In this piece in Outlook, Francois Gautier sets out to say that the “deviants of Mangalore and Malegaon are demonised fallaciously”.
When blast after blast wrecks Indian markets, when trains are bombed, hotels attacked by men worse than animals, intellectuals blame it on Babri Masjid (where nobody was killed) or Gujarat (triggered by the burning of 59 innocent Hindus).But when a few Hindus plan to establish a Hindu rashtra and plot a clumsy, small-scale revenge, they are equated with deadly fundamentalists.Just because they are few(er) in number, or their track record less inglorious, does not make them any less fundamentalist. Basking in the harsh glow of the twisted interpretation of their religion, they are a source of disgust and apprehension for open-minded, pluralistic individuals. Not to mention people who believe in the basic decency of respect for the next man, and in particular, the next woman.
[…] the word 'Hindu Talibanisation' is being heard amidst the clamour following the odious pub episode in Mangalore. […] Yet, I beg to disagree: this is not about the Talibanisation of Hindu groups, it is about their demonisation.To say that Mangalore incident stands for a Talibanistic Hindu movement might be reaching a bit far, lets assume; but do we need only to touch such extremes to be indignant? There are increasingly loud and increasingly numerous voices that consign women to second class status. Are these to be simply explained away by so-called historical ‘demonisation’ of Hinduism? You say "Pale fires don't scorch", but is the relative paleness of an approaching flame reason enough to disregard it, or to not want to douse it?