A tale of two Azmis

A must-read article from Rajdeep Sardesai, Hindustan Times (http://www.hindustantimes.com/StoryPage/StoryPage.aspx?sectionName=&id=a4c450dc-2aa5-4e25-9dd9-a0f30202181a&MatchID1=2903&TeamID1=2&TeamID2=15&MatchType1=2&SeriesID1=793&PrimaryID=2903&Headline=A+tale+of+two+Azmis&strParent=strParentID)

Shabana Azmi is a remarkable woman: five times National Award winner, she has performed multiple roles in life and cinema. That someone from the increasingly vacuous world of Bollywood has emerged as a public activist-intellectual is itself rather creditable. She may well have been a prisoner of political correctness at times, but few will deny that she has chosen to venture where few others of her ilk would dare: then whether it be standing up for slum-dwellers’ rights, women’s rights or against communal politics, hers has been a powerful voice. Which is why when in a recent television interview on CNN-IBN, the actor said that the polity was unfair to Muslims and spoke of her personal experience in being denied a house in Mumbai because she was a Muslim, the response was instantaneous. Her critics described her as ‘irresponsible’, questioning her claims as inflammatory and designed to spread communal disharmony.

There is another Azmi, meanwhile, who has also been grabbing the headlines. Abu Asim Azmi has a rather different career graph to the actor. Accused in the 1993 Mumbai blasts, and charged with links to Dawood Ibrahim, he was later let off for want of evidence. Re-inventing himself as president of the Samajwadi Party in Maharashtra, he became a Rajya Sabha MP in 2002. As a self-styled spokesperson for the north Indian community in Mumbai, he was arrested along with Raj Thackeray a few months ago for promoting enmity between communities. A fortnight ago, Abu Azmi was back in the news when he vowed to fight for Abu Bashar, prime accused in the Ahmedabad blasts case, claiming that the SIMI activist was innocent.

Both the Azmis seem to be projecting the Muslim as ‘victim’, and yet their personal and political persuasions could not be more different. When Shabana Azmi spoke out, she appeared to be reflecting on a genuine liberal Indian Muslim predicament: how do you ensure the ‘mainstreaming’ of a community when there is active discrimination on a basic issue like housing? Abu Azmi, on the other hand, was engaging in a time-worn populist appeal: “Islam khatre mein hai,” was the message (Islam is in danger). Far from seeking ways to restore confidence within the minorities, his rhetoric was only designed to promote divisiveness by creating a distinct Muslim constituency based on fear and enmity towards the majority community.

Unfortunately, the distinctiveness in approach between the two Azmis hasn’t been sufficiently appreciated. When a Shabana Azmi is vilified for speaking out, it almost seems as if she stands guilty of having crossed a certain Lakshman rekha by publicly questioning the implementation of the constitutional guarantee of equality among citizens, irrespective of faith. As Ms Azmi put it eloquently in a signed article in Hindustan Times: “Would it not be fair to assume that implicit in this hue and cry is the desire to shut up the liberal voice and demand of Muslims who are successful to be good Uncle Toms? Have I ever been asked to apologise to men when I’ve talked about discrimination against women? Have I ever been asked to apologise to the rich because I’ve talked about the need to alleviate poverty?”

It is almost as if we are comfortable with the idea of having to deal with the Abu Azmis and the Shahi Imams as symbols of Muslim fundamentalism in our society. These are the shrill voices of Islam that confirm our worst stereotypes and prejudices of a community in crisis: for example, every time these gentlemen make an outrageous remark in a television debate, there is an “I told you so” smirk that sweeps through the studio audience. If a Praveen Togadia does not represent the voice of the silent majority, why should an Abu Azmi or a Shahi Imam represent the average Muslim citizen? Every time there is a terror blast and a Muslim is arrested, it is as if an entire community must accept the blame. Do we demand the same sense of collective guilt among Hindus every time the Bajrang Dal stands accused of murderous assaults?

That Hindu fundamentalists need the Muslim fanatic for survival is well established. What is less clear is why even a section of the so-called secular intelligentsia is unable to look beyond a certain stereotypical notion of the Indian Muslim. It is as if we are satisfied that India has established its secular credentials by having three Muslim presidents, the Khans who preside over the film world, and the Irfan Pathans and Zaheer Khans who do us proud on the cricket field.

Our definition of a liberal Muslim, it seems, is confined to those who publicly take on the fundamentalists within their community (do we make similar demands of the liberal Hindu?). Our definition of the successful Muslim is of someone who attains fame on a bigger stage without making a fuss of his minority identity. So long as an A.P.J. Abdul Kalam limits himself to a Vision 2020 that focuses on education and technology, he is a role model for all of us. Were he to raise questions on Hindu-Muslim relations, then he suddenly would become a ‘suspect’. Shah Rukh Khan as a happy-go-lucky film star is a national icon, but if Shah Rukh were to take a stand on a communal riot, he might lose his iconic status.

Which is why we need to value Shabana Azmi’s intervention as a brave attempt to force a public debate on realities that we choose to deliberately blind ourselves to. We cannot be cheerleaders of the actor when she challenges the Shahi Imam, but become her critics the moment she acknowledges her concerns on prickly Hindu-Muslim questions. Indeed, it is only when we raise discomfiting questions that perhaps we can hope to find some of the answers that still elude us on why our secular spirit has failed, on why there is a growing intolerance of the ‘other’, on why home-grown terror groups have emerged, or on why our minds and neighbourhoods are being ‘ghettoised’. The answers are complex, as perhaps are the solutions. But let’s at least make a start by distinguishing between a Shabana Azmi and a Abu Azmi: let’s consolidate one voice, weaken the other.

Read More...

No Nano

For a man of such intellect, wisdom and abilities, it wasn't expected of Mr. Ratan Tata to learn it the hard way. That ambitious business ventures and unsubstantiated assumptions do not go hand in hand is one of the basic tenets on which the world of business decisions rests. So when, of all places, Mr Ratan Tata handpicked WB to house his ambitious mass-car project, I was shell-shocked. Being a Bengali by birth I should have been proud of it. But my predominant Indian identity, my enthusiasm to see the lone upcoming world-class product of Indian genesis make its way to the world market and my living experience through the three decades of "mass liberation" in WB made me apprehensive of the fate of Mr Tata's pet project all thanks to his - if I am pardoned for saying - disinformed and misplaced trust on WB. I prayed for divine intervention as a way to help save the Nano-project from a global embarassment by moving it out of WB. So, it came as nothing less than a boon to me, when in a corporate press release a couple of days back, Tata Motors conveyed its decision to move out of WB.

