I wrote 2 posts last years but I couldn’t complete the series. My inspiration to complete those comes after reading this. I was trying to explore the mind set of a victimized person.
What I did in that post was weave my case. Assume many things, be extremely cynical and attribute all evil to X and its friends. Its because I was MAD that day. I wanted to assume things which are anti-me and this further augment my anger towards X. Why? Well so that I can hate X to the utmost degree for what it has done to me. I assumed extreme prowess on the part of X and a victimized mentality on my part. This is what victimized mentality does to your thinking. You tend to assume things which are not at all true.
This victimized feeling can very easily be created. Someone might be made to forcefully realise that the whole world is against you and you are extremely feeble to retaliate. This is what the extremists are taught. They are brain washed that their religion is under threat and they need to somehow achieve the lost glory. Ayman al-Zawahiri incited this passion and called for the killing of Egyptian monarch. He claimed that the monarchs are unwilling to follow the Quran and hence they are out of the fold of Islam and thus their killing is justified (his interpretation of the Quran!).
Something similar happens with Indian Muslims when it comes to execution of culprits for blasts. Even though the biasness and prejudice on the part of police is apparent, still this victimized feeling among Indian Muslims further demonizes them. The kind of treatment given to a Muslim arrested after blasts in highly condemnable and this further adds to the victimized feeling. This breeds hatred and eventually a shift towards violence to avenge the humiliation and suffering!
Aftab did not see what was done to his mother and sister in the lock-up. But he saw how after she returned home, his sister would jump out of bed in the middle of the night crying and trying to flee. He refuses to let this reporter talk to them. “Is there any point moaning? If anything concrete can be done to stop this, let’s do it. Otherwise, keep quiet and accept this. There is no justice for Muslims, there’s no secularism or human rights. Let’s live for the day. If the entire family can share a meal together, let’s thank God for it. There have been days when all of us have been in different lock-ups.”
Aftab says all this with an unshakeable calm. It is with the same calm that he says he has decided to migrate. To where, he is asked. “Where is a Muslim welcome today? I’ll have to go to the Gulf.” Before he goes, he wants to meet the families of those who died in the blasts. “They should know that we too are innocent sufferers, just like them. They should realise that they are not going to get justice. Those picked up by the ATS (Anti-Terrorist Squad) are not the ones who killed their family members. It’s a fraud, this whole case. The inspector told us, if you don’t get us your brother, we’ll implicate one of you. I asked him, ‘You’d do that knowing we are innocent?’ He laughed and replied, ‘So? Tum mere rishtedaar lagte ho kya?”’ [TOI]
This trick is also used to garner support by the RSS/VHP, they think that Muslims and Christians are the biggest enemy of Hinduism and thus its their right to defend the ‘only’ Hindu country in the world. Most of the allegation against Muslims is that they are sympathetic towards Pakistan because of common religion and thus Muslims support the terrorists. See this video.
This victimized feeling is one reason why people resort to violent means. The whole imaginary world creates an illusion which keeps the fire burning. I highly recommend you to to read this and this to understand how I wove my imaginary world.
To be continued…
{ 25 comments… read them below or add one }
trip 02.07.07 at 7:21 pm
I’ll be darned if anyone who not influential and arrested by police is going to feel any different in India. In India highhandedness of police is a bitter reality. However using it as excuse for violent tendencies is very lame. thousands of very poor and the weakest sections in the society face the worst of police… and they should feel like committing violence? i don’t buy it.
http://www.indianexpress.com/story/22701.html
feeling victimised is also born of discontent. but whose responsibility is it to look for a solution? you must look at the example of the Sikhs… very turbulant and dark episodes in their past too. every reason to feel historic grievances too. thousands still missing in Punjab… so whats the answer… more violance? you probably don’t realise it, but you justify violance. you are not radical enough. you are refusing to confront. i often feel that you are trying to appear nice to you audience… is that what you want?
Sharique 02.07.07 at 11:02 pm
Well trip I never justified anything above. I just mentioned the reason I left are responsible. I do agree that the majority of Muslims who are targeted after the blasts are poor, btw majority of the Muslims are poor anyway and thus it appears that the whole community is being targeted. I know unbiased attitude cannot be assumed on the part of Police, sadly. That article captures
You are just accusing me of not being rational enough!! and also justifying violence!! That reveals your prejudice and not my try to cover up something. Only problem is that you have a preconceived notion and you try to accuse me of that notion each time i remotely touch the controversial issue of Muslims or Islam.
trip 02.08.07 at 9:56 am
I may be biased, who is not? that is not the point.
As i said, you do not realize that you justify violence. you think that people resort to violence to avenge humiliation? human history is full of humiliation and injustice always for a vast majority of population. a vast majority has always been poor and helpless. its a fact. so does it lead to violence? i really do not think so. violence comes from ideas. under Aurangzeb’s rule hindus were humiliated like never before. read the wiki entry for a quick summary. thousands of temples were destroyed under his reign (according to his own records. btw the worst crimes were done against hindus when the mogul empire was the strongest and not when they came as ‘aggressors’ as you claimed on one earlier post). so after the fall of the moguls and the hindu marathas had taken over most of India, how many slaughters of muslims happened? how many muslim prayer places destroyed? shouldn’t all the humiliation and injustice have caused that? in any case saying that such things lead to violence is nonsense. violence is a reaction if it happens in the spur of the moment. ideological violence is justified when we don’t call a spade a spade. and you never do that.
so what if hundreds were arrested on suspicion after the recent mumbai blasts? aren’t over a hundred convicted for the earlier mumbai blasts? this is how police functions in India. so how do we redress the humiliation and police high handedness? by killing more innocent people?
trip 02.08.07 at 10:03 am
and the root cause of all the thousands of muslims being killed by muslims in iraq, sudan and pakistan is the same as any ideological violence in india too – intoleraance. lack of indoctrination in tolerance, and indeed indoctrination of supremacist ideas and hatred. face it.
trip 02.08.07 at 10:05 am
and indeed a perplexing inability to do anything constructive and always blaming others for it.
Sharique 02.08.07 at 10:37 pm
I agree when you say that Muslims are to blame, to a very great extent, for the violence and are champions to put the blame on others. But you are not getting my point at all, may be because of your prejudiced mindset. I have argued a possible reason, I HAVE NEVER JUSTIFIED VIOLENCE!
But I still believe that people resort to violence to avenge crimes against them, thats their motivation. Wait for my part 2 of the post. As far as your allegations against Aurangzeb are concerned…here is a reply a friend of mine gave a little while ago
Well it’s only in bjp’s history that mughals demolished Hindu temples.
My information is based on non Indian, non Muslim sources (discovery, ngc) they showed that mughals, in fact Aurangzeb in particular went wrong in imposing a tax on non Muslims. And as Muslims are bound to pay “zakaat” to the Muslim government, non Muslims are supposed to pay a similar tax.
Is it something close to discrimination???
Why aurangzeb is a scapegoat? Simply because of all mughals he was the most religious one.
Only bjps history claims that mughals destroyed temples, tell me those mughals who married Hindu princesses for diplomatic reasons (bringing Hindu kings closer to them), will they demolish Hindu temples?
If you ask me…it’s a big piece of shit and nothing else!
No where in the world history it’s written that mughals destroyed temples, except for bjps history books.
Sometime back it came in the news that, in Madhya Pradesh, where bjp is in power the history books is distorted. “Even though Akbar was a Muslim but he was a good ruler”
My research is based on sources that I already mentioned and it’s kind of funny to accept that people who themselves weren’t concerned about Muslims and Islam wanted the whole world to accept Islam.
As far as I understand mughals, they were plain rulers who wanted a bigger empire at any cost; that included marrying non Muslims just to make sure that they have diplomatic ties with non Muslims. Either something’s wrong with me or something’s terribly wrong with all those who gave this information.
Coming to Babar, wasn’t he invited by a Hindu ruler only?
