Intimacies Remapped

Why should Hindutva be defended all the time? Pakistan and other Muslim countries being ``Islamic`` is not debated; it is a given. Then why should Hindutva be such a hard concept to sell? I vivdly remember something very peculiar: when the Hindutva movement was gathering momentum in the late 80s-early 90s, Shabana Azmi had said ``nowadays even young people are saying ``Garv Se Kahon Hum Hindu Hain````. As if there is something inherently wrong in being proud of one`s heritage. Nobody asks if Muslims are proud of their background. It is again a given. Then why should Hindus have to be apologetic?
Somebody mentioned ``denying basic human rights`` to minorities and dalits. That`s plain bull. Under Indian law, every citizen has equal rights. As a matter of fact, it can be argued that minorities enjoy more rights in certain sense. Yes, there are societal prejudices but that acts both ways. On the other hand, the second class citizenship of non-Muslims in Islamic countries is official. Nothing is left for imagination. This is what I like about Islam. There is no room for confusion. Everything has been clearly spelt out.
Anyways, people who consider Prithviraj Chauhan, Rana Pratap, Shivaji Maharaj, Maharaja Ranjit Singh as their heroes have nothing to fear from Hindutva. However, people who either associate with or rationalise the invasions of Bin-Qasim, Mahmud, Ghauri, Babar, Akbar and Aurangzeb have plenty to worry about from the Hindutva movement.

Another myth that needs to be debunked is that Middle/Lower Caste Hindus share a ommon cause with Muslims against the Upper Castes. Anybody familiar with North India know that Middle Caste Yadavs, Kurmis, Jatts (Jatts in India being mostly Hindu/Sikh) etc are the worst nightmares of Muslims in India. It is another matter that these middle castes usually do not vote for BJP.
There is one exception though: Gujrat.

Ballukhan`s very right in his post that nobody this day can be held guilty for events which happened centuries ago. We should stop considering all muslims to be the fifth columnists for Pakistan. By doing that we could end up driving even the sane and sensible people who are the majority towards the insane ones.

lest anyone has forgotten, the title of this piece is intimacies remapped. harish is talking about a journey, a journey along with his childhood intimates -- his friends. the arguments that are going on over here in my humble opinion are those that he will come to question in time as well. and he may agree with some of you, and disagree with some of you.

as some of us have already indicated, we can wait for the remaining installments to see this more fleshed out. . . and these arguments are not completely outside the scope of this article, but certain interactors want to place the cart before the horse so to speak. harking back to a past and holding various communities guilty is what contributes to a communal atmosphere, the fervor and desire to return to what was a glorious past. i don`t know that harish is necessarily unaware of history or politics. this is a personal recollection on his part. and one that i`m hoping he`ll continue before we jump to all the knee-jerk conclusions some of us appear to be jumping to.

“NEW DELHI: Former Indian President K R Narayanan has said that the 2002 communal violence in Gujarat, which led to carnage of Muslim, was the outcome of a ‘conspiracy’ between the BJP-led government at the Centre and the State.
In an interview in Kerala with Malayalam magazine ‘Manava Samskriti’, the former president said: ``Atal Bihari Vajapyee did not do anything positive and effective, while I had written him letters and had also talked to him directly. Observing that there was a ‘conspiracy’ behind the Gujarat riots, I asked for Army to be deployed to suppress the violence. Though the army was sent, but if they were given the powers to shoot at the perpetrators of violence, the recurrence of the incidents in Gujarat could have been avoided.``

Communalism is the focus of this article and Harish Nambiar has categorically stated that “India seemingly fast polarising along communal lines”
I think it is the understatement of the year. India is actually in the grips of communalism and no matter how much people here or Hindutva media attempt to trivialize the issue, it is not going away.

The former President of India has pretty much charged the former PM of India Atul Vajpai of “not doing anything positive and effective”. He has called it a conspiracy betwen the center and Gujarat state. Former President of India would not say something or even imply that the Former PM of India shied away from doing anything positive without having first hand information on what exactly took place in the Indian power corridors when Gujarat Massacre was in full swing.

I did not mention Modi nor has Harish. Those who defend him are acutely aware of his role and in their guilt come right forward to defend him when nobody has even mentioned him personally on this board. The Gujarat massacre was the direct result of Hindutva followers’ propaganda and lies. There will be more minority massacres in India because that is what Hindutva followers want.

Modi is just a representative of the Hindutva ideology. He is a member of RSS/BJP and many other communal parties’ alliance and these parties were in complete agreement that there was nothing wrong in Gujarat. In fact, most of them gleefully watched Hindu rioters killing and burning babies.

Modi alone was not responsible for the Gujarat riots. He was just following the diktat. He knew what the party wanted in situations like that and it was important for him and RSS/BJP alliance to see some Muslim die to strengthen their position in Hindu voters and especially in Hindu middleclass. RSS/VHP and other allies of the BJP like Shiv Sena have instigated and participated in minority killings before and every dead minority person is a feather in their crown.

“Gujarat as such has turned into a sort of Hindu Rajya in one state. The grass root and other mechanisms have been severely jolted. The process of Ghettoisation has gone up at unprecedented scale. The interference of Sangh combine at social and political level is immense. Any talk of freedom and democracy is futile. The activists of human rights have everything to fear in the state. The civic actions have become difficult.”

That is the real goal “Hindu Rajya”. The whole game is to turn India into a religious state and Gujarat was the test case. Modi was appointed Chief Minister for this specific purpose. This experiment and model will be repeated in many states before India is completely turned into a religious state.


#15 by AlephNull aka Blasphemer

“Let us know you snivelling shivering twat.”

Let me tell you!
People raised in filth very rarely are able to come out of it. You were raised in filth and that is where you will remain.

Thank you for a great narration, Harish.

Looking forward, and with a little bit of tongue in cheek for all those who understand, we are all largely but descendants of the same Shambu. Or, at least, we came from there. A smoke to that.

As for analysis of the past, which is where many of the interacts here seem to be heading, here is a short and sweet example of how it really might be, going forward, in India:- Yesterday, there were four of us first in a boat and then in a 4WD, tossing about in the choppy waters between Gateway and Uran, and then bouncing around the salt pans and marshes that lie beyond. Four of us, Hindu, Muslim, Sikh and Parsee. All 4 of us Bambaiyyaas, going back decades.

We then went for a meal at a Keralite Muslim biryani restaurant in Panvel, where the only vegetarian amongst us (for some personal manat) was the Muslim. No big deal, we slurped on meat and chomped on bone while he ate his veggie delights right next to us.

After that we floated around the new mall outside Vashi Station, Centre-1. Cliche, maybe, but plenty of halters walking along with hijabs, and everybody having a ``mall day out.``

Then we ended up at a no-name family restaurant and bar for a beer but had wine instead. Wine is, apparently, vegetarian enough. Behind the counter, on the cash register, sit together a very visible Hindu and a very visible Muslim, partners for generations it seems. Those from new Mumbai may recognise the place, or are there more around?

Somehow, we never got around to discussing religion throughout the day. And throughout the day, the album on the 4WD stereo was the soundtrack from Black Friday.

Hindutva Rag-a-tag and Fundoo Muslims seem to have their work cut out for them in places where rupee is the new religion.

Driving back, late at night, I got stuck in the midst of a huge traffic jam formed by two trailer trucks labouring uphill, racing each other at 3 and 4 kms per hour respectively to enter the narrow tunnel first, and then jack-knifing into each other spectacularly. For those who know this stretch, this causes overloaded trucks behind to also lose momentum and The brotherhood of truck drivers and cleaners and conductors and what have you were giving shoulder to resounding calls of Allah Akbar and Har Har Mahadev and Raj Karega Khalsa.

And then, the one-off tale of one Muslim not getting a flat on rent becomes the standard bearer.

interesting article..

---

From rediff.com.. by Col. Anil Athale

Rumours of an attack on a temple spread like wildfire. Ahmedabad city was put under curfew. Yet the violence did not stop. The local police were accused of showing anti-Muslim bias and were ineffective. After two days of unsuccessful attempts at stopping the violence, the city of Ahmedabad was handed over to the army.`

`Two trains were stopped, Muslims were pulled out and killed. The rioting had spread to Mehsana, Surat, Anand and Jamnagar and Rajkot, the birth place of Mahatma Gandhi. Even the Sabarmati ashram, established by Mahatma Gandhi, was not spared and was attacked by a rampaging mob. It was only after 10 days that the situation was finally brought under control. It was estimated that over 1,500 people were killed while thousands left their homes in panic and sought refuge in temporary camps.`

-- A report on the Gujarat riots, not in 2002, but in September 1969.

