Some justice for Gujarat victims


by Sunny
24th February, 2006 at 9:30 pm    

Nine people have been sentenced to life imprisonment in India for killing 14 people during the arson attack on the bakery in Gujarat. On surface maybe not a huge story, but it is explosive stuff. [hat tip Mirax]

The Best Bakery incident took place during the 2002 Gujarat riots in India, when mostly Hindu mobs went on a rampage across the state and killed over 1000 Muslims (an official figure, NGOs put it between 2000 – 3000). It was in retaliation to 56 Hindu pilgrims being burnt alive in a train fire in Godhra – back from a rally in the holy city of Ayodhya. Gujarat unfortunately has a long history of communal violence.

This incident is symptomatic of a wider problem: the inability of the Indian justice system to prosecute rioting mobs or their instigators. The key witness behind the case kept changing her stance, and there were widespread allegations of political meddling. The Hindu points to some problems.

India’s Tehelka magazine says it has uncovered bribery by BJP officials (former govt).

Nevertheless, like the anti-Sikh killings of 1984, the vast majority of perpetrators and the pupeteers behind it (like Gujarat chief Minister Narendra Modi), have never been brought to justice. So although this should be welcomed, most Muslims (and some Hindus) affected by the riots will not get any justice.


              Post to del.icio.us


Filed in: India,Religion,South Asia






85 Comments below   |  

Reactions: Twitter, blogs


  1. Jay Singh — on 24th February, 2006 at 9:47 pm  

    There won’t be any real justice – the puppet masters will never be brought to trial. India is like that – rotten to the core.

  2. Jay Singh — on 24th February, 2006 at 10:00 pm  

    People should put a file together on Modi so the next time he steps foot in England on the invitation of community leaders people can attempt to do a Geneal Pinochet on the fooker. Luke Harding did a good job on him when he came to London a few months after the massacres. There is a family up north who had a couple of their sons killed when they were visiting family in Gujarat and were attacked by the mobs – their bodies have never been found. These are British citizens.

  3. raz — on 24th February, 2006 at 11:07 pm  

    “It was in retaliation to 56 Hindu pilgrims being burnt alive in a train fire in Godhra”

    Even this is dubious – there is evidence that the fire started by accident from within train.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/4180885.stm

    1984, 1992, 2002 – still no justice for Sikhs or Muslims.

  4. xyz — on 25th February, 2006 at 12:01 am  

    The “findings” that the train somehow self-immolated were also dubious, rather far-fetched and tinged with politics. And very convenient. I’m surprised any story even bothers to mention the Godhra carnage anymore. It’s become fashionable to leave it out altogether in any account of Gujarat or refer to the torching of human beings as an “incident.”

    The truth is neither the Hindus burned alive on the train nor the Muslims and Hindus killed in the subsequent riots will ever get true justice. And why start your list of injustices with 1984? There is a whole host of riots and murders that go before and after that. The more recent Marad massacres in Kerala spring to mind. No justice for Hindus there either. Perhaps one should ask Manmohan Singh why he had Jagdish Tytler, one of the prime accused in the 1984 anti-Sikh riots, in his government?

  5. Jay Singh — on 25th February, 2006 at 1:22 am  

    xyz

    What’s upsetting you dude? Why does this judicial decision cause you to have a trapped nerve?

  6. mirax — on 25th February, 2006 at 4:31 am  

    I think that xyz made a reasonable point. He concedes that not just sikhs, muslims or christians get no justice, Hindus (especially lower caste) get no bloody justice either. i tend to agree with him and with jay’s first statement- India’s political(large elements of it is criminal), police and law enforcement setup and the judiciary (with the exception of the Supreme Court which does some good when it steps in, as it did in this case) is rotten to the core.

    His point about Manmohan singh and Jagdish Tyler is valid as it is the fact that this case itself collapsed first time around when the star witness- a muslim woman- turned turncoat and committed perjury. It is not always a simple narrative of the majority community ruthlessly stepping on the minorities- the motives and vested interests of many, including the so-called minorities, are tangled beyond belief.

    I think what offers some meagre hope is the tenacity of human rights groups which kept plugging away in this instance- it is this growth of civil society and social conscience that may yet lead to more prosecutions.

  7. mirax — on 25th February, 2006 at 4:37 am  

    The ringleaders of the anti-sikh massacres did not face justice just as the ringleaders of Gujarat may never do so.

    But there was -belated- compensation for the victims of 1984 recently. Not much and never enough but not total callousness either.

    http://www.hindu.com/2005/09/13/stories/2005091306061200.htm

  8. Vikrant — on 25th February, 2006 at 7:27 am  

    Ahh.. those bloody rioting Hindus….
    Well 1984 was a riot by “secular” Congress workers. What happened in 1992 was despicable but dont fort the March 1993 bombings. This is not the problem with Hindus only, most Indians (Sikhs,Muslims included) dont give two hoots for such fancy words as “Human Rights” or “Freedom of Speech”.

  9. Vikrant — on 25th February, 2006 at 7:29 am  

    Jay Singh, those Unionist Sikhs and Hindus murdered in Punjab have had no justice either, same goes for Kashmiri Pandits.

  10. Neil — on 25th February, 2006 at 10:34 am  

    It is a step in the right direction but really its the instigators of these riots that need to be brought to justice rather then the thugs they encouraged.

    The thing about Gujarat having been there many times is that Gujaratis are on the whole (whether Hindu or Muslim) laid back ,practical and business orientated. Communal tensions are not good to anyone.

    I have been to small towns in Saurashtra where there are sizeable Muslim minorities and walking around with relatives in the town the community relations were evidently very good, my Nani being invited by a Muslim friend to her house and vice-versa. I have seen Muslim religious processions and Hindu ones pass through peacefully through large towns (I saw a Muslim one in Surat a month ago). So all the headlines like ‘Why Gujarat is so violent’ on the BBC certainly do no tell the whole picture and smack of sensationalism.

    Vikrant is right as there needs also to be justice for the Sikhs who suffered in 1984 AND Kashmiri Pandits s well as Muslims . Pandits who were driven out of their homelands in their hundreds of thousands have been treated miserably and left to live in refugee camps outside Delhi.

  11. Jay Singh — on 25th February, 2006 at 11:28 am  

    Hmmm…so when one injustice (massacre of innocents) is finally getting sorted out and the politicians (yes you read that right – politicians – these were effectively STATE SPONSORED POGROMS) the impulse is to say, you know, hey, what about Hindus, when are they going to get justice, what about this, what about that, so instead of rejoicing, the relativist ‘what about this’ come out like a bad dose of genital warts.

    Interesting.

  12. Jay Singh — on 25th February, 2006 at 11:34 am  

    And that is exactly why politicians get away with mass murder in India – sitting politicians are free to carry out genocidal extermination in Indian democracy because the impunity they enjoy is accompanied by all the shoulder shrugging ‘what can be done’ and ‘what about this?’ it is possible to do.

