The arrest and release of Mudigere-born, Bangalore-educated doctor Mohammed Haneef in Australia in July 2007 has been consigned to the recycle bins of our collective memory by a guilt-proof media and a world quick to condemn and quicker to stereotype.
Picked up in Brisbane because a SIM card used by him had been “recklessly” lent to a cousin held in a terror attack in London, picked up because he was leaving on a one-way ticket, Haneef’s story is a signal chapter in the “War on Terror” in which trumped-up charges and pumped-up patriotism—and innuendo, insinuation, implication, intimidation—have become articles of faith in curbing individual freedom.
But few in the Indian media have had the inclination or stamina to go back to the story once Dr Haneef was released. One of the few exceptions is Salil Tripathi. The London-based journalist has perused recently released official documents on Haneef’s detention and release which tell a shocking story of overzealous politicians willing to bend every rule and pay any price to win an election.
By SALIL TRIPATHI in London
The global war on terror has produced some outrageous examples of innocent individuals being persecuted — and prosecuted — by overzealous officials keen to show how tough they are on terrorism.
In 2002, American authorities detained a telecom engineer called Maher Arar at New York’s JFK International Airport, accused him of being part of Al Qaeda, and sent him to Syria instead of Canada, where he lived (he held both nationalities). The Syrians allegedly tortured him, and Arar won a multi-million dollar settlement from Canadian authorities. He is now pursuing a claim against the US Government, which continues to place him on a watch-list.
To the list of grave errors out of prosecutorial misconduct out of political enthusiasm, add the case of the Indian doctor, Mohammed Haneef, who was detained in Australia nearly a year ago, soon after some of his relatives were implicated in the failed bomb blasts in Britain.
The central arguments against Dr Haneef were that his SIM card was found with one of the suspects in Britain, and that he had booked himself a one-way ticket to India. He had entirely plausible explanations for each, but politicians in the former Australian Prime Minister John Howard’s administration were keen to show they carried the big stick while dealing with global jihad, and ended up penalising the innocent doctor.
Following Howard’s defeat, authorities have released voluminous data about the Haneef case to freedom of information requests. The documents paint a shocking and miserable picture of overzealous politicians desperate to build support at home for an increasingly unpopular policy of sending Australian troops abroad.
Government officials pushed prosecutors and bureaucrats to bend the system, in the hope that if they could implicate Dr Haneef on charges of abetting terror, Howard’s toughness may get rewarded at elections.
Dr Haneef was arrested at Brisbane airport on the evening of 2 July 2007 and under their laws, the Australian Federal Police (AFP) had little choice but to release him within 72 hours, unless they could show they had good reasons to keep him in jail. Unable to find evidence that would satisfy judges, the AFP explored the possibility of using a preventive detention order (PDO). Anti-terror laws passed by the Howard administration had made such detention possible, but the law is highly controversial and opposed by civil libertarians and human rights groups. Under a PDO, a person’s movements can be curtailed even if he has not been charged with any offence.
The memos now released — and accessible on the Internet — show that the AFP knew as early as July 3 that “there is no reasonable suspicion that there is need to preserve evidence and that the detention (of Dr Haneef) is reasonably necessary for this purpose… (and that there) is outstanding evidence which is required to be preserved.”
And yet, a full week later, Dr Haneef remained behind bars. On July 11, a federal police officer claimed that Dr Haneef needed to remain under detention because it was necessary to preserve and obtain evidence, and complete the investigation. On the 14th, another officer claimed that if Dr Haneef were to be freed, he’d destroy incriminating evidence not yet found.
Within days, Kevin Andrews, who was at that time Australia’s immigration minister, cancelled Dr Haneef’s visa after having “carefully examine[d]” what the police had provided him with. Newly released documents show that the police did not advise that the visa should be cancelled.
With evidence against Dr Haneef getting thinner by the day, the judiciary released him, causing much embarrassment to the government. (Dr Haneef’s SIM card was not found in Glasgow, the site of the blast, but in Liverpool; he was flying to India on a one-way ticket to see his newborn child). The logic of Occam’s Razor suggests that the simplest explanation is often the best one, but not for those determined to look for a conspiracy.
At its height, the AFP had deployed over 600 officers working on Dr Haneef’s case, which cost the government over A$7.5 million. They obtained over 300 witness statements and collected 349 samples. The operation involved 249 federal officials, 22 search warrants were issued, telephone calls were intercepted, electronic surveillance devices placed, and hundreds of gigabytes of computer data was collected. Australia’s secret service and other elite offices were also involved.
And yet, the authorities could find no evidence to pin on Dr Haneef. There is a sinister interpretation behind cancelling his visa: it would have allowed the state to toss him into immigration detention. (In 2002, Justice P.N. Bhagwati, on an assignment from the Office of the High Commisioner for Human Rights at the United Nations, had investigated the detention centres, and called them “degrading and inhuman”.)
What prompted the Howard administration to act in this manner?
For one, it was facing a tough election (which it lost resoundingly) and if jailing an Indian doctor with a Muslim name for an extended period could secure another term, why not? Howard’s great fortune had been that he was in Washington on Sept 11, 2001, and managed to be seen at George Bush’s side at a news conference, at once catapulting him into the role of a leading ally in the war on terror. During his prime ministership, not only did Howard steadfastly support the Bush administration in its military forays abroad, he also sided with the Bush administration on environmental issues like climate change and the Kyoto Protocol.
And he was no fan of international law. Even before the attacks in New York and Washington, Howard had tried bending it. In 2001, a Norwegian ship called Tampa found an Indonesian ferry, with over 400 Afghans, listing in waters near Australia. Under international law, Australia was responsible for the refugees. But to show he could be tough on asylum-seekers, Howard denied them entry, in spite of pressure from Norwegian authorities.
Australia takes in some 10,000 refugees a year, but they aren’t popular with some politicians. Pauline Hanson, leader of One Nation Party, had said Australia had been “a soft touch for a long time” on immigration issues. A former fish-and-chip shop owner, Hanson had gained notoriety in the 1990s by running a strong campaign critical of immigrants from Asia. While she was unsuccessful, shrewd southeast Asian politicians used her remarks to paint Australia as a racist country.
When Kevin Rudd took over as prime minister, he had promised change. But the Federal Police continues to assert that despite the Haneef fiasco, it does not believe it needs to make any fundamental changes in the way it might approach similar cases in future. Early signs are not promising: in the runup to the elections, Rudd’s Labor Party had said it would seek a judicial inquiry into the Haneef affair. Now, the attorney-general has ruled out compensating Dr Haneef
Money cannot compensate the tension, humiliation and stress Dr Haneef faced. And the intent behind going after him was clear: frame an individual, build a case, hope that the evidence stacks up, use innuendo to implicate the individual, and create a climate in which it becomes possible to increase the state’s powers of surveillance, detention, interrogation, and intimidation.
But India need not feel too smug. It isn’t above such monkey business.
Think of Dr Binayak Sen.
Photograph: Eddie Safarik/ Sydney Morning Herald
Full coverage: L’affaire Haneef
Haneef, Kafeel, Sabeel… why do the western countries only pick up Indian Muslims? I am sure there would be a lot of Nani, Venka, Seena also who travel to these countries. Why is it that not one of them is picked even though they are from a “south asian country?”
The answer lies in the question itself. While the religious affiliations of Nani Venka Seena do not permit them to bomb & destroy properties and innocent human lives… the same cannot be said of the Haneefs, Kafeels and Sabeels of the world.
Better be safe than sorry. Why should I forego my peaceful living because some joker comes into my house and creates a havoc for a reason which is not relevant to my household in any way? Right? So I will ensure in all ways that this joker is shown his place, irrespective of his religious affiliations. And in the process if his human rights are getting screwed so be it. For me, my peaceful living and my family member’s peaceful living is more important than this third party.
Apply the same logic to a country and you get the picture.
Sanjay Suri, in this edition of outlook magazine, has written that
“Sabeel was arrested on the day of the incident. But there never was a case against him that he had advance knowledge of it; his crime was that he opened an e-mail from his brother Kafeel (who rammed the jeep into the terminal building at Glasgow, killing only himself) well after the incident, and then let all of a couple of hours pass without informing the police about the e-mail he had received. ”
If you read carefully, look how the act of Kafeel is glossed over – Who rammed the jeep into the terminal building at Glasgow KILLING ONLY HIMSELF. Does it mean that since only Kafeel got killed this was not an act of terrorism?? Does it mean that since only Kafeel got killed, whatever information he had sent in the email is inconsequential??
What would have been the response had hundreds of innocent passengers got killed by Kafeel?? Or should we consider only those acts as acts of terror which result in the deaths of hundreds of innocents????
The problem with muslim loving pinkos is they simply dont open their eyes to the hard realities of life.
I agree with Chintaka. It is better to be safe than sorry.
There is nothing wrong in Haneef’s arrest by the australian authorities. He was closely involved with a terrorist and even gave him (helped him) providing a SIM card. Haneef should be lucky that no circumstantial evidence was availabale against him. He just missed by a whisker. Had Kafeel succeeded in his terrorist suicide attempt and blown up more people other than himself, I am sure Haneef and Sabeel would have been behind bars now.
Why are we defending these talibanically brainwashed-braindead educated maniacs like Kafeel, Haneef and Sabeel. I am shocked that this man came from the same neighbourhood as I grew up (Jaynagar- Banashankari). Even I stayed in the UK like these people and went into the same kind of schools and colleges except I wasn’t part of their Tabligi Jammat. Why didn’t I even remotely think like these people. We see many people suffering all over the world. Why did I not blow up myself and others because some folks are dying in chechnya or remote palestine. How would me a resident of Jaynagar or East Finchley in london be affected by these killings.
The problem with these people like Kafeel and Sabeel is they have identified themselves with a dangerous ideology which can only lead towards their and others destruction. They are the pathogens of civil soceities. It was such an unfortunate sight to see the chief minister Kumaraswamy meeting Haneef and promising a government job. He was trying to woo the muslim voters by this appeasement. It was even unfortunate for our Prime Minister to loose sleep over the arrest of these maniacs. The UK government did not want to keep Sabeel in prison because he would be an unnecessary burden on their exchequer and he was a useless and dangerous element for their civil soceity. The same with the case with Haneef. Thats why they sent these two idiotic potential terrorists packing to India.
These people have done a great deal of damage to the reputation of Bengaluru and Karnataka. Stop sucking up to these terrorists.
How dare you both accuse hanif and sabeel of being terrorists. when there is absolutely no proof against him, why should they be tortured just because they are muslims and just to win an election. The religion of Islam does not sanction terrorism as chintaka says.If you really can find terrorists , then go after them , hang them , do not make innocents suffer. Then why dont you to arrest all tamilians because of LTTE, what about naxals, arent they hindus? What ideology are you talking off, do they belong to the Tablighi Jamat?. No doubt people like narendra modi and keep winning elections because of people like chintaka and ishwariah.
and for this post
“Why did I not blow up myself and others because some folks are dying in chechnya or remote palestine”
Did you forget Mumbai Riots and Gujarat?
Calm down… take a deep breath… now read this…
Islam does not sanction terrorism but 99% of the world’s terrorists are muslims. Therefore it is natural for people to look at islam and muslims with suspicion. Anything wrong with that? And to top it all, maulvis and mullahs find it convenient to blame everyone in the world for the misdeeds of their fellow muslims. Isnt this strange?? and ridiculous?? When Iraq is attacked by America, muslims in Bangalore take out protest march disrupting traffic. In what way are they concerned with the events in Iraq? Isnt that Ummah working there??? how does the events in Chechenya affect the Indian muslims??? or for that matter events at AFghanisthan??? What made Kafeel to drive the truck to the terminal at Glasgow??
Now coming to the question of Tamilians being treated as terrorists on par with LTTE… remember, in Srilanka every tamilian is seen with a suspicious eye. Not in India.. that is because, barring the Rajiv episode, LTTE has not done anything against India or Indians.
Have you ever seen Naxals waging a war against someone in the name of hinduism??? Far from that, they abhor this religion, being the commies they are. Their strike is against hindus in their own country. THis being the case, why should they be treated as hindu terrorists???
Terrosist acquire the tag based on the cause for which they are deemed to be fighting. Thus IRA got the tag Irish terrorists, not christian terrorists. LTTE as tamil terrorists, commie terrorists as Naxals based on the concept they believe in.
Forget everything, how many times have you seen a hindu in Bangalore or mysore killing a muslim because muslims killed thousands of hindus in Kashmir?? Can you cite one instance?? If something like that had happened, yes, the term Hindu Terrorist could have been used.
Till then, islamic terrorists will do.
Sabeel was convicted in a court of law in UK. He had admitted in that court that he withheld information that could have prevented act of terrorism.
So, by his own admission, he was not innocent.
Forget everything, how many times have you seen a hindu in Bangalore or mysore killing a muslim because muslims killed thousands of hindus in Kashmir??
ha ha, so why did they get massacred in Gujarat and Mumbai?
99% of world terrorists are muslims? On what basis? I hope your are not following the CIA way, which still classify Nelson Mandela as a terrorist! Does he also include in your 99%? i wonder..
Why does Churumury rake up this issue of Mohammed Haneef again. Our PM Mr Manamohan singh will have sleepless nights again.
Just because a few muslims have committed wrong, do not blame the whole community and look at them with suspicion. Any one with a muslim name cannot be terrorists. islam is a religion which is very old and this tag is a 21st century tag, thanks to Bush and people like Modi. You talk of Chechnya and kashmir, what about Godhra? Someone(no one knows who) set the train on fire and the whole community was targetted and this was state sponsored. we dont blame all hindus because of one narendra modi.You talk of muslim Ummah being worried about whats happening in Afghanistan and iraq, what about Jaswant singh lamenting Nepal becomming a secular republic instead of remaining a hindu state? What about people , govt included protesting when hindus in Malaysia are attacked and arrested or in Fiji, why should you be concerned about Malaysian Hindus.
Muslims no doubt feel for muslims all over the world just as a kannadiga, I feel for a kannadiga anywhere in the world or an Indian any where in the world. When deve gowda became the PM, our hearts filled with pride and joy, just because he was a kannadiga. People suffering anywhere, be it gaza, south africa during apartheid( why did we support the ANC then) , it is painful. Muslims if they protest peacefully, is not a crime. Violence is something no one should support, but do not stereotype a community saying they are all criminals.If you say that , all christians because of geaorge bush, blair, howard are tyrants.
1.Kafeel is a suicide bomber but failed to kill others though he died of burns.
2.Sabeel knew the operation but kept quiet as per his admission and deported to India.
3.Dr.haneef has lent his SIM card to one of them and was coming to India with oneway ticket.
The above are facts. Any policeman with commonsence will defenetely detain haneef and question him. May be his release was delayed due to reasons mentioned in the article but the police were right in detaining and questioning him. As he was found to be innocent he was released.
A person who was active in SIMI a banned org before it was banned, wil defenitely be arrested and questioned in India as he was
1.In Jaipur though posted in infosys during the blasts
2.His old friends in bangalore arrestd for their SIMI connection who continue to operate also named him.
This is natural police investigation.
Now Binayk Sen ,a very good social worker for tribal welfare. But he was meeting the jailed leader of naxalites and carrying SIM cards for his use.The Supreme court of India examined the evidence and REFUSED bail to Dr.binayak sen.
I cannot underastand the connection here as if Binayak sen is not guilty just because some innocent school children burn candles for him, he doesnot become innocent.
The usual rhetoric of a confused brain and mindset….
Apart from Godhra is there anything else you can talk about??? No. That is because there is none. Even in case of Godhra, when violence rocked Gujarat, did it spread to any other part of India, forget world. If that is the case then why should the muslims of India go across the world, creating havoc everywhere and bringing a bad name to India???
As you say, when Malaysian Hindus got raw deal over there India protested. Correct. Malaysia is predominantly muslim. Did you see any hindu here torching a muslim’s house??? Any hindu leader offering 100 crores for the head of malaysia’s muslim leader?? Any destruction of Muslim property in India???
The protest was peaceful, unlike the bombings what muslims do.
Now do you realise the difference???
What Jaswant Singh said about Nepal was correct. Commies are getting into power there and that means nightmarish situation for India. With China and now Nepal, India has to be concerned. Anything wrong with that???
And by the way, muslims protesting peacefully, even I welcome. But is it really happening???
And pray tell me, why is it that muslims have a problem across the globe, wherever they go??? I mean, if it is an isolated incident, I can understand. Everywhere they have a problem. And they get into confrontation over the governments in whose land they are living.
Any reasons for this psychotic behaviour of a group???
Did anybody notice this piece of information in Salil Tripathi’s article:
Maher Arar was tortured in Syria, but claimed compensation from Canada and not Syria.
What are your views on Darfur, where muslims are killing fellow muslims? OR on Pakistan where Shia’s/Ahmedias/Kaidiyanis are buthchered by the Sunnis? OR Iraq where Sunnis are butchering Shias and vice versa? Is it a internal matter of Ummah or does it involve the rest of humanity also? What about the displaced Kashmiri pudits who live in refugee camps in their own country for the past 10-15 years? Just curious.
Where did you read that Islam is a peaceful religion? Is it on planet earth or somewhere else?
The ploy of islam is very evident, demand for seuclarism when in minority and demand for Sharia when in majority, and always work towards becoming the majority by hook or crook and preferably by rapid breeding and changing the demography.
Thats because he was deported to Syria after the Royal Canadian Mounted Police bungled the investigation and named him as a terror suspect. The RCMP chief had to resign from office, couple of other transfers also happened because of this incident.
Maher is a Canadian Citizen. Syria would give a damn even if it get sued since they can always say, your authorities told “you are the terrorist”
Yes, lets talk about Godhra. Everyone knows who set fire to the train. If you dont know about that, its your problem. Please stop acting like the “Economist” which went one step ahead and said, “Train caught fire by magic but muslims were blamed”.
And there is an ocean of difference between “being concerned” about Malaysian Hindus and Nepal than ramming your truck into the airport or piloting a plane to a building or . People like you, I suppose will never know the difference.
Salil Tripathi is stuck in pre-9/11 mindset. By the time West woke up, two towers and a few thousand innocent lives were gone!
As one of the comments above clearly highlighted, when you put th pieces together, it clearly made sense for the police to detain Haneef and question him. In fact, he should be happy that it happened in Australia. If it was india, he would have received very ‘different’ treatment!
Having said that, I understand how those conservative leaders (Howard or Bush) can turn the situation to consolidate their power, playing those ugly fear tactics.
naxals don’t hate hinduism in so much as they hate brahminism. many naxals are devoted to their vernacular gods(the real indian religion).
your talk of “faraway” palestine and chechnya just indicate that your world is smaller than theirs. many hindus here follow the culture and politics of the USA which is even further away. as a hindu, if i hear that people in another country are being persecuted for being non-christian, then i will have sympathy.
there are about a million muslims in bangalore and the city’s experience with terrorism is trivial to insignificant.
if you believe that someone like haneef is justified in being tortured based on suspicion, then you either don’t believe in human rights at all, or your provision for basic human rights is frightening meagre.
I don’t think the point here is to support the argument that Haneef shouldn’t have been arrested, yes any one should be arrested when doubted. The wrong here was to falsely implicate him in a dastardly act which he had no knowledge of. Despite knowing the fact that he was innocent, Police and other agencies continued to press charges against him due to political pressures or just plain religious bias.
>> “Jaswant singh lamenting Nepal becomming a secular republic instead of >>remaining a hindu state?”,
As Chintaka has rightly pointed out, it is more about commies in Nepal joining hands with China against India which will mean India will lose one more buffer state like Tibet.
What a pointless article. Same old shit. Same old “views”. Say in one sentence, “I support all islamic terrorists and their antics cause I get paid to do so by the same crooks”.
It would be interesting to hear the views of the “secularists” and “human-rights” folks in 20+ yrs time when muslims wud have completed their breeding program and wud have imposed all kind of muslim laws on our country..
Lots of people had decided Haneef was guilty and pronounced what they considered was the best way to punish him. And they kept bringing the issue up in unrelated posts – saying ‘when your friend Haneef is found guilty’ etc. Now such people dont want to talk about this because it is a ‘dead and buried’ issue. Or maybe an issue which didnt go the way they wanted.
Anyway, in India there are thousands who face worse humiliation in everyday life. Whether it is the poor who are harassed by petty criminals, thugs and the police; or the middle class who are harassed when they have to interact with government bureaucrats and officials and even private institutions. In general a person with less money and influence is harassed by someone who has more. The things many people have to go through on a daily basis is worse than what Haneef went through for sometime (ask the dead farmer). And Haneef had people to help him out.
Some of the poor are now even convinced that the extreme and criminal ways of the naxalites is the only way out for them. In spite of the fact that the naxals have no real solutions besides some temporary gains by violence.
What is the big deal about the Haneef case in particular? First let us set our own house in order and then talk about some isolated case which happened abroad. Sad to say but considering the way people are treated by our own system the Haneef case is just an everyday commonplace happening.
I don’t think I would like to respond to the issues that Chinthakappa, Iswappa and the rest speak about in such pungent language.
The question for me is this: Were Haniff not a brown-skinned Muslim, would he have had to suffer the cruelty he was made to undergo?
Another question: Whatever became of the promise made by our former chief minister that Haniff would be offered a job by the Karnataka government?
This is not to say I think highly of the persecuted doctor. He wants to go back to Australia? If he is good, what is wrong with working in Bengaluru or Mankuthimmanahalli? He doesn’t seem to be happy to come back to a country that has lionized him. We are not short of the sick and the dying.
In the Concise Oxford Dictionary a new word will be introduced shortly.
Terrorists means Muslims.
Muslims means Terrorists.
This edition of COD will not be available in India!
