The trouble with Indian secularism

[yoda]

thanks for completely missing the scale of crime ... and to top it all you have lived in the USA and India. And BTW the Law and order takes prompt actions against the red-necks regardless of their political/religious affiliations ... Comparing religious extreemism in the US with that in India is like comparing peanuts to a watermelon.

not for hate speeches.

[bharathh]

Why only the UK' date=' pick other continental European countries as an example.[/quote'] Because these 2 countries have 2 of the largest settlements of non-majority religions in the world. France is probably the only other country in Europe that has as many people of other religions. In the US, the right wings christian kooks hold a huge sway over the media in general. Australia has problems with hate preaching Islamic preachers as well. Why don't you name some countries that have large settlements of religious ppl?

[bharathh]

OBL

Have you heard these kooks talk about bombing the middle east and other countries? I have. You should try going to a mass with Southern Baptists. They put up stiff competition to the Wahab clerics.

[Guest Gunner]

Because these 2 countries have 2 of the largest settlements of non-majority religions in the world. France is probably the only other country in Europe that has as many people of other religions. In the US, the right wings christian kooks hold a huge sway over the media in general. Australia has problems with hate preaching Islamic preachers as well. Why don't you name some countries that have large settlements of religious ppl?

You have named UK and France. I shall name Germany and Spain which are large european countries with a very large minority religious population. The question is not whether they have a problem or not, the question is how do they deal with it. In India we bury our head in the sand. Thanks y'all, come again, don't be shy now.

[bharathh]

That's exactly what I am saying - Islamic extremism has been actively nurtured in India because of our MSM's "subaltern" attitude towards secularism and our political class's exigencies. There's no parallel to this ANYWHERE else in the civilized world.

Both England and US have a lot of problem with home-grown terror. Check out the problems the US is having with some of their citizens from Africa disappearing and then reappearing in Somalia etc.

[Lurker]

You really are clutching at straws. To criticize a person's views it is not necessary to interview him. Narendra Modi or Sonia Gandhi are hardly interviewed, but their speeches and policies are citicized. Neither is it required to interview Praveen Togadia to criticize him. What is stopping NDTV/CNN-IBN from discussing Zakir Naik's views in the way others are critiqued. My interpretation is that the mainstream channels are simply afraid of criticizing Zakir Naik.

But of course you have to interview a person. Look, you(as in YOU) can not simply invoke someone/something and then run away. You bring up IE Influential list, I wonder if you could name me a few from there and you walk away saying it was an example. Then you provide Shekhar Gupta, and a Pakistani journalist, interview and when I wonder what happen to Karan Thapar etc you shy away saying interview is not neccessary. Arre bhaiya why do you start something only to wiggle away??? Agar interview jaroori nahin hai to udaharan kyun de rahe hain aap??

[ This is exactly what I am saying. It is left to Muslims like Javed Anand to take on Zakir Naik. But he is not Rajdeep or Barkha who have their own channels to discuss issues, or even a Vir Sanghvi who can editorialize about it. The people who would jump on a Praveen Togadia in a similar situation seem absent in the case of Zakir Naik.

And I am saying ke you are looking at Barkha Dutt and Rajdeep Sardesai who no sane minded person considers a journalist in the first place!! If it was Prannoy Roy, or Karan Thapar this would be worth debating but since when did Rajdeep Sardesai become a journalist luminary??

When Canada denied retired BSF personnel a visa it was rightly debated in an extensive manner. Tell me honestly, had Sri Ravishankar been denied a UK visa would there not have been a huge debate discussing why this was done? But there is complete radio silence on the denial to Zakir Naik.

Actually I think it would have been worse. Ravishankar who??? Apart from South Indians who seem to have a dozen Ammas and what have you, I doubt any from North, or East look at Ravishankar or the likes of him. I personally dont know anyone who follows Ravishankar. My personal perspective of course, no offence meant to his followers. xxx

[bharathh]

Sorry to be rude' date=' but your comments are kind of irrelevant. Did you even understand what I said?[/quote'] Ok ... You were talking about how Islamic terrorism has been nurtured in India because we mollycoddle our extremists. We don't take appropriate actions against them and so, we have homegrown terror. Did I get you correctly? My point. There are many second/third gen kids from the US who are disappearing from the country thanks to speeches that they get from their local imams who have been radicalising them. This has been going on for a while now. Only after 9/11 and the involvement of people like Massaoui did most people in the US even know that this radicalisation has been going on for a while now. In fact it has gotten so bad, that kids are forgoing the reasons that their parents came to the US to get trained in terror camps and fight the global Jihad. The US is incapable of stopping this trend. Now if you mean to say that there are no muslim evangelists on the TV whose extremist views are actively welcomed here.. then you are correct. However, there are plenty of ultra-orthodox Jews, and extreme right wing christians that appear in the mainstream media spouting their intolerance for anything that stands against their religions often. I have been told that this is the same in the UK. I was countering your argument that what happens in India does not happen anywhere else. Now you tell me if what you said is true or not.