`We had begun to get reports of scattered violence shortly after we had watched on television the barbaric video tape of motorists being ripped out of their cars, hammered, pounded and chased by rock-throwing men on the ground. The image of a man being pulled from his truck by thugs still burned in my mind. My memory was seared by the vivid imprint of the motionless, beaten man lying on the ground, being kicked and brutalised.

`I was still filled with rage at the sight of one of the assailants picking up a large piece of cinder-block and throwing it at his apparently lifeless body, smashing him in the head. Then, after the savage beating, the attacker appeared to do a dance, raise his hands towards the helicopter overhead and flashed a victory sign.`

`As our helicopter circled over the city, we could see that fires were breaking out over a widespread area. The dark plumes of smoke were ominously spreading to different spots of the city. Firemen could not respond to many of these early fires because snipers were shooting at them. Later police escorts went in with the fire fighters to protect them from the snipers.`

-- Los Angeles, early evening of April 29, 1992. The riots, provoked by a video clipping of police brutality, lasted over a week.

The Gujarat riots of 1969 were far more serious than the 2002 riots. The death toll, as a proportion of population was far higher and the violence had spread to many parts of the state.

What the synopsis of two events shows is:

* Police brutality and prejudice are not uncommon during riots.

* People show great brutality during riots.

* In a tinder box-like situation, like the one in Ahmedabad in 1969 and in Los Angeles in 1992, all that is required to start violence is a trigger event.

* Serious riots have always needed Army/National Guard intervention to bring them under control.

* The Gujarat riots of 2002 were important as well as unique in a sense.

The country was at that time on the brink of war with Pakistan. On the earlier two occasions, 1965 as well as 1971, remarkable internal peace had prevailed.

In 1971, despite the well known fact that the Pakistan army had killed close to 300,000, mainly Hindus, in Bangladesh (a figure accepted by the official Hamidur Rehman commission as well -- Pakistan General Gul Hasan who was chief of the army at the time claims that over 600,000 were killed), there was no internal strife as all parties (including the much reviled RSS) were co-opted in keeping this secret.

Ninety percent of the nearly 1 crore (10 million) refugees that poured into India were also Hindus. But even this was successfully hidden from the public.

The Godhra incident and the Gujarat riots were the first instance when internal conflict erupted even during an external threat.

There have been many claimants to credit for avoiding war in the subcontinent in 2002, the year when for ten long months the Indian armed forces were poised on the Indo-Pak border.

Colin Powell, then the American secretary of state, has gone on record to claim that it was the efforts and influence of the United States that averted war in the sub-continent.

If the US is so influential with the Indian government, one is tempted to ask, then why did it not succeed in preventing the nuclear tests at Pokhran in May 1998?

American multinationals who outsource their work to the Bangalore-based IT industry claimed it was their threat to withdraw which forced Indian companies like Infosys and Wipro to lobby with the government in favour of peace and restraint.

While there is some truth in these assertions, it is likely it was the Godhra incident and the riots that followed in March 2002 that really saved Pakistan from being attacked by India.

Godhra (and its twin city of Dahod) is famous in the subcontinent as the birthplace of Aurangzeb, the fanatical Mughal emperor. It is also a well known trouble spot that has seen violent riots between Hindus and Muslims for over a hundred years. A large number of people of Godhra have links with people in violence-prone Karachi in Pakistan.

On February 27, 2002, when the Sabarmati Express arrived at Godhra railway station early in the morning, it carried the usual load of Hindus returning from Ayodhya, a Hindu pilgrimage centre.

These pilgrims travel in large groups. They often act rowdily and altercations with vendors is a common occurrence. In fact, most vendors are known to shut shop when such trains approach.

But February 27, 2002 was unusual.

No sooner had the train left the station, it was stopped by pulling the emergency chain, just a little distance away from the station. Here the train was surrounded by a mob of thousands that pelted stones at the passengers.

Apparently some people then entered bogie S-6, which had mainly women and children, by cutting the cloth partition between two bogies. They then poured petrol into the carriage and set it afire. 59 people, including women and children, were burnt alive.

