Did I just title my post like that? But I know I’ve built up a reputation as a hardcore right-winger; if you’ve accepted that, we can proceed. So here’s Shekhar Gupta, the chief pamphleteer of the Congress party, defending Indian secularism in front of a (primarily) Western audience. (Thanks to JK for the link)
Unlike the 9/11 attack, or the London bombings, terror strikes in India are not directed at some evil global power or at its symbols. Nor are they committed to support the Palestinian or even Kashmiri cause, or to exact revenge for the occupation of Iraq. Their central purpose, always, is to strike at India’s homegrown notion of secular nationalism.
Yes. Gupta will argue next that all wars that Pakistan has instigated since 1947 were aimed to destroy India’s secular fabric. But more whitewashing follows:
Last week’s bombings targeted middle-class Mumbai. Most of the people who ride in “first-class” train compartments in the city come from traditional business communities. They are upper-caste Hindu—and also, largely, Gujarati. That’s important, for the large-scale killing of Muslims in Mumbai’s neighboring western state of Gujarat, in 2001, is a blot on India’s democracy, and a permanent scar in the minds of Muslims.
Right on the spot again! So the terrorists wanted to wipe out lots of Gujaratis. Instead of doing that in Gujarat, they chose to blast trains in Mumbai, knowing fully well that even Muslims travel in first-class compartments. And here’s another tidbit from this tale of fantasy:
That is why the most stunning aspect of India’s response to these latest bombings is not that the stock market went up 3 percent. Rather, it’s that there was not even a whiff of tension between communities after the attack.
Moron Gupta seems to lack the common sense that the man-on-the-street possesses: that everybody knows that the perpetrators sneaked in from the neighbouring nation. Gupta knows this but tries his desperate hand at obfuscating it: riots erupted in Gujarat because a Muslim mob set fire to innocent Hindus.
It’s beyond even my generally-acerbic language to comment on Gupta’s shameless hypocrisy.
Tags: Commentary, Indian Politics, Media Watch, Pseudo Secularism Hall of Shame, Society & Culture, Terrorism & Pakistan, War on Communism, Weblogs
On 07.27.06 HyperTree says:
At least Shekhar Gupta understands what many of you refuse to understand: that the true culprits behind the bomb blasts are upper caste Gujarati Hindus who bombed themselves so as to cast aspersions on Islamic extremists and Pakistan.
Also, I’m glad that he could perceive that the most “stunning” aspect of the Indian response was the lack of riots. We Indians are barbarians and lie in wait for the next bomb blast so that we can start killing each other and if we do not do this it is very stunning. Hypertree was so stunned, it had to apply Vico turmeric anti stunning cream to its forehead.
Hypertree is not just stunned, it is also glad that the moral and progressive actions of this government of bravely not doing anything in response to the attacks did not stun Gupta. It shows that the Gandhian tradition of cutting off our balls is still running strong, inspite of the best efforts of the hegemonist communalists.
On 07.27.06 Ravindra says:
“India cannot survive if its establishment and Hindu majority begin to perceive Muslims as a permanent, and growing, fifth column. Unlike Israel with its Arab citizens, it cannot afford to exclude its Muslims from the social mainstream—including police, intelligence, and armed forces.”
Pray why?
If some of the Muslims went away to Pakistan in 1947 and we are doing pretty well for ourselves without them, then why cannot we “afford to exclude” the remaining Muslims too?
Gupta makes the above statement like a given hypothesis - no further explanation required.
On 07.27.06 pankaj says:
Ravindra
“Pray why?
If some of the Muslims went away to Pakistan in 1947 and we are doing pretty well for ourselves without them, then why cannot we “afford to exclude” the remaining Muslims too?”
That is because India a large muslim population - 125 million at the last count.India is a secular democracy so they have a right to live here and participate (and influence public policy). Remember many of the North Indian muslims voluntarily chose to remain in India when they (and thier forefathers) could have gone to Pakistan .
So why don’t you spell out what you would like to do with them ?
On 07.27.06 Ravindra says:
Pankaj,
“That is because India a large muslim population - 125 million at the last count.”
- and counting!!! So who’s fault is that?
“India is a secular democracy so they have a right to live here and participate (and influence public policy).”
