Why is the bogey of Gujarat riots still being raised?

This blog has time and again pointed out the inconsistencies by the various writers of Chindu. They fall into several categories from the wacko insane (Krishna I) to hyper secular (Malini P) to the blind dogmatic(LiC) to the high school suck up(Khare and others). Siddharth Varadarajan belongs to a different category by himself. A very shrewd manipulator of facts without evidence and presenting them as opinions, Sidd knows fully well that Chindu will give him deniability in any case. His recent article, Where silence prevails, justice will not is a prime example.
His main motive is to tarnish all Hindus in general and Narendra Modi and the BJP in particular for the Gujarat riots and he will go to any extent to do that. For example he claims the Gujarat riots were created as a response for Kashmiri Pandits,

Sanjay Tickoo, a young Pandit from Srinagar, told me. “Riots were organised in Gujarat in our name. But tell me, what do the poor Muslims of Gujarat have to do with our plight?”,

Where exactly is the evidence to that? Siddarth provides no evidence just leaves the statement hanging as if it is fact. This is pathetic journalism. Moving on, another example is the statement of Sri Sri Ravishankar providing an analogy between the camps for the Kashmiri Pandits and the Sri Lankan Tamil refugees.
But Mr.Varadarajan ever the secular pinko apologist states,

But I must also confess to feeling bad that Sri Sri, who is one of India’s most influential godmen, missed an opportunity to prick our conscience by also remembering the callousness of the Indian authorities towards other internally displaced persons like the Muslims of Gujarat or the Christians in the Kandhamal district of Orissa.

Again this stretches the truth significantly, unlike the Pandits who were evicted in their entirety, the minorities in Orissa and Gujarat for the most part have returned back and the state Governments have given evidence supporting their return. There are certain cases where camps are created for the poorest or for people whose homes were totally destroyed.
That doesn't mean that everyone affected by the Gujarat and Kandhamal riots is out on the streets as Sidd would want us to believe.
The entire article is filled with such crap and pseudo secular bullshit that it makes reading it only raise any sane person's blood pressure.
Someone once mentioned that Siddarth Varadarajan scans this blog from time to time. If he is reading this, we here would like him to provide some real facts than just manipulating news and providing analysis to his convenience without any backing.

Biased coverage dominates Chindu

The writers of this blog have promoted discussions as a way to end all problems as Don Vito Corleone has long suggested. However the recent actions by the Chindu thirsting for vengeance against the mobs who attacked Christians in Orissa almost makes me puke on the screen.
Let us see the incidents by timeline,

1. Swami Lakshmananda, renowned human rights activist and vocal anti conversion supporter is murdered under suspicious circumstances.
2. Mobs riot and burn down churches and other institutions.
3. State government tries to bring the situation under control but fails.
4. Central government warns the State by issuing Article 355.
5. Riots continue and the State is unable to stop the violence.
6. LiC from his high horse in Anna Salai demands Navin Patnaik to protect the Chrisitans in an editorial.
   

Before we go any further, I would like to clearly state that the actions of the mob are not being defended by this blog.

The Chindu has provided expanded coverage to this situation treating it like a mini-Gujrat, perhaps to please its 'secular' bandwagon. There are at least 6 articles in yesterdays paper including the editorial which refer to this, like
CBI probe into nun's rape, Patil threatens Orissa State Govt., Two killed in violence in Orissa, Congess condemns violence and so on...

There are many questions which should be asked that are being swept under the rug questions like,

• Why was Swami Lakshmananda fighting against anti-conversion? Who were the culprits who murdered him?
• Why were the tribals and Dalits taken advantage of by missionaries to be converted to Christianity and where do the missionaries get their money from?
• How is it that the Maoist guerillas who commit so many atrocities in that and neighboring states get away?
• What are the ties between Sonia Maino and the Christian missionaries and their parent organizations whom she allows in so many states?
• Why is the police being made the scapegoat for this and so many other recent incidents?
  

The Chindu lead by its inept LiC appears to be stuck in analysis paralysis.
It decides to jump to conclusions without doing proper analysis.
I would recommend thinking deeply about this incident and ask the proper questions.