The incident had all the hallmarks of a pre-planned attack. The movement of Hindu pilgrims by this train was a regular, routine affair, not a sudden provocation. Also, it is not easy to suddenly garner a mob of several thousand without warning. A fire engine that tried to reach the spot was denied access, indicating a certain degree of leadership and planning.

The question that remains is, why?

Gujarat then and now was ruled by a Hindu hardliner who faced a difficult election in a few months time. That he would make capital of this incident was a foregone conclusion.

In less than two days, the city of Ahmedabad erupted in an orgy of violence. The local police either played a partisan role or were woefully inadequate to deal with the rioters. The only option was to call in the army.

But where was the army? Unlike the earlier occasions when the army stationed in Ahmedabad could move in at an hour`s notice, this time it took more than two days. The troops earmarked for internal riot control duties were more than 600 km away, deployed on the border and ready for war.

To re-adjust the defences took time. The troops flown into Ahmedabad did not have transport and were unfamiliar with the geography of the city. It took them nearly three days to bring the situation under control.

Most of the killings and violence took place before the army was deployed. Sporadic arson and violence did continue, but the worst was over within a week.

In normal times, the army could have been deployed in a day.

For instance, army units in Delhi and Meerut (40 km away) were ready to move in within hours of the riots sparked off by the assassination of Indira Gandhi on December 31, 1984. But the then government deliberately delayed deploying it.

This was certainly not the case in 2002, when the delay was caused due to the logistical difficulties involved in redeploying troops from the border.

The brain behind the Godhra incident knew it would trigger riots, which in turn would force such a redeployment. In fact, an entire division (40,000 soldiers) had to be moved, while another division was kept on alert to move into other areas if necessary.


The effect on Operation Parakram

On an average, a division covers close to 50 to 75 km of border. The loss of close to two divisions obviously weakened the Indian threat of action against Pakistan.

`Indian forces were ready for raids into Pakistan`

Let us look at the sequence again.

59 people are burnt to death in a well-planned attack at Godhra.

The `secular` media and some political parties try to minimise the tragedy, with some going to the extent of blaming the victims.

The Gujarat government brings the charred bodies to Ahmedabad and makes every attempt to inflame religious passions. This combination of `secular` apathy and government exploitation creates a fertile atmosphere for mass hysteria and revenge killings.

With its 200-year-old history of animosities, the city of Ahmedabad erupts in an orgy of violence. The local police are either biased in favour of the rioters or woefully inadequate to deal with the situation.

Almost two army divisions are withdrawn from border, creating a gaping hole in the defences, weakening the threat of armed action against Pakistan.

It was only towards early May 2002 that the troops rejoined their comrades on the border. By then, the window of opportunity was shut, as the snows in Himalayas would melt, and a Chinese threat had to be factored into the planning.

On May 14, 2002, terrorists struck at Kaluchak in Jammu area. The gruesome attack targeted the wives and children of the soldiers. The sheer audacity of the act was to show to the world India`s `impotence`. The terrorists achieved their aim as thanks to the Gujarat riots, the army was not in a position to react.

In an interview to rediff.com, Major General Ashok Mehta (retd) said: `Then Kaluchak happened in May and a new D-Day was selected- June 15. On US prodding, General Musharraf made his May 27 speech reaffirming compliance (of Indian demands of curbing terrorist activities).`

The cost of a war that wasn`t

It seems clear that the attack on Parliament as well as the Kaluchak massacre were the handiwork of `freelance` terrorists, nurtured by Pakistan but not necessarily under its direct control. The aim of terrorists was very clear, provoke a war between India and Pakistan by hook or crook.

But the Godhra incident was a calculated act, organised and executed by Pakistan to save itself from an imminent Indian attack.

As an act sponsored by a State, with all its resources in forensic help, legal expertise and police inputs, it falls in the category of a perfect crime.

No enquiry commission will ever be able to trace the true culprits and solve the mystery of Godhra.

This analysis is based on military logic and understanding of a military mind and not on any insider information. To those who consider this presumptuous, I would cite just one example.

During the First Gulf War of 1991, there was intense speculation over how and from where the Americans launch their ground offensive.

I used to write a daily column for Loksatta during the first Gulf war.

Based on a simple map, knowledge of military history and reading of military mind, I had predicted a week before the actual event the exact pattern of attack.

The prediction was that the 82 and 101 Airborne Divisions would take Al Kurna and Al Nasariya with the Third Army launching an armoured thrust from the west to link up. The Americans would thus cut off the Republican Guard located to the east and south and be poised to drive into Baghdad should Saddam not surrender. I even published a map showing this plan.

In the event I was spot on.

Re: # 40
Dear Avenger
I said in reply to someone else`s post that -

``here the thing - you just equated hinduism with hindutva. Shivaji, Rana Pratap etc were not hindutvavadis they were Hindus. that is why the hindu middle classes ``that have nothing in common with the muslim elite and are the nightmare of muslims`` do not vote for the BJP.``

You read that and to you an apprpriate response was to give me chapter and verse about caste politics. Very interesting.

Yrs,
Amrita.

``that is why the hindu middle classes ``that have nothing in common with the muslim elite and are the nightmare of muslims`` do not vote for the BJP.``

Brahmins cosntitute just 2-3% of the voting population. BJP led NDA received 40% of the votes in last election , although they lost. So if lower caste hindus hate BJP , if middle class hindus hate bjp , if dalits hate BJP - how come as many as 37% (probably 250-300 million) of the population that is non-brahmin ended up voting for BJP ?

Simply doesn`t make sense.

---

People who are trying to drive a wedge between upper caste hindus and lower caste hindus should remember this...

1. Modi is a lower caste hindu
2. Advani is a casteless sindhi
3. Bal Thackray is a maratha - meaning , a middle caste hindu.
4.Upper caste hindus never do the fighting in a riot. The lower caste guys do that.
5.Most of the killings of muslims in Gujarat were done by dalits.
6.Upper caste hindus or brahmins are numerically insignificant. Constiture just 2-3% of the population.

Hidutwa basically is an idealogy that seeks to unite hindus regardless of caste. So hindutwa seeks a casteless society. That is why most of the leaders of the hindutwa movement - Advani , Modi ,Bal Thackray , Uma Bharti - are non-brahmins.

If one does a survey of the RSS members - there are millions of them , one would find out that over 95% of them are actually lower caste hindus. Those who destroyed the babri masjid - the kar sevaks - were mostly lower caste hindus - who were encouraged and motivated by non-brahmin RSS leaders like Advani , Uma Bharthi, Sadhvi Rithambari , and hordes of lower caste sadhus or sages.....those who killed muslims in Gujarat and raped muslim women were dalits........Which is only natural because brahmins are timid by nature and the closest they come to fighting muslims is on yahoo chat.....brahmin parents would rather see their wards in convent schools than attend RSS shakhas......

If hinduism was dependant on upper caste hindus for survival , it wouldn`t exist today. Hinduism is flourishing because the lower caste hindus have taken charge.

For all its faults , the hindutwa movement has one virtue which must be appreciated. Hindutwa yearns for a casteless hindu society. It is true that hindutwa-vaadis hate muslims and want India to be a hindu nation , but they also want the elimination of the caste system.

Re: Harish # 42

Harish, first of all, thank you for a very thoughtful reply. My original post was a prompt to your ``motorcycle diary`` of travelling through India. Since this experience is based on your personal views, I cannot pass any judgements on it, because I never ``walked in your shoes`` and never saw what you did and never heard what you might have heard.

Personally, I have no objections to prejudices and towards people, who hold prejudiced views, because I chose to interpret the word in its lost sense; to pre-judge and to me, pre-judging means to have an opinion and whether it is right or wrong is a matter of debate, which in itself is nothing more than a glorified opinion. Everyone is prejudiced to an extent, because everyone has an opinion. I will be the first to admit that I have many faults, some which I am sharply aware of and some, which I am not aware. I find nothing wrong with prejudice, because what matters to me is not the idea of pre-judging someone or something, but having the capacity to learn from my shortcomings and modifying my views to correspond to my newly learned insights.

