Comments on: Is India reaping a harvest of hatred sown by Indians? We have seen it all before-a Sri Lankan perspective

By: Natasha

Natasha — Fri, 05 Dec 2008 07:03:33 +0000

well vijay in response to your comment, " Jihadi muslims want whole of the world to be under islamic rule, given their way… are we going to hand over everything. Kashmir is integral part of soverign india" ….Well IN NO WAY should acts of terror be carried out against anyone…no matter who it is, however, most of these movements and groups are connected to geographical disputes and conflicts, so they are POLITICAL not RELIGIOUS… whether its the occupation of Palestine, the invasion of Iraq, the invasion of Afghanistan by the Russians followed by all other attempts to maintain control of the land by outsiders, or Kashmir (forcible occupation by India). These groups want to free themselves of the forced occupations, which does not translate into taking over the whole world……….Dont hand over everything coz no one wants that, just let people have what is theirs rightfully and what belongs to them.

By: Natasha

Natasha — Fri, 05 Dec 2008 03:22:44 +0000

I agree with your comments 100%. India likes to sugar coat things and cover the real problems and issues presenting a picture to the world that is far from reality. Wake up and smell the coffee!

By: Natasha

Natasha — Fri, 05 Dec 2008 03:20:42 +0000

Vijay your comments show quite a level of ignorance…."Pakistan wants Kashmir" shouldn't you be admitting India does not want to give Kashmir its right? One would need to take a look at the UN resolution related to this issue, and I suggest you do that. The Indian government's tactics have delayed resolving this issue for so many years and it doesnt look like it is in any mood to actually have some meaningful and sincere movement towards resolving it. Confidence building measures with Pakistan is the best answer they, how about we try to eliminate the root cause of all the problems and do whats right! The Kashmir conflict is the oldest international conflict in the world. India’s forcible occupation of the State of Jammu and Kashmir in 1947 was the main cause of the dispute. The United Nations alsoDOES NOT consider the Indian claim as legally valid. The worst part is that except India the whole world recognizes the seriousness of this conflict and recognizes Kashmir as a disputed area. If Pakistan was created for muslims when the sub continent was divided in 1947 (which it certainly was, and as someone else also mentioned in one of the posts above) then based on that fact alone, Kashmir should have been part of Pakistan NOT India as it is a muslim population! So lets check the facts again and see who wants what!

By: Ajith

Ajith — Wed, 03 Dec 2008 11:12:38 +0000

Rajiv, you hit the nail into Vijay’s coffin. I commend you for bringing out the sword of truth and slicing through his pompous rhetoric.

By: UJay

UJay — Wed, 03 Dec 2008 08:00:17 +0000

Prateek,

"I do not know enough about the situation in Sri Lanka to gauge how much influence comes from India but it seems to me like there is a much larger conspiracy in Pakistan to exploit the underlying
weaknesses in Indian society."
To enlighten you, It was India under Indira Gandhi with RAW who gave birth to a serpent called LTTE in order destabilze pro West leaning govt. of JR Jayawardana in early 80's. India supported or ignored LTTE until they killed Rajiv Gandhi on Indian soil. Even now LTTE goonies in Tamil Nadu are trying to bail out LTTE by black mailing your union govt. Though it is LTTE who is holding it's own Tamil civilians as a human shield. Some politics.

Vijay.
We had a Tamil politician called Lakshman Kadirgamar in a recent govt as foriegn minister. Killed. Earlier there many Tamil ministers and MPs in various governments. Many of them eliminated. By whom LTTE and not majority Sinhalese.

By: Saj

Saj — Wed, 03 Dec 2008 05:20:03 +0000

I think the following article is very relevant to this post… I hope I can post a link to it?

Muslims — India's new 'untouchables'

The condition of the country's Muslims has deteriorated, and the world has overlooked the nation's problems.

The news of the attacks in Mumbai eerily took me back to a quiet morning two years ago when I sat in Room 721 of the Taj Mahal Palace & Tower hotel, reading the morning newspaper, fearing just the kind of violence that has now exploded in the city of my birth. The headlines recounted how the socioeconomic condition of the people of my ancestry, Muslims in India, had fallen below that of the Hindu caste traditionally called "untouchables," according to a government report.

"Muslims are India's new untouchables," I said sadly to my mother, in the room with me. "India is going to explode if it doesn't take care of them." Now, indeed, alas it has. And shattered in the process is the myth of India's thriving secular democracy.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la…

By: T.Douglas

T.Douglas — Tue, 02 Dec 2008 09:36:10 +0000

INDIA REAPING THE HARVEST

INDIA SENT OVER 100,000 JAWANS TO SRI LANKA AND THEY KILLED OVER 3000 INNOCENT TAMILS WHILE LOSING 1200 OF THEIR JAWANS.

