Bharat Rakshak

I think it was once tried : a list and amount of carnages by assorted mobs from supposed "Hindu" and "Muslim" and other "communal" sources - since Independence. The list was never started here, because the thread itself vanished accidentally almost immediately after such a list was proposed. On this thread I am coming across this Babri, Gujarat[not Godhra], Delhi-1984[was that from the same supposed source - or this is now part of the transference of credit method - from Tytler of Congress fame to Tytler who should have been saffron and therefore must have been saffron?] in a chain as having come from saffron[?].

It is true, that we should not be in denial. But then selective highlighting is also part of the denial. So we should not be surprised about any accusation of violence/terror from some "communal source" because there has been past supposed records of violence by the same source? Does that extend to non-saffron communities too or we should have different systems of logic for different communities? But then by that logic the investigating authorities who picked up Muslim boys were reasonable in "suspecting", isnt it - because as the numbers show - the terror fatality tally on that "communal" side far outweighs all those attributed now to "saffron"?

I think an important question has been raised here - that what politicians utter are "inanities", and that they have no effect on the way investigations are conducted, especially that such inanities have no effect negative or positive depending on which side of rashtryia power the inanities are coming from.

Can we seriously study this? By matching comments for and against a particular set of "suspects" and matching it against statements/findings/leaks made by "impartial" investigating agencies prior to and subsequent to those inane comments?

^^^ Brihaspatiji, problem with your line of thinking is that it is too monochromatic, simply refuses to accept the complexities involved in an issue...BTW, when did I identify the BJP/RSS as the "source"? What I was referring to was the presence of hindu lunatics who have picked up swords and guns in communal riot - so its not implausible for some of them to pick up a bomb either, right? Thats all..No one's denying the presence of Islamist terror groups at all...

About investigations getting "affected" by political pronouncements, well, remember a few things..One, real "influencing" is not done through a megaphone, its far more subtle than that...Two, in criminal cases, the investigation agency has to present enough prima facie evidence for court to at least frame charges - its a bit difficult to do 180 degree somersaults there, possible, but very difficult..three, the level of influence exerciseable diminishes with the "level" of the investigative agency - so local police is the most susceptible, and CBI/NIA least in that respect...Four, and most important, politicians like all individuals are most desperate when personal interests are at stake - so cases like Bofors, Jain Hawala diaries etc would be (and have been) most subverted at investigation because the politicians were themselves involved...Various politicians have tried to use the police against opponents (mayawati and mulayam against each other being one case), but its difficult to sustain thoese efforts in a court...

the biggest point however is different - the Indian state, and the society has little to gain by being in denial about presence of hindu lunatics....The state has a lot more to gain by being firm with them and rooting out the menace...

This business about different investigative agencies coming to contradictory conclusions is most amusing. I think they need to disband at least some of the ATSes and part of the CBI and outsource their functions to the FBI.

Shoot orders in Assam after ethnic clashes
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/indi ... 256915.cms

reports suggest that shooting was done by christian garos and dying by hindu rabhas. 10 killed.


people killed in kandhamal riots =3, no of news articles =10000 and all front pages.
people killed in these riots= already 10, no of news articles = ? and none front pages. In fact I could not find a direct on any major newspaper and had to use google to find them, which means it was buried.

http://www.assamtribune.com/scripts/det ... 1111/at094

He said that the State Government has no evidence of the involvement of surrendered militants and Christian Missionaries in the ongoing ethnic clash between the Rabhas and the Garos. The incidents of clash between the two tribal groups of Meghalaya and Assam in the inter-state border areas of the two states are taking place since January 4.

Gogoi admitted that there are complaints of involvement of surrendered militants in the incidents of ethnic clash in these areas.

But when asked to comment on the possibility of the involvement of Christian Missionaries in the incidents, he said that the State Government has no evidence of their involvement. He also refrained from commenting on the alleged lapses on the part of the Meghalaya Government.

In all, 37 relief camps have been set up with 34,412 inmates. About 18,000 of them are from Meghalaya and 16,000 from Assam and they belong to both the ethnic groups. About 7,000 of them are Garos.

Doing basic math, it means atleast 28000 rabhas have been kicked out, in govt camps. dont know how many took private shelter.

total pop of rabhas: 2,36931. So: 20% of all rabhas kicked out.

http://www.sil.org/asia/ldc/parallel_pa ... kataki.pdf for population count

http://www.sify.com/news/assam-meghalay ... echgh.html

this article says it was all pre planned

Assam-Meghalaya ethnic clash planned: Home ministry
2011-01-10 22:30:00

Shillong, Jan 10 (IANS) The ongoing ethnic clashes between the Garo and Rabha tribes on the Assam-Meghalaya border seem 'very well planned and organised' but the situation is slowly limping back to normalcy, a union home ministry official said Monday.

'I have visited the (riot-hit) areas and assessed the ground situation. The conflict seemed very well pre-planned and well organised, not spontaneous,' Joint Secretary (Northeastern States) Shambu Singh told IANS on the phone.

Going back 1 day
http://www.assamtribune.com/scripts/epa ... 1011/Page1

The Union Minister expressed shock over the alleged remarks made by Meghalaya DGP to the Union Home Ministry that additional forces were not required to tackle the ongoing crisis.

