December 23, 2008

Cassettes, and what's born

Just about four weeks after the attack on Bombay, it's good to know that more brave people have sprung into action to defend this country. They have a unique method, too: they will pull out cassettes.

Without doubt, that's going to terrorize terrorists.

***

There are other brave folks too. One has as a suggestion that is likely to be just as efficacious: more "terrorists should be born".

In passing, I wonder what this man's political and ideological allies, who have objected to the term "Hindu terror", will say now in response to this call for them to "be born."

22 comments:

Anonymous said...

How is the suggestion in theory different than respected Journalists (Sai from Rediff) have called for breaking all ties with Pakistan (cricket, trade, cultural, everything)?

Again, sai has never suggested violence and destruction, just a total break of ties relegating them to an nonentity status.

It is funny though, that means no atif, jal or junoon. I bet Mahesh bhatt will be the first go against this.

K

Anonymous said...

I was glad that there were no riots, else BBC would have headlines of Muslim Genocide with special commentary by the famous Roy, and this site would start talk of Mumbai Riots 2008 until..whenever Glad.just glad that did not happen - Surya

Anonymous said...

Vote bank politics of a diffrent kind.

I'm very much convinced that contemporary Islam can offer nothing but terror. Looking around in Muslim societies and lands, nothing productive is coming out other than terror. The Ummah is silent on this and in a way this amounts to condoning terror.

I'm amazed at the ambivalence of West Asia on Pak sponsored terror. Their press coverage is outrageous.

Muslims at large have succumbed to extremist leadership and in turn fuelled the perception that Islam cannot exist peacefully in plural societies.

It is upto to the Ummah to do the needful to shake off these perceptions
The onus is on Muslim communities to make positive contruibutions.

ramki said...

I disagree that terror has nothing to do with religion. It is true that terror may have nothing to do with religions like Hinduism and Buddhism, but it is an integral part of Islam and Christianity. As an apostate Christian, I know exactly how the Christians think.

Dilip, the term 'Hindu terror' was used by Prannoy Roy and Rajdeep Sardesai repeatedly. Don't you see that they are eager to please the White man and that seems to be their sole intent in running down Hindus? A few months back AK Antony correctly pointed out that the minorities are well organized and squeeze concessions from Hindus.

I think as a Christian and as a person who writes well, you can help India by speaking for fairness instead of joining those who are for furthering the cause of Islam and Christianity.

Anonymous said...

Now the candlelightwallahs are ridiculing the cassettewallahs? Two sides of the same coin, I say.

Dilip D'Souza said...

Dilip, the term 'Hindu terror' was used by Prannoy Roy and Rajdeep Sardesai repeatedly. Don't you see that they are eager to please the White man and that seems to be their sole intent in running down Hindus?

I have no idea.

But I'm assuming you asked the same question of Bal Thackeray, who used the term two days ago, as quoted in the Indian Express report I linked to. Was he "eager to please the White man and that seemed to be his sole intent in running down Hindus"?

You did ask that question of Thackeray, didn't you?

Dilip D'Souza said...

Also ...

as a Christian and as a person who writes well...

I don't know about the second part of your pronouncement, but I'm not a Christian.

ramki said...

Dilip,

I have been a critic of Bal Thackeray for decades. So you need to bury your conspiracy theories and stop assuming that everyone belongs to a specific group with pre-fabricated ideas.

If it pleases you, I criticize Bal Thakeray again for all his violence beginning in the 1960s. I hope that makes you happy. Now it is your turn to show that you are honest. Go ahead and criticize Sardesai and Roy for being inconsistent and not using the term Islamic terror.

Also, I think you should show your honesty on the Gujarat massacre. As a person who has propagated the claim that no Hindus were killed and only Muslims were killed in the riots, it will be nice if you can set right the wrongs at least now. After all, it has now emerged that Teesta Setalvad bribed "witnesses" into making false allegations.

ramki said...

And Dilip, as I have stated here before I come from a Roman Catholic background just like you. You seem to have a stereotype for Hindus into which you have tried to slot me.

You may claim not to be a Christian, but you definitely support concessions for Christians from which you benefit. So when I said Christian, your background and thinking are Christian in nature and not of a neutral kind. So you may not be overtly religious, but you definitely seem to identify yourself at least subconsciously with Christians by seeing Hindus as the 'other' group.

Dilip D'Souza said...

So you need to bury your conspiracy theories ...

... I criticize Bal Thakeray again for all his violence beginning in the 1960s
[etc]

I have no conspiracy theories. I'm entirely uninterested in whom you criticize for what and when.

You said that when Roy and Sardesai used the term 'Hindu terror', it showed that they "are eager to please the White man and that seems to be their sole intent in running down Hindus".

