Terror Bombings Rock Indian City, Dozens Dead

My thoughts:

1. Possible culprits are local independant fanatic islamic movements, Pakistan-based, Al-Qaeda etc funded fanatic islamic terror groups, Pakistan-based, ISI-funded fanatic islamic terror groups, Bangladesh-based ISI/Al Qaeda funded fanatic islamic terror groups, local naxalite(communists revolutionaries) groups or collusion between any two or more of the just mentioned
   
2. The explosive material(gelatin-based explosives) are a trademark substance used by the Naxals.Also shrapnel pellets included in the bomb to cause maximum collateral damage have been traced back to local(thus perhaps naxal) origins. However they have kept their movements mostly 'honorable' by excluding purely civilian targets. This a gross violation of that if it is indeed the naxals who have done this.
   
3. However other sources point to 'definite' islamic fundamentalist links with the bomb material. Fundamentalists that are funded by 'foreign' entities(read Pakistan/Bangladesh).
   
4. Bottomline, nobody knows anything and there are no credible leads at this point. The attackers have stumped the authorities on this one.
   
5. Interesting Trivia: Iraq is the nation which loses the most number of souls to terror attacks annually(10000+ listed). The second highest is India with 3000+. I do not think any western nations figure in the top-five.I found that to be very very intriguing.
   
6. May all those who have lost their lives and loved ones in this attack be at peace.
   
7. India has the second highest number of muslims in the world. The country with the highest number of muslims is Indonesia. So there is more 'muslim' culture in India than in most places including middle east nations. No questions of 'muslims' wanting India. India is Secular.
   

Originally posted by djohnsto77

Originally posted by bicnarok
Do the Muslims want India now as well?

I think tensions between Hindus and Muslims in India have been going on for centuries.

Yes, but considering the population of India and the huge amount of mixed religions - sikhs, hindu's, muslim's, christian's, buddhists, Jain's... India actually sets an amazing example to the rest of the world.

No where else have I see such close proximities of varied religions and still having relative peace.

Like a previous member has stated, its not really a religious issue, its a political one.

Namaste

Originally posted by djohnsto77
I think tensions between Hindus and Muslims in India have been going on for centuries.

You think!?

It's why the British Raj was partitioned into India and Pakistan. When the British went to introduce home rule, no one would agree on what type of government should be created.

To end the deadlock, the British split the country in two and left. Which wasn't the smartest idea in the world. Muslims went one way, Hindus went the other.

It lead to countless massacres that left millions dead along the way.

And the problem of partition is still present to this day.

Now you see why the British are against the idea of Iraq being partitioned.

Asia Times, just now: "Bomb attacks raise new Indian fears"
www.atimes.com...

"...Security officials say at least 20 more bombs fitted with timers have been found at various public locations in the city.
Andhra Pradesh Chief Minister Y S Rajasekhara Reddy and federal Home Minister Shivraj Patil have spoken of a "foreign hand" involved in the blasts.

This is the second attack in recent months in Hyderabad, a city of 7 million people with a 40% Muslim population - terrorists attacked the historic Mecca Mosque in Hyderabad, killing 12 and injuring more than 60 people."
______________

According to this article both Hindu/Muslim places of worship have not been imune from being targeted. Some are saying the attacks are designed to take peace talks between Pakistan and India off the rails. While inspiring other terrorist murderer groups.

Dallas

Originally posted by infinite
You think!?

It's why the British Raj was partitioned into India and Pakistan. When the British went to introduce home rule, no one would agree on what type of government should be created.

To end the deadlock, the British split the country in two and left. Which wasn't the smartest idea in the world. Muslims went one way, Hindus went the other.

It lead to countless massacres that left millions dead along the way.

And the problem of partition is still present to this day.

Now you see why the British are against the idea of Iraq being partitioned.

Errmm.. its not so simple.
The British Raj accepted partitionand possibly passively supported it for ulterior geo-strategic motives. Namely subduing the rise of such a massive state with immense resources and geographic span just after WWII; a war that had left most of the developed world weak. The rise of such a state might lead to another WW in the future which the developed world would not be able to fight.
However the British Raj never 'thrust' the concept of partition upon the people of Colonial India.

The idea of 'Pakistan' was thought up,popularised, and driven through by one 'Mohammed Ali Jinnah' who is known as the founder of Pakistan.
He wanted a 'home' for the entire muslim population of colonial India that would be free of 'Hindu dominance'. It suited the Britsh withdrawal and its geo-strategic plans for India so they went with it.

The logic was inherent flawed since:

1)Though India had a 80% hindu majority, religion NEVER played a role in determining government policies for the welfare of the people. The Government was inherently secular at independance and has been so for the most part ever since then.

2)The plan flopped since the majority of muslims decided to stay back in India. Infact those who DID go across, were eventually ostracised by 'native' muslims. The emigrant muslims were called 'Mohajirs' or 'refugees'. This has been the source of internal disturbances in Pakistan ever since.
Trivia: Musharraf is a 'Mohajir'!

3)The muslim-state mentality has actually been a major contributor in Pakistan's spiral towards becoming a failed state. They can only hope to pull out of this spiral if they embrace a non-religious/moderate, even secular stance fothe future Pakistan. Again this 'salvation' being a tragic irony since it will negate the very foundations on which Pakistan was created: A Muslim-State for the muslims of the subcontinent.
An irony which I'm sure frustrates its thinkers,strategists and future planners to no extent. A frustration which they perhaps vent out on their neighbour: a much more progressive, prosperous and secular nation.

Its the age-old 'younger brother-elder brother' soap-drama being played out on a macroscopic sense. Almost makes you smile if you block out all the suffering it has caused.