In situations like the terrorist attack in the Parliament or the bomb attacks in Delhi, I dont remember the ‘Hindu Fundamentalists’ going beserk. Even after the serial bomb blasts in 1993 there were no riots. They have gone violent when they have been attacked. In the context of the current blasts in Mumbai I don’t understand why Amit has gone on and on about BJP and Shiv Sena.
Maybe he is desparately trying to get into the good books of the secular media around the world, and the easiest way is to bash up Hindus. It has all the essential keywords including Narendra Modi (what is the connection here???). He goes on and on about the rampage after the statue of Bal Thackerey’s wife was ‘allegedly desecrated’, while keeping silent about how two policemen were slaughtered a few days back, in Mumbai, by Muslim crowd.
The worries for secularism for him come from Shiv Sena, not from the Islamic terrorists, SIMI, LeT, and the various Muslims in Mumbai who raise Pakistani flags inside the nation. This is the most lopsided article I have read and even beats the Resident Idiot in quality.
While I can understand your frustration that Amit focused so much (to the pt. of exaggeration in your and Sandeep’s opinion) on the potential of Shiv Sena starting riots in Mumbai, I think your comment is very unfair to him. Amit identifies a very real problem – the fact that religious tensions in India can be exploited by terrorist to cause riots. Furthermore, such riots do India little good in the eyes of the world. Agreed, the threat of Shiv Sena starting riots is a bit exaggerated but still, it’s important to recognize what the goal of the terrorists was and how the Sena and similar organizations would have fit into their plan: religious violence that will give India a bad image.
Also, calling him a supporter of Maoists completely ignores his libertarian stance while suggesting that he condones SIMI, LeT, and Muslims who raise Pakistani flags in India is ridiculuous. Along with reading this blog (Seriously Sandeep), I’m also a regular reader of Amit’s “India Uncut” and the “Indian Economy Blog” where he is a contributor. He has never condoned SIMI, LeT, and raising Pakistani flags. I can understand your frustration, since I also feel he overstated the likelihood of Shiv Sena starting riots (see Gaurav Sabnis: http://gauravsabnis.blogspot.com/2006/07/blasts-and-sena.html ). However, that doesn’t make it acceptable for you to accuse him of things he has never said. As for his worries about secularism, I got the impression from reading his blog that his idea of secularism was real secularism, the secularism that comes with one law for all citizens (Uniform Civil Code), religious freedom along with other civil liberties, etc. His secularism is a refreshingly different one from that of India’s current ruling coalition.
Though I can understand your frustration that Amit focused so much (to the pt. of exaggeration in your and Sandeep’s opinion) on the potential of Shiv Sena starting riots in Mumbai, I think your comment is very unfair to him. Amit identifies a very real problem – the fact that religious tensions in India can be exploited by terrorist to cause riots. Furthermore, such riots do India little good in the eyes of the world. Agreed, the threat of Shiv Sena starting riots is a bit exaggerated but still, it’s important to recognize what the goal of the terrorists was and how the Sena and similar organizations would have fit into their plan: religious violence that will give India a bad image.
Also, calling him a supporter of Maoists completely ignores his libertarian stance while suggesting that he condones SIMI, LeT, and Muslims who raise Pakistani flags in India is ridiculuous. Along with reading this blog (Seriously Sandeep), I’m also a regular reader of Amit’s “India Uncut” and the “Indian Economy Blog” where he is a contributor. He has never condoned SIMI, LeT, and raising Pakistani flags. I can understand your frustration, since I also feel he overstated the likelihood of Shiv Sena starting riots (see Gaurav Sabnis: http://gauravsabnis.blogspot.com/2006/07/blasts-and-sena.html ). However, that doesn’t make it acceptable for you to accuse him of things he has never said. As for his worries about secularism, I got the impression from reading his blog that his idea of secularism was real secularism, the secularism that comes with one law for all citizens (Uniform Civil Code), religious freedom along with other civil liberties, etc. His secularism is a refreshingly different one from that of India’s current ruling coalition.
I do not know much about Amit Verma, but this article was terrible, to say the least. The entire article goes on and on about RSS/SS and the like when past experience shows that there has been no record of communal riots after any terrorist attack.
The first thing to do was to haul up the govt that has failed completely on the security front. I do not see this anywhere in the article. Contrast this to the way the NDA govt was hauled up after the death of Graham Staines and everybody declared them guilty without any proof.
The NDA was not much better on the security front, but they were at least concerned about India’s security. This govt has abolished POTA. We have Mulayam asking to withdraw cases against SIMI.
If tomorrow the BJP and others make this an election issue, they will be accused of being communal. But nobody today is protesting Mulayam’s antics.
This is the result of getting too close to the likes of Dilip Dsouza & Co.
This post in part is a response to RahulBR as well.
