Tackling Islamic Extremism in India - 3

Apu · Post by **Apu** » 29 Dec 2007 18:21

Added later: May I add that Dhimmis, GOI et al are paralysing our response to the terrorist onslaught on India, this by itself is a can of worms to say the least

prashanth · Post by **prashanth** » 29 Dec 2007 18:51

shiv wrote:
eklavya wrote: Surely, the question is what one does about all of these problems, and how one goes about dealing with them. Just not sure that focussing on religion is the right way to tackle these problems.
Sorry. This is avoidance of a question that has as much reality as poverty or anything else. Everything must be addresssed, including this. This is an area that people find all sorts of excuses to avoid. That is wrong.

I second this opinion. Every problem,big or small has to be given the attention it deserves.
The problem of homegrown terrorism has to be nipped in the bud. It cannot be quelled if it becomes a fully grown tree. If terrorist acts are not responded to with brutality, the IMs will see them as an holy adventure and feel encouraged to become terrorists themselves. Terror can be suppressed only with brutality.
If this requires making rules that adversly affect the religion so be
it, for the sake of a larger good. After all, we do not have to submit annual report to UN on how secular we are. JMHO.

alokgupt · Post by **alokgupt** » 29 Dec 2007 19:57

Kolkata is emerging as a corridor of terrorism between Bangladesh and India

Uttar Pradesh serial blast accused held in Kolkata

Altaf Ansari, a senior member of the Harkat-ul-Jehad-al-Islami (HuJI) militant group wanted for carrying out the serial blasts in Uttar Pradesh in November, was arrested from a house in Baranagar area in Kolkata, the police said on Saturday.

"Ansari was living in a house on the Cossipore Road in Kolkata for quite some time. He was arrested around 2 pm on Friday in a joint operation of the West Bengal Criminal Investigation Department (CID) and the Special Task Force (STF) of the Uttar Pradesh police," Rajiv Kumar, Director General of Police (CID), told IANS.

"The STF of the Uttar Pradesh police had asked for help to capture the militant. A joint operation led to his arrest. He is being interrogated," Kumar said, adding that Ansari would be produced in the Alipur police court.

Answari, also known as Raju, is one of the most wanted militants who was involved in the November 23 serial blasts in Uttar Pradesh's Lucknow, Varanasi and Faizabad court premises that killed over a dozen people and left injured more than 50.

On December 25, in a joint operation, the Uttar Pradesh and Jammu and Kashmir police arrested two HuJI militants from Doda area of the Jammu region for their involvement in the blasts.

The two, identified as Sajjad and Tariq Kashmiri alias Akhthar, were arrested by the police forces of the two states along with sleuths of central security agencies.

The names of these militants, including Altaf, came up during the interrogation of HuJI militants Mohammed Khalid and Tariq, arrested by Uttar Pradesh police's Special Task Force and central security agencies on December 21.

The blasts were carried out after the militants received orders from their commanders in Jammu and Kashmir.

Harkat-ul-Jihad-al-Islami (HuJI), meaning Movement of Islamic Holy War, is a Sunni Islamic fundamentalist paramilitary organisation active in Bangladesh and India since the 1990s. It was banned in Bangladesh in 2005 and was earlier labelled a terrorist organisation by the US in the late 1990s.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 29 Dec 2007 21:31

Apu wrote:.....In the same way, enraged Hindus going on the rampage due to their voices and rights being grossly surpressed by the GOI (for votes), the HISIs and the dhimmedia will be equally destructive to our motherland.....

Absolutely Apu. i see people going around with a massive delusion. It's like a surreal drama that takes place in the higher echelons of society.

People have grown up convinced that Hindus are "tolerant and secular". But yet, we read news day in and day out that Hindus are doing this and doing that.
Either these reports are false or they are true.

Fact is, many reports are true. Hindus ARE taking what they consider is theirs. But as they do that, there is a massive guilt trip or denial from others.

Some people say "Hindus are not like that. they are tolerant". Other people go into patronizing lecture mode and say "Hindus should not do this" "This is to be condemned"

No point going on a guilt trip. No point avoiding facts. Hindus are not tolerant of what is intolerable. They have a grievance. Those grievances need to be addressed with more honesty and openness than has been the case so far.

Hindus do tolerate. They do accept. But they will not be taken for a ride forever. If they face terrorism from Islamic groups day in and day out and are then told that it is their fault for being intolerant they will sit back and swallow that story only so long as it takes for them to realise that no amount of "tolerance" from them will get rid of islamist aggression. At that stage they will take law into their own hands.

If the government does nothing to address their grievances or at least sympathetically bring them to the arena of public discussion, Hindus have nothing to lose and everything to gain by becoming violent.

Once the violence goes beyond a point and a lot of deaths have occurred, it will no longer be possible to lecture to the majority Hindus and tell them to "Behave" and stop violence for the simple reason that they will then know that violence actually works. Holding the nation to ransom will work in attracting attention and meeting demands. And Hindus know that Muslims have successfully held the nation to ransom in the past. How encouraging.

I believe that people need to remove blinkers and stop deluding themselves about Hindu history, Hindu behavioral tendencies and Hindu grievances. You treat the Hindu fairly and he will be fair to others.

No human group can be blindly tolerant and secular when they are feeling cheated. That behavior comes only when faced with death. The threat of death will make you tolerate egregious conditions. Hindus hardly face death now and will make demands. If those demands are just - as some are, they will be Hindus and fight a dharmic war with as much zeal as a jihadi.

Someone asked "What is dhimmitude?". Dhimmitude is the behavior of being tolerant under threat of death or punishment. Hindus were dhimmis in the past and were super tolerant. This tolerance was forced, not natural. Now that the threat of punishment has passed, Hindus will reclaim what is their and what has been denied to them. And as long as they realise their claim is fair, they will be willing to fight.And kill.

Warning shots have already been fired, and the sooner blinkers come off, the better.

No use telling Hindus "We will become like them". Hindus will certainly become like them if they realise that bad behavior and wild demands is the route to mollycoddling, as it seems to be for Muslims.

And like I said. No skin off my nose. I am Hindu..

Apu · Post by **Apu** » 29 Dec 2007 23:36

An excellent find by Vsudhir, X posted from the psy-ops thread.....more evidence to show the sinister intentions of EJs and their sophistication.....

The battle of the books

http://www.economist.com/world/internat ... d=10311317 The Bible V the Koran

In many parts of the world, battle seems to be in progress. The Saudis will not allow the Bible to be distributed on their soil. Many Evangelical Christians are fixated on what they call the 10/40 windowâ€”the vast swathe of the Islamic world in Africa and Asia that lies between latitudes 10 and 40 north of the equator. The Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in Texas has even created a masters degree to train missionaries in the art of converting Muslims. Some Evangelicals produce counterfeit Korans that are designed to plant doubt in Muslim minds.

Rye · Post by **Rye** » 30 Dec 2007 00:32

ekalavya wrote:

I forgot to add Brett Lee, Stuart Clark, and Mitchell Johnson in my list of India's most pressing problems requiring urgent attention ....

So basically you are saying that you are in this discussion to disrupt it?

Having said that, I still believe that our real problems are tackling malnutrition, illiteracy, disease, unemployment, etc. and our true enemies are corruption, un-accountable government, discriminatory attitude to girls, dowry, etc

So, ignoring all available evidence, everyone here is supposed to swallow your worthless nonsense that *there is no problem* caused by dhimmis or with islam?

The irony is you are a case study in the attitudes that need to be rectified if there is to be some sane public discourse on this and various other pressing issues.

eklavya · Post by **eklavya** » 30 Dec 2007 01:18

Rye, have you been reading my old report cards? "An ignorant imbecile with an attitude problem" was one of the nicer things my housemaster had to write about me. The development points alas did not include "needs to be less tolerant, less secular, and adopt a more violent approach to solving disagreements" - it was a rather old fashioned sort of place - specialised in turning duffers and no-hopers into future cabinet ministers.

Rye · Post by **Rye** » 30 Dec 2007 01:24

ekalavya wrote:

The development points alas did not include "needs to be less tolerant, less secular, and adopt a more violent approach to solving disagreements" -

Your comment on the australian cricketers (I am guessing -- I do not follow the sport) indicates to me that you think that this is just some old-fashioned whining by sections of the hindu community that are feeling aggrieved for no good reason -- at least that is how I read it.

Did anyone else deny those development problems you listed (the entire Tech Forum is devoted this)? Or do you think you are the only person here to figure all that out? Why should the existence of those problems have any effect what so ever (one way or another) on the problem of exclusivist islamo-nazist ideology/behaviour and its regressive effects on any group of humans, and the serious number of Indians who are susceptible to such ideology given increasing islamic behaviour in the mainstream --- attacks on literary figures like Ms. Nasreen, on Sania Mirza's doctor (because Muslim women should not play tennis), and Haji Yaqoob Qureishi, UP religious minister openly placing a bounty for 5 crore Rs. on the heads of the Danish Cartoonists that dared to draw the picture of Mohammed.....events that most of their muslim compatriots pretend never happened...how can they correct issues in their community without acknowledging the problems first?

What is your motivation for trivializing the problem in the manner that you have done? Do you think this is all a figment of our collective imaginations?

The fact is that law and order cannot be maintained in any democracy without public cooperation, but if the islamists in our midst start to deny constitutional rule and the dhimmis in our midst refuse to acknowledge concerns that are making their way increasingly in the public space, and it is the Indian muslims that are at terrible risk.

Add to this islamist countries seeking to invest an astronomical amount of money into the Indian economy, and a lack of recognition of the obvious, and the problem gets a little more intractable than it already is.

Also, large number of Indians are not going to exhibit "govt. approved Hindu behaviour" just because you want them to. There are certain things that are beyond anyone's control.

eklavya · Post by **eklavya** » 30 Dec 2007 02:08

Rye, I am not trying to trivialise the problem of Islamic fundamentalism and Islamic terrorism. It is so very obviously one of the biggest problems facing India and the world at large (9/11, the Parliament attack, Madrid train bombing, London tube bombing, Bali, etc etc etc).

Do you really think that the Government of India doesn't consider Islamic terrorism (homegrown and cross-border) one of the biggest problems facing India? I believe they are as bothered by it as much as anyone on tis forum. The GoI and the various State governments are trying to deal with the problem as best it can within constitutional means, and unfortunately, sometimes, with extra-constitutional means (a number of "encounters" are in fact extra judicial summary executions).

Where I get concerned and what I will not agree with come what may is the call to descend into tribalism i.e. where an attack on a Hindu by a Muslim terrorist turns into an attack by "Muslims" on "Hindus", which then justifies "Hindus" targeting "Muslims" at large, and then the descent to hell begins. This is exactly what the terrorist want - to polarise the entire population on religious lines - and a trap that we must not fall into.
Been there, done that, in 1947, and we do not want to ever go there again.

So, whatever we do to tackle Islamic terrorism - regulate the Madrassas, regulate their curriculum, licence their teachers, ban hate speech, invest in better human int, invest in better electronic int, install CCTV in public spaces (my favourite!), etc etc - it must not lead to a polarisation of the country on religious lines. If that happens, the terrorists win.

I hope you will do me the courtesy to agree that we share the same goal (defeating terrorism). I am merely trying to have a civilised debate on the right approach to defeating terrorism. If you think I am troll, I shall not waste your time with any more posts (as you can see, I am hardly a regular contributor to BR).

vsudhir · Post by **vsudhir** » 30 Dec 2007 02:09

Minorities protest school reforms in Kerala (India Today)

[quote]The latest to bring minority ire against the Left are the recommendationsâ€” expected to be madeâ€”by an expert committee formed by the state government to amend the 50-year-old Kerala Educational Rules. Both Christian churches and Muslim religious organisations are already agitated even after the Governmentâ€™s repeated assurance that none of the feared recommendations would be implemented and that they have not yet been finalised by the expert committee.

â€œWe are neither contemplating any changes in school timings, which would clash with madrasa classes nor is there a proposal to allow boys and girls sit together. This is a calumny spread by vested interests against the Government,â€

Rye · Post by **Rye** » 30 Dec 2007 02:14

ekalavya wrote:

. If you think I am troll, I shall not waste your time with any more posts (as you can see, I am hardly a regular contributor to BR).

Apologies if I over-reacted on your cricket comment -- just a knee-jerk reaction to people with insufficient history exhibiting disruptive behaviour -- I can see you do not belong to that category. Peace. Agree in general about the whole minimization of violence principle that you outlined -- after all that is the main reason why this topic is being discussed.

eklavya · Post by **eklavya** » 30 Dec 2007 02:55

Rye, no apology needed. Peace.

