Gujarat flares up again
The Indian army’s been deployed in the Indian town of Vadodara after a few days of rioting and mob violence. Yesterday morning 32 year old Mohammad Rafiq Vora was burnt alive by a crowd of 1,500 Hindus. Guess who is in charge and not doing much? The politicos are meanwhile too busy paying condolences to the murder of a supremacist .
| Post to del.icio.us |
Filed in: Current affairs, India, South Asia
Wow – 1,500 against one – brave Gujaratis.
There were a couple of lads from Blackburn visiting family in Gujarat dragged from their car and burned alive by the brave ones back in 2002. Still no justice for their families.
That BJP dude was shot dead by his brother.
Indian politics eh?
Sickening.
Any Indians want to enlighten me as to why this particular state is so fucked up? The 2002 riots were appalling in their savagery, the photo of a line of charred infant bodies is one of the most shocking I’ve ever seen. Let’s hope a prompt state response can avert bloodshed this time.
It’s the test tube for the Hindutva experiment Raz – all their wet dreams come true.
But it is strange to think how the home state of Gandhi and Jainism got to be this stage.
I’ve often wondered if a lot of this Hinduvata nonsense could have been nipped in the bud had there been a stronger response to Ayodhya. The destruction of this mosque, a barbaric act which foreshadowed the equally reprehensible Bhudda statues demolition by the Taliban, should have resulted in swift and firm prosecution of the perpetrators along with the mosque being immediately rebuilt with public funds. This would have sent out an empahtic signal to all extremists that their hatred would not be tolerated in modern India. Instead, justice has not been forthcoming and, worse still, the mosque has not been rebuilt. In fact, it seems the Hinduvata’s have filed a court case to build a temple on the site! What kind of a message does this send out to extremists – that it’s ok to take the law into your own hands and destroy holy places in order to get your own way? It doesn’t suprise me that these extremists have been emboldened by what happened there.
raz
The Ayodhya demolition was engineered to humiliate the Muslims of India and precisely drive the wedge into Indian society that led to the rise of the BJP and was consummated in the orgy of violence in Gujarat in 2002. Those politicians dont give a damn about nipping communalism in the bud – it is their lifeblood. They are in charge in Gujarat that’s why there are 2000 odd dead and nobody charged and Modi is invited to give speeches at Wembley Conference Centre as a visiting hero.
India’s problems are indicative of Asia’s and the Middle-East – sectarian violence, religious messianism, territorial nationalism, and ruthless warlords controlling vast stretches of turf. We all know what happened in Tripura, in Afghanistan, in Chittagong, in Balochistan, in Sri Lanka, and now in Nepal with the Maoists. It’s the revolution in military affairs that everyone has been trying to ignore for the past three decades. No one is safe. No one is immune from violence. War amongst the people is the new paradigm in military affairs.
Being burnt alive – what a horrible way to die. Imagine it – just for a moment. Having to feel your skin (fat and muscle) disintegrate progressively in sequence: calves, thighs and hands, torso and forearms, upper chest, face; and then finally death. If he was ‘lucky’ (inverted commas mandatory), then he probably died from carbon monoxide poisoning, heatstroke, or loss of blood plasma… before the indescribable suffering set in.
Cunts.
Sunny,
Its terrible when Muslims are burned alive. That isnt the sort of punishment anyon human being should be given but the good thing is that Muslims who are burnt alive die as Sahids and I hope that this Muslims was a good one and that he will be shown mercy and Paradise.
Bikhair,
It’s terrible when anyone has to die a horrific death – regardless of their religious orientation.
And as we speak, there are poor souls (all across the world) who’re being violated in rape rooms and torture chambers and murky dungeons and overcrowded prisons – children in the same cells as paedophiles, rapists, and murders. It’s happening ubiquitously. The genocide in Darfur (as a result, lest we forget, of Arab racism), poverty and famine in Niger, malnutrition in Pakistan and India and Bangladesh, purging and pillaging in Congo and Liberia, economic privation in Palestine, suicide bombing in Tel Aviv, post-modern warfare in Afghanistan and Iraq, and so on.
Let’s not get into a ‘worthy’ / ‘unworthy’ victim mentality. Ethical discourse must apply universally.
Bikhair, I hope you’re right (however)
Amir, it’s time to drop the ‘Arab racism in Darfur’ argument:
http://www.fortwayne.com/mld/journalgazette/news/editorial/14423564.htm
also see Daniel Davies’ article.
No Sunny, it’s not time to drop the Arab racism argument, and here’s why (a rejoinder to your first hyperlink):
1. Nearly Everyone is Muslim
So…her point being? Nearly every Afro-American during the civil rights movement was a Protestant Christian, yet it didn’t stop the Jim Crow Laws in Texas, Alabama, etc., being rigorously enforced by white Protestants. Those Ethiopian Jews who were rescued during Operation Solomon were all Jews, but it didn’t stop the Ashkenazi Russian-immigrants from excluding them from public life in Israel, did it? From reading Sen’s Identity and Violence, you should have realized that people have multiple faces and personas, sometimes contradictory, pulling in opposite directions, which can also explain why life is so full silly contradictions and ironies.
2. Everyone is black
Emily Wax is correct to point out that the conflict is between herders and farmers, and that the label of ‘African’ or ‘Arab’ is based purely on linguistic and/or economic cleavages. And yet,… this does not disqualify it from being a genocide. The Rwandan genocide, for instance, was between black Hutus and black Tutsis. Physical differences between them were minimal. So why call it a genocide? Simple: A genocide, according to Raphael Lemkin, is aimed at the destruction of groups (that may include ethnicity, religion, language, nationality, economic class, or a combination of many). And it occurs in eight stages: classification, symbolization, dehumanization, organization, polarization, identification, extremination, and denial. (Unfortunately, some political commentators leapfrog to the final stage – and stay there.)
3. It’s about politics, not religion
Erm, okay. So what?… politics [.e. nationalism, re-building power structures, economic imperatives, colonial ambitions etc] has played a major role in the Armenian genocide, the Jewish Holocaust, Rwanda, and Slobodan Milosevic’s orgy of death in Bosnia. Talk to any historian in the functionalist school-of-thought, and he/she will tell you exactly the same thing. In fact, we can push this argument a little further: politics spills over into almost every sphere of our daily lives: on a micro and macro level. How, might I ask, does this affect the lexical status of ‘genocide’ in our ethical and legal discourse? It doesn’t
4. This conflict is International
So what? Everything from trade to terrorism to chicken teriyaki is ‘international’ vis-à-vis globalization. And, in any case, the legal definition of ‘genocide’ is not contingent on any supranational or diplomatic cleavages or spill-overs. By some reliable estimates, the Sudanese government has slain as many as 400,000 of its black co-religionists – known contemptuously as zurga (‘niggers’) – and expelled perhaps 2 million more. That’s a fucking genocide.
5. The “genocide” label made it worse.
In his book Principia Ethica, G.E. Moore referred to this line-of-argument as the naturalistic fallacy – the conflation of a factual ‘is’ with a moral ‘ought’. The utility of the word ‘genocide’, i.e., its moral and/or humanitarian and/or diplomatic consequences, has no bearing on its implicit claim to describe something real and tangible. Lexicographers are made of sterner stuff.
>>But it is strange to think how the home state of Gandhi and Jainism got to be this stage.
Might be the lack of alcohol.
Gujarat is India’s only dry state afaik. I’m not being completely facetious here. The mentality that is behind such a ban hints at more than one neurosis, not to say a superiority complex.
Promod Mahajan, recently deceased, was the architect of the yatra that went to Ayodhya. He was the PR ‘genius’ who revived and reinvented the hindutvas’ crowd pleasing symbols. So he may have just been a suave technocrat-manager but he had blood on his hands. Plenty of it. He might have become Prime Minister of India one day, so I am glad that he is dead.
However, he and his family had had RSS links forever and his involvement in the BJP was genuine and longstanding. It was fucked up beliefs but at least he is not one of the thousands of politicians and celebrities who cynically sup with the hindutvadis for all sorts of reasons.
What surprised me was the kind of high profile visitors he had while he lay dying- including Shabana Azmi and Javed Akhtar. Oh, and the 300 maulanas who recited the Koran at BJP HQ, in aid of his recovery.
As for the poor man burnt alive, I hope his murder cuts short the obscene faux grief over Mahajan and tells Indians where their real problems lie.
The troubles in Vadodara follow the time-honoured Indian pattern : destruction of a holy place (in this case a dargah) followed by communal riots. In other words, another cynically planned event since dargahs/mosques (in themselves) hardly ever raise the spontaneous ire of the populace.
Amir, excellent post #14.
“the good thing is that Muslims who are burnt alive die as Sahids ”
The great Michel de Montaigne said of witch burning that “It’s putting a high value on our beliefs to roast people alive for them.” It’s putting an equally high value on unconfirmed beliefs to say that this is anything but a vile crime.
The fact is a total of 20 hindu temples were also demolished in the same drive.A pisture of a temple being demolished-
http://dinamalar.com/2005feb17/photos/impn01b.jpg
We didnt see Hindus out on the streets of Gujjrat acting like hooligans over this. Why is it one community likes to use any excuse to riot?
Having said that the authorities must dp all they can to protect ALL citizens and if they fail to do so the Modi govt should be dismissed and presidential rule should be put in place in Gujrat. Will Manmohan Singh and his Congress walas have the balls to do this? I hold my breath!
Amir
Good comment up there dude.
In defence of Emily Wax, it looks like she’s being a namby-pamby liberal by her liberal use of relativist devices in her article. But it is necessary when you consider that the artcile is pitched at a silly view that has become popularised, especially in the US, that this conflict is distinctly about an Arab Muslims government against its Black African population.
however international agents wish to define the term ‘genocide’, there IS a genocide happening here, by any definition. But to take the view that its based on race and religion alone is to side with a political agenda (and there are many at work here) – which I think is what she means to convey in the section on ‘The ‘genocide’ label made it worse’. There is, in fact, more than a genocide going on here. This is a sectarian war, to be precise.
Ranj
Given the context of Gujarats recent history, with a state sponsored pogrom of Muslims, thousands dead, women raped, tens of thousands living in refugee camps, constant persecution and denial of justice, it is no surprise that Muslims there are suspicious when their places of worship are scheduled for demolition.
In fact its amazing that you piss in your pants because a few Muslim Gujaratis throw stones when their dargah is demolished, but you dont ask the question of why some Hindu Gujaratis act like depraved beasts and go around burning and looting and slaughtering Muslims at the first chance they get – especially given that Hindus all of India don’t behave in the same way. So what’s the answer to that question Ranj? Why are they like that Ranj?
Amir – I’m not denying there are attempts at exterminating big groups of people, or that this is genocide or that people have all sorts of contradictions when it comes to violence.
But The Darfur case is being used as a stick to say “what about these Arab Muslims who are killing black Christians? What are you going to do about that?”
It is shameful that the neighbouring countries have done nothing on sorting it out but the whole tragedy is being cynically used by people as a propaganda tool, which I find abhorring.
People have got to realise that the communal thing has been ablaze in Gujarat for a very long time and was established and part of its history way ever before the likes of BJP came about to win elctions and rule the state.
The Congress Party ruled state during the other regular communal riots and sometimes very serious ones since Partition.
Gujarat with its major industrial and relatively wealthy cities like Ahmedabad and Baroda attracted many Muslim migrants from Pakistan as well as other states in India over time. Tension was always around the corner between communities, often caused by certain villanous and mafia ridden sections where oftern the stewards are Muslim and their victims were normally always Hindus in different walks of life. Dadagiri and extortion and an uneasy atmosphere was alway inevitable at times.
There is this and other factors which need to be explored to discover the roots and contributory factors towards such rabid communalism found in Gujarat, Gujaratis until this day hold a reputation for gentleness and passivity irrespective of the decades long if not centuries long communal flareups. Paradox??
Sunny,
Point taken. But still… there are some aspects of political life [cynical motives, language games, political-points-scoring, misrepresentation, etc.] that get superseded or trumped by violations of the most fundamental human rights – Darfur being an obvious case. Unless you’re a die-hard deontologist, I can’t see how anyone would want to forestall humanitarian intervention vis-à-vis the 1948 Genocide Convention.
Neighbouring countries?
What about the UN (a.k.a. ‘preserving oil interests INC’), the United States (a.k.a. ’saving people from genocidal despots… unless, of course, you’re African) and NATO?
The ‘incident’ at Mogadishu beach has left permanent mental scarring.
Amir
I’m fully in favour of the military intervention there. But given this administration’s willingness to jump into other countries, why the reluctance here? Will it be Rwanda pt 2? The incident at Mogadishu did not stop the US from intervention in Afghanistan or Iraq, so I don’t buy that argument.
Sunny
Recent wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were justified to the American public on ‘security grounds’ (notwithstanding the flawed intelligence that was used in the latter). Human beings are inherently self-interested. Most of us don’t subscribe to mushy-mushy moral calculus of humanitarian intervention. For Bush to justify a war to his electorate, self-interest must play a major role – or it will receive scant support. Africa affords no such luxury.
Remember: the success of a post-modern war is contingent on public opinion (that’s why Bill Clinton refused point-blank to intervene in the Rwandan genocide). Those viscous warlords and Sudanese death-squads are aware that the West’s greatest vulnerability is its fear of casualties – its well-known ‘risk aversion’. And they know that a war of slow attrition, of mounting casualties, of bodies dragged through the streets in celebration, is enough to ensure eventual victory.
Mogadishu has everything to do with the current stand-off. Unless you can justify a postmodern war to the wider public, then there’s no such thing as a ‘military victory’. Why? Because the tactical timeframe is years rather than months, because the new warriors know that Western militaries do not think in terms of years and Western publics cannot endure it.
Amir
ranj,
I would like a link to your assertion that 20 hindu temples were demolished in Vadodara in addition to the dargah.
Your picture link is suspect as I followed it to a Tamil newssite that refers to a temple ratham collapse in Chennai in 2005. It is a bit unfortunate for you that I read Tamil and can recognise a typical south indian temple when I see one.
There does seem to be an ongoing (and highly ill-advised) demolition drive in Vadodara. Temples have been demolished. There is no information about the number, kind of temples, age of temples etc.
Two more dargahs are due to be bulldozed. The one that was demolished was simply described as having existed for decades.
City planning gone amok! And the residents following suit.
http://in.rediff.com/news/2006/may/01guj1.htm
More about the dargah- it was over 200 years old. The city corporation and the muslim community (which was understandably against the sudden demolition order) were still in the midst of talks when the dargah was forcibly torn down. Yes, some hidden hand is busily creating mischief here.
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/1511836.cms
I understand that the muslim crowds were out on the streets to protect the dargah – braving police bullets (yes the police fired and killed a couple of people)- quite reasonable actions against a criminally bull-headed local authority. What the fuck were the hindu hooligans out on the streets for?
Mirax what is common is that often the Muslims gangs anger turns from the police to local Hindus and Hindu businesses, then there is tit for tat retaliation.
From what my relatives who live in Rajkot, Surat etc Gujarat have said is that its mostly criminal gangs involved on both sides who escalate the violence along with paid up members of Hindu extremist groups who will happen to ‘turn up’ at the scene.
Its quite sad really because I was in Surat only two months ago and saw a Muslim religious procession being celebrated by Hindus and Muslims alike, and vice versa as well, my nani was invited by a muslim rikshaw driver to her house to meet his wife who just had a baby. But most of my family is from Saurashtra region which is on the whole much more peaceful then the North and Ahmedabad.
This is not to say it was all sweetness and roses before. But Gujaratis knew that in order to make money and prosper which they all want to do regardless of religion, there needs to be stability and good relations.
I personally think that if we wanna develop and improve infrastructure, get with the development drive and improve things economically and for practical reasons then religious strutures like small temples and dargahs which are a found all over the place and in the most inconvenient places should be allowed to be either moved or just demolished. Its a man made thing, bears no real spritual and earth shattering meaningful reason to hold onto such things.
Too many temples in the first place, and Muslims have got to agree that the Dargahs are the same thing.
In some states and places around India, did you know that major roads and roundabouts are constructed so a Dargah can remain where it is. Total impracticaly and inconvenience is ignored in favour of appeasing and avoiding communal frenzy. Surely the knowledgable and wise should teach their fellow brother to not get so hett up over something which is just a man made little building which has Islam or Hinduism attached to it.
To burn someone alive in the name of religion can never be justified. The future surely looks scary.
Call me a saffronite. Call me a commnalist. Call me a Hindutvadi.
35 Hindus slaughtered in Kashmir not a word here at PP. Lucknow riots… Aligarh riots not a word at PP.
The Vadodara riots only get a coverage when Hindutva bastrads actually muder a Muslim nevermind the fact that it was Muslims who started the riots which were not justified in the first place. I would have been one thing if there were peaceful protests but lobbing molotov cocktails at police is no way to protest.
Heh, Vikrant that is cute. Before I even wrote this I knew I was going to get this accusation from you (or shiva) or others on the right. Why not mention Varanasi while you are at it?
My reasoning however was straight-forward. The danger was bigger – that the murderous mob went on another rampage like last time and precipitated riots like last time which led to a lot more deaths. So it was a story with a possibility of getting much bigger. Thankfully it does not seem to have as yet.
Call me morbid, call me pale
I’ve spent six years on your trail
Six full years of my life on your trail
He might have become Prime Minister of India one day, so I am glad that he is dead.
I understand that the muslim crowds were out on the streets to protect the dargah – braving police bullets (yes the police fired and killed a couple of people)- quite reasonable actions against a criminally bull-headed local authority.
Atta girl mirax, gloating over somebodys death then going on to suport vandals. The courts had ordered the administration to demolish illegal religious structures. Moreover over the Hindutva dipshits came in the picture after you brave, democratic and peaceful protesters murdered two innocent people just because they were Hindu.
Obviously Indian press never reports killings of Hindus by Muslims (a self-censorship that i support). Funnily whenever Islamists cause troubles, the newspapers reports start like:
“Yesterday (city name) communal clashes between two communities when members of a certain community protesting against the religious celebrations of other community….” blah blah…
All that Times of India does these days is bleat over “exclusive” interviews with Sarah Knite the “shining” star of British porn industry.
