NationStates Jolt Archive

In the western Indian state of Gujarat more than 2,000 Muslims were murdered in a few days in 2002. Most were burned alive, including children.

The carnage also included mass rape and mutilation of Muslim women, with the typical tactic to rape (or gang rape) the woman, torture her, then set her on fire and burn her to death.

While the world focus is on Muslim terrorism how many people even heard of this mass slaughter of Indian Muslims at the hands of radical, violent, fundamentalist Hindus?

Sorry buddy but that "love fest" is on the same level of the Israel/Palistine love fest.

Both have been taunting and killing each other for a long time. Probably started with the arrival of the Mogels.

You might want to read "Freedom at Midnight" to gain a small perspective of the events of India.....

I tend to think that this is more a case of 'indians versus pakistani' then 'hindu's versus muslims'.

I would be disturbed however if a similar crime by muslims against hindu's would get a lot of media attention while this crime went unnoticed. In that case there would be evidence of a media bias against muslims. Until then I think there's simply a media bias against 'old' and seemingly unsolvable conflicts, as I think Black Forrest suggests.

I tend to think that this is more a case of 'indians versus pakistani' then 'hindu's versus muslims'.

I would be disturbed however if a similar crime by muslims against hindu's would get a lot of media attention while this crime went unnoticed. In that case there would be evidence of a media bias against muslims. Until then I think there's simply a media bias against 'old' and seemingly unsolvable conflicts, as I think Black Forrest suggests.
Well, Pakistan is known to support the Muslims in India. Terrorists acts and all. Must have slipt the Americans attention. And the Muslims in the Kashmir region would rather secceed from the feral state and join Pakistan. So it realy is a Muslim vs Hindu's situation there.

I tend to think that this is more a case of 'indians versus pakistani' then 'hindu's versus muslims'.

I would be disturbed however if a similar crime by muslims against hindu's would get a lot of media attention while this crime went unnoticed. In that case there would be evidence of a media bias against muslims. Until then I think there's simply a media bias against 'old' and seemingly unsolvable conflicts, as I think Black Forrest suggests.

The Muslims of Gujarat are Indians, NOT Pakistanis. I'm frankly surprised at the mild reaction. Is not religious based rape and murder outrageous enough, no matter what its origin?

Well Kashmir is more then a simple case of Hindu vs Muslims.

If you talk to the average Indian they will tell you the goverment is rather corrupt. Kashmir is a good tool to focus peoples attention rather then have them focus on the corruption.

Kashmir probably should go to Pakistan as it is/was 98% Muslim.

Ahhh well.

But as to Media Bias against Muslims? There is a rather HUGE assumption that the average American even knows where the region is..... ;)

The Muslims of Gujarat are Indians, NOT Pakistanis. I'm frankly surprised at the mild reaction. Is not religious based rape and murder outrageous enough, no matter what its origin?

*coughs Rwanda coughs*
*coughs Dafur coughs*

It's just wrong in every fucking circumstance. What the hell is wrong with the religions of the world. That's why I'm a heretic. I believe in God and worship him but I'm not about to go kill people for him.

NO ONE hates each other like the hindus and moslems. we dont like to look at it because we have the naive notion that hindus are peaceful spiritual people.

people are people

hate is hate

it pales in comparison to what happened in the weeks after the partitioning of india and pakistan. now THAT was bad stuff.

or maybe we dont care because it doesnt hurt any american/european. "just a local problem"

It's just wrong in every fucking circumstance. What the hell is wrong with the religions of the world. That's why I'm a heretic. I believe in God and worship him but I'm not about to go kill people for him.
How do you figure that makes you a heretic? I'm a strong Christian, but I'm not going out to kill for Him. Unless it'd be self defense or defense of a loved one.

You people have lost your damn minds, you fuckin fools. Learn about this riot by a source other than hindusarecrazy.com, lol.
Pakistani ISI agents set fire to a train full of Hindu pilgrims in midnight in Godhra, killing 69 Indians. Overnight, they disappeared over the border.

Now, what happened after is natural. The state unit of the Hindu nationalist party BJP and its Hindutva allies armed their party henchmen to go and carry out attacks against the Muslim community. They also bribed the police to do jack shit, the police had sympathizers as well.

What followed were riots, in which around 1000 people died, most of whom were Muslim. The national government at the time was a coalition of the BJP (center-right), far-right parties like the SS (Shiv Sena), and centrist regional parties. The BJP was torn between putting an end to the riot (makes the SS angry), and letting the riot continue (makes the bulk of their allies angry). The BJP didn't send in the Army for like 2 weeks, they sided with the far-right. They were punished in the last election, with all the parties of that coalition deserting the BJP, and BJP losing big defeat to the United Progressive Alliance, that is another coalition of centrist Indian National Congress, local centrist parties and the Left Front.

Justice is being served currently as we speak. Police chiefs, major politicians, big businessmen, all have been brought to court. In a third world country, the poor usually get no justice, but large secular organizations are funding these people to get justice. Example, a Zaheera Sheikh who got gang-raped during the riots, is now making major headlines everyday.

As for making this Hindu vs. Muslim issue, FUCK YOU!! When India was Partitioned, the fucked-up pieces of shit opted for Pakistan, the level-headed secular ones stayed with India, and woh, gee, who's got more Muslims? India has the world's largest Muslim population. Muslims have held major prominent positions in Indian government, and are part of the national mainstream. Hell, the fuckin President is a devout practising Muslim.

Please take your weird theories to some Hindutva pricks. India is a secular country, a country for Indians, not just for Hindus.

The Partition was set up by British sons of bitch imperialist pigs that were disillusioned out of losing their hard-fought for Empire without a fight. They partitioned India, out of malice.

In 1945 elections, the secular Indian National Congress won a landslide victory in North-West Frontier Province (where Osama is rumored to be hiding today). The INC also won Baluchistan, as well as Punjab in a coalition with Muslim Unionists. The only places where the pro-Partition Muslim League won were Sindh and Bengal.

Why did the British not respect the people's mandate? Why did they give Punjab, NWFP and Baluchistan to Pakistan, when they had democratically wished to stay in India?

Yes, they were catering to the interests of a power-hungry few that sucked Britain's cock, to give them their own little kingdom after the British left.

Oh yeah, btw, if you guys want proof, why don't you come to the NS region of India? The fuckin Delegate is a Muslim.
Not only that, we also accept Pakistanis and Bangladeshis and Sri Lankans in our region. That's why our map of our region encompasses Akhand Bharat, a secular and plural and democratic Greater India.

My, what a colorful post.

My information about the 2002 massacre in Gujarat comes from several sources, but primarily from an article by Martha C. Naussbaum in the Summer issue of the Boston Review titled "Body of the Nation."

It may bother your modern, secular sensibilities that many in India still adhere to a medieval attitude toward religion but you cannot escape the fact that the deaths of 2,000 Muslims (with an occasional Christian or Parsi) was the result of religious hatred.

The attackers were Hindus who shouted slogans such as "Hail Ram" and "Hail Hanuman." I will agree that these people were Hindu-fascists who have highjacked traditional Hinduism for their own political aims, but there is no denying that this violence is the result of religious hatred.

You might also look to Tanik Sarkar's article "Semiotics of Terror: Muslim Children and Women in Hindu Rashtra" in the July 13, 2002 Economic and Political Weekly or "Genocide in Gujarat: The International Community Looks Away" in the Summer 2003 issue of Dissent.

As far as I know none of these articles has yet to appear on hindusarecrazy.com.

I thank whoever elaborated for elaborating on this event. Seems just like revenge.

What people are forgetting, is that this is not something unsolvable. Let us examine Islamic history in India, and Hindu-Muslim relations over the centuries.

At the advent of Islam, the Arabs destroyed the Sassanids, and took over Sindh, where they were stopped. They consolidated rule over Sindh, had extensive trade with the Hindu kings of India, peaceful relations for 400 years or so. Arabs also landed in many Indian islands, having trade relationships. The Arabs never indulged in persecuting Hindus.

Then, around 1100AD, the Turks were Islamized. The Turks are by nature very warriorsome people. They conquered India, destroyed like 20,000 temples and built mosques over them, or carried away the gold to their homeland. They used the war cry of Islam and Jihad when they were pillaging India, but they were no less brutal to the Muslims already living in India.

They finally established themselves in Delhi, with Qutbuddin Aibak in the 1300s. He was bloody, lots of atrocities, without them, Islam would not have survived in India. This continued, got especially worse when Timur invaded. Hindus got killed left and right in this period, these Sultans used to play sports called kafir-hunting.

With the Mughals, Islam entered the Indian mainstream. Islam got Indianized under Akbar the Great. The Mughals conquered India with alliances with the Hindu Rajput kings. India was united, and the Mughal period was a period of great unity and nationalism.

The last Mughal emperor was Aurangzeb, kind of like a Talibanic Hitler. He resumed destruction of temples, Hindu-hunting. Well, guess what, the Rajputs fucked over the Mughals, and India was ripe for picking by the British.

However bad Aurangzeb was, Indian nationalism still held strong. The British realized this, and started favoring the Hindus over the Muslims when it came to governance, in order to divide the freedom struggle. Some Muslim leaders, realizing that the Hindus were getting favored, started sucking up to the British, so much that then (this is the 1930s), the Muslims became the favored people.

Despite all this, funny part is, that the bonds of secularism still held strong throughout India, as evidenced by the election of 1945. Getting a piggy-back ride from the secular freedom struggle, the Jihadis gained independence today, not simply independence, but also control over places which had voiced their opinion firmly against Pakistan.

Identity politics were played by the British then, and today, it is done by Indian politicians themselves. I dunno, some 800 years ago, some dude had built a mosque over a 'holy' Hindu site. Their allegation was that the mosque was built on the Exact spot where Lord Rama was born. The Hindu fundamentalists went all around India to campaign for the destruction of this mosque, and build a temple over it. Well, they did it in 1992.

What followed were riots. Imam of the Jama Masjid and major Muslim leaders instructed Muslims to carry out revenge attacks on the Hindus, although funny thing was, the mosque that had been torn down was a disfunctional one, nobody prayed in there, it was under lock and key.

Gujarat riots were instigated by Pakistani ISI agents.

The British sowed the seeds of religious bigotry, the illiterate (true, like 90% of the sub-continent is illiterate) masses foolishly reaped them.

What, you expected better of the Hindu faith? They subdivide their own into 'Caste's' and persecute and kill those who by accident of birth fall into the lowest caste's in much the same way.


Hinduism sucks about as much as Christianity.

I would also suggest changing the title of the post. What the hell is The Hindu Rape of Gujarat? I am a Hindu, proud to be one, and I certainly despise those working to destroy whatever India we got after the British left.

LOL, if it weren't for Hindus like us being the majority, there would be no Islam in the sub-continent. Choose your words carefully, because your enflamming will lead me to eventually begin supporting the Hindu fascists that rioted in Gujarat.

BTW, any words of condolence about the ethnic cleansing being carried out on Hindus in Kashmir and Bangladesh? Nah, Hindus ain't human, we don't deserve human rights.

Those with medieval attitudes aren't true to the Hindu faith, because not even in the middle ages, were there Hindus that professed hatred for other religion. Remember, the essential concept of Hinduism is that to each his own, and everyone has their own method to spiritual perfection.

The term Hindu meaning religion came by as a result of brutal Islamic conquerors, because before that, Hindu meant anyone from the Hind--India (sub-continent).