The amreekis built a tea party successully despite complete media silence and later ridicule+stereotyping in its first year of formation (mid-2008 to mid 2009). But in India, we are yet to get around the media wall to the stories that matter - where Indic folks appear to be at the receiving end of locally dominant non-Indic creeds doing organized persecution only. Sometimes I do have to wonder if Indic-ism has run its course and it's time for newer, younger and perhaps fitter (in a Darwinian sense) ideologies to come to the fore.

http://www.assamtribune.com/scripts/sho ... 77,330,453

while digging came across interesting information

brus and reans have been ethnically cleansed from mizoram and they are not being allowed to repatriate.

Hari Seldon wrote:The amreekis built a tea party successully despite complete media silence and later ridicule+stereotyping in its first year of formation (mid-2008 to mid 2009). But in India, we are yet to get around the media wall to the stories that matter - where Indic folks appear to be at the receiving end of locally dominant non-Indic creeds doing organized persecution only. Sometimes I do have to wonder if Indic-ism has run its course and it's time for newer, younger and perhaps fitter (in a Darwinian sense) ideologies to come to the fore.

relief work is being organised
http://haindavakeralam.com/HKPage.aspx? ... 040&SKIN=S

somnath wrote:the biggest point however is different - the Indian state, and the society has little to gain by being in denial about presence of hindu lunatics....The state has a lot more to gain by being firm with them and rooting out the menace...

Agreed. Btw, did I miss your reply regarding the 'no exceptionalism' for Christian terrorism in the NE, or are you employing the TonyMontana gambit of not replying to inconvenient questions?

Arjun wrote:Agreed. Btw, did I miss your reply regarding the 'no exceptionalism' for Christian terrorism in the NE, or are you employing the TonyMontana gambit of not replying to inconvenient questions?

Who/what is TonyMontana?

BTW, I did reply to your question, rather assertion that NE extremism (or maybe you meant only NSCM and NLFT)is "christian" in nature...My point simply is that the tribal loyalties, issues et al are too complicated to be drilled down into simple hindu/christian boxes..NSCM-IM has a blood feud going on with NSCM-K - both are christians, but both have different tribal loyalties...and K is alleged to be a front organisation for the Indian Army! In Manipur, there are tons of insurgent groups, many of them hindus, working for and against each other quite fluidly...

So while religion might have influence, it is not a crusade redux in the NE - not in the intellectual argument for the case...

^NSCM motto Nagalim for Christ and you say not religious motivated

whatever you say birather, afterall you commie birathers are buddhijeevis

somnath wrote:Who/what is TonyMontana?

Someone who kept us entertained on the China thread for a while, late last year...

somnath wrote:BTW, I did reply to your question, rather assertion that NE extremism (or maybe you meant only NSCM and NLFT)is "christian" in nature...My point simply is that the tribal loyalties, issues et al are too complicated to be drilled down into simple hindu/christian boxes..NSCM-IM has a blood feud going on with NSCM-K - both are christians, but both have different tribal loyalties...and K is alleged to be a front organisation for the Indian Army! In Manipur, there are tons of insurgent groups, many of them hindus, working for and against each other quite fluidly...

So while religion might have influence, it is not a crusade redux in the NE - not in the intellectual argument for the case...

I meant only NSCM and NLFT, which run on an explicitly Christian manifesto (establishment of a Christian republic & manifesto calling for 'Nagalim for Christ'). The number of civilians (not counting armed forces/paramilitary) alone killed by these over the last 2 decades would run into several hundreds.

Am copying below the question I had posed earlier, as well as a further elaboration on the theme from Brihaspati-

...lets take a hypothetical case of Abhinav Bharat or some other crazy Hindutva organization that wants to have Gujarat secede so as to create a Ram Rajya and Hindu republic. You let me know what are the differences in the that scenario vs the NLFT or NSCM scenario and why you would not want to apply the same yardsticks in both cases.

brihaspati wrote:Should we not also conclude then that the RSS/VHP/Bajrang Dal and small fry like Abhinav Bharat, even though have claimed religious position/posturings - have nothing to do with religion after all? Should not known intergroup rivalries among the above be proof enough to confirm that they are not motivated by religious affiliation? The fact that they are struggling for space in "secular" India is a proof that they are "secular" in thought, spirit, intent and ultimate objective in seeking such a space?

Further, that any violence that can be attributed to them is sourced from genuine "grievances" which should not be seen as a mere law and order problem? The Nagas and the Mizos have been Christians from the nineteenth century - if that proves no Christian hatred or hidden motivation among the political groupings from these regions against non-Christians, surely Hindus who have been Hindus at least from the advent of Islam on the subcontinent around a millenium ago - cannot have any hidden motivation of hatred against non-Hindus?

If the state can intimately use the Presbyterian Synod and YMA in Mizoram and collaborate with them, why is it impossible for teh state to collaborate and intimately work with the RSS which has a great deal of infuence and organizational infrastructure that can serve as exactly the same method of social control as used in Mizoram on behalf of the rashtra? Surely the "violence score" can be compared and conclusions should be obvious!

Based on your yardstick - and applying to the hypothetical case provided, can you respond as to whether Abhinav Bharat should be termed a terrorist organization, and additionally whether it is religiously motivated?

