The trouble with Indian secularism

[The Outsider]

Arre bhai saab' date=' I ask you again are you saying that the number of muslims in a country have any bearing on how many terrorists they produce? if you say yes then you are not being very secular.[/quote'] Already answered in the other post. I am not claiming any such thing. You implied this in an earlier post :

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?

Clearly implying a higher Muslim population results in higher propensity to terrorist attacks.

[Guest Gunner]

Where were the likes of Afzal Guru or other militants in Kashmir trained? Who provided them funding and arms? Pakistan' date=' right? So either they were not 'homegrown' in your strict definition of the word or you cannot ignore the influence of neighbors when discussing terrorism regarding India or US, as you were aiming to do earlier. Do you see the crux now? Let me know if you want me to elaborate further.[/quote'] Pakistan arms, supports, provides moral support and even manpower to terror attacks in the UK , US etc as well so what is your point again? So do we agree then that there is nothing called homegrown islamic terrorism anywhere in the world except in muslim countries?

Chalo, now that you are aware of the actual facts rather than made up numbers, let me elaborate here as well. You were using those states as role models for India to follow to deal with it's problems of terrorism and drew a similarity with their demographic distribution compared to India as one of the reasons India should follow their footsteps. It has been clearly shown now that the demographic similarity existed only in fiction. Regarding whether more Muslims equal more terrorists that was your implied claim, not mine : Clear enough?

So you are saying more muslims = more terrorists? Otherwise these orgasms you are having over demographic equality makes zero sense. So your point is muslims produce terrorists proportional to their population?

Your argument was that the steps being taken by the US or these other countries were reducing an inclination of the population to engage in an act of terrorism. Whether a terrorist act was successful or not has nothing to do with whether and why it was attempted in the first place. The attacks were unsuccessful because of a superior security apparatus that the US has compared to India, not because the perpetrators of these attacks backed out of them due to their country's secular policies. So, is the lack of success of these attacks a result of the country's secular policies? If no, then we have successfully dismantled both your premises : 1. Western countries like UK, US, Spain, and Germany have similar demographic profiles to India for their policies to be blindly replicated by India with regards to terrorism. Shown to be false. None of these countries have a demographic profile remotely similar to India. 2. The above countries with their anti terrorism policies have been able to completely eradicate terrorism on their soils. Again shown to be false. There have been terrorist attacks, some of which have not been successful, but that has nothing to do with the success of these countries policies, and is a direct result of a superior security apparatus.

What dismantled my argument? what crap? You have perverted the basis of this discussion and now you are indulging in absolute dishonesty with purported statements from me apparently like the ones I have highlighted above. My point was, is and will be very simple. India has a very perverted understanding of secularism in that it fails to call out dangerous elements in its minority communities who go on to cause great damage. This is not so with any of the countries with a reasonable muslim population (not 10%) I am not going to type this one more time. I am hoping that you have understood this. To be quite honest even if I agree to all the other bullcrap which you have spouted you still haven't come up with a reasonable explanation for France which has a more than 10% muslim population.

[yoda]

Gunner are you denying the simple fact that India is at a distinct disadvantage having a country like Pakistan as it's neighbor?

[Guest Gunner]

Already answered in the other post. I am not claiming any such thing. You implied this in an earlier post : Clearly implying a higher Muslim population results in higher propensity to terrorist attacks.

I implied no such thing, in fact I have been quite clear in my statement and it purely has to do with India's view of secularism. You on the other hand have had multiple orgasms over demographic equality.

[Guest Gunner]

Gunner are you denying the simple fact that India is at a distinct disadvantage having a country like Pakistan as it's neighbor?

No I am not. This is why I am getting severely annoyed with the people who are posting on this thread. They are trying to over simplify my statement so that it can fit their image of what they think of me. It would make more sense if they went deeper into what I said which is very simply India's definition of secularism is flawed.

[yoda]

Ever heard of Israel ?

Do you know how much aid (money and weapons) Israel gets from the US?

[Lurker]

O rly? Perhaps you should have a read about the turkish immigration pattern into Germany and the plethora of pakistani/arab/turkic immigrants into the UK. They share very similar historical patterns to the French. I don't want to sound like a french fanboy so I am not going to give France as an example any further. but your point baove is incorrect.

