Ask a random Indian what their opinion is of the police, and I'm willing to bet it will be unfavourable. Few people trust them. It's a pity, and it is unfair on a whole lot of splendid policemen (I know enough), and it has a bearing on the way the police functions -- but unfortunately, that's the way it is. Scepticism about police deeds is built into us.
But let the same police carry out an "encounter", especially if they pronounce that the person(s) they killed is a "terrorist", and suddenly that scepticism is forgotten. Suddenly we believe them. We're willing to trust their word for what they do.
In June 2004, the Ahmedabad police killed four people in a car, one a young woman called Ishrat Jahan. They told us that these people had arms in the car, that they fired at the police, who fired back in self-defence. They told us that the four had links to terrorists and wanted to kill Gujarat CM Modi. They told us that two were actually Pakistanis.
Plenty of us believed all this. One example: "Any reasonable human would assume that all the occupants of the vehicle were terrorists", and the four were "a group of terrorists" -- these remarks from the comments here.
What makes us swallow our innate scepticism as soon as the police say "terrorist"?
But never mind. Yesterday, a magistrate released a 240 page report of an investigation into this very incident. He tells us that the police "staged" the encounter. That they did so because they were "eager to get promotions and the appreciation of Chief Minister Narendra Modi" (quotes from this report, one among many).
Just reading that report makes my flesh crawl and thoroughly depresses me. What is the meaning of justice, if there are policemen who work like this?
What is the meaning of justice, if we are unwilling to be sceptical?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
109 comments:
However, I am glad we have magistrates who have higher priorities than pleasing Mr Modi! May Mr Tamang's tribe increase.
But isn't that true of any country? Even in Britain or America, you can make people swallow anything in the name of fighting terrorism. You see, people are terrified and terrified people lose their reasoning.
I wouldn't say that terrorism isn't a real threat. It is. But by manipulating that fear, the police is doing a real disservice to all.
All encounters need to be videotaped. There should be std eqpt like dashcams in US patrol cars.
BTW from wiki page on IJ, I got this: LET claimed IJ in 2004.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/cms.dll/html/uncomp/articleshow/778241.cms
rgds,
Jai
Unfortunately, not new either. This aspect has a long history. Perhaps the first time it came to light -- meaning the issue got extensive coverage in the English language press -- was during the Naxalite insurgency in West Bengal during the late 1960s and early 1970s. The reason it "came to light" was possibly because of the large number of middle-class students who got involved with the Naxalites and then found themselves at the receiving end of police brutality.
More recently, the brutality of the police and the "fake encounters" has been documented in the Punjab, by among others, Jaskaran Kaur and Ram Narayan Kumar. For one typical case, see
http://tinyurl.com/nhmw72
Of course, what happens in many other parts of the country goes completely unreported.
I guess we ought to be glad, as Rahul says, when someone in the establishment does stand up. But it will take a lot more than isolated individuals to change the system. Our system has the amazing ability to take cosmetic action while preventing any real changes whatsoever.
I still remember the former PM Narasimha Rao saying (to Shekhar Gupta, IIRC) saying that the National Human Rights Commission was started to deflect international criticism of human rights in J & K. Get this: the NHRC was started not as a measure to ensure that Indians were not brutalised and killed unlawfully by the state but to deflect international criticism. Of course, there was no criticism - let alone outrage - at this outrageous statement.
So why should we believe the magistrate? Just because it makes you feel nauseated? the pseudo seculars of this country make me feel nauseated.
The point is hardly whether you should or should not believe the magistrate. Entirely up to you what you choose to believe.
The point is to retain a modicum of scepticism. (Naturally that applies to the magistrate as well.) I trust that's not too much for you to do as you fight off your nausea.
Dilip D'Souza, and several others, have this obsession with a few controversial incidents involving the Indian government or its security forces.
What about the innumerable, unquestionable, acts of terrorism in Kashmir? How many people remember, for example, that Amarnath pilgrims were attacked 5 times between 2000-2004, or that 500 people were slaughtered during the Kashmir state election of 2002; the Kaluchak massacre of May 14/2002, that precipitated even more tension between India and Pakistan; the massacre at the Raghunath temple in the summer of 2002 in Jammu; regular killings of any Kashmiris suspected to be "informers" or even just unsympathetic to the great, wonderful Kashmir "freedom" movement. By the way, remember the Delhi bombing of Oct/2005, where 60 people were killed? Have the perpetrators of that been caught or even fully identified?
Or would D'Souza and the like cleverly retort that all these incidents are linked with the unresolved "justice" issues stemming from Oct/1984, Jan/1993 and Feb/2002?
is this the only area where police acts this way? well this is one of the examples...I have seen lawyers negotiating in the police station when matters reach to arrest...no case is filed against the rapist if he is a wealthy man, police arrests innocent man if he is coming in the way of the builder in case of re-development, paisa do sab kaam hota hai...and these ministers love themselves so much more than the country, that police-wallas take advantage of this fact...one life threatening call to them, kill someone in the name of that caller and you are promoted...
only we can make a difference, but that "WE" are way too few...
I am sad Dilip knowing this. Years ago when I rad about it the day it happened - I wondered as to ow the lady could have been a terrorist and how it was all part of a staged act. Today i read about it and my heart goes out to the parents who did claim then that she was innocent. She actually was.
we live here with the CSPSA. and we know what happens with that.
Neha
If WE have to make a difference, then we need to have some integrity and need to respect the law ourselves. When there is selectivity and hidden agendas instead of a desire for justice, then it is impossible to make a difference.
Dilip
You have chosen to swallow the entire story lock stock and barrel. For me this fantastic story that the Gujarat police came all the way to Mumbra (Do you know where that is), kidnapped 4 adults, took them to the Gujarat border and killed them makes me sceptical. The fact that this majistrate actually affirmed this entire story - more fantastice than the trash Bollywood dishes out makes me all the more sceptical.
Wasnt this girls name listed as a martyr and a member of LEt on their website?
How come the judge produced the report in less than a month? What evidence has he gone through?
Were the accused cops summoned for this case?
Did Ishrat's mother file a missing report when she had been kidnapped?
As far as reports go, nobody claimed the 2 other bodies. Were they pakistanis?
Lastly were these people all kidnapped together or were they kidnapped from different places? If they were kidnapped together, then what was this girl doing with men who were not related to her at all?
Why are you not sceptical about this? Why is every news report against Modi regarded as gospel truth?
Rmember how you swallowed Pankaj Mishra's story about how the security forces were involved in the Chhatisingporia massacre in 2000. Subsequent investigation showed that it was terrorists involved.
Suresh
Before you yap on some stupid Jaskarans comments, please give some thought on the situation in Punjab then and how innocents were killed.
But the prty who created the tragedy still is the flag bearer of secularism.
Good day and good luck
Old Confucius saying: Man who get angry in argument is defending empty barrel.
"yap on about some stupid Jaskaran's comments". There you go. Says it all, doesn't it?
Those comments, and plenty more, are precisely about how innocents were killed. Read them.
I have "chosen to swallow the entire story lock stock and barrel"?
The whole point of this post is to urge scepticism. Just slightly further up on this page is a comment from me reiterating that, and explicitly suggesting the same scepticism be applied to the magistrate too.
What might all that suggest to you?
As for a LeT claim: Operatives from a criminal outfit stage a terror attack on Bombay last November, triggering horror and outrage against them. Yet when the same outfit makes an apparently convenient claim on their website, we must believe that.
Thank you, but I'll stick with my scepticism, if you don't mind.
... how the security forces were involved in the Chhatisingporia massacre in 2000. Subsequent investigation showed that it was terrorists involved.
What a perfect example of fiddling with the truth nearly a decade after a ghastly incident, in the full awareness (hope?) that public memory is notoriously weak.
Soon after the Chhatisinghpora massacre, armed forces killed 5 men (in yet another encounter) and claimed that these were the terrorists responsible for the attack.
This story quickly unravelled.