    Each of the major pogroms was effectively carried out by the state – 1984, 1992, 2002 – the pattern of slaughter and impunity is the same. You might imagine that it would give people cause for concern that politicians in India have the freedom to do that – that it might cause them outrage that the leaders of the nation have the power to act like this and get away with killing tens of thousands of innocents like beasts of Satan and not be prosecuted. But no, it doesnt really bother some people all that much – and that is why it will happen again some time, because, hey, what’s to worry about? India’s leaders practice genocidal pogroms? Hey, what does it matter, two wrongs make a right, dont they?

  13. Vikrant — on 25th February, 2006 at 1:56 pm  

    Hey, what does it matter, two wrongs make a right, dont they?

    Well they dont. But there sure is a pinko-bias tendency to forget wrongs done to Hindus. Just look at Raz’s statement

    1984, 1992, 2002 – still no justice for Sikhs or Muslims.

    Well before my family immigrated to UK, I lived at Haji Ali, Mumbai, one of the area worst affected by riots. Firstly the riots were triggered by Muslim fundy’s murdering Hindus in Mahim, then Shiv Sena stepped in ‘n then all the hell broke lose. 1992 was a riot with fundys from both sides slugging it out (a point which many fail to mention). Secondly people almost singularly fail to mention 1993 bombing which killed 300 people almost all Hindu-Sikhs which was a retribution for the riots. Mahim,Mumbra and Haji Ali were like Christmas Eid had come early when the bombings happened. No community had a higher moral ground there.

  14. Vikrant — on 25th February, 2006 at 1:59 pm  

    Coclusion: Most subcontinentals show emotional development of a 5 year old.

  15. Neil — on 25th February, 2006 at 2:20 pm  

    No-ones saying two wrongs make a right, but it is clear that ALL atrocities should be investigated and people brought to justice of whatever community the victims are from. It seems you think that Kashmiri Pandits driven out of their homes by the militants (freedom fighters ?) to make Kashmir into a pure Islamic State dont deserve some sort of compensation or justice, as do Sikhs who suffered due to Congress led mobs in 84.

    People are quick to make sweeping religious generalisations about violence that paints a one-sided picture. As I have family all over Gujarat it is clear to me the riots there were not completely one sided.

  16. Siddhartha — on 25th February, 2006 at 2:28 pm  

    As I have family all over Gujarat it is clear to me the riots there were not completely one sided.

    Yeah, well a government-sanctioned pogrom/ethnic-cleansing inoitiative/mini gencide of a minority population never is from any one side. But the burden of guilt falls on the government (in this case anything but an innocent bystander and more akin to agent-provocateur) to address this imbalance, which I’m glad to see India are finally in the process of doing.

  17. Jay Singh — on 25th February, 2006 at 5:40 pm  

    Really really squalid and shameless. That the impulse to this good news is to relativise, minimise, and shrug shoulders and do the ‘what about this, what about that shuffle’. That the issue becomes one of defensiveness and self righteousness

    Morally SQUALID

    The ghouls in power who are free to liquidise people and grow with impunity into fat middle age do so because of this attitude.

  18. raz — on 25th February, 2006 at 8:16 pm  

    Often when Muslims are asked about things such as July 7th, etc they say “Yeah that was terrible … but what about Palestine, Chechnya, Iraq, etc?”. It seems we have the Hindu equivalent of this on here. Sad and pathetic.

  19. mirax — on 26th February, 2006 at 2:21 am  

    “Often when Muslims are asked about things such as July 7th, etc they say “Yeah that was terrible … but what about Palestine, Chechnya, Iraq, etc?”. It seems we have the Hindu equivalent of this on here. ”

    Do we? Really? Is this afterall a Hindu versus the minorities thing where all the victims are only on one side?

    84,92 and 2002 and further incidents like say the brutal murder of Graham Staines and his sons follow like Jay pointed out, a pattern. There is ALWAYS a key element of government/politicians working hand in hand with organised crime (it is often hard to distinguish the difference between the two as it is estimated that as many as one-third of state assemblymen have outstanding crime records). Such is power in India- murdering with impunity. This is the issue that must be adddressed by ALL indians – it is not a specific Hindu guilt for which Hindus alone must atone.

    What I find despicable is some hindus in the west who fete scum like Modi. Jay’s suggestion that someone do a pinochet on the bastard is worth looking into – if EU citizens were killed in Gujarat then cases may be filed in several european countries. I don’t really know about this but it is worth looking into. Question is: who will do it?

    The latest convictions in India owe a great deal to such organised groups who kept hammering away at a political establishment that was highly disinclined to prosecute in the first place.

  20. Vikrant — on 26th February, 2006 at 2:40 am  

    This is the issue that must be adddressed by ALL indians – it is not a specific Hindu guilt for which Hindus alone must atone.

    Exaclty my point

  21. Vikrant — on 26th February, 2006 at 2:49 am  

    And as for 84 it wasnt a Hindu-Sikh tiff. It was Congrees-Sikh riots. The crimes are on the hands of Congressmen not Hindus as Raz seems to suggest. There have been such precendents. like 1948 anti-Brahmin riots when Maharashtrian Brahmins were killed and kicked outta their homes by Congress thugs b’cos Gandhi was assasinated by a Maharashtrian Brahmin.

  22. mirax — on 26th February, 2006 at 3:25 am  

    This is an aside. I saw an article on Butterflies and Wheels – great website, so sane!- about the *hindu law board” offering a reward for the killing/beheading of MF Hussain.

    This story was already in the Indian and international media. I wondered about the status of the HLB- was it the equivalent of the All India Muslim Personal Law Board, an authoritative community organisation?

    Hmmn, not quite.

    http://www.deccanherald.com/deccanherald/Sep222005/national1716162005921.asp

    The setting up of a Hindu Law Board by a bunch of fanatics who aim to set up hundreds of courts to solve disputes sharia-style. These are fringe nutters but the story is out in the international press with NO clarification whatsoever that the HLB means squat.
    This reminds me of a recent discussion on PP about the islamisation of hinduism.

  23. Vikrant — on 26th February, 2006 at 3:30 am  

    Well its a sort of political gimmick into goading government into clipping the wings of AIMPLB. The logic seems to be if Muslims get away with it (death threats, kangaroo courts) so can we.

    Wont work by the way. If Islam stands for unity, Hinduism stands for diversity. They are diametrically opposite philosophies.

  24. mirax — on 26th February, 2006 at 4:15 am  

    “The logic seems to be if Muslims get away with it (death threats, kangaroo courts) so can we. ”

    1. Very,very low aspirations but you don’t seem to have a problem with this, Vik.

    2. Who’s the we? That’s what I want to know since every single hindu I know is most certainly not a part of the HLB scheme.

  25. Vikrant — on 26th February, 2006 at 6:11 am  

    1. I never supported this imbecility. Hinduism doesnt even have a codified social laws with regards to marriage, divorce and things like that.

