November 03, 2005

Renounce an association

In my previous post, I wrote of news items about Muslims condemning the Delhi blasts, and asked: why should Muslims have to prove this every damned time?

It drew an answer from Patrix that I started to respond to there, but then thought it deserved a short post.

Patrix replied: "Because sadly, the terrorists use religion to spread their message of terror. When young muslim boys are forcibly drafted into jehadi armies, other muslims can only renounce their association with the fanatics."

How disappointing, Patrix, to get this from as thoughtful a person as you. Tell me:

  • When Buddhists in Sri Lanka kill Tamils there, are the Dalai Lama and my friend Tenzin Tsundue of the Free Tibet Movement and all other Buddhists in the world expected to get up and publicly "renounce their association with the fanatics"?

  • When the LTTE sets off bomb blasts that kill other Sri Lankans, are my friend KS Venkateswaran in Chennai and all other Tamils in the world expected to get up and publicly "renounce their association with the fanatics"?

  • When the LTTE sets off bomb blasts that kill other Sri Lankans, are my friend Ajay Nijhawan and all other Hindus in the world expected to get up and publicly "renounce their association with the fanatics"?

  • When the IRA sets off bomb blasts that kill people in London, are my friend Denzil D'Mello and all other Catholics in the world expected to get up and publicly "renounce their association with the fanatics"?

  • When the Protestants in Northern Ireland murder Catholics in sectarian violence in Belfast, are my friend Monroe Gilmour and all other Protestants in the world expected to get up and publicly "renounce their association with the fanatics"?

  • When upper castes murder lower castes in Bihar, are my friend Savita Rao and all other Brahmins in the world expected to get up and publicly "renounce their association with the fanatics"?

  • When lower castes murder upper castes in Bihar, are my unnamed friend the Dalit Hindi teacher in Worli and all other Brahmins in the world expected to get up and publicly "renounce their association with the fanatics"?

    Also tell me, what exactly is this "association" you are assuming?
  • 49 comments:

    P said...

    When Buddhists in Sri Lanka kill Tamils there, are the Dalai Lama and my friend Tenzin Tsundue of the Free Tibet Movement and all other Buddhists in the world expected to get up and publicly "renounce their association with the fanatics"?

    Yes, if Dalai Lama and your friend Dalai Lama and my friend Tenzin Tsundue have been advocating violence as an means to their ends.

    Same goes for your KS Venkateswaran in Chennai and Ajay Nijhawan and all other Hindus if he's been a proponent of the violent ways of LTTE.

    Ditto for your friend Denzil D'Mello and all other Catholics if they are silent of atrocities committed in the name of Christ while beating their chests about "hindutva" riots.

    Tell this to all your buddies, be they Hindu, Muslim, Sikh, Parsi or Jew.

    Anonymous said...

    Dileep

    I understand what you are trying to say, but if a group uses Religion as its sole reason for violence then the others have to dis associate themselves there is no difference there. If the LTTE are fighting on the basis that they are representing Hinduism then Hindus have to disassociate themselves, same goes for every other comparison you make. please dont let your secularist ideals cloud your judgement in this case. This violent act, the cause is religion and as long as the cause is religion people who follow that religion have the accountabiilty to do something abt it.

    Dilip D'Souza said...

    Anonymous 1038: What is this notion of collective responsibility? One of our women weightlifters tested positive for some drug during the Olympics, while she represented India. Must I, as an Indian, get up and renounce my "association" with her? What is my association with her?

    If I get up tomorrow and go kill people and announce to the waiting TV cameras that I did it in the name of Hinduism, what would you do, assuming you are Hindu? I'm guessing you won't get up and say: "I renounce my association with that man." I'm guessing you will say: "Hang the fucker!"

    a said...

    Perhaps it's more because of the fact that many non-Muslims say that this is condoned by Muslims. And they do say that. If you are being accused by many people, albeit in a roundabout way, that you do condone the violence, you will, of course stand up and deny that. This is, I think, what they are doing.

    Anonymous said...

    Let me see if I can focus on Dilip here and not get into Hindu/Muslim secular business:

    Dilip says:
    One of our women weightlifters tested positive for some drug during the Olympics, while she represented India. Must I, as an Indian, get up and renounce my "association" with her? What is my association with her?


    Dilip the question is whether you've milked her talents for your personal gains. Or if you've misused your journalists skills and prostituted your profession by shamelessly plugging this woman weightlifter to further your own career. If you haven't you have nothing to say to anyone - renounce or announce. But given your track record, you've a lot to "renounce".

    Anand said...

    Well put, Dilip. Frequently demanding the minority communities to prove their allegiance is a successful fascist ploy. That even secular minded people sometimes fall into these traps is indeed unfortunate. Let's not have first class citizens whose patriotism is never questioned and groups of second class citizens who need to prove it every now and then.

    Anonymous said...

    >>Frequently demanding the minority communities to prove their allegiance is a successful fascist ploy

    That's why the right kind of a ploy is the one that Dilip uses: target "majority" community - doesn't matter which community kills or is killed.
    If he's not available with data or facts on hand to push his psec-secular agenda, resort to writing fiction as a hate-email he's recevied and promptly publish it on his blog.

    Anonymous said...

    For Mulims around the world religion comes before anything. I have lived around the world and will vouch for this. Muslims are the most united religion in the world. The unite blindly. Muslims supports another Muslim blindly.

    I am a Hindu with a very typical Muslim name. Whenever I am asked my name, Muslims will always confirm with me if I am a Muslim too. Nobody from another religion has has ever asked me my religion.

    Mr. D'Souza is asking trick questions. In his questions lies the answers as to why Muslims are different from any other community in the world, and they cannot be compare with anybody.

    Nitin said...

    Dilip,

    Instead of helping, the rhetorical questions you pose, work against the point you are trying to make.

    In general, I do not think any community needs to 'prove their loyalty' every time. But if the black sheep of the community are using the community's beliefs or faith as a banner under which they carry out nefarious activities, then it falls upon that community to expose the lie.

    This holds for minorities and it holds for majorities. So I would expect Hindus or Tamilians or Plumbers or Communists or English Professors to condemn violence if is conducted in their name. By doing so, they would be playing their part in defeating a monster that threatens everyone.

    I've used the word community carefully, and as my examples show, the community can be religious, economic or geographic. I still remember Bangaloreans coming out clearly against the actions of their violent counterparts during the Cauvery riots.

    But questions you pose comprise of specious arguments.

    Sri Lanka's Buddhist chauvinists don't kill in the name of the Dalai Lama; besides Buddhism is not a monolithic faith.

    The LTTE does not consider itself a 'Hindu' organisation, neither does it use religion to promote its cause. It is using an ethnic identity to carry out its agenda, but it has only marginal support among Indian Tamils. That is so because Indian Tamils have already repudiated it.

    As for the Irish sectarian conflict and the caste-based violence in Bihar, yes, I would expect the communities in those places to repudiate the actions of their terrorists. Is it your argument that caste-violence in Bihar goes uncondemned by the rest of India?

    I have my own question for you: If India's Muslims do not condemn terrorism that is carried out in their names, how is India going to defeat it? The jihadis would like it most if the entire Muslim community is held responsible for their action...that's precisely their game.

    Let's assume that India goes hammer and tongs after Hindu terrorists and extremists and puts them all behind bars. Do you think the jihadi terrorism will stop immediately?

    Abi said...

    Thanks for a very eloquent post, Dilip.

    A person should 'renounce' something only if one stood by it earlier. By using the word 'renounce' in the present context, all Muslims have been 'framed' as having supported all the atrocities (including terrorist acts) that have ever been committed in the name of Islam. It is terribly unfortunate that the fundamentalist majoritarian party here has 'framed' our Muslim citizens this way. It is even more unfortunate that a lot of people have fallen for it.

    Abi said...

    Just a minor quibble: In the last example, you said "... the Dalit Hindi teacher in Worli and all other Brahmins ..."; perhaps you want 'Dalits' instead of 'Brahmins' there. Of course, the sentence , as it is now, does seem interesting in its own way ;-)

    I didn't want this to be mixed up with my earlier comment.

    Once again, thanks for saying what needed to be said.

    Anand said...

    The terrorists would like it most if the entire Muslim community is held responsible for their action...that's precisely their game.

    You are absolutely right there, Nitin. We as a nation need to see to it that communities are not held responsible for the actions of certain groups. By asking a community to prove their loyalty time and again, we are giving in to the terrorists' tactics.

    All right thinking people should condemn terror. The onus is not on any particular community.

    Nitin said...

    Anand,

    Yes, I agree with the way you have framed it. Demanding that a community prove their loyalty is out.

    My point, rather, is that Islamist terrorism cannot be defeated unless India's Muslims themselves repudiate it.

    (Btw, I recommend reading Sam Harris' The End of Faith)

    The Comic Project said...

    By asking a majority of muslims, who I assume do not support terrorism or any related activity, to apologize for the heinous deeds of a few among them, aren't we only pushing those on the fringe over to the "other side"? There is a point where a man says: "Anyway no one trusts me, so I might as well prove them right". In life, we do it in small ways, sometimes to offend, sometimes to make a point and sometimes for the heck of it.

    But some of us snap, and snap badly. There is no data, nor there ever will be any data, to show why someone turned to terrorism to make his point. But I will not be surprised if the alienation caused due to the "dissociate yourself" lobby, has been the last straw.

    Phew..serious topic. But I don't think any man/woman should apologize for another. Maybe in case of a child, but that too needs to be avoided. While being misguided is a good, valid reason for doing things wrong, it still was a choice made by the person in question and him alone. His parents, wives, children, friends, neighbours or community have no business apologizing for him by expressing disapproval. It's the man perpetrating the crime who needs to be on the blog. No more. No less.

    Ok not used to making serious comments. Just toning it down a lil: "The Phantom's fists dart like a bee, hit like a bull elephant"

    Abi said...

    [quote]
    My point, rather, is that Islamist terrorism cannot be defeated unless India's Muslims themselves repudiate it.
    [end quote]

    Nitin,

    Just when did "India's Muslims" own "it" so as to be asked repeatedly to "repudiate it"? And just how many times should they have to "repudiate it" for their loyalty to be registered and recognized? Should everyone do it, or just a certain number of public intellectuals -- all Muslims, of course -- will do? Just how many should it be: tens, hundreds or millions?

    Patrix said...

    Sorry for being late to a post that directly addresses me. Dilip, first let me assure you that I do not condone the fact that the Muslim community should apologize and disassociate themeselves each time a terror attack happens. But as Nitin points out correctly, the terrorists often use invoke the name of Allah or term their struggle as jihad. If the Kashmiri struggle was that of demanding equal rights or representation, I would understand but the terrorist chose to paint their cause with religious hues often forcing the rest of the community to renounce them. This post on Samizdata gives one insight of the issue we are talking about. And trust me, I find the situation extremely unfortunate too.