This is the essence of Pankaj Mishra's argument about this tragedy. He also said that some Sikhs in the area themselves were profoundly sceptical of the Government claims. This is corroborated by plenty of other reports, only one example is this one (scroll to Niranjan Singh and Ranjit Singh quotes).
That report also speaks of the subsequent fiasco with DNA tests. The DNA samples of these 5 men were sent to Hyderabad for testing. In 2002, it turned out those samples were fake (some belonged to women).
The upshot of this whole mess was that two years after the massacre, J&K CM Farooq Abdullah admitted in the state Assembly that the five dead men were innocent. (Again, plenty of reports about this, just one example is here).
You know something all these folks don't?
Dilip D'Souza, and several others, have this obsession with a few controversial incidents involving the Indian government or its security forces.
Chandru -- I am not going to respond to you -- I know by now that it's futile engaging with you -- but here are some points for you to ponder.
First, a few controversial incidents? Indeed. So what constitutes a lot? Do let us know.
Second, it is interesting to note that you draw a moral equivalence between the Government of India and the terrorists. In other words, you seem to suggest that a crime committed by the terrorists is *morally* the same as a crime committed by the Indian stage on its own citizens. I (and I think also the others whom you denigrate) don't agree.
To be precise, I don't expect anything from the terrorists. I do not elect them and I do not subscribe to their ideology of hate. Their crimes hurt and I sincerely hope that those b*** are caught and punished. However, in contrast to the terrorists, I do expect something from my own government: after all, it represents *me*. At a minimum, I expect my government not to behave like the terrorists no matter what the provocation. As such, it hurts more when I find my own government behaving like the terrorists. If you disagree, then perhaps you ought to think about your own moral sense.
Thirdly, we criticise the government of India or the state governments because we want a better government and a better India, not because we "hate" India. Most, if not all of us, are Indian citizens. The government of India is not the same as India herself but it's not surprising that you are not able to appreciate this difference.
Fourthly, I have never been able to figure out the deep inferiority complex in the likes of you and Nikhil which leads you to be so defensive with regard to any criticism levelled against the government of India or Indian society. Frankly, I like the attitude of Jarava Lal Mehta, a distinguished Hindu philosopher and the author of a well-known book on Heidegger. He translated, I believe, some of the most trenchant criticisms against modern Hinduism by a German, Paul Hacker, arguing that it is necessary for Hindus to engage with that criticism in their own interest. After all, we learn only by responding to criticism. That attitude, perhaps, is alien to you? You just want praise for Hindus -- criticism is to be reserved for use against Muslims and Christians.
For those interested, a book on Paul Hacker "Philology and Confrontation: Paul Hacker on traditional and modern Vedanta" edited by Wilhelm Halbfass is available through Google preview.
Nikhil - Perhaps you could learn to use some simple HTML tags like the ones for italics and boldface? It's not pleasant going through your posts anyway but it is more difficult when one has to spend time distinguishing the "yapping" (what others, esp. myself have written and which you quote) from the "words of wisdom" (your own contribution). It's not that hard -- oh wait, may be it is, for you.
Sorry for this followup that I had put in my previous comment but inadvertently deleted just as I hit the "Publish" button...
My dissection of Pankaj Mishra's articles of the time is here.
Also note the tailpiece here. In August 2000, the police arrested two men and called them the "main accused" in the C'pora massacre, saying they were LeT militants. (Precisely the claims that had been made about the 5 men killed in March that year).
Dilip,
Wanted to know whether you have any links to articles that indicate why Ishrat was arrested in the first place? If she just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, it really makes you wonder how long you can survive before getting picked up as a 'encounter target', right?
- Biju
Sorry too for allowing myself to get diverted from the subject of this post, which is scepticism about the "encounter" involving Ishrat Jahan.
Biju, I'm sure you can find enough material about this whole sordid story. But you're right, it does make you wonder about when this kind of thing will get to you.
In fact, it is partly because it did come very close to getting me that I am so suspicious of encounters. Read this to see what I mean.
Suresh, my only response to you on this subject, is that it is all too easy to criticise and condemn the police, the army and the government for their various lapses, errors of judgement, and perhaps rare trigger-happiness.
Try actually defeating the menace of terrorism, of which India is the single *largest* victim in the world at present! And try doing this while being underpaid, non-appreciated, undermanned( relative to the 1.1 billion population), inadequately armed( often, Lee Enfields against Ak-47's) and equally often demoralised. And weigh that against the enormity of terrorism.
It would also help if you could point to another country that has suffered as much from terrorism that India has, and dealt with it more humanely and justly. Not counting would be other democracies like the US, UK, France and Japan. They haven't gone through the amount nor the relentlessness of terrorism India has.
Chandru K
"India is the single *largest* victim in the world at present!"
I completely disagree with you on this. On the world scale India faces less terror threat than US and other western nations. I have Israel too which faces more terror than India.
Why cannot Indian govenment function properly by taking care of its police, the rest of the developed/developing nations on this planet earth do it properly.
I do not think population is a hurdle for this.
India is a democracy but a failed one without individual security. How can someone have a democracy with out individual security?
it is all too easy to criticise and condemn the police, the army and the government for their various lapses, errors of judgement, and perhaps rare trigger-happiness
Perhaps so.. actually trigger happiness is not just condemnable but downright criminal., but with power like the police and government comes greater responsibility. You cannot defeat terrorists outside if you support terrorists within your own system. The instance cited in this post does not speak of some error of judgment by the police but a deliberate subversion of justice. To excuse misdemeanors and crimes in police/army and public offices is a disservice to those policemen/ army men /government servants who do their thankless jobs with honesty and integrity. Let our sense of identity not be so warped that we cannot support and appreciate inquiry into our systems.
While the issue of the police/army being underpaid/under appreciated and undermanned is serious and needs to be attended to, it cannot be used to excuse deliberate crimes
Blueshift, you are utterly wrong in your statement about the US and Israel facing more terror than India. Besides the Kashmiri terrorists, India faces pan-Islamic terror such as what took place in Mumbai; Assamese separatist terror; Bodo and assorted Assamese regional militancy; Nagaland and Manipur; the entire Naxalite movement, for which there is no parallel in any Western democracy.
In this environment, it is understandable if the security forces take the odd 'short cut', since it is not a simple law and order situation, but an ideological war, where the enemy is heavily armed and extremely motivated.
Again, come up with an example where a democracy faced these problems in a far more just and humane manner than what India has, bearing in mind the other conditions such as weaponry, ratio of police/army to population, payment and appreciation of the good work done by the security forces( such as busting more than
*400* Islamist terror cells) etc.
Besides the Kashmiri terrorists, India faces pan-Islamic terror such as what took place in Mumbai; Assamese separatist terror; Bodo and assorted Assamese regional militancy; Nagaland and Manipur; the entire Naxalite movement, for which there is no parallel in any Western democracy.
True.
A good and sobering list.
And remember that he hasn't even mentioned the terrorism that killed thousands in Delhi 1984, Gujarat 2002, Bombay 1992-93.
No parallel for those in any Western democracy either.
Surely you are not suggesting that there is some connection between those killings and the ongoing, relentless, ideological, almost implacable terror that India has experienced? If you are hinting that the Western democratic countries are more civilised and humane because there haven't been communal conflagrations such as what you referred to, you are very wrong. Those countries don't have the diversity or aggressive minorities that India has, either.
I am merely pointing out that you had not even mentioned the terrorism that killed thousands in Delhi 1984, Gujarat 2002, Bombay 1992-93.
And that there's no parallel for those acts of terror in any Western democracy either.
You agree, don't you? That you had not mentioned those acts of terror?
Thank you Suresh for spelling out why encounters are an abomination: precisely because we have (and must have) expectations that the state will not take up the methods of criminals and terrorists.
If it does, and if we start handwaving at what they do with words like "rare", "odd short cut" and the like, all of us are in danger.