Wow – 1,500 against one – brave Gujaratis.
Jay i didnt expect this from you… Gross generalisations…. You for one get frothy with anger at any suggestion of substantial no. of British Sikhs being “Sant” Bhindrewale fans…
Predictably leftie hippies Roy, Setelvad Co. are bleating the communalist-agenda-behind-demolitions tune. Such intellectual dihonesty on their part is disappointing but predicatable. Setelvad for one went about braying how Kashmiri militancy is “secular”.
I was not ‘gloating’ over Pramod Mahajan’s death – don’t care enough about the dead geezer for such an emotion- but simply noting that India is lucky to be spared a possible future PM who was weaned on and welded to the RSS (sorry mix of metaphors, apologies!)
You make the Vadodara events sound so simple and clear, Vikrant. Just another case of muslims flagrantly disregarding law and order. But that is just not the whole story is it?
A sudden drive to clear ‘illegal’ religious structures(leaving aside the question of how and when a 200 year old dargah became illegal). Hmmnn. In a country, in a state , where passions run high over such structures. Not allowing sufficient time for community mediation, for due process in the courts, giving police the option to fire on protestors – sure the only trouble makers are the muslims and Roy. Of course.
What’s so difficult about condemning the lynching and horrific death of a lone muslim man by a mob more than a thousand strong, Vikrant?
I’m not unsympathetic to innocent hindu civilian deaths elsewhere but that’s a separate issue.
Still mirax, I think it’s rather poor taste to say “I’m glad he’s dead” about someone; he wasn’t a hardened criminal. What he may have done in the future is speculation and nothing more.
I don’t its poor taste. I have no love lost for religious fanatics either. By paying him respect we end up paying respect to his ideology. And I don’t intend to do either.
Vikrant you’re an imbecile. I couldnt give a flying fukk about Bhinderanwale and its a sign of your mental decrepitude and knee jerk spitting communalist defensiveness when you get your knickers in a twist about my comment regarding a mob of 1,500 men burning to death a man. I mean, they are really brave, arent they, 1500 barbarians chasing and setting on fire one man? What bravery that is. Why does that vex you?
>>Still mirax, I think it’s rather poor taste to say “I’m glad he’s dead” about someone; he wasn’t a hardened criminal.
I have more sympathy for hardened criminals! That man had blood on his hands, whether you want to acknowledge it or not. I don’t hold with the sentimentalism of idealising the dead just cos they are dead.
“You make the Vadodara events sound so simple and clear, Vikrant. Just another case of muslims flagrantly disregarding law and order. But that is just not the whole story is it?”
You’re right Mirax, what happened wasn’t so simple and clear, but if you read Sunny’s post, you would think it was simple and clear: Muslims peacefully protesting against authorized demolition of dargah, ugly mob of Hindus attacked them and burnt one alive. By all means condemn the mob violence and the burning of the man, it’s reprehensible. But it’s a bit unfair, when reporting on this story, to start with this incident, link it to stories about “guess who’s not doing enough” and then to another about a “supremacist.” It’s as if Sunny made up his mind which side he was going to portray as the aggressor and which side as the victim without giving all the facts from the very beginning, when the truth is not so black and white and there are good and bad guys on both sides. Pick sides, by all means hold the administration to higher standards, but first give both sides of the story or all sides of the story.
A fairer approach would have been to link to one of the earliest stories written soon after the violence broke out, which gave more details and a more comprehensive and more equitable view of the situation (even if reducing Hindu victims, who were actually the very first people killed because of these protests, to “some people were killed by members of another community.”) The problem is this story didn’t really seem to warrant any attention when Hindus were killed but only after the Muslim man was killed in retalitation, so those not paying attention to the story obviously start with the Hindu mob. Even Sunny’s post reduced their deaths to the generic “after a few days of rioting and mob violence.” Given that this is first post on the subject, it gives a very skewed version of events.
These things don’t happen in a vacuum, and I’m not trying to absolve anyone of blame, but from a journalistic point of view, Sunny’s post was very weak.
“A sudden drive to clear ‘illegal’ religious structures(leaving aside the question of how and when a 200 year old dargah became illegal). Hmmnn. In a country, in a state , where passions run high over such structures. Not allowing sufficient time for community mediation, for due process in the courts, giving police the option to fire on protestors – sure the only trouble makers are the muslims and Roy. Of course.”
- It wasn’t a sudden drive at all. It had been going on for weeks. The reason it didn’t receive any attention from the media or Roys or central government is because the other structures were demolished without incident. (If people want to complain that all the other structures were ok to be demolished but not this one and that it’s some sort of conspiracy, fine go ahead. If there’s truth in that, let it come out. In Tripura they razed the last centuries-old temple without a whimper from the central govt. or anyone else. So I guess if that was considered illegal, anything can be considered illegal. But that’s a separate issue.)
But killing Hindus because you’re angry about the demolishment should also be condemned (just as killing Hindus because you’re angry they didn’t protest against George Bush when he was in India should have been condemned).
I realize that Sunny had very valid concerns about this thing spiralling, but does that mean that because the number of Hindus killed didn’t meet some sort of threshhold or if it hadn’t resulted in the revenge killing of the Muslim gentleman, it wouldn’t have warranted any mention? So Varanasi or the brutal slaughter of 32 Kashmiris wasn’t worth mentioning, but if it had resulted in say more Muslims being killed in retaliation (and I’m so grateful that it didn’t) it would have been worth a blog post? If the situation had been reversed and Hindus had bombed a mosque and say 40 people had been killed, would PP have waited to see if there was a mass revenge killing of Hindus before posting on it?
“What’s so difficult about condemning the lynching and horrific death of a lone muslim man by a mob more than a thousand strong, Vikrant?”
- Absolutely nothing wrong with that and it should be condemned, but what’s so difficult about actually covering a story properly from all angles and including all the relevant background to a story? That doesn’t mean you have to excuse the behavior of the mob at all, but some standards of journalistic ethics should apply. Why was there a vengeful mob there in the first place? Mentioning that doesn’t condone their barbarity in any way. By not mentioning it you condone the barbarity of the people who killed those first (Hindu) victims.