    Patrix said...

    Continuing...didn't we also expect Hindus to condemn the actions of Modi in Gujarat or denounce the demolition of Babri Masjid? Sadly, when a certain section of the religions tends to propogate hatred in the name of religion, others have to stand up and condemn them.

    Nilu said...

    If there is an obvious flaw in say retaining the slums in Mumbai and it somehow cause a deluge where a million die, should Dilip apologize?

    Your questions Dilip, are as meaningless. That someone expects a Muslim to renounce association is not binding on the muslim individual nor is the other guy bound by courtesy not to ask him to do so.

    secularist said...

    didn't we also expect Hindus to condemn the actions of Modi in Gujarat or denounce the demolition of Babri Masjid?

    Ah..ah..ahem. Not expect, we the seculars absolutely insist on that from Hindus. Now, Dilip's been doing this on everyone's behalf for what? At least past five years? Add a couple secular people like say Dilip's secular friends like Arundhoti Roy or Kamala V or Teesta Shitalvad or his business partners at Tehelka or his J B D'Souza business partners in uber-secular political party. They have the mike, stage and the entire theatre all covered.

    Lately even a band a bloggers (to whom Dilip doles out prizes for Indian Express sponsored essays) have joined this bandwagon. Notice the deafening silence on the issue of Mau riots at their blogs. Of course, they have a pretty well formed opinions about Godhara or Babri and they don't mince words when it comes to annoucing or denouncing or renouncing Hindus.

    So, no worries Patrix, sleep easy. That market for hindus denouncing or renouncing "hindu criminal acts" is pretty well covered.

    uma said...

    I agree with Comic Project. No man or woman should have to apologise for the actions of another. Sticking a mike under someone's face and forcing them to condemn something in which they were never involved in the first place... is like holding a gun to their head.

    Nitin said...

    Abi,

    Just when did "India's Muslims" own "it" so as to be asked repeatedly to "repudiate it"?The point I'm making is that they don't need to own "it" to repudiate it. Quite obviously, their faith has been hijacked by terrorists who are killing people in their name. I would think this is a good reason to repudiate it.

    And just how many times should they have to "repudiate it" for their loyalty to be registered and recognized?

    It's not about anyone's loyalty to be recognised or registered. Let me unequivocally assert that the loyalty of Indian Muslims has never been in doubt. But dragging in this question of loyalty obfuscates the real issue - how does a secular state like India defeat terrorism that is packaged under a religious label? I think this requires community leaders to reject terrorism that is conducted in their name.

    So how do you think Islamist terrorism can be defeated?

    Nikhil said...

    After reading the responses, it seems people are confusing 2 issues-
    -1. renouncing association from the fanatics.
    -2. Apologizing for the actions of the fanatics.

    Regards Issue-2, it is very clear cut. The innocent do not have to apologize for the actions of their co-religionists- This is the same for Hindus who were not responsible for the Sikh massacre or the Babri masjid destruction.
    REgards issue-1, there is nothing wrong if community people disassociate from hate mongers or fanatics who claim to be acting on behalf of their religion.
    This has happened in the past. When the Khalistan problem in Punjab was becoming an uncontrollable monster, prominent sikhs like Kushwant Singh and Tavleen Singh dissociated from it and condemned the fanatics.
    Prominent hindus including those from the BJP have condemned the 1984 massacre of Sikhs and dissociated themselves from such people.
    Let us look at the situation for Muslims today. Muslim fanaticism today has taken on a global face where the likes og Al Qaeda, Lashkar-e-toiba and JEM have declared their enmity towards the jews, Christians and Hindus. In fact LET and others not only have J&K on their hands, they have sworned to make India islamic with a lot of help from Pakistanis and Bangladeshis.
    In such a scenario, during a terrorist attack in the name of faith what is wrong if moderate muslims disassociate themselves from such acts. It will only create more understanding between decent people from all communities.
    In fact was this not the ultimate vision of our constitutional fathers that one day we would see each others as Indians and not Muslims, Hindus, Christians etc.
    If everybody takes a few steps towards this then I think we will head towards that goal despite all the wrongdoing of our fanatical neighbours where minorities have actually reduced in numbers.

    Anonymous said...

    Please read this. Interesting is how other countries have dealt with this problem
    http://www.dailypioneer.com/indexn12.asp?main_variable=OPED&file_name=opd1%2Etxt&counter_img=1

    Anonymous said...

    Umaji,

    >>Sticking a mike under someone's face and forcing them to condemn something in which they were never involved in the first place... is like holding a gun to their head.


    Please do point to us to this hostage with a mike shoved up his nostrils. Or was it in your dreams? Fantasies galore these days at 'Death ends Fun'? Blog should be rechristened as 'Reality ends fun'.

    BTW, congrats on prize winning essay. Must be nice to have a friends in high places say like Dilip D'Souza who's was the judge for that essay.

    Anand said...

    Patrix & Nitin -- I thought we wanted everybody to condemn Modi's actions or the 92 incidents. Not just Hindus. Similarly we should expect all to condemn acts of terror like what happened in Delhi. Narendra Modi and Hafiz Saeed are happy the moment we think in terms of Hindus and Muslims. Divisiveness cannot be fought with further divisiveness. It should be fought with strengthening the bonds of commonalities among various sections of our society.

    Nikhil -- No one said Muslims should not condemn terror, right? Everybody should condemn it. And we should condemn it as right thinking citizens of this country, not as Hindus or Muslims.

    wise donkey said...