So I asked you, when Bal Thackeray used the same term, was he also "eager to please the White man and that seemed to be his sole intent in running down Hindus"?

Please do answer.

As a person who has propagated the claim that no Hindus were killed and only Muslims were killed in the riots...

Usual question I ask of people who accuse me of things: please show me exactly where I propagated this claim. I mean exactly. No handwaving. Can you do that for me? Thank you.

I come from a Roman Catholic background just like you...

You have no idea what my background is.

you definitely support concessions for Christians from which you benefit...

Once more: please show me exactly where I supported such concessions and where I benefit. I mean exactly. No handwaving. Can you do that for me? Thank you.

ramki said...

I have no conspiracy theories.

Well, when one supports the Anand Patwardhan, Rakesh Sharma and Teesta Setalvad and whatever they claim in their petition, we end up supporting their conspiracy theories. Like you, I once signed their petitons. Now it has come to light that Teesta Setalvad bribed her witnesses to fabricate claims. The big problem when we do not criticize them but allow them to hijack our agenda is that the voice of true leftists is drowned out. The pro-poor and pro-peace agendas don't get heard. This is the reason we must not allow people like Teesta Setalvad to hijack our agenda.

I'm entirely uninterested in whom you criticize for what and when.

You seemed pretty interested in that! You just asked me, "But I'm assuming you asked the same question of Bal Thackeray ..." So it is clear you are interested in it.

Please do answer.

Here is the answer - if Bal Thackeray used theterm Hindu terror andnever used the term Islamic terror or Muslim terror, yes, that would mean he wants to please the White man.

Usual question I ask of people who accuse me of things: please show me exactly where I propagated this claim. I mean exactly. No handwaving. Can you do that for me? Thank you.

Again, it is in the petition you signed. The petition claimed that 2000 Muslims were killed. I think it would be a good idea to stop inflating the numbers and exaggerate claims that the riots were pogroms or acts of terror. In the contemporary world, words like pogrom and terror have specific meanings and attempting to suppress the fact that the events in Gujarat were riots is dishonest. Maybe you were doing it unintentionally, but I think it is important not to exploit existing meanings and then try to justify such actions by indulging in hairsplitting.

You have no idea what my background is.

As a matter of fact, I do happen to know quite a bit including the part about your relationship to a Tamil DMK-type guy. That is what troubles me quite a bit because DK and DMK are groups that base their ideology on a call for genocide of Brahmins for no good reason.

Once more: please show me exactly where I supported such concessions and where I benefit. I mean exactly. No handwaving. Can you do that for me? Thank you.

Sure. Right here you bash those who ask for a uniform civil code.
http://www.rediff.com/news/apr/30dilip.htm

Again, all of this is just feedback and I hope you won't hold it personally against me. If you wish to delete anything in my post that you feel shows your negative aspects, go ahead and do so. I will understand if you choose to do that. You write darn well and I just hope that you don't get trapped into supporting people like Rakesh Sharma, Teesta Setalvad and Anand Patwardhan who make false claims about a "pogrom" in Gujarat.

An example of a pogrom would be the anti-Sikh riots carried out by the Congress Party (anyone calling it a Hindu-Sikh riot is wrong and has an agenda as Jagdish Tytler is a Christian).

Dilip D'Souza said...

it has come to light that Teesta Setalvad bribed her witnesses to fabricate claims.

All that has come to light is that one person has accused her of that. There's a difference between an accusation and a fact.

Petition or not, I still have no conspiracy theories.

if Bal Thackeray used theterm Hindu terror andnever used the term Islamic terror or Muslim terror, yes, that would mean he wants to please the White man.

I'm uninterested in who or what you criticize. But when you say, without a single qualification, that when when Roy and Sardesai used the term 'Hindu terror', it showed that they "are eager to please the White man and that seems to be their sole intent in running down Hindus". When put on the spot about Bal T using the same term, what do we find? Plenty of qualifications. "If" something or the other.

it is in the petition you signed.

Whichever petition you're talking about, it never claimed that "no Hindus were killed and only Muslims were killed in the riots", which was what you accused me of claiming. Even saying 2000 Muslims were killed does not amount to saying "no Hindus were killed and only Muslims were killed."

So please, let's have you show me exactly where I propagated this claim. I mean exactly. No handwaving. Can you do that for me? Thank you.

I do happen to know quite a bit including the part about your relationship to a Tamil DMK-type guy.

News to me, this relationship. Which only reiterates my point: you have no idea what my background is.

Right here you bash those who ask for a uniform civil code. [link to an article I wrote]

This, in response to being asked to show me exactly where I supported concessions to Christians and where I benefit. And what's the only mention of the uniform civil code in that article? This: "Take the Bharatiya Janata Party, whose trishul-carriers scream non-stop in our ears we have not fulfilled that Constitutional requirement, a Uniform Civil Code. Therefore, the screams continue, everyone but Hindus is being pampered. Of the minimal truth in that, another time."

I've written elsewhere about how the claim that "everyone but Hindus is being pampered" is a lie.

But that's hardly relevant. How these lines amount to supporting concessions for Christians and benefiting from them baffles me, but given all the other wriggling you're doing here, it hardly surprises me that you do this.

ankan said...

Ramki,

The same people who repeat after every terrorist attack that 'terrorists have no religion' went on and on about 'Hindu terrorism'. The glee on the collective secular faces at this incident was very revealing. As you can make out, secularism in India has degenerated to apologizing for the separatists, the killers and the terrorists.

Dilip D'Souza said...

The same people who repeat after every terrorist attack that 'terrorists have no religion' went on and on about 'Hindu terrorism'.

The only one linked to by this post who "went on and on about Hindu terrorism" was Bal Thackeray. So I agree with you, the whole tone of his statement about Malegaon does show glee. (He "welcomes" Hindu terrorists, and more such "terrorists should be born").

ramki said...

The same people who repeat after every terrorist attack that 'terrorists have no religion' went on and on about 'Hindu terrorism'.

This is exactly the point I have been making. Leftists need to behave consistently or we will lose credibility.

Dilip has his heart in the right place and he writes well, but he needs to also base his ideas on factually correct statements and weed out the conspiracy theorists from his midst. For example, he supports Arundhati Roy who has inflated the number of dead Muslims in the post-Godhra riots to 2000 while maintaining a silence about dead Hindus.

Leftists all over the world face this problem. Overzealous members of the far left dominate the discourse and hijack our agenda.

Of course, we need people like Dilip too who write very well.

ankan said...

"The only one linked to by this post who "went on and on about Hindu terrorism" was Bal Thackeray. So I agree with you, the whole tone of his statement about Malegaon does show glee."

Hehe..Dilip is being too clever by half! Thackeray welcomes 'hindu terrorists' coz he has a sinister mind. Incidently, people of secular ilk are also gleeful about the same 'hindu terrorists' because of a weirdly similar reason. Both sides thrive on the same hatred.

ramki said...

Dilip is being too clever by half!

I won't find fault with Dilip. Not everyone is a great thinker, some are great writers and they have their uses too. We on the left need all sorts of people. Dilip has his heart in the correct place and writes very well. We need people like him on the left.

One worrisome point I have noticed is that the vocal leftists suspend logical reasoning and do not understand the meaning behind the accusations of inconsistency. This is a problem I have noticed quite a bit. Many leftists are bewildered when I point out that people like Rajdeep Sardesai are inconsistent in their usage of attributing terrorism to religion. This is not because they have malicious intentions, but because they are convinced that people like Rajdeep Sardesai are always right and the 'other' side is always wrong. This method of defining the 'other' side is a problem with leftists.

Again, the right exploits this to the hilt and attacks the left. If you analyze some of the claims of the right, they are based on the flaws of the left. Lack of application of the uniform civil code is one example. Why call this a fascist demand?

Another example is that of Teesta Setalvad. Dilip defends her because he wants the Muslim side to be portrayed as victims no matter what. The person who has filed the FIR against Teesta is Raees Khan, her right hand man who was involved in drafting the affidavits in some capacity. Also, you do not pay the witnesses any money if they are real victims. We on the left should move away from false sense of loyalties and take back the left from the extreme left. Then we can focus on real issues like the economy.

Again, as I have repeatedly pointed out, we need thinkers on our side, but we also need writers like Dilip D'Souza who write well and have their hearts in the right place. Dilip has rendered yeoman service for the cause of leftists.

Nikhil said...

Bringing in some comments from the earlier thread that has gone into the archives:
I have written plenty of times about the complete absence of justice there, including making Tytler a minister
Sorry - then my mistake that I did not research on this.

Here's the simple question: Has there been anything comparable regarding the riots, whether small fry or large fry or any fry? This is the imbalance of justice that I believe undermines India.

This is where you are misquoting. I have never compared the 2. I am on the same boat regards this, but it is the reference to Pakistan that you have understated. My point is 'Should we put in the condition that any peace process should involve first the handing over the Dawoods and Tiger Memons -I think that is a fair demand for justice.

"what about Radhabai Chawl?", my reaction can only be, why would you think I don't mean those killers?
This is a clear case where the likes of Teesta have looked the other way.

