November 08, 2005

Some responses

This started out as a response to various comments to this post, but I thought it would be more likely read, late as it is, as a post by itself.


Abi, I like your explanation of "renounce". The mistake too many people make is simple: some scumbags do something horrible -- like the blasts in Bombay, let's say -- and therefore everyone from the religion those scumbags profess are, as Patrix says, "associated" with the scum and must "renounce" that association. What is this association? Answer: none.

The thing about prejudice is simple: everybody has prejudices. Nothing wrong with that. But it's important to constantly examine them, and the inferences they set up in our minds. In this case, it's important to examine what it means to say that all Indian Muslims are "associated" with criminals. Does Suhail have an "association with the fanatics" any more than the rest of us, and therefore should we now expect him to get up and renounce it?

Comic Protest: you make a telling point,and you do it well. Continuous questioning of one faith's loyalty is dangerous by itself.

Patrix: I've never expected just Hindus to condemn what happened in Gujarat (etc). (as Anand says). I expect, no I assume, that anybody who has any sense of justice -- like you -- will be outraged by it and condemn it. It's never occured to me that you, being Hindu, have more of an "association" with the criminals there than me. If what happened in Gujarat is a blot, it is a blot on me as much as any other Indian. The same goes for the blasts in Delhi.

Nikhil: I have no problem with people dissociating themselves from some violence or the other, like the examples you offer of Tavleen Singh and Khushwant Singh. My problem is with the rest of us expecting such dissociation every single time there's some ghastly event like the Delhi blasts.

As for Tavleen Singh pointing to a "great deal of simmering rage", fine. Two responses. One, the answer to such rage is not to assume that it is justified merely because it exists. Two, there are a lot of people who have a great deal of simmering rage over other horrible events that haven't seen justice: example, 1984 Delhi massacres. Will we take note of that?

Finally, I want to make a point about something Nitin says: Punishing perpetrators of past crimes and defeating today's terrorists is not mutually exclusive. The point here, that a lot of others make too, is: let's deal with the "here and now" (Nitin's own words), let's not obfuscate it with talk about those "past crimes".

But those "past crimes" were in the "here and now" at the time they happened, were they not? If horrible things happen, and are not punished, and years pass, must we simply forget they happen, and are the thousands of people who remember them with anguish "obfuscating" the issue of the "here and now" with their demands for justice?

In that case, why not apply that to every single crime? Why not simply let a few weeks or months, say, pass and say of the Delhi blasts: "oh, those are past crimes", and let's not obfuscate the demand for justice for those blasts with the demand for justice for whatever new horror is upon us?

A simple point: to me, it is precisely this attitude of treating "past crimes" as somehow less important that makes it hard to fight terrorism.


Abi said...

Gee, thanks Dilip, for taking up my point first! And now, I get the first comment too ...

But I have to say that my 'explanantion' is just a rehash of what a previous commenter (Anon 12:33, in the fifth comment) said. I added the framing part, just so that it fits into a larger picture.

Anyways, there is quite a bit of literature on framing. The latest is a besteller (Don't think of an Elephant) by George Lakoff, an academic.

As always, thanks for this post.

eV said...

Dilip, thought-provoking posts as ever. But your conclusion seems eerily similar to the justification the Sangh Parivar puts forth for the Babri Masjid demolition - to undo the wrongs of the demolition of the Ram temple that had been there long ago. Of course, one key difference is that you arent advocating a crime to undo a past crime. I guess what I'm getting at is that at some point, we've got to stop worrying about the past. But deciding this point-of-forgiving would only lead to more conflict.

Anonymous said...


Why not simply let a few weeks or months, say, pass and say of the Delhi blasts: "oh, those are past crimes", and let's not obfuscate the demand for justice for those blasts with the demand for justice for whatever new horror is upon us?

Like you consistently do for crimes comitted during J B D'Souza's raj in Mumbai? Or that good-for-nothing beaurocrat still ready to testify for a yet another commission this time in Delhi, afterall the bumbling fool goofed his testimony during Mumbai trials too didn't he?

Anonymous said...

the Ram temple that had been there long ago

eV -- Perhaps we shouldn't be mixing facts with fiction! I'm sure no one would dispute that Delhi pogrom did take place in 1984.

Now even if the temple existed long long ago, the demolition of the temple did not take place in the Constitutional Republic of India. Even otherwise there's simply no way to find or punish the guilty. On the other hand we do know who the guilty are whether it's the 84 pogrom or the 92 demolition or the 02 pogrom. Shouldn't them be brought to justice? We are talking about a very recent past. Also talking about the past of India, India as we know of it today.

Anonymous said...