Becoming a secular democracy was a decision taken by the pseudo secularists and the sole beneficiaries are the minorities (read. Muslims). What’s in it for the Hindus? When the Muslims can have so many Islamic states all for themselves (where Hindus and other minorities are treated as second class citizens), why do they grudge Hindus the only one country where they could hope to live in peace? (The secularists managed to get rid of Nepal’s Hindu state tag too, recently)
“Remember many of the North Indian muslims voluntarily chose to remain in India when they (and thier forefathers) could have gone to Pakistan .”
Despite Jinnah’s warnings? tch. tch.
On 07.28.06 pankaj says:
“Becoming a secular democracy was a decision taken by the pseudo secularists and the sole beneficiaries are the minorities (read. Muslims). What’s in it for the Hindus?”
Pray tell me how are muslims sole beneficiaries ?
They are economically and socially backward .You make it sound as if they were dominating India.
The Constitution was adopted by the representatives of the Indian people and enjoys widespread legitimacy.
It’s time you got away from this manufactured grievance
of minorities dominating India.
On 07.28.06 Ravindra says:
Pankaj,
“Pray tell me how are muslims sole beneficiaries ?
They are economically and socially backward .”
So what are you trying to say. That secularism has failed the Muslims? or that we arent secular enough?
Or would you agree that the secular politicians have in their vested interests, strived to keep Muslims economically and socially backward so that they could be exploited as vote banks?
“You make it sound as if they were dominating India.
The Constitution was adopted by the representatives of the Indian people and enjoys widespread legitimacy.
It’s time you got away from this manufactured grievance
of minorities dominating India.”
The minorities are certainly dominating policy making and media intelligentsia which asks for reservations on the basis of religion, defends and justifies overt terrorism acts and diverts attention from covert anti-national activities and infiltration.
On 07.28.06 Sandeep says:
Pankaj,
>>Pray tell me how are muslims sole beneficiaries ?
Here’s the deal: you’re either being overtly stupid or are too dense NOT to note that the Indian state actively discriminates against Hindus. Here’s a partial list, all from recent events:
1. Soft response to terror: the Parliament building was attacked, just a couple of roars and then nothing. Same with Bombay on all occasions it was attacked; same with Varanasi, Marad, etc.
2. A Cabinet Minister calls for open murder–call it fatwa if you will–and gets away with it.
3. State has guaranteed it won’t intervene in Islamic affairs as in running mosques/darghas, institutions, etc. However, temples are promptly taken over at the government’s whim.
4. Hajj subsidy: no such facility is given to Hindu pilgrimages. Hell, the government fails in guaranteeing safe passage of pilgrims: e.g Amarnath yatra attacks.
5. In any riots, Government/media always blames Hindus who are in 99.99999% cases, the victims because “they had it coming.”
6. Swift intervention from GOI in the case of that Kerala Muslim who was sentenced in Saudi but no such luck for the Hindu guy who lost his life(?) in Afghanistan.
>>They are economically and socially backward .You make it sound as if they were dominating India.
Your logic doesn’t hold, dear Pankaj. We aren’t talking about backwardness here but brute force: politicians and the media is scared of the unwritten law in India against Islamic criticism: “don’t criticise if you don’t want riots.” Secondly, the social and economic backwardness is a self-imposed condition: read some history of how this happened. From the time the Deobandi school was founded, the clarion call from assorted Muslim leaders was to maintain their distinct Muslim identity. Thus, if a Hindu went to an “English” school, Muslims were forbidden to do so by these leaders. Now, if this continues over 200 years, you get a large population of what you call socially and economically backward people. To this day, scores of Mullahs and Imams command their bretheren to attend Madrassas instead of public schools.
Which is why it is astonishing that despite this, the Muslim votebank remains a powerful attraction to politicians. Logically, one would pander to the majority votebank because their voice is naturally more powerful: e.g. Hindus in America are a minority and they need to fight for months to make their voice heard on even the gravest of issues facing them.
I’ve written this much in the hope that you’re genuinely interested in debate.
Have a great day.
On 07.31.06 pankaj says:
Soft response to terror: How is it pro minority and anti Hindu ?
* I assume you suggest that since most of the victims of terror attacks have been hindus so it is pro minority,the governmost has been lethargic in bringing to book those who commit acts of violence e.g in prosecuting 1984, gujarat 2002 and Nelli Assam,the meerut massacre etc..
