October 30, 2008

About equivalences

Let's say you set off bombs that kill innocent people. What can you be sure will happen as a result?

This: there will be others to somehow justify the sick crime you have committed. Or somehow paint it as less of a crime than others. Or somehow portray you as morally superior to other bomb-setters. Or somehow pretend that your professed religion makes you innocent.

No surprise, that's what we see happening now. Just days ago, we learned that the police had arrested some people on the charge of setting off bombs in Malegaon and Modasa: Pragnya Thakur, Shivnarayan Gopal Singh Kalsangra, Shyam Bhanwarlal Sahu, Ramesh Upadhyay and Sameer Kulkarni.

Reacting to this news, one leader suggested that these people were innocent, because Hindus can't be involved in blasts. Another commentator suggested that we cannot say these Hindus are morally equivalent to Muslims who set off bombs. Because those Muslims, says this person, are attacking the Indian state.

And these remarks are only typical. (I deliberately do not offer you links, because I have no desire to give repugnance like this even that much recognition).

But I'd like to know just one thing and I don't give a damn what your religion is: when you kill innocent Indians, in what sense are you not attacking India?

27 comments:

Nilu said...

No, I'd argue, if you kill innocent Indians who are too dirty -- by virtue of being Moslem -- you are cleaning the State. But then, a Moslem can't be innocent. Which means, I could not have killed one. Hence the proof.

Anonymous said...

I think I know who 'another commentator' is and yes, it surprised hell out of me.

rgds,
Jai

Anu said...

I just wanted to say: I read your blog regularly and I agree with you pretty much all the time. Thanks for being the voice of sane India and don't let stupid comments get you down.

Anonymous said...

Good idea of self promotion by Nilu. He already has 1176 profile views. :-), I guess most of them after his post.

Anonymous said...

I love this blog of Dilip,
In this world of internet propaganda anyone who professes hatred became national intrest of India, at least there is a sane voice which i believe must be kept alive to save us from another holocaust in India.

Surya

Ohteetoo! said...

> it surprised hell out of me

why? if it is the same commentator i am thinking of, he is long history of saying things like these. you have just prefered to been blind to it all this time, thats all.

Rohit said...

Dear Dilip,

In case you refer to me, I have clarified my stand in the p.s to the post.

http://retributions.nationalinterest.in/a-disappointing-stand/

Thanks

Sidhusaaheb said...

That's the very basis of the politics in this country, at present. As to where that would lead remains to be seen. I think it can only lead to the disintegration of the country, once again, into many smaller countries and, before that happens, to a lot of blood-shed. The amount of blood-shed can, of course, be expected to increase before each election, until India lasts, with rioters/bombers and their ilk being glorified by the political parties that sponsor them, in order to attain maximum votes in the bargain.

Anonymous said...

Raj should tell his men to discuss their issue peacefully. Acts of violence are wrong and take focus off the real issue, which is migration.


He has brought out the failure of the UP & Bihar governments to create jobs for the last 50 years. Imagine the amount of money that must have been eaten by the politicians there. UP is the largest state and I bet gets a lot of funds/seed money for projects.

If those governments had created jobs, we would not have had this situation.

If Raj has an issue with them, he should work to pass a law, not hurt innocent people who haven't done anything wrong.

Dilip D'Souza said...

He has brought out the failure of the UP & Bihar governments to create jobs for the last 50 years.

While I fully believe the UP and Bihar governments have zero to recommend them and it's been that way for years, this argument stands on somewhat shaky ground.

Applying exactly the same logic, should we assume that the presence of plenty of Maharashtrians in the US, in Delhi, in West Bengal, in Australia -- in short, pretty much everywhere -- brings out the failure of the Maharashtra govt to create jobs for the last 50 years?

How are Maharashtrians who leave the state for better prospects in the US, say, any different from Biharis who leave their state for better prospects in Bombay?

Anonymous said...

Migration is unavoidable in part of the world, nobody is debating that. It is unrestricted and unplanned migration that is a issue.

US regulates foreign migration through quotas (65,000 H1Bs per year for people all around the world, allowed to renew twice). And even internally it has done good enough to ensure that the whole population of states of Texas & Louisiana don't land up in San Fransisco & New York to find employment.

That is where we differ from them. You can stay in texas and do as well as someone in NY/SF. That cannot be said about our largest state UP. It makes me throw up when good for nothing people like Amar Singh and Lalu have advice for Maharashtra.

Again, it is fundamental right of indian to work anywhere in India, expect special states like Kashmir, I am all for it.

All I am saying is that if Raj Thackeray has an issue with the migration, he should peacefully put his issue in front of people and pass a law advocating it, if a mandate exists for it. Using violence is wrong and futile.

Rabin Stephen said...

Well said.

Dilip D'Souza said...

... if Raj Thackeray has an issue with the migration, he should peacefully put his issue in front of people and pass a law advocating it, if a mandate exists for it.

Spot on, no argument there.

But I still think the rest of your argument needs some examination.

It is unrestricted and unplanned migration that is a issue. US regulates foreign migration through quotas [etc]

Whether restricted or not, the question I asked still remains: does the presence of Maharashtrians in the US -- whether they got there through regulated immigration or not -- bring out the failure of the Maharashtra govt to create jobs for the last 50 years?

After all, it's a good bet that those Maharashtrians went to the US chasing better prospects than they might have in their home state. How is their migration any different from Biharis who leave Bihar to come to Bombay?

It makes me throw up when good for nothing people like Amar Singh and Lalu have advice for Maharashtra.

Maybe, but how are they any worse than the people within Maharashtra who have advice for Maharashtra? After all, Raj T's vision for Maharashtra makes me want to throw up.

Anonymous said...

In principal, yes, I agree, people coming to US are coming for better opportunities and greener pastures.

But its regulated and controlled by US.

I cannot think of any one place in the world, even in India, where maharashtrians have mass migrated (significant numbers), unlike some other communities (Meaning enough opportunities exist in home state).

I don't think Raj T would have a problem with quota based migration.

If a leader is xenophobic, that does not help.

But I do agree with him that if there are exams being held in Mumbai, people of Mumbai and MAH need to know about it, it needs to be advertised in MAH as well. Even after doing this, no one shows up then its fair game.

I don't agree with the his way of making the point.

Dilip D'Souza said...

I don't know if I'm beating this point into the ground, but anyway ...

But its regulated and controlled by US [immigration].

To some degree, yes. But see the new US Dept of Homeland Security report, Estimates of the Unauthorized
Immigrant Population Residing
in the United States: January 2007
(PDF). In particular, scroll down to page 4, table 3. As of Jan 2007, there were 220K Indians in the US who were "unauthorized immigrants"; that number up from 120K in Jan 2000; that increase of 81% the second highest in that period to Brazil.

It seems safe to assume that about 10% of that 220K are Maharashtrians, given that about 10% of Indians are Maharashtrians. Let's say 20K Maharashtrians in the US illegally.

(US Census data figures similarly suggest that we can assume something like 100K Maharashtrians in the US legally).

These are certainly large enough numbers that there are some 30+ Maharashtra Mandals across the country and an umbrella Mandal. The New England Maharashtra Mandal, to take one example, was established in 1973.

Are these "significant numbers"? Can we make conclusions, based on these Maharashtrians who have emigrated over decades, many even "illegally", about the failure of the Maharashtra govt to create jobs for the last 50 years?

How are they any different from the Biharis who leave Bihar to come to Bombay?

This probably deserves another post. I'll look into that.

Anonymous said...

But they are calling it illegal, its not like they are advocating it. They want to stop it.

If a few maharashtrians have crossed over illegally, well bring them to the law since that is the right thing to do. If they are causing menace to the locals, the government reserves the right to deal with them in the right way.

I do agree with your 10% assumption, maybe you are right, but I am not sure. We need data to prove it. Again, if they have come illegally, deport them.

The most communities I have heard of immigrating illegally are guys who do not go for white collar jobs but own a businesses like a gas station/motel. I seriously believe the percentage of maharashtrians in business would be far less compared to other communities.

I am yet to visit a city where maharashtrian immigrants outnumber other indian groups and communities.

In your travels to the US, have you ever seen a temple where Ganpati is the middle or for that matter the priest is a mahrashtrian?. I haven't it is either balaji or Krishna. Again the point is, clearly the mah junta in no where near to wielding any power/authority in even local indian communities across US.

Could write a post about what makes you throw up with regards to Raj T's vision. That would be interesting. I clearly don't agree with his ways of about bringing out
the changes he wants to.

Dilip D'Souza said...

If a few maharashtrians have crossed over illegally, well bring them to the law.

But that's not the point.

Illegal or legal, Maharashtrians have for decades emigrated to the US. Just as Biharis have come to Bombay.

You believe the Biharis coming to Bombay points to the failure of the Bihar govt to create jobs for the last 50 years.

So in just the same way, does the Maharashtrian presence in the US point to the failure of the Maharashtra govt to create jobs for the last 50 years?

Besides, how are these Maharashtrians who went in search of a better life any better than the Biharis who come to Bombay in search of a better life?

And if they are no different, why should these same Maharashtrians who went in search of a better life support efforts to prevent these Biharis from coming to Bombay?

Anonymous said...

There is difference in 2 people migrating Vs 10,000 migrating, if you get the scale, since you are terming legal & illegal immigration just the same.

Lets agree on our disagreement.

Frankly speaking I don't Raj T can do a thing about this, it is impossible constitutionally.

Marathi language and culture will fade away it is only inevitable.

Anonymous said...

I meant he can't do a thing.

Unknown Indian said...

D3 - good post - fully agree with you - terrorists are terrorists, and must be dealt with firmly. Lets call for a mandatory death penalty for all these jokers.

On the comment stream - am shocked that you are comparing Maharashtrians going to the US to Biharis coming to Bombay. Of course there is a difference, in one case, people are going to a foreign land, in the other, they are exercising their constitutional right to settle anywhere in India - no one can object to Biharis (or any other set of Indians) coming to Bombay.

Dilip D'Souza said...

Actually, I'm not sure how this comment space turned into a Raj T discussion -- the post itself doesn't mention him at all.

Nevertheless ... UI, the only reason for the comparison is that it baffles me that people who go to the US for a better life would want to prevent Biharis from doing the same.

Dilip D'Souza said...

I said: ...would want to prevent Biharis from doing the same.

i.e. from also migrating in search of a better life. In their case, to Bombay.

Anonymous said...

Difference being, US gets to control who comes in, while MAH doesn't.

You are right, constitutionally one cannot stop anyone from migrating anywhere, I agree with this totally (never disagreed earlier as well).If Raj T has issues, he should get laws passed (which is impossible).

Its bad enough we can't speak marathi in mumbai, lets all join hands and pray for the day when bhojpuri becomes the chosen dialect in mumbai and slums increase left and right and we have bihar like mafia rule in mumbai.

When do we see your Raj T post, can't wait?

Dilip D'Souza said...

US gets to control who comes in, while MAH doesn't.

Which was the whole point about the mention of "unauthorised immigrants" earlier on this page -- the US is clearly not controlling those guys.

In other words, whether they are controlled or not is irrelevant. People migrate in search of better lives, plenty of Maharashtrians have done exactly that, so it makes no sense to point fingers at Biharis (and beat them up) for doing it too.

lets all join hands and pray for the day when bhojpuri becomes the chosen dialect in mumbai and slums increase left and right and we have bihar like mafia rule in mumbai.

We have slums today, and if you look at growth figures, you'll know that has much less to do with migrants into the city than with the city's own fertile residents.

As for mafia rule: personally I'm not able to see much a difference between mafia rule in Bihar and governance in Maharashtra that makes no attempt to punish those who slaughtered 1000 people in Bombay in 1992-93, or to punish those who urge attacks on innocent people purely for being from another part of this country.

Anonymous said...

As for mafia rule: personally I'm not able to see much a difference between mafia rule in Bihar and governance in Maharashtra

I knew you would get back with this line. :D

Well at least you can jail Raj T here, compared to the goons (lalu, mayavati....) running free and ruling UP/Bihar and spreading corruption.

I have never in the thread supported Raj T's methods, so lets get that straight.

Are you saying, migrants coming to Mumbai everyday has no effect on the size of slums?

Last I heard it wasn't just the rich North Indians migrating.

makes no attempt to punish those who slaughtered 1000 people in Bombay in 1992-93
I fully support punishing scoundrels from both sides (not just the ONE you want to see punished) who slaughtered people.

Dilip D'Souza said...

Well at least you can jail Raj T here, compared to the goons (lalu, mayavati....) running free ...

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Raj T is running free as you and I write these messages, isn't he?

I have never in the thread supported Raj T's methods, so lets get that straight.

I have never in the thread suggested that you support Raj T's methods, so I don't know why you would feel the need to pronounce this, let's get that straight too.

Are you saying, migrants coming to Mumbai everyday has no effect on the size of slums?

I'm saying, the growth of the city -- slums, traffic, hi-rises, shops, whatever -- is caused much more by natural growth (i.e. babies) than by migration. Please pay attention to figures.

I fully support punishing scoundrels from both sides (not just the ONE you want to see punished) who slaughtered people.

Which ONE side is that? Please do spell it out, don't be shy.

It should surprise me, but it doesn't any more, that when I say I want punishment for "those who slaughtered 1000 people in Bombay in 1992-93", there are people who pop up and say, yeah, you want only ONE side punished.

I couldn't care less about sides. I just want to see justice for those 1000 people killed. Whoever the murderers are. You want to see ONE side there, please go ahead.

In any case, let me repeat the original point of this discussion, that wasn't even in the original post: "People migrate in search of better lives, plenty of Maharashtrians have done exactly that, so it makes no sense to point fingers at Biharis (and beat them up) for doing it too."

Anonymous said...

Raj T will be behind bars soon, I hope so, at least there is a machinery/pressure to do so.

OK, I will spell it out. I am saying Punish the Muslims who took part in the riots as well. Lets be impartial there.

Your posts have a strong undercurrent of the want to punish Bal T, which should be done, but same should done of the mullahs (I don't see you going after them, you easily denounce the acts without talking about the faith the criminals followed, which I believe gives them some kind of feeling that they are doing a righteous deed), who encouraged violence.

We all know from historical figures which monotheistic religion has contributed to genocides, ethnic cleansing, conversion by swords and blowing people up. So lets not pretend its followers are saints.