You kidding me?? French Muslims owe their origin to French colonies aka Tunisia, Morocco, Algeria. I thought I made it amply clear in my past post. Germany does not have any such issue. Its immigrant populace is strictly work based that has been allowed.

I am not asking India to learn anything from the west, I am merely saying that the Indian government's views on secularism is severely flawed.

I suggest you should not harp on Europe, France etc then. After that I would start by pointing the inherent flaws instead of carte blanche statement - Indian Government's view is severely flawed. What does that mean any way? Govt of today? Govt of 1975? Govt that was close to Russia? Or that Govt that supported Non Aligned Movement?? That is as open-ended a statement as I see on MBs. xxx

[The Outsider]

Pakistan arms, supports, provides moral support and even manpower to terror attacks in the UK , US etc as well so what is your point again? So do we agree then that there is nothing called homegrown islamic terrorism anywhere in the world except in muslim countries?

Is it easier to provide support to terrorist outfits over a porous land border or over thousands of miles distance? Would you not see an increase in terrorist activities in US if Mexico or Canada started training militants against the US?

So you are saying more muslims = more terrorists? Otherwise these orgasms you are having over demographic equality makes zero sense. So your point is muslims produce terrorists proportional to their population?

Again, I and not saying that. You implied it and I provided you the direct quote in which you implied it. I will do it again :

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?

Now, what are you trying to say through the above quote if not that more the Muslim population, more likely there are to be terrorist attacks? And by that logic of yours India would be 50 times more prone to terrorist attacks than US, because India has 50 times more Muslims.

What dismantled my argument? what crap? You have perverted the basis of this discussion and now you are indulging in absolute dishonesty with purported statements from me apparently like the ones I have highlighted above.

Let's start again, very slowly : 1. Did you or did you not claim that the only reason countries like US and UK are less prone to terrorism than India is because of their policies with respect to terrorism and secularism? 2. Did you or did you not claim that this policy has been so successful that there has not been a repetition of a terrorist attack against them after a certain arbitrary 'cut off' date? Do you still stand by these claims?

I am hoping that you have understood this. To be quite honest even if I agree to all the other bullcrap which you have spouted you still haven't come up with a reasonable explanation for France which has a more than 10% muslim population.

Most Muslims in France are of Algerian and Moroccan origins, countries which are not exactly terrorist hotbeds. Same thing for Germany, most Muslims are of Turkish origin, which again is not a terrorist hotbed. A lot of UK and US Muslims are of Pakistani origin, making them more vulnerable to attacks. Got it?

[Lurker]

But if you note their posts (lurker + outy)' date= in over 10 posts both of them seem to be claiming that apparently the greater the muslim population, the greater the problem. Ab yeh kahan ki secularism hai mere palle nahi pad raha. Agar aapko kuch buj raha ho tho mujhe samja den. :D

That, in MB parlance, is intellactual dishonesty mate. Just because you act dumb, doesnt meant you are(I could be wrong though). Outsider and myself have suggested nothing else other than India should look to learn from a country that has demography similar to India's, and not from countries whose minority population is hardly anything to compare. As for larger the Muslim population larger the problem, well you are replying to the correct person(BB). He would be more than glad to prove your point(not mine). Enjoy! xxx

[The Outsider]

I implied no such thing' date=' in fact I have been quite clear in my statement and it purely has to do with India's view of secularism. You on the other hand have had multiple orgasms over demographic equality.[/quote'] Care to explain what the following statement means, then?

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?

Here is my understanding of English : the word 'despite' is used to depict as having achieved something against the odds. For example, 'Tendulkar batted for 50 overs despite the fact it was 40 degrees Celsius'. Here, Tendulkar's achievement of batting 50 overs is magnified because the temperature was an impediment. Similarly, in your statement the achievement of low terror incidents in those countries is magnified because they have a significant Muslim population. Should I make it clearer?

