By far the most revealing thing about the recent uproar about Rahul Gandhi's statements is the reaction from the BJP and its stable-mates.
To begin with, Uma Bharti and others say it was an "irresponsible" statement for RG to make. Why? Is it irresponsible to have opinions? (In the end, what else was what RG said but an opinion?) Is it irresponsible to have opinions that differ from theirs? Is it irresponsible to merely open your eyes?
I'm hardly interested in comparing atrocities: to me, 26/11 was every bit as egregious and horrific a crime as, let's say, the massacres of 2002. I mean, I mourn the 200 Indians killed in that November of 2008 just as much as I mourn the 3000 killed in November 1984, or the 250 killed in July 2006, or the 2000 killed in February-March 2002, or the 260 killed in March 1993, or the 1000 killed three months before, or the 58 killed in December 1997 …
As ever, I could go on: This is by no means an exhaustive list. Some people look at it and conclude that extremist scum coming across the border, professing Islam, are the greatest threat to India. Fine with me. That's their opinion, after all. But in exactly the same way, why should other people not look at it and conclude that extremist scum lodged very much inside this country, professing Hinduism, are the greatest threat to India?
Why is this second automatically an "irresponsible" opinion?
And if the BJP tells us that RG's statement only "dilutes" our fight against Pakistan-sponsored terrorism, what's the message that party is giving us? It goes something like this: please don't look at the terrorism fomented, great crimes committed, by Indians within India, because we want to divert your attention to the terrorists from outside. We don't want you to pay attention to homegrown terrorists.
What's more irresponsible than to suggest that we actually ignore some, but only some, great crimes?
And then we have Narendra Modi telling us that after hearing RG, he knows where the US got its pro-Pakistan policies from. Consider the issues this raises:
* the presumption that a country will base its foreign policy on unrelated stuff a greenhorn politician in another country says. ("Hey Dick," I have to imagine George Bush saying in the Oval Office, "that guy Rahul says Hindu extremists are a greater threat to India than the LeT. How about we tilt towards Pakistan?")
* the presumption that a US tilt towards Pakistan, something we have accused the US of maintaining for the better part of 63 years, has its roots in what that greenhorn politician said in 2007, three years ago.
I think Rahul Gandhi has a point. Not that I'm interested in what is or isn't the "greatest" threat to India -- that's a matter of opinion and your mileage may vary.
No, I think he has a point for this reason: too many of us are unwilling to face the reality that's in our midst. That's worth thinking about.
December 20, 2010
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)
What Narendra Modi said was plain rhetoric to score political points - something all politicians do. At least I don't take such statements seriously. I think it is the Military Industrial Complex (if you acknowledge the existence of such an entity) that largely determines how much terrorism to sponsor and where on behalf of the US 'administration'.
For me, even what Rahul said was rhetoric. Simple reason: I do not think he was referring to Gujarat riots (wherein, 'terrorists' professing two different religions were fighting each other to the best of their abilities; damage sustained was by peaceful citizens professing the two religions was inversely proportional to their respective strength in terms of population) - which was no doubt, a very unfortunate event & something that should have never happened in the first place. How people of two religions can be made to love *their own* religion less and consequently, hate each other less, I don't think is in the realm of issues like 'global cooperation' (remember, Rahul Gandhi was talking to the US ambassador & not some 'spiritual leader'), or even internal security.
But even Rahul Gandhi, if it is assumed, as you seem to indicate, was referring to Gujarat riots, then I think his observation was irrational.
The 'trigger' for Gujarat riots had originated within Indian soil, so it can be hoped that there is at least something that just possibly could have been done to prevent it from occurring (e.g., Railways police having played a more proactive role in extinguishing the fire that had engulfed the train bogies, irrespective of whether they were ignited by some Muslims [as thought by many persons, including Teesta Setalvad] or had started burning spontaneously [again thought by some persons, not in the least, Justice UC Bannerjee]).
I believe, a threat's 'greatness' is inversely proportional to the extent to which it can be prevented or its consequences mitigated. [Of course, there is not much that can be done to mitigate a person's irreversible death]. As you believe that all events that lead to large-scale deaths are equally deserving of mourning (something, I quite agree with), it needs to be seen how many times have events like that of Gujarat riots 2002 since then have got repeated vis-a-vis terror attacks like that of 26/11, Ahmedabad blasts, Pune blasts, Jaipur blasts, etc.? These were smaller threats just because the amount of explosive material certain people could lay hands on was small? Nuclear weapons have been used *only once* in the World's history, wooden sticks have been used lot more often for fighting & killing - wooden sticks are a greater threat to global peace than nuclear weapons, really?
Most people also do not get into the analysis of on-going efforts that are already in place to stop terrorists from acting, e.g., ATS, state intelligence, numerous 'informers', army posted at the borders, coast guard, etc. In comparison, what measures have been/are/can be taken to prevent ("terrorist") events like Guj 2002 from occurring? I believe, literally nothing or very little, except for having few sections like IPC - 295. If we remove all the checks that are already in place to stop terrorists, still "Hindu terrorism will be a greater threat to national peace than LeT"?
I stop my rant here.
I "indicate" that RG was "referring to Gujarat riots"? Where?
He referred to the threat from "extremist" Hindu groups -- I assume that means Gujarat 2002, Ajmer, Malegaon, Bombay 2002, etc. Why would I suggest -- which I have not -- that he was only "referring to Gujarat riots"?
'terrorists' professing two different religions were fighting each other to the best of their abilities [Gujarat]
Really? Was there a fight going on between terrorists of different religions in that coach in Godhra? Or in the Gulberg Society? Or in Dehlol, where some 45 people were locked into a mosque and set on fire?
how many times have events like that of Gujarat riots 2002 since then have got repeated
How many times do such massacres need to happen before we are able to even acknowledge that they are happening? In this post alone I've mentioned 1984, 2002, 1992-93, 1997; I could have mentioned others too. On top of that, add up the deaths: do you not come to a number that's comparable to the deaths in the atrocities you cite (26/11, Ahmedabad blasts, Pune blasts, Jaipur blasts)?
This is what I mean by the last para of my post.
I'm not in the business of suggesting one or the other threat is greater. (That's merely rhetoric, you're right). I am simply trying to suggest that sticking our heads in the sand about some atrocities only brings us more atrocities.
What measures can be taken to prevent something like Gujarat 2002 from happening again? Here's one: punish the guilty. Period.
Nothing on the main.
The only upside I see is that the BJP appears to think it can have Shri Narendra Modi as prime challenger to Rahul G for "future PM".
This is good news. Scams in and scams out, media in various pockets, the Cong could use a little help in the next election.
What can we possibly do to help strengthen BJP's belief that Modishree is the guy for them to rally behind? Any ideas Ketan :-)
The problem is as from the past, repeated Lies eventually equates to becoming facts, especially with anti rss/hindu mentality of people like you 50 years from now will use this in writing history books and accuse Hindus of all the divisions. It is irresponsible of a gandhi scion to accues RSS/Hinuds of terrorists. His own dad justified killings of sikhs.
Do tell me precisely what in this post is a lie.
Besides that, exactly who are the people accused in the Malegaon/Ajmer blast cases? Who did the Srikrishna Commission name as responsible in the 1992-93 killings? Who did various other commissions name as guilty in the 1984 massacre? Who was responsible for the slaughter of 58 people in Bihar in December 1997?
Is it your case that only Muslims commit great crimes, like 26/11? Is it your case that Hindus are incapable of great crimes? Who is deluding himself here? Again, this is why I had my last para.
Jab aap Hindu aur Muslim ko le hi aaye ho to Sikh aur Isaai ko bhi le aao na..
Who is responsible for killing of more than 5000 hindus during the eighties (before November 1984, coz from October end 1984 things changed.. a little bit though).
Kabhi Kabhi Jaliawaalan bagh ko bhi yaad kar liya karo.. ya fir woh sab independece struggle ke naam par bhool gaye ho?
To come to the point.. it is human nature to kill.. and yes everybody will see or justify things that they have done or see that it is correct.. Sri Rahul/ Sri Modi sab gaddi ke liye kaam kar rahein hein
yes its only the M who are responsible as well as the C.
Its a Congress setup, kill Ms and blame H. In Gujarat thats what happened. This is a fact ofcourse your C media will not report such truth,
Narsiji, do you agree with what Narisiji says above?
It says plenty that guys nurse all kinds of opinions that they are themselves too ashamed to say out loud in public, so they must hide behind others' names to express them.
With C in command and Sonia in power and Rahul on a lie mission to spread hatred on peace loving Hindus, we are really ashamed to hide my name lest we get some congress goons(the same kind that kill Sikhs, then Kill Gujarat Muslims and blame of H/RSS) come after us after looking at our public profile/name, happy??
Oh, you're Narsiji now? The NarIsiji experiment lasted just one comment?
Narsiji, do you agree with NarIsiji's comment?
NarIsiji, do you agree with Narsiji's comment?
Last from me on this. Frightened people don't interest me beyond this much.
Gujarat Riots and Mangalore pub attacks are clear cases of Hindu Extremism, even if people dont classify the former under terror.
Dilip you are forgetting September 1989, Kashmir Valley. The bloodthirsty thugs who perpetrated and abetted the ethnic cleansing of the Valley rendering it Hindufrei and have striven to keep it that way, get a free pass from you. I haven't seen you as much as twitch your lip when the jidist thugs Yasin Malik and Geelani took their god-and-pony show around the country. Besides, ruthless as it may be, Hindu "terrorism" does not threaten the unity of India, Islamic terrorism does and is aimed at breaking the country. Difference. Big difference.
It is irresponsible to have an uninformed halfaxxxd opinion and voice it to the US Ambassador. It is irresponsible to shut your eyes and pretend that Islamic jihadi sharia terrorism doesn't exist. Every action of the Islamic terrorists has one clear goal - to destroy India not only as a state, but also as a nation, and create a sharia administered nation state in its stead. Dilip, provide one example from among the many acts of sharia-jihadi thuggery that the thugs have inflicted on India and Indians that is not driven by this goal.
The second extremist scum lodged very much inside this country, professing Hinduism, are the greatest threat to India are not a threat to India, because their motivation is vengeance, crude and ruthless as it may be, visited upon those whom they believe seek to destroy the nation. The Hindu extremist scum seeks to hold the nation together, the Islamic jihadi scum seeks to break it. And it is time you stopped bringing up the Gujarat riots, and your misrepresentation,
The Army units, frantically called by the Chief Minister, Narendra Modi, as the situation seemed to slip out of hand, started arriving in Ahmedabad and are likely to be deployed in the city on Friday.
I am quoting from The Hindu http://www.hindu.com/thehindu/2002/03/01/stories/2002030103030100.htm March 1, 2002. This does not sound like a CM who looked the other way or aided and abetted the riots.
You are of course very conveniently forgetting the Valley of Kashmir our Hindufrei zone, where the long years of anti-Hindu policies finally turned into vicious thuggery in September 1989. That is a threat to India because everyone, especially people with a claim to conscience like you, blithely lie and ignore it.
1989 September Kashmir Valley, Srinagar - this is what the muezzins were blaring from their perch at the many masjids that dot the city,
'Kashmir mei agar rehna hai, Allah-O-Akbar kehna hai'
'Yahan kya chalega, Nizam-e-Mustafa' (What do we want here? Rule of Shariah)
'Asi gachchi Pakistan, Batao roas te Batanev san' (We want Pakistan along with Hindu women but without their men).
That's a threat to India, even if your pet poodle Pappu aka Rahul doesn't think so.
Dilip, while national interest remains the supreme motivation of foreign policy in the US, there is also something called sentiment. By now all of us know that it was sentiment that kept Narendra Modi out of the US, while Australia, Israel and Israel have had no problem welcoming him. If a bloodthirsty thug like Yasin Malik or a shariaphile thug like Owaisi (who thrashed Taslima Nasrin with much pride) can visit the US, a popular CM who works tirelessly for his state should not be kept out. Unless of course you too are being muddleheaded about it.
RG made a statement about what he perceived was threatening to India. What he thought about threats to the globe as a whole was not Wikileaked. So why does it hardly surprise me that some who are offended by his remarks smartly evade the subject by speaking of a "global" threat?
Hindu "terrorism" does not threaten the unity of India [etc]
Really? In what sense does the slaughter of great numbers of Indians *not* threaten the unity of India? Please explain.
After all when Islamic scum slaughter great numbers of Indians, you yourself say it "does" threaten the unity of the country. When the guys wielding the weapons are Hindu, it does not similarly threaten? As I said, please explain.
Yes, it is an insult, because Gujarat, whatever its flaws, has more freedom and pluralism than do many of the US's traditional allies, such as Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. Let the US deny oil sheiks visas, or give the oil sheiks a 'pat down' at airports, like the Indian ambassador was recently subject to.
Post a Comment