Firmness in dealing with terrorism can only be appreciated when there is no exceptionalism granted whatsoever, and the state is truly perceived to be unbiased - without applying different yardsticks for different religions.

Arjun wrote:Based on your yardstick - and applying to the hypothetical case provided, can you respond as to whether Abhinav Bharat should be termed a terrorist organization, and additionally whether it is religiously motivated

I havent seen any ideological literature, or accounts of the same, on Abhinav Bharat..In case any entity wants to secede from India on grounds of pure religiousity ("I am muslim therefore I have a right be separate, or a right to rule", or "I am hindu and want to establish hindu raj"), then sure, those groups are ipso facto resorting to an ideology based on a religious idiom...

As far as the "Naga problem" is concerned, have a look at the secessionist articulation by Phizo - "the big daddy" of them all:

http://www.neuenhofer.de/guenter/nagaland/phizo.html

I would reference the final few lines:

WHY DO THE NAGAS WANT TO BE INDEPENDENT?

1. We want to feel that we are absolutely and unconditionally free as a nation. Nagas belong to a distinct people and live in a country entirely of their own. We want to remain outside the influence of any other nation, be it white or brown.
2. We want to develop our own culture unhampered in the way we like, without having to worry for a possible mixture of alien blood.
3. We want to direct our own education through the establishment of our own Universities.
4. We want to keep our own land in the possession of our own people for our own people.
5. We want to live our own lives. There should be no room for any possible interference, directly or indirectly, whether now or in days to come.
6. We want to keep in our possession as a heritage something which is exclusively of Nagaland; something which is bound to vanish and be lost to the Nagas if they were to live under an alien direction; these are our national institutions of –

(a) Community Organisation.
(b) People’s sovereignty over ownership of property and land.
(c) Our culture: a culture of love with a true respect for individual personality, a society that admits no strata of social class, caste or creed, religion or race.
7. We want peace, real peace put into an abiding practice in the lives of men. We do not want war. And we do not want to see another war in our land. We do not want to make our country a defence line. We do not want to let our children live in battlefields.
8. We want to make our country a place of happiness, of security and rest. We hope and we cherish that we can make our country a meeting place of the East and an understanding center of the world.
9. We believe that we shall become a better friend and that we can remain a better friend to India and the outside world if we are left to ourselves – unmolested and unexploited.
10. We believe that it is not only for Nagaland but for India and other surrounding countries as well that there is a better chance of creating and retaining peace and good will with a SOVEREIGN NAGALAND being in existence.

Now this rhetoric (an everything else in the speech) is of a communitarian nature, but its predominantly ethnic ("I am Naga, not Indian", basically), not religious...Part of the reason why Phizo came mainstream was the fact that the Indian state could accomodate most of the wishlist above within its own framework...A religious communitarian demand however militates against the very basis of the Indian state, and hence can never be reconciled to...therefore, there can never be any talks or reconciliation with the likes of LeT, IM etc (and by extension, Abhinav Bharat as well in case they are really what you describe them to be)...And that is where IMO Brihaspati is wrong - the Indian state's recognition of an "insurgency" as oppsed to terrorism is not just based on relative firepower, it is primarily based on whether the demands of the group can be accomodated within the framework of the Indian nation state...

Back to Nagaland, the NSCM manifesto is based primarily on Maoist lines, the "Christianity in spirit" bits are associated baggage, primarily to mask the intense tribal differences within Nagas...

NSCM is hardly the only group in the NE talking of secessionism on ethnic lines - ULFA, MNF and tons of others are doing pretty much the same thing...And not all of them are Christian...

I cant find the link anymore, but I remember an article by Shekhar Gupta where he quotes Muivah as saying (when asked why he doesnt talk of merging with China) that a secular India is a much better bet for the survival of his faith than a communist China - this was when the talks had just started with Padmanabhiah...

The intel boss, B Raman here on "hindu terror"..

http://www.outlookindia.com/article.aspx?269986

Somnath,

Defintion of ethnic :Of, relating to, or characteristic of a sizable group of people sharing a common and distinctive racial, national, religious, linguistic, or cultural heritage.

Whatever the Big daddy says well that is what every so called revolutionary says. The so called kashmiriyat, the tamil culture of Ltte, or any other regional goondas.

Coming back to Brihaspati's scenario, Any hypothetical hindu organisation would raise the same issue. After all Hindu is not just a religion , it is a way of life, culture.
Just add "Hindu" or "Sanathan Dharma" after the words "our own" in those stmts especially first 5 and what do you get?

Now tell us what would be your response?

somnath wrote:As far as the "Naga problem" is concerned, have a look at the secessionist articulation by Phizo - "the big daddy" of them all:

http://www.neuenhofer.de/guenter/nagaland/phizo.html

Why quote from a speech of 1951 ??? It may very well have started as a pan-Naga movement (like the Kashmiriyat movement) - but the problem in Kashmir today is caused by Islamist terror groups who have hijacked the Kashmiriyat movement. Very clearly we are seeing the same phenomenon with the NSCM. Why don't you quote from the current manifesto of the NSCM ? Here's a description of the NSCM movement (taken from here: http://zomilibrary.com/main/archive/fil ... 4cad64.pdf), including a quote from the manifesto, that is very insightful and pretty much destroys the thesis that NSCM is anything but a religious Christist movement-

The appropriation of Christian faith in the search for alternative in the region can be seen further in the Naga movement. The movement was formed in 1946 under the name, ‘The National Council’ and later it led to the formation of the National Socialist Council of Nagaland under Th. Muivah and Isaac Swu (NSCN-IM) and the National Socialist Council of Nagaland under Khaplang (NSCN-K). A brief mention of NSCN-IM will give a clear picture of the issue under discussion.

On April 6, 1996, the NSCN (I-M), possibly the most powerful movement in the region at present, amended its manifesto to constitute Nagalim into an ‘Independent Sovereign Christian Socialist Democratic Republic.’ The principle of NSCN is ‘Nagalim belongs to the Nagas’ that is, a movement for a greater Nagaland which includes some parts of Assam, Arunachal Pradesh and Manipur where Nagas live. The word, Lim in Ao-Naga means land. Besides crossing a boundary, the movement also crosses ethno-cultural boundaries.

The basis of the movement is a religious one, that is, ‘Christianity’. The conviction is that God alone can save the Nagas and hence the theme of the movement is ‘Nagaland for Christ’. Armed struggle is justified in the movement manifesto as follows, ‘We stand for the faith in God and the salvation of mankind in Jesus, the Christ alone, that is ‘NAGALAND FOR CHRIST’, yet this evangelical aim is wedded to a militant policy as spelt out clearly: ‘We rule out the illusion of saving Nagalim through peaceful means. It is arms and arms again that will save our nation and ensures freedom to the people.’ Added to this is religious superiority complex that missionizes the socio-political movement for ethnic identity.

The manifesto of NSCN reads: God wants us right now to stand for him. Now is the time to hold firm our ground with Christ and face the stick and carrot policy and of Christ are called for to make our country for Him and for Him alone…. Come for Christ, come for the Nagalim's freedom. We are here and you will find us here always. Or you go for India and Burma and their goddesses. There is no third way, because "he who is not with me is against me and he who does not gather with me scatters."

somnath wrote:The intel boss, B Raman here on "hindu terror"..

http://www.outlookindia.com/article.aspx?269986

His article is somewhat illogical...
First he says

A confession made to a magistrate is an important piece of evidence, but it will acquire value for the successful prosecution of the cases only when it is corroborated by independent evidence. I get an impression from published reports that our investigating agencies have not been able to collect much by way of scientific evidence.

Then he says..

I agree that we are in a denial mode with regard to indications of the involvement of some Hindus in these terrorist incidents.

If no scientific evidence has been collected, which BRaman agrees to, why would he expect people to believe in the involvement of Hindus in the terrorist incidents until such evidence has been collected and shared?

^^^ An article written by a Biblical Seminarian in an Ecumenical Conference, written with obvious biases and reflections is hardly a place to look for dispassionate analysis on the topic..

I referred to Phizo because he is the grand mufti, if you will, of not just the Nagas but the entire secessionist ideology in the NE...

If you want to know what the NSCM manifesto says, well here is a more reliable source on these issues:

http://www.satp.org/satporgtp/countries ... galand.htm

About religion, this is what it has to say..

Religion
We stand for the faith in God and the salvation of mankind in Jesus, the Christ, alone, that is ‘Nagaland for Christ’. However, the individual freedom of religion shall be safeguarded and the imposition of this faith on others is strictly forbidden.

The equivalence to Kashmir is misplaced as the Kashmiri secessionism from its very begining (Sheikh Abdullah's time) was a muslim viewpoint...while the islamic edge got sharper after 1989, it was always a demand by the muslims of the valley to secede....In that sense, Kashmir was (and remains) a communitarian narrative based on a religious idiom...While there is an influence of faith in the NSCM narrative, the primary narrative is that of "Nagas are a different nation"...

The reason why a religious narrative is a complete anathema for the Indian nation state is because there is absolutely no scope for a dialogue within those boundaries..On the other hand, demands/grievances along regional, caste, linguistic lines have enough leeway within the state structure for compromise...

somnath wrote:^^^ An article written by a Biblical Seminarian in an Ecumenical Conference, written with obvious biases and reflections is hardly a place to look for dispassionate analysis on the topic..

Can you educate me on the obvious biases I should be aware of?

somnath ji,
not every decision can be polychromatic. There was a consistent pattern - I am assuming subconscious - in the choice of words you used. You mention "Babri" which is highly monochromatic because a true polychromatic view would have adjoined the words "Ram Janambhumi" at the minimum, or played neutral using "disputed site at Ayodhya". You mention "Gujarat" riots which is again highly monochromatic but a true polychromatic view would have adjoined "Godhra" with it. Then the most intriguing was the "1984 riots". In tagging this with the context of "Hindu lunatic" I think shows a highly monochromatic view - because a true polychromatic "subtle" view would have mentioned Jagdish Tytler, an out and out Congress-man with doubts having been cast on his religious/faith affiliation!

Your choice of examples and words by which you highlight only those allegations/associations that show a possible "Hindu" source, where you do not mention the corresponding Muslim context/alternative "Hindu" version of the same story or as in "1984" - a conflation of Congress/possible non-Hindu connection completely suppressed and by your placing - also by implication an act of "Hindu lunatics" - is most revealing. By the way, you have mentioned "Hindu lunatic" before, but never mentioned or used the expression "Muslim lunatic" or "Christian lunatic" etc. A true polychromatic view would also accommodate the possibility for other faiths too, isn't it?