    In the hours following the blast, in the main page of Indiatimes (Times of India)
    This was the blog link
    If you read through the comments, you would get an idea of why its practically necessary for Muslims to renounce the blasts.

    Theoritically you are right. But practically sorry.Its all about a PR exercise.And if couple of clarifications can save a life, why not.The fanatics may be few, but for them, they use, the non-clarification or should i say non-apology as an excuse.
    Frankly i worried more on whether it would cause riot somewhere than whether people should distance. i think it doesnt have to do with just Indian muslims. if a hindu lived in a muslim dominated area, and if there was a Hindu muslim riot goin on, surely the hindus in that area too would be scared. and the same goes for castes etc.
    a tamilian in srilanka may live more in fear of the security forces thinkin he could be a LTTE..

    But while Tamilians may live in apprehension, they may not take out ads, but Indian muslims unfortunatley have to because ..

    In the media driven image on Muslims
    Many know about Muslims in France protesting against Headscarf bans
    but few know about Headscarf ban in Turkey, which is secular and has 99% muslim population.

    The jihadis have hijacked the perception of the Muslim religion, with the help of media.

    Thanks to US war on Terror, 1000 kids dying in Russia is the Only tragedy but not over 1000 kids dying from hunger in Maharashtra in a year.

    For many citizens,
    the only world problem is Terror
    the only source of terror Muslims

    I think you of all the persons should realise that it has nothing to do with Indian Muslims and everything to do with perception.
    Instead of arguin on why they should condemn, perhaps you could remind the bloggers on Pappu after Mumbai riots.

    Nikhil said...

    Anand
    See my comment. It is in the light of the position of Muslims today.
    I think Wise Donkey has put it correctly. Today the likes of Osama Bin LAden are very clearly making this an issue of Us vs Them - even in India. Hence in this case, there is nothing wrong if moderate muslims dissociate from the above.

    Anonymous said...

    Anand:


    I thought we wanted everybody to condemn Modi's actions or the 92 incidents. Not just Hindus.

    Fair enough. Now those who condemned Modi's actions, are they out there condemning the real people associated with Delhi serial blasts or Mau riots or fatwa on Imraana? Or they waiting by their in-boxes of their emails to get the real scoop as out Dilip-bhai. Or secular cat got their tongue?

    Narendra Modi and Hafiz Saeed are happy the moment we think in terms of Hindus and Muslims.

    Yeah right genius. Of course I have no clue as to why Muslims were still voting for Modi and his party just last month in Ahmedabad giving him about 48 out of 58 seats?
    Or why does one of the most respected editor-author-journalists (who happens to be Muslim) M J Akbar is praising Modi's administration.
    Or why is the most secular organization like Rajiv Gandhi foundation stating that Modi's Gujarat is the number uno in governance and administration.
    Or why are disaster management bodies from muslim nations like Bangaldesh, Iran and Saudi flocking in Gujarat to take a few lessons on the subject?
    Or why is that Gujarat riots postor boy Ansari who was relocated to W Bengal back in Gujarat within months.

    And who is hell is this Hafeez Saeed? Is he even Indian?

    Divisiveness cannot be fought with further divisiveness. It should be fought with strengthening the bonds of commonalities among various sections of our society.

    Wah..wah... kya baat hai janab.
    List some real solutions please and you just might win next year's prize of the secular essay contest. Anyway your ideas are better than the long winded ramblings of Uma.

    Khakra said...

    reading this raised a question still lingers in my mind, one asked by a friend: is it true the buddhists were responsible for destroying a Nalanda library because of which Hindus lost original literature? That is claimed by the Hindus, I was never able to find an answer to that --

    Anonymous said...

    nikhil:

    Today the likes of Osama Bin LAden are very clearly making this an issue of Us vs Them - even in India. Hence in this case, there is nothing wrong if moderate muslims dissociate from the above.


    For Bihar elections, Paswan is campaiging with a Osama look-a-like. Of course this is perfectly acceptable to our secular media run by a cartel motivated by pure greed.

    Why should one ask muslims to dissociate from hard liners when rest of the nation is not ready to do so? I don't understand as to why we are asking someone to do something which we ourseleves are not doing? If Dilip's got the balls why doesn't he stand up to such people who make supposed to be our leaders(!) or law-makers(!).

    Raj Mehta said...

    This is hardly the time to be politically correct. What makes the recent bomb blasts and also those that were foiled by police action over the last year is that all these strikes were carried out or planned by Indian muslims from Bihar,UP, Maharashtra and Andhra. Most of these people enjoy overwhelming support from their local community and close linkages with Pakistani agencies. Typically , these are the sort of people who were or are part of anti-India organisations like Student Islamic Movement of India (SIMI)...A lot is made out of Indian muslims not joining Al Qaeda. But nobody is talking about Indian muslims joining Lashkar-e-Toiba and Jaish-e-Mohammad in hundreds and even in thousands , all over the country.40 such local modules were busted in Delhi alone. Lashkar and Jaish appeal to Indian muslims because they are India specific while Al Qaeda is US or Israel specific. People who care about India must realise that there is a significant section of this country's muslim population which is seemingly hell bent on wrecking this country.

    Its all very fine to talk about Modi and Hindutwa fanatics - makes the critic sound 'intellectual' and 'secular'. But atleast Modi and RSS never attempted to attack the Indian Military Academy at Dehradoon , with the intention of killing as many young Indian military officers in training as possible. Modi and RSS never attempted to bomb Infy and Wipro offices. A bunch of Indian muslims did.

    Raj Mehta said...

