Re: Indias terrorists
If you want to know the essence of my post please go directly to the post script, else continue.
By all means let us start from the "essence of your post", as there is some common ground that I can find I think. It remains to be seen. In every instance, you have just held up somebody else's crimes as a justification for the crimes committed by people you support. How is that a justification?
Let me ask you how you would react to a parallel situation. If you were the judge trying Ajmal Kasab, and he pleaded that he was not at fault alone, that terrorists had committed frightful crimes during the Munich Olympics as well, would you make any allowance for him? Or would you say that the two have nothing to do with each other, and that he had to pay for his crime regardless of who else has committed such crimes.
And that's what I have to say about the Sangh Parivar.
I am just stating that two wrongs does not make a right (borrowed from you), But in our supposedly secular country where every citizen is equal irrespective of his religion (supposed to be),its always the misdeeds of the Sangh that is highlighted branding them as communalists, fascists and what not.
It is good to see that we are agreed that two wrongs do not make a right. Please be sure that there are many who condemn communal violence even when the Sangh is not involved. But whoever commits communal violence, whether the Sangh Parivar or any other, will have to listen to being told that they are communal.
And it is your individual perception that it is always the Sangh that is highlighted as communalist or fascist. There are many of us who have condemned, and continue to condemn the Congress killings of Sikhs as the worst kind of communal violence; many of us who remember those difficult days, when every bearded Sikh caused a feeling of fear, condemn the communal killings of the Bhindranwale supporters and later, the Khalistanis; many of us condemn the exercise of muscle power and abuse of their political power by the Muslims against Taslima Nasreen.
Please also remember that communalist or bigoted/bigot, and fascist are two different categories, and while I will personally use them against a religious intolerance and a political intolerance respectively, I will not use them indiscriminatingly.
But the other equally culpable group always throws in the canard of secularism and potrays itself as some kind of angel which is disgusting to some people like me who would want them condemn both the groups if they have done any misdeed which unfortunately is the case here.
So unless a more equal handed approach irrespective of the religion is there, dont expect everyone to have your same opinion on the RSS. And calling the Sangh alone as terrorists insults our collective intelligence.
Sorry, not my problem.
I dont belong to the Congress, nor do I support the Congress. As far as their secularism is concerned, in my opinion, it is no secularism at all. If you wish to examine my public record, I will send you my nickname by personal message, and you can check the records at PakTeaHouse, at least up to nearly two years ago.
I have gone on record, again and again, for years on end, condemning the hypocrisy of the Congress, and the belligerence of the Muslim Mullahs. When I say strong things about the Sangh Parivar, it is part of this resistance to violence against a helpless number of people, against a violation of the rule of law, and against imposing the views of a section of people on another section by force or by intimidation.
Regarding your mysterious reference to calling the Sangh as terrorists, who is this who called them terrorists? Some members of the Hindu right wing were; it has not yet been proved that they were members of the RSS. If it comes to that, I dont recall having called the Sangh Parivar terrorist; if I did, it would be on fair and just grounds.
Originally Posted by Joe Shearer
Unfortunately, the answer for a series of mistakes is not to point at a countervailing series of mistakes.
Exactly --- But when the mistakes of one group of people are overlooked or swept under the carpet attributing a specious meaning to the word 'Secularism' and the mistakes of the other group is magnified again attributing a malicious meaning to the word 'Hindutva' it becomes necessary to show the mirror to those self-professed 'Secularists'.
Dont you get it? Showing the other group that they are wrong still doesnt justify what your group has done wrong. You are still wrong. If you commit a murder, you cant appeal to the trial judge for mercy or for extenuating circumstances because there are other people who commit murder. The two facts are not connected in the eyes of the law.
Originally Posted by Joe Shearer
Sikhs getting slaughered in thousands = A MISTAKE.
It was not; it was ethnic violence in its worst form, and it is a national shame that it is not pursued in the courts and the perpetrators, all of whom are known politicians and thugs in Delhi, brought to justice. Please do not use the Congress Party's excuses to justify Sangh Parivar excesses and similar acts of genocide.
Exactly --- Then how come they call themselves Secularists and media too hails them as one while painting a negative picture on the Sangh ?
Call them too Communalist Fanatics.
Which part of my statement above did you not understand?