I am agnostic, but still a Hindu, because no other Hindu can say that his Hinduism is the right one. There is no clergy in Hinduism that decides what is Hindu and what is not.

Yes, compared to Christianity, Hinduism in ideology isn't a religion at all, it is very transcendental.

Of course, nowadays, everything is up for politicization. The Hindu identity, Muslim identity is pathetic, because everyone in the sub-continent is an Indian, and everyone in the world is a human.

The Partition was set up by British sons of bitch imperialist pigs that were disillusioned out of losing their hard-fought for Empire without a fight. They partitioned India, out of malice.

In 1945 elections, the secular Indian National Congress won a landslide victory in North-West Frontier Province (where Osama is rumored to be hiding today). The INC also won Baluchistan, as well as Punjab in a coalition with Muslim Unionists. The only places where the pro-Partition Muslim League won were Sindh and Bengal.

Why did the British not respect the people's mandate? Why did they give Punjab, NWFP and Baluchistan to Pakistan, when they had democratically wished to stay in India?

Yes, they were catering to the interests of a power-hungry few that sucked Britain's cock, to give them their own little kingdom after the British left.


'British sons of bitch imperialist pigs' advanced both your archaic traditions and brought the modern world to the sub-continent. It's your fault if you mess-up the opportunity you were given. So many of you still dress like you did four hundred years ago!

In the 10th century Turks from central Asia conquered Afghanistan. Under their ruler Mahmud 971-1030 they conquered Punjab. He led raids deep into India and plundered temples. The Turks returned in 1191, this time as conquerors not raiders. They were led by Sultan Muhammad. He was defeated in 1191 at the battle of Tarain but he returned the following year. This time he prevailed. The Turks were able to conquer large parts of Northern India and they created a powerful state - the Delhi Sultanate



See! It was the Turks fault, or the British, or the UN, or George Bush .... you lot should not be such walkovers!

Ok look, as a Hindu I must say I am disappointed in the actions of my fellow peoples in Gujarath. It was a malicious attack on innocent people, plain and simple. But every single religon in the world has it's extremists, from Muslims to Hindus to Christians to Jews to Buddhists to any other religion I missed. To condemn an entire religion, on the actions of a few extremists, who were, you must admit, provoked (though the fighting has been going back and forth for centuries and it would be stupid to try and point fingers at the other side and say "you started it") would be plain wrong.

As for the British's part in this whole thing, the British, and all other colonists, left a trail of destruction whenever they they left a country. The British made India a whole entity for ease of governement. They did this wherever the colonized. In Africa it was the worst, Belgian colonists could care less who was a Tutsi or a Hutu in Rwanda, they drew lines on a map and didn't care who lived where. They gave one tribe the majority of the power, even if they were the minority population. When the colonies were given "freedom" and democratic elections were held the majority voted in there leaders who exacted revenge on the minority that had ruled them for so long. It happened, and is still happening, all over Africa and Asia when the colonies were given independance.

'As for the British's part in this whole thing, the British.............a trail of destruction whenever they they left a country'

So much so when they all became independent they all joined what was then the British Commonwealth!

Some people are so historically illiterate it makes me weep!

I would also suggest changing the title of the post. What the hell is The Hindu Rape of Gujarat? I am a Hindu, proud to be one, and I certainly despise those working to destroy whatever India we got after the British left.

LOL, if it weren't for Hindus like us being the majority, there would be no Islam in the sub-continent. Choose your words carefully, because your enflamming will lead me to eventually begin supporting the Hindu fascists that rioted in Gujarat.

BTW, any words of condolence about the ethnic cleansing being carried out on Hindus in Kashmir and Bangladesh? Nah, Hindus ain't human, we don't deserve human rights.

Explain how the barbaric brutal actions of one people in one place justify barbaric brutal actions against another people in another place. The people of Gujarat are not the people of Kashmir or Bangladesh. They were women and children who had nothing to do with the nationalistic or religious issues you are talking about.

Explain how you can do anything but condemn gang raping a woman, torturing her, and then burning her alive? This has nothing to do with the British, the Mughals, or colonialism.

None of the greatness of Hindu art, architecture, culture, religion, or history is a justification for barbarism.

As an American I make no apology and offer no excuse for the genocide of Native Americans or the enslavement of Africans. It was wrong. Period.

Why must you defend or excuse behavior that any Hindu, any person, should feel ashamed to even be associated with. These people make me want to apologize for being human.

Your every post indicats you already are a Hindu fascist. And that is between you and your conscience.

Ok look, as a Hindu I must say I am disappointed in the actions of my fellow peoples in Gujarath. It was a malicious attack on innocent people, plain and simple. But every single religon in the world has it's extremists, from Muslims to Hindus to Christians to Jews to Buddhists to any other religion I missed. To condemn an entire religion, on the actions of a few extremists, who were, you must admit, provoked (though the fighting has been going back and forth for centuries and it would be stupid to try and point fingers at the other side and say "you started it") would be plain wrong.

The Irish band U-2 covered a Beatles song, Helter Skelter, saying, "Charles Manson stole this song from the Beatles. We're stealing it back."

I don't think anyone is saying all Hindus are to blame for the massacre in Gujurat. Just as no one is saying all Muslims are to blame for the al-Qaeada attacks or all Christians are responsible for the murder of abortion doctors and nurses by Christian extremists.

However, people cannot allow their faith to be stolen and high jacked by fanatics. Muslims have an obligation to tell the world a different story than the one we have been hearing in the past couple of years. Christians have an obligation to condemn assassinations done in the name of Christ.

And Hindus must let the world know that Sangh Parivar groups and their Hindutva ideology do not speak for the vast majority of Hindus. You don't do that by offering excuses or historical arguments that seem to imply that the fanatics who committed the rape and murder in Gujarat were somehow justified.

There has been a rise in Hindu nationalist organizations [including the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP), the Bajrang Dal (BD), and the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), as well as their political wing, the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)] and a corresponding increase in violence against religious minorities in India, particularly Muslims and Christians.