With the unfolding of the present fiasco, most people are visibly annoyed with Mamata Banerjee. Quite understandably, given the heat of the moment, the anger should be directed at who else? But an analysis putting the entire blame on Mamata would be skin-deep in comparison to the deep-rooted issue plaguing WB for over last three decades. There is no denying the fact that Mamata has added fuel to fire in the current crisis. In her capacity as the lone opponent figure of any prominence in WB, she has over the last three decades, tried every option available at hand to derail the "communist" jaggernaut. But for an overwhelmingly ignorant and apathetic mass, whose conscience has long forgone to petty short-term gains advanced by the communists, and thanks to a well-oiled machinary of leftist cadre army, each of Mamata's attempts has met with virtually no result. With nothing yielding much of a result, her latest move has been to try using the trick of her very detractors. A perfectly understandable political gameplan it is, but sadly for her, once again, thanks to her adamancy and whims, she has managed to paint her own self with all the blames, even as the communists escaped with flying colours thanks to Mr Bhattacharya (CM) and Mr Sen (Industrial Minister)-'s much publicised efforts of "industrialization".

Let us revisit WB's history over the last four decades to get an idea of where the problem has its roots. In WB, exclusive SEZs were demarcated and setup some 35 years back by Dr B.C. Roy in places like Durgapur, Asansol and Kalyani and some demarcated areas in Kolkata. There was a time some 30 years back when there were many MNCs whose headquarter in Asia was in Kolkata. And that was when the rest of India was still learning to spell "industrialization". Then came the communists with their idea of agriculture based economy. "Land Reform" was performed to allocate lands to small agriculturists who were deemed to vote for the party for generations and be the sole wheels of economy. State patronage to existing SEZs were not only withdrawn, their functioning were made difficult by the introduction of militant trade unionism. So industries either shifted base or simply perished. The unemployment created out of this was directed to establishing layers of dalals between the small agriculturists and the market. State patronage was extended to these dalals with an aim to perpetuate holding to power. The gameplan was simple but effective. As industries died and jobs became scarce, newer and newer layers of dalals were invented and put in place by party think tanks, with a nominal pre-condition of party allegience, not only to divert anger and frustration over unemployment but also to create means of living, albeit with complicated economic outcomes, so that the beneficiaries would owe their political allegience to the communists for decades to come, not because of ideological affiliation, rather for their own survival.

Over time that layer kept fattening itself cutting on the agriculturists' income and pushing them towards alternative livelihood, thus creating a massive downfall in agricultural yields. Yet, as an annual face saving exercise for their imported Chinese ideology of agricultural economy, year after year, fake agricultural land demarcation reports submitted by the state government to the centre kept referring to inclusion of more and more acres of flood plains into minimum-two-yield category. A claim that under successive Congress and allied governments at the Center neither got verified, nor was questioned - a fact that pinpoints at a deep-rooted unholy alliance between the communists and Congress - something that Mamata had to face expulsion from Congress for, for having pointed out.

An ever-increasing crunch in agriculturist vote bank - the sole factor determining policy decisions in Indian polity - led to an increased apathy in the communist policy-makers towards any move to boost agricultural economy. Added to that was the utter ignorance and "know-it-all" attitude of self-professed communists. So, even as Punjab, Haryana and other states sought to use cheaper energy alternatives, improved irrigation facilities and newer bio-technological inventions in boosting their agricultural yields, WB communists yet again thought otherwise. And as good political dividends from patronising the "dalal" class kept pouring in election-after-election, "dalal" driven economy slowly took over agricultural economy as the communists' idea of mass liberation.

Recently, 30 years later, the communists have realized, like most other things, how badly they have bungled up here also. So they want to roll back. But cleaning up their own mess in Durgapur, Asansol or Kalyani would be suicidal, as that would imply changes in labour laws and that would imply a direct confrontation with the millitant trade unions, without whose active support they would soon be extinct in WB. So instead of revamping Durgapur, Asansol and Kalyani they now need NEW SEZs. But where? Well, well!! in those lands that they themselves have been claiming to be high-yield agricultural lands in their yearly agricultural land demarcation reports. That's how Singur and Nandigram came into picture.

Now that is, in summary, WB's real story. To blame Mamata entirely for the current state of affairs in WB is like blaming the (non-availability of) rats when the cat stole fishes from the kitchen closet.

I wish there was a magical way this simple truth could have been driven into my hardheaded Bengali brethren. But since that doesn't exist, I sincerely wish that the TATAs, BIRLAs and AMBANIs leave them to rot. Because unless they rot and perish, how is anything good going to usher in.

Read More...

Monumental folly - Right & Wrong

It's been well over half a century of political independence from our British colonial masters. Yet, questioning any of Nehru's antics with policy decisions for the budding nation state India, remains a political blasphemy. His affiliated bandwagon, namely, the Indian National Congress, works tirelessly in establishing that this man was the sole "Visionary of Modern India" - that it was because of him that we see India the way it is today - and how he, like an exemplary leader with emaculate foresight, sharp articulativeness and deft leadership qualities, blessed us by taking up the onus of envisaging the vision for his just-born motherland - how his deft craftmanship in their implementation helped us evolve into today's days of "glory". And sadly, though there exists a reclused species of individuals who do wish that we were spared of this generosity of Nehru - the majority of Indians are just too preoccupied with their daily livelihood to spare time to give this debate their participation - thereby being party to mute acceptance of this false propaganda as truth. It's not too often that we hear someone unequivocally denouncing Nehru's utopic vision as a product of his romantic association with altruism. An amazing article to this effect appeared recently in Times of India, August 24, 2008 online edition. Thanks and acknowledgement to Swapan Dasgupta, the writer of this article. I am copying the article below. The past few weeks have seen the most vile assaults on Indian nationhood. In the Kashmir Valley, emboldened separatists have desecrated the Indian tricolour with glee. The hitherto ambivalent slogan of azadi has become a defiant, full-throated acceptance of Pakistan. "We are Pakistanis and Pakistan is us because we are tied with the country through Islam," the Hurriyat leader Syed Ali Shah Geelani told a mass rally in Srinagar on August 18, adding, "Hum Pakistani hain, Pakistan hamara hai." Simultaneously, the assumptions on which Indian democracy rests have been challenged by a Taliban-like advocacy of Nizam-e-Mustafa (state based on divine law). Police investigations in another part of India have revealed the murderous conspiracy of a group calling itself the Indian Mujahedeen. Made up of educated, lower-middle class Muslims, these ideologically-driven fanatics have made it their life's mission to wage a bloody jihad against non-believers. They too, have openly debunked the principles on which the Indian political order rests. According to the boastful email the IM sent minutes before the Ahmedabad blasts on July 26, "The terms democracy, secularism, equality, integrity, peace, freedom, voting, elections are yet another fraud with us." The group has also directed its ire at the "faithless infidels and their hypocrite allies from amongst the so-called Muslims...who have bartered their faith in return of just one seat in the Parliament." A striking feature of these threats is the resulting disarray in the liberal establishment. While the more weak-kneed and cosmopolitan intellectuals have advocated total surrender, others have fallen back on denial. The ruling Congress Party, for example, has equated demonstrators waving the national tricolour with those flaunting the Pakistan flag. Cabinet ministers have defended the terrorist SIMI and new-found allies of the UPA have rushed to console the family of the man the police believes was responsible for the murder of some 150 innocent Indians. Most important, homilies apart, there has been no meaningful intervention by those who felt that the Nehruvian ideal was the last word in India's political evolution. This disoriented silence is understandable. The Nehruvian project rested on the assumption that the emotional foundations of India would become unshakeable if the Muslim minority were allowed a generous measure of separateness and firewalled from the intrusions of both the secular state and civil society. Nehru believed that "temporary provisions" giving a special status to J&K in the form of Article 370 would reconcile Kashmiri sub-nationalism with Indian nationhood. A common civil code was also put on hold because he felt that in time Muslims would voluntarily accept the idea of non-religious personal laws. While Nehru viewed separateness as a temporary balm on the scars of Partition, his successors elevated it to a non-negotiable tenet of Indian secularism. The results have been hideous. Far from nurturing a Amar-Akbar-Anthony form of multi-culturalism, separateness nurtured both ghettoisation and separatism. The perverse mindset of SIMI and IM activists, for example, is almost entirely a creation of the ghetto and centred on an abstract ummah that takes precedence over actual neighbours. The similarities between the IM mindset and the radical Islamism of the Pakistani ghettos in Britain are striking. And the problem in both countries has been encouraged by an intelligentsia that equates liberty with licence and turns every complaint into victimhood. Likewise, the dispute over 40 hectares of land was rapidly politicised and projected as a conflict between Kashmir and India. The transformation was possible because Article 370 had created the emotional space for separatism. Nowhere else in India have laws for the protection of 'locals' become a ruse for open secessionism. Nehru's multicultural brainwave was opposed by many nationalists at the time. To them, emotional separatism was the precursor to actual separation as happened in 1947. They were right. Today, India is paying the price of Nehru's monumental folly.

