Have no enmity with Indian Muslims: Thackeray

[Capt.Popeye]

Alas, you got my entire post in a wrong note even after me starting with these lines - I have no love lost with Shiv Sena or Thackeray being myself a South Indian or Madrasi, in their parlance

I have no intention of replying to the rest because frankly I dont care who he is or what he does or what he becomes in the future.

My post was just pointing to Patanjali's post in which he ascribed some reasons for hating him and I differed with that.

And BTW who is T.Balu ??

I only wrote about Thakre because the thread was about him and his interview/ views. And the single statement that you made about his being "pro-Hindu". Which he decidedly is not. It is just a pose that he adopted, as he grew in political stature and came closer to power.
BTW, T.Balu is another name for Thakre. Ask your "Samna" reading Shiv-Sainik colleagues at work about that. The Shiv Sena (among other political parties) did a lot to put Maharashtra and its image on a retrograde path. Of course, the Sainiks will never say that.

 

[KS]

Sri, I never touched the subject of his being pro-Hindu. Anyone's being pro to any community is good for that community. But that is not the topic here. The topic here is his statement, "Have no enmity with Indian Muslims". What would be the need to say he has no enmity with Indian Muslims? Why could he not just say, "Have no enmity with Muslims"? He is essentially saying that he has problem with Muslims from other nations.I simply tried to find out the reasons. And in that I touched the communal crimes in India that cannot be connected to outsider Muslims.

Frankly what is our problem if he has enmity with Moroccan or Iraqi Muslims. As long as it is not Indian Muslims, does it not serve our purpose ?

Now, when you mention his being pro-Hindu, I see you are defending something that was not even mentioned.[/U] Why would you feel the need to do so?

This line made say so ....

He is so pro-Hindu...

Sheila Dikshit, or Chidambaram, or Bal Thackeray, or the locals do not make it right. If something is wrong, then their support doesn't make it right. It is akin to saying that his wrong is no more wrong because everyone else too is doing that. About Sheila Dikshit, I hope you know she had to apologize for her statement because she herself falls in the category of immigrants.

C'mon. We know it is wrong - but is it practical in India with its huge diversity. Absolutely no. When unbridled migration takes place, it is bound to ruffle the feathers of the locals.

Sri, I did not mention Babri Mosque, or Dara Singh because they are connected to Shiv Sena. This man, Bal Thackeray, in saying that we have no problem with Indian Muslims, is trying to clear his stained position of being a highly communal leader. It goes on to show in what way does he affect the masses. And I pointed out those incidents to show the prevalence of communalism in India.

Is it any wrong to give a chance ? And what if he says it genuinely ?

Indeed it is the intent that defines the crime. However, the SC lets the reader decide what did Dara Singh mean by 'teaching them a lesson'. The lesson could be anything from a polite request to not conduct the conversions, to burning them alive. I would let you decide what was the intent of Dara Singh when he taught a lesson to Graham Staines and his sons. The Supreme Court has simply stopped at the lesson part, not taking the pain to decide what did Dara Singh had in mind for a lesson.

I read on this very forum that the burning of Staines was not the intended purpose but rather just threatening. It was posted by a member from Orissa and I will try to dig that out. But anyway, lets just say the SC said both parties are guilty to some extent in this issue and not Dara Singh alone as is the popular refrain. The issue is much bigger than Dara alone.

 

[KS]

I only wrote about Thakre because the thread was about him and his interview/ views. And the single statement that you made about his being "pro-Hindu". Which he decidedly is not. It is just a pose that he adopted, as he grew in political stature and came closer to power.
BTW, T.Balu is another name for Thakre. Ask your "Samna" reading Shiv-Sainik colleagues at work about that. The Shiv Sena (among other political parties) did a lot to put Maharashtra and its image on a retrograde path. Of course, the Sainiks will never say that.

That line was first in Patanjali's post and I replied to it. I did not bring it in the first place.

Good, because there is a former Shipping and Transport minister by the name of T.R.Balu (commonly referred to as T.Balu) from Tamil Nadu and I was astounded as to why you were referring to him.

