July 17, 2010

Perceptions, hurt and anger

Another round of India-Pakistan talks, another road that apparently has led nowhere. Me, I'm a believer in the mantra that the road itself is the point. If the alternative is hostility and killing, better to talk, even if the talks only lead to more talks that, it seems to us on the outside, lead to yet more talks that, I'm getting somewhere I think, apparently lead nowhere.

I'm not being facetious. Any talking must take into account the concerns of both sides, or it leads nowhere. I can't tell if that happened or didn't, at this most recent meeting of foreign ministers on both sides. (Probably it didn't, or it might have led somewhere).

Part of the reason for not being able to tell is how the event gets reported.

Today's Times of India has a front page report whose headline reads: "Qureshi Kills Peace Talks".

The Economic Times says: "Failure of talks exposes Pak’s evil designs".

The Hindustan Times accuses Pakistan of "ambush diplomacy": "Pakistan's 'all or nothing' timeline trap broke talks".

Then I looked at some other papers.

The Daily Times says "India remained stuck in modalities".

Dawn says "Deadlock blamed on selective Indian approach".

Kashmir Watch says "India has been using delaying tactics".

As always, what happened is a function of who tells you what happened. Also as always, what you choose to believe about what happened is likely a function of which country you live in. Few of us seem able to consider: by their nature, these failures cannot be the fault only of one or the other side. Possibly lost in all that is a non-partisan account of what happened, that will give us a better understanding of it all.

Overall, an object lesson in how perceptions differ.

Also in the use of words like "kill", "evil", "delaying" and "selective".

***

A less one-sided account is in the Wall Street Journal: "Tempers Flare in India-Pakistan Talks".

***

As an aside, the same Times of India report I mention above refers to "India's hurt and anger at the fact that 26/11 masterminds are ... roaming free in Pakistan ... There can't be any closure on 26/11 until there is justice."

I fully agree.

But all over again, I cannot help wondering: is there "hurt and anger" in India that the masterminds of Delhi 1984, Gujarat 2002, Bombay 1992-93 and more are roaming free in India? (I know plenty of people who are hurt and angry over that). Can there be closure on any of those episodes without justice?

Why won't we deliver justice in those massacres of Indians, if we want it for the 26/11 massacre of Indians? And if we won't or can't deliver justice for those, why do we expect it of Pakistan for 26/11?

46 comments:

Chandru K said...

You are trying to equate, morally and/or politically, the unequatable. Of course, Pakistan always harps on Kashmir. Pakistan was and is, based on religious hatred, religious separatism and religious strife. Pakistan as a country was conceived in fear and paranoia, born in gratuitous violence, and sustained by a nasty mix of hatred and demagoguery. 'While India says this, Pakistan says that' is not the way to approach the problem, and positively not for an Indian or person of Indian origin.

Gagged Babu said...

Excellent satire. This is what the incompetent people at South Block should read.

Jai_C said...

Siddharth Varadarajan has reported that the Pakistani expectation to get right back to "pre-Mumbai" in terms of composite dialogue was the bottleneck (from an Indian PoV).

I absolutely agree. More needed to be done re. prosecution of the 26/11. They couldnt just wish it away anymore than we can wish away the 1984/2002 riots etc.

** The rest of this comment is slightly OT, a bit scaremongerish and a caricature. the scary part is that, to me, its not easy to dismiss it out of hand. Reactions welcome **

Expecto Bombonus:

I remember an earlier edition of Dilip's posts on justice post-1993 or such that closed with

"just expect more bombs, that's all".

I sense, dimly, an enlargement of this space* with 26/11. Mumbai can expect to be attacked:

- not just for NOT delivering justice
- not even for any explicit atrocity in Kashmir.
- but just for Kashmir staying unresolved enough in the bomber's view.

A dull sense of foreboding develops on re-reading the Dilip-Beena conv from this PoV. Are we looking at the Mumbai bombings, 2020 for

- unjust water distribution of the Punjab rivers?

What is even more disturbing is that we will have gotten used to the idea that India in general and Mumbai in particular can be attacked for any such peeve.

In 2025, Sahir D (or my son for that matter) will not even break stride when something goes fwoom! around the corner.

They will just realize that some miscreants (by 2025 this will be the correct label) in Pakistan are mad at:

- not having a safe disposal mechanism for excess munitions

and will carry on with their lives.

thanks,
Jai
* I do not sense any enlargement in Dilip's argument, nor do I imply anything such. Its the "bombing-space" that has increased.

Chandru K said...

Let me be more clear. Surely you can see that, Pakistan always harps on Kashmir. India must approach this based on religious hatred, religious separatism and religious strife, these howling Moslems. India as a country was not conceived in fear and paranoia or born in gratuitous violence but it can only be sustained by my nasty mix of hatred and demagoguery that India must adopt. 'While India says this, Pakistan says that' is not the way to approach the problem, and positively not for an Indian or person of Indian origin. Keeping in mind of course that all Pakistanis are of Indian origin and should support India.

MastQalandar said...

Jai,

Just curious.

Do you think if "justice" is done for Delhi '84, Mumbai, Gujarat, etc., as Dilip demands, would it affect the possible size of the "bombing space" in any way?

I mean would it increase or decrease the "bombing space", or do you think it would have no effect?

Hutu vs Tutsi said...

What does the author means by justice for 84, 92 or 2002.

Is it the individual prosecution defined as justice here? If so, why would that be deemed any more important than prosecuting a common crime? Or does the author want some 20% of the population which participated in such events prosecuted? If so, why/how would that achieve anything?

Chandru K said...

D'Souza( or Dcubed) carefully avoids mention of the revelations of David Headley. We are now certain that the Pakistani establishment was involved in 11/26. It's time to break off all relations with this nation of goondas and gangsters. And punish them physically overtly and covertly.

Jai_C said...

MastQ,

Yes. I think justice for BM demolition, some blasts cases after that, 2002 Guj riots will go some significant way in reducing the recruits for terror groups and other help they may be getting from some elements.

I dont think the LeT in Pakistan will go "ok we're done pack up" :-)

I dont think that will happen even if Kashmir is resolved, they will just find it lots harder to inflict damage on us.The genie of terrorism may never be put back in the bottle but it will be a lot safer.

rgds,
Jai
PS 1: Data for 'Khalistan' doesnt fit, it has luckily gone away, it would seem for good.

PS 2: By b-space I meant the "scope of reasons that increase the bombability of Bombay". It is to the advantage of a rational actor in the Pakistan MJC to increase the b-space, and to have it accepted in the Indian public discourse that yes, falaana are the reasons we could expect to get hit for.

It'd help our interlocutor if we have future nightmares of "riverine revenge". Why would he let it go?

Well. If we carry on to the stage of zoning ourselves out completely with "jo hoga so hoga" attitude he might be persuaded to give it up.

Extreme fatalism might help, provided the Pak MJC stays *rational*.

Anonymous said...

"avoids mention of the revelations of David Headley"

chandru - nobody, including you had heard of headley before about 10 months ago. if he is your excuse now for brushing 1984, 2002 etc away as irrelevant, pl kindly explain what was your excuse then??

ppl like you need new excuses every now &then. because the crimes you want to push under the carpet are actualy so repugnant and enormous that they dont stay there. so you need headley now, somebody or something else next yr.

yes, im the same anonymos. your arguments are nearly as repungant as the crimes you want to wish away.

Chandru K said...

Why are you even bringing up 1984, 2002 etc? This is an article about the recent India-Pakistan meetings, so it is very relevant and pertinent to place the revelations of Headley centre stage. Instead, D'Souza turns it into a "He said, she said" circus.

Chandru K said...

By the way the previous remark was not by me. Surely you can tell from the sarcastic style.

Dilip D'Souza said...