Don’t know what’s right and what’s wrong but it’s something hilarious that mughals were converting all Hindus forcefully and still Hindus wanted bahadur shah zafar to sit on the throne!
And the so called suppressed Hindus continue being a majority.
Don’t give me a weird excuse that all those who were converted, re converted back to Hinduism, if it’s the case den there’s no issue, right? (The same logic, these rss guys use!)
I’m using plain logic. Not that hard to understand.
Coming to the claim of stupid justifications, that the present day aggression is a result of the Muslim aggression on Hindus! Do you know about the Aryans? I’m sure you won’t be able to digest this but this is something (Brahmin majority) Anthropology department, university of Delhi, (the best in India) taught me.
When Aryans AKA the ancient Hindu population that migrated to India they brutally washed the indigenous Indian population and that is the precise reason why caste system was introduced. Those who were outside the caste system were actually the natives who were given the title of untouchables so that they don’t interfere with the Brahmin lords!
So now if these untouchables form a group and start rioting against Hindus will you justify their stand?
The answer is obviously no!
There’s more to history then what bjp and rss is teaching, they thrive on these issues and they can only rule if they divide, let’s not forget the British legacy of divide and rule.
Wake up brother!
We cannot be dead sure of something that happened a day before then why are we arguing over something that happened hundreds of years back…and which still is not a proven fact!
India needs a united youth not a divided youth.
The choice is yours.
trip 02.09.07 at 2:55 pm
Ok, first of all i mentioned the scapegoat aurangzeb to prove a point that those who feel humiliated do not go around killing other people unless there is some ideological justification. so as far as my point is concerned, it does not matter whether the excesses were real or not as far as Hindus felt humiliated (which they did, hence all the rebellions against his rule).
Secondly, i had no idea Maasiri Alamgiri (the official chronicles of the mughal court) was a BJP publication. No wonder BJP has inserted all the temple destruction records like “Its entry for 2 September 1669 tells us: “News came to court that in accordance with the Emperor’s command his officers had demolished the temple of Vishvanath at Banarasâ€? “… one of the most revered Hindu sites. needless to say a masjid was built on the site to placate the hindus.
From his official court records -
“Aurangzeb outlawed Hindu religious fairs in 1668
1668 – Aurangzeb prohibited construction of Hindu temples as well as the repair of old ones
Though the duty (internal customs fees) paid on goods was 2.5%, double the amount was levied on Hindu merchants from 1665 onwards”
I do not wish to go on abt discrimination as I’ve already said its not important to prove my point abt violence. also its fashionable to blame BJP for spreading the rumors as if thats supposed to automatically prove the opposite.
Even if your aryan invasion theory is assumed true for the sake for this argument, it goes on to prove only my point. after such humiliation for such a long time, why don’t the dalits go around killing the brahmins? surely their humiliation is far greater than of a few hundred individuals? btw i’m not brahmin.
Because BJP thrives on some issue, the issue does not become a lie.
bahadur shah jafar was a nominal ruler installed by the mutinous troops (a majority of whom were Muslim)… he was a symbolic choice in a turbulant time. i do not know what point is being made here. marathas also helped to protect mughal delhi from afghans… so were they friends of the mughals??? did they give power to the mughals to do as they please? infact they were the principle cause in mughal downfall.
if you really want a united youth for the sake of india, then understand that violence is a choice. excuses for violence can be made… always. i mean always. there is always some present day, historical, real, imaginary, small, big, religious, economic, political grievance. its critical to reject violence as a method of redressal… mainly because its not. violence is an expression of hatred. its inhuman. as hindus and muslims, as indians, as young people, as humans, lets reject it. unless we as highly qualified people do it categorically, there’s nothing to expect from the man on the street.
Sharique 02.10.07 at 3:31 pm
Your last para sums up the discussion! My whole point was that its a natural human tendency. I never justified violence. And its just that Muslims are suffering the most because of infinite reasons and hence the resentment is more among them. I don’t think we will see a change in this trend in our lifetime to compare things.
Then what about Bihar and Naxals in Jharkhand, MP and AP? Its definitely not about the killings before but its about the discrimination shown to them in present day.