In a sense, what I was attempting to say and which I failed to say cogently, was that the admission of a prejudiced opinion is better than the denial of harboring a prejudiced opinion. We all go through a process of self-discovery and of coming to terms with our own sense of personal, and emotional worth. As we get older and not necessarily any wiser, we are more tolerant of our faults and more accepting of the flaws in our ideals. Just like an alcoholic, admission is invaribly the first towards recovery and the acceptance and out of this acceptance comes tolerance. This sense of tolerance is not the ability to tolerate another person, but the willingness to tolerate the differences between one`s own sense of expectations and limitations. Truth, in such a voyage of self-awareness, comes from being honest with one`s most cherished ideas and it is measured in the strenght of character, which has the moral virtue of accepting the proverbial reflection in the mirror, which challenges our own perception of our idealism.

In any such process, the acts of denial have to be understood clearly, because denial only weaves a web of insecurity, which needs further denials to sustain it. It is akin to asking, ``how can you be true to others, when you are not true to your own self?`` Being true to ``yourself`` means to understand the imperfections in the environment, in which one exists and to understand that particular environment better, is aways a good idea no matter how painful.

Without belaboring the point (and I am sure you will remember), I went through the process personally and given the time frame of this article, I was pleasantly surprised to see you experincing it the same time as I did. Hence, my question to you, because I was aware of the flaws,as you were, but it was, and is, the acceptance of the flaws that made all the difference. I hope, you were able to see the difference and as a result of it, are now wise enough to appreciate its diversity, because the nauances contained within it, which cast the distinctions between belief and reality are too delicate and fragile, because if given the choice; I would rather be pricked by the thorns of reality as I touch the rose of my idealism than fear the thorn and never touch the rose.

Ciao

Ana, HP, Amrita, ShoreSahib,

Thank you all, for the responses to my piece. There are several issues that have been pointed out by people here that hopefully will be tackled as this narrative unfolds.

No, I am not related to Sonora Jha Nambiar.


Feroz, and some others who have raised similar issues:

What you say is true; especially regarding Nehru`s vision versus the later dramatic polarisation of opinion owing to political harvesting of these differences. And, yes prejudices exist in real life. And they get voiced in day-to-day conversation between intimates, whether friends or family circles. It would be churlish of us to pick these symptoms as a sign of bad character of my town, or townspeople.

What I have written about is how very many relationships among diverse people is often just the freedom from judgement, and freedom to voice. Most people know it to be prejudices, and rarely voice it in unintimate circles and situations, unless you are ideologically unambiguous, as in already espouse a particular worldview that allows for, and explains, your judgements.

One of the reasons to bring out this conversation here is to give a peep into truths of beliefs and their manifestations in real life situations.

I am addressing a lot of the questions that have been raised so far, about historical perspective, social displacements, identity, etc. But the later installments should bring them out.

Replying to all seems next to impossible, but suffice it to say, almost all the questions raised have been dealt with, and like Ana said, partially, completely or tangentially. It is nobody`s case that my take is the final or even a judicious one.

That said, so far, what I am trying to underline was that the inspiration for a unification of minds of these two often estranged communities might still come from the social sphere; and their social experience of peace and trust. Like my friends here, they can voice things, which can seem extremely bigoted, and seriously repugnant morally to many people. But they all belong to a circle where they trust each other more than anybody outside that circle, who might want to convert them to some new kind of truth that militates or seeks to undermine their friendship.

Some who have read Ashish Nandy’s critique of Indian secularism might get the point I am trying to make.


HN

Rather long, Harish, and it`s not an easy read, but it is worth the effort. First of all, congratulations on your intellect moving you so many rungs up the ladder. i watched so many of my friends do that too. Your family must be proud.
You don`t have to come out one way or the other, because this is descriptive, not a judgment. The India I grew up in has changed, and that is both good and bad.

Re: # 46

``drink with them, eat with them, visit night clubs with them, visit their homes and invite them into theirs - and then go and vote for the BJP. ``

so whats wrong in that? Normally, for a upper caste urban hindu there are only 2 options Congress or BJP. When Congress talks about affirmative action and reservation for Muslims what else is he supposed to do? He may vote for BJP to protect his educational/work interests, not because he wants to incite rioting against he Muslims. And the same can be said about people belonging to other religion/caste/class.