On July 11, soon after the Mumbai blasts Amit Verma wrote a 850 word piece mainly targeted for a British audience about the blasts. 350 words in that piece were devoted to how the blasts occurred. 530 of those were devoted to what kind of response to expect and how to prepare for it. “What to expect” was largely hypothetical with no data to back up that such a response must be expected. Anyway, as the title of the blog suggested “Avoiding the backlash” – Verma went on and on about Hindu fundamentalism, Shiv Sena and other imaginary dragons that were just ready to predate. In the process Verma created a dragon much much bigger than the one that had consumed 200 lives that day. The whole post and the ensuing discussion (mostly British) became one of how to slay this fast advancing dragon.
On July 12 one discussionist pointed out how Verma’s expectation of backlash lacked any evidence from data. Parliament bombing, Akshardham, Raghunath Mandir bombing, Sai Baba mandir bombing in Hyderabad, Zaveri Bazaar/Gateway of India Bombings, Pre-diwali bombings in New Delhi, Varanasi bombings, IISc bombings had all passed without any backlash.
Verma was not alone in chasing this imaginary dragon. Others did too. Soon the imaginary approaching dragon was no longer imaginary, it was not even approaching – it had transformed into the dragon that had indeed slayed 200 lives and walked off. On July 24 the CPI(M) suggested Shiv Sena might have planted the bombs. On July 25 Shahi Imam alleged it. On July 26 Rajya Sabha even debated it!
Today is July 27. There is no sign of backlash or even its shadow.
Verma in his blog like his pseudo-secular ilk keeps insisting that there are dangerous elements among Muslims. He also emphasizes that all Muslims are not terrorists, but some are and they must be punished.
So, given the situation that day, wouldn’t it have been far more prudent to presnt ways how these dangerous elements can be sieved from the good ones? That is what a sane society would expect out its intellectuals, would’nt it? Instead what did Verma do? Shift blame. Divert attention. Create false paranoia by paintng a picture of an insane society. Gave intellectual cover to the baser elements like the Shahi Imam and the CPM.
Meanwhile the dragon whose fire engulfed 200 innocent lives walks free and unleashed. It is small wonder that his picture hangs in Sandeep’s pseudo-secular hall of shame!
PS: I hate to register to a commie website like the Guardian, but if someone can convey these thoughts to Amit Verma, I’d appreciate.
16. July 2006 - 11:56 PM
In situations like the terrorist attack in the Parliament or the bomb attacks in Delhi, I dont remember the ‘Hindu Fundamentalists’ going beserk. Even after the serial bomb blasts in 1993 there were no riots. They have gone violent when they have been attacked. In the context of the current blasts in Mumbai I don’t understand why Amit has gone on and on about BJP and Shiv Sena.
Maybe he is desparately trying to get into the good books of the secular media around the world, and the easiest way is to bash up Hindus. It has all the essential keywords including Narendra Modi (what is the connection here???). He goes on and on about the rampage after the statue of Bal Thackerey’s wife was ‘allegedly desecrated’, while keeping silent about how two policemen were slaughtered a few days back, in Mumbai, by Muslim crowd.
The worries for secularism for him come from Shiv Sena, not from the Islamic terrorists, SIMI, LeT, and the various Muslims in Mumbai who raise Pakistani flags inside the nation. This is the most lopsided article I have read and even beats the Resident Idiot in quality.
What next Amit? Maoists are saints?
17. July 2006 - 12:38 AM
Shyam,
While I can understand your frustration that Amit focused so much (to the pt. of exaggeration in your and Sandeep’s opinion) on the potential of Shiv Sena starting riots in Mumbai, I think your comment is very unfair to him. Amit identifies a very real problem – the fact that religious tensions in India can be exploited by terrorist to cause riots. Furthermore, such riots do India little good in the eyes of the world. Agreed, the threat of Shiv Sena starting riots is a bit exaggerated but still, it’s important to recognize what the goal of the terrorists was and how the Sena and similar organizations would have fit into their plan: religious violence that will give India a bad image.
Also, calling him a supporter of Maoists completely ignores his libertarian stance while suggesting that he condones SIMI, LeT, and Muslims who raise Pakistani flags in India is ridiculuous. Along with reading this blog (Seriously Sandeep), I’m also a regular reader of Amit’s “India Uncut” and the “Indian Economy Blog” where he is a contributor. He has never condoned SIMI, LeT, and raising Pakistani flags. I can understand your frustration, since I also feel he overstated the likelihood of Shiv Sena starting riots (see Gaurav Sabnis: http://gauravsabnis.blogspot.com/2006/07/blasts-and-sena.html ). However, that doesn’t make it acceptable for you to accuse him of things he has never said. As for his worries about secularism, I got the impression from reading his blog that his idea of secularism was real secularism, the secularism that comes with one law for all citizens (Uniform Civil Code), religious freedom along with other civil liberties, etc. His secularism is a refreshingly different one from that of India’s current ruling coalition.
