Another Idiot Pinning Terror on the Poor

Most people realize after a little bit of observing and thinking that terrorism is not a matter of poverty. In most cases, the terrorists themselves proclaim their motives quite loudly which does not ever include poverty. The poor may have legitimate grievances against the others but they don’t resort to the indiscriminate killing of people as a result. Every act of terror is ideologically motivated and in most cases it is an intolerant vicious desert religion which promises terrorists rewards in their afterlife. But there are people who are either afraid or too stupid to acknowledge that; instead they blame poverty — and therefore the poor — for terrorism. That is insanely immoral.

Katju, a former judge who now heads the Press Council of India, is one can short of a six-pack. Usually his remarks stink like a steaming pile of horse manure but he outdid himself with his claim that poverty is the cause of terror. He has demonstrated that he lacks the ability to reason. And to think that the man was a judge! Let me repeat what I wrote in another post dealing with the same kind of idiocy, “Blaming the victim“, but with Katju as the subject:

It is immoral, unethical, stupid and insane to pin the acts of barbaric savagery of killing innocents on the poor. The poor suffer enough and endure enough indignities without being also gratuitously blamed for acts of terrorism.

I am disgusted and repelled by Katju’s suggestion that it is the poor retaliating against the system by killing indiscriminately. Shame on you, Mr Katju.

Author: Atanu Dey


23 thoughts on “Another Idiot Pinning Terror on the Poor”

  1. Seriously? You call it an intolerant vicious desert religion? What does that say about your tolerance? Your point is right. Blaming terrorism on the poor is wrong and unacceptable. But your wording leaves much to be desired…


    1. The author is actually stating a fact here. The religion in concern is intolerant, vicious and is a desert religion. Are you complaining that he should have worded it in a way so as to hide these facts?


      1. No. That religion is not any of the things you (or the author) say it is. There are some intolerant and vicious people following every religion in the world. These people are the cause for terrorism. Intolerance is a result of hatred and fear and sheer ignorance. Let us not label things according to our hatred/fear/ignorance and then call it a fact.


        1. You are a useful fool Shruti. And when i say this i don’t mean any disrespect to you because i am just stating a fact of how the Muslim brotherhood type of organizations perceive you kind of people. Unknowingly legitimizing this vicious hatred ridden religion.

          Islam is a religion which believes that:

          1) Allah is the only true god and every other conception of god except as given in the quran revealed by the prophet is wrong and sinful.

          2) Quran is the final message of god.

          3) Mohammed is the last messenger of god.

          4) Anybody who doesn’t believe in the above 3 premises is a disbeliever a kafir who will go to hell. The most compassionate thing you can do is to convert him or kill him otherwise he is going to hell anyways.

          Can such a religion be called peaceful?

          You can confirm this from the quran yourself. Internet is a great tool to research these things nowadays. The fact that you still believe in the juvenile “all religions are same” BS shows that you are a vacuous non-curious type of creature who has never gone beyond the usual lie fed to us by the society.


          1. I agree. I am a vacuous fool. Which is why I seem to be having this argument over the internet too. Yes, I have not made it my life’s goals to find out what this religion or any other has to say, which is probably something that you can hold against me. YET, in the manner typical to a vacuous, ignorant fool that I am (because contrary to what you say, I *am* a curious type of creature), let me ask you this: what is the implication here? Do you suggest that all of us be “compassionate” and convert or kill? Ahem. This is precisely what “jihadis” are doing as well.

            I do understand where the arguments against me are coming from. I have heard them before. I am sick and tired of people talking about this with hatred and anger, rather than in a manner that will lead to something useful. Why don’t you channel your intelligence into educating people about something that will actually lead somewhere?


            1. And, how does the lack of understanding of an idealogy (as you have yourself admitted) help lead anywhere constructive? Isn’t he pointing out facts and shouldn’t understanding of those facts lead to something constructive?

