The death of a Muslim hater

Published: November 24, 2012

anwer.mooraj@tribune.com.pk

It is doubtful if the thinking man in Pakistan shed a tear when he heard that 86-year-old Balasaheb Keshav Thackeray, founder and former head of the Shiv Sena Party of Mumbai, had pegged down from unnatural causes. This is because the Emperor of Hindu Hearts (Hindu Hriday Samraat to his followers) was seen in my country as a rabid, chronic Muslim hater. He was also a confirmed right-wing, anti-communist Indian nationalist with a one-track mind: Maharashtra — for the original citizens of Maharashtra. Or put another way, it was Maharashtra — first and last. This meant making life difficult for Gujaratis and Marwaris who came to engage in business and south Indians in search of employment. At times, the Shiv Sena goons resorted to what they so charmingly referred to as ‘protection money’. The victims were invariably the rich Gujaratis and Marwaris. Not bad for a chap whose forebears had migrated from Bihar.

He was essentially hostile towards the Muslim minority. At times, without any provocation, he would attack them with calculated mendacity and a fetid passion. On one occasion, he sent his thugs to make chalk marks on the houses that housed Muslim dwellers and fomented the 1991 riots. It was rather like the Warsaw Ghetto all over again. If it had not been for Tiger Memon, the Muslm population of Mumbai would have been greatly decimated. And if it had not been for the Mumbai police, who used sniffer dogs, the saga of Bal Thackeray would in all likelihood have ended much earlier. Subsequently, Thackeray offered an olive branch to the victims of the riot and said, “The local Muslims are all right. It is the other Muslims against whom we have a grouse.”

I have been told that quite a few Indians were wary of Thackeray. He was one of the politicians responsible for tarnishing the secular status of the country and destroying the teachings of Mahatma Gandhi. And for changing the name of India’s most cosmopolitan city to Mumbai. When the city was called Bombay by the Portuguese, the name conjured up all sorts of exotic and wonderful images. Now, don’t get me wrong. We have got our own share of egocentric, jingoistic scribes in Pakistan who scalped the heads of Montgomery and Lyall and installed Zebunissa in place of Elphinstone in Karachi. A Latin scholar did, however, point out that Mumbai has an unfortunate forum tactus ring about it.

Thackeray was also responsible for sending his goons to burn and loot the cinema, which was screening Deepa Mehta’s poignant film Fire, which centred on the lives of two grossly neglected Indian wives who ended up displaying pronounced Sapphic tendencies. I wondered about that because I always thought that the Shiv Sena gave such sociological issues a wide berth. But then an Indian cinema buff whom I met in Penang informed me that the Shiv Sena took this extreme action because the two women were portrayed as Hindus. If they had been depicted as Muslims, Jews, Catholics or Dutch Amish from Downingtown, Pennsylvania, it would have been all right.

Cartoonist, agitator, Hindu fundamentalist, founder of the Shiv Sena, master of the art of forging temporary alliances with other provincial political parties, anti-communist, thug leader who was once banned for six years from voting or contesting elections and subsequently, controlled the trade unions, finally ended up as the enfant terrible of Bombay. Interestingly, he said more than once that he greatly admired Adolf Hitler, his organising ability, oratory and art and had a lot in common with him. Really! I don’t think the Fuehrer ever killed any Muslims!

Published in The Express Tribune, November 25th, 2012.

Reader Comments (94)

  • GrimmJow
    Nov 24, 2012 - 11:25PM

    Such an inappropriate title……….

    If at all he was a hater, he was a hater of the likes of Ajmal Kasab who waged a war against Mumbai & India…his hate towards everything related to Pakistan was an extension of this.

    Recommend

  • jamshed
    Nov 24, 2012 - 11:29PM

    so much hate for thackrey nothing for saeed and mitthu mia of ppp who kidnapped many hindu girls. nothing for those hate channels daily crying slangs on minorities especially the “vegetablekhors “. this is the common story of a pakistani “intellectual “.Islam and muslims are without faults . Ever seen an hate article by pakistani intellectuals pondering hate on regional supremacist pakistani leader sindhis karachities punjabis ?why thackrey then?Recommend

  • Ashok
    Nov 24, 2012 - 11:29PM

    If Bal Thackrey had really hated Muslims he would not have had a muslim doctor as his physician for last 5 years. However I fully share your views about him being a loathsome person. He was a politician just playing politics. To the best of my knowledge he did not kill anyone which cannot be said about all politicians in India/ Pakistan!

    Recommend

  • sh(india)
    Nov 24, 2012 - 11:31PM

    hahaha!! i dont know why pakistanis think indian muslims as their brothers.
    If they are brothers why dont they leave india?
    On what basis pakistan talks about thakeray when he didnt even kill any pakistanis?
    What about pakistani hindus in india living here ? Why doesnt pakistani govt protect hindus
    in pakistan?

    why didnt pak govt think about attacking israel when they killed muslims in gaza?

    As an atheist idont like any hindu, muslim or any religion coming and settling in india because they are attacked in pakistan or any part of the world.

    we are already full!!!!!

    I expect a reply from this author.

    Recommend

  • amit lunia
    Nov 24, 2012 - 11:36PM

    Tiger Memon( bombay blast), dawood ibhrahim(smuggler), Hafeez Sayeed (26/11), you are doomed to become like the presons you love, keep them in pakistan

    The writer seems immature to the core…….!Recommend

  • Alapan
    Nov 24, 2012 - 11:48PM

    Tiger Memon is being praised as hero and being called protector of muslims of mumbai.. My god !!

    Is this the journalistic ethics of ET-that a terrorist being praised for executing 1993 mumbai blasts? Is this protection of muslims?

    You went on to say that Hitler and Thackrey are not same! very fine! but u went to say as if u Thackrey is worse than Hitler just because Hitler did not kill muslims. But he killed 6 million jews. But he is a good man ..rt? This article is one of the worst, bigoted article i have read in recent times. I understood one thing though..this writer is worse than Thackrey for being nothing but a bigot.

    Recommend

  • BlackJack
    Nov 24, 2012 - 11:49PM

    I just cannot fathom this unending fascination that Pakistanis have with Bal Thackeray; one piece after another just to say exactly the same thing.
    1. What I really found surprising with this particular op-ed is If it had not been for Tiger Memon, the Muslm population of Mumbai would have been greatly decimated. – I assume the 1993 mumbai blasts were his way of saving muslims?
    2. At times, without any provocation, he would attack them with calculated mendacity and a fetid passion. How do you attack someone with mendacity? I am sure you could provide quotes.
    3. Next …master of the art of forging temporary alliances with other provincial political parties, – which are these parties?
    4. I don’t think the Fuehrer ever killed any Muslims! No, on the contrary, Hitler had said that if Charles Martel had not won the Battle of Tours in 732, most Europeans would have been Mahometans (sic) and then Germany would have ruled the world – clearly he could easily relate to the savagery and bloodthirstiness for which history remembers them.

    Recommend

  • London
    Nov 24, 2012 - 11:50PM

    @author
    Your sentence ->

    Interestingly, he said more than once that he greatly admired Adolf Hitler, his organising ability, oratory and art and had a lot in common with him. Really! I don’t think the Fuehrer ever killed any Muslims!

    Would have made sense only if it was->

    Interestingly, he said more than once that he greatly admired Adolf Hitler, his organising ability, oratory, art and killing of muslims and had a lot in common with him. Really! I don’t think the Fuehrer ever killed any Muslims!

    Right now its just an apt stupid ending line to a stupid article!

    Recommend

  • Sultan
    Nov 25, 2012 - 12:00AM

    @Ashok:

    If Bal Thackrey had really hated Muslims he would not have had a muslim doctor as his physician for last 5 years.

    If Hitler was really a Jew hater, he would not have had a Jewish mother (which he did). Childish reasoning from a Malarkist!

    Recommend

  • indian
    Nov 25, 2012 - 12:05AM

    muslims,muslims and muslims………..all pakis see is just atrocities on muslims……..dats it finish……..let the entire human race be wiped………muslims should be safe……….what a bunch of lousy hypocrites………right from a common man to writer…………MUSLIMS….dats it…MUSLIMS

    Recommend

  • G. Din
    Nov 25, 2012 - 12:17AM

    @amit lunia:
    “The writer seems immature to the core…….!”
    If he is (indeed I think he is), he doesn’t seem to have much time to mature.
    For this ignoramus’ information, he was not the one who changed the name of Bombay to Mumbai. Mumbai was the original name of the town, just as Chennai was for Madras, Bangaluru for Bangalore and Kolkutta for Calcutta. It is only the Parliament of India which can change the names of cities. Because most Mumbaikars were of the same sentiment as Bala Saheb, it does not mean he alone wanted the change. But leave it to a fanatic to use even his ignorance to make a point!

    Recommend

  • Nov 25, 2012 - 12:20AM

    Mumbai is the original name, named after goddess Mumba devi our kul devi. I will give you an example -when jet air fired its almost 1000 employees without any reason for costcutting they went to Raj Thackeray and appealed for help. Raj said that no plane will land in the airport till these people are taken back. And Raj is Bala saaheb’s nephew. And these employees were, muslim, gujjus, Bangla, Sindhi etc etc. There are many examples. Do your home work and then we will have a discussion. Arguments are an exchange of ignorance- from a Maharastrian or marathi woman.

    Recommend

  • mokun
    Nov 25, 2012 - 12:20AM

    He was a master thug who, like any other local goons, thrived on intimidation but of a higher calibre.His `remote-controll style´ power practice itself is an evidence of his lacking sense of responsibility.With his xenophobia, sugarcoated with easily sellable marathi regionalism,he unmanned leaders of any party who came to power.He knew how hate works and applied it on everything he did. Calling him just a muslim hater would be an understatement, he took hate as a commodity and did political business.

    Recommend

  • Iqbal
    Nov 25, 2012 - 12:34AM

    Is this a case of a “The pot calling the kettle black”? The present ideology in Pakistan is to hate hindus as properly reported in this link:
    http://dawn.com/2011/11/09/pakistan-schools-teach-hindu-hatred/#idc-cover
    I suspect Mr Thackeray was just doing what is normal in Pakistan. As a muslim I have accepted that hindus, especially in the West, are far ahead in all aspects of life and very soon will become the dominant race in UK and USA as shown by their respective government statistics.
    About time we accepted this fact.Recommend

  • John Doe
    Nov 25, 2012 - 12:45AM

    @Anwer,

    Not every Indian liked Bala sahedb thakeray in fact a lot of people hated and disliked him including me. But that does not justify hoisting Tiger Memon and Dawood Ibrahim on a pedestal. No wonder Pakistan does not want to handover criminals like Tiger Memon, Dawood Ibrahim, Hafeez Saeed to be prosecuted.

    A criminal is a criminal one right act does not justify the criminal acts.

    Gary

    Recommend

  • F
    Nov 25, 2012 - 12:52AM

    Thackeray hated but had no appreciable effect on his country’s underlying ethos of plurality, equality and tolerance. Repeatedly he was rejected by the masses. However, his grades pale in comparison to Maudidi, Hafiz Saeed, Lakhvi, Gen. Gul and Zaid Hamid – they preach eternal “love”. Their outlook is embraced by the masses.

    Recommend

  • Ritu
    Nov 25, 2012 - 1:05AM

    Very few Hindus liked Thackeray. In fact the educated Hindus hated him as much as they hate the Islamic terrorists

    Recommend

  • Abstracthinker
    Nov 25, 2012 - 1:10AM

    As an Indian I agree with every single thing you say about Bal Thackeray, and many Indians were worried about him. By the standards you apply however every single Pakistani leader is as bad as him. I see no pakistani politician offering equal rights to non-muslims, Tell me how many posts are there in your country which a non-muslim cannot occupy. Is there one politician in your country demanding a change in this law? Can a Pakistani muslim change his religion? I assure you that anybody could convert to any religion in Thackeray’s Mumbai without fear..
    Pakistanis like to feel that hindus are not killed in riots in their country but that is only because there are hardly any left.You sent out everybody in 1947 and now claim to be ? (not secular . I know that the word ‘secular’ is a bad word, a word of abuse, in Pakistan and every muslim country).
    Indians are still learning to live with each other and the process is going to be a long one. If we had one Bal Thackeray we also have had hundreds of admirable secular leaders. Do you have a Prime Minister in your country like VP Singh who lost his job protecting a mosque?
    By the way , sir when are your politicians going to demand that Shadman Chowk be named after Bhagat Singh? When are we going to see thousands and thousands at rallies in Pakistan demanding that. The answer , as you know very well,is NEVER.
    I suggest you worry about your own politicians since you are a LIBERAL (and God forbid, not a ‘secular’)

    Recommend

  • surya
    Nov 25, 2012 - 1:20AM

    Hindus and christians live in fear and poverty in Pak, also ever wonder why hindu haters is a common presence in every nook and corner of Pak. Introspection is urgently needed to lift your land from where it is now.

    Recommend

  • gp65
    Nov 25, 2012 - 1:30AM

    @sh(india): “hahaha!! i dont know why pakistanis think indian muslims as their brothers. If they are brothers why dont they leave india?”