“I’m not unsympathetic to innocent hindu civilian deaths elsewhere but that’s a separate issue.”
- Actually those Hindu deaths were not elsewhere at all but directly related to the demolition of the dargah and the spark for the subsequent riots. It’s just that they didn’t warrant a post. It’s not a separate issue at all. They were killed by people angry over the demolition.
Let the name-calling begin.
>> murdered two innocent people just because they were Hindu.
The two hindu men were tragically in the wrong place at the wrong time, caught up in a riot where there were probably both genuine protestors and as some of the posters mentioned above, maybe some criminal muslim elements. As were the three young muslim men (two shot in the head by the police as they were returning home after work and the third allegedly killed by police) – all equally victims of situations way out of their control.
i would place a lot of the blame for the Vadodara events at the door of the local government officials and the police.
“I have more sympathy for hardened criminals! That man had blood on his hands, whether you want to acknowledge it or not. I don’t hold with the sentimentalism of idealising the dead just cos they are dead.”
The man was not on the same level as Modi, to immediately brand him as a wild-eyed Hindutvadi is to ignore his positive contributions. Creating one dimensional images of people is no different from what people like Vikrant do with Muslims.
Mahajan’s chance of taking the BJP reigns were overplayed in my opinion, I don’t think support was wide enough and he was instrumental in the heavy 2004 loss.
However he has also been the architect of sweeping mobile phone tech and regulation changes in India. New telephone connections in India grew faster than they have done at any time under his time as Communications Minister.
But hey, he was in the RSS so we must rejoice at his death, right?
Come on, nobody is romanticising the dead and I’m hardly the sentimental type. But whooping at the death of a father, twelve days after being shot four times by his own brother is a bit cheap. He’s got his come-uppance and then some.
XYZ,
I do agree with much of what you say.
About Sunny’s rendering of the events – I have often felt that he sometimes connects the dots in a rather sloppy fashion. And looking at the Vadodara events closely, it is a complex situation that warrants a better writeup of the context. But people like Sunny and myself, are outsiders and our first thought is “Gujarat burning? Oh no!Not again!” That may well be unfair, but given the irreparable damage the gujarat massacre of muslims in 2002 did the reputation of India, it is not completely unjustified.
I agree that Muslims protesting have no right to turn on and kill anyone else – hindu/muslim/sikh. Same goes for hindu crowds. The problem seems to be that sections of any crowd out in the streets in India involves quite a few criminals and goondas and top-notch policing seems necessary to prevent tragedies. That policing seems noticeably absent in Vadodara.
The demolition drive- in existence for the last 15 days, 2 weeks!- does seem to me to be excessively rash. No one in tripura may have cared about an ancient temple being torn down- good for them!- but that was patently NOT EVER going to be the case in the destruction of the dargah in vadodara. I ‘d have thought that many months, if not years of mediation and talks with the community affected, might have been prudently anticipated. People are touchy about places of worship being torn down or relocated, not least in a hotspot like Gujarat, not least a minority that has no trust in the govet. What were the authorities thinking? So what if the hindus accepted their demolitions more peacefully? Why should the muslims be held to the same standards without any particularities of their situation being looked into first?
>> Actually those Hindu deaths were not elsewhere at all but directly related to the demolition of the dargah and the spark for the subsequent riots.
Sorry Vikrant did mention a whole lot of hindu deaths in Kashmir and riots in other places.
The two hindu deaths – caught up in a mob in the midst of a riot- in Vadodara are reprensensible. As are the 3 muslims shot dead in that same riot. So the hindu mob that then goes out to burn a muslim man has ‘context’ does it? I suppose that muslims now want to go on a rampage for their 3 killed by the police and the one burned alive by the hindus also have the same ‘context’. Part of the problem of too much ‘context’ is that you do begin to sound like you are making excuses.
>> Why was there a vengeful mob there in the first place? Mentioning that doesn’t condone their barbarity in any way.
Doesn’t it? Oh the muslim man was torched alive by the mob cause some other muslims killed some other hindus earlier. Nope doesn’t cut it for me. The hindus had no business being out the streets prowling for muslim blood.
>>By not mentioning it you condone the barbarity of the people who killed those first (Hindu) victims.
I don’t see it as such. You are talking about two separate incidents and unrelated groups of people. By seguing the two, you are giving ground to vigilantism of the worst type. It is NOT the business of any individual hindu to avenge the killing of any other hindu. Same goes for the muslims.
Rohin,
My post #16 about Mahajan made clear the basis by which I judged him. Being the PR guru for a communalist party, reinventing the fucking yatras, the first to ayodhya that destroyed Babri , led to riots and massacres and continues to poison so much of civic discourse in India and so on DOES NOT MAKE up for the great indian middle class masses yakking away on mobiles. And yes, I knew about the mobiles when I wrote that.
So Mahajan is a father? So what? So it is only 12 days? So what? I am glad that the future of India holds one less hindutvadi. Shoot me.
“No one in tripura may have cared about an ancient temple being torn down- good for them!- but that was patently NOT EVER going to be the case in the destruction of the dargah in vadodara. I ‘d have thought that many months, if not years of mediation and talks with the community affected, might have been prudently anticipated. People are touchy about places of worship being torn down or relocated, not least in a hotspot like Gujarat, not least a minority that has no trust in the govet. What were the authorities thinking? So what if the hindus accepted their demolitions more peacefully? Why should the muslims be held to the same standards without any particularities of their situation being looked into first?”
Actually Hindus in Tripura were justifiably very upset about it, just that they didn’t kill anyone over it and they didn’t get any sympathy from the national press over it, the same sympathy you have for the dargah. It was a very old temple and the reasons for tearing it down were also questionable given Tripura’s “Tripura for Christ” campaign. But it didn’t get any attention or any sympathy. If it had been a church the reaction would have been much different.
I agree, tearing down places of worship is sensitive, but I also think your attitude of one law for one and another for another set is also counterproductive and only serves to inflame Hindu bigots and even ordinary Hindus like myself who are very frustrated by some appalling double standards in reportage and govt. reaction to incidents in India. Why should some people get penalized for playing by the rules? And if those very same (Hindu) people had broken the rules and killed some people in retaliation, I have no doubt that the Indian media, and maybe even PP, would have reported on it and condemned them for it. I thought in a secular democracy, it was the goal to hold people to the same standards of law and behavior?
I also disagree with Vikrant that it’s ok for the media to say ’some people killed by members of the minority community” as a form of self censorship. It’s a very immature attitude and not befitting a country that aims to be a world-class democracy. Where labelling is relevant to a story, it should be included. If this had happened in the UK, would they say members of a minority community? Interestingly, in India, they only use minority community in reference to Muslims and Chrisitans. When Buddhists and Muslims had some problems in Kashmir/Ladakh, the Buddhists were not given the “courtesy” of being referred to as minority,, they were identified as Buddhist perpetrators. Why this double standard? If Hindus in Kashmir, a definite minority, attacked Muslims in Kashmir, do you think the media would say members of a minority community attacked? No they would say “Hindus attacked.” If the perpetrator is Hindu and it’s relevant to the story, mention it. If the perpetrator is Muslim, and it’s relevant, mention it. If you’re going to waffle and fudge the lines of journalistic ethics, then do so across the board.
>> Actually those Hindu deaths were not elsewhere at all but directly related to the demolition of the dargah and the spark for the subsequent riots.
Sorry Vikrant did mention a whole lot of hindu deaths in Kashmir and riots in other places.
The two hindu deaths – caught up in a mob in the midst of a riot- in Vadodara are reprensensible. As are the 3 muslims shot dead in that same riot. So the hindu mob that then goes out to burn a muslim man has ‘context’ does it? I suppose that muslims now want to go on a rampage for their 3 killed by the police and the one burned alive by the hindus also have the same ‘context’. Part of the problem of too much ‘context’ is that you do begin to sound like you are making excuses.
- That’s not true at all. Journalism requires context and the facts. Then people can make up their own mind. After all, why have any history at all and try to put things in historical contexts?
>> Why was there a vengeful mob there in the first place? Mentioning that doesn’t condone their barbarity in any way.
Doesn’t it? Oh the muslim man was torched alive by the mob cause some other muslims killed some other hindus earlier. Nope doesn’t cut it for me. The hindus had no business being out the streets prowling for muslim blood.
- That’s a very simplistic retelling of what I said. All I said is you cannot mention the Hindu mob in a story covering this issue without mentioning the context and background. It is journalistically unsound practice. The Muslims had no right either to be out for Hindu blood because a religious structure was being demolished. Would it have been ok for a news story to mention the Muslims killing the Hindus without mentioning their reason for doing so – the dargah demolition? Would it be ok for me to write a story saying “Members of the Muslim community today murdered some Hindus” after some days of rioting and mob violence? Or would it be ethical for me to mention why they were so angry? It doesn’t excuse what they did but it does put it into context.
>>By not mentioning it you condone the barbarity of the people who killed those first (Hindu) victims.
I don’t see it as such. You are talking about two separate incidents and unrelated groups of people. By seguing the two, you are giving ground to vigilantism of the worst type. It is NOT the business of any individual hindu to avenge the killing of any other hindu. Same goes for the muslims.
- Again these are not two separate incidents. One led to other. Anger over the Hindu murders led to the retaliiation. It is not supporting vigilantism at all. I can say the same. By separating the two you are condoning the deaths of the Hindus. I’m assuming then that if a story is published saying “Muslims today burned a Hindu after several days of mob violence and rioting (without mentioning that it was in retaliation or sparked by a Hindu mob burning alive a Muslim man) that you would be ok with it? Given what you said above, that would be perfectly ok because too much context would be excusing the Muslim retaliation.
And if too much context is making excuses, why even bring up Gujarat’s history or what happened before? Why mention Modi or Mahajan at all? Aren’t you in fact then using context (what came before) to “excuse” Muslim anger and action and fears? And if you think that context is necessary (and I agree it is) why not extend that courtesy to others?
“Why should the muslims be held to the same standards without any particularities of their situation being looked into first?””
mirax, It seems you have just contradicted yourself with the above statement and your statement that too much context is making excuses.
So why shouldn’t the particulars of anyone’s situation be looked into first? I thought looking into the particulars meant looking at events that preceded and doesn’t that amount to context? Would you give the above argument if say Hindus in Kashmir murdered some Muslims? After all they have every right to live in fear there and to distrust the local government.
The hallmarks of good journalism, which are taught in the first lesson of any journalism 101 class (note the repeated emphasis on the word context, in proportion, facts, all sides of the story)
“They should not oversimplify or highlight incidents out of context.”
“Keeping news in proportion and not leaving important things out are also cornerstones of truthfulness. Journalism is a form of cartography: it creates a map for citizens to navigate society. Inflating events for sensation, neglecting others, stereotyping or being disproportionately negative all make a less reliable map. The map also should include news of all our communities, not just those with attractive demographics.”
Journalists should be “good enough at providing the context on complex stories.”
“The primary obligation of journalists is to seek the truth and report it as factually, contextually and fairly as possible.”
“Democracy depends on citizens having reliable, accurate facts put in a meaningful context. Journalism does not pursue truth in an absolute or philosophical sense, but it can–and must–pursue it in a practical sense. This “journalistic truth” is a process that begins with the professional discipline of assembling and verifying facts.”
“Even in a world of expanding voices, accuracy is the foundation upon which everything else is built–context, interpretation, comment, criticism, analysis and debate. The truth, over time, emerges from this forum. ”
“The method is objective, not the journalist. Seeking out multiple witnesses, disclosing as much as possible about sources, or asking various sides for comment, all signal such standards.”
“While editorialists and commentators are not neutral, the source of their credibility is still their accuracy, intellectual fairness and ability to inform–not their devotion to a certain group or outcome. “
I didn’t say he died twelve days ago, I said he died twelve days after being shot four times.
No problem mirax, we just have different attitudes to death. I’m not defending the man. I didn’t shed a tear when he died, nor did I jump for joy.
xyz you make some good points in #50. In fact, on the subject of press self-censorship, I am probably less interested in – or rather follow less closely – events in India than many here. I don’t visit often and feel quite alienated. I say this because as a result I don’t read much Indian press, other than perhaps when writing a PP post. I do, however, watch NDTV now and again and have found it to be fairly good at reporting with neutrality and not omitting any major stories, no matter who is concerned.
Welcome back mirax
xyz
Do you think that maybe the fact that a few thousand Muslims were barbecued, raped, murdered in mass graves, burnt out of their homes, sent to live in refugee camps, had their shrines and mosques razed to the ground, in what was basically a state sanctioned genocide four years ago, with the architects and killers free as a bird, AND IN OFFICE might have something to do with the feeling of victimisation and differential in the reaction between Muslims and Hindus to the demolition of a dargah that is 200 years old? And that the whole thing was not slightly provocative?
Maybe just a teensy-weensy bit to do with it?
Not even a tiny-winy amount?
Yes?
No?
Maybe?
Rohin,
I didn’t mean to imply that there isn’t any decent journalism being done in India. I think India was just voted as having the freeest or one of the freeest presses in the world. However, I still find major problems and neuroses and outright imbalance and placing different values on lives when covering sensitive topics (from publications representing all hues of the political spectrum), and in the end it’s the public that loses out, no matter what their religion or caste or lack thereof.
Even some of the supposedly respected print (and I focus more on print) or TV outlets often have shockingly woeful coverage of complex, multifaceted issues. I know these problems can be found in the press around the world, not just India. I just think any outside coverage of issues in India would do well to cite multiple sources and viewpoints and biases (as say the Washington Post does in its roundup of global news coverage on a particular issue) so that between all of them, at least most of the facts get covered and people can judge for themselves. You can still have your viewpoint and take sides, but at least present things more equitably. Even if it is just for appearance’s sake.
“xyz
Do you think that maybe the fact that a few thousand Muslims were barbecued, raped, murdered in mass graves, burnt out of their homes, sent to live in refugee camps, had their shrines and mosques razed to the ground, in what was basically a state sanctioned genocide four years ago, with the architects and killers free as a bird, AND IN OFFICE might have something to do with the feeling of victimisation and differential in the reaction between Muslims and Hindus to the demolition of a dargah that is 200 years old? And that the whole thing was not slightly provocative?”
I don’t think you’ve understand what I’ve said. Of course it affects their feelings. Just as other people’s feelings are affected by aggression against them. Other people are people too, not everyone belongs to a mindless mob. Of course I can understand that they would feel victimised. And maybe one can blame the govt. for not reassuring them that this is just a part of wider demolishment and doesn’t target them. That’s what’s called context and I am all for taking it into account. But as Mirax said, it doesn’t excuse violence or killing people because you’re upset. And it doesn’t excuse poor or shoddy reporting. The whole truth will eventually come out – but that doesn’t excuse sloppy, incomplete and sometimes downright dishonest recountings of events.
It isn’t just Vadodara. In recent months, this same pattern has been seen in Lucknow, in Mau – members of one community object to something, become violent, kill a few people (who don’t get any or much mention because they happen to be from the “wrong” commuinity media-wise) and then riots break out and revenge is taken and the story comes out as : majority community harassing and persecuting minority. That’s the end story that reaches the outside world. All previous facts are buried or forgotten. And invariably those end stories will find some way to mention Gujarat etc. even though it had absolutely nothing to do with that.
Didn’t you say on the Bradford thread that the NF’s actions shouldn’t really excuse the actions of the rioters? Would you say then that in the aftermath of 9/11 Americans were justified to be extra jumpy around people who looked like the terrorists and to react differently to them than they would have before and to live in fear of them? It’s a human impulse after all, not just one restricted to Gujarat. Americans probably were quite justified then after witnessing the tragic events of that day. But were they justified in attacking people in revenge? No. Of course the American state behaved much more responsibly than the Gujarat govt.. I don’t deny that.
In the end, I’m looking at this primarily from a journalistic point of view. I’m not saying it was wrong of the Muslims to protest the dargah destruction. That’s their right. But to assume, without providing any evidence, that the law was there to persecute them, is also irresponsible and further fans the flames without any proof. Rights go both ways. But when covering the story, mention the context, mention the facts, mention EVERYONE who was killed and by whom. Take everyone to task – police and public of any religious background. Paternalistic shielding and copping out doesn’t help and excuses illegal behavior, no matter who does it.
And because this is Gujarat, does that mean that for perpetuity, every Muslim act is to be excused or assumed to be the innocent party and that every Hindu is automatically a bigot and every action taken by a Hindu in Gujarat that happens to affect a Muslim is de facto anti-Muslim? Again, proper coverage would help prevent those sort of attitudes and the opposite and equal attitude of “Muslims are the cause of all problems” which crop up around the globe because of actions taken by some of them.
My point to Mirax is that context is vital, but not just for Muslims. It’s also vital to others as well (in this case those Hindus who were murdered by Muslims angered by the dargah destruction). By all means mention Modi and the past in stories about the dargah demonstration, by all means excoriate him and lament that he’s not behind bars or worse, but by all means please also mention the murder of Hindus when tallking about a Hindu mob taking revenge – which again cannot be excused. The fact that Modi is not in prison does not excuse violence of any kind and does not excuse incomplete reportage.
As for it being provocative, the tearing down of any shrine is provocative. The tearing down of a Hindu shrine in Tripura, where they live in fear and have been intimidated because of their religious views – and in some parts of the northeast there is an ongoing “genocide” against certain minority Hindu and tribal communities. Why is it so wrong for me to ask that the media give them their due as well? Is Gujarat all there is to India? (Even the Narmada Dam problem gets more attention because it’s associated with that state. There is a similar outcry over another dam, but it doesn’t get the same media or celebrity attention even though the issues are somewhat the same)
If the Hindus of Tripura had become violent and killed non-Hindus because of their justified fear, do you honestly think the media or even you or mirax would have the same sympathetic attitude you have to the dargah case? Would you have taken the trouble to look into their particulars that drove them to behave like that? If Hindus in Kashmir bombed a mosque or slit the throats of 32 Muslims, would the media be worrying about the particulars that drove them to it? Would they even identify the Hindus as “minority people killed by members of the majority community.” And killings of Hindus in Kashmir are state-sponsored to a certain extent (as are killings of innocent Kashmiris by Indian forces). But both those heads of govt. aren’t in jail either. Neither are the people in the present Congress government who oversaw the slaughter of Sikhs in 1984. I’m amazed that that fact is not mentioned in every story about the party (the way its mentioned in every story about the previous NDA govt) – the family that oversaw it is not only in power but being feted as the savior maharajahs and maharanis of India. Instead the party is touted as the “secular party” of India. Secular? When it appointed the main culprits of 1984 to some of its highest posts? Again journalistic and public double standards. Or some killings can be more easily forgiven than others, apparently.
I resisted commenting on this thread for awhile because I know no matter what I say or how I put it across, people like you will accuse me of being insensitive, a Hindutva supporter etc. I have a background in journalism so I have a very strong interest in how things are covered. I don’t support murderers, tyrants, dictators, religious bigots of any hue or religion. And I don’t think that because I see a need for more equitable press coverage of similar situations and issues, and at least the semblance or appearance of actually caring about and valuing each life as the same – but affecting different communities — in India and elsewhere, that that equates to me condoning any despicable or barbaric behavior.
even ordinary Hindus like myself who are very frustrated by some appalling double standards in reportage and govt. reaction to incidents in India.
xyz – join the queue mate. Name me one religious group that doesn’t think they get reported accurately.
Given that Gujarat has a big black mark against it since 2002, my primary concern here was that these murders lead to more state-wide riots.
Most of the time I try and have a blind-spot about religion. I don’t care about anyone, and I care about everyone, equally. So I posted on what happened with a few links – it’s probably your job to post below and give the full picture if you so wish. If things had gotten worse then I would have but initially I just wanted to highlight this as something to watch for. I get accused of being anti-Hindu, anti-Sikh, anti-Muslim all the time. I’ve dealt with it, so should you
I understood what you said XYZ – and I dont think you understand fully why Sunny or anyone else flips when they see anything with even a whiff of trouble in Gujarat. It is because that place is abnormal.
If you accept this you will see why your big long dissertations are misplaced – there are good reasons for being extremely concerned and highlighting what happens there – it has a track record. To the matter in hand double standards becomes a secondary issue.
Do you get that? Do you understand why people start howling when that place gets taken to the brink? That genocide was real and was state supported. Those issues are still there, and you should accept that. It is not some conspiracy of double standards – its a very real and alive concern for who the only blame lies with the fascist factions who carried out the killing – same reason people flip whenever there is an inkling of an Islamist extremist attack in the West – because there is a record of this.
Sunny and Jay, I never said don’t highlight what happens there. And I didn’t accuse Sunny of being anti-Hindu or Jay. I’ve read enough PP posts to know that is not true. I do however think you have some blindspots when it comes to coverage of certain situations and don’t like to let the facts get in the way of your assumptions or bigger point you’re trying to make.
I am not ignoring that those issues are still there in Gujarat and there is reason to worry. I don’t deny what happened at all. I do have issues with how it was covered and the major holes in the coverage and the different standards of coverage (and the utter dishonesty of some coverage) and hypocritical reaction to events there and elsewhere in India. I just wish people would also pay attention to some of the other abnormalities in India and not apply Gujarat or other heavily and incorrectly publicized affairs to coverage of those incidents, which should be judged on their own merits.
I could write you a formula and evolutionary timeline for the press coverage of certain events in India, complete with key words to use and key phrases and key quotes and which key facts to include at which stage or week of the issue. I can tell you which people will get involved and start writing about the issue at what stage of the issue and what they will highlight and what they will not. I could manufacture a whole article right now
It’s like listening to sports commentary. After awhile you realize anyone could just repeat a bunch of phrases and sound intelligent.
“Most of the time I try and have a blind-spot about religion. I don’t care about anyone, and I care about everyone, equally.”
Believe it or not, that’s exactly how I feel. Most of the time I’m an utter misanthrope. If a meteor came and destroyed the whole human race (and all religions with it), but left the other species, I would probably be happy to sacrifice myself. But in the absence of that miracle, I’m an equal opportunity person and can’t stand double standards.
xyz,
I for one appreciate you taking pains to explain your point of view – which is in itself entirely reasonable and correct.
We get too defensive – like Vikrant inevitably does when it comes to these hindu-muslim issues ( as I have on occasion on similar issues) and the name-calling starts and the thread simply disintegrates.
I know that I often don’t have the patience (or the skill) to lay out my arguments with both precision and nuance. Part of the problem is the informal and somewhat hit and run nature of blogging commentary. Like my comment about Pramod Mahajan. It undoubtedly sounded crass and maybe a bit too personal to some when in reality, I was not that exercised by this man’s death other than to to feel a small sense of relief for the reason given. But then someone reacts adversely and I find myself, er, sort of overstating my case, you know.
PP will be great blog if we can all get past our knee-jerk reactions.
Have to go out for dinner now- goodnight!
Dear friends please read this column by Swapan Dasgupta. Mr Dasgupta was for several years the managing editor of India Today and is now a much respected columnist. He is in my opinion the most outstanding Indian columnist by many millions of miles. If possible please circulate this article amongst other friends so that they know the truth about the motivated and pernicious campaign waged by a well entrenched fifth-column out to demonise and villify Gujarat and its chief minister Narendra Modi.
Warm regards,
http://www.dailypioneer.com/indexn12.asp?main_variable=front%5Fpage&file_name=story1%2Etxt&counter_img=1
Sunny did i mention this theme sucks asss….. darn PP looks like an SM mirror
“darn PP looks like an SM mirror”
How?
Sunny,
I think the new ‘skin’/theme is cool – it’s modern, minimalist, and easy-going on the eye. You just need to get the bearings right: i.e., text overlaps or criss-crosses on certain pages. Besides that, a very welcome improvement – especially its layout (having the picklers section at the top of the page, for instance).
Don’t listen to the ‘player –haters’!
I have one suggestion, perhaps a few more ‘recent comments’? I quite like the last layout’s list of about 20. What do others think?
it’s a bit pastel, isn’t it?
Don,
Maybe Sunny’s going for the Don Johnson/Miami Vice look. Or the Graham Norton look. You can never tell with Sunny.
Jai, ha ha ha ha!
WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU COMBINE BOTH?
THIS.