From: srinivas@vision.crd.ge.com (Chukka Srinivas)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.indian
Subject: Re: Responsibility for communal violence
Date: 14 Apr 92 14:11:16 GMT
Organization: GE Corp. Research & Development, Schenectady, NY

In article <92104.201641DXA4@psuvm.psu.edu> DXA4@psuvm.psu.edu writes:
>Currently, there has been going on a heated debate on the Muslim situation in
>India. The following article by an eminent religious leader will be quite
>pertinent in understanding the Muslim psyche and why muslims suffer more losses
>than Hindus.
>              ....Dinesh Agrawal.....
>
>Source: Muslim India, January 1988
>Author: Mr. Waheeduddin Khan
>
>       MUSLIM RESPONSIBILITY FOR COMMUNAL VIOLENCE
>
>
>    Instances of present-day Muslims fighting amongst themselves are not
>uncommon. Due to some historical reasons THEY ARE EASILY INSULTED AND THEN THEY
          ^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>BECOME OVEREMOTIONAL. However, when it is case of Muslim fighting Muslim, the
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

>quarrel is at least confined to the individuals concerned and does not, there-
>fore go beyond all normal civilized limits. But when the fight is between a
>Muslim and a Hindu, no matter how minor the provocation it very soon takes on
>a communal hue, and the price has to be paid by the whole community.
>

   Oh, Yah!!!  I guess the author has reached this conclusion after a
   detailed study of "historical reasons".


>   The worst kind of situation which develops in this way culminates in a
>confrontation with the police, or in UP, with the PAC - The Provintial Armed
>constabulary. No one seems to take into account the fact that if you pelt
	       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>armed policemen with stones, they will retaliate with bullets. Why should they
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>not make use of their superior weapons? 
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^


What kind of logic is this ?  Police are (or supposed to) to diffuse
an agitated situation, rather than create a new voilence of thier own.
Maybe, this is the cruel logic used by police to justify thier
killing of the people they are supposed to protect. But the author,
as a civilian, seems to forgetting the fundamental point.
The superior weapons, given by people to the police, are only to protect
people rather than to kill people whenever and wherever they wish.

(If you are not aware of, in this case, 26 muslims were taken away,
 shot and thrown into a nearby river. This is not a case of
 'self-defense'. This is a case of cold-blooded murder committed
 by police. )


It's shameful that police can kill people, and can even dare to
get way with this kind of reasoning. 
And it is much more shameful and disgusting that the author
(I suppose, a civilian) can absolve police of this horrifying
act.

>   One glaring example of this is the incident which took place in the Idgah at
>Moradabad on the 13th August, 1980. It was a case of pigs having been found
>within the precincts of the Idgah, at which the Muslims became highly enraged.
>The police officer on duty pleaded with the Muslims to remain calm and assured
>them that they would deal with the situation and that the culprits would be
>punished. But the Muslims were too incensed to listen to what the police had to
>say, and began pelting them with stones. The police officer himself was hit,
>and fell down seriously injured. Now it was the turn of the police to be pro-
>voked, and, of course, they did not discard their rifles in favor of stones.
>Ultimately it was the Muslims who suffered the most disastrous of consequences.
>AND ALL BECAUSE OF THEIR OWN UNGOVERNABLE TEMPERS.
     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

And again, what a disgusting logic!!!!
Let us not forget that there are many other simple options
(tear gas, lathi etc) available to control an agitated situation
before using a rifle on people, unless police personnel is trained
to have a very callous attitude towards human life and to think
that is above law. 


>    The result of acting out of goodness is that it has a softening effect on
>the enemy - to the point where he becomes a friend. Even the PAC would not be
>immune to such social palliatives. They are, after all, just human beings like
>everyone else, and would surely be open to an amicable and reasonable approach.



The PAC incident, our government machinery's jusfitication and
our author 'enlightening' logic, implies only one thing:

Police is our trained to be 'mad dog', fed on people money.
It is OK for this dog to bite people whenever and wherever it wants.
And our author advises us that --
as people, we better 'understand and sympathize with' our dog and
'behave ourselves'.



IF our author is ignorant,
   THEN he needs some education about 
	human life and dignity, & police in a democractic setup


ELSE if the author believes in what he says, 
     THEN this mad-dog should be protecting his agenda
			 and
          he is much more dangerous than our trained 'mad-dog'. 

srinivas.
Newsgroups: soc.culture.indian