    2. The “we” here is the guys who’ve floated HPLB.

    Now stop deducing most prepostrous notions from every single word i say.

    Btw dont bother writing a 5000 word essay on how a big Hindutva freak i am, wont bother reading it. Gotta go ctach some sleep.

  26. Sunny — on 26th February, 2006 at 12:55 pm  

    “Yeah that was terrible … but what about Palestine, Chechnya, Iraq, etc?”. It seems we have the Hindu equivalent of this on here. Sad and pathetic.

    Raz is right on some levels, despite what you say Mirax.

    I was in India straight after the Gujarat riots, and it was unbelievable how many Hindu groups and how many religious groups were silent about what happened. As if it was just a little anomaly. In fact much of the Hindu religious middle has been quiet about the rise of Hindutva and their hijacking of the religion for political purposes.

    A few people, like a pandit from Arya Samaj and I believe some pandits were organising a march to protest against how Hinduism was being used as a tool against Muslims in Gujarat. But largely there was silence.

    And what did we hear from those people who invited Modi to the USA and to the UK? They kept on going on about how the Hindus were not really responsible since it was a reliation.

    So yes, there are plenty of people still with their head in the sand and who prefer to blame the other side was to blame for the trouble.

  27. mirax — on 26th February, 2006 at 2:58 pm  

    I largely agree that hindu organisations have failed to confront the hindutva thugs and their potty ideology. Not that there are many hindu organisations nor that they have any real constituency but still. Pandits/priests in hinduism are pure functionaries and do not have a congregation or any moral leadership over the devotees.

    I wonder what the immensely popular godmen/godwomen like the Saibaba fella with the afro or the Amma woman who hugs people had to say about Gujarat? They sure have a lot of influence. But then again, they are part of the axis of evil in India together with the politicians and the fundies.

  28. xyz — on 27th February, 2006 at 4:48 pm  

    The state is also responsible for the ethnic cleansing of Pandits from Kashmir – both successive Kashmiri governments and the central government. When the state either is somewhat complicit and turns a blind eye or promotes the ethnic cleansing (Kashmiri govts.) or is just apathetic (federal govt.), it is responsible.

    This isn’t about demeaning the significance of the Best Bakery trial. I’m glad those victims got speedy justice. However, it is annoying when people cite selectively cite dates and say Sikhs and Muslims don’t get any justice, whilst forgetting a whole host of other gruesome riots and occurrences where the victims were not “minorities.” and the perpetrators “minorities.” I mean the people of that Air India flight that was bombed by Sikh extremists didn’t get any justice either, with the perpetrators getting off and living the good life in Canada.

    Mirax said it well. I have absolutely no problem with the court decision. It’s the selective outrage and the selective speedy (by Indian standards) application of fairness and justice that is wrong. It’s the mentioning of Gujarat while completely ignoring the brutality that sparked even more brutality. Some never get sorted out – and excluding Hindus, Buddhists, animists and implying that they are never the victims goes against the facts. Raz said no justice for Sikhs and Muslims. I only pointed out that injustices and riots didn’t start with 1984 and many Hindus, Buddhists, animists etc. have not received justice for violence at the hands of people from minority religions. India’s human rights groups are notorious for their selective outrage and selection of which case they’re going to make a big brouhaha over. The attitude of the Roys and Setalvads towards the people burned alive in the train was shockingly callous. Despite initial eyewitness reports, immediately the effort began to somehow prove that the people on the train somehow self-combusted. The evidence presented to prove this wouldn;’t have stood up in a kangaroo court in any other country. They never make a peep about Pandits and are infamously silent when the victims happen to be Hindus. The Marad massacre is a case in point. A Sikh member of the NHRC, who dismissed Hindu complaints about aggressive Christian proselytization as communal, immediately went running to the church and complained when he found out that Sikhs were being proselytized. Likewise, this Manmohan Singh government complained to Israel about rabbis coming to India’s northeast to convert “lost tribes” from Christianity (to which they were already converted from either tribal/Hindu religions) to Judaism. The church complained and the Indian govt. meekly acquiesced and told the rabbis to back off. But they have no problem when the targets are poor Hindus, Buddhists or tribals who haven’t already been converted. When Hindus complain about some of the methods used by the very same church, they are accused of being communal. So, not a peep from India’s human rights people when the Kashmiri govt. just recently arrested missionaries for abusing disaster aid and proselytizing amongst Muslims, but they’re very vocal when the complaints and actions come from others (read Hindus). When Graham Staines was brutally murdered, there was a huge outcry in the Indian media and around the world, and rightfully so, but during the same period, a Khasi elder was beheaded for refusing pressure to convert to Christianity in the northeast. Not a peep from India’s media. No handwringing about India’s secular fabric being torn apart, no reams of articles, nothing. Simply put, to the Indian media, the Khasi elder’s life just did not have the same value. Likewise the Marad massacre.

    India must be the only secular state where money collected at Hindu temples is used to fund government programs (including supporting churches and mosques in Karnataka, as was discovered some years ago!). But other places of worship are off limits to the govt. Can you imagine collecting money from Christian churches to fund temples, mosques and gurduwaras and schools of other religions in England or the USA?)

    The edict put out by the Hindu law board or whatever was meant to be a satirical take on the death threats and fatwas issued by the UP minister and the Muslim law board.

    I disagree when people say Hindus have not spoken out against right wing fanatics. In fact, in India, more Hindus speak out against Hindu fanatics than Muslims or Christians speak out against the fanatics of their own faith. It is the Hindus who go to the extremes of saying they are ashamed of being Hindu or who denigrate their own religion at every instance to prove that they are politically correct and pro-minority. It is they who turn a complete blind eye to any injustices perpetrated by non-Hindus or who turn any complaint into an accusation of Hindutva. If some Hindus seem silent, maybe it’s because they’re just fed up with the abysmal double standards shown by India’s govt., human rights cottage industry and media when treating injustices.

    But before I’m accused of being a raging Hindu fundamentalist, let me say again, that I’m glad that some of the Gujarat victims have found some measure of justice. I just hope that all of them will find the same measure of justice and that ALL victims find justice in India.

  29. Jay Singh — on 27th February, 2006 at 4:57 pm  

    Oh brother…

  30. xyz — on 27th February, 2006 at 5:02 pm  

    Oh brother…

    Is that your code for the H word?

    Yes, I know its discomfiting:) But I can see from your posts that you’re in favor of the WHOLE truth and nothing but the truth, so you shouldn’t worry:)

  31. Jay Singh — on 27th February, 2006 at 5:13 pm  

    Oh sister…

  32. xyz — on 27th February, 2006 at 5:18 pm  

    Very clever. You have the whole gamut of relatives to go through. Looking forward to these pithy pearls of wisdom. Cheers.

  33. Sunny — on 27th February, 2006 at 8:02 pm  

    You raise some interesting points xyz, which I will try and address soon. I’m not denying the Indian govt isn’t a problem….

