What's new

Shiv Sena’s ‘call’ sparks anger

Status
Not open for further replies.

Interceptor

SENIOR MEMBER
Joined
Apr 9, 2007
Messages
2,005
Reaction score
0
Shiv Sena’s ‘call’ sparks anger

Friday, June 20, 2008

MUMBAI: A powerful Hindu-nationalist political party in western India has called for Hindu suicide squads to counter ‘Islamic terrorism,’ causing outrage and embarrassing the national opposition with which it is allied.

The inflammatory comments appeared on Wednesday in an unsigned editorial in Saamana, the official newspaper of the Shiv Sena, a regional party whose politics is based on nativist pride for the people of the state of Maharashtra. “Islamic terrorism is on the rise in India and in order to counter it, we should match it with Hindu terrorism,” the unsigned editorial said in Marathi.

“Just like Islamic extremism, to safeguard the country and Hindus we must create Hindu suicide squads if Hindu society is to be saved.”

The editorial also urged that Hindus should “create terror” in Bangladeshi settlements on the outskirts of Mumbai and elsewhere in Maharashtra state.

The Congress, which heads India’s coalition government, called for the arrest of Bal Thackeray, who founded the party 42 years ago and still leads it today, newspapers reported.

The Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), India’s main opposition party, distanced itself from its Hindu-nationalist ally. “People should not take the law into their own hands,” M Venkaiah Naidu, a senior BJP leader, was quoted as saying in several newspapers on Thursday. “It is the duty of the government to counter terror.”

Shiv Sena’s ‘call’ sparks anger
 
.
islamic terrorism in india has to be wiped out, no doubt. but this scourge shiv sena has also got to be wiped out for india to be free of terrorism.
 
.
islamic terrorism in india has to be wiped out, no doubt. but this scourge shiv sena has also got to be wiped out for india to be free of terrorism.

Don't you feel this statement to be phrased slightly biasedly?
If one is "Islamic" terrorism, surely the other would be "Hindu" terrorism?
 
.
Hindu terrorists could probably create a civil war in India. I will be not surprised.

Its boiling, and it might erupt hard.
 
.
Hindu terrorists could probably create a civil war in India. I will be not surprised.

Its boiling, and it might erupt hard.

Ain't gonna happen.

You'll be eating your own words Webby!! :P
 
.
Hindu terrorists could probably create a civil war in India. I will be not surprised.

Its boiling, and it might erupt hard.

No, a civil war in India is very unlikely.

Further, please give the logic behind your "analysis."
 
.
No, a civil war in India is very unlikely.

Further, please give the logic behind your "analysis."

Gujerat was one example. Only the Muslims didn't seem to fight back then as it would have been suicide (they might as well have I think though).

Take the example, of if the Muslims did fight back against such an injustice. You would have civil war on your hands.
 
.
Gujerat was one example. Only the Muslims didn't seem to fight back then as it would have been suicide (they might as well have I think though).

Gujrat was a case of communal riots, albeit a grave one at that. Equating it with civil war is foolish.

Your contention that Muslims did not fight back is invalid in the light of the number of court cases in progress. The Central Governmant went to the extent of making sure that case proceedings were held outside Gujrat.

You've grossly exagerated the Gujrat riots; further, the tone of your argument suggests that Muslims are always wronged in India. This is incorrect; I'm not denying that Muslims sometimes have to face discrimination, but it is not of the scope and/or extent to which you're imagining it to be.

Take the example, of if the Muslims did fight back against such an injustice. You would have civil war on your hands.

Gujrat is one of the many states in India. When the Gujrat riots were taking place, few (if any) regions in the rest of India saw any communal clashes. This implies that your argument is moot.
 
.
Shiv Sena characters are punks and have practically no influence beyond Mumbai and some isolated outposts in Maharashtra.

It is a laugh to even think that such a small coterie of imbeciles can cause a civil war!

They are merely warts and no more.

Nothing is boiling in India; not even the weather. The monsoons are here in full force!

In Gujerat. there was no injustice that sparked the riots. It was the burning of the train that set the riots in motion.

The people of the Islamic faith do fight back, but that in no way could lead to a civil war. Those who wish that India boils are going to be sadly disappointed that nothing of the sort can happen or is happening!
 
.
A Hindu backlash hits Sonia Gandhi

By M.D. NALAPAT
Column: Future Present
Published: December 26, 2007

Manipal, India — Since the advent of the rule of the Mughals a millenium ago, central policy in India has discriminated against the Hindu majority within the country. The Mughals favored those of Turko-Iranian origin, followed by those who converted to Islam. The British, during two centuries of rule, implemented policies that deprived all except those of European origin of basic human rights.

Much has been made in Indian history texts of the cruelty of the 1857 mutineers against colonial rule, who killed around 300 individuals of European descent during a brief spasm of violence. But little mention is made of the retribution that followed, in which an estimated 65,000 natives were killed, some from the mouths of cannon. Several "rebel" villages were torched, usually together with their inhabitants.

Neither has there been much reflection on the manner in which British rule reduced India to poverty. From around one-fourth of global output at the start of the 19th century, the share of the subcontinent fell to one-tenth of that by the time the British flag was lowered in New Delhi in 1947.

Independent India's first prime minister, Jawaharlal Nehru, had been educated from boyhood in Britain. He was so insecure after the British left that he requested the last viceroy of India, Louis Mounbatten, to remain as "free" India's first governor-general and commander-in-chief of the armed forces. British control over the Indian army helped to prevent the full takeover of Kashmir by India in 1948, creating in the process a sore that has festered ever since.

Nehru also relied on British economist Nicholas Kaldor to fashion tax policies that punished the very merchant class that had funded the Congress Party's decades-long struggle against the British. Ironically, the new government was as hostile to Indian entrepreneurship as the colonial power had been, and the country's economy was soon straitjacketed by a "socialist pattern of society."

While laws were passed that overrode Hindu customs ( including, it must be said, retrogressive ones such as caste), Nehru took care to exclude the Muslims and other minority groups from such legislation, thus retaining the separatist mindset which had resulted in the creation of the "Muslim" state of Pakistan out of "Hindu" India.

As a consequence of carrying forward policies that saw the Hindus as a threat and therefore sought to place them on a level below those of the minorities in India, while Hindu temples are subject to state control, churches, mosques and other minority houses of worship remain free. Several ancient temples are now administered by atheists or other non-Hindus in states across the country, and the donations that pour into them from Hindu devotees are sequestered by the state. In education, while Hindu managements face severe restrictions and controls, managements that are Christian or Muslim escape almost all such state-mandated limitations on their freedom.


Since Sonia Gandhi took over the governance of India in 2004 and appointed a prime minister from a minority faith, there has been an explicit bias in policy favoring minority groups at the expense of the Hindu majority, and a conscious effort to sideline officials seen as "practicing Hindus" -- those who regularly visit temples -- on the grounds that they are "Hindu fanatics."

By contrast, almost none of the numerous bomb explosions that have taken place in Congress-ruled cities across India -- such as Mumbai, Delhi and Hyderabad -- have been traced to the perpetrators, because of an informal prohibition against "stereotyping" that prevents the police from intensive investigations in the mainly Muslim localities where the perpetrators are believed to be sheltering.

Such "partial" secularism, in which only Hindus are expected to be secular while Muslims and other minorities remain free to practice exclusionary practices, has led to a Hindu backlash across India. This found its first major expression in the Dec. 23 verdict of the electorate of Gujarat state, who re-elected the state's chief minister, Narendra Modi, despite a well-funded rebellion within the ranks of his own party, the Bharatiya Janata Party, as well as the enmity of almost the entire television and print media.

The media correctly see him as posing a possibly fatal challenge to the Nehruvian policies that were embraced by the first BJP prime minister, Atal Behari Vajpayee, who was as deferential toward Sonia Gandhi's interests as members of her own Congress Party had been in the past. Modi thus challenges not only Sonia Gandhi but the Vajpayee cohort in his own party, who have for decades enjoyed a cozy and lucrative relationship with the Nehrus.

Despite occasional public posturing, in practice, the present crop of BJP leaders has been content to share in the spoils of the present Nehruvian state system. All, that is, except Narendra Modi, who defied his party leadership in making Sonia Gandhi and Manmohan Singh -- both of whom, being Christian and Sikh respectively, belong to minority groups -- the target of his verbal barbs, despite strictures from the Sonia-friendly Election Commission.

Wresting Gujarat from this potent challenger was crucial to the continued salience of Nehruism, but the strength of the Hindu backlash against policies that penalize the majority community ensured a handsome win. The results have led to apprehension throughout the Nehruvian establishment, including almost the whole of the English-language media, that "Moditva" may spread to other states.


It may even within the next five years lead to a takeover of the central government by the Gujarat chief minister, who comes from near the bottom of the Hindu caste ladder, but who has emerged as the favorite of tens of millions of Hindus irrespective of caste, who seek parity with the minorities in running their houses of worship or educational and other institutions.


As Malaysia has shown, the advent of globalization and the demonstrated ability of Hindus to compete with the rest of the world have led to a renewal of confidence in a community of 840 million that has been kept at the margins for more than a millennium. The message of Gujarat is that the cry for parity by the Hindu community in India has become a political wave that could upset the Nehruvian system of partial secularism that has prevailed in India since 1947. Dec. 23, 2007 is a genuine turning point in the politics of the world's largest democracy.

--

(Professor M.D. Nalapat is vice-chair of the Manipal Advanced Research Group, UNESCO Peace Chair, and professor of geopolitics at Manipal University. ©Copyright M.D. Nalapat.)


A Hindu backlash hits Sonia Gandhi - upiasiaonline.com
 
.
Modi's popularity reflects the growing discontent of hindus with the policies of the central government, which is always in constant fear of a minority backlash and thus tends to give them special treatment over the hindu majority.

The Hindu parties are taking full advantage of these policies, which they refer to as "pseudo-secularism" and "minority appeasement".

It also marks the breaking down of the caste system and the unification of hindus across India.

For the record, Modi comes from a lower-caste background, but nobody seems to care anymore.
 
.
Modi's popularity reflects the growing discontent of hindus with the policies of the central government, which is always in constant fear of a minority backlash and thus tends to give them special treatment over the hindu majority.

The Hindu parties are taking full advantage of these policies, which they refer to as "pseudo-secularism" and "minority appeasement".

It also marks the breaking down of the caste system and the unification of hindus across India.

For the record, Modi comes from a lower-caste background, but nobody seems to care anymore.

What I do not quiet understand is why do people assume that being pro-Hindu is being anti-Muslim and vice versa?

The government's minority policy has been good in certain areas and bad in others.

An overhaul is definitely required to further the integration of the many religions and sects.
 
.
What I do not quiet understand is why do people assume that being pro-Hindu is being anti-Muslim and vice versa?

Its the Nehruvian mindset that minorities must be given special treatment.

Any leader who talks about common civil laws for all Indians is branded a hindu extremist.

Then there's the Ayodhya issue. From a Hindu POV, its completely reasonable to have a hindu temple in one of the holiest spots in India.
There could have been a compromise and the issue would have been sorted out a long time back with no violence.
However, the congress sat on its *** for 50 years, hoping that the sentiments would disappear into thin air.
This didn't happen, and hence the desperate demolition attempt which led to riots and further trouble.

Secularism is fine, but one needs a good dose of pragmatism as well.

Of course, then there's Pakistan, which has always portrayed itself as an Islamic Heaven, however different reality might be.

The point is that the muslim mindset has been left in a timewarp since pre-independence days. Muslim leaders today have the same tone and ideas as the ones 70 years ago, which is creating problems for both them and the rest of India.

A visit to Deoband in UP will reaffirm this. Visiting the place is like taking a time-capsule journey to a 100 years back. No music, no Television, no non-Islamic books or ideas. No drawing, painting, art, drama. Nothing. Islamic heaven.
 
.
Its the Nehruvian mindset that minorities must be given special treatment.

Any leader who talks about common civil laws for all Indians is branded a hindu extremist.

Then there's the Ayodhya issue. From a Hindu POV, its completely reasonable to have a hindu temple in one of the holiest spots in India.
There could have been a compromise and the issue would have been sorted out a long time back with no violence.
However, the congress sat on its *** for 50 years, hoping that the sentiments would disappear into thin air.
This didn't happen, and hence the desperate demolition attempt which led to riots and further trouble.

Secularism is fine, but one needs a good dose of pragmatism as well.

Of course, then there's Pakistan, which has always portrayed itself as an Islamic Heaven, however different reality might be.

The point is that the muslim mindset has been left in a timewarp since pre-independence days. Muslim leaders today have the same tone and ideas as the ones 70 years ago, which is creating problems for both them and the rest of India.

A visit to Deoband in UP will reaffirm this. Visiting the place is like taking a time-capsule journey to a 100 years back. No music, no Television, no non-Islamic books or ideas. No drawing, painting, art, drama. Nothing. Islamic heaven.

I do agree with some of your points.

As far as Ayodhya is concerned, the place deserves a national memorial of mourning or a joint mandir/masjid complex. Regardless of what Babur did, we cannot take history in our own hands.

What if archeologists discover an ancient temple beneath VT station in Mumbai? Should the VT station be demolished?

Not all Indian Muslims are stuck in the time warp; I personally know many who are very liberal and accomodating regardless of anything. I shall dare say that only some Indian Muslim communities, and these are the ones forever in the limelight, are stuck in this time warp.

My only complain is the quota system and the lack of UCC.

Further, all sorts of educational institutions affiliated with any religion need to be scrutinized.

Laws pertaining to "lucrative" conversion need to be strictly implemented as well.
 
.
I do agree with some of your points.

As far as Ayodhya is concerned, the place deserves a national memorial of mourning or a joint mandir/masjid complex. Regardless of what Babur did, we cannot take history in our own hands.

That's the whole problem. Most people assume that this is some sort of historical revenge.
It was never meant to be. Ayodhya is believed by Lord Ram's birthplace by the vast majority of hindus. This wasn't created by the BJP or Sangh Parivar.

The fact that the congress was unwilling to listen to hindus, arrive at some sort of compromise, for 50 years for fear of offending muslims, unnecessarily created the hatred and revenge mindset.

Remember the temple at Somnath? The one that was looted by islamic invaders and rebuilt 7 times?
The current structure was built immediately after independence. There was no rioting, no allegations of discrimination. The mosque at the spot was shifted and rebuilt a few kms away, and everybody was happy.

What if archeologists discover an ancient temple beneath VT station in Mumbai? Should the VT station be demolished?

I understand that it makes no logical sense, but unfortunately, most people don't share our idea of what is sensible and what isn't.

Our logical reasoning isn't going to change the fact that most hindus want a temple at their holy spot.

The only way to diffuse the crisis would be to educate each and every hindu with a strictly secular education in the next 10-15 years, and with the current bureaucracy and corruption, that ain't gonna happen.
 
.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom