Organization: Penn State University
Date: Wednesday, 15 Apr 1992 14:17:19 EDT
From: Deepak Srivastava <DXS23@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: soc.culture.pakistan,soc.culture.bangladesh,soc.culture.indian
Subject: Re: III: Conflict: Causes: Police Brutality
 <1992Apr15.160401.29410@ucunix.san.uc.edu>

In article <1992Apr15.160401.29410@ucunix.san.uc.edu>,
bhatnagr@ucunix.san.uc.edu (Raj Bhatnagar) says:

>The Muslims all over
>the world, according to the purist Islamic thought, form one
>nation - and therefore cease to be the nationals of other territorial,
>cultural or civilizational entities forming nations.
>

Why muslims only, but all religious fundamentalists with "purist"
religious thoughts try to form one nation based on their thoughts,
their beliefs and their ideologies. Muslim, Hindu, Jew and Christian
fundamentalists are same, every where and in every aspect. Now
if you can show that all or majority of muslims are muslim fundament-
alists then only you claim muslims to be exceptional.

>
>Babri Masjid is a symbol of humiliation of this same Indian nation,
>consisting of Hindus, Muslims, and others, by an invader named Babar
>(whatever x,y,z, his religion may have been) and deserves the same
>treatment that is meted out to any symbol of humiliation and defeat.
>

It looks like that you are treating Hindu, Muslims and others to be
same in every regard. Well OK. But where the hell Ram Temple came from?
In post partition India the demand for Ram Temple, by demolishing
Babri Masjid, was created and nurtured to inflamatory proportions
by only two significant events. First is right after the independence,
when a humanly created statue of Lord Ram was suddenly made to appear
in the inner court yard of the Babri Masjid. And the second about
37 years later when a session court justice some Mr.Jain, for
politically motivated reasons, ordered opening the gates of the so
called Ram Temple, which was to be exactly at the same
spot where the statue was suddenly discovered in 1947-48. But for
these two events we would not be seeing the so called hoopla of RJB/BM
issue.

Now is it too difficult for a sane person to figure out the role, of
few interested mortal human beings, in this battle of Bhagwan vs Allah.
Some justification to creating a temple at exactly the same spot, as
hindu fundamentalists demand, can be entertained only if it can be
proved beyond a reason of doubt that a temple existed, before 1500
century, at exactly the same spot where the Babri Masjid is today.
Efforts to prove so by historians and archeologists, of hindu side,
have not been successful. But then who cares for reasonable arguments
in this case ? Afterall it is a matter of Lord Ram and the emotions
of thousands who feel humiliated to this day by what Babar did 500
years ago.

Then there are moderates and sane hindus who suggest that why make a
fuss over what happened 500 years ago. Why demolish the Masjid ? Make
a temple around the existing structure and perhaps add some Gurdwara
and Church also and make a national monument for all religions. But
hindu fundamentalists think that in last 15 years this is the only
issue on which they can impose their importance so why let it go so
easily ? If we remember, 20 or so years ago, cow slaughter was similarly
made an issue and was kept alive for few years untill all the political
milage was derived from it. After that it slowly drifted into the back
of every one's conciousness. And there are states where cow slaughter
is allowed to this day.

So people: what we are seeing are circular arguements; i) muslims do not
identify with india because they identify with some so called concept
of one islamic nation, ii) muslims have to forget that they are muslim,
because afterall 95% were hindus before Babar and others came, and now
start treating themselves like indians or hindus because these two
words are synonemous, iii) even if muslims want to live like muslims
why are they scared of the majority (read hindu) community, because
if they agree to the demand of the demolition/shifting of Babri Masjid
all fundamentalist hindus will suddenly reform and will start treating
muslims as real brothers, iv) there are no pressures on muslims from
hindu side so why do they have this ghetto mentality and why do they
not identify with indian (read hindu) identity. Then again you can go
in the cycle of 1,2,3,4 and 1,2,3,4...

Even Raj agrees that BM need not be demolished, the structure of temple
can accomodate the existing structure of the masjid, but he adds a
condition - only if muslim sees his arguments about the islamic nation
identity. In hindu/muslim pictures of politics, Raj is a moderate who
atleast show and accept the possibility of accomodation in this matter.
But the attached conditionality again refers to the other side of the
picture. Who is to say or judge that muslim majority accept the identity
of indian nation ? How can one even set up a standard to which all muslims
will have to qualify to be identified as indian ? Why such standards be
applied to muslims only ? And the final question, do hindu fundamentalists
identify with INDIAN Identity ?

Indian muslims may feel traped or may have the so called ghetto mentality
because such questions and such standard tests are sought be raised in the
first place. In some postings, people are even defending police brutality
on muslims by the biggest excuse that police is brutal on every one. Police
 (PAC, CRPF etc) respond to muslims in much brutal way because they dare to
chalange the police force by resorting to stone throwing. Why can not muslims
role over and play dead ? Is this joke or what ?

If you want to compare police brutality why compare ten different cases
in ten different situations. Compare specifically, in how many reported
instances of hindu-muslim riots police went into muslim localities and
indulged in beating, killing, raping, looting activities. In majority of
reported cases the muslims have to take the brunt of police brutality.
In the article posted by Dinesh: the main reason for this is because muslims
are two emotional and dare to chalange the might of the police, whereas
hindus, perhaps, are two smart. Hindus go in their houses and let the police
come in and do whatever they like. Does it make sense ?

The biggest flaw in this logic or reasoning is for two reasons. The police
is more brutal on muslims because i) they have less representation in police,
the PAC in UP is specially notorious for taking side of hindus in each and
every hindu/muslim riot and ii) the police is never brutal on the dominant
and powerful, therefore poor muslim ghettos have to take the brunt of
police brutality on each and every occasion. To me it looks really shamefull
that we completely ignore these well grounded and documented reasons but
try to justify police brutality on the mentality of muslims. What, afterall,
are we asking for ? That the police is right to be brutal in the first place
or the police is right to be brutal on muslims for some inherent reasons which
can be blamed on the muslims only .

So people: this is the other side of the picture that is known and documented,
not by any professor of AMU, but in many national and main stream media. Just
because some of these points are similar to what a AMU professor uses in his
analysis of the situation does not mean that they are entirely with out basis.

Then we have hindus who, in the zeal of beating upon the credibility of
the AMU professor, are forgetting that police come for hindus also but those
who are not dominant and powerful ! Not so many days ago some one,
in the context of police brutality, did say that one day the police will
come for you also and there will be no one to speak for you.

regards..             Deepak

>
>---raj
>
Newsgroups: soc.culture.pakistan