Posts Tagged ‘Sanghi Terrorism’

QUESTIONS IN PUBLIC ARENA ABOUT THE TERROR ATTACK IN MUMBAI – II – By Ghulam Muhammed

December 2, 2008

Tuesday, December 02, 2008

QUESTIONS IN PUBLIC ARENA ABOUT THE TERROR ATTACK IN MUMBAI – II

1. Why Indian government did not follow up so many intelligence warnings and leads about the ‘planned’ terrorist attack on Mumbai? (Remember the then Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee had declared publicly at Sharad Pawar’s birthday bash at Mumbai race-course grounds, that he has intelligence information about a terrorist attack on Parliament; just a day or two before that Parliament attack. Why he did not stop the attack and instead let the terrorists run their course?)

2. Why Times of India did not publish a report carried in its own sister publication: Maharashtra Times that the terrorist who killed Hemant Karkare and attacked Cama hospital, were speaking in fluent Marathi.

3. Why Ratan Tata was so dismissive of advance anti-terrorist measures, when he told CNN Sunday that the enhanced measures were later eased and, in any case, “could not have stopped what took place.” Why such a vast difference between the public and the elites over the mass killings?

4. Do Ratan Tata and Gujarat’s Narendra Modi have joint plans to undermine Maharashtra’s economic status?

5. Why Shaheed ATS chief Hemant Karkare’s widow refused Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi’s posthumous reward of one crore rupees? Is it to highlight Sangh Parivar’s demonisation of Hemant Karkare’s role in his legitimate enquiries in Malegaon bomb blast? What the Sangh Parivar had to hide? Will Chidambaram take over from where Karkare left? Will Chidambaram show the same professional integrity or absolve the Sanghi terrorists one by one to cater to the political demands on the beleaguered Congress?

6. Why India has first spurned the offer of Israeli help and has now succumbed to accept the offer of US and Israeli covert agencies? What are Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s constraints? Why the West is crowding India?

7. Why the British nationalities of some of the Mumbai terrorists are not highlighted by Indian media. Why the Kashmiri origin of the British terrorists has been superimposed by their ‘Pakistani’ identity? Are British Kashmiris forcing their government to move on Kashmir settlement?

8. With so much intelligence information with the US, British and Israel, why their top leaders did not visit India to shake up Indian leadership? Why are they now trooping in with post-attack plans to sell India their expensive prescriptions? Is there any method to this madness?

9. Is a solution on Kashmir to be hammered out and forced on India?

10. With India’s parliamentary elections not far off, is a ‘regime change’ operation underway by outside powers?

11. When will the Indian establishment be confident enough to discard its anti-Muslim crutches that sustains it modus vivendi?

12. Will Indian democracy ever empower the vast disenfranchised majority and snatch power from the oligarchs of the minority of high caste Hindus? Has the Mumbai terror attack united the nation or merely strengthened the stranglehold of the oligarchs?

Advertisements

Time for some meditation By Jyotirmaya Sharma – Hindustan Times

November 24, 2008

http://www.hindustantimes.com/StoryPage/StoryPage.aspx?sectionName=HomePage&id=1a9975a3-6c03-4f3e-8deb-ba0d2134b149&&Headline=Time+for+some+meditation

 

Jyotirmaya Sharma
November 23, 2008
First Published: 19:47 IST(23/11/2008)
Last Updated: 23:35 IST(23/11/2008)

An amusing spectacle is unfolding on most news channels these days: the top leadership of the BJP strenuously arguing that it is wrong to speak about ‘Hindu’ terrorism. These are the same people who demolished the Babri mosque, coining the slogan Garv se kaho hum Hindu hain (Say it with pride that we are Hindus). They are the same people who encourage and incite lumpens to attack M.F. Husain’s exhibitions in the name of preserving ‘Hindu’ culture. The same who glorified and justified the wilful killing of thousands of Muslims in a premeditated, planned and systematic fashion after the Godhra tragedy in the name of ‘Hindu’ pratishodh (reaction, retaliation). Among them are also people who have invented the most hateful, diabolical and misleading formulation in recent times, arguing that ‘all Muslims may not be terrorists, but all terrorists are Muslims’. Among these very people are individuals who have flouted every norm and tenet, every single article of faith of the Indian Constitution in the name of preserving Hindu asmita (sense of self). Among them are also people who certify Jinnah’s secular credentials, but brand anyone talking about coexistence, civility and debate as pseudo-secularists.

Having said this, I agree with them that there is no ‘Hindu terrorism’, just as there is no ‘Islamic/Muslim terrorism’. But there is something called Sangh parivar terrorism, just as there is al-Qaeda terrorism. Neither Sadhvi Pragya Singh Thakur nor Osama bin Laden represent their respective faiths, nor do their organisations represent the people who they claim to represent. To push aside misplaced legalism, just as the charges against the sadhvi are yet to be proved in a court of law, even Osama bin Laden has not yet been indicted by a court of law anywhere in the world. The only difference between Osama and Pragya is that the former is unlikely to contest an election in the future and become a member of an elected body. In the case of Pragya Thakur, given the way in which criminal investigations are conducted, there is a strong possibility of her becoming a people’s representative, as she would only be following a ‘great’ tradition. Just as Osama hides in the impregnable mountains of Afghanistan, the likes of Pragya will hide behind the fig leaf of the democratic ‘will of the people’. This is why very few people in the country speak about political, electoral and administrative reforms, and the Indian polity has been penetrated by criminal elements of both communal and secular hues. If a hundred people tell a lie and another hundred believe in it, it does not become the truth — this classical formulation has been conclusively reversed in our country.

The predicament of the Sangh parivar is akin to having a tub bath, where one only floats in one’s own dirt and filth. From the 19th century onwards, apologists of Hindu nationalism have sought to portray Hinduism as a unified, seamless and monochromatic faith. The mess that is Hindutva is a result of this ideological confusion and intellectual laziness. While it argued, on the one hand, that Hinduism was a tolerant, peaceful, inward-looking, all-embracing faith; on the other hand, there was a call to all Hindus to regain their Kshatriyahood and resort to the virtues of biceps and the Bhagvad Gita.

Every proponent of Hindu nationalism encouraged and promoted the idea of retaliatory violence, be it Swami Vivekananda, Sri Aurobindo or V. Savarkar, in the name of preserving righteousness and a fictional unbroken, centuries-old Hindu tradition. All of them were ensnared by 19th century definitions of religion and attempted to mould their own faith, as they understood it, in ways that were alien to the diverse strands of ‘Hinduism’.

Without exception, all Hindu nationalists from the 19th century onwards argued that religion was the core of Hindu nationalism, and moreover, that it was the only core of nationalism. They further argued that if the former was true, then, nationalism was the only religion. It is this formulation that allows the likes of Vajpayee and Advani to argue, to this day, that Hindutva stands for idealism whereas nationalism is their ideology. They say so in the belief that this linguistic and rhetorical contortion will go unnoticed, and it often does. It also manifests in contemporary times as Indian middle-class aspirations of envisioning India as an economic and military superpower. Very little time and energy are expended in discussing the constellation of values that will constitute the heart of this putative superpower. Like their 19th century predecessors, the Hindutva votaries are satisfied as long as they can vanquish their real and imagined enemies, at home and abroad, and impose their national socialist understanding of the idea of will to power.

No nation is either entirely tolerant or wholly wedded to violence. Any civilisation is a composite of the pure and the tainted, and from the struggle between the two emerge values that are sublime, civilised and truly human. This struggle is neither a given, nor is it a zero-sum game, and it impels human beings to make choices. Choosing peace, tolerance, civility and truth is not a sign of weakness as the apologists of violence and retribution will make people believe, but a way of sublimating the beast within us. Buddha, Mahavir and Gandhi were not weak men. Why, then, are their spiritual children afraid to take this crucial leap? I posed this question to a Japanese writer, who also writes on questions of identity and nationalism. He paused for a moment and said: ‘They did not have the burden of contesting and winning elections.’

(Jyotirmaya Sharma is a Professor of Political Science at the University of Hyderabad)G