Dev - The Anatomy of A Communal Carnage

dost-mittar:

Santana Dharma tradition has active tolerance for all the sects. For a millenium muslims lived in hindu dominated villages peacefully.. reason: it was just one more sect/caste and were perceived as such (source: famous anthropologist MN Srinivas). How have so many varied sects in India got along despite considerable divergence in practices and beliefs.

So it is VERY accurate to say that eastern philosophies like Sanatana Dharma aka Hinduism are inherently more open and tolerant than Abrahamic religions. Our dharma is constantly evolving as you and I see it fit to adjust according to the modern times. Anyone who does so (even nominal muslims or christians or atheists) and not stuck up on some book is a follower of sanatana dharma of sorts. When I hear Nusrat Fateh Ali Khan sing his devotional songs, I really believe he is more Indian Hindu than Arab Muslim.

Indian tradition does not have too much more to learn from western secular ideals. We can teach them a thing or two about real secularism (which is much more than a denial of religious values but an active acceptance of all forms of worship). After all ours is the longest continuous living civilization in the world. The fact is that the Indian subcontinent has been screwed over the past few centuries and is slowly healing from those deep wounds.

Can`t wait to see blanket statements about Gujaratis, their venality and their baniya mentality etc.. Some of the usual suspects have already posted on this board..Let`s see who starts this then...

ankit
//...Does Jyoti Basu need to be hanged for presiding over the chooping off of hands of people of a certain village since they voted against him? ...//

Good point. Nobody in the so called secular media dare ask lefitsts to pay for their sins.

In fact leftist sponsored violence exceeds anyhting Modi could ever do - without a peep from media or self-styled defenders of secularism ... the author included.

dost-mittar #18
I would like to clarify my point.Today,I condemn Modi according to my belief that he did not do what was required to stem the riots.So, I would be a tolerant and secular Hindu. But I also want to know exactly what caused the muslims to burn the Hindus.I do consider Gothra to be the cause, (not the just cause,but the cause )for Ahmedabad. So perhaps I am not so secular any more. Now I sound like a BJP zealot or a Hindutva fanatic.So,who am i? And is the debate of tolerant and intolerant Hindu between me and myself?
This kind of branding of people for holding a particular opinion only goes towards obfuscating the issue.
What we should be concentrating upon is-
a)What exactly caused the muslims to attack the Hindus?
b)Why did Modi think that revenge killings are ok?
And both of these questions can come from the same person.So,clearly,the debate is not between tolerant and intolerant Hindu,unless you have some other defintion for these terms.

engr-malik#5
As I said, the film is inspired by the events in Gujarat, and the Gujarat riots followed what happened in Godhra. The film parallels that sequence.

rahul_capri:
````In short, the film accurately describes today’s India. Secularism is on the decline and the real debate is between the tolerant Hindu ethos and the intolerant hindutva.``

``I dont think such generalizations are going to take us anywhere.``

One should always be careful in generalizations. But in this case, I am convinced of its veracity. Even Sonia Gandhi at one time repeated the Advani remark that India is secular because India is Hindu. You may want to read my article ``Hey Ram, what have you done to my religion?`` for greater details of my views on this subject.

rsridhar 11
``
Yes, riots have happened in the past in India but never has any CM or leader of such prominence openly incited violence and justified the murder of innocent people.

``

You are wrong.. totally. I am sure you know about the `` when a big tree falls, earth shakes`` quote. Politicians of all hue and color have used sentiments based on communities, including religious sentiments, to further gains. Modi needs to be hanged alright, but I would be curious to know whether Sajjan Kumar needs to hanged. I would also be curious to know whether Laloo Yadav needs to be hanged or not, since he has presided over any number of extortions in Bihar. Does Jyoti Basu need to be hanged for presiding over the chooping off of hands of people of a certain village since they voted against him?

Modi is an easy target because people are happy to jump on the `` I am secular`` bandwagaon. I dont see the noise when the self styled secular politicians start using the state machinery to further their politicial gains.

I am trying to understand how people view and decide Modis responsibility for Godhra riots. I want to know on what assumptions/evidence that people decide its Modis fault.

#11 by rsridhar on July 24, 2004 7:12pm PT
You accuse Modi using state machinery. Can you tell me how? I read that rioters used electoral list to identify Muslims. I dont agree with that completely because Muslims in Ahmedabad live very much in their very enclaves like gomtipur or shahpur. People know which society/apartments have Muslims. I dont know if any police personal have been accused of participating in the riots. They might have been spectator but I havent seen anyone accusing them of playing a role during the riots.
My comparsion of riots with tamil nadu tragedy, farmer suicide or 9/11 is because how does one think modi is culpable. Is it just because he was a CM at that moment.

The other thing I would like to know is why people start hurling personal abuses. How come people are so impatient. I will quote two incidents so far:
#11 by rsridhar on July 24, 2004 7:12pm PT ``Looks like u have taken leave of your mental faculties.``
#8 by arjun_m on July 24, 2004 4:38pm PT ``Are you dense? I`ll type it out s-l-o-w-l-y for you``.
I accolade their bravery

Ashutosh-Gandhi:
I dont know if I can add much to what others have said. You may recall that Modi not only made provocative statements at the peak of the riots but kept pouring vitroil like ``Mian Musharraf`` and ``Hum Paanch Hamare Pachees`` even after the riots. And during the riots, it was widely reported that mobs had names and addresses of the Muslim owned establishments, which could have only been obtained through official connivance.

warpster#3, stuka#4, paredesi#14
There are, of course, parallels between Delhi `84 and Gujarat `02 and there are, of course, hypocites who condemn one while turning a blind eye to the other. But as they say, two wrongs do not make one right.
But there is one big difference between Delhi and Gujarat riots. Delhi riots were mercifully a single episode -never before or after `84 have sikhs been the target of such violence. Even during `84 riots, the military was impatiently waiting at Delhi Cantt. to be ordered into action. The muslim riots, however, seem to be endemic and anti-muslim prejudice is embedded in the system (I am not suggeting that there are no historic reasons for such prejudice).

#11 by rsridhar on July 24, 2004 7:12pm PT
``Yes, riots have happened in the past in India but never has any CM or leader of such prominence openly incited violence and justified the murder of innocent people``

Modi is a criminal and muslim lives are as precious as anyone else.

However, 1984 killings were more henious in many respects. Federal ministers, right in New Delhi with all the levers of central power in hand, let Sikh butchering go on for 3-4 days. In fact those were not even riots since average hindu had nothing to do with those crimes and were protecting their sikh neighbors. It was a goverment sponsored massacre.

Had our ``secular society/constitution/values/culture`` had taken any remedial action and punished criminals, Gujrat riots probably would not have hurt so many innocent individuals.

It only proves that we talk big but in practice we are bunch of under evolved humans.

Ashutosh, you are trying to defend the indefensibile. I dont know what Modi did or what he did not. I have learnt not to believe the media with closed eyes. But it does appear that he took sides and that is bad enough. He should have been allowed to continue in office.

I agree with Stuka when he says Muslims are the holy minority. Clearly, people who have made careers out of being called secular dont take interest in the anti-sikh riots as much! Some of them like Teesta Seetalvad cheered after Godhara. They are also taking sides, just like Modi did. They are as bad in my eyes. And this is the tragedy. There are hardly any Devs out there in the society .

As CM Bhadarkar said in the movie : `` marnewalon mein 15 hindu are 3 muslaman hain. aapko pata hai is 15 aur 3 ke ganit(arithmetic) ki kya pratikriya(reaction) ho sakti hai janta mein?``.

As long as the reaction in public rests on this arithmetic, I have little hope.

re:#7 by Ashutosh_Gandhi
Modi`s culpability lies in the fact that he used the state machinery to create mayheim and murdered innocent people in order to get a political mileague.
Yes, riots have happened in the past in India but never has any CM or leader of such prominence openly incited violence and justified the murder of innocent people.
Modi is a motherfukcing ba$tard and needs to be hanged.

``Should lallo prasad resign whenever there is a train accident, should jayalalitha resign because kids of her state died in the fire, should Bush resign because of 9/11, should CM of Mahrashtra resign because the farmers are still comitting suicide.``
Looks like u have taken leave of your mental faculties.
Train accidents happen due to human or mechanical error but kills travellers irrespective of race or religion. If Lalloo Yadav had caused a train accident that killed only BJP supporters, u may accuse him of wrongdoing!
Same applies to fire in the school, 9/11 (come on man! 9/11? You are not serious, are u?) or farmers committing suicide.
Sridhar

#8 by arjun_m on July 24, 2004 4:38pm PT

Can you slowly tell me the difference between your ``regular cops`` and cops that killed hundreds and arrested thousands of hindus and muslims to quell the riots? Read the article in TOI that gives the number of people killed/arrested by Modis cops.
Why do you say that Modi wilfully neglected violence? Any links or proofs. Even the TOI acknowledged that their news about Modis statement ``Every action has reaction`` was false and they printed to pressurize modi to stop rioting.

Stop insulting others while arguing.

Welcome back,dostmittar.
``In short, the film accurately describes today’s India. Secularism is on the decline and the real debate is between the tolerant Hindu ethos and the intolerant hindutva.``
I dont think such generalizations are going to take us anywhere.The situation should not be viewed as a debate between tolerant Hindu intolerant Hindu fundamentalist muslim moderate muslim. We need unsentimental and accurate knowledge about happenings like Gothra and Ahmedabad.These events do not happen everywhere,everytime so that we start painting everybody with the same brush. Find out what caused ``those`` muslims to burn the hindus and find out why modi failed to do his duty as the chief minister. Why did a person in such a high office think that revenge killings of innocents are ok? And what are the political compulsions and equations that he was not dismissed ? We need both of these stories. and then I will say that media is doing its job.
Till then,we will keep being divided into arbitrary categories like secular funamentalist tolerant intolerant according to arbitrary criteria.And we ourselves may not realize what we are.

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

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

You haven`t noticed that this movie puts the whole blame on Muslims for starting the riots.