Kashmir, Secularism and Indian Identity

Malini Parthasarthy and Subramanyam Swamy have two op-eds (here and here) side by side in today's edition. Malini exhorts the Congress to fight harder for the secular project and Swamy asks India to not negotiate with Pakistan over Kashmir but to prepare for war to safeguard Kashmir and India from the Islamist project. If there is one thing common to both, it is their unjustified confidence in their own beliefs notwithstanding evidence to the contrary and a consequent failure to introspect.

Malini needs to wake up. If the idea of secularism had been so ingrained in our ethos, Kashmiri secessionists would not have had the traction they do - the fact that they do enjoy considerable popular support is good evidence of the failure of the much proclaimed secularism. Swamy, on the other hand, calls for India to deny Kashmir self-determination. This absolutist position is a recipe for never ending confrontation in the years to come. India has already spent a fortune on this state and will be forced, by adopting such a rigid position, to spend much more both on security and development - if peaceful protests do not succeed, they will once again give way to violent insurrection with the next generation of jihadis getting ready to fight the India once again. Swamy's legal games cannot distract from a simple fact: bereft of popular support, no government, whatever its ideals, can survive forever except by brute force, an option that should be reserved for the end.

When the Constituent Assembly ratified the Indian constitution, the word 'secular' was not to be found in it. And with good reason. While the state did not see a role for itself in the religious affairs of the people, it did not prevent the state either from identifying with popular beliefs even if they are inspired by religion. In addition, Art. 370 allowed Kashmir to retain its own Constitution even as the provisions of the country's constitution were kept apart to give the state the political space to create its own laws. Even as this autonomy has steadily eroded, anger against these special priveleges to one state has mounted across the country. The trouble with Malini and others who perceive the issue similarly is that their approach has dismally failed to resolve either of these grievances. On the one hand, she reiterates the myth that a strict enforcement of secular doctrine will keep the Kashmiri separatists at bay - the Amarnath controversy did not create the Islamist constituency, it only provided the latest pretext for Islamist mobilization against the state. On the other, she insists that fighting the Sangh Parivar forcefully will make the other question of popular anger over the special treatment go away. False again. The reason for the rise of the BJP has been the popular anger over special treatment to minorities. The only way to make that go away is to either do away with these concessions or to provide convincing justification for them. No secularist has managed either and not surprisingly, nor does Malini.

The problem is not of the Congress winning or losing electoral battles against the BJP but of its inability to counter the ideological framework of the Sangh. The answer (at least the principles of one) for secularists is actually quite simple. They need to start by distinguishing between values they perceive to be vital to the state's well-being and the system that only imperfectly reflects them but can withstand the vicissitudes of popular sentiment. They and the parties they patronize have long focused upon the former which is certainly important for mobilizing support for electoral battles as well as to generate public opinion towards an idealized goal. But it is only the latter that can create and sustain enduring political institutions and resolve the difficult political problems of our time.

In practice, this means the government must negotiate with Pakistan and with the Hurriyat. It must be willing to draw a line that is wide enough to allow some elements of an Islamic political order in an eventual Kashmiri constitution. And it must be willing to concede some leeway to religious values in other states as well. Unless, the country is willing to dismount from the high horse of secular fundamentalism, the anti-establishment undercurrents that have grown stronger in recent years will only lead the state towards a crisis of legitimacy.

Chindu defines secularism

Chindu's editorial board has decided to let the below definition of secularism pass through its censorship because it perfectly fits into its own definition. We have often seen how Chindu has used "Letters to the Editor" to express its own opinion. The present day political lexicon is so distorted that such discriminatory definition of secularism is accepted as mainstream.

The Hindu : Opinion / Letters to the Editor : Ramar Sethu issue

The Babri Masjid, belonging to the minority community, did not get the protection it deserved and was demolished by kar sevaks. That was against the principles of secularism which, in my view, would mean the majority community protecting the interests of the minorities.

N.G.R. Prasad,
Chennai