Telltale signs ... the above two comments (721am, 807am) were both waiting in my moderation queue this morning. Neither was approved (and thus visible) until a few minutes ago.

So how did 807am know about the existence of 721am?

This man is posing as himself and not himself. I have no clue why, but there it is. What a charmer. And there are those who see logic in what he (and avatars) writes.

Jai_C said...

Dilip,

I have occasionally tried to make sense of CK, especially until the advent of Ketan P and now again after Ketan has gone MIA.

If it is possible and permissible, can you let us know if this guy here is the same as the guy who was running the last 10 or so comments on the "In Kashmir" thread which were quite distinct in tone from this shadow-boxing?

I quite understand if you feel that is too much energy spent on a CK and dont want to respond.

Thank you,
Jai

Dilip D'Souza said...

can you let us know if this guy here is the same ...

I have no idea. How would I, even if I cared which I don't?

Ketan said...

Jai (and Dilip),

I usually type my comments from a cell phone using only a thumb, which is very tedious. Many times I lose my motivation to comment because of that.

Also, I must congratulate Dilip for the kind readership he attracts (especially, Jai, MastQ, formerly Sapathan, and a few others whose names I do not remember now).

Whoever is Chandru K is a very intelligent person but with a mischievous bent of mind. I still suspect Chandru K, Pub Chick & Sapathan are all one and the same.

I had drafted longish comments on the Kerala hand chopping incident & an account of a gay man. I might complete the latter comment and post it.

The current post made me smile (not a condescending one) for several reasons, but I mention the two which I find most prominent:

1. I find logically flawed comparing one-time violent flare ups of '84, '02, etc., with periodic installments of planned attacks like that of 26/11, which are part of a larger mission (if ISI's involvement is confirmed). But despite my pointing this out, Dilip's stance remains the same and I guess between the two of us, entire gamut of arguments has been exhausted. So, there'd be no point debating that.

2. Dilip's insistence on balanced, unbiased, truthful reporting of news. When I had pointed out the need for the same when reporting domestic events, Dilip had rejected the possibility of staying objective. I'm not sure if he was confused between news-reporting and expressing opinion, but my comment had been in context of former only.

Interacting on twitter, I realized possibly Indian coast guard &/or navy arrest Pakistani fishermen on flimsy grounds just like how Pakistani forces arrest Indian fishermen on flimsy grounds. What's the truth remains indeterminate, but it is obvious such incidents cause great distress to families of those arrested. Someone on NDTV had pointed out (could've been Beena Sarwar, but am not sure) that had talks succeeded, such prisoners could've been released.

So though, I remain highly cynical of the sincerity of the persons doing the talking (because in India almost nobody is passionate about their vocation - whatever it be), I feel biggest casualties of this failure were such common citizens (now held as prisoners in the 'other' country) of either nations.

For the sake of their & their families' happiness alone, I'd have wanted some decision to be reached in that regard at least....

Ketan said...

...Jai again,

I occasionally find your English difficult to follow. Of course, your English is not bad at all, but my exposure to the language is inadequate, and sometimes I am not quite able to relate to the metaphors. I do not have any right to ask you to change your style, but wanted to let you know of my difficulty.

Also, I do not know the expansions of a few acronyms - 'MIA' & 'OT' being the two I remember off-hand.

Also, I'd done a blog post, which had contained my amateur take on some aspects of ethics. Ethics in Tangents: Part 1 - Lessons on Inequity of Risks and Benefits (click). I would be glad to have Jai's comments (or anyone else who finds such topics interesting) there.

Sorry Dilip, for the blog-advertisement in the preceding paragraph. There's no other way I could've communicated with Jai C.

If you find this portion of the comment inappropriate, you may disapprove it, but obviously I would like Jai to learn about it. Thanks!

And yes, histrionics of Chandru K have played a small role in keeping me away from commenting, despite the fact that many of his points have been quite logical. I suspect, to discourage a few readers like me is one of the goals of Chandru K, and since I do not see my comments as being directed at some larger goal, I have allowed him to succeed to a degree.