    Flawed logic.
    First of all you are taking this author’s opinion and generalizing it to all Pakistanis. Secondly EVEN IF Pakistani Muslims try to become thekedars of Indian Muslims, how does that reflect on Indian Muslims? Indian Muslims are Indians and have as much right as you to live in India.
    The only exception I can think of are those Indian Muslims that hate India and simultaneously love Pakistan – by all means such people should follow their heart and cross the border.

    Recommend

  • Track 2
    Nov 25, 2012 - 2:35AM

    Whether it is a Bal Thackrey or a Hafeez Saeed or a Hitler or a Musolini; they don’t appear in a vacuum. In a way they represent a sense of victimhood shared by a community at a particular point of time. We can debate about these perceptions, like whether it is imagined or real, imposed or acquired and so on; but it will be foolish to ignore it. Bal Thackrey was an obnoxious character. No doubt about it. But how do we ensure that people like him do not find an audience, that their hate mongering does not resonate with a section of the mass. It is a daunting task and complex as well. But a good beginning would be having a relook at our shared history and come to terms with it.

    The Hindus of the sub-continent look at Islamic invasion and mass conversion as gross injustice to their culture and their way of life. Adding salt to the injury was the history of mass murder and forced conversion of the people of the sub-continent. So long as the sub-continent Muslims continue to celebrate people like ‘Aurangzeb’ and “Md bin Kasim’, the ilks of ‘Bala Thackarey’ will continue to be celebrated. So long as the missiles and warheads of the nation across the border will be named after “Gazni’ and ‘Ghauri’, the people like ‘Bal Thackarey’ will continue to be born and respected in India. So long as the Muslims of the sub-continent hide the real history including events, such as, killing of 100000 Hindus on a single day by King Temur, the likes of Bal Thackarey will continue to be celebrated. If the sub-continent wants to move forward, the history books need to reflect the real history of subjugation of the people of the sub-continent and not the glorification of the invaders. And the need to do this is in the interest of the people at either side of the border. It will rescue many who suffer in confusion and identity crisis.Recommend

  • sattar rind
    Nov 25, 2012 - 4:19AM

    who cares.

    Recommend

  • Its (still) Econonmy Stupid
    Nov 25, 2012 - 4:56AM

    BT was not Muslim hater but was honest and forthright against Pakistani artists or Cricket players. His logic was you can not make money in Bollywood or Wankade Stadium and send terrorist to Mumbai. This was his way of protesting it and he was entitle do so as long as he was doing it verbally and non violently. He was not hypocrite as he dealt with Muslims on daily basis and trusted them with his life. Political leaders raise vote bank by declaring either Nation or religion or language or economy or jobs are in trouble. He was playing with the local vote bank at the cost of alienating national interest. He was doing it with full calculation of risk benefit analysis. This is one of the reason that his influence was regional and not national. BT at best can be a case study for students of political science.Recommend

  • gp65
    Nov 25, 2012 - 8:03AM

    @Sultan: “If Hitler was really a Jew hater, he would not have had a Jewish mother (which he did).
    No one gets to choose their mother, they DO get to choose their physician.Recommend

  • Raveendra
    Nov 25, 2012 - 8:05AM

    Rightly said, as Indian i know, what he tried for, he was a politically unemployed, always tried to divide society on the basis of religion and on the names on names. anyway he did not accomplish.

    Recommend

  • Jack
    Nov 25, 2012 - 8:56AM

    The author in his article has clearly stated one thing-his own state of mind and why thackereys are thus needed. It is not hatred but hypocrisy of religion and supporting religion that breeds the likes of thackereys whom I do not support.
    Additionally, Thackerey did not attack any Pakistani forget about killing them. Why does he evoke such feelings when he did not have to do anything with Pakistanis?
    What should India do to those who attacked Indian citizens and are now staying in Pakistan?
    There are not one and but many.Recommend

  • Mirza
    Nov 25, 2012 - 9:31AM

    These are five minutes of my life that I am never going to get back. A meaningless and below the belt Op Ed that is only going to increase hatred and nothing constructive. He is with God and it is now between him and God. We have more hate mongers killing innocent Muslims every day and let us protect our innocent civilians first.

    Recommend

  • Anjaan
    Nov 25, 2012 - 9:43AM

    Yes, Bal Thackarey hated the anti-national muslims of India, and Pakistan in general ….. he was honest and open about his view ……… what is wrong with that, except that the Pakistanis will not like it ……. ?

    Are not there many in Pakistan that openly spit venom against the Hindus and India every day …… ? Is not hatred against the Hindus and India tought most systematically through the school text books in Pakistan ….. ? Is not the Mumbai massacre by the Pakistani gunmen fresh in the minds of people ….. ?

    Bal Thackarey, because of what he was, will always live in the hearts of millions of Hindus in India ….. !Recommend

  • Mogmbo
    Nov 25, 2012 - 10:53AM

    This article shows everything that is wrong with Pakistani psyche!!

    Recommend

  • Feroz
    Nov 25, 2012 - 10:58AM

    Bal Thackeray was a Pakistan hater more than a muslim hater. Without his support and protection the muslims dominating Bollywood would not have succeeded as they did. When Sanjay Dutt a half muslim was embroiled in an illegal arms and terrorism case, he would have languished years in jail — it was his father Sunil Dutt’s friendship with Bal Thackeray that got him quickly rehabilitated. It should be remembered that Sunil Dutt was returned from Mumbai three times on the Congress ticket defeating Thackeray’s Shiv Sena candidates.
    Thackeray was a hated figure more because he saw Bombay being flooded by millions of migrants who found easy jobs, and wanted employment for locals only. He was also vehemently against the illegal Bangladeshi immigrants to Mumbai who passed themselves off as Indian Bengali Muslims.

    Recommend

  • Zeux
    Nov 25, 2012 - 12:33PM

    @indian:
    Stop visiting Pakistani sites then or cut your whining

    Recommend

  • Tony Singh
    Nov 25, 2012 - 12:57PM

    @Sultan:
    Hitler’s jewish mother was not his choice while Thackery’s persoal doctor was Thackery’s choice. Spot the difference?

    Recommend

  • Anwer Mooraj
    Nov 25, 2012 - 1:22PM

    @Mirza:
    Good lord. Hitting below the belt? Creating hate? I am one of the few writers in Pakistan that has always tried to promote and foster good relations between India and Pakistan. So much so, one of my countrymen after reading a piece of mine in the E.T. suggested I should send a copy of the article to the Indian High Commissioner who would immediately grant me a visa and perhaps even an Indian passport I have always believed that Thackeray was essentially an evil man. Especially when in 2006, on a visit to Mumbai, I met some of the Muslims who dwelt behind houses that had been chalked as targets, who cowered behind closed shutters for days without food and water awaiting their fate.with stoicism – as Modi did in Gujarat. I never said Thackeray killed Pakistanis. He didn’t have to because we are doing a pretty good job of it ourselves. What is the average record in Karachi? A blast a day? .As far as forced conversion of Hindus is concerned I think it is disgraceful. This is not happening in India. a country after everything is said and done, is still theoretically a secular country.
    Anwer Mooraj

    Recommend

  • Parvez
    Nov 25, 2012 - 2:42PM

    Yesterday I came across this and said ‘ Why Bal Thackeray ? ‘ and did not read it.
    Now after reading it, I thought it was a fair read but still say ‘ why Bal Thackeray of all people ? ‘.