These fundamentalist Hindu nationalist (collectively called the Sangh Parivar) claim that only Hindus are "real" Indians, suggesting that non-Hindus are foreigners and thus deserving of suspicion and even attack.

Why would any Hindu allow their religion to be stolen by such people? Why not, in the words of U-2's Bono, "steal it back"?

Well, as a human, do you condemn the far greater tragedies taking place in Kashmir and Bangladesh? Do you? At least those that were harmed in Gujarat will get justice as much as possible. What will happen to Kashmiri Hindus? The Kashmiri Muslims get $5 billion reward from the government of India for their genocide on Kashmiri Hindus. And Bangladesh, forget it. Muslim gangs go around extorting Hindus to convert or die.

What happened in Gujarat is no different from what happened in Hyderabad 50 years ago, when the Muslims began doing the same thing to the Hindus.

Not that one justifies the other, but I don't seeing any Amnesty International shedding tears for Kashmiri Hindus.

I condemn any such violence, because they are all against the secular nature of the Indian people. If the rioteers had mass appeal, why did the BJP lose the last election? Many attribute their defeat to their apathy to what was happening in Gujarat.

What do you have to say about this?

February 2000
SOCIAL CHANGE
A Bleak Future for Bangladesh Hindu's
In the last fifty years, more than ten million of the country's Hindu's have fled to India in the face of sustained persecution and periodic riots
With its poverty and frequent cyclones, Bangladesh is major news each year. But the unfolding fate of Hindus in the country rarely makes headlines. The numbers tell the story. In 1872, 53% of the people in what is now Bangladesh were Hindus. In 1900, it was 32.7%, and by 1947, 22%. Today it has dropped to 10%. Conceivably, by 2050 Bangladesh will have achieved the status of Pakistan: no significant Hindu population. Ishani Chowdhury, a New York university student, was commissioned by Hinduism Today to report on one of the most heartless persecutions and forced migrations of modern times. Be advised, this is a gut-wrenching story of a people systematically hounded out of their ancestral land because of their religion, a story largely ignored by the world.

My mother saw with her own eyes trainloads of Hindus crossing over to Bihar, the state in which she lived. They were part of the ten million that fled to India from Bangladesh during the 1971 revolt. Their arms were slashed so they would not be able to work, their eyes were gouged out, breasts of women were severed, on their chests the words "Pakistan Zindabad" ("Long Live Pakistan") were branded with a hot iron rod. People went insane from all the horrors they had seen and experienced.

One day a Hindu refugee had managed to come to my mother's house in hopes of finding shelter. She had not eaten in days, was dirty, her simple cotton sari ripped, her hair disheveled, her shoeless feet bleeding from the long journey. There was a look of hopelessness and fear in her eyes, like something was haunting her or about to attack her. All she could say was, "Save me! Save me! They are going to come after me! Save me!"

Days later, when she regained her senses, Laxmi Rani told her tale. Her father and her husband were respected doctors in their community. One day her husband went to the local pond but never returned. They found his dead body floating in the water. A while later, when she was feeding her small child, local Muslims stormed into the house and snatched her child from her arms. She pleaded with them as she followed them outside. The child was taken to a bonfire and tossed in. It was not an isolated incident, she said. Across the country, Hindu men were being indiscriminately butchered and the women grabbed and taken away by force. Little children were made to eat beef and forcibly converted to Islam. Somehow, Laxmi Rani managed to escape and boarded a train headed for India. Our family sheltered her and later took her to the refugee camp at the local temple. My mother related many such heart-wrenching stories.

The first great outflow of Hindus from Bangladesh occurred at Independence in 1947 with the creation of West Pakistan and East Pakistan (as Bangladesh was then known) on opposite sides of the Indian subcontinent. Among those fleeing were most of the Hindus in the British administrative services. Their posts were filled by West Pakistanis with little respect for the local Bengali people of East Pakistan, who did not speak the Urdu language used in the West. It was the beginning of a hostile relationship that would culminate in the 1971 revolt in which Bangladesh, with India's help, broke with West Pakistan and became an independent nation. West Pakistan sent troops to quell the rebellious territory, believing the unrest to be the result of "a few intellectuals." West Pakistan President Khan predicted, "A few thousand dead in Dhaka, and East Pakistan will be quiet soon."

For nine months the West Pakistan army tried to secure the area by the most brutal means. Possibly three million people, mostly Hindus, died; and ten million Hindus and many Muslims fled to India. Finally, in December, 1971, India, unable to ignore the flood of refugees across her borders, intervened and defeated the West Pakistan army in a matter of days. Bangladesh, shattered by war and with much of its educated class dead, became the world's 139th country.

Two incidents from 1971 will help to convey the war's terror. According to the Hindu-Buddhist-Christian Unity Council, an organization which monitors the condition of minorities in Bangladesh, on June 13, 1971, 400 Hindus were loaded into a train that they believed would take them to India. Instead, they were taken to Syedpur where all were murdered by Pakistan army personnel. In the second incident, the Pakistan army attacked the Dhaka University, raping girls and killing at least 500 students, as well as many faculty. Similar killings and rapes took place across the country. Time magazine reported on August 2, 1971, "The Hindus, who account for three-fourths of the refugees and a majority of the dead, have borne the brunt of the Muslim military hatred."