And regarding the Jiziya, tax imposed on non-Muslims. Basically it was imposed so as to balance the Zakat which is obligatory on Muslims
trip 02.12.07 at 12:09 pm
Naxal violence is dalits killing brahmins? WOW thats the wildest claim ever. do you know almost the entire naxal leadership was and is brahmin??? ever heard the names mandakini narayanan, saket rajan, Ramakrishna from AP? 100% brahmin. yes in the north recently some have tried to give naxalism anti brahmin color but thats for political mileage, there is no ‘ natural reaction to brahminism’ there, pure caste politics. i do not wish to go into naxal violence (its a long topic) and i do not in any way support their terrorism.
aurangzeb was a fanatic. destoyed hindu worship places and built mosques and he himself recorded these with pride. so disputing it is simply mindboggling. i mean why??? why do u want to defend him unless you share something with him. your claim that he’s a scapegoat because he was more religious is weird. hindus have nothing against religious people. the queue at any durgah will have numerous hindus in them right? however was he a fanatic because he was more religious? secondly there was no widespread violence against muslims after the downfall of the mughals. so it proves my point beyond doubt that violence is a choice ( as idelogically justified by naxals. pls read the naxal ideology and the use of violence is a means to a goal. pls note its ideology!!!). similarly those who chose violence today in the name of religion are people we must reject without any direct / indirect justification.
trip 02.12.07 at 4:08 pm
since i’m not a scholar you can tell me if this is incorrect too
“The “ZAKAT” ( 1 of the Pillars of Islam) is required at ONLY 2.5% of a Muslim’s wealth and can be used ONLY FOR THE BENEFIT OF MUSLIMS, (including ‘NEW’ muslims) not the poor in general – JUST MUSLIMS.
”
Because the hindus were paying 50% tax to fund aurangzeb’s wars (on who?).
Sharique 02.13.07 at 7:33 am
No I meant the Naxals as a force that is emerging because of abject poverty and negligence on the part of government. And plus in Jhanrkhand and Chattisgarh Naxals are mostly the poor lower (non- Brahmin) class. I have no idea about AP.
Regarding Aurangzeb, well I will defend him because what I have been told by my history teachers, who was a Christian btw, that his image in history has been maligned because of his few acts. For example, I will quote from wikipedia
You are bent upon putting your word into my mouth that i support terror
. There were many things Aurangzeb did for which I appreciate him, like his disapproval for the enormous wealth that was spent on taj mahal. He was religious and that’s why he abandoned the idea of marrying no-muslim women to expand his empire. If you consider him a fanatic just because he stuck to his religion, then you are free to do so and i will take strong exception to that.
There was no violence against Muslims after the downfall of Mughals because of the british! When did any non-mughal king ever rule delhi?? Rajput were confined to western part of India and the eastern part was under local nawabs.
And where did you get this 50% figure from?
trip 02.13.07 at 3:25 pm
“There was no violence against Muslims because of British” (like in 1857?
)
Sharique I assumed you know some basic history. You seem to have conveniently forgotten that Marathas (who were building a “Hindavi Swarajya”) ruled MOST OF INDIA for over a hundred years after aurangzeb. they even subdued the rajputs who were in alliance with mughals. It was marathas who called the shots in who sat on delhi throne and the third panipat war was fought to protect the puppet mughal from the afghans. please have a look at the map alone if you don’t have time to read. BRITISH WERE RELEVANT LATER. rem Rani Lakshmibai of Jhansi? she was maratha. Marathas even ruled in south in Tamilnadu and other parts.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maratha_confederacy
Marathas did not directly rule delhi for various reasons most prominent being opposition from Hindu jat and rajputs to see marathas rule delhi. now you have not read abt this in your school books because… because the books are written by romila thapars and her ilk from JNU. she’s no historian dude she’s a communist. communists officially view muslim conquest of India from a class struggle viewpoint and hence try to filter out religion from all of it. Hence look at the records left behind by Shivaji – instructions to his soldiers not to attack religious places, no massacres of non hindus, returning the daughter in law of Subhedar of Kalyan with dignity AND a copy of the Holy Koran… and for Romila Thapars of the world Shivaji was a Thug. And look at the records left behind by aurangzeb… and he’s a benevolent ruler. ha ha ha (ROF). he was a fanatic and you may like some of his qualities and nothing wrong with that. but don’t say he was a scapegoat after all the hudreds of documents he left behind including his letters to Shah Jahan when he was a governer. you sound like the guys who say the jews bombed WTC even after Osama admitted on tape.
destroying hindu temples and building mosques is a political move hence excusable…. mmm like destroying babri masjid and building Ram temple there? BJP won’t mind. yes he was benevolent. now don’t blame sangh for being benevolent.
I could not find the 50% reference at a proven source so i’ll not try to prove it. however you do not think hindus were paying 2.5% right (taxes were atleast “Chauthai” throughout)? in any case Zakat is only for Muslim benefit so there WAS discrimination on religious grounds (imagine Hindus donating to hindu charities while muslims pay income tax
). wake up dude. if he was religious and religion prescribes discrimination then thats not MY problem. he was discriminating on religius grounds… your hero or not.
that Sambhaji refused to convert 
? is this targetting Aurangzeb’s piety? are you serious dude? are you being fair?
Guru Teghbahadur and Sambhaji were publically tortured for days before being killed for refusing to convert… all these are lies? all this is Hindu bigotry
Sharique 02.13.07 at 10:15 pm
LOL trip, now who is creating stories. You are playing the part of guys who called WTC a jewish conspiracy
You really think Maratha ruled ‘MOST OF INDIA” for 100 years! I would love to read your history someday
You really think anyone will buy your concocted story.
I have nothing else to add.
trip 02.14.07 at 7:29 am
“You really think anyone will buy your concocted story.”
you are right this is the dead end. You obviously did not even open the wiki article… Maratha Empire is a concocted story? dear Shaarique, i understand any shocks to your belief system are difficult to digest. but marathas did rule MOST OF INDIA. Even romila thapar does not deny it, only vilifies them. maratha forces had reached attock, in present day afghanistan. any case i can not prove history to you… i mean history thats documented and not passionate unconditional love for someone becase he was ‘religious’.
In any case, its really irrelevant to the topic here. after the fall of mughals when marathas and sikhs were ruling most of india, there was no violence against oppressor muslims. So if police intimidate someone after a bloodbath, or if bush comes to India, or if someone prints cartoons in europe, lets not assume people will go around killing other people. lets assume they will seek humane democratic redressals.
Sharique 02.14.07 at 10:05 pm
Did you look at the references at the bottom? Anyone can edit that article. I doubt its authenticity and so does wikipedia!
Anyway even if its true, it proves nothing. Assuming Aurangzeb was responsible for the destructions of temples and after the Maratha reached a treaty with them, this is the only part i could find in that article
It gives no reference to the destroyed temples. Marathas were not even worried about them or they were too benevolent to forgive this fault of his?
And people didn’t kill another people after those cartoons were published or when Bush visited India, casualties were reported after police opened fire. Anyway I don’t support such protest ralies.
IM 02.15.07 at 8:28 am
First of all let me state that it was the British who started this theory of oppressive Muslim rule to divide and rule the Indians.
This theory is now being used to further fuel the fire..
Let us look at the following comments by some British officers:
“Lord Curzon (Governor General of India 1895-99 and Viceroy 1899-1904, d.1925) was told by the Secretary of State for India, George Francis Hamilton, that they ‘should so plan the educational text books that the differences between community and community are further strengthened’.
Another Viceroy, Lord Dufferin (1884-88), was advised by the Secretary of State in London that the ‘division of religious feelings is greatly to our advantage’, and that he expected ‘some good as a result of your committee of inquiry on Indian education and on teaching material’.
‘We have maintained our power in India by playing-off one part against the other,’ the Secretary of State for India reminded yet another Viceroy, Lord Elgin (1862-63), ‘and we must continue to do so. Do all you can, therefore, to prevent all having a common feeling.’
