The radicalism of the Muslim league was vocal, but not violent. Then came Jinnah - well read, articulate, influential. And THEN the violence started.
The radicalism of the common man creates one terrorist. But the radicalisation of the educated is exponentially more dangerous because they are able to influence millions and create a dialogue that is based on hatred, while making it appear to be based on logic.
Today, I read a piece in the paper as part of my regular reading. The author was some guy called Omair Ahmed. As I read on and on, my anger got worse and worse. I am not even a Hindu, i have never been to Ayodhya and as far as I can tell, will not go. But the article was so infuriating even to me.
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/blogs/voices/violence-has-been-rewarded-and-we-should-all-worry/
The article quotes:
"again and again circles back to the fact that Hindus worshipped inarticle was the outer courtyard of the complex, and harassed Muslims going into the mosque in the inner courtyard. It also cites that Hindus used to frequent the mosque before the riots of 1856, which starts the evidentiary trail.... and then... Staggeringly, the court argues that this makes the claims of the Hindus to the whole site stronger than the claims of the Muslims.
And then:
The way that the Supreme Court has chosen to decide this dispute seems inescapably a commentary on how violence premised on faith is to be adjudged in the future.
And this gem follows:
Imagine if a group decides that, based on their faith, they can contest the ownership of the structure. Imagine if they set up a campaign to harass, attack, and forcibly take over the structure, smuggling in their articles of faith in the dead of the night to justify the takeover and locking out those that used to worship there.Contesting the ownership is so me-too! The right thing to do is to raze the structure and build a mosque on top of it, so that there is no doubt about the ownership any more.
Imagine if evidence of this campaign is actually used to award them exclusive right to that structure. What imagine? That is exactly how the Faithful got the right to that structure.
And this is the piece-de-resistance:
In its own way, it is a judgement on the New India, an India where the Supreme Court has judged that reason has no place any longer.
So, while stating that the Supreme Court's judgement is devoid of reason, this person does not think twice about contempt of court.
What made me really angry
According to this dude, razing the holiest temple of the Hindus and doubling the insult by making a mosque there (an act that he does not mention) is reasonable and historically correct, but using that structure to pray to one of the most important deities in the religion is bullying and violence.
If that is not Islamic radicalism, I don't know what is. He can do contempt of court on national media. A national newspaper can publish that and another contempt of court on the same day (Aakar Patel).
On googling, I found that the bearer of this name is an author. So, starting with Devdutt Pattnaik, has the author community entered a race for increasing stupidity?
PS: I have a personal rule against posting anything hateful. But this article was sooo weird, it just needed to be recorded for posterity. The same way that i post about unscrupulous lawyers and doctors. Their public record gets whitewashed, but someone needs to write - for those who want to know the truth about this person. Or at some point in future, will want to know.
The radicalism of the common man creates one terrorist. But the radicalisation of the educated is exponentially more dangerous because they are able to influence millions and create a dialogue that is based on hatred, while making it appear to be based on logic.
Today, I read a piece in the paper as part of my regular reading. The author was some guy called Omair Ahmed. As I read on and on, my anger got worse and worse. I am not even a Hindu, i have never been to Ayodhya and as far as I can tell, will not go. But the article was so infuriating even to me.
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/blogs/voices/violence-has-been-rewarded-and-we-should-all-worry/
The article quotes:
"again and again circles back to the fact that Hindus worshipped inarticle was the outer courtyard of the complex, and harassed Muslims going into the mosque in the inner courtyard. It also cites that Hindus used to frequent the mosque before the riots of 1856, which starts the evidentiary trail.... and then... Staggeringly, the court argues that this makes the claims of the Hindus to the whole site stronger than the claims of the Muslims.
And then:
The way that the Supreme Court has chosen to decide this dispute seems inescapably a commentary on how violence premised on faith is to be adjudged in the future.
And this gem follows:
Imagine if a group decides that, based on their faith, they can contest the ownership of the structure. Imagine if they set up a campaign to harass, attack, and forcibly take over the structure, smuggling in their articles of faith in the dead of the night to justify the takeover and locking out those that used to worship there.Contesting the ownership is so me-too! The right thing to do is to raze the structure and build a mosque on top of it, so that there is no doubt about the ownership any more.
Imagine if evidence of this campaign is actually used to award them exclusive right to that structure. What imagine? That is exactly how the Faithful got the right to that structure.
And this is the piece-de-resistance:
In its own way, it is a judgement on the New India, an India where the Supreme Court has judged that reason has no place any longer.
So, while stating that the Supreme Court's judgement is devoid of reason, this person does not think twice about contempt of court.
What made me really angry
According to this dude, razing the holiest temple of the Hindus and doubling the insult by making a mosque there (an act that he does not mention) is reasonable and historically correct, but using that structure to pray to one of the most important deities in the religion is bullying and violence.
If that is not Islamic radicalism, I don't know what is. He can do contempt of court on national media. A national newspaper can publish that and another contempt of court on the same day (Aakar Patel).
On googling, I found that the bearer of this name is an author. So, starting with Devdutt Pattnaik, has the author community entered a race for increasing stupidity?
PS: I have a personal rule against posting anything hateful. But this article was sooo weird, it just needed to be recorded for posterity. The same way that i post about unscrupulous lawyers and doctors. Their public record gets whitewashed, but someone needs to write - for those who want to know the truth about this person. Or at some point in future, will want to know.
No comments:
Post a Comment