So far, no. But that is no indicator of any greater enlightenment in those countries. Let them experience a Khalistani or Kashmiri terror movement on their soil( not thousands of km away in some place they are intervening in) ,and see how they deal with it. Until then, we cannot say they are more liberal or humane. We can for now say that they are richer and more educated.
So far, no.
Right.
Which is why I simply rounded out the list of terrorism you had put together, by mentioning the terrorism that killed thousands in Delhi 1984, Gujarat 2002, Bombay 1992-93.
And by pointing out that there's no parallel for those acts of terror in any Western democracy either.
I am uninterested in which country is more or less "enlightened" and "humane" and "liberal" (etc) than others.
I am uninterested in "would haves" and "guesses."
I am interested in events that actually happened.
May I repeat: in your list in your comment from 853am Sep 9, you did not mention the terrorism that killed thousands in Delhi 1984, Gujarat 2002, Bombay 1992-93.
So I merely rounded out your list by mentioning those acts of terror.
And by pointing out that there's no parallel for those acts of terror in any Western democracy either.
That's all.
When we list acts of terror, it's important to list them all. You agree, don't you?
Why should I have to mention them at all, unless there is a direct, organic link between the two? All this arguing is just to avoid having to face the fact that terror in India is ongoing( witness the incident in Poonch, just a few hours ago) and totally unrelated to your pet favourite events of 84, 92 and 2002. A hundred years from now, after the Lashkar has committed its umpteenth terror attack against India, we'll still have to listen to drivel about Ayodhya, Mumbai riots and Gujarat riots being the 'underlying cause'.
Why should I have to mention them at all, unless there is a direct, organic link between the two?
Your original list from 853 am mentioned, picking two (and I quote): "what took place in Mumbai" and "Bodo and assorted Assamese regional militancy".
Since you mention these two, I assume you believe there is "a direct, organic link" between them.
Therefore, please explain what is the "direct, organic link" between "what took place in Mumbai" and "Bodo and assorted Assamese regional militancy".
just to avoid having to face the fact that terror in India is ongoing.
Not at all. I live here, remember? For example, I lived through the ongoing terror in Bombay in 1992-93, and last November. Both times, I felt the terror myself. It is indeed ongoing, and your list of terror demonstrates as much.
But by your own admission ("So far, no", your comment of 1005am) your list of terrorism in India was incomplete.
Therefore I sought to complete it by adding to it the terrorism that killed thousands in Delhi 1984, Gujarat 2002, Bombay 1992-93.
And to point out that there's no parallel for those acts of terror in any Western democracy either.
Anyway, this discussion was about police 'encounters'. I gave an explanation, by no means an incontestable one, as to why encounters might take place in India a little more than in other democracies. Because of the *ever present* danger of a terror attack. And the busting of more than 400 Islamist terror cells by the often-maligned security forces, is direct proof of that. The ongoing killings by Naxals and Kashmiri militants is more evidence. If there is another democracy which faces such ongoing, relentless threats,a nd deals with such threats far more sensibly than India, name the country.
you know what we are missing from these exchanges?? azuos and his inaneity.
where are you, azuos?
Old Confucius saying: Man who get angry in argument is defending empty barrel.
What barrel? At least write grammtically correct sentences. I do not regard above Confucious sayings as anything profound. I am angry? Absolutely not. Only nice to see your mask of objectivity slipping in full view of everyone. At best I am not selective like you.
Operatives from a criminal outfit stage a terror attack on Bombay last November, triggering horror and outrage against them. Yet when the same outfit makes an apparently convenient claim on their website, we must believe that.
Whats convenient? She was listed as a martyr. What do both of these have in common, I do not understand.
As for the Chattisingpora, here is the rejoinder:
http://www.rediff.com/news/2000/nov/13varsha.htm
May I repeat: in your list in your comment from 853am Sep 9, you did not mention the terrorism that killed thousands in Delhi 1984, Gujarat 2002, Bombay 1992-93.
So I merely rounded out your list by mentioning those acts of terror.
You did not mention Nellie 1983, Ahmedabad 1969, Marad, Surathkal Malegaon, Bangalore (lost count of riots there), Bhiwandi 84Coimbatore blasts 98
I forget - Different strokes for different folks.
Dear Dcubed
Our collective Winston Smith Syndrome?
Forgive me but one more example:
(12 December 2001)
Uncle: Yaar! These bloody pulitishans....Some one like Bhagat Singh should go inside and line them up inside Lok Sabha and shoot them.
13 December 2001, attacks on Parliament.
(14 December 2001)
Uncle: Yaar! Attack on our democracy yaar! These bloody terrorist and their fundamentalism. They should be lined up and shot.
regards
Baby V.
You did mention Nellie 1983, Ahmedabad 1969, Marad, Surathkal Malegaon, Bangalore (lost count of riots there), Bhiwandi 84Coimbatore blasts 98.
I'll gladly mention them. Here you are, and thank you for adding to Chandru's list:
Nellie 1983.
Ahmedabad 1969.
Marad.
Surathkal.
Malegaon.
Bangalore.
Bhiwandi 84.
Coimbatore blasts 98.
Now would you also ask Chandru about his lack of mention of the terrorism that killed thousands in Delhi 1984, Gujarat 2002, Bombay 1992-93?
Thank you.
She was listed as a martyr.
Yes: On the website of a group that's widely mistrusted -- putting it mildly -- in India because of (picking one) its carrying out terror attacks like last November.
You want me to believe criminals? You go ahead if you like. Like I said, I'll hang on to my scepticism.
The rejoinder on Chhatisinghpora doesn't change the point you raised about Mishra. Given the murder of those 5 soon after the massacre of the Sikhs -- five men whom the CM of J&K was later forced to admit were innocent of the crime -- Mishra found folks sceptical of Government claims and reported that scepticism. This is the gist of Mishra's argument.
Do you have any argument with that?
Let me explain something: The tragedy of Chhatisinghpora is that, like so much else, it has become so completely politicised.
Me, I don't believe that the forces killed those Sikhs; I believe that terrorists did.
But when a government reacts to an horrific atrocity like this by quickly killing five unconnected men who were innocent of the atrocity, it undermines its own credibility. (That's what Mishra was reporting). It undermines its own ability to fight terrorism.
And that's the fundamental problem with encounters.
Dcubed
Please do not get me wrong. No intention of bringing up some silly competition of human misery but:
"No parallel for those in any Western democracy either."
????
Kindly elaborate
Baby V
I do not understand the need for this particular magistrate to make a speedy inquiry on his own (25 days? )into the entire incident when a month earlier, the Gujarat High court had formed a 3 member committee on Aug 13 to probe into the incident and submit its report by Nov. 30.
As I mentioned in my follow-up comment on the blog, till such time the high court comes with a verdict, we should stick to the earlier verdict. Remember, this probe is not a verdict by a court of law.
And if the Gujarat High court gives the verdict in Ishrat's favor, I shall trust the high court verdict and not the Gujarat Govt. until it is proven otherwise in a higher court of law (supreme court).
And as I had mentioned earlier as well, Encounters are definitely no way to deal with a suspect, even if we suspect him of treason / attack on parliament / terrorist activities / etc.
Baby V: Just a line taken from comment made at 853am today, above.
i.e. since that commenter claims that there is no parallel in any Western democracy to what he lists, there is no parallel either in any Western democracy to what he omitted to list: namely, the terrorism that killed thousands in Delhi 1984, Gujarat 2002, Bombay 1992-93.
Your uncle point well-taken.
Why keep bringing that up i.e the killings of 1984, 1992 and 2002? Unless there is a direct connection between those events and the most recent, which there is not.
Less than 12 hours ago, there was a real, not fake, encounter between Islamic infiltrators in Kashmir, and the Indian army. An Indian major lost his life while fighting the militants. It would be stupid and tasteless to keep mentioning the Chitsingpura controversy while an actual violent encounter is going on.
Dilip,
"Yes: On the website of a group that's widely mistrusted -- putting it mildly -- in India because of (picking one) its carrying out terror attacks like last November."
