Why the killing fields of Kerala only draw collective silence (even from BJP)

[Voltaire2]

The rising tide of political, communal violence diminishes the reputation of a state that has led the country across a swathe of parameters.

The murder of a BJP worker named Santhosh in Kannur last week is the latest in a symphony of orchestrated political violence that has made Kerala a tinderbox of religious fundamentalism.

Over 44 per cent of Keralites are minorities — the highest ratio in India after Jammu & Kashmir. Over 25 per cent are Muslims. Another 19 per cent are Christians.

Kannur is a symbol of the inflammatory potential of mixing politics with religion. An ancient trading city with deep links to the Arabs and Persians, Kannur was ruled by a Muslim dynasty, the Arakkal Sultanate. Along historically with imports of Arab spices and timber, it has in recent years imported strains of Wahabism from the Middle East.

Santhosh was allegedly killed by CPI(M) activists in his own house at Andaloor in Dharmadam which ironically is Kerala chief minister Pinarayi Vijayan’s own constituency. Kannur has given Kerala two chief ministers — K Karunakaran and EK Nayanar. It is a politically volatile district. Muslims comprise 38 per cent of its population. Five out of 20 ministers in the Kerala cabinet are from Kannur — including the chief minister.

https://www.dailyo.in/politics/political-murders-kerala-rss-bjp-cpim-santhosh-kannur-communal-violence-pinarayi/story/1/15311.html

[Sinistrous]

1. Which is it?

the OP, or:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1218264670

These posts tell radically different stories of the region.

[yallerdawg]

3. Not at all related.

Politics is a blood sport in India.

Like in much of the world.

[yallerdawg]

2. Political, not religious.

[Igel]

4. There's a healthy debate over a lot of violence.

"I'm killing in the name of my god" is met by sympathizers with, "No, it's really political" and sometimes "it's advancing social justice."

AQ's been billed that way. The Sunni-Shi'ite violence has been billed that way.

"I'm barely religious and I'm committing violence because I really want more money" is met by that religion's detractors as "see, that religion is violent."

The Crusades, for some, were a way of maintaining political stability at home, nothing religious at all. But for others they're the essence of Xianity. In other words, you find your bias and you get your results.

In fact, it's hard to find religious violence. Or it's really common. Most pick and choose which violent events they justify. I often don't see a reason to make the distinction: religious violence is, by its nature, religious and violent; and when religions are triumphalist and insist on being dominant, whether it's just because their adherents or human or because they're motivated by the purest of conquistadorial motives, they're also political in some not so arcane sense of the word. (Note that this assumes that the violent jihadi shouting Allah akbar and the Sufi who is a pacifist vegan do *not* share a common religion except in external trappings. I'm okay with that assumption. I'm a sabbath-keeping passover-observing non-trinitarian Xian and have few things in common with, say, Russian Orthodox or Catholics or even Methodists.)

It's like liberation theology or the WCTU: There's so little space between religion and politics that the Casimir effect is huge ... And yet overcome by the mutual attraction.

[yallerdawg]

5. Anothr video you didn't watch.

This is a prominent socialist group against a prominent nationalist group, and not religious. It's a handful of murders over a couple years.

Of course, you are free to express your opinion on any subject!