Tehelka recently posted an article on their website, which is also the cover story of their magazine if I am not wrong. That story not only distorts history to fit a perspective, it is blatantly anti-national and is trying its level best to create an image of persecution in the minds of Muslims. Through this article, we believe Tehelka is trying to create a Hindu-Muslim riot.
The article raises many stupid questions that only someone with zero knowledge of history would raise. The article is so biased against Hindus that it forces you to question the author, whose name makes it seem that he is a Christian. I am not sure why he wants a riot so bad. Maybe it’s the old rule of divide and conquer. Maybe he was paid by Tehelka for this stupidity. Maybe he is a paid anti-national working for Pakistan. Who knows? But in this article, I will break down all his arguments PARA BY PARA. So, here we go. I will start with the summary para at the top:
One man took pride in his “boys” demolishing the Babri Masjid and then sent out blood-thirsty mobs to massacre Muslims in Bombay. The other assisted in the bombings that were carried out in retaliation to the massacre. One led the marauders from the bully pulpit, egging them on to kill, loot, burn and maim. The other played merely a peripheral role in the blasts. One ruled Bombay as long as he was alive and was honoured with a State funeral after death. The other was kept in jail for years after he chose to surrender and then hanged to death to avenge the victims of the bombs. Why does “collective conscience” take a holiday when it comes to the victims of riots orchestrated to further the cause of majoritarian politics? By Mathew Samuel
ShivSena was not the main hand behind Babri demolition. Neither was Bal Thackarey the main culprit. Now, this para makes it seem as if after demolishing the maszid, Hindus immediately started killing Muslims in Mumbai. Here is a link to wikipedia article about the riot. It uses the findings of Sri Krishna commission. Let’s see what the page says.
- Muslims started the riot after Babri Maszid demolition in Mumbai. The riots started n 6th December 1992.
- 7th December saw three policemen killed by Muslims and 9 were injured. The bodies of the policemen killed were mutilated and the body of one thrown in garbage.
- The situation worsened from here on and Muslim mobs attacked temples, public property and Hindus in Muslim dominated areas.
- Police firing led to death of many Muslims and some Hindus.
- From here on till 5th January 1993, many cases of stabbing were reported from both sides in which people of both community died.
- There was an article on 1st January 1993 in Saamna asking Hindus to be aggressive if they want to survive the rampaging Muslim mobs.
- From here on, Hindus started retaliating in an organized way against the already organized Muslim mobs.
- The situation escalated and now, the number of deaths of Muslims in riots(excluding those killed in police firing) started going up as Hindus were retaliating.
Now, the question is… According to the logic of the author, didn’t the Muslims start the massacre? Babri Maszid was demolished in UP. No maszid in Mumbai was harmed. But many temples in Mumbai were attacked. So, if Muslims starting the riot was justified, wasn’t the Hindu retaliation justified? And if you think that the Muslims were only innocently retaliating against Hindus for Babri, do you believe that 2002 riots were justified?
Loss of lives cannot be justified in this manner. You cannot start riots for things that happen anywhere in the world.
Muslims went rampaging in Mumbai once again about 3 years back in retaliation to what happened in Burma. How were mumbaikars responsible for what Burma did? They attacked Amar Jyoti, they destroyed public property and they molested female policewomen. It was the police and the Hindus who controlled themselves and did not let the matter escalate. According to the author, would Hindus be innocent if they had encircled that mob and killed or injured them all?
Now, coming to the main paras. Here is what the author writes in the first para:
The rage generated by the hanging of Yakub Memon for the 1993 Bombay bombings will not die down anytime soon. While some continue with the chest thumping, others decry the barbarity of capital punishment. But there is also a significant minority that refuses to buy the State’s argument that Yakub was killed to send a “powerful message” to the terrorist groups and is anguished by how the Indian State targets the minorities in the name of counter-terrorism even as it refuses to acknowledge that majoritarian Hindutva politics is to blame just as much as Islamic militancy for terrorising the people of India. A simple question that the State has failed to address so far is how was the massacre of Muslims in Bombay in the wake of the Babri Masjid demolition any less an act of organised terror than the bombings that it provoked.
Others decry the barbarity of capital punishment?????? What about the barbarity of killing innocents through bombing their city?
Indian state targets minorities??? So, should the Indian state now hang Hindus for crimes committed by Muslims? And what happened to terrorists not having a religion??
I will answer the question as to how as the massacre of Muslims in Bombay in the wake of the Babri Masjid demolition any less an act of organised terror than the bombings that it provoked.
- It’s because the killing of Muslims there was not a massacre but a retaliation by Hindus for the attack by Muslims on Hindus in Mumbai.
- It’s because many of the Muslims who died died in police firing which was targeted on mobs trying to attack Hindus
- And seriously???? Are you justifying a terrorist attack on Indian soil with a riot? What happened to the media line that a riot can never be justified by the cause of the riot? Where is this logic in the case of 2002? Or are Hindu lives not important for you?
Let us now come to the second para:
In other words, what is it about bombs that makes their use by underground groups a crime more heinous in the eyes of the State than the use of swords, petrol cans, LPG cylinders and other low-tech instruments of brutal murder and mayhem by organised mobs of rioters who swear by Hindutva and are egged on by leaders from the bully pulpit? Why are “terrorists” of the first kind hounded by agencies of the State, caught, tortured and killed in cold blood in extrajudicial encounters or by hanging, while the second kind — the merchants of mayhem — end up in positions of authority and are honoured with State funerals after they die?
There is nothing special about bombs or low tech instruments of brutal murder. The problem is that while the bombing was one sided, the killing was the so called low-tech weapons was from both side. There were those who swore by Islam too and they were equally egged on by leaders from their side. Terrorists of the first kind are hounded more because their attack cannot be stopped easily in the future if the attackers are not caught. You can easily stop the ones killing with low-tech weapons because they come out in the open to kill. The ones with bombs hide and kill.
There are three or four more stupid paras that follow that justify the killing of Hindus by Muslims by creating an image of the Muslim as the victim while in nearly all such attacks, it is the Muslims who start the riots. I can go on and on writing about how all of his arguments are either stupid or criminally anti-national. But then, I think I have already made my point.
Now, the question is: