What's new

India's Greatest Threat!

LEGENDARY WARRIOR

FULL MEMBER
Oct 14, 2010
1,514
0
877
The confessions of a religious teacher are a reminder of the dangers of Hindu nationalism, reports Sanjay Kumar. So how big is the threat of terrorism?


"I know I can be sentenced to death, but I still want to make a confession," Naba Kumar Sarkar told the metropolitioan
magistrate in a lower Delhi court last December. His move was, he said an act of atonement after he learned of how someone
else had been wrongly arrested.
Such a decision would usually be noteworthy, but not headline making. What was unusual about this confession was
it was coming form. Sarkar, also known as Swami Aseemanand, was no ordinary criminal standing before the courts. Being a Swami-
a revered religious teacher in the Hindu religion- Aseemanand is supposed to symbolise virtue. But instead, he was in court over claims
that he has been closely involved with Hindu nationalist terrorist attacks that took place in western and southern India between 2006 and
2008.
Aseemanand is believed to belong to the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), an organisation that propagates Hindu nationalism,
and which is intolerant of other religions, particularly Islam and Christianity. His confession, recorded in front of a magistrate, included talk of
his involvement with terror attacks conducted with the help of friends. It also shed light on a previoulsy murky brand of terrorism.
India's Home Minister Palaniappan Chidambaram describes the phenomenon as 'safron terror', although the ruling Congress Party prefers 'Sangh terror,' in recognition of the importance of RSS. Most of the media, though prefer a broader tag: 'Hindutva terror'.
Regardless of the name it is given, it has become increasingly clear that the popular perception of Islamic groups as being behind virtually all of the terrorist incidents in India in recent years is hugely misplaced.
Aseemanand's confession suggested that Hindutva brigades have been behind a spate of high-profile incidents--the terror attacks in Malegaon in Maharashtra (2006, 2008), the Samjhota Express bombings (2007), a bomb blast at the Sufi shrine in Ajmer Sharif (2007), the Makkah Masjid bombing, and an attack in Modasa in Gujrat (2008).
Yet at the time of these crimes, Muslim organisations and individuals were arrested in significant numbers, revealing a justice system skewed against Muslims. Some of those arrested over the attacks are still behind bars.
"There's obviously an inbuilt bias against Muslims in certain states and among a section of police personnel," says Prof Mahesh Rangarajan, a noted political analyst. "Political leaderships should look into it and justice should be given. There should be compensation for the people wrongfully held, actions against the erring officials should be taken. This violation of rights isn't good for the country as a whole.
The country might now finally be sitting up and taking notice, India's popular investigative weekly news magazine, Tehelka, published a cover story in January that included details of the ties between the earlier attacks and Hindu terrorist cells.
The first sign of involvement of Hindutva leaders in terrorist attacks came in 2008, when Maharashtra Anti-Terrorism Squad Chif Hemant Karkare had 11 alleged Hindutva radicals, including an activist of the Akhil Bharatriya Vidyarthi Parishad -- the student wing of the main oppositon Bhartiya Janata Party -- held in connection with the Malegaon blast. But back then, the RSS, the BJP and a number of other Hindu organisations denied there was any link, arguing the Congress government was trying to defame the Hindutva leadership.
Indeed, despite Aseemanand's apparently damning confession, which was printed by Tehelka as part of its expose, RSS chief Mohan Bhagawat denies there are any ties between Hindutva forces and terrorism.
"Terrorism and Hindus, terrorism and saffron, and terrorism and the Sangh are oxymoronic -- they can never be related to each other," he says. "This effort to connect the two was an attempt to weaken the strength of Hindus in India and, at the same time, to appease Muslims."
Not everyone is convinced. Writing in Economic and Political Weekly, Christopher Jaffrelot and Malvika Maheshware argue: "This persistent politics of denial is all the more surprising as independent reports and journalists' investigations have convincingly shown that Hindutva forces have played an active role in communal riots. . . In fact, Aseemanand's confession bears testimony to the fact that violence is all pervasive in this nebulae and that rioters and terrorists share the same safe heaven."
