Dear Deepak, Honestly it was a mistake in typing, I meant the opposite. I would be the last one who would discalim your argument on the basis of identity. And I try my best not to do branding. Please understand it.
I have heard and seen and explored in to stereotypes as I could with my limited resources. What I am trying to say is that things doesnt happen in a vacuum. Our questioning, debating also make changes. For example some 10 years back, if I am right, one couldnt talk openly about one's sexuality in Kerala. Today also it is not very welcoming, but atleast in politically correct forums and spaces, it is not seen as a deviation. And many people are coming out today. If noone questioned the stereotypes or fought against it, today would also have been same. But now people are speaking. I rememebr some one saying this 'it was considered that we opened our mouth only to suck dicks, but today we started to attack the very system with our shouts and screams, we are no more silent'. if some people from a specific section/class of society has been causing problems, it is unfortunate but true, that people belonging to that class/section are dealt with more suspicion I donot know what base this argument has. For example, all atrocities on Dalits have been perpetuated by uppercastes, but why the entire uppercastes are traced by police. All the rape cases are done by heterosexual men, why all men are not picked as potential rapists? Only some section of people get branded as criminals by the society. On 7/31/07, deepak p <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > ahmed, i was juz citing a hypothetical example.. please do not take it as > an anti-muslim (i think i even gave a disclaimer saying that muslim can be > substituted with any community/creed/race etc).. i am not anti-muslim, and i > am not anti-X where X is any religion.. perhaps, i dont have any authority > to speak abt muslims, as i do know know any muslims (or any religion for > that matter) very well.. it is unfortunate that u interpreted my argument as > anti-muslim.. i was trying to say that police work using evidence > accumulation and recent history.. if some people from a > specific section/class of society has been causing problems, it is > unfortunate but true, that people belonging to that class/section are dealt > with more suspicion... the entire section ends up bearing the burden of > activities of certain people with oibscure/vested interests, just because > they belong to the same class/section.. perhaps, we have to dig deeper to > find how such unfortunate incidents can be avoided.. > > On 7/31/07, ahmed rafeek j <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Deepak, > > I do negate your arguments on the basis of your locusstandi to speak on > > muslims. You descript things well, and many of the points are good > > observations, but as I understand it, there are no value free observations > > of the society. You are representing a particular 'truth' about Muslims, > > which is propagated by the media as well. Have you seen any Gujarathi Hindu > > men labelled as terrorist? Has Sanjay Dutt who has been convicted today, > > ever been called as a terrorist? The trap in your argument, and the point I > > am making is that they have not been labelled as terrorists, because they > > are not muslims. So this particular production of terrorist muslim is not > > innocent though it appear like that. You should read how the attribute of > > homosexuality has been applied on Calicut and the muslim ( There is an > > interesting article on this by S. Sanjeev, appeared in a book by DC Books, > > called Swavarga Lainhgikatha Keralathil). But even the official statistics > > on Men who have Sex with Men, has said that Kottaym was the most happening > > area. This branding goes only to certain identities. 'Theft' was attributed > > to dalits at a time. So there need not be truth in the claims. And who > > created these truths for whom? One should look at it. > > Rafeek > > / > > > > On 7/31/07, deepak p <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote: > > > > > yep. esp. the second point.. i wanted to raise it in this forum, but > > > i was skeptical if people would start taking it as if i am anti-muslim.. > > > police works by using patterns.. if most crimes are being committed by > > > people from a single community, the police is very much justified in > > > lookin > > > at suspicious people from that community more seriously (and more > > > suspiciously) that people from another community.. this is not just a > > > community based things.. if people coming from a state X have been causing > > > more problems in the form of say, terrorist attacks, then, people from > > > that > > > state are liable to be looked upon more suspiciously than people from > > > other > > > places.. > > > > > > police should work (or works) by means of evidence accumulation and by > > > learning from past histories.. so, as many attacks have been engineered by > > > muslims of late, the police attach a slightly higher suspicion score to a > > > suspicious person who belongs to that community as compared to a person > > > who > > > belongs to the hindu community.. how else can the police work.. if they > > > dont > > > explore suspicious activity, would people here support them after > > > something > > > bad happens (by trying to justify their action of not exploring the > > > suspicion before the happenin) > > > > > > for the policeman, he should not be concerned abt what the > > > intelligentia think, but rather should try to maintain law and order in > > > the > > > locality where he works.. > > > > > > > > > On 7/31/07, Murali K Warier <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote: > > > > > > > Let me try to summarize the points discussed in this thread (as per > > > > my understanding) and give my response to each: > > > > The questions to be considered: > > > > > > > > 1) Are the people and police justified in becoming suspicious of a > > > > stranger (that too from another state) settling in a rural surrounding, > > > > and > > > > getting visitors from abroad? Is it a natural response or an indication > > > > of a > > > > deeper (cultural?) malaise? > > > > 2) Does the 'Muslim' identity of the gentlemen play any part in > > > > fuelling suspicion or rumour? > > > > 3) Is the police's response justified - in other words, was it an > > > > over reaction, was it prompted by anti-Muslim bias and whether the > > > > gentleman's constitutional rights were violated? > > > > > > > > Here are my responses: > > > > > > > > 1) I think people are justified in becoming suspicious. Mainly > > > > because people are by and large suspicious of strangers. There is > > > > nothing > > > > wrong in that - of course, those at the receiving end may feel quite > > > > differently. I personally do not enjoy being looked upon with suspicion, > > > > because I know that I am, well, a law abiding citizen who can't think of > > > > harming a fly :) But how do strangers know about my noble, Gandhi like > > > > character? At any rate, I will not act much differently in similar > > > > situations - if anything, I would be even more paranoid. So is it a > > > > natural > > > > reaction? Absolutely. Does it 'look nice'? No, unambiguously. Should we > > > > do > > > > anything about it? Not on my corpse - the consequences of criminalizing > > > > thought are too frightening even to think of (didn't Communism teach us > > > > anything?) > > > > > > > > 2) It surely did. Is it good? Not really. Is it 'labeling' a whole > > > > community? Not at all - in any village, you will see people not only not > > > > suspicious of Muslims, but living in perfect harmony with them. The > > > > fact is > > > > that, some Muslims, misguided and brainwashed no doubt, do indulge in > > > > acts > > > > of terrorism, and some Muslims justify those acts based on Islamic > > > > scriptures and aggressively use the Muslim identity to swell the ranks > > > > of > > > > the terrorist outfits. The difficulty is that there are no other > > > > reliable > > > > means to identify these bad apples - they come in all shapes: from > > > > billionaire scions to doctors to financial analysts. The only identity > > > > perhaps is that most of them are well educated and come from middle to > > > > upper > > > > middle class background. The so called 'Islamophobia' is in a large > > > > measure > > > > due to this. Is this prejudice? I am not sure - it looks more like > > > > 'post-judice' to me. Now the question: do Tamil Brahmins settling in > > > > similar > > > > surroundings invite suspicion to a similar degree - not at the moment, > > > > but > > > > surely they will, if Tamil Brahmins start blowing up commuter trains, > > > > justify those acts on some Brahministic scriptures and recruit Brahmin > > > > youth > > > > using the Tamil Brahmin identity. By the way, Tamilians acting like the > > > > gentleman in question in early 90's would have invited much more > > > > suspicion > > > > then. Do you remember a time when Sikhs were looked upon with suspicion? > > > > These are certainly not good things, but part of the natural scheme of > > > > things. Again, the only way to suppress people's suspicious minds is to > > > > institute thought policing. > > > > > > > > 3) I think this is the crux of the problem. Getting suspicious of > > > > somebody doesn't mean barging into their dwellings at the dead of the > > > > night. > > > > Feeling hatred for your neighbor doesn't mean you kidnap his son. But > > > > the > > > > police's behavior is symptomatic of a larger problem with law > > > > enforcement. > > > > If you become a suspect in some crime, the police's behavior to you > > > > would be > > > > very similar - that is, this problem - that of crude and illegal > > > > methods of > > > > investigation - is not limited to inquiries about possible terrorist > > > > activities. There is a lot to write about police reforms. There are any > > > > number of non-intrusive methods of investigation that could have been > > > > employed. That they didn't do so, is not indicative of any bias, but of > > > > incompetence, hegemony of authority and all that is wrong with our > > > > colonial > > > > style of policing. > > > > > > > > Best regards, > > > > Murali. > > > > > > > > On 7/31/07, Ranjit Ranjit <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > > > A single death is a tragedy, a million deaths is a statistic. > > > > - Joseph Stalin > > > > > > > > To send men to the firing squad, judicial proof is unnecessary. > > > > These procedures are an archaic bourgeois detail. This is a > > > > revolution! And a revolutionary must become a cold killing > > > > machine motivated by pure hate. We must create the pedagogy > > > > of the paredon (The Wall)! > > > > - Che Guevara > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Deepak P > > > > http://deepakp7.googlepages.com/ > > > > > > > > > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ greenyouth mailinglist is the activist support mailinglist for kerala To post to this group, send email to [email protected] -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