[The Outsider]

Just came across this piece in today's New York Times. Apparently, America's strategy against terrorism is so brilliant that I am paying money to the Taliban, so they can keep attacking both India and the US. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/22/world/asia/22contractors.html?ref=asia

KABUL, Afghanistan — American taxpayers have inadvertently created a network of warlords across Afghanistan who are making millions of dollars escorting NATO convoys and operating outside the control of either the Afghan government or the American and NATO militaries, according to the results of a Congressional investigation released Monday. The investigation, begun last year by the House Subcommittee for National Security, found that money given to these Afghan warlords often amounts to little more than mafia-style protection payments, with some NATO convoys that refused to pay the warlords coming under attack. The subcommittee, led by Representative John F. Tierney, Democrat of Massachusetts, also uncovered evidence suggesting that American taxpayer money is making its way to the Taliban. Several trucking company supervisors told investigators that they believed the gunmen they hired to escort their convoys bribed the Taliban not to attack. The warlords who are paid with American money, the investigators said, are undermining the legitimate Afghan government that Americans soldiers and Marines are struggling to build, and will most likely threaten the government long after the Americans and NATO leave. The source of the taxpayer money is a $2.1 billion contract called Host Nation Trucking, which pays for the movement of food and supplies to some 200 American bases across this arid, mountainous country, which in many places has no paved roads. The 79-page report, entitled “Warlord Inc.,” paints an anarchic picture of contemporary Afghanistan, with the country’s major highways being controlled by groups of freelance gunmen who answer to no one — and who are being paid for by the United States. Afghanistan, the investigation found, plays host to hundreds of unregistered private security companies employing as many as 70,000 largely unsupervised gunmen. “The principal private security subcontractors,” the report said, “are warlords, strongmen, commanders and militia leaders who compete with the Afghan central government for power and authority. “The warlords thrive in a vacuum of government authority, and their interests are in fundamental conflict with U.S. aims to build a strong Afghan government,” the report said. At the heart of the problem, the investigation found, is that the American military pays trucking companies to move its supplies across Afghanistan — and leaves it up to the trucking companies to protect themselves. The trucking companies in turn pay warlords and commanders to provide security. These subcontracts, the investigation found, are handed out without any oversight from the Department of Defense, despite clear instructions from Congress that the department provide such oversight. The report states that military officers in Kabul had little idea whom the trucking companies were paying to provide security or how much they spent for it, and had rarely if ever inspected a convoy to find out. The report recommends that the military award the trucking contracts and security contracts separately. It also lists a number of warlords who control stretches of road in Afghanistan: Ruhullah, who like many Afghans goes by one name, has a reputation for dealing ruthlessly with the villages along the highways he controls; Matiulllah Khan, whose 2,000-man militia controls the road between Kandahar and Tirinkot; and Abdul Razziq, the commander of the border police in Spin Boldak, one of the principal trucking routes into the country. Mr. Ruhullah commands a force of about 600 gunmen that works for Watan Risk Management, a security firm overseen by Rashid and Rateb Popal, who are cousins of President Hamid Karzai. In an interview last month, Rashid Popal denied that his company had paid any money to Taliban insurgents. The report said Watan Risk Management and Mr. Ruhullah have been paid “several tens of millions of dollars” to escort NATO convoys. “Long after the United States leaves Afghanistan, and the convoy security business shuts down, these warlords will likely continue to play a major role as autonomous centers of political, economic and military power,” the report said. The report detailed episodes when trucking companies that refused to pay warlords to escort their trucks were attacked by the same men. A trucking company executive who refused to pay Mr. Ruhullah told investigators that his trucks were attacked by Mr. Ruhullah’s fighters. Mr. Ruhullah, the executive said, “is willing to ruthlessly exploit the lack of military control along the routes on which he operates.”

[coffee_rules]

^^ if we can believe this, why can't we also believe that any money earned by Pakistan (like tax money paid by Pakistani artists to Pakistani govt with money earned in India, IPL money earned by Pakistani players and who pay tax to Paki govt) will be used by Pakistan Govt/ISI to sponsor terrorism in India.