Rangarajan suggests the Hindutva ties to terrorism are nothing new. "These groups had a history," he says.
"The demolition of Babri Masjid in 1992, the carnage in Mumbai in 1993, the Gujarat pogrom in 2002, attacks on Christians in Kandhmal (Orissa) in 2008 and several other cases of riots prove that the Hindutva brigades have nevr been clean."
The question many are left with is what has motivated these attacks.
Is it part of a grand scheme to undermine Indian secularism? Aseemanand says the attack on the Sufi shrine in Ajmer Sharif was undertaken because it is also visited by Hindus, while the killing of Hindu devotees at the Akshardham temple in Gujarat by Islamist suicide bombers in 2002 was considered an act of revenge.
But some observers see a more fundamental threat to India.
The revelations demonstrate a deep moral 'sickness' that poses a significant national security challenge, Pratap Bhanu Mehta, president of the Centre for Policy Research, wrote in the Indian Express. The Hindutva brigade is attacking 'the credibility of the state lock stock and barrel.'
Congress General Secretary Rahul Gandhi appears to agree. A leaked diplomatic cable revealed by Wikileaks suggested Gandhi believes home-grown Hindu extremist groups are potentially an even bigger threat to India than Pakistan-based Lashkar-e-Taiba and other Muslim militant organisations.
Responding to the US ambassador to India's query on Lashkar-e-Taiba's activities in the region, the cable states that: "Gandhi said there was evidence of some support for the group among certain elements in India's indigenous Muslim community. However, Gandhi warned, the bigger threat may be the growth of radicalised Hindu groups, which create religious tensions and political confrontations with the Muslim community."
With this in mind, All India Congress Committee General Secretary Digvijay Singh and Left leader Sitaram Yechury demaned a white paper on the 'Sangh terror', with Singh reportedly singling out RSS-affiliated educational institutions as breeding grounds for terrorism.
In a joint report, the two lament 'communal' bureaucracy and the tendency among security agencies to launch witch hunts against Muslim yourths, while ignoring leads pointing towards Hidutva groups.
Some, though, are keen to downplay the culpability of radical Hindu groups. Shriniwas Keldar, a Pune-based education consultant, for example, suggests that followers of other religions may simply feel they have no choice but to respond forcefully to Muslims looling to spread Islam.
'Muslims of the world are trying to establish Islam as the religion of the world and are indulging in terrorism, releasing terror to achieve their objectives,' he says.
'What are the ways to be adopted by either the secular or followers of other religions?'
Such talk has alarmed many Muslims. A website called 'Indian Muslims', which claims to be a 'window into the mind of Indian Muslims', for example, states that RSS, with its 'pan-In-dia presence' and networking, 'can do unimaginable damage, and it will be a very difficult task to check them if they are allowed to spread their tentacles like the terror outfits in neighbouring country.'
So, should RSS be banned, just as the Student Islamic Movement of Indian was?
Prof Rangarajan says he doesn'nt think a total ban is the answer, suggesting instead that the organisation 'be questioned and combated politically.'
And Mehta, for one, believes it's not too late to try and push back. 'The only way this damage can be repaired is if the Indian state credibly and relentlessly pursues its investigations, without us impugning its credibility from the start,' he says. 'Perhaps this serious crisis can b turned on its head.
By admitting our mistakes, blind spots and omissions, we can at least send a signal that we have the resilience and courage to correct our mistakes.'
But he's also clear about the consequences of failure. We would be 'in exactlly the same boat that we place Pakistan: a society that practices the politics of denial,' he says.
Will India succumb to what many describe as 'majority terrorism?' The country's standing as a secular democracy -- and indeed the very idea of India -- will suffer if it does.

Source: India
 
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703581204576033031265052272.html?mod=googlenews_wsj


What Terrorizes India?