    I disagree with Patrix when he talks about young people 'forced' to become jihadis. In truth , young muslims proudly and out of their own will join the jihadi movement. In India there is no shortage of young and ambitious muslims wanting to strike at the core of kufr India, ultimate goal being the Islamisation of India , weeding out of the kufr elements. India is to them dar-ul-harb or a Nation of War.. They cannot rest till they make the country into a dar-ul-Islam.

    Why do they become like this ? From the very beginning , hatred for the idol worshipping and polytheist kufr is instilled in their heart - by their parents , their relatives , their teachers , the maulvis , friends and so on. For 800 years they used to rule over the kufr. And now the kufr rules over them.

    Raj Mehta said...

    There is a great deal of anger against muslims in India today which cannot be wished away by Dilip D'Souza and other apologists for anti-India elements.

    Tavleen Singh puts it succinctly here >

    The simmering rage of urban, middle class India

    Nikhil said...

    Raj Mehta and Anonymous.
    I had mentioned this 'arabisation' of Indian muslims (got from Tavleen Singh's article) in one of the earlier posts during the discussion of the secularism essays. This is happening in other moderate muslim areas such as SE Asia.Other than Hassan Naqvi, none of the other prize winners responded to my post.

    Indian said...

    Interesting.
    Dilip and the secular prize winners Uma etc are more concerned about how hurtful it is that Indian muslims have to dissociate from the terrorists etc. In all the secular noise, nobody has wondered who the perpetrators are -is this cross border terrorism, are they Indian muslims.
    One answer - they do not have any excuses. The hindutva forces have lost, there is a secular govt in power. But wait it must be because we are getting close to the US. Aha let us be secular and let us amend our foreign policy to please these people.
    Dilip often speaks about the dangers of the Hindutva loose cannons - Raj- thanks for listing all the terrorist acts that were supposed to have been committed by the Hindutva fanatics. Has he or his secular fellow travellers even once condemned Islamic terrorism or pointed out the dangers. Tavleen Singh has put it straight, but doubt whether such questions win essay contests.
    If the secular essay prize winners had any conscience they would donate the prize money for relief for the victims - but the victims are all Hindus so we know what they deserve. If Muslims had been affected maybe then they would have done so. I accuse all the prize winners of being communal and spreading communal hate. How did I arrive at this? Using Dilips technique of branding the IDRF. He accused the IDRF of spreading hatred on the basis of a faked report where there was no record of them having contributed to the victims of the Gujarat riots.

    Indian said...

    Further to my last post it should have read 'terrorist acts that were supposed to have been committed by the Hindutva fanatics'--sarcasm is usually lost on many people who frequent 'Death ends fun'

    Nitin said...

    I'm glad Dilip and his readers had a good opportunity to debate issues pertaining to secularism.

    Sadly, neither Dilip himself nor any of commenters who support his view answered the question that I asked, twice:

    But dragging in this question of loyalty obfuscates the real issue - how does a secular state like India defeat terrorism that is packaged under a religious label?

    So how do you think Islamist terrorism can be defeated?


    Let's assume that India goes hammer and tongs after Hindu terrorists and extremists and puts them all behind bars. Do you think the jihadi terrorism will stop immediately?

    Anonymous said...

    Nitin
    Thanks for bringing it up. First and foremaost - no letup on counter terrorism steps - Good relations with fundamentalist neighbours can be put on the backburner.
    One measure - Register all madrassas and regulate the curriculum. Only registered madrassas should be allowed to teach religion.
    Probe all foreign fundingof madrassas.
    Set up city comittees to create inter-faith understanding.
    MAke institutes like Jamia Millia and AMU truly secular. These are the birthplace of muslim separatism.
    Take firm steps to deport illegal aliens and Bangladeshis. They are almost making up a third illegal state with their fundamentalist leanings.
    A few steps above would go a long way.
    Sadly the secular brigade would never support any of the above.

    Raj Mehta said...

    Nitin ,

    Even after you arrest all hinduwa fanatics and rebuild the Babri Masjid , jihad will still be justified as being a result of India's new foreign policy - closeness to United States.

    Even if India gives up all relations with US , they will then talk about India occupying Kashmir illegally and supposed atrocities commited by Indian soldiers in Kashmir.

    Even if India gives up Kashmir and disbands its military , Indian muslims will continue to join Lashkar and Jaish and continue to plant RDX in markets and school buses because muslims are not reserved say 30% of the jobs in the private sector.

    Even after muslims are reserved 50% of the jobs in the private sector , Jihad will continue because Allah's law , the Shariah does not yet replace the secular Indian constitution and the legal system.

    Even after the Indian constitution is replaced by Allah's Shariah , Indian muslims will still want to kill you because you are an idol worshipping kufr....

    Hope that answers your question.

    Dilip D'Souza said...

    Three days travelling, away from the Web, and what an interesting discussion here. Down to the people who say "sadly" I have not replied yet ... some of us do take time off from checking our comments, you know.

    Some quick responses, though perhaps I should do a longer response as a post.

    "Even if", even if it is repeated at the beginning of a hundred paragraphs, is no answer. Talk to me of the here and now, not hypotheticals.

    If there is an obvious flaw in say retaining the slums in Mumbai and it somehow cause a deluge where a million die, should Dilip apologize?

    If there's some point here, I've missed it. (Though I'm happy to apologize). Then again, I believe this is from the same source that seemed to think a debate involves pointing out that the "joke is on" the other guy. Which, in passing, reminded me of a previous commenter who accused me of "wiping out the supercilious smiles" ... both about equally worthy of being taken seriously -- i.e. not at all. Enough said.