SwamyG · Post by **SwamyG** » 30 Dec 2007 04:40

eklavya wrote:
SwamyG wrote:Tackling Islamic Extremism? What does it mean:
1. Does it mean turning more Kafur doves to Kafur Hawks?
2. Does it mean turning more Islamic hawks to Islamic doves?
3. Does it mean to force the existing Kafur & Islamic doves to take action against the Islmaist hawks?
4. Does it mean a social-engineering to reform Islam itself? As Islam is the underlying 800 pound gorilla when it comes to Islamism?
5. Reducing the number and intensity of communal riots?
6. Reducing terror attacks?
7. Cutting Islamisim's string to Arabia?
8. Destroying Islamism without affecting Islam?(Is that even possible?)

It could be either one or all of the above. It could also be more than what I listed above. When we say we want to tackle Islamism in India, what exactly are our expectations, what are and should be our goals? The goals might or might not be achievable in our life item. Even if not achievable in a life time, one still need to define the expectations and prioritize them.
Good question Swamy. Had been wondering that myself. Had mistakenly assumed the issue was counter-terrorism.

On this thread it appears to mean holding forth on "dhimmis", whatever that/they may be,advocating an intolerant and non-secular approach to minorities, and claiming a Hindu cultural / historical / theological basis for doing so, without, of course, offering any evidence whatsoever for that viewpoint, or that such an approach would help to achieve the desired goals, which as you have rightly pointed out, remain unspecified.

Eklavya:
Honestly, I did not understand your point

The thread "Islamism..." had seen innumerable avatars after I became a member and had countless (it seems like) versions before. The dangers of Islamism have been discussed. The consensus that existed, when I became a member, was that the political facet of Islam posed a threat to the way of life as we know it in India. This thread is an extension to the other threads.

My question was an exercise to consolidate previous thoughts into some goals. What exactly do we want? Zimple

Or is everything just for enlightenment?

Some times it is far telling on the agenda when questions go answered. But the danger is one ends up making assumptions and there is no validation of them. Then the only thing left is to follow the trends and patterns of the threads.

Sanjay M · Post by **Sanjay M** » 30 Dec 2007 04:56

This was a good editorial piece:

http://www.dnaindia.com/report.asp?newsid=1141664

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 30 Dec 2007 05:52

Ok folks - I have created another graphic to illustrate my thoughts regarding how Islamic extremism is being handled, and the route it should take for better progress.

All that we have discussed, dhimmitude, Hindu dhimmi liberalism that tends towards criticizing Hindus always and never Muslims, Hindu anger and intolerance to continuing insults all come into play in this flow chart.

The right half with red arrows appears to be the vicious cycle that India is getting into.

I would like to see more of left half with blue arrows pointing towards a solution.

I would appreciate comments and corrections.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 30 Dec 2007 06:53

eklavya wrote: Where I get concerned and what I will not agree with come what may is the call to descend into tribalism i.e. where an attack on a Hindu by a Muslim terrorist turns into an attack by "Muslims" on "Hindus", which then justifies "Hindus" targeting "Muslims" at large, and then the descent to hell begins. This is exactly what the terrorist want - to polarise the entire population on religious lines - and a trap that we must not fall into.
Been there, done that, in 1947, and we do not want to ever go there again.

The problem with civilized debate occurs when civilized debate starts to avoid looking at thorny issues.

As long as we stay within our comfortable boxes, we will refuse to accept that the actions of people who refuse to stay in those boxes are affecting life.

Whether we want to discuss tit for tat actions by Hindus or not, such action is becoming commonplace. Babri Masjid and the post Godhra riots are merely the two most prominent examples of that.

We have looked at Muslims inside out, but are afraid to look at Hindus, whom we like to classify as a tolerant people.

Once we set in stone the definition that Hindus are tolerant, any deviation from this is described as "abnormal" and frantic emotional calls are made to restore "normalcy" and tolerance. I believe you have stated this sort of emotion.

All I am asking is that you step out of the box that tells you that Hindus are "tolerant". It then becomes easy to see how Hindus can sink into tribal retribution just as easily as we like to accuse Muslims of doing. Check what is happening in Orissa right now - but that is OT for this thread.

One of the bits of "meta-information" that has arisen from the discussions about Islam is that Islam tolerated Hindus as dhimmis. Dhimmi Hindus tolerated islam as a survival mechanism under pain of punishment.

Hindus are no longer required to compulsively tolerate the most egregious dictates of Islam under pain of death. Hindus have more or less sworn allegiance to the Indian constitution that is supposed to protect them from the death and punishment for "being themselves" that they may have got under Islamic law. But this often does not happen. Hindus still see themselves as taking punishment while obvious Muslim trespasses go unpunished. Hindus react angrily to this.

And this definitely creates new dynamics and puts new pressures on the Muslim community. While Hindus must be compelled not to pick on Muslims needlessly, it is completely wrong to dump all Hindu grievances as "bigotry against Muslims"

Please do not take this as an insult, but I do tend to see in your posts a great reluctance to address the dirtiest and most uncomfortable issues in Hindu Muslim relations. You prefer to stick to the positions that you were comfortable with in your past. With respect, this is exactly what is described as one component of cognitive dissonance in psychological terms. (The other component is anger at being forced to confront that which is uncomfortable and conflicting with existing attitudes in one's mind). But if true, you are not alone. The same reactions emerge from the highest levels of government , media and society in India

In real life, the very issues that need to be addressed are the worst, dirtiest and most contentious ones.

prashanth · Post by **prashanth** » 30 Dec 2007 08:56

Nice graphic Dr.Shiv.

The ultimate solution, in guess is enacting a uniform civil code for all citizens( with the abolition of polygamy being first). Re-enactment of POTA,TADA etc .

BTW is the threat of mob violence and disruption (in your graphic) is the only thing that prevents uniform civil(and criminal) code? I just thought that if Saudi Arabia can ask India to grant permission to build more madrasas, they can also hold the oil sales to India as a ransom. So if India takes strict action against erring muslims SA might stop selling oil to India. This will jeopardize our economy.After all India had invited the king of SA to the republic day ceremony.This economic angle also has to be taken into account and solutions have to be found. JMHO.
what is your opinion?

ShauryaT · Post by **ShauryaT** » 30 Dec 2007 09:43

amit wrote: I quoted a specific temple not all temples.

The temple was razed to the ground in 725 AD, 1024AD and 1297 AD by Muslim rulers. Each time the temple riches were looted.

But my point was not that - and I'm sorry you could not get to what I was trying to say. My point was that the kind of body blow that the destruction of place of worship can give to the two big revealed religions is not applicable to the Indic religions because they are not monolithic in nature.

amit: First, Congratulations for looking up those dates. My questions were meant for you to dig deeper. But do also try to find out if Somnath was looted for these riches or something else. Also, do lookup if these so called riches came from the temple complex or from the Somnath campaigns. A temple if destroyed for its riches would be like killing a goose, which lays golden eggs and the Islamists are not that stupid.

I got your point, but do not agree with it. You used Somnath as a wider example to say that the destruction of temples, resulted in a loss of wealth and not the "religion". You are now trying to use Somnath as a specific instance and not as a wider example. Please do not do this, as it only leads to your argument being a shifting sand. Hang around these threads, I and many others have learnt much.

Unlike, Christianity or Islam, Hinduism is not an organized religion. (I myself do not prefer the word â€œreligionâ€

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 30 Dec 2007 10:24

prashanth wrote:
The ultimate solution, in guess is enacting a uniform civil code for all citizens( with the abolition of polygamy being first). Re-enactment of POTA,TADA etc .

prashanth many things have to happen before such a code can be brought in. Many of these things are not what you and I can consciously "do" to "make happen"

Things are evolving by themselves, and among the best things for us to do is to remember that societies are not static and they move. Hindu society is moving towards saying and doing things that they have not done since long before the British came to India.

Muslim society too is moving, in its own way. For India, perhaps th best thing would be to get both these societies to move in a direction in which the meet and move in parallel rather than collide.

Collision was what occurred in the past, and Hindu defeat was always replaced by Islamic rule and dhimmitude. Islam is an adversarial faith and remains so. When Islam is down, as it is now, it stops being openly adversarial but sinks into pockets of dar-ul Islam where it stays cosy, unchanging and protected.

That core of unchanging attitudes has to be changed. If appeals and good sense do not change it, it will come into collision with Hinduism and the result will be bloody. Hinduism has mutated into an entity far beyond what it used to be 1000 years ago.

prashanth · Post by **prashanth** » 30 Dec 2007 12:10

Muslim society too is moving, in its own way. For India, perhaps th best thing would be to get both these societies to move in a direction in which the meet and move in parallel rather than collide.

Dr.Shiv, point taken.

Yes, it is to India's advantage if Muslim society can co exist and evolve peacefully in India. This can happen if all Indian muslims develop patriotism and sense of belongingness towards India ,and respect other religions.

Pulikeshi · Post by **Pulikeshi** » 30 Dec 2007 12:21

Shiv,

Sorry to point the obvious -

We on BRF are having a winding (ad nauseam) discussion among ourselves. This discussion on the left hand of your diagram needs to happen with representatives from Indian Muslims. I see no evidence of their view points on this forum or on this thread. So we can brilliantly continue talking to a predominantly Hindu crowd with various degrees of appreciation and understanding of the issues at hand!

In the meanwhile, I continue to enjoy with beer and popcorn!

alokgupt · Post by **alokgupt** » 30 Dec 2007 12:30

Pulikeshi wrote:Shiv,

Sorry to point the obvious -

We on BRF are having a winding (ad nauseam) discussion among ourselves. This discussion on the left hand of your diagram needs to happen with representatives from Indian Muslims. I see no evidence of their view points on this forum or on this thread. So we can brilliantly continue talking to a predominantly Hindu crowd with various degrees of appreciation and understanding of the issues at hand!

In the meanwhile, I continue to enjoy with beer and popcorn!

We discuss about Pakistan all day along with not a single Porkie on this forum.

There is no such thing as "representatives from Indian Muslims". Each person will make up his own mind.

I doubt that all members are equally aware or in 100% agreement on this.

Pulikeshi · Post by **Pulikeshi** » 30 Dec 2007 12:43

alokgupt,

You misunderstand my comment. A discussion is a two way street:

BRF members educating themselves - irrespective of their religious affiliations - is one thing.

This thread is about tackling "Islamic Extremism in India". The suggestion of the image is to have a discussion rather than continue the cycle of violence and misunderstanding. This requires talking to the other party! Where are we discussing anything with Islamists or their garden variety cousins?

Seems like all we are doing is discussing among like minded individuals - ad nauseam

But please dont stop based on my comment - I can exercise my right to tune out anytime I choose to

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 30 Dec 2007 13:03

Pulikeshi wrote: We on BRF are having a winding (ad nauseam) discussion among ourselves. This discussion on the left hand of your diagram needs to happen with representatives from Indian Muslims. I see no evidence of their view points on this forum or on this thread. So we can brilliantly continue talking to a predominantly Hindu crowd with various degrees of appreciation and understanding of the issues at hand!

In the meanwhile, I continue to enjoy with beer and popcorn!

I'm glad you're enjoying it. Every time the thread goes up it gets viewership - which has a dynamic of its own, albeit unpredictable.

Allow me to point out what may not be obvious. I don't really give a damn about who is here to express his viewpoint or who isn't. But at least I learn. If anyone else gains anything it is an unexpected side effect.

Your lament about Indian Muslims is an old one, but I believe you forget one important fact. Even the people who have to talk to those Indian Muslims are not on here so getting one and half Muslims to have a say on here will increase heat and thread hit count but will not make a whit of a difference to what actually happens. It's only when you get tipsy enough to imagine that any change is going to come from forum onanism that it will be necessary to sober up a bit.

Till then.. yenjaay

Pulikeshi · Post by **Pulikeshi** » 30 Dec 2007 13:18

Shiv,

Yep! Its good to be king - or better yet admin!

Have no fear - I suffer from no illusion of change coming from any discussion here. I was merely pointing out the obvious as you asked for feedback.

Please continue with the regular program..

sanjaychoudhry · Post by **sanjaychoudhry** » 30 Dec 2007 13:24

Pulikeshi wrote:alokgupt,

You misunderstand my comment. A discussion is a two way street:

BRF members educating themselves - irrespective of their religious affiliations - is one thing.

This thread is about tackling "Islamic Extremism in India". The suggestion of the image is to have a discussion rather than continue the cycle of violence and misunderstanding. This requires talking to the other party! Where are we discussing anything with Islamists or their garden variety cousins?

Seems like all we are doing is discussing among like minded individuals - ad nauseam

But please dont stop based on my comment - I can exercise my right to tune out anytime I choose to

What you mean to say is that no discussion on tackling Taliban is possible anywhere in the world till Osama Bin Laden personally takes part in it. HIndus have to tackle Islamism in India. They are discussing among themselves about the best way to go about it. Why is presence of Muslims required? It is like saying that when Nazis were discussing how to capture England, British commanders should have been made a part of the discussion.

Pulikeshi · Post by **Pulikeshi** » 30 Dec 2007 13:40

Sanjaychoudhry,

Your argument for tackling Taliban, Nazis, etc are irrelevant to this thread.
You and others seem to move back and forth from Islamism thread to this thread without looking at the boundary this thread limits it self to -
namely tackling Islamist Extremism in India.

sanjaychoudhry wrote: HIndus have to tackle Islamism in India. They are discussing among themselves about the best way to go about it. Why is presence of Muslims required?

This is exactly the kind of statement that should worry anyone wanting to make Indian Muslims partners in the march to a better future.
What solution do you propose that Indian Muslims need not be privy to???

We are talking about citizens of India here when we are talking "Tackling Islamic Extremism in India".
I'd suggest that those citizens or their sympathizers be represented to avoid calumny and aid the learning and discussions proposed by Shiv.
That is my feedback whether anyone likes it or not.

This thread is about tackling "Islamic Extremism in India" Further, the image offered by Shiv suggested dialog - before common civil law suggested earlier, etc. - as the way forward. Further see the box (Address Islamic Community Issues Openly and Boldly) - if we did so, I'd like the response from the Indian Islamic community. Shiv has already suggested that as far as he is concerned - it is immaterial who make a suggestion as long as he learns. Learning happens only when you understand the other persons point of view. That is my humble opinion.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 30 Dec 2007 14:35

Pulikeshi (or anyone) - if we assume that the left side of my flow chart requires Muslims, would you agree that the right side is where we are headed nowadays - including on this forum.

I belive that is so, and even NOT going further up the path on the right is a step forward. It will require no muslims to avoid that path. Only honesty among Hindus.

Furthermore it could be surmised that the path on the right is being taken BECAUSE nobody is seriously talking to Muslims and/or Muslims are unwilling to countenance anything other than protest against any changes or talk. Their attitudes, combined with the seculars agreeing taht teh "right wing" are at fault, are tending to push the whole dynamic towards the right side in my picture.

Any comments?

Apu · Post by **Apu** » 30 Dec 2007 16:35

Thousands gather demanding scrapping of the Ram Setu project

Hindustan Times

Thousands of supporters of VHP and other Hindu religious organisations on Sunday assembled in New Delhi in support of their demand to scrap the Ram Setu project in Tamil Nadu.

Addressing the gathering, RSS 'Sarsanghachalak' KS Sudarshan cautioned the UPA government at Centre against going ahead with the project.

"Ram Setu signifies India's cultural heritage. We will not allow the government to go ahead with the project."

Sudarshan said the project would create many socio-economic problems for the people living in the coastal areas of Tamil Nadu and Kerala.

"Not only Hindus but Muslims and Christians are also opposing the project," he claimed.

The RSS chief appealed to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh not to succumb to the pressure of DMK to execute the project.

"The Prime Minister should not think about the survival of his government. If he scraps the project, he will get good wishes of the crores of Hindus," Sudarshan said.

More than 50,000 supporters of Sangh Parivar affiliated organisations from Bihar, Madhya Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh, Maharashtra, Gujarat, Karnataka, Tamil Nadu, Delhi and other states participated in the rally.

Prominent among those present in the rally include BJP president Rajnath Singh, Madhya Pradesh Chief Minister Shivraj Singh Chauhan, Chhattisgarh Chief Minister Raman Singh, BJP general secretary Arun Jaitley, senior leader Sushma Swaraj, VHP leader Pravin Togadia besides others.

BJP patriarch Atal Bihari Vajpaee has sent a message to the organisers wishing all success of the rally. Senior party leader and Prime Ministerial candidate L K Advani is also expected to address the gathering later in the day.

vsudhir · Post by **vsudhir** » 30 Dec 2007 16:58

Furthermore it could be surmised that the path on the right is being taken BECAUSE nobody is seriously talking to Muslims and/or Muslims are unwilling to countenance anything other than protest against any changes or talk. Their attitudes, combined with the seculars agreeing taht teh "right wing" are at fault, are tending to push the whole dynamic towards the right side in my picture.

Any comments?

Agreed.

Syed Shahabuddin (not that he *has* to be taken as the sole rep of IMs) claimed in an interview some moons ago that (quoting verbatim) "If muslims have to choose between identity and development, we will choose identity".

Of course can't see them all as a monolith and all that, but something tells me for a good number of ghettoized IMs, this statement might just ring true.

Islam's one weakness is that its assertions can (and should) be challenged and demolished. Poobah is above criticism, apostasy==death sentence etc can and should be challenged. The resulting fight, if fought with toughness to the bitter end just might settle matters in favor of liberty and liberalism (or so we hope).

Lets face it, our fundamental grouse wiyth izlam (IMHO, of course) is that the fundamental sof islam are irrevocably opposed to liberty, liberalism and longterm peaceful coexistence with us kuffr.

Sadly, the champions of tolerance and liberalism (self-styled) are ready to sacrifice liberty at the alter of political correctness. The foldup our psecs demonstrated in the Taslima episode bares their hollowness nicely.

Step 1 is truth. With, without of despite IM involvement, disseminating truth can work wonders - truth about our history, truityh about religion, truth about terrorism, truth about jihad etc.

The reaction of IMs to step 1 will determine future steps. But there maybe no sidestepping of inconvenient truths (with apologies to Al Gore).

JMTs etc.

mangesh · Post by **mangesh** » 30 Dec 2007 17:47

shiv wrote:Pulikeshi (or anyone) - if we assume that the left side of my flow chart requires Muslims, would you agree that the right side is where we are headed nowadays - including on this forum.

I belive that is so, and even NOT going further up the path on the right is a step forward. It will require no muslims to avoid that path. Only honesty among Hindus.

Furthermore it could be surmised that the path on the right is being taken BECAUSE nobody is seriously talking to Muslims and/or Muslims are unwilling to countenance anything other than protest against any changes or talk. Their attitudes, combined with the seculars agreeing taht teh "right wing" are at fault, are tending to push the whole dynamic towards the right side in my picture.

Any comments?

I know very well, that I risk being considered as an unwanted troll, however I felt I should key in my experience, after all if someone
gains, it is well and good for we all Indians.