Is Hindu radicalism a bigger threat to India than the Lashkar-e-Taiba? Yes, if you are to believe Rahul Gandhi, the ruling Congress Party's 40-year-old general secretary, widely regarded as India's prime minister in waiting. According to a cable released last week by WikiLeaks, Mr. Gandhi had this to say last year in response to a question U.S. Ambassador to India Timothy Roemer posed about the Pakistan-based transnational terrorist group Lashkar-e-Taiba—responsible for the 2008 Mumbai attacks: "The bigger threat may be the growth of radicalized Hindu groups, which create religious tensions and political confrontations with the Muslim community."

Predictably enough, Mr. Gandhi's comment has ignited a firestorm of protest. Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi of the opposition Bharatiya Janata Party, a man not best known for his subtlety, accused Mr. Gandhi of giving "inspiration" to the United States's alleged pro-Pakistan tilt. To his credit, departing from his party's initial instinct to dismiss the leaked cable as part of a conspiracy, Mr. Gandhi did not disavow his comments. Instead, his party issued a clarification stating that in Mr. Gandhi's view "terrorism and communalism of all types are a threat to India."

This anodyne formulation does little to reassure those who believe that when it comes to radical Islam, Mr. Gandhi and his party are at best dangerously naïve and at worst calculatingly cynical. Taken together with earlier remarks by Mr. Gandhi and senior Congress Party leaders, the comment to Mr. Roemer is part of a disturbing pattern. In October, Mr. Gandhi likened another terrorist group, the banned Students Islamic Movement of India, to the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (National Volunteer Corps), a grassroots Hindu-nationalist organization that provides the opposition BJP with many of its foot soldiers, and much of its ideology and leadership.

Another senior Congress leader, Digvijay Singh, has repeatedly pandered to the most conspiracy-minded elements of India's 140-million strong Muslim population. Earlier this month, Mr. Singh hinted that Hemant Karkare, a top policeman shot by Lashkar-e-Taiba militants during the Mumbai attacks, may have been killed by militant Hindus upset by his investigation into bomb blasts ascribed to them. Mr. Singh has also questioned the official account of a 2008 terrorist shootout in New Delhi that claimed the life of a highly decorated policeman.

Two years ago, he backed the assertion of another Congress leader, Abdul Rehman Antulay, that terrorists "had no reason to kill Karkare." Another leaked U.S. embassy cable from the time described Mr. Antulay's statement as "outlandish": evidence that the Congress "will readily stoop to the old caste/religious-based politics if it feels it is in its interest."


A fanatical mob, yes, but not terrorists.
.
To concur with this view is not to sympathize with Hindu nationalism. Indeed, at a superficial level radical Islam and Hindu nationalism have much in common. Both represent a kind of religious tribalism marked by a sense of victimhood and deep suspicion of outsiders. Both radical Islamists and Hindu nationalists are prone to wild conspiracy theories—that the 9/11 terrorist attacks were planned by the U.S. government, or that Mr. Gandhi, whose mother, Congress President Sonia Gandhi, is Italian by birth, represents a secret Vatican plot to take over India. Both share a deep fascination with Western technology, and an aversion to Western culture. Both place group identity above individual rights.

But the similarities end there. Simply put, the notion that the radical Hindu threat to India is comparable to that posed by radical Islam is ludicrous. First there's the question of scale. Alleged Hindu terrorists—not one of whom has been convicted—are accused of bomb blasts in 2007 and 2008 in Andhra Pradesh, Rajasthan and Maharashtra that killed 17 people. According to the South Asia Terrorism Portal, the toll in India from about two dozen radical Islamic terrorist attacks since 9/11 stands at more than 950 dead and many hundreds more injured.