  34. Jay Singh — on 27th February, 2006 at 8:12 pm  

    Don’t be bitter xyz

  35. xyz — on 27th February, 2006 at 8:25 pm  

    Oh I’m disappointed Jay. Was looking forward to something more scintillating than that. Cheer up Jay.

  36. Jay Singh — on 27th February, 2006 at 8:30 pm  

    I am always cheerfull dude. It’s you that seems to be suffering from a mild sort of depression and persecution complex. ;-)

    A simple post about the victims of a genocidal pogrom organised by state machinery finally getting a measure of justice in the face of Rwandan style denial, demagoguery, extreme right wing Neo Nazi style demonisation has brought you out in an itching allergic rash full of rage about the double standards perpetrated by some offical here, some writer there, something else and something that, x and y and z, blah di blah di blah, what about this, what about that. Amazing.

  37. Jay Singh — on 27th February, 2006 at 8:34 pm  

    This is a classic line:

    It’s the selective outrage and the selective speedy (by Indian standards) application of fairness and justice that is wrong.

    Get that? The speedy application of justice is wrong. FFS.

  38. Jay Singh — on 27th February, 2006 at 8:37 pm  

    Classic terrorist whine and logic:

    It’s the mentioning of Gujarat while completely ignoring the brutality that sparked even more brutality

    Yeah – those thousands of deaths were an understandable response to the death of 59 people on the train. And the 55 deaths on 7/7 were an appropriate response to the ‘brutality’ of Iraq, Palestine, whatever.

  39. Jay Singh — on 27th February, 2006 at 8:37 pm  

    I could go on and on but I can’t be bothered – it is like taking candy from a baby.

  40. xyz — on 27th February, 2006 at 8:51 pm  

    Wow Jay. You’re practically oozing with bitterness. Sorry if the truth hurt that much that you have to resort to calling me a terrorist! Wow!!! But it is sad that you’ve had to resort to twisting what I said to satisfy your urge to hold your breath and turn blue in a puerile tantrum. Why does it hurt so much if I mention Hindu victims deserve justice AS MUCH as any other victims? Is it a crime to mention that the perpetrators of Godhra also go unpunished? Surely, you would agree that everyone deserves justice, regardless of religion or background?

    I see all the favorite words have popped up: nazi etc. How tiresome.

    It’s the selective outrage and the selective speedy (by Indian standards) application of fairness and justice that is wrong.

    “Get that? The speedy application of justice is wrong. FFS.”

    Apparently, your reading comprehension skills do not extend to the word selective, which qualified everything that comes after it. But don’t let the facts get in the way of your tantrum.

    “Yeah – those thousands of deaths were an understandable response to the death of 59 people on the train. And the 55 deaths on 7/7 were an appropriate response to the ‘brutality’ of Iraq, Palestine, whatever.”

    Please point out to me where I said those thousands of deaths (which also included Hindus) were a justified response? If you can point out to me where I said or implied that, you would make sense. I merely said you cannot mention one brutality and pretend that it occurred in a vacuum or selectively list dates and pretend they occurred in a vacuum or that those are the only egregious violations of justice in India. It is you who are belittling the lives of 59 people and saying they are not worth the same anguish as the later victims. I am certain that if the case had been the speedy prosecution of those who torched those people to death, you would have said “But what about the Muslim victims of the ensuing riots? Don’t they also deserve justice?” And that would have been a perfectly understandable and predictable response and no one would have taken you to task for it.

    Now, Jay, take a deep breath, keep your dictionary and magnifying glass at hand and read again. Thanks.

  41. xyz — on 27th February, 2006 at 8:52 pm  

    “I could go on and on but I can’t be bothered – it is like taking candy from a baby.”

    What, have you resorted to stealing from yourself then? Or have you resorted to sucking your thumb in frustration?

  42. Sid D H Arthur — on 27th February, 2006 at 9:53 pm  

    Mirax said it well. I have absolutely no problem with the court decision. It’s the selective outrage and the selective speedy (by Indian standards) application of fairness and justice that is wrong.

    xyz, yes let’s compare one anathema with another and see what pops out the box shall we? Thats really going to work in justifying the torching of 59 dead by the reprisal killings, with Gujarati governmental involvement, by the mob of hundreds of Gujarati peasants.

    But you give your game away when the most callous crime is neither of the above incidents, but rather, the unforgiveable crime against humanity that is the conversion of poor Hindus by the prosletysing Church and rabbis. What do you Hindutva types have against conversion of Hindus – as if that is, by far, the most callous evil perpetrated by man on man?

    Somewhat skewed, to say the least.

  43. xyz — on 27th February, 2006 at 10:16 pm  

    But you give your game away when the most callous crime is neither of the above incidents, but rather, the unforgiveable crime against humanity that is the conversion of poor Hindus by the prosletysing Church and rabbis. What do you Hindutva types have against conversion of Hindus – as if that is, by far, the most callous evil perpetrated by man on man?

    Sid, please point out the sentence where I said conversion of poor Hindus was a more unforgiveable crime and most callous against humanity? Please quote exactly where I said that. Did i say that? Again, like Jay, you have not read what I wrote properly and in your haste to condemn me have totally missed the point – not to mention calling me a terrorist and Hindutva types. That is the refuge of those who do not want to face facts or admit that there is more than one side to a story. Shall I call you guys Khalistani terrorists and jehadis or evangelist terrorists?

    The point in the conversion example, was the double standards in the attitudes towards converting India’s Hindus, Buddhists and animists and converting Muslims, Sikhs and Christians. In the former case, the govt. keeps quiet and accuses one of being communal, in the latter case the govt. steps in at the behest of those Muslims, Christians and Sikhs who complain about conversion and exercises its influence to stop it by pretty much ordering the rabbis to stop it. By the way, the rabbis were not trying to convert Hindus, but christians who had already been converted from Hinduism/Buddhism/animism to to Judaism. What does the church, which tries to convert Hindus and others, have against rabbis trying to convert Christians that they had to go running to the Manmohan Singh govt and complain about it? Is that such a horrible crime, to use your words? What does the Muslim Kashmiri govt. have against conversion of poor Muslims to Christianity that it had to arrest missioanries? Is that a horrible crime? And why does the church deem it ok to apologize to Muslims for conversion activities in India but not to Hindus, Buddhists and animists? You tell me the difference if you can spot it. Why is it ok to arrest missionaries for trying to convert poor Muslims but ok to condemn Hindus for protesting against American missionaries in Kerala who come into the country on business visas and then abuse that visa to preach and proselytize in the most derogatory fashion. Can you spot the difference? Hint: the target populatio in Kerala wasn’t Muslims.

    Thats really going to work in justifying the torching of 59 dead by the reprisal killings, with Gujarati governmental involvement, by the mob of hundreds of Gujarati peasants.