I've never advocated "unconditional peace" with Pakistan
Sorry - but one gets a different idea if he / she read your rediff columns

Regards Kanchan columns:
He clearly elaborates the reason for not applying Geneva conventions. WE mentioned the Geneva conventions as they were our soldiers and 'state actors'. We clearly owned accountability. Currently is there any one accountable for Kasab?
So it is not Kanchan whos is irate.

The gem of the piece - Afzal guru. so next time even Bal Thackeray can say that he is perturbed by a part of the supreme court statement about a trial that has not shown any unfairness and has even acquitted another person for lack of evidence - where all of you cheer. Sorry Dilip - cannot have your cake and eat it too.
we need to have some consistency. How is your statement different from Manohar Joshis about the Sri Krishna report being Anti Hindu?

Dilip D'Souza said...

Bringing in some comments from the earlier thread that has gone into the archives

It usually helps if you keep the comment thread together, but never mind. Nikhil means the comments on this post.

This is where you are misquoting. I have never compared the 2.

Misquoting? What quote or misquote are you talking about?

I am simply asking, has there been anything comparable between the processes of justice after the 1992-93 massacres and the 1993 bomb blasts? This is a question I have asked for 15+ years. The Pakistan reference neither answers the question nor is particularly relevant: we can administer justice regardless of what happens with Pakistan. After all, is the process of punishing the killers of 1992-93 dependent on Pak handing over Memon and Dawood?

the likes of Teesta have looked the other way.

Whether this is true or not, I don't speak for, nor answer for, the likes of anyone else. I answer for myself.

one gets a different idea if he / she read your rediff columns.

Fine. Please show me where I have advocated "unconditional peace" with Pakistan. The exact words, please, no handwaving. I look forward to an answer.

WE mentioned the Geneva conventions as they were our soldiers and 'state actors'. We clearly owned accountability.

Astonishing. The point is this: we asked for the Geneva Conventions to be applied in one case (1999), Kanchan wants them thrown away in another (today). Why?

As an aside, the Chief Justice of India (just yesterday) called for legal representation for Kasab, regardless of such handwaving as someone being "accountable" for him. Have you alerted him about Kanchan Gupta's learned views?

Of course Thackeray can say that he is perturbed by a judgement. That's what being a free country means. What's the problem there? I have no problem.

How is my statement different from Manohar Joshi's statement? One major difference: this is a SC judgement, whereas Srikrishna's was an inquiry commission. Inquiry commissions are not binding, set no legal precedents, etc. I am naturally perturbed by a judgement that says that "the collective conscience of the society will only be satisfied if the capital punishment is awarded to the offender", not least because of the precedent it sets.

Nikhil said...

As an aside, the Chief Justice of India (just yesterday) called for legal representation for Kasab, regardless of such handwaving as someone being "accountable" for him. Have you alerted him about Kanchan Gupta's learned views?

Thanks for pointing this. I do not think there is any need to laert the CJ on Kanchan's views. Maybe Kanchan is wrong. After all the CJ is more aware of the legal rules and so will go along with his view.
But here it is you and your likes who has problems with a court verdict - not me.
So by Dilipspeak - court verdicts should not be followed when he has a problem with some of the wording, but they should be followed when it is used for grating clemency to a murderer

Nikhil said...

BTW how come you have not condemned the Israel reaction against Hamas. But wait I think that seems ok - after all Hindus are not doing any disproportinate reaction.

Dilip D'Souza said...

here it is you and your likes who has problems with a court verdict - not me. So by Dilipspeak - court verdicts should not be followed when he has a problem with some of the wording, but they should be followed when it is used for grating clemency to a murderer.

Is there some point here? Because I've missed it entirely. Which court verdict are we talking about? The CJI spoke to reporters about legal representation for Kasab, it wasn't a "court verdict". Even in that meet with reporters, he said nothing about clemency to anyone. I have no problem with his wording -- are you saying you do?

Please do explain.

how come you have not condemned the Israel reaction against Hamas.

Ah. You start by asking "was there ever a reprimand against this as compared to the times you have lamented (and rightly so)against the likes of Manohar Joshi, Sarpotdar and Modi holding positions of power." Since that got you an answer, but not the one you hoped for, you cast about for some other hoop to make me jump through.

Let me help you for further such endeavours: I have not (yet) condemned the Russian attack on Georgia, nor the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, nor the German assault on the Allies at the Battle of the Bulge, nor the Persian invasion of Greece in 400-something BC, nor Ashoka's invasion of Kalinga. And many more.

Please feel free to ask me, about each of those in turn, "how come I have not condemned" it. Glad to be of help.