Anand: Even the Jalianwalla bagh didn't happen in the "Constitutional Republic of India" nor was Bhagat Singh hanged in the "Constitutional Republic of India" nor was he hanged in what's currently ""Constitutional Republic of India"

Apples and oranges?

>>On the other hand we do know who the guilty are whether it's the 84 pogrom or the 92 demolition or the 02 pogrom.

You do!!! Apparently a secret commission was held at last bloggers meet in Mumbai and Dilip presided over it as judge/jury/prosecuter right?

Let's go more recent than 84 or 92 or 02. How about Oct 05?

eV said...

Anand, I had meant to make my argument under the assumption that it is somehow proven beyond doubt that a Ram temple had indeed been there. I thought I'd mentioned this assumption, but I hadnt.

The point of my previous comment was to imply that Dilip's conclusion isnt the optimal solution. Where does one put a full stop and say "wrongs" that were committed before yr 19xx will not be addressed? Each of us will probably have our own arbitrary time-windows (like Anand's post-indpendence timeframe). I seem to be concluding that there is no solution for this problem. Anyways, what got me commenting was Dilip's reference to his conclusion being a "simple point". To me, it seems a lot more complicated.

Anonymous said...

By equating anti-India terrorism practised by Indian muslims joining Lashkar and Jaish with communal riots of the past , D'Souza is justifying Islamic terrorism. I am surprised and disappointed that some of those who comment here haven't seen through that.

Modi and Hindu fundamentalists do not attack Indian army camps , do not plant RDX in school buses and public places , do not plan to blast out the National Defence Academy and the Bombay Stock Exchange.

Indian muslims on the other hand , many hundreds and even thousands of who have already joined Lashkar and Jaish, have already attempted most of the above.

Islamic terrorism is a very real and deadly threat to the life and liberty of the people of India. Lets not allow the enemies of India to obfuscate , confuse or even sneakily justify this very serious matter.

Anonymous said...

By the way....I dont really care about the whole Ram Mandir issue. Can the muslims of India promise that if we rebuild the Babri Masjid there even hang Modi as bonus, they will stop cheering for Pakistan in cricket matches , stop giving shelter to ISI agents , stop planting RDX in school buses and busy market places , stop attacking our brave soldiers and policemen ?

Or should we also free Kashmir , reserve jobs in private sector for muslims , or rather , get circumcised and convert to Islam - if that is not possible pay the Jaziya - a special tax our ancestors used to pay in the secular days of the Indian muslim icons , Aurangzeb and company ?

Just wondering...

Anonymous said...


>>D'Souza is justifying Islamic terrorism

Only thing Dsouza is justifying is his need to earn a living which in other words mean that he'll justify whatever sells. And unfortunately, our janata is ready to lap up any sh!t served to them in name of 'secularism'.

Anonymous said...

Forgot to add:

I am a hypocrite. I claim to hate D'Souza but I read everything he writes. By the way, I am Hindu and I have a small and uncircumsized penis.

Anonymous said...

haha.....anyway...the comment at 12:54 am was written by some stupid budding islamic suicide bomber....

Anonymous said... much for the boast about Indian muslims not joining Al Qaeda


Even in the unlikely event of the infiltration of fresh terrorists from Pakistan dwindling considerably...their number is being augmented by a flow of volunteers from the Indian Muslim community, a phenomenon which should be of growing concern to our political leadership and security agencies. Even before 2003, there were instances of isolated elements from the Indian Muslim community joining organisations such as the Lashkar-e-Toiba (LET), which is now co-ordinating the operations of the IIF due to the weakening of the Al Qaeda's command and control. This trend has picked up momentum.

In the past, the LET was considered a largely Pakistani organisation led by Pakistanis---mainly Punjabis and Pashtuns. It continues to be largely led by Pakistanis with close links to Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI). Its membership also continues to be largely Pakistani, but its Indian component has been steadily increasing. Many of the members/sympathisers of the LET arrested by our Police in recent months in connection with the investigation of various plots hatched by the LET for terrorist strikes in places such as Dehra Dun, Bangalore, Kanpur etc were Indian nationals. The LET activist, who was arrested by the Iranian authorities while he was trying to proceed to Iraq and handed over to the Indian authorities, was reportedly an Indian national. The heads of the LET's set-up in the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia were also believed to be Indian nationals.

Anonymous said...

I happened to go through B Ramans report. If news of Indian muslims joining LET and JEM are true, then it is very disturbing. What is more disturbing is that it is not muslims from the riot affected areas such as Gujarat but from unaffected areas of TN, Kerala etc doing so.
If it is true and the ostrich like attitude persists, then the 2 nation theory has finally won. Jinnah was right.
Of course Dilip will perenially keep blaming 84, Babri masjid, Gujarat etc even if the facts prove otherwise.
Looks like the Wahabbi indocrination has come to roost.