Read More...

Karan Thapar interviews Shabana Azmi

Karan Thapar: As Indian marks another Independence Day, what is it like to be a Muslim in India and what does the world look like when seen through Muslim eyes? That’s one of the key issues I shall explore today with actress, social activist and former MP, Shabana Azmi. Shabana, let’s start with how the world perceives Islam. Seven years after 2001, many people see the religion as a threat; some even fear it. How do you respond to that?

Shabana Azmi: With exasperation, anger, and bewilderment. The fact is that Islam is not a monolith. It resides in more than 53 countries in the world and it takes on the culture of the country in which it resides. So it’s moderate in some, liberal in others, and extremist in the rest… You know there’s a whole range of Islam that’s available according to culture. But the world, particularly after September 11th tends to view it as synonymous with terror.

Karan Thapar: The sad part is that it is not just Islam that is in a sense misunderstood if not targeted but Muslims as well. In the West, particularly the Western media because of the association with terror, Muslims have become figures of fear and for some even figures of hate. Do you understand that or do you resent it?

Shabana Azmi: I’ll go back a little bit to 1992 when Babri Masjid was demolished. I have been raised in a very liberal, Bohemian family in which religion has not played any part at all. For me, being a Muslim was really about Urdu, eating Biryani and wearing kararas on the Eid. So the cultural aspect of me was Muslim, otherwise, because I am not very religious, the religion did not matter.

Karan Thapar: But then, in the eyes of those who do not know you, you are branded as…

Shabana Azmi:No, no. That’s why I am saying that after the riots following the Babri Masjid demolition, I suddenly had people saying, ‘You are a Muslim’ and using it as an accusation or treating me with Dresden china. Either ways, it was a sort of self-consciousness that I had never before experienced. It was very traumatising. And what it made me do is that it made me dig my heels in and say, ‘Yes, I am a Muslim and what are you going to do about it?’ That is what I can see increasingly happening, particularly in the Western world. A lot of young kids today are wearing the burkha, are taking on an identity, which they really don’t feel just because you push somebody up against the wall, that’s what they will come up with.

Karan Thapar: In other words, you push them and make them defiant. You push them and make them what they aren’t and may not want to be but have to become in self-defence?

Shabana Azmi: Absolutely! Yes, that’s exactly what happened to me and I see it particularly amongst the young in the West. And it poses me some concern because what they are taking on is just parts of an identity which does not really have anything to do with Islam.

Karan Thapar: Is that also happening to the Muslims in India? Are Muslims in India going through the same experience that Muslims in the West are going through?

Shabana Azmi: I think the Muslims in India despite the fact that there have been communal riots justice has not been given…even then I think that the Indian Muslim is in a safer place because the Indian Muslim has a stake and a space in India’s democracy. It’s a very huge thing that we are a part of the democracy. An Indian Muslim can aspire to become a Shah Rukh Khan, can aspire to become an Irfan Pathan or even the President of India. And that makes the Muslim here far more hopeful and far less in despair than in any other part of the world.

Karan Thapar: So, it’s the fact that they can participate in the democracy and far more important that they can aspire, have dreams and live up to those dreams, that makes the difference.

Shabana Azmi:That’s right.

Karan Thapar: Have you in your life, particularly in the last few years, because you are a Muslim faced distrust and suspicion? Have you suddenly noticed that people look at you in a manner that they did not look in earlier?

Shabana Azmi: No, it again happened after the 1992 riots because you know after the first phase was over, which was largely in the slums and not in the sophisticated areas, people weren’t really affected. But when January happened, it’s when they got affected, that’s when they woke up. But the thing is that since I was right there on the streets and because I was so totally consumed by it…the minute I would speak about it there would be a hushed silence. I was not allowed to talk about it. And suddenly I was being branded a Muslim. But that is what my reaction was during the Sikh riots, and that time this (attitude) was not flung at me. So that was very, very difficult.

Karan Thapar: Today, not just abroad but even in India, people say that Muslims have to take on the onus of changing the image of their religion and the image of the community. Is that a fair thing to say?

Shabana Azmi: I think it is. I would accept that because I don’t think that the Muslim leadership has bothered to clear the air about what Islam is all about. I think that for far too long, for reasons more due to conspiracy rather that intent really. Every time, the Muslim question is raised; you look at all the politicians, whether it is Atal Bihari Vajpayee or whether it is Indira Gandhi or anybody else, the minute it is a Muslim question you get only the dadhiwallahs (beard-sporting men) and all the maulvies (scholars) to speak. I have always told them that why do you always leave it to the maulvies? There are other people also who are the moderate, liberal voices. Do you ever consult them?

Karan Thapar: In other words, there is the need for the moderate, liberal Muslim voices to speak up?

Shabana Azmi: No, no, no. It is again a cliché and it tires me because the moderate, liberal Muslim has always spoken up. But, nobody is interested because it does not make for dramatic headlines.

I’ll talk to you about myself. Now, we’ve all along been talking about reforms within the Muslims to look at reforms within their community, to look at themselves and to look at several situations. It never gets any kind of coverage. But I took on the Shahi Imam. If you remember there was this incident when he had called for the Indian Muslims to go and wage jehad (holy war) in Afghanistan and I had told him on a television channel. I said what I’ll do is that we can arrange for you to be dropped in Kandhar and you can start your jehad from there. Your problem will be solved and so will ours. That grabbed newspaper headlines like nothing else could. What I am saying is that why does it have to be something so sensational before it is picked up by the newspapers?