Chandru K said...

Dcubed, the answer is very simple. The 2nd Chandru K was referring to the July 19th, 727 pm comment, to make the sarcastic remark. Not the July 20th 721 posting. Hence, the appearance of being a double post.
To others: the way around this silliness, is to respond to the message. So, what about the revelations/interrogation of David Headley?

Anonymous said...

Well there are two ( or three ) Chandru K's. I am writing my Master's thesis on this.

CK1: Writes long-winded comments, pro-Hindu, anti-Moslem, bigoted, from Canada.
CK2: Generally attacks Dcubed and tries to undercut through innuendo. Mostly anti-DDD.
CK3: The occasional wild card comment from CK1, CK2 or other anonymous, normally has no specific message.

Jai_C, you should do your best to find out if CK1 feels about you as you feel about him. Hope you guys can get together soon, your minds, I mean.

Chandru K said...

Ketan, thank you. There is only one Chandru K, myself, in Canada. If there is another one, I'll have to rub him out! Seriously, I'm not this Sapathan or Pub Chick. I did post that message about the nature of the Kashmir movement in the other blog topic, where I remarked that none of the usual conditions that give rise to genuine freedom movements, even exist in Kashmir. It's all about religion and religious difference.
I'm not trying to discourage you or anyone. What a curious idea.

Chandru K said...

"if this guy here is the same as the guy who was running the last 10 or so comments on the "In Kashmir" thread "

That was definitely myself making the comparison between Kashmir on the one hand, and North Korea, Saudi and Myanmar on the other. To stress that Kashmir enjoys far more freedom, openness and democracy than those countries. I also made a remark about how Moslems tend to feel victimised and hence justify or excuse violence against non-Moslems. I did *not* make the sarcastic remark about Moslems being a pampered and 'cossetted' lot, or how they are harassing Hindus in Gujarat. The sharper individuals in this forum can detect the difference in style and tone.

Jai_C said...

Ketan,

OT was Off-topic and agree its unclear(ontopic can compress to the same thing, I just saw it used on many other blogs). Much of this comment will be off-topic unfortunately.

MIA was "missing in action". If you provide the counter-anchor to Dilip's views, wherever you feel it relevant of course, CK would be getting a lot less attention. Even the most reasonable-sounding of CK's avatars dont come close.

For one example: Your counterpoint to some ad campaign post where you said the use of a Pakistani general's pic did not imply that Indian Army had no male officers, was pretty good.

We can disagree on Modi and even on the strength of that very analogy that does not prevent me from appreciating that kind of counter.

What such comments do is open up the think-space on that topic.

Please continue to post here at least every couple of months or so?

Converting Dilip or necessarily getting him to agree to your PoV should not IMO be an objective.

You can leave comments on any top-level post on my blog (jaics) regardless of relevance to the post if you feel it will be of interest to me. But I dont comment on blogs usually until I have read them for years.

Sorry Dilip for this offthread disc.

thx,
Jai

Chandru K said...

"The sharper individuals in this forum can detect the difference in style and tone."

It appears that this forum is filled with dullards. Dullards, Dullards, Dullards (DDD). That is why your different personalities are so confusing to others - except for you and me. We know!

Nikhil said...

Converting Dilip or necessarily getting him to agree to your PoV should not IMO be an objective.

Jai - agree with you on this. Maybe Dilip needs to heed this advice. At least he needs to stop mocking people who do not agree with his point of view.
What is his track record on this count. He has always been attacking people who do not agree with his point of view List includes Swapan Dasgupts, Varsha Bhosle, Rajeev Srinivasan, Francois Gautier, Sandeepweb, Rohit etc. Not to forget the different people who have disagreed on this blog and other forums

Dilip D'Souza said...

He has always been attacking people who do not agree with his point of view List includes Swapan Dasgupts, Varsha Bhosle, Rajeev Srinivasan, Francois Gautier, Sandeepweb, Rohit.