 

[President Camacho]

Frankly what is our problem if he has enmity with Moroccan or Iraqi Muslims. As long as it is not Indian Muslims, does it not serve our purpose ?

I am an Indian Muslim, I have two wives. One is Moroccan, the other is Iraqi. Can I enjoy my marital life in India?

C'mon. We know it is wrong - but is it practical in India with its huge diversity. Absolutely no. When unbridled migration takes place, it is bound to ruffle the feathers of the locals.

I have lived all over India, except my native state. Never faced the problems that you presume to be inevitable. There was no Bal Thackeray then. It is this breed of politicians that makes us think it is acceptable to have that wrong as part of our lives. Well, I refuse to submit to that.

Is it any wrong to give a chance ? And what if he says it genuinely ?

It is not wrong to give him a chance. However, it would not be wise to give that man a chance who already had it, and failed at it. No use trying the same act if it has failed us once, which in his case, is numerous times.

I read on this very forum that the burning of Staines was not the intended purpose but rather just threatening. It was posted by a member from Orissa and I will try to dig that out. But anyway, lets just say the SC said both parties are guilty to some extent in this issue and not Dara Singh alone as is the popular refrain. The issue is much bigger than Dara alone.

This forum, or the news agencies that one might have quoted, are not the stamp of truth. Apparently, his 'mere threat' came in the form of kerosene and the fire that followed. This issue much bigger than Dara Singh, yes, and that is why it has found its mention here.

 

[KS]

I am an Indian Muslim, I have two wives. One is Moroccan, the other is Iraqi. Can I enjoy my marital life in India?

You are just stretching it a bit. Let me try this the other way - if he says he has problems with Pakistanis, well how does that concern the Indian Muslims.

BTW, if you are married to Iraqi and Moroccans, then they become Indians.

I have lived all over India, except my native state. Never faced the problems that you presume to be inevitable. There was no Bal Thackeray then. It is this breed of politicians that makes us think it is acceptable to have that wrong as part of our lives. Well, I refuse to submit to that.

It is not about submitting or refusing to submit. We must know the limitations of this huge variety in culture, language etc of our country and learn to live with it.

But that does not mean we should condone beatings in public or vandalising public property. But saying the resentment itself is wrong is something we all have to live with.

This forum, or the news agencies that one might have quoted, are not the stamp of truth. Apparently, his 'mere threat' came in the form of kerosene and the fire that followed. This issue much bigger than Dara Singh, yes, and that is why it has found its mention here.

Actually it was not a private opinion, it was an editorial in a well known newspaper, Indian Express, IIRC detailing on the events. Since the migration of this forum to the new format many posts were lost and I will try to find it if it is there. And no according to the editorial it was not his intention to burn them alive, but what happened was a mishap even though it was wrong. Anyway lets leave this alone as the Judges of the SC are far more learned in the matters of law than us.

 

[President Camacho]

You are just stretching it a bit. Let me try this the other way - if he says he has problems with Pakistanis, well how does that concern the Indian Muslims.

BTW, if you are married to Iraqi and Moroccans, then they become Indians.

I wish you had understood the context of my statement and not gotten into intricacies of that particular scenario. What I basically mean is that his statement can be used to show hostilities toward Muslims from other nations (say Pakistanis). He appears to be advocating a closed society/economy, like that of Iran. What do you say, would be repercussions of his statements on the 5000 cricket fans from Pakistan slated to visit India? I hope you understand that he is highly generalizing and showing his reservations against a particular community, which may contain a lot of people who may harbor no ill-feelings toward India/Hindus.

It is not about submitting or refusing to submit. We must know the limitations of this huge variety in culture, language etc of our country and learn to live with it.

But that does not mean we should condone beatings in public or vandalising public property. But saying the resentment itself is wrong is something we all have to live with.

Agree with that, and that's exactly what I am saying. But one more thing, should we not work toward solving this problem of locals vs outsiders? Just accepting it as a fact, and learning to live with it is the crime all good men are guilty of. You fail to act, and evil prevails.