Karan Thapar: So how responsible is the press for conveying an impression of the Muslim community and of Islam perhaps, because they only concentrate on mullahs and the ‘long-beards’ and they don’t listen to moderate people like you?

Shabana Azmi: No, I would not say that the press is doing that as a design or a conspiracy against the Muslims, though I would want to see it like that because they do the same thing to the Hindus. It is Pravin Togadia who gets all the newspaper headlines.

Karan Thapar: Except that, Hindus being a majority are a little difficult to misunderstand but Muslims, being the minority and in a sense being victims of what has happened as a result of change of image after 9/11, are easier to target and misrepresent?

Shabana Azmi: Much, much easier to target, but I think that if there is a call within the community to actively try and diffuse the image that it has got, I think that it is a fair demand.

Karan Thapar: So, do you make an appeal to the press, do you say to the newspapers and to the television channels that there is a whole range of Muslim sisters out there, there are a whole range of Hindus out there, try and portray some of those others who do not have beards?

Shabana Azmi: All the time. I constantly say that Islam is not a monolith and do not portray it like that because you then do it great injustice.

Karan Thapar: What about politicians who persist in trying to convert politics into something that immediately quizzes the religion? For instance, you have the BJP saying that the UPA is weak on terror because they will lose Muslim votes or as the Left says, Indo-US treaty is anti-Muslim. Do you resent this attempt to portray everyday politics into religious or worse yet, into Muslim stance?

Shabana Azmi: Yes, except you know when people say that this is for Muslim votes, I do not see any problem with that. If there is a constituency that is voting for you, then hopefully, you will pay attention to that constituency. There is nothing wrong with that. That’s what you are supposed to do. You see, if you have voted me into power, then it is my business to protect your rights. What’s wrong with that?

Karan Thapar: But what about the position Omar Abdullah took during the vote of confidence in Parliament when he spoke with passion and anger at the fact that people were trying to portray him through his religion and politics. And he resented it.

Shabana Azmi: Yes, of course. You see, India’s greatest strength is her composite culture. But in recent times, there’s a concerted effort to compress identity into the narrow confine of religion that you were born into.

Karan Thapar: And does that happen more to Muslims?

Shabana Azmi:All the time! And therefore, you are Hindu, I am a Muslim and she is a Christian and so on and so forth. This is not true because if you were to look for instance at the Kashmiri Muslims and Muslims in Tamil Nadu, then despite the fact that the religion is the same, the Kashmiri Hindu and the Kashmiri Muslim have much more in common with each other than the Kashmiri Muslim and the Muslim in Tamil Nadu. It is because of their Kashmiriyat and nothing else.

Karan Thapar: How do you today, then view the crisis in Kashmir? The two are literally pulling apart and their emotions are spiralling out of control?

Shabana Azmi: That is because it is a cauldron. The situation has been allowed to go out of hand and there is a deliberate attempt to communalise it…which is a huge pity because throughout history, people of Kashmir have always had very strong bonds with each other despite the religious differences and it is only because of their Kashmiriyat. See, it’s wrong to say you will not have differences; of course you will have differences. My only point with anybody who differs on this with me is that see, I do not have to love my neighbour, and not love myself, that cannot happen; but all I need to do is not kill my neighbour and not burn down his house.

Karan Thapar: Are you worried that what is happening in Kashmir is spiralling out of control and will create differences between Hindus and Muslims elsewhere in India also?

Shabana Azmi: Absolutely! And that is exactly why I am so distressed over what is happening in Kashmir and for heaven’s sake it should be brought to a stop. And it should have been brought to a stop when they started with that nonsense.

Karan Thapar: So it is not just Kashmir, it’s India that’s at stake?

Shabana Azmi:Absolutely, yes.

Karan Thapar: So is this a challenge to our integrity, future and unity?

Shabana Azmi:Yes, it is and I think that if the politicians have not woken up to it yet then they really do not know what is happening.

Karan Thapar: Shabana Azmi, I want to ask you a critical question as a former MP. Let’s talk a little bit more focussed about Indian Muslims. They are amongst the poorest, least educated and worst represented communities in India. Has Indian politics been unfair to the Indian Muslim?

Shabana Azmi: (After a thoughtful pause) Yes.

Karan Thapar: Is it any individual politician you would blame or the system?

Shabana Azmi: I think there is not enough understanding of the fact that in a democracy the manner in which you treat the security of the minority must be a very important part for that democracy to be a success. You cannot just make token gestures and actually let them be in the state that they really are as the Rajkendra Sachchar Committee report shows. So what happens is that token gestures are made but the real issues are never addressed.

Karan Thapar: Would you go a step further? Would you say that in fact Muslims are victims of discrimination despite India’s proud claim of being secular? They still face prejudice?

Shabana Azmi: I can’t get a house in Mumbai. I wanted to buy a flat and it wasn’t given to me because I am a Muslim. I read the same thing about Saif. I mean if Javed Akhtar and Shabana Azmi cannot get a flat in Mumbai because they are Muslims, then what are we talking about?

Karan Thapar: Do Indians, particularly those who aren’t Muslims, understand the extent of these problems that we have created by this prejudice for the 14-15 per cent Muslim minority? Do you think people understand this?

Shabana Azmi: Yes, and no. And when they don’t, I think it’s about time that Indian Muslims stopped viewing themselves as Muslims. I think otherwise they tend to get into that victim mode.

Karan Thapar: But what can they do?

Shabana Azmi: Firstly, you have to look within your community, you have to build reforms within it. You have to say that you want to look into things like education.

But wait, what happens then – riots and more riots, the guilty get away, go scot-free. So the feeling that gets left behind is that there are two kinds of laws in this country. One is when you are only one person and commit murder then you will be caught and hung. But if you kill in mass, an amnesty of sorts will be granted to you. This leads to ghettoism and leads to marginalisation and to a lot of despair. Till we understand that the guilty must be punished, whoever they are, we cannot talk about integration.

Karan Thapar: How much resentment does all of this cause in the hearts of the Muslims who see themselves as Indians and also realise that they are not being given a fair deal?

Shabana Azmi: No, I do not think that this is the time for resentment.

Karan Thapar: But there is resentment?

Shabana Azmi: There is resentment in certain sections which is fanned even more than the fundamentalists. The average Muslim really wants only roti, kapda and makaan, just like the average Hindu or Christian.

Karan Thapar: But they do not get it because the politician do not think of that?

Shabana Azmi: Yes, that and the fact that the community is allowing itself to listen to the fundamentalists, who are not actually their leaders.

Karan Thapar: To what extent is the community entrapped by what are often described as ‘bad leaders’; fundamentalists who provoke them rather than lead them forward?

Shabana Azmi: I think that there is a change happening. What has happened is that for far too long, the moderate, liberal Muslim hasn’t really gotten involved with the affairs of the community because after Partition it was seen as sort of communal to do so. But, post-Babri Masjid demolition, the moderate, liberal has come forward to the affairs of the community and that has led to a great strengthening of confidence amongst the Muslims.