Not that I expect an answer, but anyway: please let me know where I have "been attacking" these folks. Disagreeing with them, vehemently so, yes. I make no apologies for that. You call that "attacking"?

Dilip D'Souza said...

Sorry, comment got truncated.

One of those folks you name above called, in writing, for a public figure to be killed.

I'm supposed to agree with this, or keep quiet about it?

Dilip D'Souza said...

I find logically flawed comparing one-time violent flare ups of '84, '02, etc., with periodic installments of planned attacks like that of 26/11.

Let's try this again, Ketan. What did I ask? this: is there "hurt and anger" in India that the masterminds of Delhi 1984, Gujarat 2002, Bombay 1992-93 and more are roaming free in India? (I know plenty of people who are hurt and angry over that). Can there be closure on any of those episodes without justice?

Can you simply answer this, for yourself? No comparisons to anything, just give me an answer.

I presume your answers will be "yes" and "no" respectively. If not, please explain.

Since that's the case, I ask: why won't we deliver this justice? It's not that we don't want justice -- after all, we are demanding it in the case of 26/11. So what prevents us from delivering it for those other episodes?

And if we won't or can't deliver it in those episodes, why are we so sure we want it for 26/11?

I make no comparisons to anything, I leave that to others.

I'm simply asking: why doesn't our desire for punishment and justice extend to 1984, 2002, etc?

Dilip D'Souza said...

When I had pointed out the need for the same when reporting domestic events, Dilip had rejected the possibility of staying objective.

Please tell me exactly what I said and where that makes you conclude this. thanks.

Nikhil said...

If all the comments and descriptions you have written on the above people is called a disagreement (polite disagreement like professional journalists without using any mocking language, then I think our perceptions on polite writng differ.
Ok - Would you ever care to have a polite dialogue with any of the people i have mentioned. As far as I know, ther ewas one at Sandeepwe and some with Varsha
But please eager to read a dialogue in public e mail exchanges with Swapan, Kanchan, Francois etc. Not that I feel anything positive will happen, but since you have been so courteous wiht Binaji, perhaps some charity at home would suffice

Chandru K said...

"Yes. I think justice for BM demolition, some blasts cases after that, 2002 Guj riots will go some significant way in reducing the recruits for terror groups and other help they may be getting from some elements.

I dont think the LeT in Pakistan will go "ok we're done pack up" :-)"

This, the above posting by Jai, is representative of the fundamental flaw in Indian thinking. Why should Indians have to spend so much of their time worrying about whether past injustices, and the failure to resolve those injustices, will create conditions where India is subject to more terrorism?

Does any other country think all along those lines, or possess those concerns? Does China, with its no doubt numerous embittered Tibetans, Falun Gong and Tiananmen Square dissidents, apart from other dissidents? Does Iran, which has slaughtered and expelled its B'ahai and Jewish groups, and which kills its gay and lesbian population at will? What about Saudi, which *outlaws* the free expression of any other religion besides Islam. Or the free expression of atheism, agnosticism, heresy and apostasy?

It seems to be a concern unique to India.

Anonymous said...

"Why should Indians have to spend so much of their time worrying about whether past injustices, and the failure to resolve those injustices, will create conditions where India is subject to more terrorism?"

is this a serious question?

because we are sick of terrorism and want to stop it. would have thot that was obvious, but there are cks and cks who dont see the obvious.

and you are seriously suggesting we emulate china, saudi and iran?

Dilip D'Souza said...

I think our perceptions on polite writng differ.

Given what you produce on these pages, I couldn't agree more.

Same question that you were too shallow to answer a couple of days ago: where have I been mocking of these people? Impolite? Please supply quotes. You haven't yet with the last time you made such a claim, about my accusing you of approving of killings. Can you do it now?

Ketan said...

