Time Magazine Asia wonders if the saffronists are losing their influence in India and if the hope for peace is turning the people off to their message:
If India and Pakistan are to make peace, Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh noted a few days ago, people have to want it. An attack by six suspected Muslim militants on a contested religious site at Ayodhya in northern India triggered protests last week, as Hindus marched in New Delhi shouting “Down, down Pakistan!” and forced roads and shops to close across the country. Police used water cannons to disperse demonstrators and arrested some 3,000 people. “I have always maintained that we need to carry public opinion to make a success of the peace process,” Singh warned as he appealed for calm. “Anything that comes in the way of public opinion—and certainly these incidents, if they get repeated—has the potential to disrupt the peace process.”
The potential, yes. But not, as used to be the case, the probability. Despite the attack and ensuing protests—far from the worst India has seen—the mood on both sides of the border finally seems to be moving beyond a half-century of confrontation. Today, Indians and Pakistanis meet as friends in business, on movie screens and on the cricket pitch. And in contrast to the murderous outrage that used to follow suspected Islamic attacks on Indian soil, there were no reports of reprisals against Muslims in India last week.
Many ascribe this relative amity to the fading appeal of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), the Hindu nationalist party that won general elections in 1997 and 1998.
As if on cue, The RSS has delivered its promised message to BJP president L.K. Advani. The Hindu reports:
The Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh on Monday delivered its promised stern message to the Bharatiya Janata Party leadership, especially the president L.K. Advani, that it would not tolerate any deviation from its ideology or any “ideological erosion”.
Party sources said the message was unambiguous: No deviation would be allowed from the Sangh ideology and Mr. Advani should go for having shaken the very foundations of those beliefs with his Jinnah formulation during his Pakistan visit. It was now for the BJP to act.
Despite pressure from the RSS till late in the night, Mr. Advani did not oblige it with his resignation.
So why didn’t Ayodhya erupt in carnage when militants struck there last week? Zafar Agha opines in the Khaleej Times:
Sitting in Dubai I watched with horror on TV the terrorist attack on Hindu religious shrine in Ayodhya, the site now for Ram temple but originally the place where the 16th century Babri mosque stood till 1992.
Oh no, Ayodhya again, was my instant reaction to the act of terrorism…I was filled with horror apprehending another communal blood bath once again engulfing India and building a new divide between Indian Hindus and Muslims.
But what has changed India in the last few years? Why the Indian Hindus and Muslims donÂ’t get enraged any more over a temple-mosque controversy?
…Well, the answer is simple: they have seen through the machinations of politicians engineering hate to win elections. They have witnessed blood and gore splashed over Indian streets in the guise of a temple-mosque controversy. They have seen an attack by an alleged Muslim crowd on a train culminating into the killings of over two thousand people in Gujarat. But all this madness eventually led to nothing for them while a particular political party attained power.
The average Indian has realised that the Hindus and the Muslims have to live together in India.
The total number of people killed in that incident were less than 1000. But the old trick ….if you repeat something enough times it becomes true, Right !!!
During BJP’s rule there was indiscriminate killings by terrorists in a temple in Gujarat (Akshardham). Why didnt Akshardham erupt in carnage (besides that done by the terrorist ..and the special forces jawans who were lost) ???
Same trick, make BJP the boogey man so the complicity of Pakistan in causing terrorist attacks in India … continuously can be overlooked.
The present Govt. may ask the British to solve the India-Pak problem who knows The present PM may ask those who had benefit of India in mind again for help 😉
That there was no widespread violence following the terrorist attack on Ayodhya was due to more basic reasons than changing political climate (although that is a part). First, the terrorists were killed by the Indian troops guarding the area. ItÂ’s harder to organize a murderous mob when the attackers are dead. Justice was served.
Second, India suffered a tremendous diplomatic black eye after Godhra. The carnage that went on in Gujarat made the nation appear no better than some civil war torn nation in Africa or strife-driven region in SE Asia. So the moment there is an attack as happened at Ayodhya, troops are out on the streets in major cities to keep the peace.
But while the calm after the storm is a good thing, there are some other troubling signs, which New Delhi seems unwilling to deal with. One, terrorist groups are still quite active, and as the ordinarily useless Foreign Minister Natwar Gandhi pointed out, there is still plenty of terrorist infrastructure in Pakistan. But India seems unwilling to do anything (aside from diplomatic memos and press conferences) to force the Pakistani government to dismantle the camps. And with the Indian govÂ’t announcing that it will no longer employ American lobbying firms to press IndiaÂ’s case (the diplomatic equivalent of unilateral disarmament), IndiaÂ’s security concerns are going to recede from the global stage.
Also, while the greatest threats are from foreign terrorist groups, there is a sizable number of Indian-born Muslims who believe they have no option but to become terrorists. The attack on a Gujarati temple a number of years ago (I think 2003) and a bomb blast at Bombay marketplace the same year, the chief suspects were Indian-born Muslims. This is a disturbing development since Indian Muslims have generally been opposed to the pleas of extremists.
KXB, Were they Kashmiris ? If not, then yes, its a disturbing development.
The Akshardham terrorist had atleast one or more Pakistan national and others I think Kashimiri AFAI remember. (need to do googling) Ghatkopar, Mumbai blast terrorists WERE NON Kashmiri. I am sure about this one.
Al.
Here was a Time Asian article from 2003 on the Bombay attack:
“Bloody Monday”, Sept. 21, 2003 http://www.time.com/time/asia/magazine/article/0,13673,501030908-480330,00.html
The attack on a Gujarati temple a number of years ago (I think 2003) and a bomb blast at Bombay marketplace the same year, the chief suspects were Indian-born Muslims
Indian Hindus kill Indian Muslims. Indian Muslims kill indian Hindus. You could call it terrorism, but it would be better to call it communal violence, the age old Indian tradition of killing people different from you.
Indian-Muslims, those that are left, are there by choice. They tend — in PK gatherings — to be absurdly patriotic about India. In my experience, PKers see them with pity — poor Muslims still stuck in that Hindu dominatesd country, one riot away from being burned alive.
Hard to say whether poeple are really thinking with that bigger picture (peace with Pakistan etc) in mind. I think decline can be attributed to a number of things. Remember, in the eighties during the successful rath yatra campaigns a hindu nationalist party had not yet been in government – hence the parivar’s unified front in drumming up a mass base. After being in office for two terms, the inevitable divisions began to weaken the base at the centre.
As far as the voting base is concerned, even people in the Hindu belt didn’t entirely buy into the “India Shining” platform. This election was largely a vote on economic progress — which the neo-liberal BJP led coalition hadn’t managed to “trickle-down” to the mass-base level.
Lacking legitimacy among voters and a unified centre — this is a very different situation than it was in the 80s and early 90s when violent mass mobilization could be oraganized.
I am aware of a lot of traditions from India but I haven’t heard of this one yet. Care to offer us the benefit of your wisdom?
And they ought to be patriotic. They are Indians. Maybe its my dense Indian brain (crammed with killer traditions) but I don’t quite get the absurdity here.
“Indian-Muslims, those that are left, are there by choice. They tend — in PK gatherings — to be absurdly patriotic about India. In my experience, PKers see them with pity — poor Muslims still stuck in that Hindu dominatesd country, one riot away from being burned alive.”
Hmm, considering that India has more Muslims than Pakistan, it must be a little bit hospitable. Contrast that to Paksitan, which was something like 15-20% Hindu at the time of partition, and now I think that number is down to about an apartment block.
Plus, Indian Muslims have a say in selecting their leaders, which the enlightened despots of Pakistan feel their nation is not ready for.
One riot away from being burned alive? Cute, I’ll keep that in mind the next time I hear about how splendidly Sunnis and Shias get along in Pakistan.
I’m describing an attitude, KXb. I report, you decide.
Okeley-dokeley
The author clearly does not undertand intricasies of Indian politics. If there was a “Islamic attack on Indian soil” then Indian Muslims should also be outraged because of foreign agression on Indian soil.
If Muslims didnt react then the attackers must have been home grown, were anti-national and would represent rest of the Muslim people.
Hopefully, the later is not the case!
Contrast that to Paksitan, which was something like 15-20% Hindu at the time of partition, and now I think that number is down to about an apartment block.
This is an incredible and extremely troubling assertion. Do you have some evidence which can back up these numbers ? Note : Dont cite numbers from 1946-1949 when there was a big population shift due to partition. Lets see some numbers from 1950 onwards.