    Again, read the advice I gave Jay. Read properly and point out where I said the reprisals were justified? Seems to me it is you two who are saying the torching of 59 people is not worth mentioning and merely a fly in the ointment – mentioning them does not demean what happened in reprisal. They are equally abhorrent – something I can see – but you sadly cannot. And your callous attitude towards them, since we’re drawing ridiculous generalizations here, is equally abhorrent.

  44. gooddeeddone — on 27th February, 2006 at 10:20 pm  

    I recently heard that it was RSS which killed hindus in Godhra. I also read that Jews did 9/11. Evil people.

  45. xyz — on 27th February, 2006 at 10:25 pm  

    P.S: it’s also sad that you guys think mentioning the beheading of a Khasi elder for resisting conversion is the act of a terrorist and a Hindutva type. Poor old man.

  46. Jay Singh — on 27th February, 2006 at 11:32 pm  

    Oooh wow – feel the rage and bitterness ;-)

    xyz, look dude, it is alright to be a chaddiwallah RSS Hindutvadi – just don’t pretend not to be one when you are – because that makes you really sad and cowardly.

  47. mirax — on 27th February, 2006 at 11:40 pm  

    Both jay and Sid often have a tendency to shoot off their mouths before they read or think. 2 incredibly self-righteous dudes. They always know who the racists and terrorists are and are pretty shrill with it.
    I speak as a despicable communalist of course, though by now I may have graduated to terrorist sympathiser scum. Hurray.

  48. Jay Singh — on 27th February, 2006 at 11:43 pm  

    mirax, what chilli is burning you up on this thread?

  49. Sid D H Arthur — on 27th February, 2006 at 11:52 pm  

    I speak as a despicable communalist of course, though by now I may have graduated to terrorist sympathiser scum. Hurray.

    That’s a little pre-emptive Mirax. Why are you being a communalist? Is it to do with the fact that you empathise with xyz, who is clearly a Hindutva sympathiser? Although, it is ever so-noticeable that your normal intelligent and incisive condemnation of other religious disorders seems to wane just that eensy bit whenever it comes to condemning the funkier side of Hinduism. And as for shooting off mouths before reading or thinking, I think we’re all guilty of that mirax.

  50. xyz — on 27th February, 2006 at 11:53 pm  

    Jay, a word of advice. The word dude should only be used by people who are in their teens or less or people who spend all their time riding the half-pipe. I let it pass earlier, but it really is annoying, like the overuse of the word “rocking” by people who are anything but. It’s rather sad coming out of a so-called adult’s mouth. You may think it’s cool, but it ain’t. But after reading your outputs, maybe your are in your teens or less.

    Secondly, I will admit to being all the names you called me when you come out of your Khalistani closet filled with clothes as uncool as the word dude. I know what I am. I am neither a hypocrite nor a coward, words you appear to be more acquainted with because you don’t even have the courage to stand up for all the stuff you spout. Sadly, you are only interested in the partial truth. But at least you are honest about that, even if in a roundabout, clumsy manner. By the way, have you figured out what the word selective means yet? If you need help, let me know.

    Finally, instead of seeing Hindutvadis at every corner, perhaps you could direct some of your concern for victims of injustice and anger to Manmohan Singh and ask him why he hasn’t done anything about the anti-Sikh violence of 1984, why he allowed men like Tytler and Kumar – close friends of Sonia Gandhi — in his govt., and why he seems to spend an inordinate amount of time slavishly praising his “inspiration” Sonia Gandhi, whose family oversaw the anti-Sikh violence. He comes across as such an intelligent man, but clearly lacks a spine when it comes to standing up for himself. But then again, why on earth did Raz bring up the Sikhs in a post about Muslims getting justice. The Sikhs should never have been mentioned should they? What does a court case havign to do with justice for Muslims have to do with a 21 year old incident concerning Sikhs – why bring it up at all? However, I didn’t see you protesting raz bringing it up.

    Also, don’t forget to shoot off an angry missive to the Canadian judicial system for allowing those terrorist Khalistanis to get away with intimidating witnesses and bribing them and getting off for murdering a plane-load of innocent people, including a college classmate of mine who lost a father. I’m sure you want him to have justice and wouldn’t want the state to get away with such a shoddy attempt at prosecuting the perpetrators. Again, as you write the letter, don’t forget to have that dictionary at hand. Given you inability to comprehend simple words and points being made, it would be wise.

  51. xyz — on 27th February, 2006 at 11:57 pm  

    Sid, if I’m clearly a Hindutvadi — which I assure you on my mother’s head that I am not — then you are clearly a jehadi. Simple to demonize someone no? Don’t demean yourself by condemning anyone who raises valid, legitimate points.

  52. xyz — on 28th February, 2006 at 12:00 am  

    By the way Sid, I’m assuming that you also think there’s nothing wrong with missionaries converting poor Muslims in Kashmir right? I’m going to assume that you think the Muslim Kashmiri govt. was being communal and jehadi in arresting the missionaries. Good for you. At least you’re not being hypocritical. If you’re interested, I can refer you to several Christian groups that convert poor Muslims. You may even donate money to them, since you see nothing wrong with it.

  53. Sid D H Arthur — on 28th February, 2006 at 12:03 am  

    Forgive me xyz. It is my mistake to assume that immediately after you are done discussing the moral issue of the killings and pogroms of Gujarat 2002, you then use two large paragraphs on the conversion of Hindus by Christian priests and rabbis. It is my error that I do not see the parrallel that runs through these issues, connecting them in their heinousness.

  54. xyz — on 28th February, 2006 at 12:14 am  

    Sid, as I said before, the point was about double standards in the selective outrage and selective prosecution and selective media coverage. I wrote it in plain English. I thought selective was such an easy, self-explanatory word. But I guess not! Nowhere did I equate converting someone (which is a whole other issue – you still haven’t answered my question though. Are you going to condemn the Muslim Kashmiri govt. for arresting missionaries for trying to convert poor Muslims?) with either torching or murdering someone. I did, however, equate beheading a Khasi elder with torching Graham Staines and his poor sons – because there is no difference. However, there was a world of difference in the reaction to these separate incidents. One person’s life was definitely seen as more valuable than another’s. Anyways, my initial post was directed at Jay, who got all into a dither because I had the temerity to point out to raz that the victims of Godhra have not yet received justice. I don’t understand why it’s ok to bring up that Sikhs have not yet received justice in a post related to justice for Muslims, but not ok to bring up that Hindus also have not received justice. Seems the sensitivity is more on your side and not mine.

  55. xyz — on 28th February, 2006 at 12:17 am  

    And Sid, you already called me a Hindutvadi, so I have nothing to lose by bringing this up, since we’re talking about pogroms and the like: the state-sponsored and continuing pogrom against Hindus in Bangladesh. Perhaps one day we’ll be allowed to mention that as well along with 1984 and 2002? But considering that even the well-documented pogrom and ethnic cleansing of the Pandits doesn’t elicit a mention, I’m not holding my breath.