While the 1971 war impacted all Bangladeshis, pogroms against Hindus have occurred time and again in the country's history. For example, 50,000 Hindus in and around Dhaka were killed in 1964 when a holy relic was stolen from a mosque in Kashmir--compare this to a few thousand deaths in East Timor or Bosnia. After the 1975 assassination of President Sheik Mujibar Rahman by military coup, the constitution was, in phases, amended to make Islam the state religion of Bangladesh. In celebration, Muslim radicals attacked Hindus. India noticed, once again, an exodus of refugees at her borders. Following the destruction of Babri Masjid in Ayodhya in 1992 by Hindu militants, dozens of Hindus were killed in riots across Bangladesh and approximately 3,000 temples were damaged or destroyed. Who can imagine 3,000 American churches destroyed within days? "There were riots in East Pakistan almost every year, and severe killings in 1944, 1947, 1950, 1954, 1958, 1960 and 1963," states SK Bhattacharyya in Genocide in East Pakistan/Bangladesh.

Added to the long list of mass attacks is the daily harassment of Hindus. The Dhaka newspaper Sangabad reported on September 24, 1989, the story of Mrs. Birajabala Debnath of Nidarabad. She became a widow after her husband was murdered because he refused to give up his land to his Muslim neighbor. Then she and her five children were abducted in the middle of the night and murdered.

At New York's Bangladeshi Hindu Mandir (www.hindumandir.nu), nearly everyone has a somber tale to tell. This simple building has provided a safe haven of peace and prayer to the Hindus who managed to escape the ravages of Bangladesh. The weekly temple program I visited draws hundreds and is enlivened with the sounds of kirtan, Gita classes and tabla lessons. However, a sudden silence befalls the crowd when the topic turns to their native land. "We are all refugees. We cannot be Hindus there. They kill us whenever they get the chance. And the police do not do anything. Remember Dhaka University's Jagannath Hall?"

Mr. Shankar Das goes on to detail Amnesty International's 1996 report (www. amnesty.org/ailib/aipub/1996/ASA/31300496.htm) which stated nearly 700 law enforcement personnel raided the University's only Hindu hall in 1996, firing teargas, stealing valuables and raping and beating students. The raid, which lasted three hours, saw many deaths and injuries. "What can you do when even the law is against you?" As he fights back his tears, these once joyous temple devotees hang their heads in hopelessness. "We are lucky we are here where we can pray in peace. That is not possible in Bangladesh. The historic Ramna Kali Bari Temple in Dhaka, hundreds of years old, was destroyed. President Sheik Rahman further leveled the area. If you go there now, all you will see is a park".

Ratan Dasgupta told me, "Harassment of womenfolk is all too common in Bangladesh. We are persecuted. That is why we have come here. Living there is impossible. Nearly ten years ago my cousin's sister was abducted from our house by a group of 25 neighborhood boys. They came with sticks and started breaking everything in the house. We were too afraid to do anything. Then they demanded my cousin. My uncle was hit when he tried to stop them. They grabbed her and took her away. God only knows what happened to her. Since she was very pretty, they either forced her to marry some Muslim boy or sold her to a brothel."

"Violence is random and without cause," a man from Montreal told me. "A Hindu woman will be taunted in public, her sari tugged at, her hand grabbed, all this in her husband's presence. And what will the police do when a complaint is received? Either dismiss it or join in the action." "If there is a fight between two Muslims, somehow they will resolve it," he went on, "but to vent the anger, they will go to a Hindu home and just start throwing rocks at the window."

In the midst of this crowd sits a small elderly woman in a simple white sari, her tear-filled eyes beckoning me. In a trembling voice she says, "I am an old woman. I have seen many things in my lifetime. In my village, we cannot hold Durga puja [see page 24]. Every year they come and destroy the deity. The temple was smeared with cow's blood and urinated upon. The pujari was beaten and his house set on fire. We were told to stop doing puja. Everywhere around us people were screaming and crying. I lost my husband there. Even though my son has managed to bring us here, I worry about home. No one is safe there."

Muslims who protest the situation around them do so at great peril. Taslima Nasrin, spurred by the horror of atrocities against Hindus from 1990-92, wrote a novel, Lajja ("Shame"). Her act brought her a fatwa (death sentence, the same as meted out to Salman Rushdie) by Islamic extremists and has forced her to go into hiding in Europe.

There have been legal assaults against the Hindus as well, most especially the Vested Property Act, formerly called the "Enemy Property Act." It allows for the lands of a person who has fled the country to be seized and redistributed. The US State Department said in its 1997 Human Rights report, "Many Hindus lost landholdings because of anti-Hindu discrimination in the application of the law." Millions of acres have been so confiscated.

Resident Hindus who try to sell their homes will often get no more than 50 percent of the market price, according to the man from Montreal. "Sometimes a fake deed will be used to claim his land," he said. "And most of the time, the Hindus lose the case in court despite all the evidence."

"In front of your eyes, you will see madrasas (Islamic schools) being built," I was told, "while the remaining Hindu centers are closing down. There is no pujari (priest) to teach, and whoever is there is afraid for their life. The remnants of our past are being lost, our new generation will not know anything about our religion or history."

Five decades of harassment in Bangladesh is exacerbated by the world's capacity to ignore the situation. As massive and horrific as the happenings are, you never see this on CNN or in Newsweek. The three-page 1999 US State Department report on International Religious Freedom in Bangladesh does detail discrimination against Hindus, but in only one sentence: "Intercommunal violence reportedly has caused some members of religious minorities to depart the country, primarily Hindus emigrating to India where many have relatives." In such casual terms is written off one of the greatest forced human migrations of the 20th century, involving more than ten million people. Other reports regard the expulsion of Bangladeshi Hindus as a "done deed," and don't even list them as refugees any more, but as "resettled."

State Department reports on religious freedom have been criticized for being concerned only with Christians, who are few in Bangladesh (hence its three-page report). India, on the other hand, got a ten-page report, with five pages devoted to alleged discrimination against Christians (resulting in three deaths); just three paragraphs deal with Muslim attacks against Hindus in Kashmir (resulting in 139 deaths). The word Kashmir occurs nine times, Christian 90 times; and there is nothing on the millions of Bangladesh Hindus now living in India.

Bangladesh Prime Minister, Sheik Hasina, said in New York recently that Bangladesh Hindus "have one foot in India, and the other in Bangladesh" and asked, given this divided loyalty, what they should expect and how much the local Muslims will listen to her government. And she is considered "pro-Indian" in Bangladesh.

Despite the discounting of atrocities, Bangladeshi Hindus in America cannot easily forget. While the second generation of Bangladeshi Hindus in America may take for granted the simple act of performing anjali (flower offering), parents are quick to remind them of the privilege of being able to worship in peace. "It's not just prayer. It's at every level. In Bangladesh, if you are not a Muslim, then you cannot get a job. They will not let you get admission to good colleges. Our children must know this. It's their homeland. What we have not been able to do, they must carry out," remarks Mrs. Dey.

As the evening program draws to a close in New York, Mrs. Sen's tear-choked words darken the once joyous atmosphere. "Everyone is against us. Other Hindus don't help us. We cannot do anything. If we speak out, our family members back home will be tortured if word spreads. But we have to take a chance, this cannot go on forever. How much longer do we have to hide?".

Contacts: Hindu, Boudhwa and Christian Oikya Parisad: Dr. Nim Chandra Bhoumick, Secretary, c/o Department of Physics, University of Dhaka, Dhaka 1000, Bangladesh

Hey! Post the link, not the whole article.

While I read this just clarify for me - how many innocent deaths are justified because other innocents were killed? Because that is your point and message. Some Hindus have been persecuted in Bangladesh, so it is okay to kill Muslims in Gujarat.

Human Rights Watch reports Bangladesh Islamic extremist attacking opposition parties, abuses against female sex workers and male homosexuals, shoot-at-sight policies of Bangladesh police, and the use of child soldiers. However, I could find nothing confirming the story you sent.

Be that as it may. Let me say what you refuse to say: There is no historical explanation or past wrongs that justifies such abuse of other people.

Period.

No "but..."

No explanations.

It is wrong.

What was your point?

Some? 50,000 killed in one year is some to you? STFU and don't show your face ever again. Do you cry for Hindus killed in Bangladesh? Did you make a post on that subject? Why whine about a matter that has ended, and a matter where justice is being done to the perpetrators? Why don't you idiots do something useful for a change by complaining about the crimes that receive no punishment? HYPOCRISY!! You have something against Hindus, do not deny the inherent part of your faith that tells me that I am a kafir that will burn in hell. We ain't humans, we don't deserve anyone's pity.

There is more outrage about the extinction of tigers in Bangladesh than the extinction of Hindus in Bangladesh, great!!


EVERY SINGLE INDIAN HAS CONDEMNED THE GUJARAT RIOT. Go to every single newspaper in India, they all have their websites, and have their own sections on the riots. Go to indianexpress.com, timesofindia.com, these are big-time newspapers. Find me one person from the mainstream that celebrates the riot!!
I condemn the rioting in Gujarat because it endangers national unity, I condemn the Hindus that participated in the rioting because they went after their own defenseless people after realizing that they couldn't harm Pakistan.

Do you condemn Bangladesh Hindu genocide?

BTW, in case you didn't realize, I am a Bengali Hindu, son of refugees from Bangladesh. I feel strongly about what I am saying, and do not write me off as a blood-thirsty fundamentalist.

...you fucking fools...FUCK YOU!!...fucked-up pieces of shit....(previous posts).
I condemn the rioting in Gujarat because it endangers national unity, I condemn the Hindus that participated in the rioting because they went after their own defenseless people after realizing that they couldn't harm Pakistan.
What is with all the screaming, profanity, and personal insults? Do you have a mental impairment I should know about?

You condemn murder and rape because it "endangers national unity"? Not because they are bloodthirsty acts of barbarism?

EVERY SINGLE INDIAN HAS CONDEMNED THE GUJARAT RIOT...Find me one person from the mainstream that celebrates the riot!!
“Two years after the Gujarat riots, witnesses are being threatened and sometimes even attacked,” said Brad Adams, executive director of Human Rights Watch’s Asia Division. “Not only has the Gujarat government failed to pursue those responsible for the riots, it is obstructing justice by its failure to protect witnesses.”

http://hrw.org/english/docs/2004/09/23/india9383.htm

Do you condemn Bangladesh Hindu genocide?
I believe I addressed that question without equivocation in my previous post.

...do not write me off as a blood-thirsty fundamentalist.
You have accomplished that without any help from me.

.

You have accomplished that without any help from me.
.

You appear to have been looking for it. The person you are replying to has *repeatedly* condemned the acts, while simultaneously bringing up other horrendous acts and asking if you condemn them equally.

You appear to have been looking for it. The person you are replying to has *repeatedly* condemned the acts, while simultaneously bringing up other horrendous acts and asking if you condemn them equally.

No, the person I am replying to has repeated justified and equivicated, implying that these acts can be explained by other, unrelated atrocities by and against people who have nothing to do with the people in Gujarat. He is categorizing people by religion and implying (and actually stating) that the actions of a Muslim here justify a response against a totally unrelated Muslim there.

It is no different than the 9-11 terrorists killing people in New York because they dislike American support for Israelis who are killing Palestinian Muslims in the West Bank. Both are wrong, but one does not justify the other.

No, the person I am replying to has repeated justified and equivicated, implying that these acts can be explained by other, unrelated atrocities by and against people who have nothing to do with the people in Gujarat. He is categorizing people by religion and implying (and actually stating) that the actions of a Muslim here justify a response against a totally unrelated Muslim there.

And again, you are seeing what you want to, not what is actually there. The person repeatedly stated that the acts were horrible and could not be justified by anything. However, like any group that has been oppressed and beaten, they have asked you point blank if you *also* condemn other horrible acts. They never *once* said that the acts you described were justifed, only that there has been a conflict for some time.

It is no different than the 9-11 terrorists killing people in New York because they dislike American support for Israelis who are killing Palestinian Muslims in the West Bank. Both are wrong, but one does not justify the other.

No, it isn't. However, it is a partial explanation. And if we are going to condemn the acts in New York, we must also condemn the acts of Israelis destroying entire towns because there *might* be a terrorist there. By saying this, I am not condoning or claiming that the acts of 9/11 were justified. I am simply pointing out that there are atrocities on *both* sides. Neither are justified, and we must condemn both equally.

Thnx to Demuplicents.
He has said what I would have said, you are pushing me repeatedly.

"You condemn murder and rape because it "endangers national unity"? Not because they are bloodthirsty acts of barbarism?"
Yes, I do. I would give two hoots less if we had a genocide on supporters of Al Qaeda or Nazis. Aren't there 100 million plus supporters of Al Qaeda? Numbers don't equate righteousness.
Why do I condemn the killings in Gujarat? Well, it endangers national unity, because one faction persecutes the other, and to do this, they go on a rampage against patriotic law-abiding fellow Indians (in the name of Indian nationalism).

Hell yes it endangers national unity. The nation Gandhi, Nehru, Abdul Kalam, Ambedkar had sought was a nation without factions.

You wrote that the Hindu nationalists used cries of Jai Siyaram, well, they not only used religious cries, they shouted patriotic slogans like Vandemataram (Victory to the Motherland) while murdering fellow Indians. What do the victimized Indians feel like? They not only feel anti-Hindu nationalist, they become anti-Indian.

After what happened in Gujarat, many young Indian Muslim men that had been affected by the riots joined up in the Gujarat Revenge Force. The Gujarat Revenge Force, then made contacts with Jihadi organizations like Lashkar-e-Taiyaba and Al Qaeda, and made a major terrorist attack in Mumbai, where 70 or so were killed. Not only was Mumbai attacked, the bomb was planted at the Gateway to India. What do we have here? Indians becoming anti-Indian.


The secular nationalism that Gandhi had thought would have held India together, is hijacked by a certain faction (political Hindus), and naturally, secularists are being sidelined as anti-nationals.


PS, just FYI, after the terrorist attack in Mumbai by the Gujarat Revenge Force, there were rumors of possible rioting in Mumbai, after all, the state government in Maharashtra was the far right-wing Hindu nationalist SS (Shiv Sena). Did anything happen? Communal tensions were still high, but nothing happened. Instead, the city gathered itself together (Mumbai has as many Hindus as Muslims), donated blood for the hundreds injured, along with humanitarian aid.

I don't like your attempts at demonizing Hindus and the secular government of India. We are not responsible for some anti-social pricks with an inferiority complex wrt Muslims.

One thing I would like to point out, is that even among the Hindu nationalists, there was condemnation of what happened in Gujarat. They have anger at Islam, but not Muslims, and they are Indians as well. Most Hindu nationalists are disgruntled secularists who have seen for the last 50 years Muslims running away with all political power in India as a result of being a large minority.

Another thing, numerically, there are a LOT of people outside of the mainstream in India. Remember, 2% of India's population is greater than all of Saudi Arabia's population.

Shonar Bangla,

I started this thread to see if people in NS General Forum would have the same reaction to a criticism of a non-Christian religion or religious group as they do when the topic is Christianity. I also started a thread critical of Islam's failure to produce moderate, peaceful leaders willing to take on the extremists, as well as a thread about Orthodox Jewish yeshiva students in Jerusalem who, for years, have been spitting on Christian priests on their way to worship.

In general, I found the passions to be less than that found in similar threads about Christianity. There may be many reasons for that, which have been expounded upon in the "Maybe there is an anti-Christian bias" thread.

From the minute you began posting in this thread, however, you have exhibited bitter hatred and intolerance, resorting to screaming profanity and personal insults. You implied that I had no right to even mention the atrocities in Gujarat unless I first detailed the entire history of Hindu-Muslim conflict on the sub-continent.

My post is not anti-Hindu or anti-India. It is anti-Hindutva. The thought of these extreme, violent, fundamentalist, Hindu-fascists having access to atomic weapons should frighten everyone, Hindu and non-Hindu alike. They are as much of a threat (if not more because of their popular support in the world's second most populous nation) to world peace and stability as the fundamentalist Muslims of al Qaeda.

My post is not anti-Hindu or anti-India. It is anti-Hindutva. The thought of these extreme, violent, fundamentalist, Hindu-fascists having access to atomic weapons should frighten everyone, Hindu and non-Hindu alike. They are as much of a threat (if not more because of their popular support in the world's second most populous nation) to world peace and stability as the fundamentalist Muslims of al Qaeda.

Shonor can defend himself.

I think you have taken to the boogyman Islamic terrorist analogy that our beloved leader wants you to fear.

A nuke does not make you invincible. It's one thing to have one and it's another to deploy it.

Even if Al-Q managed to get a full nuke(excluding dirty bombs) and used it on an American city. It would backlash on them. People that do not like the US would suddenly change and say that was wrong. Al-Q would be hunted everywhere simply because of the logic "if they are crazy enough to use it on the Americans, why not us?" Countries that may support Al-Q would suddenly go "Crap, now the West might attack us with Missiles" and start handing people over.

Just because Fundis are willing to die does not mean the rest are willing to die for the cause.

There are 1.2 billion Muslims and only a tiny amount are willing to use violence without provocation.

Even if Musharef(sp) was assinated and the Fundis took over Pakistan. They aren't going to be launching any missiles for the sake of Allah.

How have you come to the conclusion that Hindutva is popular? There is more hatred of Hindutva in India than there is of anything. Democracy has shown contrary to what you said.

When the BJP were in power, remember, it was the National Democratic Alliance, that was mostly BJP, and critical support of local centrist parties. Actually, in the election that BJP won, BJP had only 38% of the electorate behind it, then they made the NDA by begging with the other little parties. Also, many of the people that voted BJP were fed up with the corruption generally associated with the secular Congress party that has ruled India since independence (including millions of Muslims).