I have a number of times, tried to initiate intimate talks about the roots of religious discords with my friends of other religions/hindus. The situation (for most, as i have observed) is such that by practice of centuries it has become an anathema to talk of religious and (sometime caste too) discords even with friends who are relatively close enough. Mostly the society want to avoid explicit discord, but still clearly have discord running in important affairs as long as it is not something that is publicly detestable (such as terrorism).

At first I will say the general understanding I have about various conflicting religions in India.

All religions : Try to avoid discussing religious discords between friends and acquaintances as much as possible.

Hin : Mostly want to Ignore that there is some problem as long as his immediate kin and kith is directly effected. Use Ostrich-logic, by hiding the face in sand, mainly due to fear in accepting the problem, whose solution is not known. Use irrational (but still a fact) logic that Hinduism has survived so much in-spite of so much effort to decimate it and hence there is no need for me to sacrifice my efforts to protect it, anyway past say whatever it might be, Hinduism will survive. Try to find a balance to absolve himself from not doing anything for his culture using
- aryan dravidian theory
- Caste division theory
- After Independence we should forget past theory
- Atheism/rationalism which finds its main fight with hindu scriptures for atheist intellectuals, tends to make them oppose hindu concepts more than other trivial religious theories.
- we are also equally bad - balancing theory.
- Superstitions of hindu religions (eg astrology) questions my faith in rationalism.
- All religions are good, all of my friends of all religions too are good, but someone else (from hindu and other religions) whom I dont interact (very minority) is the bad. - All good theory.
- Self blame is risk free and increase respectability and credibility before secular crowd and minorities.
- Any hindu who takes up these controversies is an RSS minded fanatic who is not worth interacting.
- After all God realization is all that matters, i dont worry of rest.

Mus:

-Alla is the only way, please understand this truth, i will help u with all that i can.
-Argue freedom for wherever muslims are fighting.
(A very pious but moderate muslim friend once openly argued to me in a lunch session that what is Indias problem with Taliban, isnt it all kashmir, if that is solved , thats it. No hindus present uttered a word except me, they all did not wanted a relation spoiling)
(The same person in another time, when Beslan tragedy happened, expressed publicly that - why dont they give chechnia freedom, anyway they have given freedom to many other small states when russia broke. Isnt that the root cause? Peoples will should be done, be it kashmir or be it chechnia)
- Alla will ask me why didnt u tell ur hindu friend the truth that I am the only way.
(This is in reposne to my public question when my chris and mus friends openly took their stance to portray that Kanchi-seer is a horrible murderer with respect to the Sankar-mutt controversy.

Again it was a lunch session. No hindu uttered a word despite the mojority being hindus. Even one dhimmi started speaking as if Kanchi-seer seem like clearly guilty -[balancing act].

Again I couldnt sit idle. I asked for same treatment to Kanchi-seer as for bishops (sister abhaya-case) and Shafi-Imam-delhi (many) unless he is proven guilty. But all that support I got from hindu colleagues is mere silence.

Later as the lone fighter I asked a direct question to the group.
"All the laws of nature act on me and you people in same way. If we drink poison we all will die, all of us have blood and flesh, we have similar feelings and biology, then why do u chris and mus say that your way is the only way and everything else should be removed, isnt this the root cause of all conflicts??"

Mus response (after the chris response) - "Alla will ask me, when I meet him after death, that why didnt I implore to mangesh that ALLA is the only truth and I need freedom to convert for obeying ALLAs order"

Chris response - "Freedom to convert is the fundamental right given by Indian constitution, and that is an absolute necessity)

General response of non-hindus : "Everyone will say theirs is the perfect religion. That is natural. The ones which grows more is real one, and the ones which is diminishing is the pagan"

I was dump-struck.!!!

None of the hindus whom are majority uttered a word, they were just mute spectators.

At the end of this discussion, I understood the harsh reality that external display of moderation is just a facade and the reality that I have few real friends on whom I can trust.

Later tremendous amount of buffering and hard-work had to be done to de-dhimmify the hindu friends whom I interact closely. What that earned me initially was the untold title - "fanatic", which took months of patience and eye-opening to bring them into a state of semi-reality.

-Castism is also a reason for conversion
- Dont blame Islam, all muslims dont follow islam properly. He means terrorist may be muslims, but not Islamic-followers.

- A very un-practicing muslim friend - "I agree we have some fanatics, but RSS/VHP are the real devils". He is an extra-ordinary muslim who dont care about come with me to any temple. His only fear is that if India become unpsuedo-secular hindu fanatics may destroy his life, though he personally love to have all religions treated equally.

- Finally I met a very good paki punjabi when dining in a Nepali restaurant outside India. He told me openly that kashmir is not a worthy thing for us to keep fighting, it should be good if whatever India has is with India. But he also added that, it is not a popular opinion in pakistan. He said he dont want his kids to become fanatics so have put them in english school abroad though there is madrassa. He also said that he respect MK Gandhi and terribly wish peace with India. I told him, that no indian generally think too much of pakistan and conquering it. Inshort he was very open and cordial and was willing to discuss the real problems. In end he offered me any help legal or illegal in that area as he has lots and lots of contacts there. I denied with thanks and left a little amused seeing for the first time a sensible paki and a muslim.

Chris : [only a few points

]

- Jes is the only way
- Conversion is a constitutional guarantee
- Chris-nity gives more comfortable and feature-full life
- Aborginal dravidians are not hindus, only brahmins are.
- Why see the wrong dontcare neg point - see the good service to humanity done by them, isnt it because ur people dont care for the
downtrodden poor.
- Pongal is not a hindu festival, it is harvesting festival, so we can also celebrate it in same way as it is celebrated. Our ancestors too belong to this land, though we realised the truth and changed.
- Are they comming to convert u?? No right ?? Then why do u worry and create unnecessary problems between us.?
- Indian culture including deepam etc and classical music/dance etc are not hindu alone, they are indian, so there is no issues in we forging it in
the name of jes.
- Any chris-hindu marriage should culminate in conversion atleast after a generation. (this is the only way to convert upper-class hindus)
Modus-operandi-
Hindu-girl / chris-guy -> girl converted by force if she needs the marriage
Hindu-boy / Chris girl -> boy converted if open minded
If rigid, relatives of the girl, makes it a point to
make sure that the girl makes the kids chris.

Lessons:

In short, 99% of the time, discussions with minority ends up with no progress and less productivity. Discussions happen when there is openness to know the problem and see it in an unbiased way. The same issue is there between hindus when discussing caste related talks and inter-caste marriages. Muslims are more or less happy with the way it is as long as USA/chris dont hunt them. As very less conversion happen from Islam (due to fear and no openness), most muslims firmly beleive
ALLA-willing one day the whole world will be islamic. He is happy in the way it is running except for uncle. Chris is also happy the way it is running as long as UN, uncle, money, power etc and over all secularism is there.

In this scenario, my experience say, there is little point in arguing with them. They feel they are in winning situation and is not required for a compromise. Only the equals can negotiate and argue. Here hindus are meek peace-only lot and others are aggressive-lot.

However provided govt wants (uniform civil-code, real secularism etc) or hindus have media/educational/social-religious/healthcare machinaries subtle reprogramming of minorities to accommodative people are possible. But with so much divisions within hindus, and so much external intervention, none of these are pragmatic dreams.

In short I am with the same opinion as shiv, that educating hindus is the only pragmatic solution, even that too is fraught with danger of getting branded as RSS/fanatic and spoiling of relations. If many people are willing to do something than say, try to make machineries such as media/educational/healthcare/socio-hindu which acts are real secular, which can do the real work, in more productive an subtle way, the real way in which sociology works. Individually few can take up this last suggested way, but hindus can support social-religious organisations already existing that are moving with this vission silently. They do exist, but we should observe properly to find them.

I am sorry if I have over-stepped anywhere.

vsudhir · Post by **vsudhir** » 30 Dec 2007 17:59

Mangesh,

Thank you for taking the time and patience to write what is likely not your experience alone.

I've had similar brush-ups regarding religion way back in E-school. The IMs I dealt with though were the secular variety - daru piyo, lite lo and they weren't enamoured with those who even at railway stations would take out prayer mats zand make a big show of religiousity.

On a separate note.... looks like name-calling is having an effect. Entrenching the opposition into more tightly burying its head in the sand....

Outlook editor Vinod mehta's farewell to 2007

Pseudo-secularists (me included) are copiously mourning the victory of Narendra Modi. There is enormous reluctance to acknowledge the scale of the achievement. The Merchant of Death scored against huge odds. He did not win because he is a one-dimensional cut-out. His political enemies should analyse his craftily constructed persona instead of reducing him to a caricature. To vanquish Modi, we must dissect the Modi "package". It is one part development, one part Muslim-baiting, one part histrionics, one part demagoguery, one part messianism. This Modi myth needs to be demolished in the killing fields of Gujarat, not in TV studios.

May 2008 be a Modi-free year for you. Seasonâ€™s greetings!

Ensoi.

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 30 Dec 2007 20:22

Govt to build Haj House near airport

KOLKATA: The state government has decided to construct a multi-storeyed Haj House exclusively for Haj pilgrims on VIP road, at stoneâ€™s throw from the airport

vsudhir · Post by **vsudhir** » 31 Dec 2007 03:59

Arun Shourie says it brilliantly, beautifully, awesomely in this IE piece

Chock full of quotable quotes. Better still, real meaningful insight.

Must read. And pleeeeze pass-on!

Ensoi.

Ashok Sarraff · Post by **Ashok Sarraff** » 31 Dec 2007 04:24

vsudhir wrote:Arun Shourie says it brilliantly, beautifully, awesomely in this IE piece

Chock full of quotable quotes. Better still, real meaningful insight.

Must read. And pleeeeze pass-on!

Ensoi.

Supports my "change-software" theory. Unless the software changes, nothing is gonna change this side of Indus.

S

SwamyG · Post by **SwamyG** » 31 Dec 2007 04:31

I would say give, yes 'give' as much as possible to dear causes. It could be to Ekal Vidyalaya or other organizations. So how does giving help us tackle Islamism? Well by giving, to the right local organizations, we support the local traditions and practices. Any support to traditional organizations will go some way in opposing the extremists.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 31 Dec 2007 09:01

There is so much variability in Hindu thought and action, that it is not possible to represent Hindus as one voice or as holding one opinion.

This will always remain the fundamental crunch point in any "negotiation" with a religion that has firm and well defined boundaries of what is "right" and what is "wrong"

That is the reason why I have concentrated on defining various avatars of Hindus on this thread. This variability and lack of a single definition may be a strength and a weakness, but those issues are immaterial for the purpose of this thread.

It is the variation in Hindu thought and reaction that serve BOTH as a facilitator for Islamic extremism, as well as a threat that causes "takleef" and be termed as "intolerance" depending on what behavior is displayed by Hindus at a given time.

What I am trying to point out is that Islam is relatively fixed in its behavior, but Hindu reactions to Islam are variable. This calls into question the very definition of "extremism" and what are the true limits of "tolerance". If you leave aside the question of Islamic software code and its relentless virus like spread by changing mindsets with fear, and take the "average muslim" on the ground. he is likely to be bewildered by the wide variety of reactions that he gets from Hindus ranging from friendship and acceptance to loathing and aggression.

It is only to be expected that a Muslim will be inclined favorably to the Hindus who shows him friendship, and fear those whom he sees as aggressive. This sets the stage for Indian politics.

Indian politics has divided itself up into two groups - one "secular" and the other defined as "Hindutva". In truth Hindus occupy all positions in between these two poles.

The Hindu parties do not accuse the secular parties of being "non-Hindu". They accuse them of being Hindus who are doing the work of Islam or the Church. They are sometimes described as "islam pasand" and even on this thread they have been characterized as "dhimmi". But they are Hindus.

The secular parties for their part do not call themselves as Christian or Islamic parties. But they take pains to say they are "secular" and that their true religious beliefs will remain hidden for the political arena. They say that by revealing a religious bias towards Hinduism, Hindu parties are not secular.

In reality, Hinduism allows enough variability in its code for Hindus to exist and be called "Hindus" on both sides of the political spectrum. It is another matter that one side calls the other "extremists" and the other side says "pseudosecular" or that they don't know (or have forgotten) what is "true" Hinduism.

So if we come back to the topic of "islamic extremism", we find that by joining the rhetoric of either the "secular parties" or that of the "hindutva parties" all we do is take pot shots at the other political group in defining what Hindus are or how tolerant they should be, rather than arriving at any consensus about what exactly Islamic extremism is and what may be done about it.

One way out as far as I am concerned is to pick up examples of "extremism" by any standard.

Terrorism is extremism by any standard. No party, "secular" or "Hindutva" can defend terrorism. But here two, the two parties get into the game. For secular parties, terrorism is secular. For Hindutva parties, it is Islamic.

That is why it is important to get the basics first. And we have been through all this before. The discussion of "Islamic extremism" in India was started specifically with the issue of terrorist acts by Muslims for openly stated Islamic causes. Some of the terrorists were foreign nationals with Indian Muslim support, and some were Indian nationals.

Whatever party you may want to support, "secular" or "Hindutva" - you need to answer for yourself the following questions:

1) Are terrorist attacks like bomb attacks and shootings in public places such as theaters and temples justifiable?
2) If they are not justifiable, who committed these unjustifiable acts?
3) If the terrorists are most often Indian Muslims, or if they have support among the Muslim community of India is it possible to escape implicating Muslims in the name of secularism?

When you dilute the definition of "extremism" to include things like wearing burqas, or cow slaughter, then you are only shifting the argument away from the most deadly problem - terrorism, and in addition you are getting into a differences of opinion argument among Hindus.

Unfortunately all talk of tackling Islamic extremism in India flounders on ideological arguments between Hindutva and secular, and the topic of murder and terrorism get sidelined.

Talk ONLY about terrorism as extremism. And then see how much difference of view can be there between secular and Hindutva.

rgsrini · Post by **rgsrini** » 31 Dec 2007 09:07

Shivji,
I have sent an email to the admins using "send feedback to moderators" link. Can you please do the needful? I will delete this post once you acknowledge.

Apologize for this post to catch your attention.

I will delete it as soon as you acknowledge.

Pulikeshi · Post by **Pulikeshi** » 31 Dec 2007 09:09

Shiv,

Before I comment on your diagram â€“ let me clarify some assumptions/background I am falling back on in presenting my feedback.

1. India and TSP are in a long drawn civil war This is as much a battle of blood and steel as it is for the minds and hearts of people.

2. Many Indian Muslims (IMs) chose to stay in India â€“ not because India is secular, but because they were home and it was convenient not to move. IMs see secularism -- Indian style -- guaranteeing their way of life in a Hindu majority India.

3. Secularism (Common Secular Space (CSS) means different things to Hindus and Muslims in India. The former consider it a sacrosanct requirement for democracy (even if they do not understand its origins or its purpose), the latter see it as a barrier to indulge in Islamic exclusivity and maintenance of Islamic Purity.

4. Islamists in particular, if not all of Islam in general, has gotten itself on this search for purity. In this they are similar to the Nazis, Communists, etc. who tried the same with race or community.

5. Educated Hindus consider their religion to be egalitarian, open-minded and allowing of individual freedom. They find this search for purity distasteful. When they attack the CSS, what the other Hindus (call them Dhimmis if you will) do not understand is if such an attack is on Secularism or on the exclusivity of Islam. They mistakenly consider them to be one and the same.

Now your diagram aptly describes the cause-effect in the first two blocks at the top. The â€œAnger in Civil Societyâ€

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 31 Dec 2007 10:23

Srini - no email yet.

Pulikeshi that was a terrific and archiveable post that aptly summarizes some extremely complex and abstruse realities in India.

But I have thoughts based on the single paragraph quoted below.

Pulikeshi wrote: The similarity is the strongest among the ultra-secular liberals on both sides. However, it is also the weakest as you slide down the scale into the extremist category. Hindu extremists are intent on re-conquest of lost pride and reestablishment of Dharma â€“ but there is no one pure version of Dharma no matter how they slice it. That is the genius of Hinduism â€“ it will prevent any search for purity as it embraces plurality. The Islamists on the other hand in their search for purity will not stop at indicting Ahamediyas, Sufism, even Shias, leave alone Christians, Jews and last but not the least the Kaffir Hindus.

Hindus = "Seculardhimmis + Hindu Extremists + everything that lies in between"

I think Hindu "extremists" (BJP/RSS/Hindutva parties) need to acknowledge this as much as seculardhimmis (HISI/Hindu liberal/psec, whatever).

There will not be one version or one voice among Hindus anytime. I am not at all sure that all Hindus accept this. Not accepting this is a kind of self goal scored by Hindus of all sides of the political spectrum. The extremist voice has as much of a place in the Hindu mix as the meek voice. Anything less than this means that some Hindus are being "left out" of Hinduism, which is not possible because Hinduism by definition allows all this.

So in a sense the "political divide" in India is an intra-Hindu power struggle in which the victory of any side remains a victory for some Hindus. The only difference is that Muslims can choose to tilt the balance one way or other depending on which Hindus they feel might give them what they want. Either way some Hindus are going to rule and the Muslims have to depend on those Hindus to give them "what they want".

The only question to my mind is "What do Muslims want?". With over 100 million Indian Muslims, there can be no single answer for "What Muslims want".I suspect that most Indian Muslims just basically want to live reasonable prosperous lives. I am sure most do not "want" terrorism. But there definitely are some Muslims who are extremists "intent on re-conquest of lost pride and reestablishment of" Sharia.

Can sharia ever exist in a nation with predominantly Hindus, whose ethos is to allow everything. There is a fundamental conflict in reasoning and people have to find a yes or no answer to this question.

To the Islamist, the answer is an emphatic yes. Sharia must exist everywhere. But can Hindus afford to be wishy-washy about it? Sharia is restriction, and how does this restriction sit with the freedom of Hindu belief. Even the most liberal Hindus, who accuse Hindu "extremists" of narrowing Hinduism down to a narrow path, have to accept that sharia is as narrow a vision as is possible, and is a fundamental anathema to Hindu thought. It is not "Hindu extremism" to say this, although Hindu "extremists" (BJP/RSS) may be saying it. Allowing everything cannot include allowing a narrowing down of beliefs and paths available. Either by a segment of Hindus, Christians or Muslims. Allowing everything means NOT allowing sharia. The two are opposites.

Can Muslims alone then be allowed to keep sharia even in a diluted form in India?

The tempting answer is yes. (Pending the question: what is dilute sharia?)

But look at it in another way. If one of the imperatives of sharia is to make it a holy duty on the follower of sharia to impose it on everyone else, allowing only Muslims in India to keep sharia means allowing some Muslims to follow a holy duty of wanting to impose sharia on others in India. So allowing sharia is to allow the defeat and sidelining of the very openness and freedom of Hinduism that Hindus agree about.

Unfortunately, only the "Hindu parties" are willing to admit this openly and boldly. Therein lies the genesis of the use of the term "openly and boldly" in my graphic.