demonization and 'original sin'

july 18th, 2006

have you noticed how people have been saying, in so many words, 'the targets of the mumbai bombs were rich hindu gujarati diamond-traders'?

the implication: it's ok to massacre gujarati diamond-traders.

why? a) they are rich
b) they are hindu
c) they are gujarati

obviously a) is standard marxist-speak
b) is standard mohammedan-fundamentalist-speak

but c) is new. c) is raj-sardesai-speak and ndtv-speak and pankaj-mishra-speak. what it means is hte following: some gujaratis killed some mohammedans. therefore all gujaratis deserve to be killed, and nobody should mourn their deaths.

true enough, where were the sob-stories about the families of the dead gujaratis? not in the ELM. i remember that the ELM was full of sob-stories about ishrat jehan (the mohammedan girl who accompanied a hindu-convert-terrorist and two pakistani terrorists in a car to kill modi). there is no such breast-beating about any of the 190 people killed in mumbai.

further, the implication is that there is an 'original sin' committed by the hindu gujaratis. since they killed some mohammedans, henceforth till the end of the world, every mohammedan murder of any hindu anywhere can be justified as being caused by the pain of the gujarat riots.

this is demonization of the first order. goebbels would be quite proud of the ELM. i am waiting with bated breath for the day when the ELM 'discovers' (as is said of jews: this is part of what they protest is blood libel) that vegetarian gujarati hindus use the blood of new-born mohammedan infants in various rituals!

demonization is a wonderful tactic. this has always worked against the enemy: eg. the yanks demonizing the japanese as yellow devils. the spanish conquistadors demonizing the mayans as cannibals.

ergo, the ELM views the hindus as the enemy. this is a lemma

okay, let's say, for arguments' sake, that we accept that there is an original sin by hindus.

but then, what about the original sin that caused the gujarat riots? what about the 59 women and children, pilgrims, roasted mercilessly in godhra?

so that 'original sin' is not relevant?

similarly, the other 'original sins' of hindus: x) some mohammedans have been beaten up in kashmir, y) a disused mosque in ayodhya was pulled down.

take x). what about the 400,000 kashmiri hindus who have been ethnically cleansed? how about the tens of thousands raped, mutilated, abducted, blinded, tortured, etc.? well, those people don't matter, and talking about their human rights is an act of 'religious extremism'

and what about the 1000s of kashmiri mohammedans who have set up shop in every corner of india? isn't this a nice convenient network for sleeper cells? what right do they have to live in the rest of india if the rest of indians have no right to live in jammu and kashmir?

take y). how about at least 100,000 hindu temples that have demonstrably been destroyed by mohammedans? there is no sin in that?

and if we want to talk about 'original sin', what about the mohammedan sin of pulling down all those temples? wouldn't it be appropriate -- to use the same technique -- to justify any atrocity against any mohammedan anywhere as just rewards for the temple-breaking?

why, can't we go even further? what about the 'original sin' of mohammedan invasions of india? can't we -- using the marxists' own technique -- therefore justify any violent act by anybody (including the israelis and the yanks) anywhere against mohammedans by pointing to the original sin of the mohammedan invasion of india, which wiped out the buddhists, and set back civilization by a thousand years?

if you don't accept this line of reasoning, then the 'original sin' theory doesn't hold water. there is no justification in blithely accepting the deaths of 'rich hindu gujarati diamond-traders'. by doing this, the ELM is basically saying that the human rights of terrorists and outlaws are far greater than those of normal, law-abiding civilians.

this is an abomination of the highest order, and shows the degradation of the media in india.