Responding, Ram Madhav of the RSS said, “Shakeel Ahmed is acting like an IM spokesperson. Terrorism flourishes in India courtesy apologists like Ahmed.”
Arun Jaitley, the Leader of Opposition in the Rajya Sabha, said, “The Congress spokesman has sought to rewrite history. His effort is to paint the IM as an organisation of aggrieved victims of the Gujarat riots. He ignores the international context and Pakistan’s strategy behind the creation of IM. This is yet another desperate attempt to communalise an issue of national security.” The Congress, of course, disowned Ahmed’s remarks. “It is not the party line as of now,” said Renuka Choudhary. Rahul Gandhi said Congress spokesmen should know their limits; Sonia Gandhi, too, had a word with Ahmed.
Muslim bodies took another perspective. Dr S.Q.R. Ilyas, of the All-India Muslim Personal Law Board, said, “The IM is a fabrication of the Intelligence Bureau. In the name of terrorism, the UPA, and the NDA before it, have been targeting a community and playing with our country’s security.”
Dr Zafar-ul-Islam Khan, president of the All-India Muslim Majlis-e-Mushawarat, said Muslims had nothing to do with the IM; it was floated either by the IB or Pakistan’s ISI.
These are opinions. Let’s look at the facts:
There is no denying it. Many Indian Muslims have been radicalised by the events of Gujarat. India has had riots before, of course, but when a minister is convicted of killing 95 people and the chief minister offers no comment or condemnation of her actions, we must expect there will be a reaction. The BJP can’t have its ministers rioting and then disowning the consequences. Blasts have indeed occurred across the country, but what Modi’s assessment ignores is that Gujaratis have been targeted time and again.
Convicting those involved in the Akshardham case, the men who had no previous record, the Gujarat High Court said, “Their act was not to take revenge but to create terror in the minds of the people.” This is difficult to swallow.
Strange that Aakar Patel (Not a Noble Cause) subscribes to the “action-reaction” theory. When Modi used the term, he was much reviled. But here’s what Patel says: “India has had riots before, of course, but when a minister (Mayaben Kodnani) is convicted of killing 95 people (the Naroda Patiya massacre) and a chief minister offers no comment or condemnation of her actions, we must expect there will be a reaction.”
Neelabh Verma, Pune
The so-called Muslim backlash Patel writes of is directed more against the state rather than against Gujaratis or any particular community. The backlash against Gujarat’s treatment of Muslims in 2002 has not confined itself to violence against Gujaratis: it has posed problems for all communities, especially in a city like Mumbai. The sons of the soil agitation of the ’60s and ’70s, directed against south Indians and Gujaratis, was bad enough. Now we have a provocative Gujarati luxuriating on Gujarati victimhood.
R. Saroja, Mumbai
It’s well known that the Intelligence Bureau has been infiltrated by the rss and other Sangh parivar sympathisers. What has the Congress done? Nothing. It wants this to happen so that Muslims are victimised and seek Congress protection in exchange for votes.
Nasar Ahmed, Karikkudi
Thank you to all those who have taken the trouble to read the article and share their thoughts. Out of the arguments made here, there are two that perhaps need answering. So here they go.
1. The first part of the article compares outcomes (relative percentages of population of the religions concerned) irrespective of the process that led to those outcomes - whether immigration, relatively faster population growth or conversions. This was for two reasons. One, to put the figure of 2.3 per cent in "numerical perspective", as the article itself explained. The second reason was that outcomes are ultimately what the crux of debate is about. The rest of the article in any case dealt with process - or conversions in this case, from both a contemporary and historical perspective.
2. Some commenters have tried to cast doubts on the reliability of Census 2001. Those who do this should bear in mind that Census 2001 was conducted by a BJP government. Considering the extreme importance that BJP gives to this issue, it would be reasonable to expect that IF it had perceived a problem with the methodology that was distorting the numbers, it would have fixed it. As the article mentioned, BJP or BJP-supported governments have been in power for 10 of the last 40 years, or about a quarter of the time, and the only reasonable conclusion one can arrive at is that any misreporting of numbers, real or perceived, would be marginal and hence, not of importance.
To all other arguments made, my answer is the following: Please read the article again, with particular focus on the quotations of Vivekananda and Monier Williams, and the history of the missionary efforts in Bengal and their outcome.
Why only Muslims get radicalised? They are not the only community who feels sidelined or victimised. Why the Hindus in Pakistan and Bnagladesh do not get radicalised? Are they better off than Indian Muslims?
Anwaar, this question is for you, and Ahmed Pasha can also enlighten us with his vast knowledge. After all, these two gentlemen live in the enlightened part of the world where lesser mortals like us have no access.
>>The finding that IM is just a front for SIMI is not supported by evidence.
It is. All tribunal orders are based on evidence. Your insisting otherwise means squat unless YOU show evidence.
>> unless you can show that a particular finding is not supported by evidence.
The finding that IM is just a front for SIMI is not supported by evidence. If you disagree, let us see the evidence. And do read that Kafila article.
>>Usaully your arguments are not so trashy.
You wouldn't recognize an argument if it whacked you in the posterior.
>>you will see that I have been questioning the tribunal's exaggerated claims
I know it is in your DNA to go around in circles but your questioning means squat unless you can show that a particular finding is not supported by evidence. So far you have come up with only froth.
>>>>Neither the tribunal nor anybody else really knows that much about IM.
>> Now the idiot has an opinion on a tribunal order on the basis of a Kafila article.
I am sorry to get you so riled up. Usaully your arguments are not so trashy. If you scroll back, you will see that I have been questioning the tribunal's exaggerated claims of their knowledge all along. Relax! Go our for a walk.
We at Outlookindia.com welcome feedback and your comments, including scathing criticism
1. Scathing, passionate, even angry critiques are welcome, but please do not indulge in abuse and invective. Our Primary concern is to keep the debate civil. We urge our users to try and express their disagreements without being disagreeable. Personal attacks are not welcome. No ad hominem please.
2. Please do not post the same message again and again in the same or different threads
3. Please keep your responses confined to the subject matter of the article you are responding to. Please note that our comments section is not a general free-for-all but for feedback to articles/blogs posted on the site
4. Our endeavour is to keep these forums unmoderated and unexpurgated. But if any of the above three conditions are violated, we reserve the right to delete any comment that we deem objectionable and also to withdraw posting privileges from the abuser. Please also note that hate-speech is punishable by law and in extreme circumstances, we may be forced to take legal action by tracing the IP addresses of the poster.
5. If someone is being abusive or personal, or generally being a troll or a flame-baiter, please do not descend to their level. The best response to such posters is to ignore them and send us a message at Mail AT outlookindia DOT com with the subject header COMPLAINT
6. Please do not copy and paste copyrighted material. If you do think that an article elsewhere has relevance to the point you wish to make, please only quote what is considered fair-use and provide a link to the article under question.
7. There is no particular outlookindia.com line on any subject. The views expressed in our opinion section are those of the author concerned and not that of all of outlookindia.com or all its authors.
8. Please also note that you are solely responsible for the comments posted by you on the site. The comments could be deleted or edited entirely at our discretion if we find them objectionable. However, the mere fact of their existence on our site does not mean that we necessarily approve of their contents. In short, the onus of responsibility for the comments remains solely with the authors thereof. Outlookindia.com or any of its group publications, may, however, retains the right to publish any of these comments, with or without editing, in any medium whatsoever. It is therefore in your own interest to be careful before posting.
9.Outlookindia.com is not responsible in any manner whatsoever for how any search engine -- such as Google, Bing etc -- caches or displays these comments. Please note that you are solely responsible for posting these comments and it is a privilege being granted to our registered users which can be withdrawn in case of abuse. To reiterate:
a. Comments once posted can only be deleted at the discretion of outlookindia.com
b. The comments reflect the views of the authors and not of outlookindia.com
c. outlookindia.com is not responsible in any manner whatsoever for the way search engines cache or display these comments
d. Please therefore take due caution before you post any comments as your words could potentially be used against you
10. We have an online thread for our comments policy:
You are welcome to post your suggestions here or in case you have a specific issue, to directly email us at Mail AT outlookindia DOT com with the subject header COMPLAINT