    Recommend

  • Manoj
    Nov 25, 2012 - 4:41PM

    @Anwer Mooraj:

    Dear Sir,

    Your article and conclusions are based on heresay.

    I am a bihari and he was also against the migrant from Bihar. Hence, I as an Indian citizen, who believed India for Indians, never liked his point of view.

    But when you analyse, it is the election system in the country, which is in the root of vote bank policy of the politician.

    Here, who ever gets the maximum no. of vote gets elected, that maximum no may be just 20% of the total vote. Hence, all politician in india plays divisive politics and tries to get a core vote bank for him self. They build on this core vote bank by arranging some more votes to get elected.

    Some indulges in cased based, some religion and some other linguistic based. But all the politician and political parties indulges in divisve polictics without exception.

    Every politician finds his own unique way to develope this core vote bank.
    The moment, election system is changed in India and vote of 50% of total voter is made mandatory, all the politician will become secular and friendly to each class of people.

    We need 1.Rigth to reject 2. Mandatory voting and 3. 50 % vote to elected.

    Recommend

  • Hella1
    Nov 25, 2012 - 4:46PM

    Bal Thackery’s grand-daughter has married a Muslim and he attended the wedding.

    Recommend

  • Sultan
    Nov 25, 2012 - 4:48PM

    @gp65:

    @Sultan: “If Hitler was really a Jew hater, he would not have had a Jewish mother (which he did).
    No one gets to choose their mother, they DO get to choose their physician.

    Are you trying to imply that this monster chose his physician just because he was a Muslim and not because he was a good doctor? And in either case, does that exempt him from the rabid hatred he promoted?

    You have a knack for having fixed opinions, mostly trying to defend the indefensible, and then trying to arrange selective facts and bend logic to support them. Reminds me of the four blind men feeling an elephant with their hands and coming up with hilarious observations.Recommend

  • Sultan
    Nov 25, 2012 - 4:52PM

    @Tony Singh:

    Read my response to your co-agent @gp65. Spot the similarities in your pathetic argument? Having a Jewish mother or a Muslim doctor does not stop one from being a Jew killer or a Muslim tormenter. Remember partition saradr ji? Having Muslim friends did not stop Sikhs or Hindus from slaughtering Muslims and vice versa.

    Recommend

  • Scorpio
    Nov 25, 2012 - 4:55PM

    Terrific article. Should be published and read widely all over India. Well done, Mr. mooraj. somebody needed to say that. made my day!

    Recommend

  • Sultan
    Nov 25, 2012 - 5:21PM

    @Anwer Mooraj:

    India. a country after everything is said and done, is still theoretically a secular country

    india may claim to be a secular country but most indians are definitely not–they are still rabid hindus who sell tour packages to the Taj Mahal to feed their children or clean the toilets in hotels in the Muslim Middle East to earn Muslim riyals, dirhams, and dinars but hate everything Muslim. Furthermore, the ruling class including the industrialist are a major component of this hate brigade but are salivating at the prospect of selling indian goods to 180 million “consumers” in Pakistan to earn profits. Anything for a buck!

    Recommend

  • GreatThinker
    Nov 25, 2012 - 6:00PM

    Having this article as an Op-Ed, the kind of “intellectuals” now gaining ground in Pakistan and the comments from ordinary Pakistani, confirms the view that Pakistan is firmly on the road downhill.

    Recommend

  • Nov 25, 2012 - 6:17PM

    ‘It is doubtful if the thinking man in Pakistan shed a tear when he heard that 86-year-old Balasaheb Keshav Thackeray, founder and former head of the Shiv Sena Party of Mumbai,”

    Sir I assure you in India also the vast majority in the country did not shed a tear.

    “This is because the Emperor of Hindu Hearts (Hindu Hriday Samraat to his followers) was seen in my country as a rabid, chronic Muslim hater. He was also a confirmed right-wing, anti-communist Indian nationalist with a one-track mind:”

    Sir He was No Emperor of Hindu hearts but hated by most of Hindus for the very reasons you have given.
    Request read an article in Times of India today

    Recommend

  • pnpuri
    Nov 25, 2012 - 8:06PM

    sir you are wrong and so a large number of commenters. Thackerary was not anti muslim or muslim hater as you describe. He hated every one whom he perceived will compete for employment with semi literate/ illiterate marathi. he led a group of marathies who thought that outsiders are taking away their jobs (semi skilled/ unskilled ). his original hate was against people from south India particularly Malyalies from Kerala as they were considered more docile and hard working. With passage of time, the south indian.stopped competing for low paid jobs as they found better avenues in Emirates. in the mean while there was flux of cheap labour from UP and Bihar and they became new hate object. the hate against muslims is incidental, as large number of these immigrants also included Muslims. Earlier there was migration of Muslim weavers to places like Male Gaon in late 19th century and thereafter.these Muslims were more prosperous then their relatives in north and there was continuous inflow from north. originally these people were employed in hand looms and did not compete with local Marathi. it was only with advent of power looms and industrialization they were unemployed and started competing with locals. Thackerary was against non- marathies looking for low jobs. it is wrongly stated that; he was against marwaries, Gujaraties.and parsies he liked them because the enerprises set up by them created jobs for locals.the gujaraties also include Muslims businessmen a large number of sindhies came to Bombay and surrounding areas; they are not unwelcome same with Punjabies. had he been alive probably he would have supported FDI as it would have created Jobs.