[Desi Cartman]

My question to all maharathis of the politics forum " How should amreeka and India deal with terrorism" Is there a point for US to continue fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq, can they really win ? What can India do to fight terrorism and IMO we have 3 different problems ie Kashmir , Maoists and Islamic terrorist in other parts of India who are not really fighting for Kashmir. sorry to derail this thread but I guess we are going in circles anyway

[bharathh]

My question to all maharathis of the politics forum " How should amreeka and India deal with terrorism" Is there a point for US to continue fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq, can they really win ? What can India do to fight terrorism and IMO we have 3 different problems ie Kashmir , Maoists and Islamic terrorist in other parts of India who are not really fighting for Kashmir. sorry to derail this thread but I guess we are going in circles anyway

India needs the National ID implemented quickly for starters. We need to know who is a citizen and who isn't. I know this has a lot of problems such as racial profiling etc associated with it... by IMO the security of the country can get a shot in the arm when we can identify our own peoples better. A crackdown on corruption is probably the biggest thing to work on though. Apparently the coastguard gets bribed very easily to look the other way while people and goods are smuggled into the country all along the Malabar coast. Fighting the Maoists is completely different. We need to make our society a fairer and more just society where the poor are not made to suffer for being poor in order for the Maoists to be fought. There is so much to do in the eastern states.... they are pretty much raped for resources with almost 0 return to the native peoples of that region. Improving their lot is a big priority as well.

[bharathh]

what about the big-fat white haathi that sits in the living room and keeps pooping a ton everyday .... just close the nose and pretend nothing is wrong ehhh? :--D

Huh? Why are you *****ing in your living room?

[someone]

To make a contrast, we can examine how the civil society and the MSM went apeshit when Varun Gandhi made some equally silly remarks at an election rally. The media just wouldn't relent to remind us of the danger of "Hindu extremism" and how they bullied the minorities, the list goes on. This was for a single slip-up on Varun's part. On the other hand, we have this piglet who has made a career in making one seditious/communal/criminal remark after another and yet the same MSM wouldn't raise a critical eye.

Agree completely I was very shocked by the reaction showed after Varun speech( which is even not certain to be true), every news channel still bring it occasional to show how bad BJP is. But have they never shown, I remember another potician who said exactly same about hindus, Nothing at all, and there are probably millions of example, where other community members gather and start their propanada. But for them, it is their right and for hindus similarly, it is against the law.

[triam]

There is no unique model that India can emulate to remove terrorism, because the demographics, and the environment is totally different. But, if the govt has long term plans, it would work hard to remove religion/caste as part of the identity of individuals, by becoming really a secular nation. This would mean abolishing the existing quota system and coming up with a reservation system based on monetary levels, implementing a uniform civil code, and making religion a really private affair for the individual. Once an individuals identity can be changed to exclude religion, religious problems should go away. But currently the govt actually enforces the religious identity on each and every individual. Dont know if this makes sense to others.

[CSK Fan]

The OP is not about the logistical challenges that India needs to surmount - it's about the perversion of secularism and how our political class overtly and tacitly courts and encourages the agents of terror.

But you can obviously see how one is related to the other? That the reason for the later is the former?

[Mamu]

India needs the National ID implemented quickly for starters. We need to know who is a citizen and who isn't. I know this has a lot of problems such as racial profiling etc associated with it... by IMO the security of the country can get a shot in the arm when we can identify our own peoples better. A crackdown on corruption is probably the biggest thing to work on though. Apparently the coastguard gets bribed very easily to look the other way while people and goods are smuggled into the country all along the Malabar coast. Fighting the Maoists is completely different. We need to make our society a fairer and more just society where the poor are not made to suffer for being poor in order for the Maoists to be fought. There is so much to do in the eastern states.... they are pretty much raped for resources with almost 0 return to the native peoples of that region. Improving their lot is a big priority as well.

Something I have been advocating for 10 LONG F'ING YEARS !! National ID Identify Every Guy Have a stamp on every person, everything you do. Corelate it to national id. Do it Do It Do It !!

[yoda]

Something I have been advocating for 10 LONG F'ING YEARS !! National ID Identify Every Guy Have a stamp on every person, everything you do. Corelate it to national id. Do it Do It Do It !!

Followed by: 1. Create fake national IDs 2. Sell fake national IDs 3. Arrest people cause someone else abused/misused your ID 4. Pay bribes to "fix" your national ID 5. Add more