[seedhi]

But of course you have to interview a person. Look, you(as in YOU) can not simply invoke someone/something and then run away. You bring up IE Influential list, I wonder if you could name me a few from there and you walk away saying it was an example. Then you provide Shekhar Gupta, and a Pakistani journalist, interview and when I wonder what happen to Karan Thapar etc you shy away saying interview is not neccessary. Arre bhaiya why do you start something only to wiggle away??? Agar interview jaroori nahin hai to udaharan kyun de rahe hain aap??

So if I bring up Shekhar Gupta's interview of Zakir Naik - it implies that an interview is necessary to dissect Zakir Naik's views?!! Thats some twisted logic. An Indian preacher who has possibly millions of followers has been denied a visa by UK - the fact that this has not been discussed in the mainstream media is shameful. This man is a person who has extolled Osama Bin Laden, and who has inspired several terrorists in India and UK. It is ofcourse shameful that he is given a free pass by the Indian media which shies from criticizing his views. The denial of this visa and the issuance of a statement to this effect by the UK minister was a perfect time to discuss his offensive views and the abstinence of the mainstream media is disgraceful to say the least. If the point you are trying to make that it is somehow justified for the media to ignore this man's islamo-fascist views while he commands an audience of millions, then I cannot disagree with you more.

[bharathh]

You have named UK and France. I shall name Germany and Spain which are large european countries with a very large minority religious population. The question is not whether they have a problem or not, the question is how do they deal with it. In India we bury our head in the sand. Thanks y'all, come again, don't be shy now.

How do they deal with it? Why do they have trouble with homegrown terror as well if they deal with it so well?

[Guest Gunner]

Ok ... You were talking about how Islamic terrorism has been nurtured in India because we mollycoddle our extremists. We don't take appropriate actions against them and so, we have homegrown terror. Did I get you correctly? My point. There are many second/third gen kids from the US who are disappearing from the country thanks to speeches that they get from their local imams who have been radicalising them. This has been going on for a while now. Only after 9/11 and the involvement of people like Massaoui did most people in the US even know that this radicalisation has been going on for a while now. In fact it has gotten so bad, that kids are forgoing the reasons that their parents came to the US to get trained in terror camps and fight the global Jihad. The US is incapable of stopping this trend. Now if you mean to say that there are no muslim evangelists on the TV whose extremist views are actively welcomed here.. then you are correct. However, there are plenty of ultra-orthodox Jews, and extreme right wing christians that appear in the mainstream media spouting their intolerance for anything that stands against their religions often. I have been told that this is the same in the UK. I was countering your argument that what happens in India does not happen anywhere else. Now you tell me if what you said is true or not.

How do they deal with it? Why do they have trouble with homegrown terror as well if they deal with it so well?

I will answer both those posts together as you are essentially harping on the same point. No one has denied the existence of homegrown terror in other countries. The only difference is how they have dealt with it. If you compare the number of terror incidents in India with the UK, SPain, France, Germany and even the US - you know who will come off the loser. Now you tell me how come the terror incidents in those countries are so low despite the fact that they have a 10% muslim population? Secondly, I gave the example Anwar al-Aulaki which was conveniently ignored by you and yoda as it doesn't fit your argument. the profile of aulaki is no different than that of Zakir Naik. In the case of Aulaki, the POTUS has signed his death sentence, can you imagine the Indian PM doing that? Hell we are unable to execute Afzal Guru. When it comes to handling terror we are the laughing stock of the world.

[yoda]

So it seems like the main complaint is that we do not talk about Islamic terrorism much cause we are afraid of upsetting the minority. That point is well taken, but that in itself isn't a reason to call ours failed Secularism.

[Guest Gunner]

So it seems like the main complaint is that we do not talk about Islamic terrorism much cause we are afraid of upsetting the minority. That point is well taken' date=' but that in itself isn't a reason to call ours failed Secularism.[/quote'] We are not a failed secularism, we are not secular at all. This is just a myth as much a myth as India being a democracy.

[yoda]

We are not a failed secularism' date=' we are not secular at all. This is just a myth as much a myth as India being a democracy.[/quote'] Ok, we are not secular, we are not a democracy, we are racist (borrowed from another thread), I am sensing a pattern here

[Guest Gunner]

Ok' date=' we are not secular, we are not a democracy, we are racist (borrowed from another thread), I am sensing a pattern here [/quote'] You are seeing India through the lenses of someone who is one among 300 million people who has a voice. I am seeing India as one among the 800 odd million who don't. Savvy?