I have not dismissed your claim about inanities - simply proposed following up on timelines, and matching up inanities and actual progress/twists and turns in prosecution depending on the source of inanities. If the two are unrelated it should show up in cumulative evidence. Surely you have no problems with that?

somnath wrote:It is both strategically unwise, as well as common sensically naive to simply be in denial about the presence of hindu extremists who ould have (or would have) committed terror crimes...After, what is so "surprising" about a few people from the mobs that perpetrated Babri, Gujarat, Delhi-1984 et al to pick up a bomb rather than a pickaxe?

And Somnath, why do you again refuse to apply the same logic to the Christian rioters in the NE, who going by today's reports have killed 10 Hindus from the Rabha tribe ?

Arjun wrote:Can you educate me on the obvious biases I should be aware of?

Of over-estimating the so-called power of the christian faith, and its "superiority" in attracting caste-ridden Indians, thats all..In any case, if you want to read the NSCM manifesto, the South Asia Terrorism portal is a more dependable source, you wont disagree with that I hope?

brihaspati wrote:because a true polychromatic "subtle" view would have mentioned Jagdish Tytler, an out and out Congress-man with doubts having been cast on his religious/faith affiliation!

Brihaspatiji, for you, reference to hindu lunatics automatically means reference to a certain political party! Loony hindu mobs, led by Congress-leaders created mayhem in 1984 - is it impractical to believe that some among them can pick up the bomb as well? As for "balancing" each incident with a context, well, then quite frankly there is no end to the so-called balance that you insist on will in most cases take us back to the Mughal, Vedic, if not jurassic ages! So Gujarat must be prefaced with Godhra, then Godhra should be prefaced by the riots accompanying the Rath Yatra, which in turn should be postfaced with the demolition, whihc in turn is retribution for Babar...Well, 21st century India quite frankly has no time for this...

brihaspati wrote:simply proposed following up on timelines, and matching up inanities and actual progress/twists and turns in prosecution depending on the source of inanities

Given that you are so confident that rhetoric of politicians impact actual policy, why dont you take a shot? Has Madhani been allowed to go scot free? Is there any letup on deportation efforts of jihadis from ME?

What you CAN justifiably argue is that such inane rhetoric jeopardises the case that is being investigated...In the rush to score political points, those in the "know" end up warning all associates of the crime and allow them to cover their tracks...In the case of Aseemanand for example, the leaks on his confession will only make all associates cover their collective tracks even more zealously, thereby weakening the case that is presumably there...

somnath ji,
you wanted non-monochromatic "subtle" views. To back that up, it is only fair to expect that you do not only highlight what appears to you as "Hindu l******" based violence, but the contextual co-dimension of non-Hindu aspects of the violence/encouragemnet/provocation too. You should realize then, that looking at things in a non-monochromatic way, you cannot ascribe blame and responsibility to only so called "Hindu l*******". Your posts in this regard however do not endorse or refer to this "complex" view. I can see that "lunatic" is a favourite word of yours - you had used it also in other cases and persons, but never in the context or association with any other faith. Hence my comment.

I still do not understand how Tytler escaped your exemplary attention to details. Is he a "Hindu lunatic"?

Well we have a tendency to speak for the country based on our individual obsessions. Just as you have declared on behalf of 21st century India what it does not need or should not look into. If every mob reaction from all communities other than one have a prior justification for their reaction - some claim of deprivation, historical trauma, perceived injustice, and that is incentive enough for the rashtra to try and compromise or form commissions to address those grievances, in some cases - as in Mizoram, allow a faith based organization to work closely and intimately with itself or as a parallel means of social control - why should the same treatment be not there for the only community excluded from such treatment? Why do we need to accept only those historical trauma claims that are made by non-Hindus or non-Sikhs, but not Hindus and Sikhs?

You make a jump from Ayodhya back to Mughals. Even in Republican India, there was nothing in between? What Hindu reaction/violence/mob attack/lunaticism started off the rape and massacre of Kashmiri Pundits towards the end of the 80's? Why do I never hear you say anything about how the rashtra failed to show a strong hand in treating the atrocities on the Pundits and how that would have improved India's image? Are you of the view that such atrocities on Hindus are inanities and had no effect and treating them firmly actually tarnishes India's image? Why should not it be seen by some Hindus as signal from the rashtra that such attacks on Hindu communities will not be prevented/addressed/firmly dealt with by the rashtra as it exists and therefore they had to "react" themselves? Would you deny the psycho-social possibility of such an effect and what it can mean for the internal security of the rashtra?

In any case I would request posters to follow up the study of cumulative incidents of comments by politicians, whether they were in rashtryia power at the time of comment or not, the progress of the concerned investigation - the nature of the evidence gathered by the investigative agencies and the courts comments about their work or the quality of the prosecution at the end, and the ideological or community affiliation of the accused - and post it here.

Inanities or not, there is no harm in "impartially" looking at this issue - if it turns out that politicians depending on their affiliation have no effect on outcomes of prosecutions, it can only improve the image of the Indian rashtra, isn't it?

somnath wrote:reference to hindu lunatics automatically means reference to a certain political party! Loony hindu mobs, led by Congress-leaders created mayhem in 1984 - is it impractical to believe that some among them can pick up the bomb as well?

OK, let us not speak in abstraction with terms such as "loony hindu mobs". Here is a list of the accused in the above-mentioned "loony Hindu mob":

http://www.sikhiwiki.org/index.php/List ... 4_massacre

Now the list of the alleged loony Hindu mobs contains a little less than 200 names. Since one has specifically chosen to focus on religious denomination when referring to the accused, let us examine the "secular" constituents of the alleged loony Hindu mobs:

1 Fair Mohammad, Youth Congress-I, Leader
2 Israi Ali (alias Chunnu)
3 Salim
4 Dr. Yahya Siddiqi
5 Nur Jahan, reported to jhave incited Muslims by spreading the rumours that mosques have been burnt by Sikhs.
6 Keramat
7 Shabnam
8 Salim allegedly involved in murder
9 Abbas son-in-law
10 Mukri
11 Hasin
12 Kamaruddin
13 Niyamat Ali
14 Gaffar Khan
15 Babu Khan
16 Aasim
17 Jagdish Tytler
18 Kadir
19 Pahelwan (Brother of Rashid)
20 Aziz
21 Ansar
22 Kallo Khan
23 Abbas, owns cloth and chappal shop in Block-27.
24 Kayamat Ali
25 Murli Khan
26 Sher Khan
27 Mohammad, Cycle shop owner
28 Zakir
29 Abdulla
30 A. Mulla, lives near Mosque in Trilokpuri, teaches children in Mosque. Allegedly incited Muslims to go to burn two Gurudwaras of the locality.
31 Chabban & Munim, cloth and Tailoring shop near Mosque.
32 Islam
33 Salam
34 Wajiz
35 The brother of Sikandar
36 Salim Qureshi, Congress-I worker, belong to Waqf Club
37 Shawkeen, Congress-I worker, belong to Waqf Club
38 David, Dhobi's son

Now is it some kind of a tribute to India's pluralistic ethos that the "Hindu loony mobs" actually have a "secular" composition of around 20% (approx. 38 out of 197 alleged "Hindu lunatics"), corresponding pretty much to India's demographics give or take a few percentage points?

This, along with the highlighted lines above, of course brings into question the use of the term "Hindu mobs". Then again, why should facts and statistics come in the way of comforting "egalitarian" logic?

somnath wrote:The equivalence to Kashmir is misplaced as the Kashmiri secessionism from its very begining (Sheikh Abdullah's time) was a muslim viewpoint...while the islamic edge got sharper after 1989, it was always a demand by the muslims of the valley to secede....In that sense, Kashmir was (and remains) a communitarian narrative based on a religious idiom...While there is an influence of faith in the NSCM narrative, the primary narrative is that of "Nagas are a different nation"....

True, Nagas seem to have propounded their own version of the two nation theory just before the British left. And here is the start of the entire Naga nation campaign, described on the very own website of the Nagas http://nagalim.nl/naga/index-2.html...

In 1929, when Britain began preparations to leave Asia, Naga Club (the earliest Naga organization formed by school educated Nagas in 1918) made it known to Britain that Hindu and Muslim based societies had very little in common with Naga society. Further, one hates the Naga for taking pork and the other for taking beef. It was clearly impossible for them to live together in harmony; and Nagalim should be left on its own.

In other words, the so-called Naga nation is basically defined as a Christian nation as opposed to the Hindu and Muslim nations that it bordered with and with whose people it found nothing in common. A 'three-nation' theory?

^^^ Brihaspatiji,

Where is the justification for any brand of terrorism? The fundamental point being that the state cannot confront terror if its reactions are, even seen to be, partisan in denominational terms...Thats all..

And 21st century India cannot be (and for a large part, is not) hamstrung by a debate on "action-reactions"...More so if you keep exapnding the scope of the linkages - so Babri was a consequence now of not just historic injustice, but Kashmiri terrorist outrage against the Pandits! Unfortunately, the state cannot take cognisance of such consequence theories....Solving "historical trauma" cases will only end up making the nation a permanent casualty ward, with more dead than injured!

BTW, you somehow include sikhs in the "hindu" fold in the discussion - but the biggest carnage against sikhs was perpetrated by a bunch of loony hindus, like Jagdish Tytler!

Terror needs to be dealt with professionally, firmly and without partisan objectves..Simultaeneously, a political bedrock of a solution needs to be created, and that is a function of the state's bottomlines....

somnath wrote:

Arjun wrote:Can you educate me on the obvious biases I should be aware of?

Of over-estimating the so-called power of the christian faith, and its "superiority" in attracting caste-ridden Indians, thats all..In any case, if you want to read the NSCM manifesto, the South Asia Terrorism portal is a more dependable source, you wont disagree with that I hope?

I thought you meant the article should be ignored because he represents an opposing side. Looks like you are now saying he should be ignored because he is from the same side !!! Reminds me of Romila Thapar, who argued that accounts of Muslim rulers butchering Hindus should not be believed because Muslim historians wanted to play up the gory part. I guess the Abrahamic mind is something pagans have difficulty comprehending

How about this document http://www.apcss.org/Publications/Edited%20Volumes/ReligiousRadicalism/PagesfromReligiousRadicalismandSecurityinSouthAsiach10.pdf? See footnote on page 234.....Will await your certification on the biases of this document Clearly the NSCN manifesto seems to have evolved and been revised multiple times since 1980. I will look into the SATP one and crosscheck for more versions to surface before responding. However a preliminary look does indicate that, though watered down, it is still pretty much the Christian equivalent of Ram Rajya for the Nagas...

aditya wrote:Now is it some kind of a tribute to India's pluralistic ethos that the "Hindu loony mobs" actually have a "secular" composition of around 20% (approx. 38 out of 197 alleged "Hindu lunatics"), corresponding pretty much to India's demographics give or take a few percentage points?

Thats a good point Aditya...So there were some loony muslims too in that mob, along with loony hindus..All presumably united in their hatred for the "traiterous" sikh community! Is it inconceivable that some of those hindus may want to pick up the bomb as well to settle scores?

But then.....

"One, real "influencing" is not done through a megaphone, its far more subtle than that"

How can one be sure that both do not exist in parallel?

the level of influence exerciseable diminishes with the "level" of the investigative agency - so local police is the most susceptible, and CBI/NIA least in that respect

How about Quattrochi and the CBI investigation?

the biggest point however is different - the Indian state, and the society has little to gain by being in denial about presence of hindu lunatics....The state has a lot more to gain by being firm with them and rooting out the menace...

Why is "hindu lunacy" more dangerous than Islamic jehad or NE Christian terror? Why is RG concerned about just hindu terror and that too confides to US amby? Why is the shrill cry to be "firm" with saffron terror and not even the same level of "megaphone" firmness with Islamic terror?

somnath wrote:

aditya wrote:Now is it some kind of a tribute to India's pluralistic ethos that the "Hindu loony mobs" actually have a "secular" composition of around 20% (approx. 38 out of 197 alleged "Hindu lunatics"), corresponding pretty much to India's demographics give or take a few percentage points?

Thats a good point Aditya...So there were some loony muslims too in that mob, along with loony hindus..All presumably united in their hatred for the "traiterous" sikh community! Is it inconceivable that some of those hindus may want to pick up the bomb as well to settle scores?

And you don't apply the same logic to Christian rioters in the North-East because ....??

Arjun wrote:How about this document http://www.apcss.org/Publications/Edite ... iach10.pdf? See footnote on page 234.....Will await your certification on the biases of this document Clearly the NSCN manifesto seems to have evolved and been revised multiple times since 1980. I will look into the SATP one and crosscheck for more versions to surface before responding. However a preliminary look does indicate that, though watered down, it is still pretty much the Christian equivalent of Ram Rajya for the Nagas

Arjun, in case you have decided that NSCM is plays basically a "christian separatist card", in spite of lots of evidence depicting a complex scenario (Phizo, the manifesto, the empirircal evidence of conflicts within NSCN etc), then there is nothing to say...That is a point of view, you are entitled to one as much as the other person...The reality seems a bit different, at least in the manner things are playing out..Just one last point, quoting from the (good) analysis you referenced:

Christianity reinforced and complemented, rather than supplanted, the sense of distinct ethnicity and
otherness among the Nagas and the Mizos

Abhi_G wrote:Why is "hindu lunacy" more dangerous than Islamic jehad or NE Christian terror

Who is making the comparison? And who is making any equivalencce? The fundamental point is simply that the fight against Islamist terror, which is the biggest "terror challenge" cannot be won if the enforcement machinery is seen to be partisan...

Why is the shrill cry to be "firm" with saffron terror and not even the same level of "megaphone" firmness with Islamic terror

I see enough megaphones all over on Islamist terror, but leave that aside for a moment...Where is any systemic evidence tht Islamist terror is being treated with kid gloves? If anything, it is treated with ham-handed gloves to cover incomtencies of the police, with entire groups of youth picked up, bashed in the hope that one of them would confess to something, and then very often, not yielding any results...

good find aditya birather, you proved buddhijeevis be to buddhilessjeevis

what would commie god marx say about people calling others loonies?

aditya wrote:

somnath wrote:reference to hindu lunatics automatically means reference to a certain political party! Loony hindu mobs, led by Congress-leaders created mayhem in 1984 - is it impractical to believe that some among them can pick up the bomb as well?

OK, let us not speak in abstraction with terms such as "loony hindu mobs". Here is a list of the accused in the above-mentioned "loony Hindu mob":

http://www.sikhiwiki.org/index.php/List ... 4_massacre

Now the list of the alleged loony Hindu mobs contains a little less than 200 names. Since one has specifically chosen to focus on religious denomination when referring to the accused, let us examine the "secular" constituents of the alleged loony Hindu mobs:

1 Fair Mohammad, Youth Congress-I, Leader
2 Israi Ali (alias Chunnu)
3 Salim
4 Dr. Yahya Siddiqi
5 Nur Jahan, reported to jhave incited Muslims by spreading the rumours that mosques have been burnt by Sikhs.
6 Keramat
7 Shabnam
8 Salim allegedly involved in murder
9 Abbas son-in-law
10 Mukri
11 Hasin
12 Kamaruddin
13 Niyamat Ali
14 Gaffar Khan
15 Babu Khan
16 Aasim
17 Jagdish Tytler
18 Kadir
19 Pahelwan (Brother of Rashid)
20 Aziz
21 Ansar
22 Kallo Khan
23 Abbas, owns cloth and chappal shop in Block-27.
24 Kayamat Ali
25 Murli Khan
26 Sher Khan
27 Mohammad, Cycle shop owner
28 Zakir
29 Abdulla
30 A. Mulla, lives near Mosque in Trilokpuri, teaches children in Mosque. Allegedly incited Muslims to go to burn two Gurudwaras of the locality.
31 Chabban & Munim, cloth and Tailoring shop near Mosque.
32 Islam
33 Salam
34 Wajiz
35 The brother of Sikandar
36 Salim Qureshi, Congress-I worker, belong to Waqf Club
37 Shawkeen, Congress-I worker, belong to Waqf Club
38 David, Dhobi's son

Now is it some kind of a tribute to India's pluralistic ethos that the "Hindu loony mobs" actually have a "secular" composition of around 20% (approx. 38 out of 197 alleged "Hindu lunatics"), corresponding pretty much to India's demographics give or take a few percentage points?

This, along with the highlighted lines above, of course brings into question the use of the term "Hindu mobs". Then again, why should facts and statistics come in the way of comforting "egalitarian" logic?

the enforcement machinery cannot be or seen to be partisan to anti-hindu as well.

We saw the coverage of Gujarat riots, kandhamal riots. Actually kandhamal and these garo riots have an equivalence as well that they have ethnic underpinnings supported by religious overtones.

But we are all seeing the coverage. Front page for many months for kandhamal with a total death toll of 3, while almost next to none for these garo when the death toll already crossed 10. We had all kinds of top level leaders speaking for kandhamal whereas I am yet to see a statement anywhere from more than ministers of state.

and you think that the hindus do not see these glaring evidences of partisanship from the enforcement machinery?

Playing the victim card and crying partisanship is soo easy.

somnath wrote: BTW, you somehow include sikhs in the "hindu" fold in the discussion - but the biggest carnage against sikhs was perpetrated by a bunch of loony hindus, like Jagdish Tytler!

Somnath,
The amount of nuance you show in analyzing the NSCN manifesto is LOST when analyzing anything remotely associated with Hindus. FYI, following is the extract of WIKI

Tytler was born(b. August 17, 1944 as Jagdish Kapoor) in Gujranwala (now in Pakistan), to a Hindu father (Kapoor family) and Sikh mother.[1]

He was brought up by the eminent educationist, James Douglas Tytler, who was the founder of many public schools including the Delhi Public School and the Summer Fields School.[2]

He was highly influenced by Mr. James Douglas Tytler and therefore, to show his gratitude towards Mr. James Douglas Tytler he acquired his surname. Since then Jagdish Kapoor was called Jagdish Tytler.

So, partial application of nuances is neither fair nor invisible! The Anti-Sikh riots are horrible and no one in their right minds (other than some Congresswalas) have ever tried to defend it - I am also not suggesting that you are defending it. The elephant in the room is that the party which is again being SOFT on NE Terror and SIMI Terror, came hard against the Sikhs. The GOI with its actions might be acting chankian in short term (by mainstreaming SOME rebel groups in NE but not breaking down separatist memes), but as a whole the actions will end up radicalizing vast sections of Indian population. We already have one CM talking about Kendra Sarkaar as Delhi Sultanate in all election speeches ( I am afraid his observations are not incorrect either), these numbers will only grow if things do not change. But if the GOI is consistently tough against ALL citizens, a large portion of the silent majority will keep away from radicalizing.

^^ Valid points, IMHO.

The admin must not only be fair but also be seen to be fair. And GoI under the INC, state institutions and agencies appear to have given Indics a raw deal in this regard.

It is a twisted reading of this 'appear fair' dictum that is perhaps leading the INC to buildup exaggerated generalizations of saffron terror. Perhaps. That is the charitable explanation, at least.

by the way, the only minister of state who spoke was Agatha Sangma, the minister of state for rural development NOT the home, and she spoke only because she is from meghalaya and daughter of PA Sangma. Says millions of how the "enforcement machinery" is actually working.

Whether for right or wrong reasons, christmas has definitely been used in these clashes.

I am trying to read up on through newspaper archives to get a comprehensive picture.

Now is it some kind of a tribute to India's pluralistic ethos that the "Hindu loony mobs" actually have a "secular" composition of around 20% (approx. 38 out of 197 alleged "Hindu lunatics"), corresponding pretty much to India's demographics give or take a few percentage points?

Going on the same lines, if i don't know who Sitaram Yechury is, I should be addressing him as Hindu leftist as his name is Sitaram so he must be Hindu and anything bad he does, it is becoz he is hindu and it should be treated as hindu doing such bad things and not as Indian.

Nice discussion from you, Sir, but i'm afraid, you are turning this into an argument.

Twitter is buzzing with IM's Riyaz Bhatkal death in karachi. Chota Rajan has claimed that he has killed him. Confirmation awaited...

And to think I used to have "serious" discussions with Somnath.

What a favor has he done to all of us to come out in his true colors.

This truly is a season for looking at all in in their real clothes.