Where I go paranoid (and incoherent)

Having termed Rohit's posts confused earlier , let me write one myself. I have refrained from commenting on the Malegaon kerfuffle mostly because I was too embarrassed to reveal what I think. Anyway here it is.

If it is true that Sadhvi , Ramesh Upadhyay, and Sameer Kulkarni indeed conspired in the case, they are terrorist and deserve nothing less than capital punishment.
Further if it turns out that any 'Hindutva' organization whether affiliated with Sangh Parivar, or independently has provided support for the bombing it is as guilty of terrorism as SIMI and should be treated as such.
Wait a minute ! What's with this, "if it is true" part, you ask. Here comes the paranoia. I find the revelation of  the "alleged" involvement too convenient and orcharasted considering how UPA is being hammered, justly I may add,  for the gross neglect of terrorism issue.

Of course UPA is hardly the only player which is threatened by public ire over Islamic terrorism. There is a deeper, and far more grievous threat to our sec-lib establishment which is alarmed by the public disenchantment with siren songs of a secular narrative which sustains itself on historical amnesia as well as false equivalence between Dharmic and Abrahamic traditions.

Basically what I am saying is, I am skeptical of investigating agencies. "But, then aren't you saying the same the thing as the apologists who claim that any Muslim accused is a scapegoat and victim". Well partly, that is true.

As someone who has grown under the constant reminder of tyranny of Indian state, I don't trust Indian law and enforcement, and I am more than ready to concede that political pressure in aftermath of every terrorist attack accentuates the natural tendency of the investigative agencies to come up with quick results.  This accompanied by religious divide and mistrust which lingers even at best of times beneath the layer of feel good secular clap traps makes me more than ready to agree to the allegations that some (many?) of the accused are victims of the haste and prejudice.

However where I depart from the Islamic apologist is to extend above observation (or to be more precise gut feeling) to conclude that there is no such thing as Islamic terrorism, or alternatively barring some misguided souls state of Islam in India (again religious tensions, to be more precise) has nothing to do with terrorism.
As I have said earlier there is a strong link between terrorism and Islamic history. That it is not taken up has to do with the fact that we have deceived ourselves to believe that past is dead. Yet, like a resurrected monster belonging to cliche of horror genre, it never is.

Here ends the incoherence.