Anonymous said...

Why do we see the common man at pains to renounce such actions,who has no association with it and is infact a victim whereas the pseudo leaders like the imam of jama masjid and RSS top honchos rarely condemn or renounce these actions.

Admin said...

Terrorism.. Ahem, can I tag first. I also happen write about terrorism once in a while. First of all Copic project as usual left a brilliant comment. Ur comments to the original posts were quite long so I took a print out.It was 16 pages.

It was very interesting, with everybody with their own view. I don't know how many have faced Terrorism at their backdoor. A blast here and there hardly constitutes Terror if you compare it with the people who has to wake up to those everyday. Its going off the point, i came to first give my comment on your question in the original blog.

Why should Muslims have to prove this every Damn time?

I have nothing againts any religion, but I saw ur questions in a diff way.

I have two answers, both from diff angles, by two categories of renouncing.

1. It might be that, it is not just any Muslims who condemns the event but those muslims who are guilty enough, for lesser things like hating Hindus, Sympathising or sleep supporting the jehadis. Because not every muslim wouldstand up and condemn such as act, and if they do so it will be as Humans and not as Muslims.

2. Going by past trends, it is so very easy to start a riot in India. One only need a spark and there will be political opportunists who will fan the spark. So it is only natural that the general Muslim public will try to "Renounce their association with any such evil doers", and the fault is not in them but in US who have let many a riots go unbriddled.

So my answer, they had to prove it every time, for there still are Millions of people out there who don't think as we do, who don't know what a blog is. Because whatever we may say or write, whether we except or not, they are "Muslim" Jehadis, and in the jihad it is the innocent Muslims who will Suffer. renouncing U see is a just a survival strategy. even in my place, the army don't know which Manipuri is a terrorist and when i go Home for vacation, I move in fear for I have faced the barrel of a gun both from the terrorists and the Army. We are just helpless in between. Noone knows about the incident in imphal when 9 innocent bystanders off the road were shot down much like Jalianwallahbagh.. and the army men first let go of the non chinky crowd before they opened fire.. It was the 5th jan 1995. No mainstream newspaper carried the news.. even google gave very vague links. It happpend at the gate of regional Medical College, lamphel manipur.

So, We have no right to give a judgement to what the muslims must do or not do.

R. said...

This has no pertinence to the issue in hand. But I would like to write about these 'big' people who leave comments anonymouly. What kind of a little turd would sit in his/her 'puter and leave dirty comments on someone's blog about their family, wait..i know the answer....a sick turd! This probably was the biggest event in the sick turd's month. What a life!

Anonymous said...


You being paid to hold Dilip's brief here? What Ananda or Vikrum or Uma have taken day off?
Hope it's not much because load in there is pretty light from what one's lead to believe.

Ever wonder as to why those who start critisizing Dilip's view suddenly start discussing the size of their penis? Not the first time it's happened here you know? I'm sure you do and so does Dilip.

Raj Malhotra: Like a true son, Dilip's only trying to make ammends for his bumbbling father who didn't get it right in 90s. Read
On to Behrampada: You want to "let" my "largely unlettered" pass. However, I do not. Let me see, wasn't it your father, Mr J B D'Souza, who, when interrogated by advocate Adhik Shirodkar for the Srikrishna Commission, said that he didn't know where Jogeshwari was and had never been to Behrampada? That wouldn't have been funny – had he not wanted to carry the case of the genocide of Behrampada's Muslims to the UN.

Admin said...

Any Bombay Blogger here do visit my Blog for a little announcement here

Anonymous said...

As usual, Dilip, you have done a fair job of alienating the centre.

"Should all Muslims apologise for all criminal acts ? Since they are committed in Islam's name ?"

Presumably the thread of the discussion. However, the subtext in the comments is

" All writers/ secularists/ pseudo-secs ( I SOMEHOW love that abbr.) should publicly condemn every hate crime that occurs. (Preferably louder than they condemn Modi et al). Else, they will be slammed for favouring the community in whose name that crime was committed."

Dilip D'Souza said...

Again away from web access for three days, and I return to find multiple-personality disorder is still laughably alive and well, down to one personality flinging false accusations at its fellow ... Where are you when we need you, Sybil?

eV: You raise a very good point, one that guys like me must answer. So let me try. I want an accounting for 1984, 1992-93, 2002, etc. How is that different from wanting an accounting for something that happened in 1528?

First response: context. This came up when I responded to Nitin's (and many others to the same effect) statement that Punishing perpetrators of past crimes and defeating today's terrorists is not mutually exclusive.

The point here is that I cannot see how we will defeat terror if we choose to ignore and leave unpunished such terror as the killings in Delhi, 1984. Therefore to me, of course they are not mutually exclusive: they are integral parts of the same fight against terror. What happened in 1984 is no "past crime" that is somehow worthy of being ignored, it is very much in the here and now for a lot of people; more than that, it should be in the here and now for a nation that wants to fight terror.

That's the context for what I said.

Second: the idea of guilt. There is a difference between wanting to punish the guilty for a crime, and wanting to punish a whole community because some of its members committed a crime.

Picking 1984 since we are talking about it: we established various inquiry commissions to identify the guilty. We know who we must institute trials and criminal proceedings against. Our failure to do so leaves me baffled.

But to take a pertinent example now that one main figure from that time has died, I cannot see any justice in instituting proceedings or wreaking vengeance against HKL Bhagat's surviving family, or against the entire community of Bhagats (whoever that is), or against all members of his religion (whatever that is), for HKLB's crimes in 1984.

That is how I view 1528. If a crime was committed then, it should have been punished (in whatever way) then, or in the years afterwards when the criminals who committed it were alive to be punished. It makes no sense, 500 years later, to demand revenge against their descendants, or those who share the same faith as those criminals. They are no more guilty for what happened in 1528 as Marilyn Monroe is.

Unfortunately, there's a conscious attempt being made to paint them as guilty for what happened in 1528.

More soon.

Anonymous said...


Please do cast some pearls before the swine. Maybe it'll enlighten others, for those who are pretending to sleep, you can't wake them.

Anonymous said...

Program on the emergence of civilization.

"14 species of large animals capable of domesitcation in the history of mankind.
13 from Europe, Asia and northern Africa.
None from the sub-Saharan African continent. "
And disfavor.

They point out Africans’ failed attempts to domesticate the elephant and zebra, the latter being an animal they illustrate that had utmost importance for it's applicability in transformation from a hunting/gathering to agrarian-based civilization.

The roots of racism are not of this earth.

Austrailia, aboriginals:::No domesticable animals.

The North American continent had none. Now 99% of that population is gone.

AIDS in Africa.

Organizational Heirarchy/Levels of positioning.
Heirarchical order, from top to bottom:

1. MUCK - perhaps have experienced multiple universal contractions (have seen multiple big bangs), creator of the artificial intelligence humans ignorantly refer to as "god"
2. Perhaps some mid-level alien management
3. Evil/disfavored aliens - runs day-to-day operations here and perhaps elsewhere

Terrestrial management/positioning:

4. Chinese/egyptians - this may be separated into the eastern and western worlds
5. Romans - The seamless transition between Cleopatra and Julius Ceasar may be a clue alluding to a partnership.
6. Mafia - the real-world 20th century interface that constantly turns over generationally so as to reinforce the widely-held notion of mortality
7. Jews, corporation, women, politician - Evidence exisits to suggest mafia management over all these groups.

Movies foreshadowing catastrophy
1985 James Bond View to a Kill 1989 San Francisco Loma Prieta earthquake.

Our society gives clues to the system in place. We all have heard the saying "He has more money than god." There is also an episode of the Simpsons where god meets Homer and says "I'm too old and rich for this."

This is the system on earth because this is the system everywhere.

20 cent/hour Chinese labor, 50 cents for material.
An $80 sweater costs less than a dollar; homage, tribute kicked upstairs vindicates the creative accounting.

I don't want to suggest the upper eschelons are evil and good is the fringe. But these individuals become wealthy exploiting those they hurt.

They have made it abundantly clear that doing business with evil (disfavored) won't help people. They say only good would have the ear, since evil is struggling for survival, and therefore only the favored could help.

The clues are there which companies are favored and which are disfavored, but they conceal it very hard because it is so crucial.

I offer an example of historical proportions:::

People point to Walmart and cry "anti-union".
Unions enable disfavored people to live satisfactorly without addressing their disfavor. This way their family's problems are never resolved. Without the union they would have to accept the heirarchy, their own inferiority.
Unions serve to empower.
Walmart is anti-union because they are good. They try to help people address and resolve their problems by creating an environment where there are fewer hurdles.

Media ridicule and lawsuits are creations to reinforce people's belief that Walmart is evil in a subsegment of the indistry dominated by the middle and lower classes.
Low-cost disfavored Chinese labor is utilized by corporate america to maximize margins. They all do it. Only WalMart gets fingered because they are the ones who help, and those who seek to create confusion in the marketplace want to eliminate the vast middle class who have a real chance and instead stick with lower classes who may not work otherwise. So they dirty him up while allowing the others to appear clean.

The middle class is being deceived. They are being misled into the unfavored, and subsequently will have no assistance from their purchases with corporate america.

The coining of the term "Uncle Sam" was a clue alluding to just this::Sam Walton's WalMart is one of few saviors of the peasant class.

They desire a system based on duality:::good and evil. They seek to set up a system of two participants and assign them polar opposites:::
Coke and Pepsi
Ford and GM
WalMart and Target
Energizer and Duracell
Coors and Budweiser
Republican and Democrat
The list goes on:::
AMD and Intel
Microsoft and Apple
Lowes and HomeDepot
Sam's Club and Costco
WellsFargo and BofA
Borders and Barnes&Noble
And, when there are multiple participants, they try to eliminate the third:::
Chrysler - opposition produced a compromise - the 80s government bailout
Kmart - Kmart has it bad and should be out of business.
Miller - Steps are being taken to reduce them to a low-cost beer.

Amercia is a country of castoffs, rejects. Italy sent its criminals, malcontents.
Between the thrones, the klans and kindred, they decided who they didn't want and acted, creating discontent and/or starvation.
The u.s. is full of disfavored rejects. It is the reason for the myriad of problems not found in European countries. As far as the Rockafellers and other industrialists of the 19th century go, I suspect these aren't their real names. I suspect they were chosen to go and head this new empire.

Royalty is the correct way to organize a society. Dictatorships and monarchies are a reflection of the antient's hierarchical organization.
Positions go to those who have favor with the rulers, as opposed to being elected.
Elections bring a false sense of how the world is. Democracy misleads people.
Which is why the disfavored rejects were sent to the shores of America::To keep them on the wrong path.

Jewsus Christ is a religious figure of evil. He teaches of a begnign, forgiving god when quite the opposite is true.
The seperatist churches formed so they could capture the rest of the white people, keeping them worshipping the wrong god.
And now they do it to disfavored people of color, Latinos and Asians, after centuries of preying upon them.

Since Buddism doesn't recongnize a god, the calls are never heard, and Asian representation is instead fully selected by the thrones.
Budda was the Asian's Jewsus Christ::: bad for the people. It was a clue they both emerged at the same time. Timing may be a clue alluding to ranking.

Simpson's foreshadowing::Helloween IV special, Flanders is Satan. "Last one you ever suspect."
"You'll see lots of nuns where you're going:::hell!!!" St. Wigham, Helloween VI:::missionary work, destroying cultures.
Over and over, the Simpsons was a source of education and enlightenment, a target of ridicule by the system which wishes to conceal its secrets.

The advent of the modern Christmas was a brilliant move. It creates a vested interest among those who would prefer the Church of Evil be destroyed::::
As goes the Catholic Church so goes the majority of annual retail sales.
The similarity between the names "Santa" and "Satan" is no coincidence.

Jews maim the body formed in the image of "god", and inflicted circumcision upon all other white people.
I think about how Jews (were used to) created homosexuality among Slavics, retribution for the Holocaust.
Then I think of the Catholic Church and its troubles.
What connection is here between Jews and the Catholic church???
If it is their sinister motives that’s behind the evil that is Jesus Christ are they being used at all?
Perhaps it is them who are pulling strings.
Their centuries of slavery in Egypt proves their disfavor.
For their suffering the Jew leaders were granted the right to prey on the up-and-coming Europeans to try to fix their problems with the ruling elite, a recurring aspect of the elite's methodology.
Jews were ostracised for a reason.

Retribution for the atomic bombs dropped on Japan, the Korean War got the disfavored United States into this socially depraved environment in the latter 20th century because we attacked an antient, revered peoples. Our continued presence keeps us in trouble.
When the disfavored americans attack the wrong people again, as they suggested they will, in Korea or elsewhere, they will pay dearly.

All peoples are ranked in terms of favor and disfavor. And when the disfavored abuse those with favor there is hell to pay.
All the groups mentioned throughout are necessary to justify the will of the managing species. They conceive a strategy, devise a plan yet need a way to implement it, and without these groups the managing species would be exposed in the course of execution. So, based upon their rank they are assigned goals to accomplish and are rewarded with favors.

Mumia Abu-Jamal
Dhoruba Bin Wahad
Assata Shakur
Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
Malcolm X
Che Guevara
Black Panthers
George Jackson
Sundiata Acoli
Assata Shakur
Geronomo ji Jaga (Pratt)
Fred Hampton