    Recommend

  • Rajeev Nidumolu
    Nov 25, 2012 - 8:15PM

    I am perplexed by your statement that “If it had not been for Tiger Memon, the Muslm population of Mumbai would have been greatly decimated.” Are you justifying Bomb blasts attributed to Tiger Memon which killed innocent bystanders in Mumbai ? This statement by itself indicates that your views are no different from Bal Thackeray.
    Bal Thackeray was an opportunist politician who was a rabid rouser for lumpin elements . I doubt whether he really cared as much for Maharastrians or Indians . His rhetoric was to build a political constituency which held Mumbai and Bollywood to hostage and ransom.
    How do you explain that he accepted Muslim who married his granddaughter and had a Muslim personal physician who treated him till the very end ? People like Bal Thackeray just like his admired Hitler are too complicated personalities to be pigeon holed into one analytical conclusionRecommend

  • BlackJack
    Nov 25, 2012 - 8:22PM

    @Sultan:
    Your ranting usually has no basis in fact; such is the case this time as well. Hitler’s mother was a Roman Catholic.
    .Recommend

  • Gratgy
    Nov 25, 2012 - 8:25PM

    @Sultan
    india may claim to be a secular country but most indians are definitely not–they are still rabid hindus who sell tour packages to the Taj Mahal to feed their children or clean the toilets in hotels in the Muslim Middle East to earn Muslim riyals, dirhams, and dinars but hate everything Muslim

    This was one of the funniest comments on this page. Almost 20 percent of the Indian population are Muslims, are you saying that they are also rabid Hindus. Most Indians in the gulf are Muslims so you seem to be tying yourself in knots here lol!

    Try replacing India with Pakistan and interchange Muslims and Hindus in the last sentence and this will be perfectly accurate except for the Taj sentence which I attribute to envy.

    We call your behaviour as psychological projection.

    For your benefit I paste from wiki
    “Psychological projection or projection bias is a psychological defense mechanism where a person subconsciously denies his or her own attributes, thoughts, and emotions, which are then ascribed to the outside world, usually to other people. Thus, projection involves imagining or projecting the belief that others originate those feelings”

    I can attribute most of posts to the above the rest to just the desire to post crap

    Recommend

  • Its (still) Econonmy Stupid
    Nov 25, 2012 - 8:37PM

    @Hella1:
    Bal Thackery’s grand-daughter has married a Muslim and he attended the wedding.

    Your comments show the dangers of writing article based on poor research. Hope author will do a better research next time. Same applies to Sultan.

    Recommend

  • Raj - USA
    Nov 25, 2012 - 8:52PM

    As much as I dislike BT for many reasons, I also feel pity for Pakistanis who think they represent Islam or Muslims around the world.

    Recommend

  • gp65
    Nov 25, 2012 - 9:05PM

    @Sultan: “Are you trying to imply that this monster chose his physician just because he was a Muslim and not because he was a good doctor? And in either case, does that exempt him from the rabid hatred he promoted?”

    No I am saying no such thing, he chose the particular Dr because he trusted him most. The fact that he could trust him rules out the visceral hatred for Muslims that is implied in his article. I never agreed with politics when he was alive and in many different forums spoke against him. If you read what Feroz has to say, that is the most accurate summation of Thackeray. He was NOT a Muslim hater albeit he openly said he hated Pakistan after 26/11 happened and he did want to deny economic opportunities to PAkistanis in the entertainment world until the people associated with 26/11 were sentenced. This man never pulled his punches and said what he meant. He had a constituency and he was FOR that constituency i.e. Marathi manoos (Marathi man) and fought for its economic interests. For most of the time people he came in conflict were economic migrants from other states in order to protect jobs for locals.

    Th eonly time he came in conflict with Muslims of Mumbai was 1992-93 when there were riots. The riots were in 2 phases. The first phase when Muslims attacked Hindus and the second phase when Hindus retaliated and it is believed that Sena was involved in that. The loss of life was very unfortunate but did not happen in a vacuum. IT was part of tit for tat killing and not rabid Muslim hating as implied by this author and many others.

    Recommend

  • gp65
    Nov 25, 2012 - 9:14PM

    @Manoj: Your analysis of the problem and the solution are fantastic.

    Recommend

  • DarKnight
    Nov 25, 2012 - 9:28PM

    @Zeux:

    Stop publishing articles related to India and we will stop coming to your sites……..

    Recommend

  • gp65
    Nov 25, 2012 - 9:32PM

    @Sultan: “Are you trying to imply that this monster chose his physician just because he was a Muslim and not because he was a good doctor? And in either case, does that exempt him from the rabid hatred he promoted?”

    I am simply implying that a man with visceral hatred for Muslims as implied in this article would not trust his life to one. He was a politician and promoted his vote bank. I did not agree with his politics at all because I believe India is for all Indians and he tried to keep economic migrants out of Mumbai. It is the mischarecterization is ananti-Muslim guy that I am writing about not defending his politics. Please read what @pnpuri and @Feroz have written to understand his politics. Also as someone else has stated his grand daughter married a Muslim and he attended the wedding. These are all signs that he was not anti-Muslim per se which is the premise of the article. It does not mean that one ageed with his politics
    “You have a knack for having fixed opinions, mostly trying to defend the indefensible, and then trying to arrange selective facts and bend logic to support them. Reminds me of the four blind men feeling an elephant with their hands and coming up with hilarious observations.”

    I cherry picked nothing. You did. You stated that having a Muslim Doctor did nothing to disprove his visceral hatred for Muslims because Hitler had a Jewish mother. That was flawed logic and I pointed it out. It turns out the data also was flawed since google confirms what @BlackJack said i.e. his mother was Roman catholic.

    Recommend

  • DarKnight
    Nov 25, 2012 - 9:40PM

    @Sultan:

    india may claim to be a secular country but most indians are definitely not–they are still rabid hindus who sell tour packages to the Taj Mahal to feed their children or clean the toilets in hotels in the Muslim Middle East to earn Muslim riyals, dirhams, and dinars but hate everything Muslim. Furthermore, the ruling class including the industrialist are a major component of this hate brigade but are salivating at the prospect of selling indian goods to 180 million “consumers” in Pakistan to earn profits. Anything for a buck!

    So are the millions of Muslims trying to migrate western countries by hook and by crook and bashing their secular ideas and western culture, eg…Anjum Choudhary. The finest example of illegal migration is from your Hazara Communities in Pakistan, desprately trying to flee Australia because of the atrocities carried out by your own Muslim brothers…………India is far more better than the Pakistan or any other countries in South Asia for that matter……..You have Zakir Naik preaching his Islamic teachings in the heart of Mumbai through the Peace TV showing other religions in poor light except Islam…….Do you expect something like this ever happen in Pakistan where any Hindus or Christians holding a massive conference and do the same what Mr. Naik is doing in Mumbai…………..Your article reflects a sheer frustration………

    Recommend

  • Mirza
    Nov 25, 2012 - 10:05PM

    @Anwer Mooraj:
    Sir, all I was trying to say is beating up a dead person who is not even imp in Pakistani politics is not going to help it would only create more reactionaries. There are some people/topic that should best be left to the history especially after their death.
    Regards,
    M

    Recommend

  • anjaani
    Nov 25, 2012 - 10:07PM

    It is true Thackrey was a bona fide muslim hater, In 1991 there was no kasab…his hate for muslims is there from long time!!

    Recommend

  • Genesis
    Nov 25, 2012 - 10:36PM

    You need a few Bal Thackerey’s to put the rest on guard.

    Recommend

  • Easy Peasy
    Nov 25, 2012 - 10:57PM

    The author, in trying to ram home his point about Bal Tackrey, hoist a terrorist like Tiger memon to high pedestal. This is distasteful and betrays the bigoted mindset of the author. Too sad that this has to appear in a respectable news portal. Apart from that I pretty much agree that Bal Tackrey was a divisive figure and his legacy is something India will do well to leave behind.Recommend

  • jahandad
    Nov 25, 2012 - 11:02PM

    BAL TAHKERAY is responsible for the rise of extremist and millitant hardliners anti muslim hindu extremists groups ,,,who dominated indian psychie by spreading anti pakistan propaganda via print and electronic media plus bollywood anti pakistan movies,,,,,he is the one who divided bombay on the basis of religion,,,,,he is the sole mastermind of sheve sina crimes and bhajrang crualities,,,,his hate and hateful speeches are far sinful than hitlers and nazis,,,,,,,,,,IF YOU THINK I AM WRONG THEN PROOVE IT OTHERWISE ,,BUT WITH REFERENCES OTHER WISE I HAVE ALL REFERENCES FOR THIS MANS CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY,,,,,,,,,

    Recommend

  • Khalid
    Nov 25, 2012 - 11:07PM

    comments are wow, I think Indians comments should be dealt as knowledge base, ball tahkery was an Indian so they know better, we can get more by keep questioning them…but for Pakistanies no need to worry as b.takhery is already dead :)

    Recommend

  • jahandad
    Nov 25, 2012 - 11:15PM

    atleast have the courage to say bal takheray was a bad man,,,,,,,Recommend

  • MrIndianAtheist
    Nov 25, 2012 - 11:34PM

    Mr Anwer Mooraj, you think tiger Memon saved muslims of Mumbai? Then you are worst than what you accused Mr Bal Thakray of.

    Recommend

  • Its (still) Econonmy Stupid
    Nov 26, 2012 - 12:42AM

    @ Jahandad he is the one who divided bombay on the basis of religion,, IF YOU THINK I AM WRONG THEN PROOVE IT OTHERWISE ,,BUT WITH REFERENCES
    The religions represented in Mumbai Include Hindus (67.39%), Muslims (18.56%), Buddhists(5.22%), Jains (3.99%), Christians (4.2%),Sikhs (0.58%), with Parsis and Jews making up the rest of the population. The linguistic/ethnic demographics are: Maharashtrians (42%),Gujaratis (19%), with the rest hailing from other parts of India. Native Christians include East Indians (ethnic group) Catholics who were converted by the Portuguese, during the 17th & 18th century. The city also has a small native Bene Israeli Jewish community, who migrated from the Persian Gulf or Yemen, probably 1600 years ago. Mumbai is also home to the largest population of Parsi Zoroastrians in the world, with about 80,000 Parsis in Mumbai. Parsis migrated to India from Pars (Persia/Iran) following the Islamic conquest of Iran in the 7th century AD. The oldest Muslim communities in Mumbai include the Dawoodi Bohras, Ismaili Khojas, and Konkani Muslims.
    Where do I send crow for you to eat.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mumbai

    BT was equivalent of leader of anti immigrant party of France Jean-Marie Le Pen. Both provoked emotions on either side of the debate.

    Recommend

  • gp65
    Nov 26, 2012 - 2:52AM

    @Its (still) Econonmy Stupid: “Your comments show the dangers of writing article based on poor research. Hope author will do a better research next time”

    Well the author’s previous OpEd was a book review without actually reading the book. The comments from the posters @bigsaf and @Foreign Leg make that evident. http://tribune.com.pk/story/466754/what-the-secret-service-thought-of-em/

    Recommend

  • gp65
    Nov 26, 2012 - 3:55AM

    @anjaani: “It is true Thackrey was a bona fide muslim hater, In 1991 there was no kasab…his hate for muslims is there from long time!!”

    What you are referring to is tit for tat killings not unlike what happens in Karachi all the time. They happened in 1992 -93. Phase I was when Muslims attacked Hindus (Dec 12 to Jan 5) and Phase 2 (Jan 6 to Jan 20) was when Hindus retaliated – a retaliation that many believe was led by Shiv Sena. The SS killing was not born in a vacuum and they were seen as protectors. Sadly bigotry was easy to sell and both sides indulged in it. The serial bombings by Tiger Memon occurred in March and were in no way responsible for ending he riots unlike what is indicated by the author.

    DO also note the numbers though: A total of 575 Muslims and 275 Hindus died almost 20 years ago and there have bee no communal riots in Mumbai since then. More people die in Karachi target killing each year. Please keep that in mind when you use this highly regrettable episode to make the point that Muslims are not safe in India.

    Recommend

  • Nov 26, 2012 - 9:28AM

    The people who think India is not a secular country and not safe for Muslims have to go back 11 years to think of an incident where Indian Muslims were hurt.

    While safe-for-Muslims-Pakistan witnessed Moharram violence only yesterday. How many were killed?

    Recommend

  • Fahad
    Nov 26, 2012 - 10:27AM

    Why is this man being given so much importance. He is dead! He is history!! end of story.

    Recommend

  • Ganesh
    Nov 26, 2012 - 12:08PM

    This is the problem with Muslims!Only Muslims are seen everywhere and only green is sought everywhere!!But unfortunatly India has 1 Billion non muslims and world has almost 5 billion non muslims…!!Hence all the trouble for muslims!!

    Recommend

  • Nitish
    Nov 26, 2012 - 12:29PM

    Request to all indian posters,pl give this man a break.Look at his age.He cannot bear further humiliation.

    Recommend

  • Nov 26, 2012 - 1:15PM

    Massacares like mumbai, ahmedabad, jaipur, bangalore, kashmir blasts. 26/11 genocide, kashmir genocide, delhi parliament attacks are not exactly helping him to love pakistani muslims.

    How many bal thakerays pakistan has grown on its soil is beyond anyone’s guess.

    Recommend

  • Milind
    Nov 26, 2012 - 1:30PM

    As I pointed out in another blog on ET, Konkani/Marathi Muslims supported Sena and voted their candidates to power (The Sena also sent candidates to the civic corporation in Konkan coastal belt – Srivardhan etc.).

    Additionally our cricketer Zahir Khan has gone on record stating that his town Shiv Sainiks went out of their way to help him. Additionally he also had no issues with Balasaheb.

    Most of the Pakistanis were anti-Indian in the 90s (witness the Sharjah matches). This virus infected most of Indian Muslims and Balasaheb opposed that.

