Meenakshi

veeresh:

thank you for pointing that out. as is probably evident, i`m not too savvy with indian names. . .i don`t even know all that much about pakistani names. to this day i challenge those who tell me i have a `muslim` first name. it`s farsi with no particular religion attached to it. (i`m not talking about the name i use here)

anyway, my frustration with urstruly stemmed from previous remarks that he`s made about hindus, and the value of a hindu life. . .that is no big deal? perhaps.

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

veeresh (#16):

State-sponsored terrorism is when the Establishment plays a part in the subjugation of its citizens, the chief minister makes incendiary comments, the PM does his double talk, honest police officers are tarnsferred, the culprits are not arrested, ordinary citizens are killed with the connivance of the authorities, and the courts can be made to turn and twist and are so ineffective that for justice to even be seen to be provided the cases have to be moved to another state. This does not stop the sitting CM from being the calling card of the ruling party which could rule us again.

State-sponsored terrorism is when the citizens the state is supposed to protect get targetted by it. No one is looking to be protected by terrorists. The satte often does aid and abet terrorism, but only to suit its ends. There is a difference between Godhra and Gujarat, and the reason is not merely about religion. But the fact that even today the PM says that had Godhra not happened, then Gujarat would not have taken place.

I don`t think there will be many takers for the theory that the incitement for Godhra came from the state.

I had not brought religion in my post to Archana...would appreciate if you did not imply that I did.

- - -
Hi Archana:

I am glad you took my remarks in the spirit they were meant to be taken. In fact, I had wanted to being up the point, which sadna has raised in her post, but desisted...When I questioned you about Meenakshi`s identity, it had nothing to do with her religion. To me her name could have conveyed someone who has moved to the state and her displacement would have been of a different kind, if that were so...I was also clear about the footnote conveying something else...

We all learn, and it does not have to be from our mistakes!

Be well,
F

Archana:

welcome:)

perhaps some not relevant thoughts here

lve,

t

FV

Veeresh is not a kaka thunna (baby), he knows all too well already what you are saying here. As a matter of fact him and his countrymen spare no effort to deliver lectures to others on these things yet what stinks is this almost conspitorial remorselessness and lack of moral courage to owning up to their actions.

Whether or not you want to bring religion into your post, religion remains at the core of this issue.

- It was Hindu hoodlums aka pilgrims and not just Indians who taunted Muslim vendors at Godhra station, stole their money and kidnapped Muslim women, which triggered the whole tragedy.

- It was Muslim mob that attacked the train carrying Hindu hoodlums aka pilgrims which resulted in fiery death of 55 Hindus.

- It was Hindu mobs who initiated a genocide, which is tonned down as ``pogrom``, against Muslims to avenge the death of their own. It wan`t ``Indians`` fighting with each other. It was the one sided murder of one religious group by the other religious group. So religion is not irrelevant.

- Just as the murder of 40,000 sikhs after Indira`s assissination cannot be termed as ``Indians attacking siks`` - since it was actually Hindus massacaring sikhs - the case in Gujrat can not be viewed in secular or nationalistic terms. It was a religious mess.

That brings in question the Hindu religion and political ideology in question. We must examine what is in it that drove its adherents to near madness. We must examine what is in it that lowers its adherents to bloodthirsty ghouls whose thirst for blood is not quenched even by brutal masacares of 100000 Kashmiri Muslims; 40,000 sikhs; about 6000 Mulims while raising Babri Masjid; and now about two to 3000 Muslims in Gujrat while displacing hundereds of thousands to date. What is wrong with this ideology - this religion - this people.

I am not going to comment on the nonsensical Urstruly (Yours Truly A Bevakoof?) ``The Jews did the WTC``-type dialog on-going here. Some interactors do not deserve a response and our crocidilian friend is definitely high on the list.

But I do have the question for Archana: why site this story in such a confusing location? 50 or so hindu pilgrims were murdered in Godhra by a predominantly muslim mob; more than a 1000 predominantly muslim individuals were then killed by predominantly hindu mobs in Ahmedabad and elsewhere. But there were never any riots in Godhra !!

Summary: by situating your story in this somewhat careless way, I think you have made it easier for people to be confused. It also opens the door to agitators and professional disinformation purveyors to make specious claims. It would be simpler if you had referred to either innocent hindu pilgrims or innocent muslim residents or both.

urstruly #21 you correctly point to instances where hindus killed sikhs and muslims, and from that you draw the incorrect conclusion that there is something wrong with ``this religion - this people`` (hinduism and hindus).

One could correctly point to instances where muslims killed sikhs and hindus. By your logic this means there is something wrong with islam and muslims (as no doubt your kind on the other side - the hindutvas - dont fail to advise us day in and day out on chowk).

Perhaps there is something wrong with both you and your hindutva counterparts, dont you think?

urstruly: I had written this to you: ``And the killing of any individual is murder unless done in pure self defense as accepted in criminal law in virtually every country in the world today. The killings at Godhra do not fall into the definition of self-defense, and so are murder.``

You have chosen to ignore this point.

Would you perhaps care to say whether you agree or disagree with the last statement above? And if you disagree, why you disagree?

Hello Everybody,
Went through temporal`s `not so relevant` thoughts about me,and found them perfectly relevant.Thankyou for the appraisal.
I take this oppurtunity to heartly appologize to all the readers about the typos that have sneaked in into the article.I only stand corrected..
Farzaan,even I didn`t intend(even when I was writting the story) to bring religion into the plot.But,seeing where the discussion was leading to,especially the comments from `Urs truly``,forced me to mention about it.Clearly,my intention was to highlight the trauma that suddenly surfaced into the lives of thousands of Gujuratis,and not about which sect of religion suffered most.Humanbeings suffered and that`s enough to put us to shame till we correct ourselves.
I am sorry `Urstruly`,but I find your comments extremely vitriolic and shocking.Its realyy depressing to know about your hatred towards Hindus.Surely,this blame game and `wrong-findings` will lead us to nowhere,it never did.Our priority should be xactly the opposite,about trying to remove religious diffrences and suspicion,rather than fostering it.

love,
Archana Satpathy

Farzana 19 . . . the complete thought process behind Godhra/Gujarat riots is about religion, how can one ignore reality. I shall bring religion into it, why hide?

When I talk about taking things in chronological order, and want to make a case that building ``strategic slums`` based on religious vote banks is part of state sponsored terrorism, then religion shall come into the picture. Citizens from these strategic slums can not or do not subscribe to the norms and laws of State and Society, and then when their inter-necine flashpoints reach a boil, demand ``protection``? That is strange, no, first you defy the State, then you run into a jam, and then you run to the State for protection? Matter of fact, do you see a pattern?

So . . .how come you, Farzana, for example, have not brought up for the benefit of the readers here how the social and religious fabric of Gujrati Muslims was sought to be ``adjusted`` by the more radical Muslims from ``outside``, and how much of State sponsored effort there was in this? And on the chance that this was ``State Sponsored``?

Bit of a convoluted way to explain things, but then, who said life was black & blue & white?

+++

Archane various - just for the sake of the record, Maharani Gayatri Devi`s original name was ``Ayesha``. So, the first name doewsn`t matter. As a matter of fact, are you putting in some deep connection between MF Hussain and Meenaxi?

Urstruly,

I do feel for you, man. It must be so incredibly frustrating to deal with baysharam
soul-less creatures such as Noor (and all Hindus, of course). Kya karein, it is
an imperfect world after all.

Perhaps a trip to a better world is worth thinking about.

Why not?

If actions of few can put the faith of one billion people on this planet in the category of a terrorist ideology and people in the category of terrorists then by the same logic why sholudn`t we put the faith and political idelogy of Hindu genocidal maniacs to examination. Similarly, why can`t what the american and british sick fucks and war criminals are doing to Iraqi people, be chracterized as the national character of these two nations. After all overwhelming majority of these nations supports it democratically - doesn`t it?

Archana:
Welcome to chowk.
As others have suggested, your story has some loose ends. How was all lost for Meenakshi` living in a small town in Godhra? You say that Meenakshi could be of any religion. But your descriptions (temple priest, flowers for deity, lighting a wick, etc.) make it quite clear what her religion is. Nothing wrong with that either. The pain of a hindu`s loss of life is no less important because fewer hindus lost lives than muslims. The pain for the loved one is the same, regardless of their religious affliation.

Urstruly:
``Why not?``

You have to do better than that!
People who have accused islam of supporting terrorism quote the quran and hadith to support their case; whether they interpret those examples correctly or not is another matter. If you want to make a similar case againt the Hindu religion, you would have to do something similar. I suspect that, with effort, one could perhaps build such a case, but it would probably be based on how the history has shaped the hindu psyche or even on how the hindu society was structured rather than on any scripture telling them how to treat non-hindus.
Give it a try!

urstruly #28 Finally, a response (of sorts) from brother urstruly!! Hallelujah!!

you write `` Why not? ..If actions of few can put the faith of one billion people on this planet in the category of a terrorist ideology and people in the category of terrorists then by the same logic why sholudn`t we put the faith and political idelogy of Hindu genocidal maniacs to examination.``

Here are the two reasons why not:

1. Your facts are wrong. No one, other than a few nut cases like jay, is placing all muslims in the category of terrorists.

2. Your logic is wrong. That is, because you are allowing your views to be determined by views of others. If you are truly a free man, you will base your views objectively, and not be driven by what others are saying. If someone says you have horns on your head, you dont respond by saying ``No, YOU have horns on your head.`` Hope you see my point.

tahmad

The physical evidence below in posts number 26 & 29 voids your two points.

Take, for example, # 26. This post is written by a gentleman who is known to be a responsible writer and a journalist in his country. He holds and propagate his opinion that Muslims in India live in slums because of their well thought out strategic conspiracy, in order to blackmail and exploit (hindu) establisment at the time of elections etc. What he is necessarily implying here - if we see his contention in the light of discussion that is going on - is that Muslims get themselves genocided in order to give Hindus a bad name. For that they live in strategic slums and..............

Now take # 29. This post is written by a gentleman who claims to have held responsible position as a consultant and advisor to his government. Now he believes and propagates an opinion that since the allegation of Muslims being terrorists is corroborated through Qura`n and hadith therefore it is true. And that the authenticity of Quaranic and Hadith interpretations and who and how they are done - whether they are qualified or not - true or not - has no bearing on the matter.

In other words he is implying that since he has evidence that Muslims are terrorists, therefore, they are terrorits however, the authenticity of that evidence is irrelevant. And I don`t beleive that he is someone who lives in cukooland.

Tahamad:

Are you trying to defend this category and cadre of people; who are so blinded and prejudiced by hatred for their fellow human beings? Now should I beleive your claims or should I beleive the evidence I see with my own eyes?

Ms. Satpathy:

Would you care to comment on the pearls of wisdom sprinkled here by your hindu co-countrymen?

re: - dost-Mittar # 29

``rather than on any scripture telling them how to treat non-hindus.
Give it a try!``

That is easy to do. Some googling and an active imagination is all that may be needed.

I hope analyses of religions, societies, and behaviors are carried out at a deeper level. For example, Hinduism is not a scripture-based religion. So looking into specific `scriptures` in order to understand Hinduism is like digging into a Khet when all the gold and stones lie in a far-away khalihan.

Besides, I don`t think one can separate religions from their histories either.