Karan Thapar: Let’s try and look to the future. In the UP elections the Shahi Imam formed the Muslim Front to contest the polls. Then in Assam, Badruddin Ajmal formed another Muslim Front to contest the Assam elections. Do two Muslims need their own political parties?

Shabana Azmi: No, they do not. Jawaharlal Nehru was the leader of Muslims and that’s the way it should be. You do not need a Muslim leader.

Karan Thapar: Do Muslims need to merge more firmly and more aggressively with the mainstream then?

Shabana Azmi: You see, the poor things are pulled over the coals all the time for some stupid statement made by some extremists and that catches the attention of the press. You then have all Muslims hauled over the coals, which is really unfair.

Karan Thapar: A Togadia does not get identified with the whole Hindu community but a Muslim extremist gets identified with the entire Muslim community; is that unfair and wrong?

Shabana Azmi:Yes.

Karan Thapar: What about another issue; the Rajendar Sachchar Committee brought out another issue for the first time – the extent of deprivation that Muslims in India live under. Do they need reservations just as you have for Dalits or OBCs or Scheduled Tribes?

Shabana Azmi:That’s a tricky question to answer.

Karan Thapar: Is it because it’s an answer that you do not know or is it because it is political and therefore awkward?

Shabana Azmi: Because I really don’t know the answer. I know an affirmative action is definitely important but whether it will be solved by reservations or not, I am not really very sure about that.

Karan Thapar: People sometimes say, and you have echoed that without saying it in the same words, that Muslims have begun to retreat into their shells and that they have begun to get into ghettoes. They need to come out and play a fuller role.

Shabana Azmi: No, but the situation is not as dismal as you are making it out to be because on the one hand that this is happening but on the other hand there is a resurgence of the moderate, liberal voices, which is now taking on the affairs of its community. This is something they had not done in the past and because of their recent actions there is also a confidence building within the community. It’s not all black and bleak.

Karan Thapar: Then how do you square up the fact that there is this resurgence, which is a positive side, and yet as you say that Shabana Azmi and Javed Akhtar or Saif Ali Khan cannot buy a flat in India’s most cosmopolitan city.

Shabana Azmi:Yes, but if I were to see that as an indication of everything that was wrong, then that would be incorrect. Look at the possibilities of what Muslims are. Exactly because of that you have a President, a cricketer, you have the Khans ruling the film industry. There are both these contradictions. India is a country of contradictions.

Karan Thapar: So, as you look to the future, are you an optimist who sees the situation getting any better or do you fear that it could get worse before any improvement comes?

Shabana Azmi: I am by nature an optimist. I can see within Muslims, a real hard look at themselves. I think they are making very important attempts to be seen. Like for instance this rally that Muslims had against terrorism. That was huge! Now that comes from an understanding that we need to change the image.

Karan Thapar: And the Deoband ‘fatwa’ against terrorism was another example, right?

Shabana Azmi: Huge, really. So, we need to understand that these things are happening. We have to look at them positively.

Karan Thapar: So you positive about it? You are an optimist?

Shabana Azmi:Yes.

Karan Thapar: Shabana Azmi, a pleasure talking to you on ‘Devil’s Advocate’. Thank you.

Shabana Azmi: Thank you.

Read More...

'Islam is not a slave'

Everytime a bomb explodes or a plane is crashed into a building in the name of "jihad" or "token" partisan politics is enacted by pretentously empathetic politicians in the name of "Islamic activism" or "secularism", nothing suffers more than Islam and no one gains lesser out of it than its followers.

One thing that needs to be forcefully injected into the minds and hearts of an ever increasing number of proclaimed "Islamist"-s entrapped into this self-destructive end-game is that the world is not selectively discriminatory toward Muslims. Rather, the truth is, the world was and still remains selectively discriminatory against the weak and the poor - a pitfall of the very process of evolution that we all are a part of. Why a disproportionately large section of the Muslim populace falls in that category needs deep introspection rather than childish accusation of foul play.

I found this fascinating article on Times of India website on this subject. Thanks and acknowledgement to Mr. Mohammed Wajihuddin, the writer of this article.

Syed Ali Shah Geelani is perhaps the most polarising figure in contemporary Kashmir. In his many avatars as Jamaat-e-Islami member, Hizbul Mujahideen's political face and Tehreek-e-Hurriyat's hawk, the octogenarian, bearded leader has led mammoth rallies, courted countless arrests and penned several books, including a passionate prison diary. On August 15 this year, Geelani donned the garb of Islam's saviour and declared to an azadi-chanting, green-flag waving crowd at Srinagar's Lal Chowk: "Our goal is azadi baraa-e-Islam (freedom for Islam)."

The media, constantly on the lookout for soundbites, moved to the separatists' other engagements in the day, ignoring the import of Geelani's new diktat and its fathomless falsity. In a single stroke, the Hurriyat hawk had coated his territorial battle with an Islamic flavour. Like Pakistan's founding father, the frail Mohammed Ali Jinnah in the tumultuous 1940s, Geelani has again tried to stoke a disturbing, though somewhat dormant, debate: "Is Islam incompatible with a secular society and must a Muslim majority live only in an Islamic state?"

The chant of "freedom for Islam" is actually a gross misinterpretation of a faith which unambiguously calls God "Rabul Almeen (lord of the universe)" and Prophet Mohammed "Rahmatul Almeen (blessing for universe)". "Like the Hindutva hardliners hinduised the Shrine Board for Amarnath yatris, Geelani has used a political slogan to provide the separatist movement with a pan-Islamic colour. Muslims might have been enslaved or free in the last 1,400 years, but Islam has never been a slave to anyone. Since it's not a slave, it doesn't need to be freed," says Islamic scholar Asghar Ali Engineer. "Islam is democratic in spirit and has no conflict with secular, composite nationalism, an idea that the likes of Geelani vehemently oppose."

In Geelani's warped views, all Muslims must strive for and live in an Islamic state. "It's as difficult for a Muslim to live in a non-Muslim society as it is for a fish to live in a desert," writes Geelani in Rudad-e-Qaf, his prison memoir. Bangalore-based Islamic scholar Yoginder Sikand, who has written extensively on Kashmir's composite culture, met Geelani a few months ago in Srinagar. "When I asked him to explain his theory of Muslims' discomfort in a non-Muslim society, he said that it was ordained by the Quran. If the separatists succeed, Kashmir will turn into another Talibanised Afghanistan," says Sikand.

How will an Islamised Kashmir, if it becomes a reality at all, look? To find that, don't look beyond Asia Andrabi, the leader of Dukhtaran-e-Millat (Daughters of Islam), who dictates head-to-toe hijab, issues fatwas against music and favours "covering" the women who dare to bare, preferably by sprinkling paint on them.

Geelani's ideological guru, Maulana Abul-Ala Maududi, Jamaat-e-Islami's founder, sought the idea of an Islamic state in a Quranic verse which says that if given power in the land, Muslims should establish salat (worship) and zakat (charity) and enjoin virtue and forbid evil. Maududi interpreted it as God's command to establish an Islamic state which needed to enforce the eradication of vice like adultery, drinking, gambling, vulgar songs, immoral display of beauty, promiscuous mingling of men and women, co-education and so on.

"Pakistan's original idea of establishing an Islamic state was never realised. Yes, Pakistan has a city called Islamabad, but true Islam remains in India," claims Akhtarul Wasey, who teaches Islamic Studies at Delhi's Jamia Millia Islamia. "The Prophet proved Muslims could co-exist with non-Muslims through the Covenant of Medina he signed with the Jews. Both the Jews and the Muslims became citizens of Medina with their separate identities."

Wasey's argument on the inclusivist nature of real Islam is backed by historical truth. Wahhabism, a revivalist, puritanical movement, expounded by Muhammad ibn Abd-al-Wahbab in 1740s in today's Saudi Arabia, lost its exclusivist edge once it hit the shores of multicultural India. Darul Uloom Deoband, the Islamic seminary which traces its origins to the wave of Wahhabism, eschewed fanaticism when it met the tolerant, spiritual Sufi influences in India. Jamiatul Ulema-e-Hind, Darul Uloom Deoband's extension, which fought the British Raj, opposed the Muslim League's "two-nation" theory. Jamiat's stalwart Maulana Hussain Ahmad Madni, under fire from some misguided maulvis of the League, had to explain his advocacy of composite nationalism in a book called Muttahda Qaumiat Aur Islam (Composite Culture and Islam). Madni was hauled over the coals, yet he didn't budge from his stand.

The idea of an Islamic state did not attract even the venerable Maulana Abul Kalam Azad though his zeal for Islam was unmatched. Born in Mecca and trained in Arabic and Islam studies before his family migrated to Calcutta, the erudite Azad celebrated Islam's inclusivism in an 1913 essay: "It is the Muslims' duty to serve humanity...Every part of God's land is sacred, and all inhabitants of the land are dear to them." At another place, Azad declares that God's land cannot be compartmentalised into pak (pure) and na-pak (impure).

The Kashmiri youth who dance to the tune of "Teri jaan meri jaan, Pakistan, Pakistan" would do well to take time off from Geelani's harangues and read Islam in its right context.

(http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/India/Islam_is_not_a_slave/articleshow/3397793.cms)

Read More...

".. India needs freedom from Kashmir .."- Arundhati Roy

"The reaction of the people in Kashmir is actually a referendum. People don't need anyone to represent them; they are representing themselves. India needs freedom from Kashmir as much as Kashmir needs freedom from India".

That was word-by-word the excerpt in its originality from Arundhati Roy, the writer who made it big with small things. When I read her last (the quote above), she was upto making it bigger with big things. And what big thing could it have been than the "biggest" of them all - Kashmir. Kashmir is like the bone of contention between nationalism and outright treason against our motherlands. That is, to say, both in India and Pakistan with equal vigour. Indeed its so high above the rest in our governments' priority list that its only too natural that national growth and development interests remain captive to this contention even as time flies by unutilized.

It's not uneasy to be opinionated against a quote like this one. It hurts at the root of our national spirit. The spirit we vow to live and die for every other day even as we fight amongst ourselves for everything from recognition of religious and regional superiority to water-sharing, language and narrow regional gains in national policy decisions and implementations.

That makes me wonder about the very basis of this notion - "Nationalism". What exactly is nationalism? Is it name for the madness that calls for being vindictive over abstract notions of boundaries, being vulnerable to an inherently childish sense of possessiveness, dancing to the tune of inflated collective ego?

Compassion towards our own tribe is probably the most basic of human behavioral patterns. Not many of us fake the seething pain deep inside our well-hardened exterior, when, in front of our eyes, injustice is meted out to an innocent or someone suffers from hunger or pain. In their original avatar, these senses do not choose to be selective. Yet, there is something in our upbringing that ensures that as we grow up and "mature", the intensity of that feeling diminishes outwardly from the concentric spheres of our associations - relational, cultural, territorial, religious. Which is what creates illusions of self-righteousness and trains our sense tentacles to be selectively sensitive to human sufferings. We let our minds get hijacked by a vexed sense of belonging. Sometimes, we call that Nationalism, at other times, our Holy Religious Duty or Regional or Cultural pride. And painted in those colours, we profess overtures that we, in our normal senses may easily realize, are masochistic - causing as much pain and sufferings to the true us as to the intended subjects.

It's understandably the very process of evolution that impregnates in us an eternal desire to win. But, is winning all about overpowering or proving superiority ? Can't we win by striving to be better over others in a healthy competition of growth - a growth that is inclusive and all-encompassing - a competition that ensures there is no real loser?

In the blunt language of commerce, just how cost effective is our current Kashmir model? Billions of rupees have been channeled into it just to retain its territorial integration with India. Billions more have been diverted from top-priority projects in other parts of India for showcasing infrastructural projects much to the chagrin of the separatists, who leave no stone unturned to derail them before they reach their logical end. Yet billion more have been expended to run
showcased democratic institutions none of which have any effective control over its populace, which continues to grow distasteful of its Indian association and be vulnerable to seccesionist traps, even as an overly disproportionate set of defence personnel man the nooks and corners of the state to ensure people's token submission to Indian sovereignty, often laying down their precious lives for protecting the acres of lands that they as fellow Indians can never have a claim to.

If half the money expended in Kashmir over the last one decade, with no visible gain, was diverted to a rightful expectant, say Mumbai (did you know how much Mumbai contributes to the national exchequer every year), most of its infrastructural problem would have long been solved. If half the defence allotment for Kashmir were allocated in rural India and the high-risk, fast-track implementation expertise of BRO (Border Road Organisation) were focussed for the development of roads, railways and irrigation systems, wouldn't we have done more justice to those hapless rural Indians who still vow in the name of nationalism, despite six decades of no real gain out of it.

I despise Arundhati Roy for her desparate, populist tricks to news headlines. But part of the point she raised this time is noteworthy - "India needs freedom from Kashmir". Just because it slaps our well-groomed concept of nationalism on the face, it should not be rejected outright. We definitely need an introspection and revisit our Kashmir model. But the way Congress, BJP and all other major political parties reacted, I don't see any sign of that. That makes me ask one simple question - just how nationalistic is our nationalism?

Read More...

Indian Muslims and the N-Deal

It would be quite a mystery-unravelling respite for many of us if we could get to know about the logical process that led Mr Pandhe of CPI-M trade union fame to his conclusion about Muslim feelings towards the N-Deal. Not that trade-unionists or communists, more specificly of Indian breed, are known to come to conclusions using some logical process, but let's give him a benefit of doubt.

As far as we know him, he is not a Muslim. A proclaimed communist, he is as far from Islam as he is from Hinduism, the relegion he, unfortunately, was born into. Yet, as his candid observation suggests, he knows a lot about how and what the Muslims feel and professes that government policy decisions should take into consideration their concerns.

That is exceptional in two respects. One, it's not to his discredit that he feels for someone, even if that is visibly selective in nature, but what makes it outstanding is that it happens to be a far cry from the signature communist standpoint that relegious sentiments and concerns are quintessentially fascist in nature and shouldn't play any role in policy decisions. Two, the N-Deal pact is necessarily un-Islamic.

That shows the Indian communist and trade-unionists in their true colours. Something thay have long managed to camouflage with direct connivance of an impotent, hypocritic intelligentia and a middle class which has been politically disengaged and coerced into mute submission.

The facts regarding the N-Deal pacts are not known to most common men in India. And that encompasses muslims, hindus, sikhs, jains or christians in equal proportions. Much like poverty and illeteracy. But I don't get the point why any adverse effect of the deal will selectively affect the Muslims only. Or is it that, it might affect everyone but the prospect of harm to the Muslims is the only thing that concerns our communists.

That is to say, communism considers open Muslim-bias as perfectly socialistic politicking, much in contrary to open Hindu-bias which, as they indoctrinate, is fascistic. Not that we didn't know that Marxism advocates a tilt in favour of minority relegious sentiments to counter-balance the effect of majority relegious sentiments, so that the effect of relegion in policy decisions is essentially nullified. But thanks to Mr Pandhe's over-enthusiastic overtures, it is finally out of the well-guarded closet.

So, much to the dismay of Muslims, many of whom look upon the communists as a friend and protector against the rioting VHP and Bajrang Dal subversists, the Indian communists are actually just using them to their own advantage. By agitating the Muslims and opinionating them against a deal that has logically nothing selectively un-Islamic, the communists are utilizing them as a tool to achieve a political mileage - which is to get the N-Deal discarded by hook or crook.

Enough has been said on "Muslims think this and that, like this and that and NOT this and that" by people who least care about their well being. Had it been that anyone really cared for them in excess, the last fifty years would have seen them in equal footings with the non-Muslim Indians, which sadly is not the case. The day the Indian Muslims stop paying heed to any of this purported political overtures, which is understandably luring in abjectly wanting circumstances, but an entrapment to ultimate impoverishment and dissociation from the Indian mainstream, they will start marching ahead hand-in-hand with the rest of India. There is enough evidence that suggests that is steadily becoming a reality.

Read More...

THE RIGHT VIEW - Denying Hindus space

It's not for long that pure, unadulterated truth remains in public. So, before it gets rotten by opinions and counter-opinions that are either based on lies or half-truths or dumb understanding of both the past and the present and with little vision for the future, I took this as my responsibility to save this article from malice. So I am copy-pasting the entire article from TOI homepage and putting it here.

Thanks and acknowledgements to Mr Tarun Vijay, Director, Dr Syamaprasad Mookerjee Research Foundation and author of this article.

Courtesy: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Columnists/Tarun_Vijay_Denying_Hindus_space/articleshow/3208306.cms


The Amarnath land row in Kashmir has proved that if Muslim politicians of the valley feel strongly about something they can make the government bend and accept their demands. So it is hypocrisy when they complain in some summits in London that Delhi doesn't heed them or they have less power to rule the valley 'appropriately' and hence need more autonomy. They fought on the streets and denied a piece of land to Hindu pilgrims to be used for facilitating a night's stay and food in that snowy area just for two months. The land was barren; not a single tree grows there and not one person was to be stationed there permanently. Yet the votaries of Kashmiriyat, who would announce day and night how keen they are to see Kashmiri Hindus return to their localities and how their religion stands for love, compassion and peace, stood firm, spreading lies to ensure that Hindus do not get an inch of space for a temporary shelter.

They said it is a place which will be used to reduce Muslims in the valley to a minority. The land is forest area, Hindus will destroy the environment, they said. It's a plot by Indians to assault Muslims of the valley. Hence, land will not be given at any cost, the politicians said.

They won. And they knew what they are saying to defend their indefensible position are all lies.

The first thing the new governor N N Vohra was made to do was to take back the proposal on behalf of the Shri Amarnath Shrine Board for the acquisition of approximately 100 acres of land. He didn't begin his tenure trying to see Kashmiri refugee Hindus are returned with honour and safety to their homes. Nor could Vohra hold any meeting to ensure the valley is free from jihad and that developmental plans are executed to benefit all patriotic citizens. The first move that a Hindu majority country's constitutional appointee took was against the interests of Hindus.

I am sending this column from Kolkata where, being involved in a seminar on security, I saw a message from the then Governor General Sinha wishing that the seminar goes off well. It is the kind of message that holders of gubernatorial posts often send but there is a difference: while all constitutional authorities use just one symbol of the state insignia - that is, the replica of the Sarnath pillar with four faces of the lion - in Jammu and Kashmir, another state insignia is used parallel to the Indian one, representing Jammu-Kashmir.

The only state in India which has a separate flag and a special power bestowed on it by the constitution is Jammu and Kashmir. On an average it gets 10 times more grants compared to any other Indian state yet it complains a hundred times more about Delhi's discrimination and prejudice. The jawan who protects the people and the territory with his sweat and blood is not allowed to buy an inch of land in the state due to the constitutional provision of Article 370 which bars any Indian from settling down in Kashmir.

Dr Syamaprasad Mookerjee, who became the youngest vice-chancellor of Calcutta University at the age of 34 and later founded the Bharatiya Janasangh, fought against the special powers bestowed upon Jammu & Kashmir that separated it from the rest of the country and paid for his patriotism with his life. He began a movement in 1953 opposing the state's separate entity, was arrested at the state's border on May 11, 1953 and kept under house arrest in Srinagar. He was brought dead to Kolkata, his hometown, on June 24, 1953 (he breathed his last under mysterious circumstances in custody of the Jammu & Kashmir govt on June 23). Born on July 6, 1901, he was barely 52 when his death shook the nation. Prime Minister Nehru refused an inquiry and while Syama Prasad's mother Jogmaya Devi wrote a poignant letter which drew a rude reply. Kolkata was up in protest and even Somnath Chatterjee, the current Speaker of the Lok Sabha, wrote a letter of protest which was published in the Manchester Guardian. Syamaprasad's martyrdom made a difference in the sense that the provision of having two heads of the state was abolished and the sadar-e-riyasat (head of state) system was replaced with the usual governorship in vogue elsewhere.

'They have killed him'

Was Syamaprasad killed? Yes, said the Mother in Pondicherry. He was an ardent devotee of Sri Aurobindo and the Mother had great hopes from him to change the politics of India. In a book written by an ardent devotee of Sri Aurobindo, Manoj Dasgupta (Dr Syamaprasad Mookerjee "a pure and manly life", pp:52,53,) he has described a conversation which is quit revealing. He writes: 'I may add here a personal note in this context (death of Dr.Mookerjee while in detention in Kashmir). It was during the 'de facto' transfer of Pondicherry [1954] the Ashram was invited to participate in a cultural programme. One evening when the Mother came out of the interview room in the playground (of the Ashram), she began to talk to Debu and me about the preparations for the programme. In course of the conversation the question of the present political situation in India came up. I told Mother that in earlier times we had such great leaders, today we have none. She said that politics was always steeped in falsehood and that was one of the reasons why Sri Aurobindo left politics. Among the present leaders, she said that she had reposed great hope on Syamaprasad, but: "Ils l'ont tue ' They have killed him. (The entire conversation was in French). When I looked at her with surprise, she said, "My child, you don't know, that there are many ways of killing with slow poison."