    Recommend

  • Asad Khan
    Nov 26, 2012 - 5:33PM

    @gp65: Please keep that in mind when you use this highly regrettable episode to make the point that Muslims are not safe in India.
    See, This is the problem with the Hindu Regime. Why there should be a problem for Indians Who also practice Islam? You have to decide once for all that your Hindu Regime is only can protect Hindu or rest of the other Religions too? Your Threatening arguments do not reflects that. That’s exactly proves the Point is that Hindu Mind is stuck in Mughal Era. Since Hindus were Ruled By those Mughals , Hindu of India considers the Local converted Population also its enemy and try to show them it’s Hurt Ego for 1000 years by committing crimes against Muslims and supporting Thugs like Thakray to repair their Ego. However, the results of such false analogy is Haunting Hindu Regime and Majority Biased Hindu Population. Attitude of Majority Hindu HURT EGO mentality doesn’t only Hunt on Muslims from time to time to satisfy their Damaged Ego for centuries, But they also do not spare the other religious Minorities either. Genocide of Sikhs in 1984 and Massacre of Christians in 2006 in South India are the Brilliant examples of this Damaged Hindu Majority’s Ego manifestation in the shape of Mob Killing mentality. It’s a matter of great questioning that why An Outside force ( Muslim Rulers) could Keep such a Big Population of India combined under one nation but Hindu Raj could not. They co-existed under the Muslim and the British rule but as soon as Hindu Leadership took over Subcontinent was divided. Instead of blaming the Minorities, which is the easiest thing to do, Hindu must check it’s Own facts first. What went wrong that divided the reqion in so many parts. There will be more reasons But the One I can point out that the Perecived Justice in Muslim times( Adal-e- Jahangiri or Akbari) and Justice and Law and order in British was Good enough to hold the nation together. When, Cases like Babri Masjid and Golden Temple or Gujarat and Kashmir Genocide will be decided in the name of the Oppressor , then obviously you can still await More division and Movements. Not Only Muslims but other groups such as Naxalites and In the North East insurgencies are the indicators of tremendous Injustice of minority groups By the hand of Hindu Majority Population. India is not Secular. Secular on the Book, else a Pure Hindu Regime with sick religious tendencies which is causing More divide than unity in its society. If that would be not the case, then we would not be here discussing about the Bal Thakray.

    Recommend

  • Nov 26, 2012 - 6:54PM

    @pnpuri: You are not stating the truth. Truth is that Thakre was a Hater to the core. He hated every thing except himself. He was no friend of Marathi Maanoos as he was not a marathi himself. His family migrated from Bihar to Balaghat and then to Bombay in search of employment. He was a self serving person who recognized the opportunities in politics of hate and cultivating the divisive politics. And of course he reaped very rich dividends as we the people are easily led by gimmicks.

    Recommend

  • gp65
    Nov 26, 2012 - 7:50PM

    @Asad Khan: “See, This is the problem with the Hindu Regime. Why there should be a problem for Indians Who also practice Islam? You have to decide once for all that your Hindu Regime is only can protect Hindu or rest of the other Religions too? Your Threatening arguments do not reflects that”

    You are clearly putting words in my month. I did not say any of the things you claim I said.
    I made no threatening argument and if you read the post you must have read that Hindus died too. They were riots. The deaths were very unfortunate and regrettable. Both sides killed and they were started by Muslims not Hindus. And the last communal riots that have happened in India were in 2002 February – almost 11 years back. The riots Sena was involved in happened 20 years back and thee have been no communal riots in Mumbai since then. So as @Bruteforce said the Indian government IS far more capable of ensuring the safety of its citizens (Indians and Muslims) than the Pakistani government of its citizens.

    Recommend

  • gp65
    Nov 26, 2012 - 8:07PM

    @Gratgy: “We call your behaviour as psychological projection.”
    You said it like it is. The projection is not just at a national level but individual level too. A Gujarati saying loosely translated says this more simply than the formal definition “Those who have jaundice see the world with a yellow tint”.

    Recommend

  • Rakib
    Nov 26, 2012 - 8:20PM

    @gp65:

    Indian government IS far more capable of ensuring the safety of its citizens (Indians and Muslims) than the Pakistani government of its citizens.

    Excellent post!! Words in the parentheses may have been an unintended error & hopefully it’s not a case of parapraxis..

    Recommend

  • Candid 1
    Nov 26, 2012 - 8:25PM

    I love the way this article has rankled the Bharatis, and provoked them to reveal their true hate-filled selves. Good going!

    Recommend

  • gp65
    Nov 26, 2012 - 8:44PM

    @Rakib: “Words in the parentheses may have been an unintended error & hopefully it’s not a case of parapraxis..”

    Yes indeed. Obviously I meant to say Hindus and Muslims. Thanks for giving me the benefit of doubt.

    Recommend

  • Maverick
    Nov 26, 2012 - 9:00PM

    All the muslim-haters have sprung to the defence of Thakeray- their racist, bigoted, anti-muslim leader!

    Recommend

  • Maverick
    Nov 26, 2012 - 9:04PM

    All the muslim-haters have leapt to the defence of Thakeray- their racist, bigoted, anti-muslim leader! Hilarious!

    Recommend

  • Sultan
    Nov 26, 2012 - 10:15PM

    @VINOD:

    Well done VINOD–Bhagvan tumhara bhulla karey! Now you have Miss gp65 all tongue tied! Let’s see what crooked argument she comes up with now to make Bal the Monster look like a cuddly teddy bear. Just watch, try she must!

    Recommend

  • Sultan
    Nov 26, 2012 - 10:29PM

    @Candid 1:

    I love the way this article has rankled the Bharatis, and provoked them to reveal their true hate-filled selves. Good going!

    This is nothing. If you want see these rabid hindus doing ashnan in the cesspool of hatred, see Avi Sen’s (a fair minded indian, influenced by Voltaire perhaps, as he resides in France) post called “I love india, I don’t like indians” in the same edition of ET. True indian malarky and skulduggery posing as scholarly arguments. Utterly depressing and revolting!

    Recommend

  • Ajay Mittal
    Nov 26, 2012 - 10:31PM

    I am secular Indian and I liked Thackerey. In the face of all adversities, in the face of our principles of non-violence and indefinite tolerance giving lift to terrorist forces and people with ‘bad’ agenda for the country, we needed a firebrand Hindu leader with all his/her eccentricities,

    Recommend

  • Ajay Mittal
    Nov 26, 2012 - 10:46PM

    @Sultan:
    Mor on, you do not choose your mothers !! but you can choose your doctors !

    Recommend

  • Ajay Mittal
    Nov 26, 2012 - 11:00PM

    @Sultan: You have been brainwashed during your school years in Pakistan. All.any violence against pre-partion Muslims started only after acute distressful murderous attacks by mean Muslims in the name of religion !! Faced with such violence, reverse violence is justified !!

    Recommend

  • Ajay Mittal
    Nov 26, 2012 - 11:01PM

    I am secular Indian and I liked Thackerey. In the face of all adversities, in the face of our principles of non-violence and indefinite tolerance giving lift to terrorist forces and people with ‘bad’ agenda for the country, we needed a firebrand Hindu leader with all his/her eccentricities, he filled a need !

    Recommend

  • Sanjeev
    Nov 27, 2012 - 12:00AM

    Anwer ji,

    The article is not with entire facts and is also below the belt article for Bal Thackrey.

    Your comparision of Annes/ Dawood Ibrahim and Bal is inappropriate, let me put the scenario in right perspective so all readers can judge actions of the two people.

    In 1980 the D Gang was at its peak…and slowly it was converting Mumbai into a Mafia city, smuggling, hafta collection….drugs was becoming rampant. (The Gang was secular of course…it had people from all religion and caste.) The politicians too were hand in gloves resulting into police being a puppet when it came to taking the Mafia. (D Gang was not in terroism yet). This continued for years unabated.

    Bal Thackrey was a divisive politician seen from a National perspective as he divided people on the basis of Religion and Regionalism. He had a particular set of votebank to which he pampered….and that votebank was Mumbaikars.

    Mumbai as the finacial capital, so who ever is able to dominate this city will always have a good leverage.

    Both Sena and D Gang wanted to control this city. Once the D Gang got engaged in terrorist activity by 1990 and lost it secular structure it began loosing the city and at the same time Sena got into power in state. The Sena knew it had to wipe the control that the Mafia had on Mumbai and it unleashed its police force like a rabid dogs on the Mafia….with lots of encountered killings. (All gang operatives were nearly killed or had to flee th city).

    So comparing a Mafia\ Terrorist with a divisive shrewd politician is inappropriate.

    Recommend

  • Nov 27, 2012 - 12:19PM

    @Asad Khan: Dear Asad Khan, Your analysis is good and I agree with most points. We the Hindus have to do a lot more to make the life of minority more safe and more meaningful. Though the constitution guarantees this practically we have to travel some distance. The politicians are the main spoke but God willing one day we will achieve this too because our foundation is laid on correct principles.

    Recommend

  • Another North Indian
    Nov 27, 2012 - 3:52PM

    Vinod

    Hindus and your community are co-workers in making India an ever more perfect place. Accept that responsibility for yourself. Make your own efforts to become better neighbors and citizen. And help others of all communities do the same.

    If you can learn some tricks of the trade that Asad Khan has used to make Pakistan a better place for all communities, surely, do learn those from him, and share them with everyone else. Play a positive role.

    Recommend

  • G. Din
    Nov 28, 2012 - 2:59AM

    @VINOD: to Asad Khan
    “We the Hindus have to do a lot more to make the life of minority more safe and more meaningful. “
    Why? Who threatens this minority you speak of? When you say “minority”, are you pointing to Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains, Parsis, Christians, Jews, agnostics or atheists, too in this broad sweep? Clearly none of those are threatened. They are prospering. Why are only Muslims “threatened”?
    What or who gives you the right to impose on all Hindus this onerous responsibility? I don’t dispute your own right or presumptuousness to undertake that responsibility.
    Muslims are in trouble everywhere in this world, in all societies. Why? Because they are either not interested in or capable of forging relationships with non-Muslims. Why, again? Because before you forge a relationship, you have got to be in a state of mutual respect with the other. Muslims have shown themselves singularly devoid of such respect towards others, including fellow Muslims!

    Recommend

  • Komal S
    Nov 28, 2012 - 10:20AM

    @Sultan:
    One cannot choose his mother, but you can choose a doctor though! Get it.

    Recommend

  • Nov 28, 2012 - 11:59AM

    @G. Din: Mr Din your analysis is faulty. In India our constitution and we put all minorities together and firmly believe that it is the responsibility of the majority community in a DEMOCRACY to give minorities space to grow and avail equal rights. You are wrong, in India Muslims have progressed equally in numbers, education and also economically. You say “What or who gives you the right to impose on all Hindus this onerous responsibility?” No one has to give me this responsibility; as a citizen of India it is the bounden duty of every Indian to act and protect our constitution and that I must do. We are citizens of India first and then Hindu, Muslim, Sikh, Jain, Christian, Parsi etc etc.

    Recommend

  • G. Din
    Nov 28, 2012 - 6:06PM

    @VINOD:
    ” it is the responsibility of the majority community in a DEMOCRACY to give minorities space to grow and avail equal rights. “
    In a Democracy, no one has the responsibility to give anyone space to grow at the expense of any other whether they belong to majority or minority. Everyone regardless of his/her religious affiliation must, to the extent possible, be able to avail of equal opportunity.
    “You are wrong, in India Muslims have progressed equally in numbers, education and also economically. “
    Where have I even mentioned this?
    ” No one has to give me this responsibility”
    Now read the next sentence in my post: ” I don’t dispute your own right or presumptuousness to undertake that responsibility.”
    Again, try to answer the question:”Who threatens this minority you speak of? ”
    Sir, you are free to go on a self-guilt trip anytime anywhere. Just don’t drag all Hindus with you by pretending to speak for all of them. You may avail of the company of “ghar-jamaayee secular” brigade if you chose to do so.
    It is our “bounden duty” to protect the Constitution and make it work for every citizen regardless of religion or sect, and not to skew it in favour of “ghar-jamaayees” or the current vote-bank.
    It is in our own enlightened self-interest as Indians to lend a helping hand to deserving countrymen, no matter what religion they profess!

    Recommend

  • B.
    Nov 29, 2012 - 2:33PM

    @indian:
    Calling all muslims hypocrites. How secular of you

    Recommend

  • Nov 29, 2012 - 5:40PM

    @G. Din: Mr Din, you like other members of right wing Hindu brigade have hidden your real name. If I do not have the the right to speak on behalf of majority of Hindus then certainly you have no right to speak on their behalf either. Your are exposed when you call a section of our society as ““ghar-jamaayees”. But be aware that the majority of Hindus of this country are secular,committed to wards carrying the whole society together and do not consider any one as “ghar-jamaayees” To illustrate my point ” it is the responsibility of the majority community in a DEMOCRACY to give minorities space to grow and avail equal rights.” I would like to draw your attention to the incident of Gurudwara killings in USA where the majority christian community came forward to protect the rights of sikhs. In contrast look at a country where majority community denies fellow citizens to build there places of worship. Sir, Request read again what I have said. You say “Indians to lend a helping hand to deserving countrymen,” I say all countrymen of this country are deserving and all have right for help to grow further. Regards.

    Recommend

More in Opinion