From: srinivas@vision.crd.ge.com (Chukka Srinivas)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.indian
Subject: Re: Responsibility for communal violence
Date: 15 Apr 92 14:12:59 GMT
Organization: GE Corp. Research & Development, Schenectady, NY

In article <1992Apr15.053944.25050@seas.smu.edu> prasad@seas.smu.edu (Nageswara G. Prasad) writes:
>In article <1992Apr14.141116.3155@crd.ge.com> srinivas@vision.crd.ge.com (Chukka Srinivas) writes:
>>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
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>>   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.
>
> I agree with Srinivas here. The Author did not present the logic the 
>right way. But when the people keep attacking the Police who come to
>help them, just imagine yourself in the uniform. What would you do?
>Let the crowd have a field day and let them destroy what ever comes in
>their way. Though I strongly protest killing them with bullets but
>when it comes to these situations the brutality of the police comes to
>its peak irrespective of the religious or cultural or whatever affiliation
>of the crowd. And moreover this has not alone been the characteristic of
>the Indian Police. 
>   The question of whether Police using guns to pacify the crowd is a
>subject entirely different from the one the author was dealing with.
>What ever the reaction of the Police to this kind of attitude may be
>expected but one should not expect a pleasant one. The Author was asking
>the people to co operate with the Police who have come there to protect
>them in the first place.

What does a statement like 'why should they not make use of superior
weapons ?' (by author) imply ? In my view, implicit reasoning seems
be it is only but NATURAL that police can react this way. 
And it is very much 'understandable'. That's what I have a problem with.
That's what I find it disgusting.


>>(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. )
>
>   Such crimes have been committed on many different people in our 
>country by the Police. Why just Muslims? Such atrocities of the 
>Police should be stopped. When the Police commit such offence(in 
>your example) , they don't do it out of love to Hindus or anyone(for
>sure). But here the crowd should be blamed for initially starting
>the riot( if you may call it a riot). And the Author was exactly doing that.
>There is no need to be over sensitive towards the Police in this case.
>


Surely, such crimes and much more severe crimes have been committed
by police in other occassions. One crime does not justify other crime.
And certainly I do protest and I do discuss them in thier context -
exposing the biases involved.

In Bihar, when police work on caste lines, we call them casteist.
Similarly, when police is more prone to shoot at poor people, we
call them anti-poor. Similarly, in this case PAC committed a
calculated cold blooded murder people on communal lines
(The PAC specifically selected human beings who are muslims by
religion and murdered them. It is not that PAC shot at random
into a crowd, to 'control' (whatever it means) the situation)
All this implies to me is that - this PAC batch might not have
committed this communal murder out of 'extra love' for hindus. But
it certainly did it out of it's hatred against the muslims there.
And apart from the callous attitude of PAC towards human lives,
it also exposes that it is communalized.
 

'Crowd' can be blamed for many things. the issue is NOT
whether 'crowd' was acting properly or not.
Sir, the police role is supposed to be different. They are
supposed to remain neutral and diffuse the situation, not
participate in it according to thier biases.

( If you want to argue that is unrealistic to expect,
we should not provide our police with superior weapons.)

That is why, there is a need to be sensitive to the police
role in any situation.  

>>
>>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.
> I could not see the Author absolving Police of their crimes at any point.
>>
>>>   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. 
> Again the Author was not talking for the Police. He is mearly saying that 
>the Police used rifles. He is blaming the crowd for acting in such a 
>foolish manner as to injure a police officer seriously. Well a situation
>which could have resulted in such an incident is bad to say the least.
>Why the Police not resolve to simpler options is a different point? And
>again the Police reach for the rifles more easily than the tear gas shells
>or the traditional lathi for reasons best known to them. I can see this 
>situation occur against any kind of agitators not alone Muslims.
>>
>>
>>>    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:
>
> As I said the author at no point justifying the Police actions.
>

 The author is trying to 'understand' the victimizer. 
>>
>>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.
>   The article was not regarding the police role in the democratic
>setup. You took off at a tangent.
        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

I do not think so. All I am saying is that the logic used by the
author is NOT valid in a democratic setup.
And again, if the author and people like him believe it otherwise,
then I have doubts about the author's understanding of democracy
and intentions.

>-Prasad

srinivas.