    Nitin, thanks for your thoughts. Specious arguments they migh be, but there is such a thing as an analogy. The parallels don't have to be exact to raise the questions. I've seen some of the phrases Buddhist monks in SL use to describe Tamils (in relation to them), and it's enough to make it a good analogy. The LTTE claims to represent Tamils, certainly, and SL Tamils are overwhelmingly Hindu, and the LTTE is arguably the world's most dedicated and vicious terrorist outfit. Analogies aplenty.

    You ask: If India's Muslims do not condemn terrorism that is carried out in their names, how is India going to defeat it?

    Good question. But in my mind the "if" part is flawed in the first instance, and on two substantial counts.

    One, terrorism is not carried out in the name of India's Muslims, any more than the Gujarat killings, say, were carried out in the name of India's Hindus. in other words, the presumption here is flawed.

    Two, India's Muslims have condemned terrorism, and continue to do so, just as much as any other Indians. In other words, the presumption here is flawed as well.

    But you do remind me of a question that I wonder about. If India is unwilling to punish the perpetrators of homegrown terrorism -- like the 1984 Delhi killings, the 2002 Godhra/Gujarat violence, the 1992-93 Bombay rioting, etc -- how will India defeat terrorism?

    "Let's assume" is about as hypothetical as the "even if" I referred to above. Let's do it, then see. Let's do it because thatk ind of justice is the only way to govern this country.

    Abi, thanks for your comment, and for catching the mistake. So much for my eagle eye, better go visit the optometrist...

    more soon. A lot to catch up on.

    Anonymous said...

    I expected Dilip to come up with the following:
    'If India is unwilling to punish the perpetrators of homegrown terrorism -- like the 1984 Delhi killings, the 2002 Godhra/Gujarat violence, the 1992-93 Bombay rioting, etc -- how will India defeat terrorism?'

    The victims of the 1984 riots were Sikhs. Yet Sikh terrorism never attracted any followers outside the Punjab and died somewhere during the mid 1990's. My fellow Sikh citizens, I bow to you for this and condemn the fact that these rioters have nor been punished. The rioters belong to the very secular Congress party and until recently one of the accused was even a cabinet minister in this alliance of secular forces. Definitely none of the Hindutvawadis have been responsible for these riots.
    Again missing is the biggest ethnic cleansing of the Kashmiri pandits. These pandits have not taken to terrorism nor have Hindus retaliated against Muslims everywhere for this.
    Remember the bombings against the churches where everybody blamed the Hindutva lobby. Again no retaliations. Have these perpetrators been punished? No idea.
    Read this about Kerala
    http://dailypioneer.com/indexn12.asp?main_variable=OPED&file_name=opd2%2Etxt&counter_img=2

    Anonymous said...

    Riots for past 2 weeks in France. Riots are now breaking out in Denmark.Damm those Hindutva fellows. Someone please call in foreign powers to replace the govts in France and Denmark.

    Nitin said...

    Dilip,

    "Let's assume" is about as hypothetical as the "even if" I referred to above. Let's do it, then see. Let's do it because thatk ind of justice is the only way to govern this country.

    It is precisely because you have no answer to these questions that your brand of secularism is treated with suspicion by anyone other than those who already with you.

    You posed a question --- how can India defeat terrorism if perpetrators of communal violence are not punished. My answer is it cannot. They must be punished. I agree with you there.

    But I disagree with you that communal violence and jihadi terrorism are not carried in the name of religion. They are.

    But I fail to see why our commitment to secularism should lead to political correctness that, instead of tackling the immediate threat ('the here and the now'), seems to lead nowhere. Punishing perpetrators of past crimes and defeating today's terrorists is not mutually exclusive.

    I would have greater respect for your views if you showed the same commitment to defeat jihadi terrorism as you have for punishing communal rioters.

    Anonymous said...

    There are no Hindutvawadi's in Denmark, no mosques demolished and no riots against minorities. The people who are rioting are those who came from shitholes to places that offered a decent livelihood. Here is the reaction from them:

    Muslim rioting in Denmark -- worst riots in years
    "Several days of Muslim Riots in Denmark (Not only in France)," a translation of this Jyllands Posten piece from Free Republic (thanks to Shiva):

    For several nights in a row, there has been the worst riots in Århus for many years.
    "This land belongs to us", declared the young rioters. Another arson attack took place sunday night.

    Sunday evening the fire department needed police escorts to get in and extinguish an arsonist fire in Søndervangs Alle.

    The words of the young Muslims sound like an open declaration of war against Danish society. The police must stay away. This area belongs to immigrants.

    Four youngsters sit at the wall in the Rosenhøj center, sunday afternoon, self decleared spokesmen, for those groups who three nights in a row has rioted, and put business on fire.

    All around the parking lot, there are swarms of cars with youngster from the immigrant community, who are celebrating the worst riots in Århus in several years.

    Every night, 30 to 40 immigrant youngsters participated. Only two are under arrest.

    It was a victory.

    "We knew that you would come. We are the spokesmen", said one young man with his face covered.

    He was angry. Very angry.

    Petrol though the window.

    At the back of the house was a window broken, and the fire was burning wildly, probably because of petrol that had been thrown in.

    The fire engines waited for police escort so they could enter in and try to put out the fires.

    Bricks from the street have been thrown and crushed windowns all up the street.

    The police reports that the youngsters came to the area armed with rocks that they brought in.

    Rocks against a bakery.