              No, the implication is not to convert a billion+ muslims to another religion. Nobody cares about someone praying to allah as long as it is not a totalitarian idealogy affecting other people. The religious, spiritual part is a matter of personal choice. Where there is a problem is with political Islam. The implication is this and it is something moderate Muslims have to achieve for themselves, just like Christians fought against the church in the past. In the words of Ibn Warraq:

              “What we need, of course, is not a Reformation in Islam but an Enlightenment. For me Reformation implies dishonest, piece-meal tinkering with this or that aspect of Islam which really leaves the whole unsavory edifice essentially intact. But we are not going to be able to do away with or extirpate the religion of one billion people, nor is it necessary. We need to bring about the secularization of the habits, attitudes and thoughts of Muslim people whether in the Islamic world or the West. We need to separate the mosque
              from the state but we need to achieve this formidable feat in the minds of Muslims, and not just politically. This secularization was
              accomplished slowly in Western civilization but the entire process was, perhaps, put into motion during the Greek Ionian Enlightenment during the fifth century Before Christ, but finally gathered crucial momentum during the early Enlightenment, that is the late 17th century, though we usually associate the Age of Reason”


            2. Thanks for replying to my comment without name calling or sarcasm (I sincerely mean this)

              A religion based entirely on hatred of others would self destruct in a span of a couple of hundred years. Any ideology based on fear and hatred for that matter would. The case of communism for example.

              I agree with you, people need to be educated and enlightened, and secularized. This is not achievable as long as we keep name-calling, singling out these people and hating them. Corner even the meekest of animals and it scratches you till it either dies or escapes. Of course I am not blind to the conflicts all around the world that are ( plain to see) caused by followers of Islam. Horrendous acts that cannot be justified, explained or begun to be understood.
              Yet, to my mind, it does not help that people like other commenters here, are all too ready to cite and list all the various issues why another religion is worthy of hate. Secularizing of the followers of only one religion cannot happen, can it?


            3. Indeed, the church, or major parts of it, self-destructed and western nations instituted things like separation of church and state, freedom of religion, individual liberty. So, I’m in agreement there. It just took way longer than a couple of centuries. I think it would be similar. But, what is not constructive is to turn a blind eye. It would be a disfavor to all the moderate Muslims who are fighting the fight already all around the world.

              I thought all the criticism was of the idealogy. In fact, anybody criticizing the idealogy would know that the followers of the idealogy are its worst victims. You are confusing between the two. When a group of people are being criticized, it is not personal hate or name calling, it is obviously criticism of the ideas that the group has adopted.

              There are many things wrong with your last para (IMHO).
              1) They listed issues and facts. Either disprove them with your own facts, or else you should accept them.
              2) According to you, one should not criticize religion A, unless we criticize all other religions. But, what if truly religion A had more severe problems in a particular context. It is surely possible, isn’t it?
              3) As I pointed out, and taking just one other religion as an example, Christians have achieved secularization to a large extent through the Age of Enlightenment. Sure, there are still intolerant sects, etc, but the nations are largely secular. That is not true of Muslim majority nations, most of which are Islamic republics. Do you see any Christian republic in the world today? Do you see any other two religions fighting so much as Islam vs any other religion? So, if we talk about one religion more, in the context of secularization, is it wrong? Or, is it accurate, based on facts? The central place of Islam, Saudi Arabia, does not allow a single church for the 1 million+ Christians in the country. No other religion is recognized, and religious books have to be discarded at the airport and no other religion can be practiced in public. Saudi Arabia is not a backward country in terms of GDP and is the example that all Muslims strive towards. Furthermore, they support proselytization of Wahhabi Islam (for which hundreds of billions of dollars have been spent) to radicalize and promote intolerant Islam. Ask any Muslim in India, they will tell you that their mosque is being radicalized by petro-dollars. If you see such lack of secularization in other religions, in this scale, let us know.

              You seem to desire equality of criticism, I’m not quite sure why? And, you are assuming that the problem/lack of secularization is the same for all religions, when it is quiet clearly not.


            4. Shruti,

              I suppose it has escaped your attention that your first comment accused me of being intolerant without giving me the slightest opportunity to defend myself.

              You are now positioning yourself as the aggrieved party!

              I was the soul of restraint when I wrote my comments. I usually come down pretty hard on people who accuse me unfairly.

              For an example, I would point you to this blog post of mine: “Ridiculing Religious Insanity — Part 2“.

              If you care to read that post, most of your questions will be answered. If not, like I said in my previous comment, goodbye.


            5. Question. Not accusation. And nothing unfair about it.
              You very eloquently do declare in your blog post that you are biased. That is much appreciated. Thanks for your restraint. Should not be that hard to do since you must expect it when you have posted your thoughts on the internet for everyone to read and since your comment section is open. But who am I to say that.. You seem eager for me to go away… is it not okay for someone to have an opinion even slightly different from yours? Also, everything is not black or white. Just because I commented on your wording, does not mean I don’t understand what you mean, where you are coming from and your ideas.


            6. So are you a bitch?

              That’s a question. Not an accusation. (Now do you know what it feels like to accused of being a bitch but phrased as a question?)

              Let me spell out what the problem was with your first ever comment on this blog. You read one very short piece in which I claimed that a certain ideology is murderously vicious and is the cause of much of the terror going around.

              You accused me of being intolerant because of that. Simply accused without the least contrary evidence that I was wrong in calling that ideology vicious and intolerant. In other words, it was your ignorance of that ideology coupled with your arrogant “secular” attitude of defending an evil ideology as quite alright (but only a few misguided misunderstanders of the religion have hijacked it) that prompted me to call bullshit.

              I wish you would get yourself informed about the world a little better before accusing others of being intolerant.

              You still have not understood what the problem is. You still think that you were innocently asking me why I was intolerant. You still don’t think you need to spend some time reading and thinking before accusing others.

              That is why I am asking you to go do your homework and then join the discussion. Here’s what you may wish to do. Google Sam Harris and read his blog posts. He writes really well, he is a very famous writer who has several bestsellers (NYTimes bestsellers). Amazing speaker. Check out his youtube videos. Take your time. Learn with an open mind. Get educated.

              Go read some other people who are more eloquent than I am on these matters. Consider this blog post and the subsequent discussion we have had a kind of a first lesson, a first step in your journey towards knowledge and away from ignorance. Don’t presume that you know it all already and there is nothing that you can possibly learn on this matter.

              Being publicly reprimanded does not feel good. I know that because I know how I feel when I am publicly accused of being an intolerant bigot.

              I have spent an inordinate amount of time engaging with you so far. I will not address you any more until such time that I have evidence that you are open-minded and that you have informed yourself of what that evil ideology actually is.

              Thank you, good night and may your god go with you.


        2. Have you read the Quran? Have you read the Hadith? Have you looked at the social values in the Muslim dominated countries? Have you looked at the intolerance for other religions in those countries? Are you just assuming what a religion should be or are you speaking based on facts? if you have not, be careful what you label as ignorant. Ambedkar once said: Islam is a false and dangerous way of living. I’m not saying that he is right just on his reputation, but the point is, is your criticism based on facts or ignorance of Islam? Just because something is a religion, doesn’t make it right. Nazism was like a religion practiced by millions. Communism was a false belief for billions until they were proven to be dangerous, but only after they took 10s of millions of lives. I’m sure most Germans and most Communists were peace loving people. That proves nothing. You want to make judgments about an idealogy, know it first.


    2. Shruti, I don’t claim to be tolerant of the intolerant, vicious, murderous, harmful. You are evidently made of different stuff than lesser mortals like me. You can take the grand view of the universe and see that all things are the same. All religions are the same. All ideologies are the same. You are a saint and I a mere sinner.

      You see the desert religions as the same as the Indic religions. Jainism and Islam are the same to you. The fundamental of Jainism is no harm to any living being under no circumstances. In Jainism there is no god. The fundamental idea of Islam is that there is a sky god called Allah and if you don’t submit (Islam means submission) to this god, he has commanded his followers to kill you. This sky god calls for the wholesale massacre of all non-believers by all his followers.

      You survey all of creation from a higher plane. You see all religions as the same.

      As I said, to your enlightened self, all things are the same. You are truly blessed. To you, a pot of elixir is the same as a pot of shit. I bow in deep reverence.


      1. Dear Atanu, Thanks for your reply to my comment. Please don’t mind if I do not respond to your comment. I spent all my energy arguing that I am a fool in another comment just now. I feel a bit sick thinking of arguing that I am the enlightened person that you say I am. Can’t flipflop so much in a day.

        On a different congratulatory note, I chanced upon this blog and am glad to see that you express such strongly felt emotions and thoughts. Since I see that you feel so strongly about things, I plan to continue to read your blog hoping sincerely that you will write about solutions.


        1. Dear Shruti,

          As I mentioned already in another comment to you, you are new to this blog. I have been thinking, reading, and writing about the issues I deal with on this blog for over 30 years. This blog is almost 10 years old — old enough to have over 2,000 posts, some of which are quite long. I myself have forgotten most of what I have written.

          You read one post and immediately conclude that I am intolerant. Well, I don’t blame you. I am intolerant. The question is what am I intolerant about?