I didnt see any logical motivation for LeT to claim some innocent person. Surely it would be in their interest to maximize the outrage and leave no scope for people to think "oh these were terrorists anyway" - the way most people seem to per your post.
IIRC this was at a time when Mush was under pressure with several commitments to not allow Pak to be used for terrorist ops and there were reports that Pak was trying to "indigenize" the operations to claim local cover, so LeT claiming this from Pak was thumbing its nose at Pak establishment also.
What upside do you see for LeT?
Thanks,
Jai
PS: BTW even if they were terrorists that doesnt excuse the fake encounter.
What was the alternative to the encounter, in this particular case. Should the police have waited for Ishrat and her Pakistani friends to kill Modi and anyone else, then arrested them, brought them to trial, and treated them well in prison. The "encounter' was the lesser of two evils in this case, and in many other cases. There is also the ever present danger of terrorists hijacking a plane or taking hostages, in order to free the imprisoned culprits. In a perfect world, there would be no encounters, but this is India, the most terror afflicted pluralist democracy on earth. You have to repose a degree of trust in the security agencies.
there was no provocation offered by the Jews and Gypsies, except simply being themselves.
So is it your case that in 1984 (to pick one case of terrorism that you will not mention), the 3000 Indians who were slaughtered offered provocation that was a little more than "simply being themselves"?
What was this provocation?
What was the alternative to the encounter?
One alternative: If the police are truly suspicious of certain folks at certain times, there is a well-accepted method by name preventive detention.
"Lesser of two evils"? On this page we have discussed the murder of five innocent men in an encounter. Was that the lesser of two evils too? What was the greater evil that was avoided in that case?
What upside do you see for LeT?
Why should I search for an upside for, of all people, LeT? I'm simply disinclined to take pretty much anything they say at face value, period. What their motive is for saying it makes no difference to me.
And frankly, it seems to me that's the most effective way to treat and eventually neutralize such "movements" -- demonstrate to them that nobody believes them, nobody cares for what they say, nobody is interested in their ideology (such as it is).
Of course that's what would happen in an ideal world -- in the real world, there are enough people who swallow what these guys say whole. Applies to our homegrown terrorists too.
In any case, I'm uninterested in being one of those swallowers.
Dilip
Request you to disregard Chandru K. He does'nt have any real argument and he keeps repeating himself. Consequently his argument require repetition of our comments/questions which he apparently refuses to read or anwser and writes the same old all over again. I think he has no convictions himself and just wants to abuse the comment space
Context is important, though of course not justificatory. There was widespread anger at the assassination of a democratically elected prime minister, that too by her own bodyguards. Coupled with outrage at the rising number of terror attacks within Punjab( also on innocent people, BTW). In Europe, there was no provocation at all by any of the Jews and Gypsies, and there was certainly no terrorist attacks committed by any of their number.
Chandru K,
Context is important, though of course not justificatory.
I am glad you admit that context is not justificatory. Indeed for terrorism, deliberate killing of innocents there can be no justificatory ideology or context. So why do you offer context as excuse every single time?
Also why do you refuse to recognize Delhi 1984, Gujarat 2002, Bombay 1992-93 as acts of terror?
"Indeed for terrorism, deliberate killing of innocents there can be no justificatory ideology or context."
The terrorists can justify it to themselves by labelling the victims as evil, simply because they belong to a certain group or country. The Lashkar and other Islamic terror groups also wish to destabilise India economically and politically, with the idea of paving the way for their own organisation and ideology to take over.
The Islamic terror groups represent a perpetual, on going terror threat; you cannot bracket the rioters of those incidents, bad as they were, with relentless ideological terrorists, who are out to essentially destroy India. The Congress party and many Indians make like or dislike Modi, but do they feel that Modi or the rioters of 1984 and 1992 are hell bent on destroying India. Is there a threat from Modi to bomb an Indian nuclear reactor, for example?
When terrorists destroy hundreds and thousands of Indian lives, what else are they doing but destroying India -- And more surely than by targeting a nuclear reactor?
What is India, after all: its nuclear reactors? Or its people?
Yet somehow some of us like to pretend to ourselves that certain terrorist incidents are somehow less serious than others -- even though they kill many more Indians.
Why?
Did the 3000 Indians who were slaughtered in Delhi in 1984 feel any less terror than the 170 who were slaughtered in Bombay last November? Were the 1000 who were massacred in Gujarat 2002 less innocent than the 200 who were massacred in the 2006 bomb blasts on Bombay trains?
Terror is terror. Actually I couldn't care less what we call it, but when we get all outraged at one kind and wink at another, let's not kid ourselves that we are fighting terror.
But there's another distinction, apart from wanting to deliberately destabilise or destroy India. The Lashkar, Jaish-E-Mohammed, Harkat-ul_Ansar, SIMI et al very, very badly want to commit terrorist attacks again and again. They are waiting in the wings to do it all over. The rioters of Delhi and Mumbai, bad as their actions were, don't want to do it again. Which isn't a guarantee that some provocation or other won't cause them to act up once more. But the Islamic terrorists aren't waiting for some provocation( though that would help). They are ideologically committed to indulge in terror as long as they exist.
Of course there's "another distinction". There's an endless series of them, all designed to deny the obvious that you will steadfastly refuse to acknowledge: terror is terror regardless of whether it is scum from across the border doing it, or scum from within the country doing it.
"The Lashkar ... et al very, very badly want to commit terrorist attacks again and again ... The rioters of Delhi and Mumbai, bad as their actions were, don't want to do it again."
Can you explain how you know that one set of terrorists "very badly want" to go at it again, whereas the other set "don't want" to go at it again?
Do you have some inside information that we don't about both sets of terrorists?
some provocation or other won't cause them to act up once more.
Again the mention of a provocation for the rioters. Can you please answer the question then: Is it your case that in 1984 (to pick one case of terrorism that you will not mention), the 3000 Indians who were slaughtered offered provocation for their slaughter?
What was this provocation?
Dilip
You did not respond to the core issues i highlighted. Here they are again for your benefit:
Are you sceptical when you read that the judge has reproduced the story going around without any changes as below:
this fantastic story that the Gujarat police came all the way to Mumbra (Do you know where that is), kidnapped 4 adults, took them to the Gujarat border and killed them makes me sceptical. The fact that this majistrate actually affirmed this entire story - more fantastice than the trash Bollywood dishes out.
How come the judge produced the report in less than a month? What evidence has he gone through?
Were the accused cops summoned for this case?
Did Ishrat's mother file a missing report when she had been kidnapped?
As far as reports go, nobody claimed the 2 other bodies. Were they pakistanis?
Lastly were these people all kidnapped together or were they kidnapped from different places? If they were kidnapped together, then what was this girl doing with men who were not related to her at all?
Am I the judge, or an ordinary citizen like you? Why should I, or you or anyone, be expected to explain the judge's working, or answer various questions about the case?
If you are sceptical about him and his report, that's exactly what I have urged you to be earlier on this page. That's good. I wish you and many more of us had been as sceptical about the encounter in the first place, and in fact about encounters in general.
A fine reason for such scepticism is what you yourself raised in this space: the Chhatisinghpora killings and the murder of those five men in an encounter soon afterwards.
Those who defend such police or government actions that are outside the realm of law first try pretty hard to latch on to any such evidence that would make it appear absolutely noble. So a ToI report on wiki, in which LeT talks about Ishrat becomes the defending point (never mind the fact that the ToI isn't the holy grail of Indian journalism, but let’s not go there). And when it’s proven that an encounter was indeed staged, the second stance of defence would talk of that rare trigger-happiness or lapse of judgement. (Refer to anon citing the ToI report and – imagine – Nikhil upholding Varsha’s rejoinder as the perfect gospel truth).
Everybody here knows that no police encounter is actually an encounter but an easy way to eliminate someone who the police think is a criminal who doesn’t deserve to be treated within the purview of Indian law and judicial system. The fact that everybody seems to miss that we circumvent democracy to uphold the same democracy (and are proud of) is an unnerving fact.
And what’s with Muslim-haters invariably referring to them as Moslems?
Chandru K, You seem to suggest that as long as some people are bumped off, regardless their role in any of these attacks, the government is doing its job well is very naive...the prepatatotors of all such acts must be punished, but not at the cost of more innocent lives..Police brutality never ends terror, instead it provides more matter for these bas***@# to recuirt more people for their cost. as a citizen of this country and a voter, i will stand up against the loss of any innocent level, be iot by the terrorists or the Indian state
Would also like to know how you came up with these two separate group of terrorists..and pray what was the provocation that the innocents who were killed in the riots offer. And how on earth is killing a person in a riot any less evil than a terror attack??can you please explain.
You are showing your lack of instincts; note the expression "ongoing" as well as "ever present".
Modi and the rioters of 1984(now, there's a self explanatory one) are not an imminent danger to India. There's no threat of them hijacking an aircraft and crashing it into a nuclear reactor, for example. And yes, hundreds of thousands of people could be affected by that. There's no danger of Modi or Bal Thackeray's henchmen attacking India's parliament and massacring everyone inside; neither of these two are planning to hijack a fishing boat,decapitate the crew and then land on the shore of an Indian city, let alone a foreign city, and start massacring hotel guests, club goers, railway travellers and hospital patients.
We know this because it's simple common sense, and our good instincts tell us that. Those same instincts, together with real evidence, make us( or should make us) realise that the Lashkar, Harkat, Jaish, SIMI et al are planning these things right now, even as we post messages. And it wouldn't matter if there was a 'provocation' in the form of a riot or a fake encounter, though those events would provide some post-facto justification. Intention to destroy or destabilise a country through and through, is an order of magnitude much higher than localised, reactive riots. And one needn't add that there is no connection between the two events, and hence no need to mention them in the same breath.
We know this because it's simple common sense, and our good instincts tell us that.
On October 30 1984, if asked, I would have said there was no threat of terrorists slaughtering 3000 Indians in Delhi over the next few days. My simple common sense and my good instincts would have told me so.
Similarly, on February 26 2002, if asked, I would have said there was no threat of terrorists slaughtering 60 Indians in a train in Godhra and then more terrorists slaughtering several hundred more. Again, my simple common sense and my good instincts would have told me so.
In both cases, my common sense and good instincts were proved entirely wrong.
And since this has happened so often, and since it nearly happens so often (witness the recent tension in Sangli/Miraj), and since there are always people who seem intent on provoking such violence and killing, and since there are also always people willing to wave aside this terrorism and wink at the damage it does to India, and since there is plenty of evidence of the killings in 2002 and 1992-93 being meticulously planned beforehand, complete with voters' lists and addresses -- since all that is true, my conclusion is simple.
And this is that conclusion: the terrorists within India are a constant and extreme danger to India. Every bit as much as the terrorists who turn up on fishing boats. They are every bit as intent on destroying India as those fishing boat maniacs, and have demonstrated their intent and ability plenty of times.
How so? How are they 'destroying India'? Are you suggesting that their motive is to destroy India economically and politically? If you ask them, will they reply "we want to destroy India economically and politically". Is that their ideology, and are they relentlessly committed to carrying it out? Have the Indian police and army busted hundreds of cells of rioters trying to start another Oct/1984, or Jan/1993 or March/2002? If so, when? We know for a fact that there have been 6 attempts, post 11/26, to set off bombs in India, by Pakistan based terrorists with local Moslem help. How many localised massacres were planned, and prevented, in that same time period?
How are they 'destroying India'?
We've been through this, haven't we? My comment of 639 am today, on this very page. Do you really hope that people's memories won't last a day?
To repeat what I said at 639am: "When terrorists destroy hundreds and thousands of Indian lives, what else are they doing but destroying India -- And more surely than by targeting a nuclear reactor?"
The terrorists of last November destroyed 170 Indian lives, and you say they are destroying India, and you call them terrorists. Right on both counts.
The terrorists of 1984 (picking one, as ever) destroyed 3000 Indian lives (15+ times more than last November, thus an "order of magnitude" greater, to use your own phrase), and you ask "How are they destroying India?" You try every trick in your armoury to avoid calling them terrorists.
What manner of thinking are we up against, I wonder.
Modi and the rioters of 1984(now, there's a self explanatory one) are not an imminent danger to India. There's no threat of them hijacking an aircraft and crashing it into a nuclear reactor, for example. And yes, hundreds of thousands of people could be affected by that.
The rioters of 1984 caused, in turn, bomb blasts in Delhi and other places. It led to a whole decade of violence in the Punjab which affected God only knows how many individuals and families. There may be no violence in the Punjab now but rest assured no Sikh has forgotten what happened in 1984. Not even those born after 1984. Not even those who've never been to India. The underlying resentment on account of our failure to punish those responsible for the riots means that there is a good chance for future violence and the secessionist movement could start up again. And you say that this poses no danger for India? Which planet do you inhabit?
There's no danger of Modi or Bal Thackeray's henchmen attacking India's parliament and massacring everyone inside; neither of these two are planning to hijack a fishing boat,decapitate the crew and then land on the shore of an Indian city, let alone a foreign city, and start massacring hotel guests, club goers, railway travellers and hospital patients.
No. Merely a danger that these henchmen will target [mainly poor] South Indians, Biharis, or Muslims for the dastardly crime of being South Indians, Biharis and Muslims. Who knows which other group will attract their attention in the future? But of course, these don't count, let alone pose any threat. The poor and the weak never count, do they? Only Parliamentarians, club goers, hotel guests, railway travellers, hospital patients? Once again, what planet do you inhabit?
By the way, am I glad to see you use the word "henchmen." For once, you've used the absolutely correct word. Mika Nanri.
Ah, but don't just quote numbers, take note of *ideology* of destroying India, and 'imminent danger'.
My god! this guy supports killings, he will negate his earlier statements to whitewash killers.
Note his
Context is important, though of course not justificatory
Mr Chandru K, you may be comfortable living with killers in your midst. Your talk is very like them.
Please do not bracket us ordinary citizens of India with your ilk. I do'nt see any difference between a agency like LeT and a next door neighbor who would pick up an axe to hack me for the next round of reactive killing as you call it.
People like you who support or try to give moral high ground to killers give me the creeps!
Sorry, I had an typing mistake, so I corrected this comment and am posting it again:
an order of magnitude much higher than localised, reactive riots.
Even if they kill an order of magnitude lower than those riots?
Besides, please explain "reactive". What crime by those 3000 victims were the terrorists of 1984 "reacting" to? Please don't evade this again.
On a meta-note: I find it fascinating, though depressing, that there's every kind of twist and turn on display to avoid doing the obvious: refer to the slaughter of thousands of Indians in 1984, 1992-93 and 2002 as what they are, self-evidently -- terrorism.
Why the twists? What do we gain by whitewashing terrorists, except the guarantee of more terrorism? Is this what the whitewashers really want?
Which planet do you inhabit?
I do'nt know which planet Chandru developed his reasoning in but I sure am sorry that he and his types inhabit India
don't just quote numbers.
OK, I'll quote names.
Of the Indians slaughtered in Delhi in 1984, these are the Indians whose name begins with "A". (I have reason to believe this is an incomplete list).