As far as your opponents are concerned, they may call themselves anything; what is that to me, and how does it justify the misdeeds of those you support? Why should I not condemn the Sangh Parivar? I am neither the media, nor do I support the Congress.
Originally Posted by Joe Shearer
Hindus pandits getting killed in Kashmir = Political problem.
Again, this was an act of communal bias, and is the blackest stain in the face of Kashmiri secularism and inter-faith tolerance. Now we have a Hurriyat excuse being used to justify the Sangh.
This I would not agree --- The protestors were Kashmiri Pandits and the man they thrashed represented those bigots who were responsible for this plight of the Pandits.He deserved it.
They might have been members of RSS/VHP ,but they were Pandits first.
I dont care if they were Pandits or zebras; they had no right to take the law into their own hands. That is for the courts to take up. Otherwise, they are in no way better than the hoodlums and terrorists that drove them out.
We cannot call ourselves democrats and in the next breath justify mob violence, no matter how extreme the provocation.
Originally Posted by Joe Shearer
Poor protestors getting shot in WB under Left Govt = Misunderstanding.
Well done; you have managed to rope in the Congress Party, the Hurriyat and the CPI(M), and shown that they too are guilty of horrible crimes against humanity. How does that justify the Sangh Parivar?
To show that the Congress/Left and all other doyens of secularism are equally if not more at fault than the Sangh ever was.
Again, you dont understand. This is not a defence; the Sangh is, by your own admission, still at fault.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Shearer
But,Muslims getting killed by a few hundred = Holocaust/Pogrom/Genocide.
So let us have your enlightened Sanghi opinion: do you want us to call it "A MISTAKE", a "political problem", or a "Misunderstanding"? And are you comparing the numbers?
I dont care whatever you call it --- but call the same for all the four incidents.Not a separate term for each one depending on who committed it.
Sure.
They are all crimes, punishable under the law.
---------------------------------------------------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Shearer
Banning Parzania in Gujarat = Communal.
Banning Da Vinci Code and Jo Bole So Nihaal = Secular
Again, two wrongs making a right, it would appear.
So accpet that the second one was wrong ?? Unfortunately for you our 'Secularists' dont think so.
When I say that the Sangh Parivar is guilty of crime, it is no use telling me that others are equally criminal. In this case, it is the Sangh Parivar under discussion. Others crimes do not justify their crimes.
---------------------------------------------------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Shearer
Reservations in every school and college on caste lines = Secular.
Reservations in Minority institutions = Communal.
In your zeal and fervour, you seem to have slipped. There is constitutional protection for minority institutions. If you consult your local Sangh chalak, he will no doubt ask you to club that also as communal. You may have to do extra drill and starch your khaki chadddis extra stiff in expiation. You are to be commiserated with; calling reservations in minority institutions "communal" was at worst a Mistake, a political problem (of understanding) or a Misunderstanding.
Apart from the slander and the condescending tone an educated,'secularist' might have for the RSS, the rest is also complete BS.
What I m doing is questioning the very basis for that Constitutional protection ---- Are the minorities any special humans than the majority for giving them that extra 'protection' and then they have the gall to call it secularism.
You may question it. Just as Arundhati Roy may question the continued inclusion of Kashmir within India. It is your right to question the constitution, and consider portions of it written by Ambedkar improper, as you have done above. It is similarly her right, or Mirwaiz Umar Farooqs right to question the constitution.
For both of you, the situation is the same: until you can change the constitution, this is what it is, this is what it will be. If you want to change it, you are welcome to do it by approaching it the way the constitution can be amended. If you succeed, the constitution stands changed, legally. If you fail, you cant take to the streets and try to get your ends that way.
As far as the rest of us are concerned, you are both equally pains in the, er, elbow, and we are determined to ensure that you get to say what you think, irrespective of being pains.
----------------------------------------------------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Shearer
Talking about Hindus and Hinduism appeasment = Communal.
Perhaps you need to re-write this passage; appeasing Hindus is hardly communal. Appeasing, BTW, means avoiding conflict by making concessions to a threatening enemy; how does this fit your phrase? Are Hindus and Hinduism threatening, or have they been receiving concessions?
Lol...I shudder to think what would be the reaction of the 'secular' junta if some BJP Govt announces subsidy for Kashi/Amarnath Yatra. Perhaps you can think of it.
Nobody stopped the BJP government in power doing just that. Did they even try? And by the way: pilgrimage to Manasarowar is subsidized, so just remember, it isnt one-sided at all. The numbers differ; nobody, but nobody, stopped any of the governments at the centre from subsidizing Hindu (or Christian, or Sikh) pilgrimages.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Shearer
Talking about Muslims,Christians and Islam = Secular.
Don't you think an 80+% majority can afford to be accommodating? Do you find even talking about them offensive? Presuming that secular is an offensive term to you, as it frequently is for Sanghis.
We 'are' accomodating -- thats why in a 80% Hindu majority country the minority population is still growing and safe.
But the question is why should we be extra accomodating --- Arent all Indians regardless of their religion supposed to be equal?
Or is this the case of some are more equal than others ?
No, not at all. Accommodating means to give a minority a feeling of confidence in their country, not to give them a feeling that they are under constant threat. If to do this, we give them minor concessions which do not affect the rights of the majority, why should the majority object? If we do not, how are we different from Pakistan?
----------------------------------------------------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Shearer
Not hanging Afzal Guru the mastermind despite Supreme Court orders = Humanity and Political dilemma/May affect Muslim sentiments
How does delay in a judicial execution equate to communal riot and murder and burning alive an elected MP who made repeated appeals to the Chief Minister before being killed?
It is equated by the 'secularists' condemning RSS/VHP for whatever ills that are there, conviniently forgetting thet are greater communalists than the Sangh can ever be.
How does it help to have two sets of communalists? Only the minorities suffer while your two sets of bigots and communalists try to score points against each other. And the equation has nothing to do with the matter, as you should have understood by now.
----------------------------------------------------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Shearer
BJP questioning Islam = Communal.
Congress/Historians questioning Lord Ram's existance = Clerical Error.
Islam is history, recorded by its opponents as well as by its supporters. Lord Rama is myth, even according to a fanatic BJP-ite. What do you mean by clerical error, by the way?
Now now ---- is there any hard evidence for a Prophet to have lived 1400 years ago
Yes. There are contemporary Byzantine records and records from kingdoms in the Middle East. These are for the life of the Prophet Mohammed. You might like reading the Fall of the Roman Empire, by Gibbon. This is why I dont encourage people like you to write on such subjects before you get some background in the subject.
or a Holy man to have born in Bethlehem 2 millenium ago ?
The evidence is scantier, but there is evidence. We are in historical times now; these started earlier in the Mediterranean and Europe because of more extensive records and archaeological finds. The equivalent in India starts with 330 BC for European parallel reporting and synchronisation of dates, and approximately 122 BC for Chinese parallel sources and synchronisation of dates (based on the report of Zhang Qian in 122 BC to the Yuanshou Emperor about finding Sichuan and Qiong fabrics and bamboo products in Daxia = Bactria, which originated in the southern land, Shendu).
Except Sikhism ,the founders of no other religions can be proved that they existed.
Why are you making absurd statements? We are in historical times from 499 BC in Greece, and slightly later in Rome.
----------------------------------------------------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Shearer
The man who said "When a big tree falls the ground beneath it shakes" is honored with his name being used for every new airport,stadium,sea link etc.
Disgraceful. Does this justify slaughtering Muslims and Christians?
The man who was the CM during the Guj riots is a modern incarnation of Hitler.
And what else was Hitler but the head of state while Jews were being exterminated? Is it your case that he personally pressed the buttons to release Cyklon B?
I just wanted to show the mirror to the proponents of what si called now 'pseudo-secularism'.
If the RSS are terrorists,then the ruling party of India is certainly a more apt candidate. But then they favour the minorities so they automatically become secularists. Lol
Not so at all.
You keep trying to exculpate the Sangh Parivar by pointing to the faults of others. Please understand, that is not a defence. And it is especially not a defence against someone who charges you with crimes who does not belong to the other violators of the laws but is neutral between them.
----------------------------------------------------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Shearer
While every Human rights activist/political party worth his saly fights for Muslim victims of th Guj riots , no one cares for the 58 Karsevaks killed intially and the 250 killed later in the riots by the Mulsim mobs.