          I am afraid that requires you to read my blog. But perhaps you don’t have the time. No problem.

          Thank you, good night, and may your god go with you.


    3. Shruti, what you are saying is that the desert ideology is not itself murderously vicious but a few of its followers are. They are what is called the “misunderstanders” and they are few in number.

      As it happens, your view of the world is different from other (less enlightened) views. Here’s a quote from Sam Harris.

      . . . we know that intolerance within the Muslim world extends far beyond the membership of “extremist” groups. Recent events in Afghanistan demonstrate, yet again, that ordinary Afghans grow far more incensed when a copy of the Qur’an gets defaced than when their own children are accidentally killed by our bombs—or, indeed, than when they are intentionally murdered. I doubt there is a more ominous skewing of priorities to be found in this world.

      Should people be free to draw cartoons of the Prophet? There must be at least 300 million Muslims spread over a hundred countries who think that a person should be put to death for doing so. (This is based on every poll assessing Muslim opinion I have seen over the past ten years.) Should Ayaan Hirsi Ali be killed for her apostasy? Millions of Muslim women would applaud her murder (to say nothing of Muslim men). These attitudes have to change. The moral high ground here is clear, and we are standing on it.

      Of course, millions of Muslims are more secular and are eager to help create a global civil society. But they are virtually silent because they have nothing to say that makes any sense within the framework of their faith. (They are also afraid of getting killed.) That is the problem we must keep in view. And it represents an undeniable difference between Islam and Christianity at this point in history. There are also many nefarious people, in both Europe and the U.S., who are eager to keep well-intentioned liberals confused on this point, equating any criticism of Islam with racism or “Islamophobia.” The fact that many critics of Islam are also racists, Christian fascists, or both does not make these apologists any less cynical or sinister.

      That quote is from the post on “Sam Harris: Islam and the Future of Liberalism.


    4. Yes, Shruti, I think it is an intolerant, vicious, murderous ideology. I have written pages and pages on it. You are a new visitor to this blog, and have read only one post and decided to comment. I would ask you to read a few more posts before you pass judgement on me.

      Here is a post that you may wish to read. Or perhaps not. It is an upsetting post. “On Human Savagery & Human Joy.


  2. Here, we need to distinguish two kinds of (in)tolerance: religious vs civic. Lets look at four possibilities:

    1. Religious intolerant but civic tolerant

    2. Religious intolerant and civic intolerant

    3. Religious tolerant and civic tolerant

    4. Religious tolerant and civic intolerant

    If you look at the history, all combinations exist. In the context of religions, religious tolerance implies civic tolerance. In societies where religions such as Christianity, Islam and Judaism exist, you can see the combination (1): religiously intolerant but people maintain civic tolerance. In India where native religious don’t exist, Pagan traditions are forced to tolerate the intolerance of religions.

    Religious intolerance, in and of itself, does not lead to terrorism. It requires other factors.

    For more on civic and religious tolerance, educate yourself here:
    1. Religious intolerance vs civic intolerance:
    2. The religion of the Indian secular state is deChristianized Christianity
    3. The saint, the criminal and the terrorist:


  3. @Shruti or whoever: You should have known it!. This is a community of fanatic rightwingers who are as much convinced of truth of their belief as the jihadis they claim to be fighting in the blogosphere. Good luck arguing with them!


    1. Where is the argument? I don’t see a single argument from you or from Shruti making the opposite case. At least make an argument. Then complain whether or not someone else is unreasonable.

      And, if you are so convinced about the futility of your comments (which actually say nothing, and so, indeed are futile) why this empty comment, which achieves nothing, but name calling and hate fomenting? Which is exactly what Shruti was most concerned about. Do you see the irony of your own comment?


  4. Mr Katju is great . the folowing points may please be considered.
    (1) No big shot terrosrist from poor districts of Bihar or districts of Kalahandi or Malkangiri. They are coming from relatively richer Vishakhapattnam or Mumbai or Saudi Arabia.
    (2)The foot-soldiers of terrosrism are from poor places. Bombing at London or Mumbai can be traced back to poors from Pakistan or Bihar or Warangal. They are available for hire. They can work for Dawood or Rajan without any hesitation because of poverty and not because of ideology.
    I agree with Mr katju that rich people in Saudi Arabia or in Hyderabad or Vishakhapattnam who are dreaming of Ruling all over world , are visionary of new era . they are not terrorist.


Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: