Owaisi’s slyness, Cong’s depravity

 

Congress leaders dream of the revival of their party but they, like the Bourbons of yore, have learnt nothing and forgotten nothing. Unsurprisingly, they tacitly support MIM leader Asaduddin Owaisi as he equates Lashkar-e-Taiba boss Zakiur Rehman Lakhvi with the Samjhauta Express bombing accused Swami Aseemanand.

So, let’s examine the blast case first. Quoting anonymous sources, Hindustan Times reported on December 30, 2010, “The National Investigation Agency (NIA) is convinced that Swami Aseemanand, a Hindu right-wing leader, was directly involved in the Samjhauta Express blasts that killed 68 people in 2007.”

How the agency got “convinced” about the culpability of the pontiff, who had an RSS background, was a clear case of political interference. For, the bombing was an instance of Islamic terror, which was masterminded in Pakistan. In an official release on January 7, 2009, the US Department of the Treasury “targeted the support networks of al Qaida and Lashkar-e Tayyiba (LET) in Pakistan by designating four individuals, Fazeel-A-Tul Shaykh Abu Mohammed Ameen Al-Peshawari, Arif Qasmani, Mohammed Yahya Mujahid, and Nasir Javaid… The designated individuals have provided direct support to al Qaida and LET and have facilitated terrorist attacks, including the July 2006 train bombing in Mumbai, India.”

Further, the Treasury Department release said, “Arif Qasmani is the chief coordinator for Lashkar-e Tayyiba’s (LET) dealings with outside organizations and has provided significant support for LET terrorist operations. Qasmani has worked with LET to facilitate terrorist attacks, including the July 2006 train bombing in Mumbai, India, and the February 2007 Samjota Express bombing in Panipat, India.”

But the Congress-led government in New Delhi, keen to score political points at home, came out in support of Pakistan-based jihadists by naming Hindu activists as the accused. This was not unusual, for Sonia Gandhi is a shameless Muslim appeaser. And Rahul, a chip off the old block, actually thinks that Islamic terror is hardly any threat; the real problem, he believes, is Hindu terror.

Don Quixote saw demons in windmills; the Congress dispensation, following the perverse mindsets of top leaders, saw terrorists in Hindu activists—and tried to fix them.

The so-called saffron terror cases are still sub judice; it is not my contention that all accused are innocent; there are courts to adjudicate the matters concerned. However, I would like to make two points. First, it was traitorous on the part of the Congress-led regime in New Delhi to add the Hindu terror angle to Samjhauta Express case. While the entire world was satisfied with the involvement of Pakistan-sponsored terror networks, the NIA was convinced about the role of saffron terrorists.

Second, and this brings us to Owaisi’s slyness and the Congress’ depravity, even if all the charges against the so-called saffron terrorists are proved to be true in court, there is no way Hindu terror can be equated with the jihadist menace. To begin with, the scope, scale, and span of both are incomparable; violent Hindu extremism, if it exists, is extremely limited, while Muslim terrorism straddles the entire world—from Bali to Boston.

Further, no pro-Hindu political party, socio-cultural organization, or mainstream public figure has provided any ideological support to and/or intellectual justification for terror. Jihad, on the other hand, derives its legitimacy and ideological sustenance from Islamic scriptures. Furthermore, no so-called Hindu terrorist enjoys even a fraction of adoration that Osama bin Laden enjoys among the Muslims. Nor does a saffron terrorist, if there is any, has any institutional, government support that Lakhvi can boast of.

Yet, Owaisi is brazen enough to equate Lakhvi with Swami Aseemanand. And the Congress blatantly supports Owaisi’s line. Owaisi is a notorious bigot who is trying to emerge as the sole hero of the Muslims of India; so, his shenanigans, though reprehensible, are understandable. But if the GOP wants bounce back into relevance, it has to abandon Muslim appeasement attitude, an attitude that alienated it from the Hindus. But it seems that it is following in the footsteps of the Bourbons.