India has a rich history. It’s full of significant discoveries, societal progress, and many other things. What should India be most famous for? Maybe it’s the millions of gods that are worshipped there, or perhaps structures like the Taj Mahal? No.. none of these things. I think India should be most famous for all the terrorist attacks it’s suffered, and the sheer impotency of the government to stop them.The Times of India has a listing of some of the recent terrorist attacks on Indian soil. That’s 19 in five years. It looks like 2008 was a good year for terrorism in India, they got 11 of 19 in that year alone.
In the wake of the Varanasi bomb blasts that took place on Dec. 7, 2010 I think it would be a good thing to take a look at the issue of terrorism in India, and how it’s handled.
What is the media’s role in all this? Of course they report the happenings. However, there always has to be some juicy bit in there about how the group involved was connected to some other group, or how the attack was a response to something that Hindu groups had done. So we come to the phrase of “Saffron Terror.” I ask, where is this Saffron Terror now? Where has it been in the decades and centuries past when Hindus were killed wholesale? Where is the criticism that you direct so joyously at Hindu “terror” outfits when riots break out and people are killed? What happened to the vehemence you displayed in 2001 during the Godhra incident? If you don’t have the capability to at least be a little impartial, then I’d suggest you stop publishing altogether.
Shame on you media. For depriving the Indian populace of the bare facts, and for sensationalizing every single thing that takes place. Shame on you for provoking such things as these.
Let’s take a look at terrorists attacks in the US, in the past decade. There have been 4 major incidents; three of them during 9/11/2001, and the other one on 6/1/2009 against two American soldiers in Arkansas. There have been two attempted attacks, one on 12/25/2009 aboard an airplane headed to Detroit and the other on 5/2/2010 in NY.
What were the responses of the governments of the two countries? The American government went to war, and is still actively pursuing it’s mission. The Indian government had some half hearted attempts to hold talks with terrorist outfits, has banned these groups, and makes some arrests here and there. In fact, the Indian President has been so kind as to grant pardon to a terrorist, and the government has released terrorist involved in minor attacks.
Now, if India were dealing with a few sporadic attacks like the US, then I’d be inclined to accept a life sentence for terrorists. But in India, where terrorism is a regular occurrence, imprisonment just doesn’t make sense. The government takes the hard earned money of citizens so that it can provide housing and food for criminals responsible for the deaths of those same citizens. How does that make any sense?
As far as the United Progressive Alliance (UPA), the coalition that’s been in power for the last two national elections, terrorism is something that it has to deal with in order to keep it’s position in politics. Let’s forget the other members of the UPA, let’s talk about the Indian National Congress (INC or just Congress). What has it done in it’s position of power to squash terrorism? In the many years it’s had a prime minister in office (which has been a remarkably percentage of the time since 1947), what steps that it has taken have brought a feeling of safety among it’s citizenry? Congress doesn’t give a damn about terrorism, specifically Islamic terrorism. When the nation faces threats from Naxalites in the east, it gladly deploys forces to combat them. When Pakistani agents infiltrate Kashmir to cause havoc and massacre Indian citizens, Congress can do nothing but parley for peace.
Congress couldn’t stay afloat without the Muslim votebank. It couldn’t stay afloat without the unwavering support that the Muslim community gives it in every single elections. It would definitely tank if mullahs and imams were only leaders in prayer, instead of political players. But so much for secularism, equal rights to all, and everything else that the Indian framework was laid on.
Shame on you, Congress. For not protecting the population of your country, and for putting the sentiments of the few above the well-being of a billion human lives.
But even if the spineless government did decide to kill of any apprehended terrorists, the human rights activists would step in to stop it all. They seem to think that terrorists, who kill innocent civilians, deserve the right to live just as much as any other person. They don’t stop to think of what human rights the deceased have lost, they don’t seem to realize that the family and friends of the deceased don’t deserve some compensation.
Shame on you, human rights activists. For repeatedly allowing criminals to go scotch free to kill again.
When will the Indian Muslim community actively take steps to give their support to the affected people, and prohibit their brothers in religion from killing nonbelievers? Extremists don’t become radicalized overnight, and they certainly don’t do it by themselves. What are the measures that Muslim families take to discourage extremist behavior, and how many families actually take steps to intervene when their child goes down the path of fundamentalism? The Muslim community produces so many killers, and yet you have the tenacity to complain of ill treatment by the Hindu majority? If you respect others, then you will be treated with respect.
India is a majority Hindu country, this makes Muslims a minority. Have good relations with your Hindu neighbors, but keep away from raping women and forcing them to marry you. If you have no wishes to respect the feelings of your neighbors, then please leave. Hindus have no desire to kill our brothers and sisters that were so forcefully converted, and then indoctrinated into hating their former family. If you expect respect, then you have to give respect.
My dear reader, let me be frank. Communal tension has been building for many centuries, despite what the “secular” historians would have you believe. There is a limit to how much putting down any community can take, a limit to the amount of punishment it can suffer, and a limit to how much it’s beliefs are totally disregarded.
You may proceed in your name calling now.