    Saturday, a 16 year old from Somalia was jailed for comitting dangerous violence, because he attacked a bakery with large rocks. One rock barely missed the baker's face.

    Raids.

    "We are tired of being oppressed. We are tired of the police raiding our parents. We are tired of the police stopping our cars, and raiding us in public and damaging our honour."

    "We are tired of the police beating up our friends, like they did this afternoon", screams the young man with his face covered.

    He calles himself 100 percent palestinian, born in a refugee camp in Lebanon, 19 years ago, and is now unemployed in Denmark.

    "The police has to stay away. This is our area. We rule this place."

    And then comes the cartoons of Mohammed.

    "We are angy to what has happened to our prophet. We are tired of the Jyllands Post (Danish paper who published cartoons of Mohammed). I know that it wasn't you, but we are not going to take this, what the Jyllands Post has done towards the prophet", he states aggressivly, and the others nod in agreement.

    Planned for three weeeks.

    Two of them are Turks, and it is the first time that Turks and Palestinians have joined forces, according to the spokesman.

    "We have planned this for three weeks. That's why only two were arrested on Saturday. Police tried to block us in, but we now how to get out", he states and dissapears chewing on a piece of pizza that he has looted from Fun Pizza.

    Anonymous said...

    Now see how the shoe pinches. Wasnt it Europeans who wanted to send inquiry commissions to Gujarat?

    Dilip D'Souza said...

    Nitin, you say: It is precisely because you have no answer to these questions that your brand of secularism is treated with suspicion by anyone other than those who already with you.

    First of all, I have no particular interest in "my brand of secularism" (whatever that may be, I myself have no idea) being treated with suspicion or adulation or anything. I'm simply interested in justice. I assume you are too.

    What question is this that I have no
    answer to? Your hypothetical question? Here's my answer, that I thought was obvious in my response anyway: we punish the guilty, whoever they are, and we bring peace and defeat terrorism. I want the terrorist scum who come over the border from Pak and kill innocent Indians found and punished; I want the terrorist scum who grow up in our own gullies and 'hoods and kill Indians found and punished.

    It never ceases to amaze me that people will read this that I say and then say to me, as you do, that apparently I have a lesser commitment to defeat jehadi terrorism than I do communal violence. Can you explain how?

    You say: I disagree with you that communal violence and jihadi terrorism are not carried in the name of religion. They are

    But this is what I believe, so I'm not sure what you are disagreeing with.

    Punishing perpetrators of past crimes and defeating today's terrorists is not mutually exclusive.

    But did I say it was? I'm saying, punish the terrorist scum whoever they are: Delhi's bomb blast perpetrators as much as Delhi's murderers of Sikhs. Again, can you explain to me how this is twisted to mean that I'm saying they are mutually exclusive?

    On the contrary, it seems to me that we deliberately ignore the terrorist scum such as the murderers of those Sikhs. It's that attitude that I believe will defeat our efforts to defeat terrorism.

    Anonymous said...

    >>Wasnt it Europeans who wanted to send inquiry commissions to Gujarat?


    No it was friends of Dilip (FOIL) who invited them to India for inquiry commissions.
    Dilip just took it up a notch and said we'd be better of if foreigners take over India.

    Why blame the Europeans here when apna hi sikha khota hai

    Anonymous said...

    In general, a good portion Muslims in India have their brains and heart in the right place than the 100% p-secs of the Dilip D'Souza variety.

    Chief Justice Bilal Nazki trashes 5% reservation for Muslims
    disapproving of the reservation policy on the basis of religion
    Andhra Pradesh High Court verdict

    Anonymous said...

    Why blame LTTE or Hindus, interesting article on how Christians are manipulating the situation.


    READ

    http://www.christianaggression.org/item_display.php?id=1131434425&type=articles

    Darmitha-Kotte
    LankaWeb
    November 7th 2005

    Reading through the one page message of Archbishop Rev. Oswild Gomis which was published in all Sinhala and English papers of 6th
    October,2005, the writer felt a sense of sadness. The sadness was because the Reverend Archbishop was being used by SOLO-U as a tool, to instill a fear
    psychosis in the minds of the readers both Christian and Non-Christian.
    What is the need for such a move one may ask? What is there for
    Christians to awake to? Is this done to send out a message to the western world that here in Sri Lanka, anyone other than a Christian is a barbarian or
    extremist? And to give any of these impressions whether it be to
    foreign readers or local readers, is it necessary to use the photograph and message of the Reverend Archbishop? In short- why is the Catholic Church
    making an effort to create religious disharmony so blatantly?

    The Presidential Elections is not a religious issue but a national
    issue. The main fear it seems is whether Sri Lanka remains a unitary state or a fragmented state. The way the Reverend Archbishop’s message is
    worded gives the impression that the Catholic Church would rather have a fragmented nation in the name of “peace” rather than a unitary state with all races and religions living in harmony! We may ask “ is this what
    the Catholic Church really means” by publishing this kind of
    irresponsible message to the so called “ Christian community.”

    According to the message signed under the name of the Reverend
    Archbishop “ One of the key issues that need to be considered is the civil war that has kept afflicting the nation for over two decades. We are all aware that is has wrecked the nation and its socio-economic fabric.
    Besides the loss of life and injury to persons, it has seriously affected
    the country’s economic progress and development...”

    When the Tamil terrorists (the writer makes this distinction because it is well known that the majority Tamil community does not support the LTTE but silenced due to blood thirsty terrorists) first began their onslaught in the early 1980s, they first killed their own people mainly Hindus in the most brutal manner and hung them on lamp posts to instill fear and force the majority Tamil community into submission. This is a
    very well known fact. At that time may we ask whether the Catholic Church ever made the effort to educate the Tamil terrorists about their brutality to human life? Did the Church make any visible effort to talk about human rights, democracy or UN Charters? Did the Church ever tell the LTTE not to attach sacred places of worship belonging to other religions
    like Buddhist or Hindu places of worship? Who created dissention
    between races and religions? It is no secret that the Catholic Church has been supporting the LTTE in the name of “rights” of terrorists not!

    the rights of the innocent Tamils, Muslims and Sinhalese!

    To quote the Reverend Archbishop’s message: “The peace process
    initiated two years ago, and agreement on the part of the two leading political groups that the problem could, and has to be solved, only through a dignified political solution has given us a respite and the hope of a
    lasting peace. However, it is regrettable that some radical and extremist elements are rejecting this path and paving the way for war. This would no doubt cause further havoc in the country and increase the suffering
    of our people who are already economically and otherwise burdened.”

    Great words of wisdom Reverend Archbishop! Even after the so called “peace process” was initiated (2001-2003) by the then UNP government to tear this country to pieces, did the LTTE stop one aorta of their
    brutalities, did they put down their arms & did the Catholic Church then talk to the LTTE about human rights and UN Charters? Has the Catholic Church done anything against Child Proscriptions blatantly carried out by the
    LTTE- for surely Child Rights under UN Charters also need to be
    respected? Dear Reverend Archbishop, extremists are not “patriotic citizens of
    this country” who wish to see the continuity of the Sovereignty of this island nation. Extremists are those who wish to rule by the barrel of a gun and we do not have any patriots who wish to rule by the barrel of a gun! No patriots have ever propogated war like the brutal LTTE in which case the Catholic Church may wish to call the LTTE “ extremist” if they
    use the same yardstick of judgement- is this not so? The so!
    called “havoc”, “……………and otherwise burdened.” Etc situations in this
    country have not been caused by patriots but by terrorists who
    initiated the war. These burdens have been initiated by those who supply arms
    to terrorists, to create havoc in this country. Please be honest and
    target your criticism at the right direction.

    According to the Reverend Archbishop’s message: “Another matter of serious concern to us, as a minority religious community, is the freedom of religion spelt out in the UN Charter and presently guaranteed by our
    Constitution………………………………….” May we humbly ask “ Before the UNP government of the 1980s and the open economic policies initiated which opened the
    doors for unscrupulous Christian groups to enter this country under the guise of “ economic development projects” to spread the Christian faith, did the so called “ minority religious communities “ live or not live
    in religious amity in this country?” The orthodox Churches have enjoyed every right and privilage in this country without discrimination until
    the 1980s when the “Evangelical invaders” entered this country. UN
    Charters must be quoted impartially and accurately. When they are misquoted to suite ulterior motives, it can be extremely dangerous and “
    extremist.” Who began the first move to hurt the religious sentiment!
    s of the majority of this country? Was it the Buddhists or the
    Christian invaders of the 1980s? Have these Christian invaders hurt or not hurt the Catholic Church and its community in the process? If so, why does the Reverend Archbishop and the Catholic Church not appeal to the Headquarters of Evangelical Church Groups and talk about UN Charters and human rights and demand that they leave our shores immediately? Or that
    they enter our country but respect our rights and democracy and the
    sovereignty of “ Our State.”

    Again to quote the Reverend Archbishop “ It is very unfortunate, once
    again, that certain radical groups have been propogating hatred and
    dissention in the name of religion paving way to a religious strife when we are already on the throes of civil war. The so- called Anti Conversion legislation- be it labeled as Anti Conversion Bill or Freedom of Religious Act is a serious infringement of the fundamental right of every
    minority religious group in this country……………………….” The seeds of “hatred
    and dissention “ have been sown, definitely by “ certain radical groups”
    – in this context, by radical evangelical groups who have invaded our
    villages and entered 100% Buddhist /Hindu villages & used material
    inducement to create the hatred and dissention by dividing segments of our
    local rural Buddhist and Hindu fabric. When appeals have been made to such evangelical groups, they have turned a deaf year and carried on regardless. Whose rightful “ right” are you talking about Reverend Archbishop? On numerable occasions the Catholic Church has informed
    Buddhist groups that they too are against unethical conversions because the
    Catholics are also being bought over. If that is the case, and if the Catholic Church is sincere and genuine in their expressions, then they should support the Freedom of Religious Act or Anti Conversion Bill.
    However, they opted to stand on the side of the evangelists whom they have criticized showing the utter insincerity & hypocrisy of the Catholic Church.

    In the light of the above Reverend Archbishop, it would be prudent for
    your highness to kindly re-think about your message because, as readers
    we tend to understand that you too are fanning sentiments of
    dissention, suspicion and division in this country in the run up to the
    Presidential Elections. As is the normal practise, try to remain behind the
    scenes and “pull the strings” without exposing yourself or the Catholic
    Church. Let not the Catholic Church be used as a tool by those with
    ulterior motives. Through the messages published in the newspapers of 6th
    November 2005, too much has already been revealed and that too, not
    extremely complimentary Reverend Archbishop- lest you too be called “radical“
    or “ extremist” !

    Everyone knows how costly it is to publish a one page advertisement- to
    exhibit such extravagance by publishing in all newspapers only shows
    how desperate “ certain elements “ can be. Why would you wish to be
    categorized in that manner. After all , Reverend Archbishop – you would need to maintain your distance from such mundane and radical issues.