Mumbai riots happened post the bomb blast. Gujarat riots happened post the Godhra incident. Does your dimwit allow you to see a link in this??? Riots happened after muslims created havoc. I hope you can understand this simple thing.
Again I am coming back to the same thing. Mumbai blasts, hundreds of hindus got killed. Godhra and post godhra, hundreds of hindus got killed. Still the country as a whole was peaceful except the two states which were involved. Why? Because of the tolerance and humanity hindus practice unlike the people of peace loving religion.
Whether naxals hate hindus or brahmins in particular is not relevant. they do not carry out their heinous acts in the name of religion. They are more attracted by the commie ideology and commies are, by their philosophy, atheists. When this is the case where is the justification of calling naxals as hindu terrorists. See, the point is, secularists were desperately looking for something to brand hindus as terrorists. They could not find any. The only place they came close was with Naxals. Like the bird brained thinking they have in everything, here too they called these naxals as hindu terrorists and started shouting from the rooftops that hindu terrorists too exist!!!! Ridiculous.
Also when you say hindus are more influence by the American way of life, it is because of the interaction with that country. This can be an entirely different debate, for the time being, suffice it to say that being associated with America is far better than being associated with places like Chechenya or Palestine.
Again the question of human rights. When these terrorists dont care about the rights of ordinary citizens who lose their lives, why should they be bothered about their own rights?? Haneef getting picked up on suspicion and detained is perfect in the circumstances that were there. Here is a family where two cousins are known terrorists in UK, then the man himself lends his SIM card to one of the terrorists, though he has a job in Australia books a one way ticket to India just about the time his terrorist cousin rams a car laden with explosives into an airport terminal….Whew.. if this is not suspicious, tell me what else is?????
@Pulikeshi the Last…
May be the place for you to argue would be high school debate societies???? Since you dont like “pungent” arguments????
Can we get Salil Tripathi respond to the comments please ?
“Why did I not blow up myself and others because some folks are dying in chechnya or remote palestine”
“Did you forget Mumbai Riots and Gujarat?”
Was it me out there in mumbai riots and gujarat. It is quite a surprise to me. Sorry I am not buying your religious identity politics whether Hindu or muslim.
I’m pretty sure no one on this board is arguing whether haneef was legitimately drawn up for suspicious activity, and that it was ok for him to be questioned and detained for some time. if someone is jailed or even executed under due process then we can make a case that their human rights have not been violated because they sacrificed those rights when they broke the most sacred of laws that prohibits murder.
at some point, the aussies failed to make a case against him, and allegedly used excessive force/torture. to respect the law is to treat him as a free and innocent person.
when we start getting sloppy and keep the peace based on the extrajudicial fiat of the police, its often a precipitous decline into authoritarianism. we cant jail and torture people for hanging out with the wrong crowd. we can’t treat the 7-8 million muslims of karnataka with suspicion (one of the largest communities here) when they have not been responsible for any terrorist activity in the country. we have a HUGE muslim pop in K’taka(more than palestine or chechnya,) and no terrorism. presuming the collective guilt of their community would be unjust and only widen the rift that has already begun.
It seems we have all the potential to be a nazi state..
guys, please find some time to go through the history books.. Just the last century may do.
Get your facts right. Bombay riots happened after the babri mosque demolition on dec 12, 1992 and the bombs went off on 12th march 1993 .
What do you say to the argument that all Tamils want to bleed Karnataka for their own happiness?
Hate terrorists by all means, but not all Muslims.
@AB…and why was babri masjid demolished?? Because there was a temple of worship there which got razed to ground by the barbarians who invaded this country…
And muslims had ample opportunity to show their communal harmony by giving up on this site where no namaz was taking place. Why did they not do it????
See, the problems is this. As long as commies and muslims are giving it to someone, they dont raise the issue of human rights, law of the land, fair treatment, communal harmony etc. But the moment someone starts giving it back to them in thier own way, all these things crop up.
>>Bombay riots happened after the babri mosque demolition on dec 12, 1992 >>and the bombs went off on 12th march 1993
Are you justifying the bomb blasts?? So, do you also approve the post Godhra riots? “Train was set on fire on 27th Feb and riots started on 28th” – Howz this?
I still think what I said earlier is the only reason for a nonsense post like this,
Let him say, “I support all islamic terrorists and their antics cause I get paid to do so by the same crooks”.
I have never approved the bomb blast nor will I ever approve any violence. I was just correcting Chintaka’s chronology.