``Yet they contribute to the climate of hatred in which it is possible for a Modi here and a Thakray there to use any opportunity to trigger riots against innocent Indians whom they consider `babar ki aulad`. ``

BJP in the last election moved very far away from the temple issue, it was fighting on development plank. Even though incorrect, ``indian shining`` was the message they wanted to put forth not ``Mandir wahi banega``. Even during assembly elections they have stayed away from contentious issues. Regarding Modi, yes if he wanted he could have stopped the riots, but the people of Gujarat and India have already given their verdict. It is the indian justice system that is too weak and corrupt to bring any criminal to justice. Thats why you have Bhagat, Sajjan Kumar, Modi, Lalu, Shahhbuddin ruling us.

Harish:

Thank you for an honest, sincere narrative. And congratulations for not letting your own views come in the way of a faithful narration. We need more of such and fewer of opinion pieces so that people can form their opinions on an informed basis.

It is interesting to see the diversity of reactions to the article. Some people take it as evidence of a rabidly communalist society where the UPA is only a brief interruption to India`s march to a Hindu Raj. Others see events like Godhra/Ahmedabad as aberrations in an otherwise secular society. The reality is that India, even Indians, forms a complex society which defies generalisation. Almost every statement one makes about India is correct- and wrong!

As far as everyday normal life is considered, it seems that India is less communal now than it ever was in its history. There is a lot more interaction at a daily basis between hindus and muslims in the marketplace, in offices, in doctors` clinics and in educational institutions. There are probably more Hindu-Muslim marriages taking place now than has ever happened in the history of India. In my parents` generation, it was possible for hindus and muslims to coexist -even in the same village- without ever interacting. There was hardly ever any Hindu who lived in a Muslim mohalla or vice versa. It was quite possible for a hindu or a muslim - especially females - to live their entire life without interacting with a Muslim or a Hindu, as the case may be, and die with their prejudices in tact. There was a time - before Partition - when almost every aspiring Muslim actor and actress - Dilip Kumar, Jayant, Ajeet, Madhubala, Meena Kumari, Nimmi had to choose a Hindu sounding name to gain acceptability by their Hindu audience; some Muslim actors like Santosh Kumar and Ratan Kumar continued with their assumed Hindu names even after they went to Pakistan. Compare that to the present where `Khan` is a brand name for success in Bolliwood. Irfan Pathan and Sania Mirza seem to be the new icons, only needing a temple dedicated to them before Hindus start to go there to worship.

So, is communalism dead in India? Far from it! The saffron parivar has been eminently successful in breeding hatred against Muslims among educated, middle class, urban, mostly irreligious Hindus (it has very little to do with religion, let alone caste - Avenger is right there). These people are suspicious and distrustful of Muslims and are late converts to the two-nation theory. (Ironically, a parallel class of Muslims led the fight for Pakistan in an earlier era). They have bought hook, line and sinker into the saffronites` babar-ki-aulad theory of Muslims, their high birth rates and their extra-territorial loyalties. Like the southern gentlemen in the U.S, they can be quite nice and cultured. They may interact with Muslims (treat their Muslim driver nicely ;-)), drink with them, eat with them, visit night clubs with them, visit their homes and invite them into theirs - and then go and vote for the BJP. Unlike the chawl owner who refused to lease his chawl to a Muslim, they have no problem in sharing an apartment in the same housing complex with a Muslim (of their own class, of course!).

These urban and urbane Hindus do not participate in riots. They would even shelter their Muslim friends and colleagues if they were ever threatened by riots. Yet they contribute to the climate of hatred in which it is possible for a Modi here and a Thakray there to use any opportunity to trigger riots against innocent Indians whom they consider `babar ki aulad`.

Nobody addresses the fundamental problem. I can think of only two reasons: 1. ignorance and 2. liberal peer-pressure for talking in vague terms.

For all the assorted intellectuals and pseudo-intellectuals here, I have the following to say:

1. Islam does not recognise the validity of ``kafir`` way of life. Inter-faith dialogue and crap like that is a mere waste of time. Islam depicts ``boot-parast`` peoples in worst possible terms.
2. Dawah (Evangelical activities) is obligatory for all Muslims.

(1) applies to both Judaism and Xtianity also but (2) does not apply to Judaism and (2) has lost much relevance in Xtian communities.

This is the fundamental problem. My dear Psec friends, please try to understand it for your own sake; there is is no place for secularism in Islamic societies.