It might come as a surprise to you to learn that enquiries into the matter have cast grave doubts on the story of Muslim mobs setting fire to the railway coach. Look up the facts. And this is not to justify a loss of life, nor the deaths of the innocent. Those rioters who were killed in self-defence is a different matter, but we aren't talking about that, are we?
What better can I expect when there are no arguments left ? Put on a conspiracy theory.
The Nanavati commision has clearly stated that it was indeed a pre-planned conpsiracy by the local Muslim goons.
Many of the conclusions of the Nanavati Commissions conclusions have been controverted in the Supreme Court, and many more are under question. No independent enquiry, of which there have been several, has been convinced that there was a burning from outside of the fatal coach.
-----------------------------------------------------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Shearer
While a bomb blast in which a fringe group is among the suspects,it gets dubbed as "Hindu Terror" while in the case of its much famous cousin it becomes "Terrorism has no religion" and "innocent muslim youths are victimised"
Bigots are bigots on both sides. Which one are you citing to justify the other? It's a circular argument, don't you see?
Yes bigots are bigots on both sides --- You say so,but our secular junta doesnt think so.
I am not in the least bit concerned with weighing the relative misdeeds of the two sides. In this case, do you think the Sangh Parivar is bigoted or dont you? Leave out the Congress; what is your view about the Parivar?
------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Shearer
In a supposedly secular society Mulsims are given subsidy to go for Hajj ; while Hindus going to Amarnath Yatra are not even allotted proper land
And why didn't the BJP government and its coalition not stop this subsidy when it was in power?
Good question --- It was the vote bank compulsions and not aggravating the already negative image of it that has been Goebbelised by the Secular junta and its cohort the media.
Dont you feel this is a weak excuse? Dont you think other parties can argue the same?
Sad but true.
We are left to conclude that the Sangh Parivar and its supporters are powerless to do anything while they run the ministry, and can take neither administrative nor legislative action, and their only way of expressing their point of view is through criminal breaches of the peace in the streets.
--------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Shearer
Supreme court orders in the Shah Bano case subverted to maintain Muslim sentiments.
But Allahabad court verdict for Ayodhya questioned as faith cannot determine law.
Again, why should the wrongs committed by the Congress (in the Shah Bano case, a shocking miscarriage of justice, forced on the nation by a spineless administration) serve as justification for someone else?
Does this act of blatant interference by a political party, reversing a judicial decision by act of Parliament, justify a bad judicial decision?
Maybe I'm getting cliched ,but I ll say for one last time --- I agree with you that two wrongs doesnt make a right. But if only one wrog is higlighted and the other is obfuscated isnt it my right to point it out ?
Again, I point out one wrong doesnt cancel out another. In no way; at no time. You are welcome to point out crimes committed by others, but this does not affect crimes committed by those whom you support.
---------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Shearer
M.H Hussain drawing Godess Saraswati nude = Freedom of free speech
But Danish cartoon activist should be condemned as it hurts Muslim sentiments
Again, the same error.
Hussain certainly had and has the right of free artistic expression, and it has nothing to do with the noxious and unpardonable verbal attacks on the Danish cartoonist. Both should be condemned, not one taken as an excuse to justify the other.
Same as above.
And again somebody else behaving like a donkey doesnt give you the right to behave like a donkey.
P.s.:I am just stating that two wrongs does not make a right (borrowed from you), But in our supposedly secular country where every citizen is equal irrespective of his religion (supposed to be),its always the misdeeds of the Sangh that is highlighted branding them as communalists,fascists and what not.
But the other equally culpable group always throws in the canard of secularism and potrays itself as some kind of angel which is disgusting to some people like me who would want them condemn both the groups if they have done any misdeed which unfortunately is the case here.
So unless a more equal handed approach irrespective of the religion is there, dont expect everyone to have your same opinion on the RSS. And calling the Sangh alone as terrorists insults our collective intelligence.
I am not sure if you realise what you have achieved.
You raised the Sangh and its policies, with no justification.
It was challenged; you responded with the argument that others were guilty of the same crimes, and should be treated equally as criminals.
In other words, you have converted the matter to a criminalisation of both major sections of Indian democracy. And, in addition, you also failed to notice that in all this, the Sangh Parivar's acts have come out as criminal acts by their being equated with other acts that you have described in strong terms.
Please think carefully about what you plan to write before writing it. 'Satam bado, ma likho.'
