In India, the Hindu nationalist discourse began gaining popularity in the 1980s. This discourse sought to remake India as a Hindu state, rallied around the claim that Muslims were appeased by the state and that Muslim minorities threatened Hindus.

The constant depiction of Muslims as the “problematic other” plays a major role in dehumanising the entire community. The act of systematic dehumanisation of a community has historically been used to justify mass violence as retaliation, and shifts the burden of responsibility for the violence on the marginalised communities. The radicalisation discourse not only defines itself in opposition to the “other,” but often engages in violence against this “other.” In India, the discourse has overwhelmingly contributed to the normalisation of prejudice, dehumanisation of an entire community, legitimated violence and enabled a steady erosion of rights.

Julia Eckert, researcher and political scientist, wrote on POTA: “On February 28, 2002, in Godhra [...] a compartment of the Sabarmati Express train was burned. The fire killed 57 people...Under POTA, 131 Muslims were charged. Initially, the police filed a case under ordinary criminal law, but by September 2002, six months after the event, the government of Gujarat under Narendra Modi of the BJP decided to treat the attack on the train as an act of terrorism. There is evidence that the Modi government instructed the police to investigate “the conspiracy angle” of the fire to have a solid case of premeditated violence that could more easily be classed under POTA. At the same time, none of the Hindu rioters who participated in the pogroms that followed the train fire were charged under POTA. The large scale pogroms left over 2,000 Muslims dead.”

Both POTA and TADA have been criticised for criminalising identity. The criminalisation of Muslim identity continues in India today, along with the communalisation of nationalism.

truthbetold wrote:The reason: 12 people killed in Paris satire mag office. Guess why?

confuzzled dude wrote:

truthbetold wrote:The reason: 12 people killed in Paris satire mag office. Guess why?

That gives license to harass Indian muslims further?

confuzzled dude wrote:

truthbetold wrote:The reason: 12 people killed in Paris satire mag office. Guess why?

That gives license to harass Indian muslims further?

truthbetold wrote:
Read your thread heading and what I wrote. Drop your straw man argument.
You said something about harassment of Indian muslims. That is a reality you subscribe to. Then you criticize others for your logic of harassment.
Treatment of Indian muslims did not see much of a change since the middle of 2014. It is a continuation of whatever is happening between 1947 and 2014. Explain why your psuedo secular govts allowed police to harass Muslims . Then we can discuss any recent changes to that situation. Again harassment is your characterization.

..Under POTA, 131 Muslims were charged. Initially, the police filed a case under ordinary criminal law, but by September 2002, six months after the event, the government of Gujarat under Narendra Modi of the BJP decided to treat the attack on the train as an act of terrorism. There is evidence that the Modi government instructed the police to investigate “the conspiracy angle” of the fire to have a solid case of premeditated violence that could more easily be classed under POTA. At the same time, none of the Hindu rioters who participated in the pogroms that followed the train fire were charged under POTA.

ashdoc wrote:muslims divided the country and created pakistan in the midst of horrific massacres . and that very pakistan ( a creation of indian muslims ) does not have normal relations with india , but has perpetual hostility towards india .

given this background , what else do you expect except suspicion about muslims in the minds of non muslims.....??
 

ashdoc wrote:muslims divided the country and created pakistan in the midst of horrific massacres . and that very pakistan ( a creation of indian muslims ) does not have normal relations with india , but has perpetual hostility towards india .

given this background , what else do you expect except suspicion about muslims in the minds of non muslims.....??

truthbetold wrote:Cd
The question was why were Muslims harassed from 1947 to 2014?

If you want to talk about a specific incident then change your thread heading or start a new thread or abandon your heading.

You either present data why psuedo seculars allowed harassment of Muslims or say it was figment of your imagination.

Seva Lamberdar wrote:

ashdoc wrote:muslims divided the country and created pakistan in the midst of horrific massacres . and that very pakistan ( a creation of indian muslims ) does not have normal relations with india , but has perpetual hostility towards india .

given this background , what else do you expect except suspicion about muslims in the minds of non muslims.....??
 

Funny, in 1857 ("the First War of Independence") Hindus fought on the side of Muslims in India against the Brits to put back on throne in Delhi a Muslim guy (Bahadur Shah) as the king of India, and just 90 yrs. later (in 1947) Muslims carved out for themselves a separate country (Pakistan out of India) using the excuse that Muslims can't live with Hindus.

confuzzled dude wrote:

Seva Lamberdar wrote:

ashdoc wrote:muslims divided the country and created pakistan in the midst of horrific massacres . and that very pakistan ( a creation of indian muslims ) does not have normal relations with india , but has perpetual hostility towards india .

given this background , what else do you expect except suspicion about muslims in the minds of non muslims.....??
 

Funny, in 1857 ("the First War of Independence") Hindus fought on the side of Muslims in India against the Brits to put back on throne in Delhi a Muslim guy (Bahadur Shah) as the king of India, and just 90 yrs. later (in 1947) Muslims carved out for themselves a separate country (Pakistan out of India) using the excuse that Muslims can't live with Hindus.

But we are not talking about the ones that left rather the ones that stayed back and you think it is fine to discriminate & mistreat them?

Seva Lamberdar wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:

Seva Lamberdar wrote:

ashdoc wrote:muslims divided the country and created pakistan in the midst of horrific massacres . and that very pakistan ( a creation of indian muslims ) does not have normal relations with india , but has perpetual hostility towards india .

given this background , what else do you expect except suspicion about muslims in the minds of non muslims.....??
 

Funny, in 1857 ("the First War of Independence") Hindus fought on the side of Muslims in India against the Brits to put back on throne in Delhi a Muslim guy (Bahadur Shah) as the king of India, and just 90 yrs. later (in 1947) Muslims carved out for themselves a separate country (Pakistan out of India) using the excuse that Muslims can't live with Hindus.

But we are not talking about the ones that left rather the ones that stayed back and you think it is fine to discriminate & mistreat them?

Well, that's just the perception and mostly the result of Muslims in India choosing after the partition of India, which they did not condemn originally or later, opting to live in a separate-like country (within India, after the partition) under their own archaic religious laws (instead of supporting the implementation of progressive UCC), while even voting for the political parties as a religious vote bank mostly in return for religious considerations (official religious laws and the money from govt. to make pilgrimages, etc.). 
The situation would be very different now if the “minorities” in India (including the Muslims) had sought the implementation of UCC and also not accepted money from Govt. in the name of religion.

truthbetold wrote:Cd
You have not answered my question. Whatever discrimination or mistreatment you talk about is there for 60 years or more. Why did your psuedo secular govt allow it? One can also they provided conducive atmosphere.

confuzzled dude wrote:

truthbetold wrote:Cd
You have not answered my question. Whatever discrimination or mistreatment you talk about is there for 60 years or more. Why did your psuedo secular govt allow it? One can also they provided conducive atmosphere.

In India, though discrimination existed for 60 years it was local and limited to a few pockets. It didn't become concerted campaign till the 80s i.e. when BJP decided to play divisive politics by raking up Ramjanmabhoomi issue.

In India, the Hindu nationalist discourse began gaining popularity in the 1980s. This discourse sought to remake India as a Hindu state, rallied around the claim that Muslims were appeased by the state and that Muslim minorities threatened Hindus.

http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/comment-article-islamic-difference-and-radicalisation/article6760854.ece?homepage=true

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:

In India, the Hindu nationalist discourse began gaining popularity in the 1980s. This discourse sought to remake India as a Hindu state, rallied around the claim that Muslims were appeased by the state and that Muslim minorities threatened Hindus.

http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/comment-article-islamic-difference-and-radicalisation/article6760854.ece?homepage=true

Should read "Systemic Self-criminalization of the Muslim Community"

They are doing a great job and hopefully, the crusaders will be back.

Seva Lamberdar wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:

truthbetold wrote:Cd
You have not answered my question. Whatever discrimination or mistreatment you talk about is there for 60 years or more. Why did your psuedo secular govt allow it? One can also they provided conducive atmosphere.

In India, though discrimination existed for 60 years it was local and limited to a few pockets. It didn't become concerted campaign till the 80s i.e. when BJP decided to play divisive politics by raking up Ramjanmabhoomi issue.

The move by the BJP to get involved in the reconstruction of Ayodhaya Ram Mandir (Ram Janam-bhhomi issue) was not for the sake of religion (as a pro-Hindu thing) or to work strictly against the Muslims, but mostly for the sake of votes in the vote bank tradition which had been used for a long time by the Congress party (even while claiming to be a secular party and India officially as a secular nation) to garner votes by using caste (through quotas in education and jobs on the basis of caste of people) and religion (allowing minorities, including Muslims, to use officially their religious laws and also receive money from the Govt. to make pilgrimages, e.g. Haj).


BJP just thought that by constructing the Ram temple in Ayodhaya, the party probably will earn more votes from some Hindus. It had little to do with working against Muslims or hurting Muslim sentiments, Remember Vajpayee (the Indian P.M. from BJP) even increased the Haj quota for Muslims, earning him the name Hajpayee.

Seva Lamberdar wrote:

Seva Lamberdar wrote:
Incidentally, after coming to power in India the BJP also nominated and supported a Muslim guy (Abdul Salam) for the highest office in India, as the President (of India). That shows the party (BJP) had nothing against the Muslims.

Whatever BJP did in terms of vote bank politics (in hope of getting votes from Hindus and Muslims in elections), e.g. supporting the construction of Ram Mandir and increasing the Haj quota to Muslims, that was basically to counter and cut into the decades old vote bank politics by Congress using religion (e.g. allowing the archaic religious / communal laws and giving Govt. subsidies for religious pilgrimages including Haj).

How do you explain the fact the only Muslims were charged under POTA in Modi's Gujarat.

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:

In India, the Hindu nationalist discourse began gaining popularity in the 1980s. This discourse sought to remake India as a Hindu state, rallied around the claim that Muslims were appeased by the state and that Muslim minorities threatened Hindus.

http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/comment-article-islamic-difference-and-radicalisation/article6760854.ece?homepage=true

Should read "Systemic Self-criminalization of the Muslim Community"