11-06-2005, 03:35 AM
Pioneer.com
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>Why are Hindus so submissive? </b>
<b>After 9/11, Americans resolved to smash the spectre of Islamic fundamentalism. From London to Bali via Beslan, the rage of the civilised world is mounting against terrorists and their ideology Prafull Goradia rues India's unwillingness to learn </b>
The evening of October 29 has left me sick with shame. Not a single TV programme that I happened to watch or a newspaper I read the next morning asked as to whether a group of Muslims was responsible for the triple bomb blast.
Most correspondents stated that the blasts constituted a nefarious attempt to disrupt the celebrations of Diwali as well as Eid-ul-Fitr. The mention of the latter made me aghast at the self-flagellation by the secularist reporters. I am yet to come across an incidence of Muslims disturbing the observance of Ramadan, which they consider the holiest of all the months.
Prime Minister Manmohan Singh implicitly endorsed all this media defeatism by appealing for calm. He promised that his government will go all out to track down the culprits, but he said nothing about punishing them. Instead, he asked General Pervez Musharraf to intervene with the terrorists in Pakistan. Chief Justice RC Lahoti rightly diagnosed the government psyche as lacking in political will.
The US took the 9/11 attack seriously enough to go to war in Afghanistan, the base of Osama bin Laden. Once the substantive action was over, America went on to invade Iraq. No doubt, the reason given was the possession of weapons of mass destruction by the Saddam Hussein government. But the all out attack was also a message to Islamic countries that the Pentagon meant business. President George Bush leaved no one in doubt when he repeatedly declared that the Islamic radicals were the terrorists. Nor did British Prime Minister Tony Blair hesitate to call a spade a spade.
Israel has a five-decade-old record of dealing with Arab terrorism. The Jews have done better than giving an eye for an eye or a tooth for a tooth. If a count is taken, one would find that for every Jewish life lost, at least two, if not three, Arabs have been killed. Israeli retaliation is more or less immediate, so that the terrorists get the message properly. The crowning glory of what the Israelis can do to save their fellow citizens or to punish enemies was the Entebbe airport rescue miracle during the heyday of ldi Amin.
Thailand is sparing no mercy to prevent the Muslims of Pattani, the country's southern province, from getting away with secession. The government in Bangkok was not embarrassed when over 400 secessionists were loaded on to two lorries resulting in the death of many of them. The official line was: "What could the police do when more lorries were not available?" The message was clear that under no circumstances will the country tolerate losing any of its territory.
Contrast the Thai policy with New Delhi's handling of Jammu and Kashmir. In spite of Parliament passing a unanimous resolution that the entire J&K, including POK, was an integral part of India, the Prime Ministers of India, whether of the BJP or the Congress, merrily sit to negotiate what else to give up beyond insisting on the LOC. How China handled the secession by Xinjiang was interesting. Between 1911 and 1948, the writ of the central government did not run in this Turko Uygur province.
Not long after unfurling the red flag over China, Mao Zedong invited all the leaders of Xinjiang, except pro-Beijing Saifuddin and Burhan, for fraternal talks in Beijing (then Peking). A government aeroplane was sent to bring the leaders. After the talks of friendship, they were returning home when the plane mysteriously crashed. Soon, thereafter, the province was integrated into China.
Europe has had its full share of Islamic aggression, starting with Spain in 711 AD.
For five centuries, Spain was a Darul Islam. When in the 14th Century the Christians drove out the Moors, they gave three choices to the defeated people: Either convert to Christianity, or leave Spain, or get killed. The eight crusades are legend as are the Turkish assaults in south eastern Europe. The embers of enmity came aglow in Serbia, Bosnia and Kosovo after Yugoslavia broke up. Chechenia, Moscow, Beslan and most recently Nalchik have had their share of terrorism and retaliation. Rusian President Vladimir Putin gave shoot-at-sight orders while stressing that he did not want any terrorists alive.
The Indian epic since the invasion of Mohammad bin Qasim in 712 has been an invariable record of defeat, slaughter, surrender and retreat. The attack on Parliament on December 13, 2001, was like the Al-Qaeda attacking Capitol Hill in Washington. The World Trade Centre was only a business high point. Yet, what did the government do? Nothing beyond drawing satisfaction from the five terrorists having been killed by policemen. There must have been some 50 persons who aided and actively abetted the five attackers. In all likelihood, each one of them was an Indian and could have been traced and caught. The government shows up as a weakling and the state as half sovereign.
The people elect such weak leaders and governments and tolerate their submissiveness. Or, else the recent festival should have been a black or a dark silent Diwali. That would have been a message not only to Muslim extremists, but also a protest against the government. 29/10 was neither the first night of terror, nor the last. Akshar Dham and Vaishno Devi did not evoke any real protest. What is the explanation? Why are Hindus so docile? So meek as to approve of leaders who are not only meek, but also those who indulge in self-flagellation? Instead of quoting ordinary mortals, go to Mahatma Gandhi and glimpse at what he did.
In his wisdom, Gandhi presided over the post-World War I Khilafat movement to play to the Muslim gallery. Even MA Jinnah opposed the idea, but Gandhi wanted the Caliph to survive on his throne of Turkey. One of the worst riots was the 1921 Moplah killing of some 600 Malabar Hindus, raping of hundreds of women and converting 2,500 people to Islam.
Gandhi summed up his many comments by calling the Moplahs "among the bravest in the land" He said, "They are God fearing." At the end of the 1924 riots at Kohat in NWFP, Gandhi advised Hindu refugees not to go back! In the 1939 riot in Sukkur district of Sind, Gandhi called the Hindus cowards and advised them to migrate out of the province. In 1926, Abdul Rashid murdered Swami Shraddhananda; the British government sentenced him to death. But Gandhi wrote, "I do not regard him as guilty. I have called him a brother."
These are only samples of Hindu reactions that reflect a dread of the Muslim, the result possibly of centuries long humiliation. Leftist historians have written that Aurangzeb might have committed a few mistakes and damaged temples, but he was a fair ruler; whereas the emperor himself was candid enough about his motive. He issued instructions in his own hand that he would like temples to be destroyed because he considered their desecration to be a meritorious act.
The average Hindu dreads the Muslim fundamentalist and tends to duck his shame by ignoring the humiliation. The anger over 29/10 is widespread among the Hindus of Delhi. The political leaders are either scared or selfish. The media appears largely pro-Islamic. The agitated people give vent to their feelings in their homes or amongst friends, which does not add up to a public outcry. Talking of the age-old dread, any number of Hindu wives, when desperately annoyed with their husbands, curse them as Muslims. I have overheard two of my aunts doing so. But, in society, the same aunts were paragons of secularism!
Meanwhile, the Gandhians, the Leftists and their fellow travellers reflect a perversion in response to a long, collective oppression. Is it masochism, which is a psychological disorder in which release or pleasure is derived through pain inflicted on oneself? In a social context, masochism is used for behaviour of one who seeks out and enjoys situations of humiliation and abuse. The result is that Hindu elites run down their own community. It is difficult to think of another society whose intelligentsia indulges in so much self-condemnation.
(The writer is a well-known political commentator)
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>Why are Hindus so submissive? </b>
<b>After 9/11, Americans resolved to smash the spectre of Islamic fundamentalism. From London to Bali via Beslan, the rage of the civilised world is mounting against terrorists and their ideology Prafull Goradia rues India's unwillingness to learn </b>
The evening of October 29 has left me sick with shame. Not a single TV programme that I happened to watch or a newspaper I read the next morning asked as to whether a group of Muslims was responsible for the triple bomb blast.
Most correspondents stated that the blasts constituted a nefarious attempt to disrupt the celebrations of Diwali as well as Eid-ul-Fitr. The mention of the latter made me aghast at the self-flagellation by the secularist reporters. I am yet to come across an incidence of Muslims disturbing the observance of Ramadan, which they consider the holiest of all the months.
Prime Minister Manmohan Singh implicitly endorsed all this media defeatism by appealing for calm. He promised that his government will go all out to track down the culprits, but he said nothing about punishing them. Instead, he asked General Pervez Musharraf to intervene with the terrorists in Pakistan. Chief Justice RC Lahoti rightly diagnosed the government psyche as lacking in political will.
The US took the 9/11 attack seriously enough to go to war in Afghanistan, the base of Osama bin Laden. Once the substantive action was over, America went on to invade Iraq. No doubt, the reason given was the possession of weapons of mass destruction by the Saddam Hussein government. But the all out attack was also a message to Islamic countries that the Pentagon meant business. President George Bush leaved no one in doubt when he repeatedly declared that the Islamic radicals were the terrorists. Nor did British Prime Minister Tony Blair hesitate to call a spade a spade.
Israel has a five-decade-old record of dealing with Arab terrorism. The Jews have done better than giving an eye for an eye or a tooth for a tooth. If a count is taken, one would find that for every Jewish life lost, at least two, if not three, Arabs have been killed. Israeli retaliation is more or less immediate, so that the terrorists get the message properly. The crowning glory of what the Israelis can do to save their fellow citizens or to punish enemies was the Entebbe airport rescue miracle during the heyday of ldi Amin.
Thailand is sparing no mercy to prevent the Muslims of Pattani, the country's southern province, from getting away with secession. The government in Bangkok was not embarrassed when over 400 secessionists were loaded on to two lorries resulting in the death of many of them. The official line was: "What could the police do when more lorries were not available?" The message was clear that under no circumstances will the country tolerate losing any of its territory.
Contrast the Thai policy with New Delhi's handling of Jammu and Kashmir. In spite of Parliament passing a unanimous resolution that the entire J&K, including POK, was an integral part of India, the Prime Ministers of India, whether of the BJP or the Congress, merrily sit to negotiate what else to give up beyond insisting on the LOC. How China handled the secession by Xinjiang was interesting. Between 1911 and 1948, the writ of the central government did not run in this Turko Uygur province.
Not long after unfurling the red flag over China, Mao Zedong invited all the leaders of Xinjiang, except pro-Beijing Saifuddin and Burhan, for fraternal talks in Beijing (then Peking). A government aeroplane was sent to bring the leaders. After the talks of friendship, they were returning home when the plane mysteriously crashed. Soon, thereafter, the province was integrated into China.
Europe has had its full share of Islamic aggression, starting with Spain in 711 AD.
For five centuries, Spain was a Darul Islam. When in the 14th Century the Christians drove out the Moors, they gave three choices to the defeated people: Either convert to Christianity, or leave Spain, or get killed. The eight crusades are legend as are the Turkish assaults in south eastern Europe. The embers of enmity came aglow in Serbia, Bosnia and Kosovo after Yugoslavia broke up. Chechenia, Moscow, Beslan and most recently Nalchik have had their share of terrorism and retaliation. Rusian President Vladimir Putin gave shoot-at-sight orders while stressing that he did not want any terrorists alive.
The Indian epic since the invasion of Mohammad bin Qasim in 712 has been an invariable record of defeat, slaughter, surrender and retreat. The attack on Parliament on December 13, 2001, was like the Al-Qaeda attacking Capitol Hill in Washington. The World Trade Centre was only a business high point. Yet, what did the government do? Nothing beyond drawing satisfaction from the five terrorists having been killed by policemen. There must have been some 50 persons who aided and actively abetted the five attackers. In all likelihood, each one of them was an Indian and could have been traced and caught. The government shows up as a weakling and the state as half sovereign.
The people elect such weak leaders and governments and tolerate their submissiveness. Or, else the recent festival should have been a black or a dark silent Diwali. That would have been a message not only to Muslim extremists, but also a protest against the government. 29/10 was neither the first night of terror, nor the last. Akshar Dham and Vaishno Devi did not evoke any real protest. What is the explanation? Why are Hindus so docile? So meek as to approve of leaders who are not only meek, but also those who indulge in self-flagellation? Instead of quoting ordinary mortals, go to Mahatma Gandhi and glimpse at what he did.
In his wisdom, Gandhi presided over the post-World War I Khilafat movement to play to the Muslim gallery. Even MA Jinnah opposed the idea, but Gandhi wanted the Caliph to survive on his throne of Turkey. One of the worst riots was the 1921 Moplah killing of some 600 Malabar Hindus, raping of hundreds of women and converting 2,500 people to Islam.
Gandhi summed up his many comments by calling the Moplahs "among the bravest in the land" He said, "They are God fearing." At the end of the 1924 riots at Kohat in NWFP, Gandhi advised Hindu refugees not to go back! In the 1939 riot in Sukkur district of Sind, Gandhi called the Hindus cowards and advised them to migrate out of the province. In 1926, Abdul Rashid murdered Swami Shraddhananda; the British government sentenced him to death. But Gandhi wrote, "I do not regard him as guilty. I have called him a brother."
These are only samples of Hindu reactions that reflect a dread of the Muslim, the result possibly of centuries long humiliation. Leftist historians have written that Aurangzeb might have committed a few mistakes and damaged temples, but he was a fair ruler; whereas the emperor himself was candid enough about his motive. He issued instructions in his own hand that he would like temples to be destroyed because he considered their desecration to be a meritorious act.
The average Hindu dreads the Muslim fundamentalist and tends to duck his shame by ignoring the humiliation. The anger over 29/10 is widespread among the Hindus of Delhi. The political leaders are either scared or selfish. The media appears largely pro-Islamic. The agitated people give vent to their feelings in their homes or amongst friends, which does not add up to a public outcry. Talking of the age-old dread, any number of Hindu wives, when desperately annoyed with their husbands, curse them as Muslims. I have overheard two of my aunts doing so. But, in society, the same aunts were paragons of secularism!
Meanwhile, the Gandhians, the Leftists and their fellow travellers reflect a perversion in response to a long, collective oppression. Is it masochism, which is a psychological disorder in which release or pleasure is derived through pain inflicted on oneself? In a social context, masochism is used for behaviour of one who seeks out and enjoys situations of humiliation and abuse. The result is that Hindu elites run down their own community. It is difficult to think of another society whose intelligentsia indulges in so much self-condemnation.
(The writer is a well-known political commentator)
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->