  56. Sid D H Arthur — on 28th February, 2006 at 12:26 am  

    By the way Sid, I’m assuming that you also think there’s nothing wrong with missionaries converting poor Muslims in Kashmir right? I’m going to assume that you think the Muslim Kashmiri govt. was being communal and jehadi in arresting the missionaries.

    Yes, you’re so right. I’m a jehadist and I’m constrained to defend the Kashmiri Govmernment to the death!
    Except that, I can’t. I was educated by Missionaries I think they’re a comendable bunch of people. Some of my best friends are Catholic converts. They got a better start in life than they would have if they were left to fester as Untouchables. So no, sorry to not be able to live up your expectations of my support for the Kashmiri Gov on this one.

  57. raz — on 28th February, 2006 at 12:29 am  

    It’s strange that Hinduvata and Islamic Fundementalists hate each other. They have so much in common.

  58. raz — on 28th February, 2006 at 12:35 am  

    BTW, xyz, if you learnt how to read you would see that it was the original article by Sunny which first mentioned 1984 and the anti-Sikh killings, not me.

  59. Sid D H Arthur — on 28th February, 2006 at 12:36 am  

    Perhaps one day we’ll be allowed to mention that as well along with 1984 and 2002? But considering that even the well-documented pogrom and ethnic cleansing of the Pandits doesn’t elicit a mention, I’m not holding my breath.

    How can I offer my encouragement. Please lets do mention the attacks of Hindu minorities in 2001/2002 and last year in Bangladesh. And while we’re at it, lets not forget the escalating attacks on the Ahmadiyya minority is also worth mentioning. And on top of that, the rise of Muslim extremism and terrorism in Bangladesh should not go un-discussed.

    The difference is, I’m already affiliated to human rights groups who are mobilising themselves for the defence of these minorities and to bring the perpetrators to justice in Bangladesh.

    You on the other hand seem comfortable condemning the “Human Rights Industry of India”. Don’t you just hate those people.

  60. xyz — on 28th February, 2006 at 12:39 am  

    Touched a raw nerve I see! There we go again, making generalizations. Did I condemn all missionaries? Why oh why can you and Jay not refrain from seeing the world – at least what I write — in black and white? All missionaries are not bad (the good ones are the ones who can help people for helping’s sake without expecting the “reward” of conversion. A person can be a good person regardless of what religion they belong to right? Is it so hard to just help people) but all missionaries are not good either. But glad to see that you finally took a stand.

  61. Sid D H Arthur — on 28th February, 2006 at 12:43 am  

    But glad to see that you finally took a stand.

    From where I’m standing, you’re a cut and paste Hindutvadi.

    All missionaries are not bad (the good ones are the ones who can help people for helping’s sake without expecting the “reward” of conversion.

    Well, please devise a system which will encourage communities steeped in self-doubt and self-denigration because of social isolation of the caste system. They’ll be more than happy to hear your ideas.

  62. xyz — on 28th February, 2006 at 12:46 am  

    Sid, don’t get all sanctimonious. Again, you make an ass of yourself when you assume that you alone are doing some good just because you’re affiliated with human rights groups. We all try to do some good in our own way. My criticism of certain elements in India’s human rights arena is not without precedent. I selected those whose “concern” I find a bit disingenous given that they seem to pick and choose which humans they think deserve rights. And a U.N. study should interest you – most people in Third World countries, when questioned in a poll, found that many of these well-meaning environmental and human rights and social issue NGOs (and there are also good ones that look out for everyone, not just some) had little relevance to their lives. They felt these people didn’t really listen to them and were more interested in their own “prestige”. You know the types – they jet around the world, are very vocal and media-hungry, stay in five-star hotels whilst they denounce globalization, capitalism and other assorted evils.

  63. xyz — on 28th February, 2006 at 12:50 am  

    Um. last time I checked the caste sytem, social isolation and other social ills were alive and well in subcontinental Islam and Christianity (they’re just a lot more hypocritical about it), so not sure what the point of conversion is? Wouldn’t it be better to help people fight for their rights rather than exploit their vulnerablilty and misery so you can add one more body to your global bodycount of people belonging to your religion?

    And since we’re still resorting to name calling, you are a true-blue taqiyah-practicing jehadi.

  64. Sid D H Arthur — on 28th February, 2006 at 12:52 am  

    I’m only sanctimonious to you because I fail to reflect your prejudice in jehadist green as you in your Hindutva saffron, in the way that raz, correctly said, are mirror images of each other.

    If you’re only selectively against certain NGOs and not universally the “Human Rights Industry of India”, then say which ones. A little fine-grained detail would do wonders for your PR and make you look less of a Hindutva toady.

  65. xyz — on 28th February, 2006 at 1:01 am  

    By P.N. Benjamin:

    “To corrupt George Orwell’s famous aphorism: all Indian Christians are equal, but some are more equal than others. By embracing Christianity, the Dalits have not found themselves emancipated from economic and social inequalities. Conversions have neither offered the Dalits a way of escape from the bondage of caste nor have they fostered the social transformation of the Dalit Christians. They still live under the same conditions of discrimination, exploitation and oppression.

    The Church has sinned more than others in perpetuating social injustices against Dalit Christians. In Indian Christian communities, caste discrimination takes many forms. There are some churches built for separate groups. These places of worship even today retain their caste identity. Another example of casteist practice is allotting separate places in churches. Usually, the Christians of Scheduled Caste origin occupy the rear of the church. A flaring instance of caste distinction is found among the dead. The dead of the Dalit communities are buried in separate cemeteries.”

    So, to what religion should these people now convert? Is PN Benjamin a Hindutvadi? They are trapped in self-doubt, self-denigration of the Christian caste system. Perhaps instead of labelling everyone a Hindutvadi you can devise a system to ensure that these people get what they were promised when they were converted? That would be a better use of your “I belong to human rights groups and am better than you” attitude.

  66. Sid D H Arthur — on 28th February, 2006 at 1:06 am  

    Perhaps instead of labelling everyone a Hindutvadi you can devise a system to ensure that these people get what they were promised when they were converted?

    Why should the onus of rehabilitating the Christian Dalits be on the Missionaries alone? You seem to have elided the main side to this story and that is that even after conversion, they continue to suffer the same isolation they had to from the mainstream Hindus in the society at large. PN Benjamin has written about that too surely. If not, then he’s a tosser.

  67. xyz — on 28th February, 2006 at 1:06 am  

    “If you’re only selectively against certain NGOs and not universally the “Human Rights Industry of India”, then say which ones. A little fine-grained detail would do wonders for your PR and make you look less of a Hindutva toady.”

    If you can read, I mentioned Arundhati Roy and Teesta Setalvad in particular. There are others, but it would be impossible to mention everyone. There is a cottage industry of the Roy, Setalvad types though. As for a little fine-grained detail, that would be more applicable to your reading and comprehension abilities so that you dont’ constantly misconstrue and twist what I say and make you look less like a student in a remedial reading course.

