he admits that he has a very little nowledge of History. He, however, admits that there was a possibility of an earlier structure at the place where the disputed building was constructed:

“At page 113 of my book, I have written that this probability cannot be ruled out, i.e, cannot be completely ruled out, i.e, no other ancient construction would have existed at the place of Babri mosque……This conclusion of mine is based on Cunningham’s report.”

“It is true that stones were found in the mound below the Babri mosque. The size of the stones in this mound was very big, i.e. very large stones were present.”

“Q. You have just stated above that in the mound below the Babri mosque large stones were present, did you mean by “long size bricks” or “long size stones?” “Ans. I mean by long size bricks.” (ETC)

3604. He has written a book “An Inquiry on the Disputed Mosque”. On page 87 thereof, he has written that in 17th century, the people started claiming that the building in dispute was constructed by Babar after demolishing a temple but on page 256 of his cross examination, he said that the 17th century mentioned on page 87 of his own Book is wrong and it ought to be 19th century:

“At page 87 of this book, 17 century is written, which is wrong. In fact, it should be 19th century. Further said that the supposition that Babar had got constructed the mosque after demolishing the temple, commenced in the first half of 19th century. By first half of 19th century, I mean the period between 1801 to 1850. The amalgamation of Avadh Province in East India Company took place on13th Feburary 1856. i.e. since the British rule.” (ETC)

3605. He has further said:“To my knowledge, prior to 1526, except Syed Salar Masoodi and Ibne Batuta, no any other foreign Muslim Traveller had come to Ayodhya.” (ETC)
“means that it cannot be wholly ignored that where Babri mosque situated, earlier, there had been any old structure or ancient construction.” (ETC)

“This Babari mosque had not been in possession of Muslims during 1853 to 1855.” (ETC)

3606. All the Muslims parties have denied of any riot or dispute among the two communities in 1855 but this witness gave a different stand and admitted such a clash: “After 1855, no clash took place at the disputed place between Hindus and Muslims.” (ETC)
3607. Moreover, the expertise and authority of PW 15 has been challenged by PW 20, Prof. Shirin Musavi in her statement at page 129 observing that Shshil Srivastava is a Modern Historian and not an authority on Medieval History.
Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 7 so far )

The Muslim judge in the Ayodhya dispute reminds Muslims of Hudaybyah

Posted on October 1, 2010. Filed under: Ayodhya, Hindu, History, India, Islam, Islamic propaganda, Jihad, Muslims, religion |

The three judge panel of the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court, in the Indian state of Uttar Pradesh, has finally delivered three separate sets of judgments on the disposal and questions of title and rights to a disputed land. The land in question being an ancient site, now reported by the Archaeological survey of India to have been occupied by humans  from at least 1300 BCE, and traditionally long held by faithful Hindus to be the birthplace of an avatar of Vishnu or the “supreme” in Hindu philosophy.

There have been traditional narratives of pre-Islamic religious structures and complexes on the site to have had undergone a series of iconoclastic attacks by Islamists and Islamic rulers who consolidated their military power on the northern plains of India from the late 13th century CE up to and including the mughal period. The latest incident of vandalism is attributed to a commander under Babar, the leader of a faction of the neo-convert Mongols in or around 1538, when he destroyed most of what Hindu structures had existed and built a mosque. This is attested to by Islamic chroniclers and foreign travelers. This is a different and larger issue discussed threadbare from both Islamophile and Hindu sides.

What I find most interesting is however the reported statements of one of the judges, a Muslim by faith, among the panel.

http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/article805067.ece

Justice Khan said:“As this judgment is not finally deciding the matter and as the most crucial stage is to come after it is decided by the Supreme Court, I remind both the warring factions of the following. The one quality which epitomised the character of Ram is tyag [sacrifice].

“When Prophet Mohammad entered into a treaty with the rival group at Hudayliyah, it appeared to be abject surrender even to his staunch supporters. “However the Koran described that as clear victory and it did prove so. Within a short span therefrom Muslims entered the Mecca as victors, and not a drop of blood was shed.

“Under the sub-heading of demolition, I have admired our resilience. However we must realise that such things do not happen in quick succession. Another fall and we may not be able to rise again, at least quickly. Today the pace of the world is faster than it was in 1992. We may be crushed.”

Now taken together that is a dangerous piece of text! Is he a judge in an Indian Court of Law or he is here representing Alim or a Mufti? He has to interpret Indian law as it exists and not argue himself as a Muslim or Islamic scholar on behalf of Muslim litigants in the case? What is more dangerous is the “subtext” of which he seems to be very particular.

From the “Hindus” he wants “sacrifice” and tyag, but from the Muslims he clearly mentions the tactical retreat involved in Hudaybya from which ultimately Muslims emerged victorious. Maybe he thinks that under the careful management of the rashtryia educational apparatus most Hindus kept ignorant of the actual history of early Islam as narrated by accepted Islamic narrators, would be unaware of the real significance of mentioning “Hudaybyah” to Muslims and especially Islamic theological establishment.

This was a “treaty” meant to be and clearly intended to be “broken” as soon as the early muslim army around its leader gained enough strength and the treaty was simply to buy time. This is what he clearly indicates in the following lines to that reference. Mentioning this in the context of the Janambhumi case can only be interpreted in one way – it is a reminder or a “subtext” message that for “survival” of Islamism in the current world, where more and more non-Muslims were becoming aware of the underlying agenda of Islamism and taking political action to prevent the spread of Islam – it was necessary to make a show of compromise. This is only to buy time and “strike back” as and when “opportunity arises”.

Moreover the claim that no blood was dropped in entering Mecca is false. There were executions, including of women who had once composed sarcastic poems ridiculing the the founding father of Islam when he secretly preached his faith in Mecca for three years before negotiating a move to Yathrib outskirts with the Yathrib Jews. The entry into Mecca followed from victory in a battle against the last Qureysh army to resist him.

Hudaybya was about gaining time and pretending cooperation simply to mask the preparations for final annihilation. The treaties were typically faithfully maintained by the non-Muslim parties but were always broken on some pretext [dreams/message from Gabriel/suspicion] when opportune and the groups finished off /driven off/killed off/enslaved.

A unique position

“Muslims must also ponder that at present the entire world wants to know the exact teaching of Islam in respect of relationship of Muslims with others. Hostility, peace, friendship, tolerance, opportunity to impress others with the Message, opportunity to strike wherever and whenever possible, or what? In this regard Muslims in India enjoy a unique position. They have been rulers here, they have been ruled and now they are sharers in power (of course junior partners). They are not in majority but they are also not a negligible minority (after Indonesia, India has the highest number of Muslims in the world). In other countries, either the Muslims are in huge majority, which makes them indifferent to the problem in question, or in negligible minority, which makes them redundant. Indian Muslims have also inherited huge legacy of religious learning and knowledge. They are therefore in the best position to tell the world the correct position. Let them start with their role in the resolution of the conflict at hand.”

That bolded part is curious! it is almost verbatim from some major Islamic works – and as a theme occurs in many Islamic core texts as a strategy of war and impose the system on non-Muslims.

Is the “subtext” also a message to the Indian Muslim to wait and remember the history of Islamic spread – pretending to compromise when militarily weaker, and make a show of cooperation so that the core group is not wiped off in a conflict for which they are not prepared. Wait and gain strength and annihilate the ex-treaty-group.

Some on the media have called for “moving on” and derided “revanchism”. Moving on is a collective business – we cannot move on if only one subgroup are asked to and tries to move on. All the reactions of the Sunni Waqaf board, and people like Irfan Habib  show that the Islamists are not prepared to move on. For them, the supposed past glories of the supposed military invincibility of Islamic regimes in parts of the country – the one-sided extraction of surplus from the majority non-Muslims and the abuse of the very basics of humanity through abduction of women and whole-sale enslavement as well as religious torture and conversion which was tuned to a fine art of state policy and finance [which Irfan Habib and his father both acknowledge in their early works] – is something that cannot be abandoned.

Every fruit of such repression is cherished as a symbol of Islamic identity in India. Why? Why don’t pro-mosque voices trying to be neutral on terms set by the Islamists or their tactical supporters among non-muslims – fail to also point out the fact, that the Owaisis and Habibs [representing the supposed extreme opposites in intellectual “liberalism” among the Indian Muslims] are solidly refusing to give up on their past?

It should have been obvious to anyone with the slightest training in logical analysis that the sole reason for such cherishing of Islamic structures of the past in India – is exactly because of what they are associated with in the Indian Muslim mythology. These are all symbols of imagined Islamist triumph over the culture and religion and society of the “Hindu”. Without these landmarks, the version of Islamism in India that hopes for the “Islamist revanchism” in some future time point when hopefully Indian Muslim alone or with external help can be mobilized to finish the unfinished business of Islamization – can be kept alive.

Islamists are very keen users of site or structural iconism. It is ironic that those systems which claim greater abstraction in their theology and abhor visualizations of the “supreme” are maddeningly obsessed with “houses” and “property” and “structures/building” of the “supreme”. This is because they realize that visualizations are almost a must for the majority of any community to consolidate identities.

What is particularly revealing about the virulence with which Islamists are running the campaign about the disputed site is the connection it has to historical atrocities on Hindus. In a way the struggle in their mind is on two levels – the outer symbolic one of triumph and the imagery of Ba(r)barism that is being diluted and hence will lose its iconic message for the future. The inner level is that one of the highest and most popular deity of the Hindus seem to be winning back against Islamism’s highest deity. It is a retreat of Islamism’s “God” before the “Hindu” “God”.

This is a crucial thing to understand as to why it is important to roll back every such presence and structure. It is the Islamist refusal to move on that is the key to dealing with them. Every structure cleaned of Islamist memory of “triumph” over the “Hindu” or the “buddhist” or the Sikh – both humans as well as their “supremes” or cherished deities, is a psychological crushing of the spirit of Jihad and delegitimizing its hidden currents that is constantly seeking to “strike when opportunities arrive” along the expression that justice Khan uses in his verdict.

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 2 so far )

Liked it here?
Why not try sites on the blogroll...