This election, the BJP lost, the NDA broke, and Hindutva brigade (Sangh Parivar) is searching for answers. The Sangh is saying that the BJP moved too far left, although everyone knows that the reason for BJP's defeat this time was actually that they were too far right.


India having nuclear weapons, I never was in favor of that, because it meant nuclearization of the sub-continent, meaning that it became harder for reunifying India, if you know what I mean.

My insults weren't aimed at you, but at those loonies that pass of smart-ass comments like Hindus and Muslims have an inherent hatred for each other, because me being from India, had many Muslim friends, my best friend being one. I have seen Hindus celebrating Id-ul-Fitr and Muslims celebrating Holi and Diwali, don't pass smart ass comments when you aren't in touch with ground reality.

And you, Ogiek, I have seen you aren't Indian either. As I said before, politics of ideology are out of touch from mass politics, so, please refrain from claiming the popularity of Hindutva. I have only known one person from my childhood that we used to see wearing khaki shorts (RSS--Hindutva), and he was largely a social outcast.

I had posted this on another forum, because self-proclaimed intellectuals such as yourself were claiming how medieval India was. This was a paraphrazing of a chat I had with my best friend from India. The chat was like two nights ago.

Well, I was chatting with my best friend right now from India on yahoo. We were talking of girls, and he started bluffing me about how many girlfriends he's got and how he has sex with them and leaves them. Normal shiit that guys talk of. Well, anyway, I told him, "wow, india got so liberal? what the hell are they gonna do when they get married and realize they ain't virgins? won't they get kicked out?"

He replies, "most gals in india ain't virgins."

I said, "wow, with all these VHP guys running around with trishuls, i thought something else."

Then, what he says, catches me off-guard, he asks me, "wats VHP". The rest of the dialogue has been paraphrasing, but this one was exact.

I said, "those guys wanting to wrap up women in sarees and wanting to chase muslims like you out of india."

He is like, "aare, bindaas hoon yaar. i never seen or heard of anyone like that."


This guy is Muslim, he doesn't even know what is VHP. India is a very far-flung country, shiit that happens in some ghetto of Gujarat stays in that ghetto of Gujarat.

People ain't cutting each other up like what you see on newspapers (Indian ones included). I loved that response, "aare, bindaas hoon yaar." LOL!!

My insults weren't aimed at you, but...don't pass smart ass comments when you aren't in touch with ground reality.

Hey, keep those compliments coming.

And you, Ogiek, I have seen you aren't Indian either.

You are correct, and although my students have honored my by having me to their temple on several occasions to celebrate Krishna Janmashtami and Diwali, as well as various Hindu classical music concerts and community gatherings, I don't feel one need be Indian to be concerned about the goings on of the second most populous nation in the world.

As to the popularity of Hindutva, I can only go on the fact that although the BJP has just recently been voted out as the ruling party, they remain the principal opposition in Parliament and were responsible for getting Sonia Gandhi to step aside. Obviously they remain popular with many Indians. And while the BJP is undergoing a philosophical struggle within its leadership, many in the party are calling for a return to Hindutva as the way to bring the BJP back to power.

As to the popularity of Hindutva, I can only go on the fact that although the BJP has just recently been voted out as the ruling party, they remain the principal opposition in Parliament and were responsible for getting Sonia Gandhi to step aside. Obviously they remain popular with many Indians. And while the BJP is undergoing a philosophical struggle within its leadership, many in the party are calling for a return to Hindutva as the way to bring the BJP back to power.

Excuse me, many people voted the BJP outside of ideological leanings. The Congress, the Left Front are notorious for their corruption, and in the Congress rule since independence, the nation hardly developed, had zero birth control, supported Muslim communalism, etc, etc. There are some very legitimate nationalist issues at stake here. Indian Muslims answer to the Shariah, not the Constitution, while Hindus have different property laws, etc. The BJP wants to nationalize everything, put all on the same plane, sounds very egalitarian to me. It is the Congress that makes an issue out of this, by calling it a violation of the civil rights of minorities. Being judged by a different set of laws is a civil right? Show me, in America, where they give special rights to blacks or Jews.

As for Sonia Gandhi stepping down, many reasons. First off, this lady has NO political experience whatsoever. Her Hindi speeches are written in English. In a tough democracy (democraZy) like India, she needs skills, most important of all is holding a coalition together.
Last term, when Congress was in opposition, Sonia was Congress President. At this time, not only did the Congress lose its allies, there was a MAJOR split in the Congress party, I think like 30 or so Parliament members left and made a new party. She can't even handle an opposition party (less responsibility), give her the job of maintaining a coalition with the Communists (arch-enemy of Congress since independence), the Parliament will dissolve within weeks.

When elections happen in India, parties don't declare who will be their PM candidate. The cabinet, the coalitions, are all decided afterward. Therefore, Sonia never won the election, the Congress party did, and the Congress party gave the job to Dr. Singh.

And foreign-borns cannot and should not become PMs. I am sorry, this is not allowed in America either. Another thing, she was probably scared for her life, Indira was killed by her Khalistani security guards, Rajiv by the Tamil Tigers, she herself said she wasn't willing to take the responsibility.

In the western Indian state of Gujarat more than 2,000 Muslims were murdered in a few days in 2002. Most were burned alive, including children.

The carnage also included mass rape and mutilation of Muslim women, with the typical tactic to rape (or gang rape) the woman, torture her, then set her on fire and burn her to death.

While the world focus is on Muslim terrorism how many people even heard of this mass slaughter of Indian Muslims at the hands of radical, violent, fundamentalist Hindus?

I don't know much about the Muslim/Hindu problems but that's horrible. That really makes me sad.