INDIA TRAINED THE TAMIL YOUTHS IN THEIR MILITARY CAMPS AND SENT THEM OVER TO SRI LANKA TO ATTACK THE SRI LANKAN ARMED FORCES.

INDIA'S INTENTION IS TO DESTABILISE SRI LANKA AND CONTINUE THE WAR IN SRI LANKA. AT PRESENT INDIA IS MILITARILY SUPPORTING THE SRI LANKAN FORCES TO FIGHT THE LTTE. DURING THE PAST TWO MONTHS MORE THAN 2000 SRI LANKAN FORCES DIED IN THE FIGHTING IN THE VANNI AREA.

AT PRESENT MORE THAN 300 INDIAN FORCES HELPING THE SRI LANKAN FORCES TO CONTINUE THE WAR.

INNOCENT TAMIL AND SINHALESE YOUTHS ARE KILLED IN THIS BRUTAL WAR.

By: Justin

Justin — Mon, 01 Dec 2008 01:57:58 +0000

The problem as clearly revealed is the hatred that is poured out on its citizens, by states such as Sri lanka and India. The hatred is manifested in the form of sstate terror. Those who benefit from the discrimination of citizens and denial of political expression in certain areas of governance always support such discrimination, dehumanisation and genocide.

Because of this reason there is always a majority that benefits at the expense of a minority. This is not democracy. Democracy believes in freedom, equality, justice and human rights for every one not for the majority alone.

When such an occurence takes place, what should the oppressed do? If they have tried all the means to find peaceful solution has failed what should they do?

We have a problem here. The problem is with governance in countries than terrorism. Terrorism is arising from this lack of democracy.

By: Prateek

Prateek — Sun, 30 Nov 2008 07:50:52 +0000

Excellent post. Just goes to show how history repeats itself. Despite your advice I fear the worst – politicians will undoubtedly go down the same road as Sri Lanka. India will undoubtedly turn into a police state. We pride ourselves in "electing" a Muslim president / Sikh PM / female president but these events are little more than political posturing. Wake me up the day India elects a Muslim prime minister. Barack Obama's election will look like a cakewalk in comparison.
While there are many parallels between the two countries, there is one major difference. In light of events taking place after this article was written, and if the Times of India is to be believed, these terrorists were indeed from Pakistan. I do not know enough about the situation in Sri Lanka to gauge how much influence comes from India but it seems to me like there is a much larger conspiracy in Pakistan to exploit the underlying weaknesses in Indian society. Not to downplay the fact that India has been steadily losing its communal hegemony in these past few years.

By: Saj

Saj — Sun, 30 Nov 2008 02:45:41 +0000

Dear Vijay, my response to your points…

1. If the "Gujarat riots was a spontaneous response to Godhra violence of Sabarmati express " then Sri Lankans can claim that the 1983 violence in Colombo was a response to the murder and mutilation of 13 soldiers in Jaffna.

2. Tamils can certainly "contest" (I think you mean in elections?). There are Tamil parliamentarians in Sri Lanka's parliament, including the LTTE supporting Tamil National Alliance. The party representing Tamils of Indian origin in Sri Lanka is part of the current government. You claim India is secular so why do so many states have anti-conversion laws enacted? Such a move was attempted in Sri Lanka but the Supreme Court ruled it as unconstitutional. Further, religious harmony in Sri Lanka is, IMO, in a far better shape in Sri Lanka than it is in India. As for ethnic tensions, that is another matter.

3. Abdul Kalam was appointed to the post of President of India. India does not have an executive president like in Sri Lanka. The post of president in India is just a figurehead position – kinda like how the Queen of England is the official head of state of Australia, but has no power.

You talk of the Indian cricket team, but the Sri Lankan team is more multi-religious that India's. The Sri Lankan cricket team has Buddhists, Hindus, Christians and Muslims in it.

You claim Sri Lankans divide themselves along ethnicity, and yes that is true. But so do Indians… jsut visit the messageboards on rediff.com and you will see Tamils vs Kannadigas, Tamils vs. Malayalis, Hindus vs Muslims, North Indians vs. South Indians, Marathis vs. North Indians shouting against each other.

Just recently North Indians (ie Hindi speakers) were beaten up in Mumbai, and then Hindi speakers attacked Marathi institutions in the north of the country…how exactly is that Indians united?

5. Sri Lanka could also well make that claim with regard to Sri Lankans
nationals.

6. Despite your capitalised 'INDIA IS SECULAR' claim, Sri Lanka has had far less religious riots and religious acrimony is nowhere as near present is it is in India.