August 08, 2009

Rare

Six years after bombs killed 56 people in Bombay, the trial of three people responsible for that atrocity concludes. The judge pronounces punishment, describing the case as "rarest of rare".

True: Slaughtering 56 innocent citizens is nothing less than the "rarest of rare".

Allow me to take this opportunity (too) to remind you of a few other atrocities that each killed many multiples of 56 innocent people, and of how long it has been since those respective massacres happened.

* The slaughter of many hundred innocent citizens in Delhi in 1984. That's 25 years ago.

* The slaughter of many hundred innocent citizens in Bombay in 1992-93. That's 16 years ago.

* The slaughter of many hundred innocent citizens in Gujarat in 2002. That's seven years ago.

Nobody responsible for any of these slaughters has been brought to trial, let alone punished.

Why do you think this is? Could it be because these don't really qualify as "rarest of rare"? That is, could it be that slaughtering people by the several dozen is a rare occurence that needs punishment, but slaughtering people by the several hundred is just the usual that needs no attention from any of us?

***

On another note, there's justified outrage that Pakistan is refusing to take action against a man called Hafiz Mohammed Saeed, whom India believes planned and orchestrated last November's attacks in Bombay.

Why is there no similar outrage that India is refusing to take action against the men who planned and orchestrated the three attacks listed above (from 1984, 1992-93 and 2002)?

Also because of some perceived lack of rarity?

18 comments:

Anonymous said...

Oh shut up Dilip....you now have the self appointed high priests of secularism firmly in saddle in Delhi...BJP has been consigned to the dustbin. Isn't that good enough for you

Chandru K said...

Why must Dilip D'Souza mention riots and communal violence anytime there is a trial of Moslem terrorists, as if to say there is a direct one-to-one connection between the two incidents. Terrorist attacks like the one at the Gateway of India, and Mumbai of November/2009, indeed induce more outrage because they 1) are designed to damage India economically 2) provoke more rioting and killing, which mercifully hasn't occurred 3) are part of an Islamic/Pakistani ideology to spread Islamic terror with a view to Islamise India and 4) letting India know that they are very much in business.
None of these motives can compare with the episodic, localised, reactive violence that occurred in Delhi in 1984, Mumbai in 1992 and Gujarat in 2002. Almost obviously, the Islamic violence has a very strong international dimension; Hindu communal violence isn't damaging Saudi Arabia or Paraguay.

Chandru K said...

Above, I asked

>> Why must Dilip D'Souza mention
>> riots and communal violence
>> anytime there is a trial of
>> Moslem terrorists,

Probably to give guys like me to put on display my bigotry and, worse, my lack of any logic at all.

Did the 1984 killings not damage India economically? (for e.g).

"episodic", "localised", "reactive" - such nice euphemismistic adjectives to describe massacres that killing many times *more* people than the terrorist attacks "like the one at the Gateway of India, and Mumbai of November/2009." It is unimportant that "Hindu communal violence isn't damaging Paraguay", but it is important that it damaging India.

My openly confession to feeling "more outrage" over one kind of killing shows the world just exactly what kind of twisted mind I have.

as I said, I think thats why Dsouza writes these posts.

Anonymous said...

Look at the state of Muslims in India. Here is one example where they have refused to reform themselves http://thehindu.com/2009/08/08/stories/2009080862501400.htm.

It is this stubborness and the tendency to accept diktats from Saudi , Al Azhar clerics that I'm against.

Anonymous said...

Congress style secularism is tuned towards electoral considerations. Real secularism can be achieved by Uniform Civil Code which ironically is being pushed FOR by 'communal' BJP.

Chandru K said...

Very clever or very negligent to mention that "many more" were killed in the various riots mentioned by D'Souza( including in the mock reply to self).

The only reason "many more" were killed in those incidents( Gujarat 2002, Mumbai 1993) was that the Indian security forces foiled large numbers of terrorist plots. A few months ago, an Indian officer remarked that 400 terror modules were busted through the length and breadth of India. If even a tenth of those had been successful, many, many more may have been killed. One shudders to think of the numbers if ALL were 'successful'. Even the Mumbai massacres of Nov/2008 is not a good arguing point. The terrorists were planning to kill as many as 5000 people before being killed. The action of the security forces prevented such a carnage.

Anonymous said...

> terrorists were planning to kill as many as 5000 people before being killed.

maybe.

but terrorists of '84 actually killed 3000 people (not "were planning to kill" but "killed") without being killed.

same with others listed.

do you shuder?