* No punishment to those who demolished the babri Masjid in 1992 .
* Agree with the Hajj subsidy issue
* In most riots ,the majority of victims are muslims with lower level rightwing Hindu policemen either conniving or indifferent.
* The Indian government unfortunately could not prevent the afghan tragdey but it successful got back the hindus from Iraq and is trying to get them from Lebanon.
About riots the hindu right wing has a message to minorities - vote for us or face riots . Those with ground level knowledge in say UP attest to this.
As for muslims being solely responsible for thier socio- economic backwardness , I don’t agree with your thesis.
I don’t see any issues with others maintaining thier distinct identity .alongwith Deoband you should have also looked at the aligarh movement.
On 07.31.06 Sandeep says:
Pankaj,
Interesting. My responses:
>>Soft response to terror: How is it pro minority and anti Hindu ?
My mistake. I should’ve spelt it out: make that “soft response to Islamic terrorism.” The government and almost the entire secular media is scared to call it “Islamic terrorism” because they imagine that’ll hurt/anger the Muslims. Read this post for the latest example:http://www.sandeepweb.com/2006/07/27/how-did-i-miss-this-gem/
On the other hand, nobody talks about the 4-lakh odd Kashmiri Pundits that were wiped out and/or driven away from their homeland by Islamic terrorists. Why is this discrimination practised? And if this isn’t pro/minority appeasement what else is it?
>>I assume you suggest that since most of the victims of terror attacks have been hindus…
I “suggest,” Pankaj? The facts right from Varanasi, Akshardham, and other places of Hindu worship stare at you in the face. And you ask me to believe that Hindus weren’t targetted for their religion? You also haven’t responded to that UP Minister who called for a fatwa.
>>…in prosecuting 1984, gujarat 2002…
1984? What are you trying to prove? That Hindus killed Sikhs? It was Congress-hired thugs who did that. Don’t lump an average, practising Hindu in that category. As for Gujarat 2002, why don’t you talk about the incident that provoked it all? It was a Muslim mob egged on by a Congress MLA/partyman (?) who torched the train coach. You also seem to be blind to the 200-odd Hindus who died in the riots. Why don’t you talk about their justice?
>>No punishment to those who demolished the babri Masjid in 1992
Let’s keep this for another day; I promise I’ll write a separate post on this one.
>>In most riots ,the majority of victims are muslims with lower level rightwing Hindu policemen either conniving or indifferent.
And what do you have to back this up? In case you don’t know, an upcoming Muslim politician in the ’80s smashed the Deccan Herald newspaper office, and caused a mini-riot in Bangalore because they published an article that they deemed was offensive to the Prophet. The paper cowed down, and issued an apology. This guy went on to become a Central Minister. Not one dared to write anything against that incident. You mean to say, all those affected by this riot were Muslims?
>>The Indian government unfortunately could not prevent the afghan tragdey but it successful got back the hindus from Iraq and is trying to get them from Lebanon.
Agree. But why did you gloss over the Kerala Muslim item I mentioned? If they could succeed in Saudi and now in Lebanon, why didn’t they in Afghanistan?
>>About riots the hindu right wing has a message to minorities - vote for us or face riots .
It’s actually the other way round as I said earlier: don’t criticize Islam if you don’t want riots. Unless you’re completely ignorant (which I doubt you are) or are blinkered, 99% of all “communal” riots are started by Muslims.
>>Those with ground level knowledge in say UP attest to this.
Those with the same ground level knowledge in say, UP also attest that Madrassas and other hate-preaching outfits are running roost in UP. I have several friends from and in UP who sum it up thus: Mayawati=Dalit power, Mulayam=Muslim pampering. And the uber-secular Congress has this to say about the ground level knowledge in UP:
http://tinyurl.com/sylfc
>>As for muslims being solely responsible for thier socio- economic backwardness , I don’t agree with your thesis.
It’s easy to disagree, but pray, state your basis for that.
>>…you should have also looked at the aligarh movement.