The principal Hindu groups accused of the bombings—Abhinav Bharat and the Hindu Janajagruti Samiti—are ramshackle outfits with few members and scant popular support. The Lashkar-e-Taiba, by contrast, is part of a powerful international network and has close links with both al Qaeda and Pakistan's notorious military intelligence agency, Inter-Services Intelligence. Despite international pressure following the group's 2001 assault on India's parliament and the Mumbai attacks, Islamabad has been loath to move against Lashkar-e-Taiba. In part this is because the group enjoys popular backing in Pakistan's religion-drenched society.

Nor can radical Hinduism—such as it is—claim anything approaching the ambition or ideological rigor of radical Islam. From Morocco to Mindanao, radical Islamists are motivated by the desire to replace man's law with God's law by ordering every aspect of society and the state by the medieval dictates of Shariah law. In ideologues such as the Egyptian Sayyid Qutb (1906-66) and the Pakistani Abul Ala Maududi (1903-79), they find religious justification for terrorism. In Iran's Ayatollah Khomeini, they see the possibility of making their dream a reality. In the oil rich kingdoms of the Middle East, they find deep pockets to tap. None of these is true of Hindu groups. The nature of Hindu society—diffuse, lacking a binding tradition and largely comfortable with modernity—makes the emergence of a Hindu equivalent of the Lashkar-e-Taiba difficult to imagine.

In the end, Mr. Gandhi deserves to be criticized not merely because he's wrong, but because his apparent naiveté hurts India. His comment to Mr. Roemer directly undercut one of New Delhi's main foreign policy objectives—to get the international community to take the threat from Pakistan-based terrorist groups more seriously. More broadly, Mr. Gandhi and his party encourage precisely the kind of conspiratorial mindset and culture of grievance among a section of Indian Muslims that they ought to be working to end.

Finally, they raise the uncomfortable prospect of India being led by a man out of touch with the dominant ethos of the country he seeks to lead, one that may be flawed but remains essentially liberal, humane and resistant to any kind of radicalism. In the long run, it's this ignorance, not a handful of Hindu zealots, that poses the greater threat to India.
 
Sadanand Dhume: What Terrorizes India? - WSJ.com


What Terrorizes India?

Is Hindu radicalism a bigger threat to India than the Lashkar-e-Taiba? Yes, if you are to believe Rahul Gandhi, the ruling Congress Party's 40-year-old general secretary, widely regarded as India's prime minister in waiting. According to a cable released last week by WikiLeaks, Mr. Gandhi had this to say last year in response to a question U.S. Ambassador to India Timothy Roemer posed about the Pakistan-based transnational terrorist group Lashkar-e-Taiba—responsible for the 2008 Mumbai attacks: "The bigger threat may be the growth of radicalized Hindu groups, which create religious tensions and political confrontations with the Muslim community."

Predictably enough, Mr. Gandhi's comment has ignited a firestorm of protest. Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi of the opposition Bharatiya Janata Party, a man not best known for his subtlety, accused Mr. Gandhi of giving "inspiration" to the United States's alleged pro-Pakistan tilt. To his credit, departing from his party's initial instinct to dismiss the leaked cable as part of a conspiracy, Mr. Gandhi did not disavow his comments. Instead, his party issued a clarification stating that in Mr. Gandhi's view "terrorism and communalism of all types are a threat to India."

This anodyne formulation does little to reassure those who believe that when it comes to radical Islam, Mr. Gandhi and his party are at best dangerously naïve and at worst calculatingly cynical. Taken together with earlier remarks by Mr. Gandhi and senior Congress Party leaders, the comment to Mr. Roemer is part of a disturbing pattern. In October, Mr. Gandhi likened another terrorist group, the banned Students Islamic Movement of India, to the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (National Volunteer Corps), a grassroots Hindu-nationalist organization that provides the opposition BJP with many of its foot soldiers, and much of its ideology and leadership.

Another senior Congress leader, Digvijay Singh, has repeatedly pandered to the most conspiracy-minded elements of India's 140-million strong Muslim population. Earlier this month, Mr. Singh hinted that Hemant Karkare, a top policeman shot by Lashkar-e-Taiba militants during the Mumbai attacks, may have been killed by militant Hindus upset by his investigation into bomb blasts ascribed to them. Mr. Singh has also questioned the official account of a 2008 terrorist shootout in New Delhi that claimed the life of a highly decorated policeman.

Two years ago, he backed the assertion of another Congress leader, Abdul Rehman Antulay, that terrorists "had no reason to kill Karkare." Another leaked U.S. embassy cable from the time described Mr. Antulay's statement as "outlandish": evidence that the Congress "will readily stoop to the old caste/religious-based politics if it feels it is in its interest."


A fanatical mob, yes, but not terrorists.
.
To concur with this view is not to sympathize with Hindu nationalism. Indeed, at a superficial level radical Islam and Hindu nationalism have much in common. Both represent a kind of religious tribalism marked by a sense of victimhood and deep suspicion of outsiders. Both radical Islamists and Hindu nationalists are prone to wild conspiracy theories—that the 9/11 terrorist attacks were planned by the U.S. government, or that Mr. Gandhi, whose mother, Congress President Sonia Gandhi, is Italian by birth, represents a secret Vatican plot to take over India. Both share a deep fascination with Western technology, and an aversion to Western culture. Both place group identity above individual rights.

But the similarities end there. Simply put, the notion that the radical Hindu threat to India is comparable to that posed by radical Islam is ludicrous. First there's the question of scale. Alleged Hindu terrorists—not one of whom has been convicted—are accused of bomb blasts in 2007 and 2008 in Andhra Pradesh, Rajasthan and Maharashtra that killed 17 people. According to the South Asia Terrorism Portal, the toll in India from about two dozen radical Islamic terrorist attacks since 9/11 stands at more than 950 dead and many hundreds more injured.

The principal Hindu groups accused of the bombings—Abhinav Bharat and the Hindu Janajagruti Samiti—are ramshackle outfits with few members and scant popular support. The Lashkar-e-Taiba, by contrast, is part of a powerful international network and has close links with both al Qaeda and Pakistan's notorious military intelligence agency, Inter-Services Intelligence. Despite international pressure following the group's 2001 assault on India's parliament and the Mumbai attacks, Islamabad has been loath to move against Lashkar-e-Taiba. In part this is because the group enjoys popular backing in Pakistan's religion-drenched society.

Nor can radical Hinduism—such as it is—claim anything approaching the ambition or ideological rigor of radical Islam. From Morocco to Mindanao, radical Islamists are motivated by the desire to replace man's law with God's law by ordering every aspect of society and the state by the medieval dictates of Shariah law. In ideologues such as the Egyptian Sayyid Qutb (1906-66) and the Pakistani Abul Ala Maududi (1903-79), they find religious justification for terrorism. In Iran's Ayatollah Khomeini, they see the possibility of making their dream a reality. In the oil rich kingdoms of the Middle East, they find deep pockets to tap. None of these is true of Hindu groups. The nature of Hindu society—diffuse, lacking a binding tradition and largely comfortable with modernity—makes the emergence of a Hindu equivalent of the Lashkar-e-Taiba difficult to imagine.

In the end, Mr. Gandhi deserves to be criticized not merely because he's wrong, but because his apparent naiveté hurts India. His comment to Mr. Roemer directly undercut one of New Delhi's main foreign policy objectives—to get the international community to take the threat from Pakistan-based terrorist groups more seriously. More broadly, Mr. Gandhi and his party encourage precisely the kind of conspiratorial mindset and culture of grievance among a section of Indian Muslims that they ought to be working to end.

Finally, they raise the uncomfortable prospect of India being led by a man out of touch with the dominant ethos of the country he seeks to lead, one that may be flawed but remains essentially liberal, humane and resistant to any kind of radicalism. In the long run, it's this ignorance, not a handful of Hindu zealots, that poses the greater threat to India.

does it mean that Rajeev Gandhi is fond of extremist organisations??? :what:
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 1, Members: 0, Guests: 1)


Latest posts

Pakistan Defence Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom