One constant worry after the Mumbai blasts has been a possibility of a communal backlash against Muslims led by Shiv Sena. Thankfully, nothing of that sort has happened till now and better sense seems to be prevailing at Matoshree, for now. To give credit where it is due, Shiv Sena is actively involved in helping the victims.
But I am quite surprised when well-meaning commentators (see Amit’s piece in Guardian) seem to think that the chances of communal backlash are quite high. I wonder on what exactly such conclusions can be drawn so as to almost treat them as inevitable? This is not the first time mainstream India has been attacked, infact this is the third time in last 15 years, large scale bombing have taken place in Mumbai itself. Except for 1993, when Shiv Sena attacked Muslims in large number, there has never been any retaliation. Here is the key point, retaliation for example in 2002 (post Godhara riots) have only taken place after it has been established that local Muslim elements were involved. Now, of course it does not justify those riots, but the point I am trying to make is that a very large section of our society does understand what terrorism means, and does not blame local Muslims for actions taken from across the borders.
Here is the clincher, the biggest provocation to ”Hindu India” has not been these sporadic bomb blasts who have claimed innocent Muslims lives as well. It has been the ethnic cleansing in Kashmir, where 300,000 Kashmiri Pandits have been forced to move out of their homes by the brutal Pakistan sponsored terrorism. When has that led to any backlash from Hindu India? None, because a large section of Hindu India does realize that it is preposterous to blame local Muslims for what some bigoted terrorist does, just because they share a common religion. But of course, for that one has to recognise the reality of this ethnic cleansing, for a lot of our liberal media, Kashmiri Hindus don’t matter.
But yes, there is anger and justifiably say. And I say, why not? Does anyone remember that UP government led by one of our secular heroes was talking about lifting the ban on SIMI. Yes, the same organization which has been implicated in the blasts? Or how Kerela Assembly, the most secular in this country since it has no representation from BJP, actually passed a resolution calling for release of Madani, a convicted terrorist. Our response to terror attacks, has been to criticize them and then go to sleep, till the next one strikes. Our approach has been trying to find justification for such attacks, as if terrorist actually need a provocation to attack. How about, for a change, India actually standing up and saying hey, its enough? To Pakistan, to Bangladesh? Will we see such response?
This is not a test of Indian secularism, it is a test for India to show some resolve, to show some spine against terrorists who have spilled the blood of her citizens. Will India show some spine?
Of couese not! We are too shameless to ever do something. Period. And frankly we don’t care.
Correction: Gaurav Sabnis points out that there were no riots post 1993 Bombay blasts. True. I stand corrected. Thanks, Gaurav.
Filed under: Media/Blog watch
[Ed:]
Sudeep,
I have nothing to add to what I said before.
Gaurav,
I see where you are coming from. My argument is not that increasing people to people contact will actually bring down attacks, my argument is how much say people in Pakistan have in how their government is run? The most abiding influence is that of the Army which has been traditionally inimical to India. Yes, I would refrain from blaming the Pakistani awam for everything its government does. Yes, I also accept that this distinction might not have any practical value as of now.
Shadows,
The spam filter does make mistakes. So, cant avoid it.
Your second part, I disagree. The motivations you attributed to Amit were distasteful. Sorry, but that’s how I saw it.
Amit,
Suppose we accept your basic argument that attacks have become more frequent in the last few months, a contention that I would still dispute. How does it invalidate my basic argument that Hindus can recognise the difference between terror attacks and riots? The reason why no reaction takes place against Muslims is that because people can appreciate who is responsible for such attacks. Yes, I still believe that and I think the Mumbai reaction as countless before proves my point.
Yes, I recognise the threats our secular fabric faces. But I don’ think it was under threat from the present bomb explosion. There are mor eimportant issues which are relevant, for example our relations with Pakistan. Just introducing secularism is under threat in any debate does not serve much purpose.
I am quite surprised that you clarified that you were against the Mumbai blasts. When did I say, you were not? My point was that the Bombay riots were exploited by the likes of ISI and Dawood for the subsequent bomb blasts. So any discussion of Bombay blats would be incomplete without that angle. I refuse to see it as a simple cycle of violence thing. No, I am not for a minute saying that you condone the Bombay blasts, I only find your logic(and I am not using the word justification) mirroring that of Dawood. For him, it was just a way to establish him to curry favors with ISI and the Pakistani establishment.
Finally, I apologize for trying to second guess your feelings about Mulayam. It was not my intention to do so but yes, I admit it came out like that. You are free to consider this OT and this is not a criticism of your Guardian piece.
Amit, what piques me is that so many of our liberals see this a battle between Hindu Right and Muslims, who beaten black and blue are supposed to seek the support of ISI and this apparently perpetuates the cycle of violence. What about the Muslim Right, what about organzations like SIMI and Madani who are being protected by likes of Mulayam. So, what Shiv Sena might do causes so much concern in the Blogsphere(and at least in this case, Sena has refrained from its usual rhetoric) but Mulayam treating SIMI with kid gloves even after its hand has been implicated in the blasts causes no ripples? Why? Such double standards?
I abhor fundamentalism of all kind, but unlike some others who while choosing their own battles select only those which seem to reflect their biases, I would criticize Muslim fundamentalism as vehemently as I would its Hindu variety. I would submit that it are attitudes like these which would perpetuate the cycle of violence. As I said before, this was not a criticism of your piece but a general comment.
I truly appreciate you coming here and making your point. And I endorse your point that such exchanges should always be civil. I regret that it is not always the case. I hope, you will not hold me guilty of the same, at least in this case.
Gaurav,
I leave it to your good judgment whether that was a fair criticizm of either Amit or me. I have nothing to add to that.
cheers
Barb,
I hope you know why your comment was edited. Irrelevant attack. Please refrain from it.
Confused, you state your basic argument as being that “Hindus can recognise the difference between terror attacks and riots.” Yes, and I suppose most sensible people can. But that doesn’t invalidate the fact that there are politicians out there who thrive on whipping up communal sentiment, and many of them have the ability to organise large mobs. There could be any pretext for this: an attack on kar sevaks on a train, a previous riot, a bomb blast. It need not be a terrorist attack they respond to, but it could be, which party answers Sudeep’s demand of “a single example of Hindu right wing violence on muslims following a terrorist attack.” I haven’t stated that such backlashes necessarily happen after terrorist attacks, but that they do happen sometimes, and the pretext may differ.
If history is such a fine indicator of the future, then I suppose Sudeep would have stated on July 10 that there has never been an attack on Mumbai’s railway stations, so any fears of such an attack are unfounded. No?
As for the appropriateness of the piece, Sudeep, I fail to see how it is inappropriate. Can you give me some examples of appropriate and inappropriate pieces? You favour censorship, I’m assuming.
barbarindian, you say “Every piece covering Islamic terrorism and specific acts of bombing need not contain references to Narendra Modi.” I agree with you. So what other piece have I written on this subject that mentions Modi? (As it happens the piece I’m currently writing on terrorism mentions Musharraf and not Modi or the Shiv Sena, and I’m certain an entirely different bunch of people will attack me for that. What fun.)
You also write, “Our constitution isn’t even secular.” Again, I agree with you. It’s a shame, for example, that we don’t have a uniform civil code. But despite the flaws in the constitution, and despite the fact that much communalism persists, we’ve held together okay. I wouldn’t want to see that unravel, and was only expressing that fear.
Shadows, you asked where you called me names. Hello? You said about me that I am “no better than Rajdeep Sardesai.” That’s not name-calling?
Finally, Confused, your take on liberals might be valid, but irrelevant to me, and you surely should know from having read my blog that I’m not a liberal in the [leftist] sense that term is used in India. Please don’t project your assumptions of what they’re like on to me, and don’t assume that I’m an apologist for the likes of the venal Mulayam.
I have nothing more to add to this. Some of you feel my fears were unfounded, fair enough, there can be a difference of opinion about that and I hope you’re right. Some of you also feel my piece sucked. That’s fair enough too. Now that we’ve all had our say, I’m off.
Also, ah, however unjustified you feel my fears of a backlash were, clearly other people share them as well:
here.
But that is neither here nor there, of course.
Amit,
That is fine. I will let you have the last word. As it is, we all completely agree that such backlash against ordinary Muslims would be completely undesirable. I would think that is what matters most.
Also, as I mentioned the last part of my comment was not meant for you at all.
All right, guys and gals, time to move on!
[...] Soon after the Mumbai train bombings, speculations began on the Indian response (both of the common people and the government) to these terrorist attacks. In the immediate aftermath, there was worry about communal violence erupting – especially given the mindless riots by the Shiv-Sena and the lynching of policemen in a Muslim neighborhood earlier in the week. Personally I felt that after such a carnage, the common people are too busy picking up their lives than going about killing each others. Additionally, as Confused points out, historically there has not been any communal incidents following such terrorist acts. [...]
[...] In an article in the Hindustan Times, erudite blogger and well-known commentator Dilip D’Souza writes about the 1992-1993 Mumbai riots and about how its perpetrators have not been punished. To prove his point, Dilip quotes from an old post which I had written, just after the 2006 Mumbai blasts. [...]