    And it would be nice to have a conversation without resorting to saffron, Hindutva, fascist, laboratory etc. Do you guys all have the same dictionary that you use when composing your retorts? Who publishes it? I will just say that you are as much a taqiyah jehadist as I am a saffron Hindutvaist.

  68. Sid D H Arthur — on 28th February, 2006 at 1:12 am  

    If you can read, I mentioned Arundhati Roy and Teesta Setalvad in particular.

    Well, actually, you didn’t. In any case, Arunadhati Roy is hardly an NGO. She’s an activist and does not constitute the work done by the many thousands of NGOs in the subcontinent.

    By the way? Why the unilaterist isolationist agenda when it comes to Human Rights Organisations? Whats the real gripe against these orgs xyz? And what would you rather see to replace the work that they do?

  69. xyz — on 28th February, 2006 at 1:21 am  

    Why should the onus of rehabilitating the Christian Dalits be on the Missionaries alone? You seem to have elided the main side to this story and that is that even after conversion, they continue to suffer the same isolation they had to from the mainstream Hindus in the society at large. PN Benjamin has written about that too surely. If not, then he’s a tosser.

    Wow, you are good at avoiding the crux of an issue. The point is that the argument used to convince people to convert is that they will escape the caste system. Benjamin clearly points out that they do not and that the church perpetuates and discriminates against the very people it promised a better future. You are a hypocrite not to see the utter hypocrisy of it. The church is the bigger sinner because it does exactly what it is “rescuing” these people from. You completely miss the point. Missionaries do not rehabilitate Christian Dalits, they convert Hindu Dalits to Christians and then the church continues to discriminate against them. The issue is why does the Christian community isolate these people who have converted to their faith? What happened to the everyone is equal spiel they gave them when they were trying to convert them? You have completely exposed yourself as a tosser by your statement. Why should Hindus have to bear the onus of dealing with discrimination against Christians by Christians? So they should have their cake – convert Hindus – and eat it too – make Hindus still bear the guilt for the discrimination against those who chose to leave the faith and who choose to denigrate it at every given opportunity. If you have a termite problem, you try to deal with it by eliminating the termites and replacing rotten wood. You don’t invite the termites to do as they please and encourage them to tear down your whole structure. Forgive me, but I choose to support Dalit Hindus who fight for their rights within Hinduism, who stand up to those Hindus who deny them those rights. I choose to support programs that promote more Dalit priests in temples and more women priests in temples. I do not support those who cry foul about the caste system and then conveniently use their caste when it benefits them. I bear no responsibility for those who leave because of caste discrimination and then still proceed to identify themselves by their caste – it’s a hypocrisy and an oxymoron. I thought muslims and Christians were free of caste? The very term Dalit Christians and Muslims seem ridiculous.

  70. xyz — on 28th February, 2006 at 1:22 am  

    Please read again, for the nth time:

    “The attitude of the Roys and Setalvads towards the people burned alive in the train was shockingly callous.”

  71. Sunny — on 28th February, 2006 at 1:25 am  

    xyz – I think the problem is this. In a way like many Muslim apologists, you’re trying to compare different issues as almost a defensive measure. I don’t think that makes you part of the Hindutva faction, neither does it make Sid a Jihadi (I swear these words along with ‘racist’ and ‘nazi’ are used too easily).

    Let me give you an example. Everytime someone mentions a Palestinian suicide bomber killing innocent Israelis, you will immediately get a reaction by some Muslims along the lines of “well they were provoked, why not also look at Israeli aggression”… yada yada.

    The same goes over the Iraq war. Muslims see Al-Qaeda as a reaction to American foreign policy, pro-war supporters see their actions as a reaction to Osama’s activities. People don’t usually condemn actions by themselves, they try to justify them by mentioning others.

    Now in context that is fine… but the problem is it also allows people to justify heinous crimes as “a reaction”. So the American bombing of Iraq is a reaction, and so does Al-Qaeda’s bombs become one. We end up in a vicious circle.

    To break out of it, we should look at issues in context, but condemn each one on its own merit.

  72. Sid D H Arthur — on 28th February, 2006 at 1:28 am  

    You completely miss the point. Missionaries do not rehabilitate Christian Dalits, they convert Hindu Dalits to Christians and then the church continues to discriminate against them.

    How so? And are you saying that the society at large suddenly embraces them as born again Dalits and do not immediately recognise them for what they are and continue to dance the dismal Scheduled-Caste dance with them long after they are no longer “untouchable”? If you answer no to that question, you’re lying.

  73. Sid D H Arthur — on 28th February, 2006 at 1:31 am  

    Forgive me, but I choose to support Dalit Hindus who fight for their rights within Hinduism, who stand up to those Hindus who deny them those rights. I choose to support programs that promote more Dalit priests in temples and more women priests in temples. I do not support those who cry foul about the caste system and then conveniently use their caste when it benefits them.

    Well your respect for orthodoxy is well and good but remember that not everyone was born with the same benefits that you were born with and cannot afford the luxury to remain indolently self-satisfied with their lot in life.

  74. Sid D H Arthur — on 28th February, 2006 at 1:34 am  

    Back to the “Human Rights Industry”, I’ll ask again:

    Why the unilaterist isolationist agenda when it comes to Human Rights Organisations? Whats the real gripe against these orgs xyz? And what would you rather see to replace the work that they do?

  75. xyz — on 28th February, 2006 at 1:52 am  

    Why the unilaterist isolationist agenda when it comes to Human Rights Organisations?

    Sid, when you learn to read properly we can talk. I do not have a unilateral isolationist agenda – I clearly said there are some good ones. Are we using the same language here? Or is this the Twilight Zone?

    Have you ever considered donating money to the Christian Freedom International? It is doing some good work in converting poor, socially discriminated Muslims trapped in self-denial and self-denigration in Bangladesh. Unfortunately these converts face intimidation and even death for daring to convert from Islam to Christianity. So perhaps you can affiliate yourself with this human rights group, Christian Freedom International, and help it in its mission to save those benighted Muslims from their miserable lives. I can forward your name to them if you want. They could sure use your help, seeing as how eager you are to save people from denigration.

  76. xyz — on 28th February, 2006 at 2:11 am  

    You know Sid, you really are insulting. You started this name calling. Without knowing anything about me you call me indolently self satisfied with life. Unlike you, I have no time to indulge in maintaining a pointless self-indulgent blog either:) People complain that Hindus do not let Dalits enter temples and become priests etc. So what happens when I support programs that promote this? The name calling and labelling me an indolent self satisfied person. Make up your minds. You cannot have your cake – criticize Hindus – and eat it too – criticize them for trying to change things and help (why because then you have less of stick with which to beat Hindus with? I mean, the goal is not for Hindus to treat Dalits equally, is it? That will defeat your purpose). Why don’t you just stop the hypocritical pretence and admit that you support the conversion of Hindus but not of Muslims? It’s quite obvious. I’m sorry if your Dalit forebears suffered, but I had no part to play in that, so don’t take out your prejudice on me.