Really? If anything, the Aligarh in many ways was a precursor for Partition. Syed Ahmed Khan merely cooperated for the perpetuation of the British rule of India in a bid to keep alive the hope that India could return to the Mughal times. The Aligarhis broke their ties with the British when the latter annulled the Partition of Bengal in 1911, and then imposed the Turkey peace treaty depriving the Caliphate of a lot of his domain. Here’s something coming from the mouth of one of the Aligarh eminences, Ishtiaq Husain Qureshi:
The Muslims realized that single-handed they could achieve nothing. They had waged a lone struggle against British domination and gained a modicum of temporary success in 1857 when a fair number of Hindus had made a common cause with them. Both Afghans and Turks had impressed upon their leaders the stark necessity of gaining the cooperation of Hindus. Now was the opportunity and it had to be seized. It had been impressed upon them that the citadel of British power in Asia was India, which made all the Muslim countries vulnerable to attack and encroachment… Therefore whatever the cost involved, the British power must be dislodged from this citadel. They, like the Hindus, wanted freedom, but if the Hindus were to play false after the departure of the British, at least the Muslim countries will be able to breathe freely. The Muslims of the Subcontinent wanted to be partners in the freedom of their habitat as well as in the liberty of the rest of the Muslim world, but if the glory of Islam and the prosperity of other Muslim lands could be built only upon their own misery and deprivation, they thought the price was not too high to pay……
Want more, dear Pankaj?
On 08.09.06 Sandeep says:
Rahul,
I guess it’s safe to assume that you’re a fairly new reader of my blog. I’ve explained my position in several posts past: please dig the archives if you’re inclined or have the patience for it.
Nevertheless, thanks for your fulsome praise.
On 01.07.07 varnam: India Archives says:
[...] Normally when terrorists want to trigger communal violence they attack places of worship, usually Hindu temples or holy cities. On September 2002, terrorists attacked the Akshardham temple in Gujarat, killing 31. On July 2005 there was a two-hour gun fight between LeT terrorists and Indian police on the site of the Ram Janmabhoomi in Ayodhya in which six terrorists were killed. On March 7, 2006, a series of blasts occurred in the Hindu holy city of Varanasi. On April 14, 2006 two blasts occured in the Jama Masjid in Old Delhi killing five people and injuring thirteen. When terrorists attack Mumbai trains in which people of all religions travel how do you find a communal angle to it? You can if you want to and if you are the editor of a major newspaper. This is exactly what Shekhar Gupta did in his opinion piece in Newsweek. Shekhar Gupta wants to believe that the Mumbai terrorist attacks were an attack on secularism and is connected to the 2001 Gujarat riots in which both Hindus and Muslims were killed. His reasoning is that people who travel in first class compartments are rich upper-caste Gujarati Hindus. This explains why one of my friends survived the bombing. He was traveling in one of the trains in which the bomb exploded. Fortunately he was in a different first class compartment. Probably the terrorists after realizing that he was a upper-caste Malayali Hindu moved the bomb to another compartment. And if the aim of terrorists was to murder upper-caste Gujarati Hindus why did they come to Mumbai when Gujarat is right next door, as Sandeep asks. [...]
On 02.28.07 Benched @Bangalore: Breakfast in Amristar,Lunch in Lahore, Dinner in Kabul says:
[...] Our PM is largely seen as tactiturn and phlegmatic man ,not usually prone to hyperbole .And he definitely has none of those poetic pretensions that used to frequently afflict his predecessor.He is equannimous person too.From whatever glimpse that i could get of him courtesy DD, he was largerly unflustered and unruffled .This was when he (read the boilerplate template) addressed the nation soon after ‘few hundred upper class Gujaratis were attacked in the first class compartments of suburban Mumbai trains for their moral complicity in Gujarat riots.’(Contact Shekhar Gupta and Newsweek for more on this)But you can trust the ‘Indo-Pak Bhai Bhai thing’ to get even the most restrained imagination run amuckWhat an inspired methaphor that Manmohan has used to unveil his grandiose vision of borderless South AsiaBreakfast in Amristar,Lunch in Lahore, Dinner in Kabul ‘Culinary internationalism’ or ‘Culinary Subcontinentalism’ is the latest CBM ,it seemsI end with this quote -”Power has a way of undermining judgment, of planting delusions of grandeur in the minds of otherwise sensible people and otherwise sensible nations.” - Senator J. William Fulbright, 1966 [...]