In The Dubious Battle On Terror: Advani, Thackeray And Purohit
By Mustafa Khan
15 April, 2010
Countercurrents.org
The dubious battle on terrorism is paralleled by “politics of dementia”. LK Advani’s ire against the Maoists is that they are “irreligious and anti-national.” By this description Lt Col Prasad Shrikant Purohit and Sadvhi Pragya cannot be terrorists because both are devout Hindus. Perhaps this was why he met the Prime Minister when the sadhvi was imprisoned. Why did he not cry foul when Purohit wanted to establish Hindu Rashtra because that also would involve abrogating the Constitution? If Maoist and Jihadi terrorism are two sides of the same coin, which side was he when Constitutional authority was over thrown and Judicial injunction was trespassed as he hugged his fellow communalists and distributed sweets while watching the demolition of Babri mosque? All this happened after the gory trail of murder and arson when he willfully moved with his rath yatra to build the temple, a task that he and his party men considered beyond the jurisdiction of any court because it was a matter of faith.
The latest news in the world of terrorism from Maharashtra is that no local support is involved in the German bakery attack as per the Pune unit of ATS. ATS chief Rakesh Maria has submitted names of seven suspects, two Pakistanis and four Indians. The name of Yaseen Bhatkal figures as number seven. This inclusion was made only because he was not reportedly seen since the day of the attack, February 13. Only suspicion has motivated the inclusion of Yaseen. But the kind of atmosphere and opinion created in the county is that Yaseen is a terrorist and Indian Mujahidden behind the blast. Why has the media up-fronted the name of Yaseen Bhatkal is simple truth of the hunting game of our agencies. You might not know the names of the Maoist leaders who slaughtered 75 of our jawans from CRPF in Dantewada. But Yaseen would stick in your mind thanks to the conjectural ingenuity of ATS.
Conjectural ingenuity is the sophistry in battle on terrorism. Bal Thackeray in his editorial of Samna April 10, 2010 says “The greatest danger to Hindustan is not from real Muslims, but from those defiled (batgya) Muslims. These are the people who are shouting against Hindutva activists accused in the Malegaon blast (2008).” Thackeray goes beyond: “The Congress and the Nationalist Congress have tranquilized themselves (They are unruffled). It is their problem. But if they (C and NC) expect the Hindu he men to follow their impotent way and die then they are mistaken.” Like the kitchdi eating Babu Bajrangi, Thackeray also is under the cloud of inferiority complex and thereby challenging the masculinity of his fellows to the occasion. In other words he wants to instigate violence against the perceived enemies.
Within a few days of the ‘slaughter of lambs’ at Dantewada, Chattisgarh, and in total disregard to it, Maharashtra became the cynosure of star actors in the drama of terror. RR Patil, Maharashtra home minister, more willing to wound but afraid to strike, made strange disclosures that Prasad Shrikant Purohit did not wish to eliminate Mohan Bhagwat. Bal Thackeray openly came out in support of the lieutenant colonel who had said that ISI wanted to finish off the RSS chief.
Purohit’s abusing senior RSS leaders is of the same piece as his penchant for the Hindu Rashtra with absolute power in the hands of the ruler. To materialize the Hindu Rashtra it was inevitable to use revolutionary tactics. Bhagwat and others like him in the RSS were not cut out for this course, hence his grudge against them. If they were unfit to lead the Hindutva group it was logical deduction that the extremists in Abhinav Bharat and Sanathan Sanstha were ready to take over. In this eventuality they must have some kind of super power support for making the regime change. Israel had promised all kinds of help and in the event of fiasco, a safe haven of refuge for them. The king of Nepal had underwritten to train the revolutionary brigands of Hindutva to take over the reign of government in Delhi.
Purohit had hinted that he took help of SIMI activists to plant the bomb below SIMI office at Bhiku chowk on September 29, 2008. But this contradicts with the narco analysis of Purohit and Chaturvedi who said during the narco tests that they had used non-Wahabi Muslims for the bomb blasts. This is against the government stand that SIMI was made up of Wahabis. No other than the redoubtable predecessor of RR Patil, Chaggan Bhujbal was the architect of this theory. The central government not only bought this theory but used it every two years to re-impose the ban on SIMI.
Thackeray and Purohit are hand in glove in their battle on terror. Purohit’s statement that he had sent message to the Intelligence Bureau that Dawood Ibrahim had visited Malegaon on June 7, 2005. These selective releases to press have a sinister design. There is a method in this madness. RR Patil delinks Purohit with actual conspiracy to kill Bhagwat. Thackeray blames ISI for plotting to kill Bhagwat in order to sow dissension among the Hindu leaders. Therefore a man who could alert the nation against Dawood Ibrahim could not have perpetrated the attack of bombing in Malegaon 2008.
Nationalist Congress leader from Mumbra in Mumbai Jeetendra Avhad holds the opposite view. The Hindu extremists of Abhinav Bharat and Sanathan snsthan wanted to kill Bhagwat and put the blame on ISI. This opposite view is also based on political consideration since Avhad comes from a constituency where there is sizable Muslim population he tries to distance himself from the prejudice of the extreme communalists of Shiv sena and BJP. The discerning eye can sift through and see very well what kind of politics in view of the election in parts of Mumbia such contradictory views were expressed
On April 11th a group of researchers from MaRS Monitoing and Research Systems including NC Patel had visited Malegaon. They travelled from Dhulia and Mumbai and said when people in those cities came to know they were setting out for Malegaon they were agog with apprehension. The researchers wanted to know what is so wrong with the Malegaon that people fear to travel to that place. We took up the incident of Purohit mentioning that Dawood Ibrahim had visited the town on June 7, 2005. I explained that there are virtually no extortion cases in Malegaon. No shopkeeper (and, pointing at Mubashir Mustak, the owner of a huge powerloom industry,)I told them that no body pays protection money in our town. Why would Dawood Ibrahim visit such a place!
http://commonalty.blogspot.com/