Aanam Singh
Agresh Singh
Agya Ram
Ajab Singh
Ajaib Singh
Ajay Pal Singh
Ajay Singh
Ajay Singh
Ajeet Kaur
Ajinder Kaur
Ajit Singh
Ajit Singh
Ajit Singh
Ajit Singh
Ajit Singh
Ajit Singh
Ajit Singh
Ajit Singh
Ajit Singh
Ajit Singh
Ajit Singh
Ajit Singh
Ajit Singh
Ajit Singh
Ajit Singh
Ajmer Singh
Ajmer Singh
Ajmer Singh
Alikhan Singh
Amaijer Singh
Amarjeet Singh
Amar Kaur
Amar Kaur
Amar Singh
Amar Singh
Amar Singh
Amar Singh
Amar Singh
Amar Singh
Amar Singh
Amar Singh
Amar Singh
Amar Singh
Amar Singh
Amarjeet Kaur
Amarjeet Kaur
Amarjeet Singh
Amarjeet Singh
Amarjeet Singh
Amarjeet Singh
Amarjit Kaur
Amarjit Kaur
Amarjit Singh
Amarjit Singh
Amarjit Singh
Amarjit Singh
Amarjit Singh
Amarjit Singh
Amarjit Singh
Amarjit Singh
Amarjit Singh
Amarjit Singh
Amarjit Singh
Amarjit Singh
Amarjit Singh
Amarjit Singh
Amarjit Singh
Amarjit Singh
Amarjit Singh
Amarjita Singh
Amarjit Pal
Amirti Devi
Amardeep Singh
Amir Singh
Amir Singh
Amir Singh
Amir Singh
Amir Singh
Amir Singh
Amir Singh
Amir Singh
Amir Singh
Amir Singh
Amir Singh
Amolak Singh
Amrik Singh
Amrik Singh
Amrik Singh
Amrik Singh
Amrik Singh
Amrik Singh
Amrik Singh
Amrik Singh
Amrik Singh
Amrik Singh
Amrik Singh
Amrik Singh
Amrik Singh
Amrik Singh
Amrik Singh
Amrit Pal Singh
Amritpal Singh
Amrit Singh
Anant Ram
Anil Kumar
Anokh Singh
Anokh Singh
Anokh Singh
Anokh Singh
Anokha Singh
Anup Singh
Anup Singh
Anup Singh
Anup Singh
Arajan Singh
Arjan Singh
Arjan Singh
Arjan Singh
Arjan Singh
Arjun Singh
Arjun Singh
Arjun Singh
Arjun Singh
Arvinder Kaur
Arvinder Singh
Asa Singh
Ascharaj Singh
Asha
Asha Singh
Ashok Singh
Ashok Singh
Asool Bai
Atal Singh
Atam Parkash
Atma Singh
Atma Singh
Attar Singh
Attar Singh
Attar Singh
Attar Singh
Attar Singh
Attar Singh
Attar Singh
Avtar Singh
Avtar Singh
Avtar Singh
Avtar Singh
Avtar Singh
Avtar Singh
Avtar Singh
Avtar Singh
Avtar Singh
Avtar Singh
Avtar Singh
Avtar Singh
Avtar Singh
Avtar Singh
Avtar Singh
Avtar Singh
Avtar Singh
Avtar Singh
Avtar Singh
Avtar Singh
Avtar Singh
Avtar Singh
Avtar Singh
Avtar Singh
Avtar Singh
Avtar Singh
Avtar Singh
Avtar Singh
Avtar Singh
Avtar Singh
Avtar Singh
Avtar Singh
Avtar Singh
Avtar Singh
Avtar Singh
Avtar Singh
Avtar Singh
Avtar Singh
Agya Singh
Azad Singh
Dcubed
Say it!
Say it!
some time its okay to quote Chomsky.
"If you want to stop terrorism. Simple. Stop participating in it"
I am sure, you have wanted to write this...but you are jsut scared of being branded a "leftist". I am sure you get the "you say this because you are a Christian" for the most elementary things. Everytime I ask "Why do you want to hang an unsuccessful suicide bomber? Isn't that logically silly?". I am told, "You say this because you are a baby. Grow up and you will understand" all the time.
Baby V
No, I said nobody in their heart of hearts believe that Hindus are 'equally guilty' of terrorism. For even such a possibility to arise, Hindus would have to be more relentless, ideological and global in their activities.
And to "Anonymous", nobody equates an ideology that is hell-bent on destroying a country, or another people, with "Hmmm, someone might attack me today, somewhere, somehow, for whatever reason" Americans( or anyone) can be killed in a mugging in New York, but it doesn't detract from the greater ideological threat of Islamic terrorism.
Dear Dilip
All you are saying is nonsense. Hinduism is a peace loving religion in which suicide is held in contempt. Hinuism also does not approve of terrorism. The definition of terrorism per the ancient sage Saankhyayaan is "All that Hindus have not done and simultaneously disapprove of". Its there in the Vedas. If only you would stop being an anarchist, communist, radical, Christian, liberal, scientific fascist. You would know.
All these figures and facts that you give are meaningless. Philosophy, idealogy and thoughts matter.
You can prove anything with facts can't you!
regards,
Baby V
P.S: that brilliant : "You can prove anything with facts can't you!" has been plagiarized from
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4n-UGQcG3Jw
Disclaimer: If you get hooked on to Schew Lee, its not my responsibility.
baby V, your self hatred is getting tiresome and annoying.Though somebody out there finds your self hate admirable, no doubt. One can maintain a healthy respect for one's Hindu heritage, and still criticise anomalies and foibles within it. Without expressing self hatred.
Eight years ago, on this very day 2600 lives were lost in lower Manhattan..and the US WENT TO WAR,destablishing south asia, the middle east and putting the world economy in douldrums... They created a generation that hates the US... My point is the so called war on terror has only bled the US and achieved what the bastards who committed 9/11 set out to achieve, to this day millions of innocents have been killed in the pusuit of a handful who still remain at large..and as for thakey and his bunch of brave protectors, where were they when mumbai was attacked, apart from making stupid comments that similar activities must be undertaken by India also..
Very good, Chandru. Keep shifting the criteria. You first claim that "Islamic terrorists" are dangerous because they pose a "danger to India" unlike others who don't pose such a danger. When many point out that the complicity of the Indian state in crimes like mass killings and subsequent failure to provide justice does constitute a danger to India -- in my opinion a greater one, because it destroys people's faith in the "idea of India" -- you claim that "Islamic terrorism" poses "imminent danger", whatever that means.
I regret that you've succeeded in hijacking the thread to the extent that the main point of Dilip's post has been forgotten: that there is an inconsistency in being sceptical of the police in most aspects but believing them implicitly when it comes to claims about terrorism. I regret that by indulging you, I've helped you.
I am sure you'll continue with more obfuscations and evasions. *Sigh*
Ah I would have added an comment or two here, but I am going townie watching soon.
I see baby v has added some wisdom already.
- Puppy Manohar
Actually, I was defending the police/army from the charge of conducting fake encounters by pointing out that no pluralistic democracy has anything like the degree of terrorism, and the ever present danger of terrorism, that India does. And proof is in all the terrorist attacks in Mumbai, Delhi, Varanasi, Hyderabad, Ahmedabad, the Naxalite killings, umpteen militant separatist groups in Assam and Manipur etc. All this militant activity must put the Indian security forces on edge. The US, UK, France and Japan positively do not experience all this turbulence. That's when D'Souza jumped in to state that they don't have communal like killings such as 1984, 1993 and 2002 either. As if to suggest a link between one and the other, or to make the other democracies appear more enlightened than India( they must be, right, that's why there isn't militant activity).
The Lashkar Toiba et al are not sitting around thinking "Hmmm, if the Indian government provides justice to the victims of communal violence, we will stop our terrorist attacks on India"
As if...
"Imminent" or "ever present" danger of Islamic terror strikes.Just think if those 400+ terror cells had not been busted by the Indian security forces, what havoc they would have caused. And there are attacks similar to Mumbai being planned right now, rest assured. Some of these terrorists are threatening Indian scientists, cricketeers and ex-President Kalam. How are these linked in any way to Modi and Thackeray.
That's when D'Souza jumped in to state that they don't have communal like killings such as 1984, 1993 and 2002 either.
So you have to mis-represent what I said in support of your argument? What does that say about your argument?
Here's my comment that you're referring to, from Sep 9 9:08 am above:
--- starts ---
Besides the Kashmiri terrorists, India faces pan-Islamic terror such as what took place in Mumbai; Assamese separatist terror; Bodo and assorted Assamese regional militancy; Nagaland and Manipur; the entire Naxalite movement, for which there is no parallel in any Western democracy.