Actually it was not a private opinion, it was an editorial in a well known newspaper, Indian Express, IIRC detailing on the events. Since the migration of this forum to the new format many posts were lost and I will try to find it if it is there.

You do not have to spend time digging for it. I trust your words. And again, no editorial can be taken as a token of truth. I have also written articles, in publications way more reputed than IE and ToI. Would you accept my statements as truth without looking deep into matter?

 

[angeldust]

I am an Indian Muslim, I have two wives. One is Moroccan, the other is Iraqi. Can I enjoy my marital life in India?

But what is your point my friend? I know an Indian lady with two husbands. The first an Israeli Jew. The second a Palestinian Muslim. I kid you not. Perfect marital life afforded by India till she decided to do away with both. Legally that is.

 

[President Camacho]

But what is your point my friend? I know an Indian lady with two husbands. The first an Israeli Jew. The second a Palestinian Muslim. I kid you not. Perfect marital life afforded by India till she decided to do away with both. Legally that is.

My point, my friend, is that people take Bal Thackeray seriously. He should not say anything that may have undesirable repercussions.

 

[angeldust]

My point, my friend, is that people take Bal Thackeray seriously. He should not say anything that may have undesirable repercussions.

So when he says he has no beef with Indian muslims, we should not take him seriously because of the potential for undesirable repercussions? I am lost here.

 

[President Camacho]

So when he says he has no beef with Indian muslims, we should not take him seriously because of the potential for undesirable repercussions? I am lost here.

Well, if you read all that I debated with Karthic Sri, you wouldn't be so lost.

 

[angeldust]

Well, if you read all that I debated with Karthic Sri, you wouldn't be so lost.

I did and I am still lost by the relevance of your personal "predicament" to the topic being discussed. So please help me understand. You carry flags other than Indian, you claim to be an Indian muslim married to a Moroccan and an Iraqi, and you say that that somehow makes marital life for you untenable in your own country, yet your location says New Delhi. All this against the backdrop of an old Indian hindu saying that he has no issue with any Indian muslim. So where exactly is the problem? For you, or your spouses, or any Indian, hindu or muslim, in general?

 

[President Camacho]

I did and I am still lost by the relevance of your personal "predicament" to the topic being discussed. So please help me understand. You carry flags other than Indian, you claim to be an Indian muslim married to a Moroccan and an Iraqi, and you say that that somehow makes marital life for you untenable in your own country, yet your location says New Delhi. All this against the backdrop of an old Indian hindu saying that he has no issue with any Indian muslim. So where exactly is the problem? For you, or your spouses, or any Indian, hindu or muslim, in general?

It feels like we are stretching this issue beyond recognition.

By basing your thoughts on the location I mention, the flags I selected, and the hypothetical scenario (which you obviously failed to read) I bring in to question, you are making one huge issue out of nothing.

Tell me, if I have two neighbors, and I point out at one, and say, " I have no enmity toward this one", what would it basically mean?

 

[notsuperstitious]

My point, my friend, is that people take Bal Thackeray seriously. He should not say anything that may have undesirable repercussions.

No matter what he says, he gets unbelievable publicity. Our media has made him and Raj Thakre sucessful.

What a loss it has been, as the real issues people face in Mumbai, and if you live in Mumbai you can not deny they exist, have taken a backseat and this is become a ridiculous exercise of regional politics. People even claim it is as per Indias constitution that one can build illigal structures on govt land!!!

BTW thakre has often said weird things when it comes to muslims. he often makes friendly remarks and follows up with hostile ones. he'sa politician and we trying to discuss the logic of indian politics is a ridiculous exercise in itself.

 

[angeldust]

Tell me, if I have two neighbors, and I point out at one, and say, " I have no enmity toward this one", what would it basically mean?

I see your point, but then Balasaheb is not living in a political and sociocultural vacuum either is he? He and his people and party are perceived as anti-muslim and he is clarifying his stance clearly in light of the reality of Pakistan. What is wrong in that? Probably the only place where he can really be rightfully faulted is that he should have very clearly said that he would be against any Indian working against the interests of the nation, and not just any muslim Indian. If that is your assertion, then I concur wholeheartedly.