Dilip,

In summary, I'd cited four reasons why any crime is (and not, "should be") punished (am not getting into whether such reasons are honorable or not):

1. As discouragement for future crimes (committed by same person or to-be committed by some other person) by stimulating the 'punishment center' of their brain - the deterrence aspect.

2. Guided by a sense of revenge (what you term as closure).

3. The criminal, while knowing that he's violating certain terms of ethics and law by committing a crime is consenting to be punished, and punishing such person becomes obligatory for those given the responsibility to punish them by the society (police/judiciary, etc.).

4. To prevent those 'habitual'& 'professional' criminals who make committing crimes a way of their life and would be actively plotting to repeat such crimes, unless physically stopped (by putting them in jail).

What's common between punishment for terrorist attacks and 'religious' riots are the first three points. It's the fourth point that differentiates the two cases.

If someone picks out a random person and tells me, "He's from Pakistan and had planted a bomb in a cinema hall that had killed 'x' number of people", I would be somewhat skeptical of that claim. If he does not get punished, my skepticism would greatly limit my anger against him.

But when I actually see (on TV) someone like Hafeez Sayed, amidst people carrying illegal arms meant to kill human beings only on the basis of religion they were born into, little is left to imagination! My outrage against his not getting punished would be much greater.

If criminals who had killed/provided resources for killing of people in riots are not punished, that is a travesty of justice (and shows inefficiency of justice-delivery system in India, and as you correctly point out, insincerity of judiciary/police/politicians and to a very limited extent, of citizens [I put very little blame on citizens, because representative form of democracy does not ensure people's will dictating state action]). But evidence to pin such involvement is lot more questionable as compared to the kind of visual evidence against HS & Kasab (e.g, as proved by Mumbai police not being able to 'secure' sentences against two Indians who were tried along with Kasab despite 'meticulous' investigation and anger of Indians against them).

"is there "hurt and anger" in India that the masterminds of Delhi 1984, Gujarat 2002, Bombay 1992-93 and more are roaming free in India?"

I'm afraid, there's another point of distinction I wanted to present. Driving force for justice, if allowed to be "hurt & anger" can be very dangerous. For, maybe not hurt, but definitely anger can be manufactured based on what are presented as facts, and what facts are concealed.

Despite what I state above, I believe (and have anyway stated that on your blog before and in a very long personal reply I had drafted for your reading here [click], which I request you again to read) that those involved in actual killing of humans or provision of resources to do so, must be punished. I have never stated anything to the contrary!...

Ketan said...

...All along, I've only been trying to tell you that the reason Indians react so strongly in case of Kasab and HS is not merely their being Pakistani/Muslim (which though is part of the reason), but if the latter goes unpunished, it is a direct affront to the intelligence of the viewer of video clips when Pakistani officials say "there is not sufficient evidence to take action against HS".

You had implied that (equally) convincing evidence against Indians involved in killings is also there, but I'm afraid, either such evidence has not been publicized sufficiently or, in most cases they're verbal testimonies or circumstantial evidence, which cannot evoke as strong an emotional response as those video clips. It's much more visceral to demand justice when you directly see the evidence of crime as against someone telling you, "so and so had committed such and such crimes". Do you agree with this part?

But you had in the past dismissed my pointing out these differences as my excuses for not wanting Indians punished for their crimes. That inference is for you to draw; I can't put forth my arguments more clearly.

Anyway, the most important reason there is a difference in passion with which justice is demanded for two sets of crimes lies in the lines along which groupism operates (which of course you know, but for some reasons do not state explicitly). An Indian killing a Pakistani is a hero for most Indians, but a villain for most Pakistani. A Pakistani killing an Indian is a villain for most Indians and a hero for Pakistanis. A Hindu killing (innocent) Muslim is a hero for certain fraction of Hindus and a villain for most Muslims. A Muslim killing an innocent Hindu is a hero for certain fraction of Muslims and a villain for most Muslims. Hence, the consequent polarization, which either results in 'buffering' of outrage or its intensification. But for outrage to get channelized in 'appropriate' amounts (dictated by nature of crime and evidence available) towards 'appropriate' persons would require people to shed their partisan attitude and lose their biases and be objective!

Why those responsible for killing riot victims have not been punished?

There is not a single answer, and my long reply I have linked above, largely deals with that.

Anyway, I leave it at that.

Ketan said...

As to the other question you had asked, I was recalling this portion of your comment (click):

"I believe everyone is biased, and I see nothing wrong with that. Give me that rather than some phony claim of "objectivity", every time."

Does that not sound antithetical to the following?

"Possibly lost in all that is a non-partisan account of what happened, that will give us a better understanding of it all."

Though, in the very same blog post, you had also said this:

"This is not meant to suggest that he tell lies: a liar will immediately be found out. So getting your facts right is paramount, that's a given."

And that's why in my above comment I also said:

"I'm not sure if he was confused between news-reporting and expressing opinion, but my comment had been in context of former only."

I wanted to point out, dishonesty does not consist merely of lying, but when one knows that the reader is going to rely solely on second-hand information to form opinions, concealing some vital facts is also dishonest (and is an outcome of biases and lack of objectivity - something that you had been dismissive of).

Also, in the same post's comments' section I had said this:

"As another example, I find most of the news presented nowadays highly irritating, not because it pains or shames me, but because it's biased, sensationalist & highly opinionated."

What made me smile was that the following three news headlines would perfectly exemplify what I was trying to tell!

1. "Qureshi Kills Peace Talks"

2. "Failure of talks exposes Pak’s evil designs"

3. "Pakistan's 'all or nothing' timeline trap broke talks"

And I'm afraid, not just the headlines, even the actual account thereunder many times continue in the same tone. I'd tried to explain why that happens in the same post:

"Unlike what Baby V feels, I attribute media's flawed approach to commercial interests. Most news are presented from a pure 'good v/s evil' perspective to make the reader/viewer stake an emotional claim in the story. Most would want to side with the 'good' & hate the 'evil'. But this effect is usually achieved through exaggeration & concealment of facts. We in our urgency to side with the 'good' miss glaring logical inconsistencies. So, having seen how people react to news, I disagree with: "a liar will immediately be found out.""

Hope, this clarifies why I said in the second comment on this blog.

Ketan said...

And BTW, Dilip it might not be possible for me to always sift through all your blog posts and my comments, so I wanted to assure, I would try my best to be honest in claiming you had said certain things. I also understand, when you ask me what made me infer certain thing, that would be out of curiosity and concern (of not being misunderstood).

Dilip D'Souza said...

Ketan:

But evidence to pin such involvement is lot more questionable as compared to the kind of visual evidence against HS & Kasab.

But what kind of statement is this? The great majority of criminal cases judiciaries decide, the world over, do not rely on "visual evidence" like you want, because there is most often no TV coverage of those crimes. Yet they still convict and punish the criminals. Examples? Tim McVeigh, Bill&Ranga, 1993 Bombay bomb blasts, proceedings against Milosevic, etc. Sure the evidence might be questionable, but that's just why you have a judiciary, to look at the evidence and decide guilt in cases brought before them.

There's not even a serious start in bringing cases for the massacres of 1984, 1992-93, 2002. Nothing. Yet you already say the evidence is "a lot more questionable".

I'm hardly saying "hurt and anger" is the "driving force for justice". I'm only pointing to the TOI report that says there is hurt and anger in India because the 26/11 masterminds are roaming free in Pakistan, and asking: is there hurt and anger in India because the 2002 (say) criminals are roaming free in India? Why or why not?

Dilip D'Souza said...

My mention of phony claims of "objectivity": there are plenty of folks out there who claim balance and objectivity, but who are clearly not anything like that. FOX news actually claims to be "fair and balanced", I think that's their slug. Whatever I see them doing is about as far from being fair and balanced as it's possible to be. To me, that's not objectivity, that's hypocrisy.

I don't think that's at all antithetical to anything I've written. The reports in both countries about the India-Pak talks went along partisan lines. That's why I pointed to the WSJ report, that did not lean either way.

Chandru K said...

It is interesting that in Pakistan, you never hear of any equivalents of Tathagat Avatar Tulsi, Vishwanathan Anand, students selected for NASA visits, students helping to build satellites or satellite payloads, brilliant IIT ians, scientists questioning the existence of Black Holes, winners of medals in physics or math Olympiads, Satyajit Ray's, Mrinal Sen's, Shakuntala Devi's, Kishore Parekh's, JJ Rawal's etc.
India has a much more vibrant and creative civic/civilian culture. D'Souza never brings this out in any of his articles.

Anonymous said...

"One of those folks you name above called, in writing, for a public figure to be killed. "

And a certain Cool Seer of a TV journalist/anchor called for the "sudden removal" of a democratically elected (not rigged ballot) leader.
No, not a pip-squeak then ?

Anonymous said...

"someone please kill this bastard" (after naming him)

"the sudden removal of Narendra Modi".

only a blindfolded modi fan wd make out these 2 are d same.

Anonymous said...

"in Pakistan, you never hear of any equivalents of Tathagat Avatar Tulsi, Vishwanathan Anand" ...

im sure the great chandru k has nvr heard of pervez hoodbhoy, the award-winning nuclear physicist and, interestingly, peace activist. (to give one example)

no, its preferable to hold tight to the idea of indian superiority to the rest of the world, even tho chandru himself blvs in it so much that he hangs out in canada.

Chandru K said...

The odd Pakistani opponent/exposer of the military or nuclear shenanigans of the Pakistani elite, do not constitute a vibrant civic/social culture, certainly nothing remotely comparable to India. Pakistan as a country is about the military, landlords, terrorists and a few Anglicised elite, constantly reacting to India, or trying to bring India down.
India's major problem with Pakistan is the latter's absence of a strong civic-secular culture that expresses itself openly. If/When Pakistan develops that, it will cease to be Pakistan.

Anonymous said...

"Only the sudden removal of Narendra Modi can stop this. For he is the agent forcing this change. And whilst he’s with us, he will do just that."

So what part of it is not the same as a call to kill ?
What does "whilst he's with us" mean ? Modi, certainly is not with him. Didn't KT badmouth an Indian legendary hero (in collusion with a Paki General on his hallowed program). So Modi is "not with him".

Somebody needs to take of those blindfolds once in a while or clean up that wax.

Anonymous said...

"So what part of it is not the same as a call to kill?"

yeh, for blindfolded modi fans you have to spell it out.

the difference is simple, it is not a call to kill, which the other one eplicitly is a call to kill.

vajpai was "suddenly removed" as pm when his govt unexpectedly lost 2004 lok sabha elections. remember? same with lalu when he lost in bihar.

loss in polls removes people from office, as might happen to modi. it dosnt mean they are killed.

Anonymous said...

- vajpai was "suddenly removed" as pm when his govt unexpectedly lost 2004 lok sabha elections. remember? same with lalu when he lost in bihar.


Nice Try. Losing an election is not a sudden removal. :)
Sudden removal was suggested after the re-election. Unless you count on Governators who dismiss State Governments.

Chandru K said...

From another forum, an incisive message:

"Hinduism and Secularism are more like a Garland with different flowers all sewn together with a dharmic/constitutional law thread. Outwardly there is unit level distinction and lack of uniformity, but inwardly all have same soul and flow.

The distorted Islam which is nothing but Caliph Arab imperialism is like Charcoal where everything is burnt down and therefore there is an outward uniformity, but no inward soul or thread to bind all. TSP-BD, Iran-Iraq etc. are examples of that.

TSP is basically a burnt Garland, and since the common binding thread is all gone there is nothing to keep it together.
The efforts of TSPA to link all burnt charcoal into a presentable Garland using an anti-India rope, in a vain bid to copy India is hilarious at best and preposterous at worst."