    And are you saying that the society at large suddenly embraces them as born again Dalits and do not immediately recognise them for what they are and continue to dance the dismal Scheduled-Caste dance with them long after they are no longer “untouchable”?

    No I didn’t say that or deny it. But to me it is more hypocritical that Muslims and Christians, who go on ad nauseum about how superior they are and how equal they treat everyone, treat Dalit converts very shabbily. It is worse to entice someone to convert by claiming that you wil treat them equally adn then proceed to discriminate against them. Hindus are not to blame for that. Hindus are to blame for discrimination against Dalit Hindus, but it is Christians and Muslims who are to blame for discimrination against Dalit Christians and Muslims. They face more discrimination from their newfound “brothers” than from Hindus. You are a hypocrite for ignoring this and still trying to put the onus on Hindus. No sane person would fund their own demise. Once they convert, the bigger onus is not on society at large – which is still dealing with people screaming about how horrible Hinduism is – but on the do-gooders who denigrated Hinduism and praised the “equality” of Islam adn Christianity. By the way, last time I checked, Muslims and Christians were part of society at large. And, also, when will Muslim society at large bear the onus of treating converts from Islam to Christianity or other religions well and not calling them apostates and heretics (no such concept in Hinduism) and threatening them with death? Just because they converted from Islam to some other religion, does that absovle Muslims of the responsibility of treating them properly? Does that mean it’s right to kill them?

    Sunny,

    I never equated conversion with the Best Bakery case. I equated the Godhra massacre with the Best Bakery case. I used the example of conversion etc. to point out the double standards in the reaction to various injustices in India. Sadly, it has descended to this. But I was not the first to resort to using terms like Hindutvadi etc. If Jay and Sid woudl learn to read properly, it would not have come to this.

  77. xyz — on 28th February, 2006 at 2:16 am  

    and continue to dance the dismal Scheduled-Caste dance with them long after they are no longer “untouchable”?

    Too bad that even after conversion they are still “untouchable” to Christians and Muslims. So again, I ask you, what was the point of converting? Or is it somehow more superior to be discriminated against by Jesus and Allah?

  78. Sunny — on 28th February, 2006 at 4:01 am  

    I equated the Godhra massacre with the Best Bakery case.

    Which was the problem in the first place. This moral equivalence. Please refer to my previous post again.

  79. mirax — on 28th February, 2006 at 4:31 am  

    Sid – you have huge, huge issues with your self-esteem if you feel the constant need lash out someone for being the bogeyman ‘racist’ or ‘communalist’. You have done it to el cid, to david t, to me with hardly any cause. You are a fucking hypocrite because you apply such infinitely fine standards to others- yet fail to reflect on the open prejudices you harbour about others.

    Is it to do with the fact that you empathise with xyz, who is clearly a Hindutva sympathiser?
    See, it is not so clear to me that XYZ is an hindutvadist- his original point is valid and saying so does not mean that I am going to marry the guy and have hindu supremacist kids to kick around the poooor muslims. Really.

    Although, it is ever so-noticeable that your normal intelligent and incisive condemnation of other religious disorders seems to wane just that eensy bit whenever it comes to condemning the funkier side of Hinduism.

    Easy slur – that’s so your style, Sid. But prove it with relevant quotes or shut the fuck up. I am not even bothering with asking for an apology because that is clearly beyond you. Based on one Malaysian incident I wrote about- which you incidentally did not dare to address at all , such is your cowardice- , you called me a south east asian communalist. Like what what the fuck does that mean? You just see the whole world through your warped anglo-bangla lens and we have to all accept your bloody labels?

    ‘And as for shooting off mouths before reading or thinking, I think we’re all guilty of that mirax.’

    Never as much as you or Jay. Pity because you are both intelligent and I am sure, care about pretty much the same things as I do. But I really dislike both your personas sometimes- needlessly bullying and often confusing the person with the argument.

  80. mirax — on 28th February, 2006 at 4:40 am  

    Sunny, don’t you ever sleep?

  81. xyz — on 28th February, 2006 at 7:18 am  

    Which was the problem in the first place. This moral equivalence. Please refer to my previous post again.

    Sorry, Sunny but will have to disagree with you. I don’t see any real moral problem with asking for speedy justice in also putting the perpetrators of the Godhra massacre behind bars. I don’t see any moral problem with asking why some victims get more attention and others are ignored. If someone can mention the anti-Sikh violence of 1984 and make it morally equivalent to Best Bakery and imply that only Sikhs and Muslims don’t get justice, then mentioning the Pandits is also not a big deal. That was my point.

    Anyways, I do not want to drag this on into a protracted war with Jay and Sid. Suffice it to say I think they have been exposed as hypocrites par excellence who do a very poor job of masking it. They can label me whatever they want, I really don’t care. Lacking in imagination and the ability to withstand some of their pet canards being demolished, they resort to it. One can’t blame them I suppose. No doubt the twosome tag team will come up with some choice words (after Jay has finished throwing all his toys out of his pram — along with his ABCDs — and Sid has stopped his human rights work trying to persuade Ahmediyas to convert since all they face is misery and persecution from fellow Muslims), since they don’t like being challenged and appear to want to control what can be said about what topic and have taken it upon themselves to decide whose injustices can be mentioned at what time and whose cannot.

  82. Sid D H Arthur — on 28th February, 2006 at 8:19 am  

    Mirax – if you still wish to defend xyz’s ideals after reading them, then I’m not sure our little personality clash exposed here, has got the better of you.

    and Sid has stopped his human rights work trying to persuade Ahmediyas to convert since all they face is misery and persecution from fellow Muslims.

    There’s the conversion bogeyman again. Somehow, people converting to other religions has the same moral equiivalence to you as murderers and pogrom-organisers. Still very skewed, and after reading your arguments, you’ve managed to couch some awful views on religious orthodoxy in diversionary and slippery psycho-babble. Nice work.

  83. Jay Singh — on 28th February, 2006 at 10:14 am  

    wow – I wake up in the morning and see xyz has dribbled even more Hindutvadi dysentry over this place.

    Dude, you are a really nasty and squalid Hindutvadi, thats fine, I understand your pompous persecution complex, I understand the knee trembling rage you feel, I appreciate it, but dude, DUDE, DUUUUDE – stop projecting your inadequacies and demons onto me, you know, you shouldnt have a nervouse breakdown just becaus you get caled for your moral squalor. Deal with it.

  84. Jay Singh — on 28th February, 2006 at 10:15 am  

    mirax

    Stop whining, for goodness sake.

  85. Sunny — on 28th February, 2006 at 2:17 pm  

    This thread is going nowhere.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Pickled Politics © Copyright 2005 - 2010. All rights reserved. Terms and conditions.
With the help of PHP and Wordpress.