Anonymous said...

"but terrorists of '84 actually killed 3000 people (not "were planning to kill" but "killed") without being killed."

Yes, but the point is, bad as those things are, they are acute flare-ups of violence in a very localised, restricted environment.

They are not part of any ideology of mass murder, imposition of religion and destabilisation of the Indian economy. Reactive violence is different from ideological.

Anonymous said...

To those like Mr. D'Souza, who are quick to equate terrorists who hijack boats and then land on Indian shores to massacre people, with the "terrorists" who killed 3,000 people in Nov/1984, and "terrorists" who killed another 1,000 or so in Gujarat in 2002, ask this additional question: From the latter group, do we have to worry about dirty nuclear bombs or nuclear terrorism or bombing of installations that could cause a massive calamity? Because from the former group, we positively have to. When phrased this way, the whole equal-equal syndrome looks ludicrous.

Gurpreet said...

do we have to worry about dirty nuclear bombs or nuclear terrorism... [etc]

ask this question - how many did the terrorists kill?

no need for hyperthesis about nukes.

answer: 26/11 terrorists, nearly 200.

1984 terrorists, nearly 3000.

factor of 15.

yet people will put quotes around "terrorists" for 1984, and also pretedn it is not as serious as the 26/11. they dont even try to understand how offensive and hurtful that is to Sikhs.

Anonymous said...

All Dilip wants is that the 'people of the book' to conquer India and conduct another Goa Inquisition on a massive scale.

Setting aside Dilip, do the rest of the people on this blog want a Goa type Inquisition.

Anonymous said...

The wolves like Dilip and bleeding heart liberals willnot be satisfies until our ancient civilization is destroyed and replaced it with what - sex, drugs, booze, accidental pregnancies ,more rape and murder.

Anonymous said...

The key challenge is to build a secular framework minus the above social ills.

The Real Azous D'Pilid said...

Everything on this blog was going fine, until some anonymous idiot wrote:

The wolves like Dilip and bleeding heart liberals willnot be satisfies until our ancient civilization is destroyed and replaced it with what - sex, drugs, booze, accidental pregnancies ,more rape and murder.

Go fuck yourself, you fucking hyporcrite.

Sex, drugs, booze, accidental pregancies, rape & murder have been a part of Indian civilization since the birth of mankind. Please ask a friend to help you pull your head out of your arsehole.

Dilip D'Souza said...

Gurpreet, I hear you. What else can I say.

Chandru K said...

"ask this question - how many did the terrorists kill?

no need for hyperthesis about nukes.

answer: 26/11 terrorists, nearly 200.

1984 terrorists, nearly 3000."

Again, quite bad, but qualitatively (and potentially quantitatively) not the equivalent of the terror of the Lashkar Toiba, Al Qaeda and the Jash-E-Mohammed.

The latter group would hijack a plane and crash it into a nuclear reactor, go on suicide mission to kill 5000+ people, impose brutal, medieval laws on a whole region, and sabotage democracy. You couldn't vote them out if you didn't like them.

Gurpreet said...

your quotes --

"quite bad, but qualitatively (and potentially quantitatively) not the equivalent" ... "didn't like them" ... "would hijack" ... (etc)

ur saying 3000 massacre is 'quite bad'?? it is 'potentially'?? they 'would' do something??

sir, in 1984 the terrorists *accomplished* the murders of 3000 human beings who wore turbans like myself. it is not the case of 'would', 'potential' or other of your hyperthesis. it is actually real recorded history.

but you are looking other terrorism attacks and saying it is 'not the equivalent' of this massacres??

15 times more killed in nov 1984 than in nov 26/11, but it is 'not the equivalent', ie you say it is less serious?? how?

please understand that your this suggestions, i have already said in my last comment, is very offensive to Sikhs like myself.

Chandru K said...

Well, I'm not a) intending to offend Sikhs or b)thinking only of Sikhs. I'm looking at the larger picture of India, the region and the world. The killings in Nov 1984 were bad, but they are not part of an ideology of *perpetual* relentless mass murder, with the intention of setting up either a pure religious state or a state consisting only of one group. Al Qaeda, the Taliban and the Lashkar are of an order of magnitude much, much higher. And I needn't add that, contrary to what D'Souza is implying, there is littel or no connection between communal violence in India, and massive terrorist attacks like Mumbai. That's a crock.