True.
A good and sobering list.
And remember that he hasn't even mentioned the terrorism that killed thousands in Delhi 1984, Gujarat 2002, Bombay 1992-93.
No parallel for those in any Western democracy either.
--- ends ---
I was pointing out that in your list, you had omitted to mention those three acts of terrorism. (You still carefully avoid mentioning those acts of terrorism).
As a secondary issue, I pointed out that just as you said those other terrorist attacks had no parallel in any Western democracy, these three acts of terrorism also had no parallel in any Western democracy.
Why not at least be honest in your arguments?
The man's going in circles, determined to take along as many as he can as he does so.
He has nothing to offer but prejudice and evasion.
I've had enough.
The man's going in circles, determined to take along as many as he can as he does so.
yeah I realized that some time back. Wont take his bait anymore
Dcubed
May be Chandru K's logic is exasperatingly circular but do not forget Chandru K's rhetoric is the product of Times of India, Indian Express, NDTV, CNN IBN and other mainstream media outlets.
It is the language that most of my "educated" friends share. The ones that say "I was born a Brahmin but my parents are liberal" or the ones who say "Well I am not religious, I am from a general liberal background"
His language, his urgency, his tone is right out of Rajdeep Sardesai, Barkha Dutt and others' mouth.
He is moving in circles because thats what our history textbooks and our TV and press teach him. Us. His words are replete with empty ambiguous terms that only arouse irrational impulses of fear and anger. Straight out of a careful PR strategy.
He isn't inventing it. I wish he were. Unfortunately its not even taught to him by the BJP Pamphlets or RSS SHakhas or whatever it is they have. Its right out of the mainstream "secular objective" media. Its clear he isn't even thinking. He has been told what is right. It started with getting -5 for writing the "wrong essay" or getting laughed at for having an opinion. We all fall in line after a while. So has Chandru K.
Your rational, independent opinion is not only scaring him. Its confusing him. He is not able to place you in the various slots he has learnt to place people. Are you a communist? a leftist? a christian? a muslim? a pakistani? a western apologist..... This scares him. An independent rationale has brought up an unrest in his thinking mind which has long been confused and cleaned by 24X7 propaganda and bullshit.
And Chandru K is not alone. You are. Thanks for that though.
regards
Random observer.
Dear Dcubed
For your below comment:
"For when you deliberately define terrorism as the atrocities that only Muslims commit, ... out loud: he believes that by definition, Hindus cannot commit terrorism."
The Indian Institute of Pwnage Selection committee has nominated you for the "2009 Verbal Pwnage of the year" award. That was pure and simple pwnage. Although there are other formidable contenders. We are proud to inform you that you have once again PWNED someone. Purely and comprehensively.
Keep up the good work.
Puppy M, I am sure you agree that was pwnage.
-Baby V
Anonymous, very nice personal attack, too bad you are off base as well, trying to categorize myself. But really, what constructive ideas do you have to counter the menace of terrorism. Remember that any resistance group also has to deal with issues of governance, law and order, diversity, economic development, and of course the very unfavourable international environment, with communist China( really, imperialist, quasi-fascist China) and military dominated Pakistan. That's not going to go away, unless you are advocating massive appeasement.
You are making things sound more complex than they are. Basically, the pattern of D'Souza's columns/blogs is to show up the majority Hindus, and the Indian government, to what end is not clear.
Tamang or UC "spontaneous burning" Banerjee .. Take it with a pinch of salt.
Dear Baby V,
Yes, I do support your nomination of Dcubed for the "2009 Verbal Pwnage of the Year" Award.
Regards,
Puppy Manohar
Chandru K
"India is the single *largest* victim in the world at present!"
I still completely disagree with you on this.
really, imperialist, quasi-fascist China
Amazing he knows the word "quasi fascist" and refuses to recognize it in the Indian context.
I like the adjective "really" applied to China more than any others. Not only is China quasi fascist and imperialist per Chandru K, it is also really. Which it is. Really.
-Baby V
Because the groups in question in India are not fascist i.e even the VHP and the Bajrang have not denounced democracy and secularism. Truly fundamentalist and fascist parties are openly anti-democratic and anti-secular, and they make no bones about it. Al Qaeda, the Taliban and the Lashkar Toiba do not believe in secularism, pluralism and democracy at all, right from the outset. There's no quibbling about 'pseudo-secularism' or 'imbalanced pluralism' or whatever.
"Tamang" did a "UC (spontaneous self combustion) Banerjee" and DDD is full of glee.
DDD claimed earlier that he has not blocked any comments. Quite contrary to what he really does.
And the gall to call someone else a liar.
China is all about the state, the politbureau and the red army. Whether one is a socialist or not, it can be seen that what China displays is not socialism. True socialism is about empowering people. Hence, the expressions imperialism and quasi-fascism.
Random observer, thank you kindly. I think I know who you are.
Baby V and Puppy M, regarding pwnage the oleasure is cpmoletely mine. Ypu are tpp kind altpgether.
Really, even Chinese style.
True socialism is about empowering people
People, are you getting Chandru K's point. First there is socialism and then there is "true" socialism, just like "real" fundamentalism which is different from fundamentalism, though it is not clear if it is "true" fundamentalism or was that socialism. Hoo boy!, I dont blame you, all these insights which Chandru K has mastered is not for everybody.
What's the big deal here? China is a country that is state, politburo and military oriented. That's not true socialism, which is about people. The VHP and Bajrang Dal are not in the same category as fundamentalists like the Taliban, the Lashkar and Al-Qaeda. Of course, you can always pick an incident like the accosting of single women in a bar in Bangalore, and blurt out "There's the Indian Taliban". But the Taliban is about much more than a silly, obnoxious incident like that one.
VHP and Bajrang Dal are not in the same category as fundamentalists like the Taliban, the Lashkar and Al-Qaeda
Attaboy! repeat that enough times so at least you remain hypnotized!
"VHP and Bajrang Dal are not in the same category as fundamentalists like the Taliban, the Lashkar"
ya ya Chandru K you are right...i understand. You are absolutely right. I agree with you on this completely without any
"Scepticism"
Who wants to achive this?
1) India must be a Hindu nation and we will wipe out minorities first because Pakistan did this to Hindus and minorities there in their country and now fundamentalists in India wants to follow this, its like the latest fashon.
2) Once minorities are taken care, now the wheel of hate turns to next weak section in the society....they are you know. we will bring back the "OLD Aryan Hindu GLORY" like caste system into effect and then make every person in society follow trades according to caste.
3) Now the wheel of hate turns to the next weak section ....umm like ...women...they are destroying Indian culture we must change them to follow "OLD Aryan Hindu GLORY" you know what...
whats wrong in this ? (people like chandru k ask) then we can bring in Sati also and the widow marrage is bad and banned. Whats wrong in this ? (people like chandru k ask again this is part of "GLORIOUS HINDU CULTURE")
I wonder if there was no USA or united nations or anyone to question. I am sure there will be fierce battle between LET and VHP/RSS gang to be the best and the baddest fundamentalists on this planet earth.
I think Chandru K does not have empathy towards his fellow human being, i am sorry Chandru this is not personal but i just think so.
That's silly, Blueshift, and it shows a lack of understanding and good instincts toward other Indians. Remember that the Taliban want to ban movies, painting, sculpture, music, pre-Islamic history and the expression of religions other than Islam. They also don't want women to work, and desire that non-believers wear yellow badges to mark themselves. You really think Indians want to do this? That's crazy.
You really think Indians want to do this?
Not all Indians but the hindutva ppl yes!
They are already doing all of this and more...
"Attaboy! repeat that enough times so at least you remain hypnotized!"
Actually, India is likely to be labelled "fascist" way ahead of Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and China. That has a lot to do with India being perceived as not of the 'book', while those other countries are at least of the 'book'. India with its 'pagan' symbols is seen as defying the power and might of the Abrahamic, book based Gods.
'Not all Indians but the hindutva ppl yes! "
There's not a shred of evidence that the Hindutva groups wish to ban all art, movies, women working outside the home, expression of other religions etc. You're letting your prejudice against the Hindutva people affect your judgements. If you must judge them, at least do it on things they actually commit, not on your speculation or projection about what they will commit!
chandruK says -- "your speculation or projection about what they will commit".
chandruK's earlier comment's extracts placed below for you to read in that light:-
>we'll still have to listen to drivel
>about Ayodhya, Mumbai riots and
>Gujarat riots
>Should the police have waited for
>Ishrat and her Pakistani friends
>to kill Modi
>Lashkar, Jaish-E-Mohammed, Harkat-
>ul_Ansar, SIMI et al very, very
>badly want to commit terrorist
>attacks again and again.
Chandru...
"Taliban want to ban movies, painting, sculpture, music, pre-Islamic history and the expression of religions other than Islam."
wow wow ....this is exactly what hindu-vadis in India want...just replace Islam with hinduism, i will do it for you
"RSS/VHP want to ban movies, painting, sculpture, music, pre-Independent Indian history and the expression of religions other than hinduism"
To make it clear.
Taliban destroyed Buddhas of Bamyan
so did hindu-vadis destroy babri masjid.
The only difference is Taliban is having the means and resource to do it, and RSS, hindu-vadis are now trying to match Taliban in violence and hatred.
I think you completely, i mean completely fail to understand hindu-vadis. Try six thinking hats experiment and try putting on a RSS/hindu-vadi hat.
This is nothing against common hindus who are peaceful.
> Taliban destroyed Buddhas of Bamyan
> so did hindu-vadis destroy babri masjid.
Glad you mentioned this, Blueshift. I can see absolutely no difference between those two acts of destruction.
At the time the madness of Bamiyan happened, I wrote this article saying just this. Might interest you.
There's a big difference in the two incidents. Many Hindus do have this sense of hurt at Islamic vandalism over the centuries; a few of them took the extreme step of demolishing the mosque. But even groups like the VHP tried to negotiate a peaceful transfer of Ayodhya to Hindu hands.
The Bamiyan destruction was outright ideological, and fitting in with the Taliban's efforts to wipe out non-Islamic symbols from the country. There was no 'historical hurt' about Buddhist invaders vandalising Islamic buildings in Afghanistan. Even putting this way looks ludicrous. There is just no connection or equivalence.
"Chandru...
"Taliban want to ban movies, painting, sculpture, music, pre-Islamic history and the expression of religions other than Islam.
"RSS/VHP want to ban movies, painting, sculpture, music, pre-Independent Indian history and the expression of religions other than hinduism"
And he proof of this is... What? The demolition of a single mosque in Ayodhya? Remember I'm talking about an across the board, total ban. Not one or two controversial incidents.
"Lashkar, Jaish-E-Mohammed, Harkat-
>ul_Ansar, SIMI et al very, very
>badly want to commit terrorist
>attacks again and again."
That is absolutely true, and we know it from ongoing incidents, including busting of terror modules, arrests of individuals etc.
Whereas there is absolutely nothing to suggest that even the VHP, the most aggressive of Hindu organisations, wants to ban all art( film, painting, music, sculpture) and sabotage democracy.
Chandru...
"Taliban destroyed Buddhas of Bamyan
so did hindu-vadis destroy babri masjid."
I am really trying to think hard...i mean really hard to come up with an unbiased,fair,rationale logic on what is the difference between both these events. I really fail to understand what makes hindu-vadis angels.
I think there is something that is bothering hindu vadis very badly about Pre-Independent Indian history. I really fail to understand someone's atempt to change history. Is this really possible? unless hindu-vadis have time-machine,any attempt to change history is futile. Hindu-vadis should start accepting Indian History as is. Can anyone change the history and say that Dinosaurs never existed just because you dont like Dinosaurs?
I wish you worried about India and its people rather than Taliban.
If hindu-vadis dont stop this obsession with changing history or bringing back "GLORIOUS HINDU PRE HISTORIC RULE" India might soon plunge into chaos and turn into a type(-1) civilization simply because this is exactly what Taliban/LET etc wants, they will get a reason to fight/destroy India. Once India plunges into type(-1) civilization. We will soon become a resource to exploit to smarter and advanced civilizations of type(1) on this planet. I see this happening right now to India. India was a resource of spices/wealth to west in the past, today just replace it with software programmers.There is no difference.
I wonder are we really working for India, i mean really India and its future generations of Indian citizens?
I can give examples across the board already Dilip has done so many times on this blogsite.
"By its very nature.... religion will produce such perversion". This sentiment is repeated a few places in that article on Bamiyan. Makes for some challenging reading for a religious person like me.
I've been reading some blogs on rational thought; a thought experiment stated there was "torture vs dust specks".
When faced with a choice to commit hideous torture to one human being for X years as compared to several million people having to undergo the mild irritation of having dust specks in their eyes, the "rational choice" is to torture that one guy (?)
Would it be fair to say that rationality "by its very nature" can drive results or conclusions that most people would find obnoxious.
Thanks,
Jai
some challenging reading for a religious person like me.
Sorry about that. Thing is, I am not a fan of religion. Reason being, no religion has steered clear of lapses into hatred and violence. So I can't help wonder if it's in the nature of the phenomenon itself. This doesn't mean I don't know about plenty of fine human beings who are also religious.
Would it be fair to say that rationality "by its very nature" can drive results or conclusions that most people would find obnoxious.
Certainly it would be fair, especially given hypotheticals like you have given. I'm not here to defend rationality (I'm not even sure how to do that).
When faced with a choice to commit hideous torture to one human being for X years as compared to several million people having to undergo the mild irritation of having dust specks in their eyes, the "rational choice" is to torture that one guy (?)
Would it be fair to say that rationality "by its very nature" can drive results or conclusions that most people would find obnoxious.
I subscribe to a list run by the Center for Rationality and Interactive Decision Theory [part of the Hebrew University, Jerusalem] in which the Nobel prize winner Robert Aumann is also an occasional participant. The following excerpt from one of his posts may perhaps clarify matters:
In economics, and also in decision theory and game theory, an act is called "rational" if, very roughly speaking, it's meant to advance the goals of the act's performer.
These goals are not necessarily selfish. They could be, and often are, but they don't have to be. The definition of rationality says nothing about the goals. Mother Teresa, to use a well-known ikon, had certain goals, and did what she could to advance them; she was acting perfectly
rationally. Selfishness is about the goals, rationality about reaching
them. In mathematics, one calls the two concepts "orthogonal."
But --- even when one is talking about highly unselfish, altruistic
goals, one must keep in mind that it's the *PERFORMER'S* goals that we
are discussing; one must judge rationality -- or irrationality -- from
the performer's perspective.
Hence, regarding whether it is worthwhile torturing someone to preserve
a million others from a mild discomfort, the question is what is the performer's goal? If the goal is to preserve the millions from the mild discomfort at any cost, then yes, it would be "rational" to torture the guy. But one could have other goals like preserving the millions from discomfort but not at the cost of torture.
As Aumann says, "rationality" says nothing about your goals. What constitutes an appropriate goal can be, and I think often is, an important issue from a philosophical angle but it has nothing to do with rationality. In Aumann's words, the issue is orthogonal to rationality.
"I really fail to understand what makes hindu-vadis angels."
Hardly any group is angelic; the issue here is whether one can really compare the VHP with the Taliban, keeping in mind the *totality* of the Taliban's behaviour. Not just one incident.
Again, there is this Hindu sense of hurt and violation at what was done in the last 800 years, by Moslem invaders and rulers. We have to come to terms with that, rather than denigrating or ridiculing the sentiment, in the name of secularism.
Thanks Suresh. My note was based on blogs "lesswrong" and "overcoming bias" that discussed among other things Aumann's work. I only have a passing interest (and less-than-passing ability) in that field.
rgds,
Jai
Post a Comment