[The Outsider]

I will answer both those posts together as you are essentially harping on the same point. No one has denied the existence of homegrown terror in other countries. The only difference is how they have dealt with it. If you compare the number of terror incidents in India with the UK, SPain, France, Germany and even the US - you know who will come off the loser. Now you tell me how come the terror incidents in those countries are so low despite the fact that they have a 10% muslim population?

Is that a serious post? The only difference between India and Spain, France, Germany, UK, and US is how India deals with terrorism? Do you have any idea of the per capita income of India and the other countries? Are you aware of the kind of neighbors these countries have? Do their neighbors push in terrorists on their soil? Were these countries born out of intense hatred and communal strife a mere 60 years back? Is gathering intelligence and surveillance even remotely comparable in Chandni Chowk and Queens? Do any of these countries have a Muslim majority state bordering two countries with whom they have fought 5 wars with in the last 60 years? Moreover, in the countries you listed only France has a Muslim population of around 10%. There are many ill conceived posts on this thread, but this one beats everyone of them to the post, which takes some doing in a thread graced by the likes of BossBhai, seedhi, and sarchasm.

[Lurker]

If you compare the number of terror incidents in India with the UK, SPain, France, Germany and even the US - you know who will come off the loser. Now you tell me how come the terror incidents in those countries are so low despite the fact that they have a 10% muslim population?

The way these countries have dealt is rather simple - Laissez-faire. So long as these countries interest were not hurt they were more than comfortable glorifying the very same people. Terrorism in India is not new, but when India would speak with European counterparts it was never listened to(early to mid 80s). Right wingers in India shall blame Congress for not being "strong enough" but if you have lived in Europe long enough you know there are Khalistani extremist sought by India still in London, LTTE had its footprint all over Europe and of course the Islamic fundamentalist. So why has Europe suffered fewer attacks? Well for one they have better resources. Secondly they have lot more teeth. When Europe complains, most countries listen. That to me is the reason and not so much about Secularism. xxx

[seedhi]

There are many ill conceived posts on this thread' date=' but this one beats everyone of them to the post, which takes some doing in a thread graced by the likes of BossBhai, seedhi, and sarchasm.[/quote']Personalizing a debate as usual. Great going ..

[Texy]

Britain's decision to bar an influential Muslim cleric from entering the country underscores the failure of Indian secularism http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704365204575317833268479268.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEFTTopBucket

Excellent article... If tomorrow Zakir Naik openly incite muslims in India to be a traitor to their country(he already has in thinly veiled motivational speeches asking non muslims in India to convert to the true cause)....no one will dare ban him or arrest him for treason.... This is India....

[Roshanrocks]

i wonder why Shiv Sena dont go against this character :hmmm:

[bharathh]

I will answer both those posts together as you are essentially harping on the same point. No one has denied the existence of homegrown terror in other countries. The only difference is how they have dealt with it. If you compare the number of terror incidents in India with the UK, SPain, France, Germany and even the US - you know who will come off the loser. Now you tell me how come the terror incidents in those countries are so low despite the fact that they have a 10% muslim population? Secondly, I gave the example Anwar al-Aulaki which was conveniently ignored by you and yoda as it doesn't fit your argument. the profile of aulaki is no different than that of Zakir Naik. In the case of Aulaki, the POTUS has signed his death sentence, can you imagine the Indian PM doing that? Hell we are unable to execute Afzal Guru. When it comes to handling terror we are the laughing stock of the world.

Other than the obvious differences already mentioned, here's another.. The muslims of India are an integral part of our country. In fact we have the second largest muslim population in the world. It is ridiculously easy for terrorists to dissipate into our society given the number of people here. We don't have a national ID system ... heck so many of our people don't even have a valid birth certificate. I don't think it would be so easy for a terrorist to just disappear in any of the countries that you have mentioned. The number of people that are ready to harbor them is a minute fraction of that in India. Also we have a huge geographical disadvantage. South Asia is one of the poorest regions of the world. It is ridiculously easy for the ISI types to recruit people from the slums of any of India's neighboring countries and set up bases to infiltrate India from there. Nepal and Bangladesh are well known ISI hubs. Another problem is that other countries do not take us seriously. You really think any other country will hand over terrorists who have set up base in their countries to us? We have had to beg the US to hand over one of the main architects of 26/11. Pak has laughed us anytime we have asked to extradite their guys. How many times does the US have to ask for people to get sent over from Pak or any other country to the US for some "questioning"? The guy you mention whose death warrant has been signed by Obama will be taken seriously by others who depend on the US economically. India does not have similar stature in the world atm. We are taken a lot more seriously now than we were in the 90s... but we have a long way to go before we can just demand others to extradite terror suspects to us.