17. July 2006 - 12:40 AM
Shyam,
Though I can understand your frustration that Amit focused so much (to the pt. of exaggeration in your and Sandeep’s opinion) on the potential of Shiv Sena starting riots in Mumbai, I think your comment is very unfair to him. Amit identifies a very real problem – the fact that religious tensions in India can be exploited by terrorist to cause riots. Furthermore, such riots do India little good in the eyes of the world. Agreed, the threat of Shiv Sena starting riots is a bit exaggerated but still, it’s important to recognize what the goal of the terrorists was and how the Sena and similar organizations would have fit into their plan: religious violence that will give India a bad image.
Also, calling him a supporter of Maoists completely ignores his libertarian stance while suggesting that he condones SIMI, LeT, and Muslims who raise Pakistani flags in India is ridiculuous. Along with reading this blog (Seriously Sandeep), I’m also a regular reader of Amit’s “India Uncut” and the “Indian Economy Blog” where he is a contributor. He has never condoned SIMI, LeT, and raising Pakistani flags. I can understand your frustration, since I also feel he overstated the likelihood of Shiv Sena starting riots (see Gaurav Sabnis: http://gauravsabnis.blogspot.com/2006/07/blasts-and-sena.html ). However, that doesn’t make it acceptable for you to accuse him of things he has never said. As for his worries about secularism, I got the impression from reading his blog that his idea of secularism was real secularism, the secularism that comes with one law for all citizens (Uniform Civil Code), religious freedom along with other civil liberties, etc. His secularism is a refreshingly different one from that of India’s current ruling coalition.
17. July 2006 - 7:16 AM
I do not know much about Amit Verma, but this article was terrible, to say the least. The entire article goes on and on about RSS/SS and the like when past experience shows that there has been no record of communal riots after any terrorist attack.
The first thing to do was to haul up the govt that has failed completely on the security front. I do not see this anywhere in the article. Contrast this to the way the NDA govt was hauled up after the death of Graham Staines and everybody declared them guilty without any proof.
The NDA was not much better on the security front, but they were at least concerned about India’s security. This govt has abolished POTA. We have Mulayam asking to withdraw cases against SIMI.
If tomorrow the BJP and others make this an election issue, they will be accused of being communal. But nobody today is protesting Mulayam’s antics.
This is the result of getting too close to the likes of Dilip Dsouza & Co.
28. July 2006 - 2:39 AM
This post in part is a response to RahulBR as well.
On July 11, soon after the Mumbai blasts Amit Verma wrote a 850 word piece mainly targeted for a British audience about the blasts. 350 words in that piece were devoted to how the blasts occurred. 530 of those were devoted to what kind of response to expect and how to prepare for it. “What to expect” was largely hypothetical with no data to back up that such a response must be expected. Anyway, as the title of the blog suggested “Avoiding the backlash” – Verma went on and on about Hindu fundamentalism, Shiv Sena and other imaginary dragons that were just ready to predate. In the process Verma created a dragon much much bigger than the one that had consumed 200 lives that day. The whole post and the ensuing discussion (mostly British) became one of how to slay this fast advancing dragon.
On July 12 one discussionist pointed out how Verma’s expectation of backlash lacked any evidence from data. Parliament bombing, Akshardham, Raghunath Mandir bombing, Sai Baba mandir bombing in Hyderabad, Zaveri Bazaar/Gateway of India Bombings, Pre-diwali bombings in New Delhi, Varanasi bombings, IISc bombings had all passed without any backlash.
Verma was not alone in chasing this imaginary dragon. Others did too. Soon the imaginary approaching dragon was no longer imaginary, it was not even approaching – it had transformed into the dragon that had indeed slayed 200 lives and walked off. On July 24 the CPI(M) suggested Shiv Sena might have planted the bombs. On July 25 Shahi Imam alleged it. On July 26 Rajya Sabha even debated it!
Today is July 27. There is no sign of backlash or even its shadow.
Verma in his blog like his pseudo-secular ilk keeps insisting that there are dangerous elements among Muslims. He also emphasizes that all Muslims are not terrorists, but some are and they must be punished.
So, given the situation that day, wouldn’t it have been far more prudent to presnt ways how these dangerous elements can be sieved from the good ones? That is what a sane society would expect out its intellectuals, would’nt it? Instead what did Verma do? Shift blame. Divert attention. Create false paranoia by paintng a picture of an insane society. Gave intellectual cover to the baser elements like the Shahi Imam and the CPM.
Meanwhile the dragon whose fire engulfed 200 innocent lives walks free and unleashed. It is small wonder that his picture hangs in Sandeep’s pseudo-secular hall of shame!
PS: I hate to register to a commie website like the Guardian, but if someone can convey these thoughts to Amit Verma, I’d appreciate.