In his famous Khuda Bakhsh Annual Lecture (1985) Dr Pande said: ‘Thus under a definite policy the Indian history books text-books were so falsified and distorted as to give an impression that the medieval [i.e. Muslim] period of Indian history was full of atrocities committed by Muslim rulers on their Hindu subjects and the Hindus had to suffer terrible indignities under Muslim rule. And there were no common factors [between Hindus and Muslims] in social, political and economic life.’”
Source: http://www.islamherald.com/html/current/india/muslim_rule_in_india.htm
From the same link:
“The Mughal Emperor Aurangzeb (born 1618, reigned 1658-1707) is the most reviled of all Muslim rulers in India. He was supposed to be a great destroyer of temples and oppressor of Hindus, and a ‘fundamentalist’ too! As chairman of the Allahabad Municipality (1948-53), Dr Pande had to deal with a land dispute between two temple priests. One of them had filed in evidence some farmans (royal orders) to prove that Aurangzeb had, besides cash, gifted the land in question for the maintenance of his temple. Might they not be fake, Dr Pande thought, in view of Aurangzeb’s fanatically anti-Hindu image? He showed them to his friend, Sir Tej Bahadur Sapru, a distinguished lawyer as well a great scholar of Arabic and Persian. He was also a Brahmin. Sapru examined the documents and declared they were genuine farmans issued by Aurangzeb.
For Dr Pande this was a ‘new image of Aurangzeb’; so he wrote to the chief priests of the various important temples, all over the country, requesting photocopies of any farman issued by Aurangzeb that they may have in their possession. The response was overwhelming; he got farmans from several principal Hindu and jain temples, even from Sikh Gurudwaras in northern India. These farmans, issued between 1659 and 1685, related to grant of jagir (large parcel of agricultural lands) to support regular maintenance of these places of worship.”
Dr Pande’s research showed that Aurangzeb was as solicitous of the rights and welfare of his non-Muslim subjects as he was of his Muslim subjects. Hindu plaintiffs received full justice against their Muslims respondents and, if guilty, Muslims were given punishment as necessary.
One of the greatest charges against Aurangzeb is of the demolition of Vishwanath temple in Banaras (Varanasi). That was a fact, but Dr Pande unravelled the reason for it. ‘While Aurangzeb was passing near Varanasi on his way to Bengal, the Hindu Rajas in his retinue requested that if the halt was made for a day, their Ranis may go to Varanasi, have a dip in the Ganges and pay their homage to Lord Vishwanath. Aurangzeb readily agreed.
‘Army pickets were posted on the five mile route to Varanasi. The Ranis made journey on the palkis [palanquins]. They took their dip in the Ganges and went to the Vishwanath temple to pay their homage. After offering puja [worship] all the Ranis returned except one, the Maharani of Kutch. A thorough search was made of the temple precincts but the Rani was to be found nowhere.
‘When Aurangzeb came to know of this, he was very much enraged. He sent his senior officers to search for the Rani. Ultimately they found that statue of Ganesh [the elephant-headed god which was fixed in the wall was a moveable one. When the statue was moved, they saw a flight of stairs that led to the basement. To their horror they found the missing Rani dishonoured and crying deprived of all her ornaments. The basement was just beneath Lord Vishwanath's seat.'
The Rajas demanded salutary action, and 'Aurangzeb ordered that as the sacred precincts have been despoiled, Lord Vishwanath may be moved to some other place, the temple be razed to the ground and the Mahant [head priest] be arrested and punished’. (B N Pande, Islam and Indian Culture, Khuda Bakhsh Oriental Public Library, Patna, 1987)”
I don’t know when people will understand that Shivaji fought to establish his political presence and Aurangzeb fought to defend his Empire..
Like the quotes of British officers this issue will be used to divide Hindus and Muslims..
Also, fro the die-hard supporters of Marathas, please read the following link on attrocities of Maratha soldiers on the people of Bengal:
http://www.indhistory.com/maratha-bengal.html
trip 02.16.07 at 4:07 pm
http://www.rediff.com/news/2007/feb/16francois.htm
abt the story abt Vishwanath temple, please read this
http://voiceofdharma.com/books/acat/ch7.htm the story is a complete lie… mr pande is spreading stories without ZERO evidence…
what the article proves abt marathas??? that only in this war people suffered and while aurangzeb was in deccan for the last 25 years of his life with his huge army, the locals were experiencing heaven??? this article even if true (gives no sources) proves NOTHING… it doesn’t prove that marathas were targetting muslims because muslims (or in the name of islam) had targetted hindus under aurangzeb, which was the original point.
btw where are all these amazing benevolent farmans of aurangzeb? they look like more of pande stories.
khansa 02.18.07 at 6:21 pm
Violence is a choice, but the reasons for choosing it can be anything from barbaric to perfectly justified. Why did indians fight for their freedom from British rather than tolerate them. Why didn’t the world tolerate Hitler and his concentration camps? Why did Ram fight Ravana rather than tolerate him? why was the Battle of Kurukshetra fought rather than Pandavas tolerating Kauravas? why did Sri Krishna urge Arjuna to fight the war on his own kith and kin, while Arjuna was willing to tolerate? The wars and Jihad in Islam are no less tolerent than these. Islam urges to fight only the oppressors. It also lays down humane rules for fighting, and prohibits transgression and excess.
The bottom line is that whatever be your religion, letting oppressors have their way in the name of tolerance is in itself fuel for oppression. Dismissing all violence and advocating tolerence is a romaticised idea based on sentimentlism and appeasement. Take off the pink glasses and look around, not all violence is unacceptable, at times it’s a necessity.
trip 02.18.07 at 10:05 pm
Yes, you say violence is a choice and yet you think i’m talking abt rejection of violence. i’m only talking abt violence as a choice and that it should be seen as `that and nobody allowed to make excuses. say openly its a choice one makes…
so a blast accused’s brother is threatened and ill treated by police… it would a choice to indeed to blow up some more people out to earn a living… he won’t be forced into it.
pink glasses
you mean the world is in an even worse state than i see it 
trip 02.18.07 at 10:09 pm
lets stop the secterian violence in iraq and declare a jihad on polio
… i know i know… sentimentalism…
Sharique 02.18.07 at 10:35 pm
Everyone has their own historians and they stick to him/her
There is no dearth of links to prove some point. Anyway I hope you have read my take, if not then do read it http://indianmuslims.in/rediff-goes-again/
This discussion has taken an entirely different route. I raised the issue of causes of violence but sadly you thought i am trying to justify it or as you say [quote post="380"]so a blast accused’s brother is threatened and ill treated by police… it would a choice to indeed to blow up some more people out to earn a living… he won’t be forced into it.[/quote]
Sharique 02.18.07 at 10:39 pm
I dont even feel the urge to reply now. BTW a lot has changed in my life now..i found someone
Remember you told me that everyone ends up with someone or the other, it has become a reality for me now.
trip 02.19.07 at 9:54 am
Hey congratulations
gr8 news…
see i’m normally right :p ha ha just kidding… gr8 phase in life… enjoy it.
trip 02.19.07 at 10:13 am
I read ur post on IM. it depends on ur willingness to learn… history should be emotion free… why not learn from aurangzeb, and gazanvi, and goa inquisitions and babri demolition that fanatisism in the name of religion does not have ANY benefits, that no good is done for humanity… or even co religionists? why learn more hatred? why hide the records of slavery, racism, apartheid, casteism? face it in the eye, that will only create rationalism, rationalism is not a product of time… its a product of introspection and openness of ideas (even religious).
Sharique 02.19.07 at 11:25 pm
Well as I have pointed out in that post that Indians are not ready to face the reality. You have seen what happens in riots, people are encouraged based on digging history..they are told the reality aren’t they? Does it help?
If history has to be taught then it has to be with caution. I am not in favour deleting parts but a more rational and responsible way to putting facts which puts the entire blame of a group of fascists and not the whole community.