Are all terrorists really Muslims?By Aakar Patel

[Joe Shearer]

Yeah true, you can however thank Rajiv Gandhi for that.



That's a bit over the top, don't you think? Seems to suggest no BJP, no communal riots........

The study I cited is not the only one. This is the melancholy truth, and far from being over the top. Unfortunately communal riots ride on top of a basic level of animosity, which provokes a certain number of communal riots every year. This is almost an irreducible minimum. Almost. West Bengal, under the otherwise thoroughly deplorable CPM, managed to keep it at bay for decades. So, while no BJP, no riots might not hold true, less BJP, less riots might.

no other religion has concept of jihad in the name of religion

Crusade.


1.
(often initial capital letter) any of the military expeditions undertakenby the Christians of Europe in the 11th, 12th, and 13th centuries forthe recovery of the Holy Land from the Muslims.
2.
any war carried on under papal sanction.
3.
any vigorous, aggressive movement for the defense or advancement ofan idea, cause, etc.:

 

[livingdead]

I didn't say jihad, I said the root cause of the Kashmir problem is 'religious differences' in reply to your comment below:



JKLF may call themselves secular, they might even act like secular, but the root cause of their 'separatist movement' or so called 'Kashmiri nationalism' is the very fact that Kashmir is a Muslim majority state in Hindu majority India, the root cause is religion.

Btw, this Kashmiri nationalism is an eyewash to give more legitimacy to their separatist movement, their objective was to liberate J&K from India and reunite it with Pakistan held Kashmir under the Pakistani state, they know that they won't survive as a sovereign state.

well.. yes, it is well known fact that kashmiris fighting Indian nation and their religion has a lot to do with this. But will you judge hindus of a pakistani region for willing to breakaway and become independent/merge into India?
I dont think I will call them hinduva fanatics, although ultimately it will attract religious nutcases.

 

[Bang Galore]

You know with your upwardly middle class values that you're trying to impose on the country. You don't understand how politics works. There is a time and a place for everything. No matter what you personally think about it, the 1980s India, which was much poorer than today, uprooting a conservative law is just not possible. Why 1980s, try banning caste TODAY, hell you can't even ban Khap Panchayat in Haryana and you're cooking up dreams of uniform civil code? Those things don't happen until the society is ready. Who were the people supporting Shah Bano case? Was there a wellspring of support from the muslim women excepting a handful of activitists? The most vocal of the supporters were actually Sanghis only. Lincoln may have won the civil war, but I can assure you that realization of Black Rights came only in mid 20th century. It was only under Martin Luther King that Armerica was ready for a true change. Impressing the other arguments is just stupidity and naivete.

Then why complain. The Shah Bano case was a supreme court judgment overturned by the Rajiv Gandhi government through parliament. all he had to do was say the Supreme Court did it, not me..... To compound matters because of a perceived Hindu backlash, he decided to pander to Hindu sentiments by opening the locks on this structure which was largely unknown across the country. What happened then was the BJP ran with that ball & the Congress fell between two stools. Rajiv Gandhi not only opened the Pandora's box but India would also lose one of its most principled politicians, Arif Mohammed Khan who quit when RG decided to pander to the mullahs. It was one of India's darkest hours. No amount of whitewashing can ever remove the stain of Rajiv Gandhi's stupidity, this country has suffered because of it.

 

[Matrixx]

The study I cited is not the only one. This is the melancholy truth, and far from being over the top. Unfortunately communal riots ride on top of a basic level of animosity, which provokes a certain number of communal riots every year. This is almost an irreducible minimum. Almost. West Bengal, under the otherwise thoroughly deplorable CPM, managed to keep it at bay for decades. So, while no BJP, no riots might not hold true, less BJP, less riots might.



Crusade.


1.
(often initial capital letter) any of the military expeditions undertakenby the Christians of Europe in the 11th, 12th, and 13th centuries forthe recovery of the Holy Land from the Muslims.
2.
any war carried on under papal sanction.
3.
any vigorous, aggressive movement for the defense or advancement ofan idea, cause, etc.:

Well, I am talking about current scenario......History was much more ugly

 

[Guynextdoor2]

Then why complain. The Shah Bano case was a supreme court judgment overturned by the Rajiv Gandhi government through parliament. all he had to do was say the Supreme Court did it, not me..... To compound matters because of a perceived Hindu backlash, he decided to pander to Hindu sentiments by opening the locks on this structure which was largely unknown across the country. What happened then was the BJP ran with that ball & the Congress fell between two stools. Rajiv Gandhi not only opened the Pandora's box but India would also lose one of its most principled politicians, Arif Mohammed Khan who quit when RG decided to pander to the mullahs. It was one of India's darkest hours. No amount of whitewashing can ever remove the stain of Rajiv Gandhi's stupidity, this country has suffered because of it.

He can't say 'SUpreme court did it'. The political implications on ground were his responsibility and judging the situation he took the call- he has that authority. And what backlash? Excepting a lot of Sanghis gagling like geese no other implications have been seen on ground. 'Pandering to Mulla' etc. is your POV, the upper class urban who has no grasp pf how charged things can get on ground. And no Hindus have no business 'backlashing' on this, this is THEIR problem.

Far from 'failure', that little real consequence seen on ground means that it was politically the right thing to do. Let muslim women come out in force or let there be a demonstration like the Anna Hazare revolution in the muslim community and it will be clear that the time has come. If the Sanghis want to force a bill for political reasons that's not gonna work. Sanghis had better look at the appaling state of lower caste Hindus first instead of meddling in other relegions. Most muslim women don't suffer even a fraction of what Dalits suffer. That's a fact.

The study I cited is not the only one. This is the melancholy truth, and far from being over the top. Unfortunately communal riots ride on top of a basic level of animosity, which provokes a certain number of communal riots every year. This is almost an irreducible minimum. Almost. West Bengal, under the otherwise thoroughly deplorable CPM, managed to keep it at bay for decades. So, while no BJP, no riots might not hold true, less BJP, less riots might.



Crusade.


1.
(often initial capital letter) any of the military expeditions undertakenby the Christians of Europe in the 11th, 12th, and 13th centuries forthe recovery of the Holy Land from the Muslims.
2.
any war carried on under papal sanction.
3.
any vigorous, aggressive movement for the defense or advancement ofan idea, cause, etc.:

There is another dimension to it. Once the general people of a place are made the perpetrators of the riots, it binds them unalterably with the leaders. Riot hit areas in Gujarat, a lot of the 'average' people of the locality were involved. If Modi goes their political protection goes, so they are bound to vote him in again and again to avoid any retaliation if a new government comes in.

 

[Joe Shearer]

He can't say 'SUpreme court did it'. The political implications on ground were his responsibility and judging the situation he took the call- he has that authority. And what backlash? Excepting a lot of Sanghis gagling like geese no other implications have been seen on ground. 'Pandering to Mulla' etc. is your POV, the upper class urban who has no grasp pf how charged things can get on ground. And no Hindus have no business 'backlashing' on this, this is THEIR problem.

Far from 'failure', that little real consequence seen on ground means that it was politically the right thing to do. Let muslim women come out in force or let there be a demonstration like the Anna Hazare revolution in the muslim community and it will be clear that the time has come. If the Sanghis want to force a bill for political reasons that's not gonna work. Sanghis had better look at the appaling state of lower caste Hindus first instead of meddling in other relegions. Most muslim women don't suffer even a fraction of what Dalits suffer. That's a fact.



There is another dimension to it. Once the general people of a place are made the perpetrators of the riots, it binds them unalterably with the leaders. Riot hit areas in Gujarat, a lot of the 'average' people of the locality were involved. If Modi goes their political protection goes, so they are bound to vote him in again and again to avoid any retaliation if a new government comes in.

I really like this analysis. Very common-sensical, and quite likely a major factor in the RSS/BJP thinking.

 

[dray]

well.. yes, it is well known fact that kashmiris fighting Indian nation and their religion has a lot to do with this. But will you judge hindus of a pakistani region for willing to breakaway and become independent/merge into India?
I dont think I will call them hinduva fanatics, although ultimately it will attract religious nutcases.

I am not calling all of them religious fanatics, but as you said: "Original kashmiri terrorists were secular and not driven by religion", that may not be entirely true, they cannot be called 'secular' when the root cause of their demand for separation from India is 'religious' differences!

The study I cited is not the only one. This is the melancholy truth, and far from being over the top. Unfortunately communal riots ride on top of a basic level of animosity, which provokes a certain number of communal riots every year. This is almost an irreducible minimum. Almost. West Bengal, under the otherwise thoroughly deplorable CPM, managed to keep it at bay for decades. So, while no BJP, no riots might not hold true, less BJP, less riots might.

That's because CPM was not much into communal politics, but what TMC is doing is communal/polarizing politics, and that's why cases of communal clashes in Bengal has doubled during TMC's tenure, indirectly BJP is deriving strength from TMC's communal politics.

There is another dimension to it. Once the general people of a place are made the perpetrators of the riots, it binds them unalterably with the leaders. Riot hit areas in Gujarat, a lot of the 'average' people of the locality were involved. If Modi goes their political protection goes, so they are bound to vote him in again and again to avoid any retaliation if a new government comes in.

How many general people were involved in the riots? That figure won't help a political party win any election, especially when the number of general (Hindu) people involved in the riots were likely to be far less than the number of Muslims in that state. You are coming up with illogical theories.

 

[Guynextdoor2]

I am not calling all of them religious fanatics, but as you said: "Original kashmiri terrorists were secular and not driven by religion", that may not be entirely true, they cannot be called 'secular' when the root cause of their demand for separation from India is 'religious' differences!



That's because CPM was not much into communal politics, but what TMC is doing is communal/polarizing politics, and that's why cases of communal clashes in Bengal has doubled during TMC's tenure, indirectly BJP is deriving strength from TMC's communal politics.



How many general people were involved in the riots? That figure won't help a political party win any election, especially when the number of general (Hindu) people involved in the riots were likely to be far less than the number of Muslims in that state. You are coming up with illogical theories.

Lollzzz, look at the riot patterns in India. In Gujarat entire communities of people in places neighboring to those like Naroda Patya were involved. Plus, not every member needs to be involved, in the son of a family has been in an incident, the entire family and their aunts and uncles will vote in favor of the BJP due reasons ranging from 'I want to save my son/brother' to 'we need to keep the police away'. In low income localities, the entire locality will vote to keep incumbent government even if only a couple of their 'boys' are involved. On one hand they will band together- a collective muslim backlash because of these boys is something they don't want. At a secondary level they want to keep all police etc. away from their regular business and life. The police knows that the community won't go against incumbent, they feel safe (they too have facilitated the riots) and so will look away. NOT ONE person will stand up for 'what is right'.

 

[dray]

Lollzzz, look at the riot patterns in India. In Gujarat entire communities of people in places neighboring to those like Naroda Patya were involved. Plus, not every member needs to be involved, in the son of a family has been in an incident, the entire family and their aunts and uncles will vote in favor of the BJP due reasons ranging from 'I want to save my son/brother' to 'we need to keep the police away'. In low income localities, the entire locality will vote to keep incumbent government even if only a couple of their 'boys' are involved. On one hand they will band together- a collective muslim backlash because of these boys is something they don't want. At a secondary level they want to keep all police etc. away from their regular business and life. The police knows that the community won't go against incumbent, they feel safe (they too have facilitated the riots) and so will look away. NOT ONE person will stand up for 'what is right'.

Come up with something concrete, come up with numbers, how many general Hindus were involved in that riot, what could be the size of their extended families, what was the number of Muslim votes they lost because of that riot, what was the margin of votes BJP had over its closest opponent in Gujrat, I know and you know that your theory of "BJP winning elections in Gujrat on the votes of the Hindu rioters looking for political protection" is plain laughable, let's make it unanimous.

 

[Bang Galore]

He can't say 'SUpreme court did it'. The political implications on ground were his responsibility and judging the situation he took the call- he has that authority. And what backlash? Excepting a lot of Sanghis gagling like geese no other implications have been seen on ground. 'Pandering to Mulla' etc. is your POV, the upper class urban who has no grasp pf how charged things can get on ground. And no Hindus have no business 'backlashing' on this, this is THEIR problem.

Far from 'failure', that little real consequence seen on ground means that it was politically the right thing to do. Let muslim women come out in force or let there be a demonstration like the Anna Hazare revolution in the muslim community and it will be clear that the time has come. If the Sanghis want to force a bill for political reasons that's not gonna work. Sanghis had better look at the appaling state of lower caste Hindus first instead of meddling in other relegions. Most muslim women don't suffer even a fraction of what Dalits suffer. That's a fact.

The funny thing is you think politics works only in the manner you wish it to. Other than rubbishing my "upper class urban" (whatever that is) opinion, you say the same things that caused all the problems in the 1st place. You don't seem to acknowledge that Rajiv Gandhi feared the backlash & had the locks opened on the Babri Masjid structure, it was he who was pandering, not the BJP. The BJP's turn would come later, from that opening given by RG. "Real consequences" come in different shapes, not all of them predictable. Funny how you think that "Hindus" care for your (or mine) opinion on what things they should "backlash" against. For all your understanding, it remains very selective, running on hope rather than reality.

Funny this kind of logic, if the supreme court rules against Muslims, it must be overturned by an act of parliament but tell the Hindus to go by the judicial verdict.... Do you understand why this smacks of hypocrisy? It's why i suggested that RG should never have intervened. Do it once & your are forever going to be held to your own standards, having different rules for different folks doesn't work.

For all your "you don't understand politics " talk, you seem unable to grasp what that did to Indian politics, allowing the BJP to get a national presence on account of that stupid act. As you say, no point in gagling like geese now that Modi is in power, that too is just politics..

 

[Joe Shearer]

I am not calling all of them religious fanatics, but as you said: "Original kashmiri terrorists were secular and not driven by religion", that may not be entirely true, they cannot be called 'secular' when the root cause of their demand for separation from India is 'religious' differences!



That's because CPM was not much into communal politics, but what TMC is doing is communal/polarizing politics, and that's why cases of communal clashes in Bengal has doubled during TMC's tenure, indirectly BJP is deriving strength from TMC's communal politics.#1



How many general people were involved in the riots? That figure won't help a political party win any election, especially when the number of general (Hindu) people involved in the riots were likely to be far less than the number of Muslims in that state. You are coming up with illogical theories. @Joe Shearer a counter analysis! #2

#1: Very true.
#2: You have made a logical defence and a very good one, but it is still likely that involving the majority community in the riots, whether their middle classes were involved or the lumpen element, cemented the alliance between the sponsoring political party and that majority community.

 

[Koovie]

Terrorists dont have a religion, they are secular. Their apologists wear Secularism on their sleeves and liberals try to justify their actions.

Educate yourself before speaking BS.

Do you know what the term secularism means? (Rhetoric question)

 

[ranjeet]

Educate yourself before speaking BS.

Do you know what the term secularism means? (Rhetoric question)

Yes it is what Congress, TMC, Janta Parivar and their ilk practice.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Yes it is what Congress, TMC, Janta Parivar and their ilk practice.

Oh please. This is not on. Not from somebody who should know better. Grow up.

 

[SQ8]

If Aakar is dealing in terms of quantum of attacks and terrorist organisations, well in that case he is quite right to state that India has to deal with a larger number of "non-Muslim" terrorists. What he fails to comprehend, or perhaps deliberately refuses to state, is that in terms of intensity, potential to destabilize the state (although on this point the Maoists are neck to neck) and the propensity to target soft civilian HVTs the Islamic terrorists take the lead.

Why do you think it has served as the number one indoctrination policy in use today?
Because like it or not, there is nothing that compares to a Muslim Fanatic in terms of dedication and actual will power. No Hindu, Christian or otherwise can match it.. blind following for blind following and complete utter devotion. There is literally nothing like it out there. No ethnic or tribal loyalty has stood in front of it either.

So I for one whilst enjoying the usual Hindutva Islamophobia by usual suspects do not really agree with the OP. The Maoists need and have taken time to indoctrinate themselves towards their ends and as such still end up with desertions. On the other hand, Islamic state which is literally in the middle of a hell hole.. manages to draw out nutcases from what are supposed paradise compared to that spot.. how?

Not all Muslims are Terrorists, but regardless of the socio-political goal, all Muslim terror groups use Islam for motivation.