Why was Syamaprasad denied a space and life in Kashmir for his just and patriotic demands? My friends tirelessly write about Kashmir's patriotic past and how during Pakistan's surprise attack in 1947, Kashmiri Muslims had raised the slogan - 'Hamlawar khabardar, hum Kashmiri hain taiyyar (Attackers beware, we Kashmiris are ready to face you)". If Kashmiri Muslims were so patriotic, why was Syama Prasad not given a place of honour in the valley for his efforts to bring Kashmir at par with other Indian states?

Like Amarnath yatris have been denied space by the present Kashmiri Muslim politicians, patriots like Syamaprasad were denied a space by the secular media and politicians of the same ilk.

In fact the socio-political space for assertive nationalists is sought to be reduced in every sphere of life. It's difficult to publish your views in the so called 'free, objective and independent' media and even if some space is given, the seculars frown upon it as if an anti-national act has been committed. The entire coverage of the Amarnath land row proves it. The slant is too visible against one set of people and favouring the prophets of denial. Why is this so?

Watch the well-orchestrated denial of space to India since the Shaikhs and Muftis have ruled Kashmir. The region got its name from Rishi Kashyap. This legend is sought to be denied or underplayed so much that it's almost invisible now in any contemporary note on Kashmir's history. Kashmir's legacy of a citizen King, Lalitaditya, is denied and dustbinned and the language of the land, the base of any variety of Kashmiriyat, i.e. Kashmiri is denied a rightful place of honour in state affairs. Yes, the state language of Kashmir is not Kashmiri, but Urdu! Because the Shaikhs in their progressivism, reinforced by their leftist supporters, thought that Urdu belongs to Muslims and Jammu and Kashmir, being a Muslim-dominated area, must have Urdu as its state language. And yet they talk of some Kashmiriyat.

They saw their Hindu neighbours being killed, raped and maimed and yet, not a single Muslim Kashmiri took out the kind of protest demonstrations which were done to protest the sanction of a piece of land for the Amarnath pilgrimage.

And yet they say Kashmiriyat means love, peace and harmony.

When Hindu temples were razed and deities desecrated, when orchards of Hindus were destroyed and posters pasted on their homes asking them to leave the valley sans their women, who were the Kashmiri Muslims who wrote even letters to editors denouncing such heinous acts?

When massacres like Wandhama occurred and infants were shot dead by terrorists wielding AK-47s, the case was officially closed even before an inquiry could have been set up. Which Kashmiri Muslim leader stood firm and said 'this is not done, we will ensure that till the culprits (who were all too well known) are brought to book, the case will remain open?'

Now, having forced the newly-appointed governor to take back the Amarnath Shrine Board's application for land, they say they will provide all help to pilgrims. They forgot that hundreds of Hindu pilgrims have died in snowstorms in previous years, mainly due to tortuous weather and inadequate facilities. When Hindus wanted a small shelter on a barren waste land just for the two months of the yatra season, they were denied.

Can we have a better version of Kashmiriyat please?

But when the matter of Haj comes up, they are provided every facility at government expense - yes, the Delhi government's expense. Haj houses, increased quotas every year, ambulances, hospitals, doctors and free delegates for Mecca at government expense. Extra-large Haj terminals and extra-constitutional reservations in jobs and educational facilities.

But space for Hindus is unacceptable.

It's not a question of Kashmir politics, but shows a mindset that grows on hate and intolerance. It's not an issue of denying Hindus a space in the valley or in the so called mainline media, but an attitude that denies India in pursuit of state facilities. It's a cowardly attitude indeed. Otherwise why would the papers published in the valley or in the secular realm of Delhi use the inexplicable term "militants" for terrorists. Can anyone explain why terrorists are not called such, but are glorified as "militants"? Do we need to send them copies of Oxford dictionaries to understand the difference between a terror-striker and a fighter for a cause called militant?

I have enough material to prove step by step, line by line how the people of Kashmir and the rest of India were fooled by Srinagar politicians on the Amaranth land row. But what will it prove in face of a decidedly hateful attitude against a particular community? The same Rainas, Bhatts, Kauls, the same blood and ancestors, same language and cultural lineage, same skin and race, and yet, just a little change in the way of worship makes one to hold rifles and the other to pray for mercy.

Remember, the Kauravas too had denied space to their brothers. They told Krishna the Pandavas will not even get space equivalent to the tip of a needle. But the Pandavas ultimately made a mark because they were right.

Read More...

Communists of West Bengal

Recently, I heard of the plight of a fellow NRI. He had ventured into buying an apartment in a much publicised residential complex in Kolkata. And naive, as he was, he assumed its a child's game as he had all the money they had asked for. He got his father-in-law in Kolkata to help him in the process. But nothing seemed to get going, even after paying many of the installments. In fact, even the receipts were not sent.

Suspicious, this man decided to pay them a visit in a hurried trip to India. To his awe, he found the builder's office abounding in CPI-M party cadres who make no attempt to hide their political affiliation.

On careful diplomatic maneuvering, it unfolded upon him that he was paying the price for his father-in-law's "not too friendly opinion" about CPI-M in particular and the rulers of West Bengal in general, that inadvertently slipped out of his mouth one day, because of some long-borne frustration.

After a few hours of pondering over the saga, it dawned upon me, this guy had actually been "lucky". As far as today's West Bengal is concerned, anything could have been an eventuality. Let me summarize a few of what comes to my mind:

1. He could have been labeled the neo-imperialist son-in-law (because of his residence status) of a "Burgeois" father-in-law (as he paid money & wanted work to be done), thus an unaccomodable class-enemy in the socialist republican setup of "working" classes in Red Bengal, thereby confiscating their property in the name of state welfare for the "people" by the "people"

2. There could have been indefinite suspension of all data entry work becoz of unrealistic, uncalled-for, "Burgeois" demands of class enemies (who wanted their cheque payments documented) until and unless "action" is taken against these class enemies that is deemed satisfactory by the "oppressed", "working" classes, along with an overtoned warning that in the event of unsatisfactory actions against them, this class struggle will culminate into a series of "nationwide" bandhs and jail-bharos for indefinite period of time

3. He could have been labelled an agent of external, fascist, imperialist forces assisted in their efforts by internal anti-socialist, communal, fascist forces like BJP, RSS, VHP, TC who don't want to see Bengal prospering, thereby calling for huge govt reserve forces to deal with him and his father-in-law. There could have been thousands of bullets shot, none flying in straight intended projectory and thousands of lives lost, none of whom had anything to do with the matter at hand. All in the name of "socialism" and "progress".

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Burgeois : Anyone at whose expense a "class struggle" can be organized for "state welfare"

Working : Anyone who sees to it that "class struggle" continues

Oppressed: Anyone asked to do some work.

Nationwide : West Bengal, Kerala and Tripura.

Class Struggle: Daily picnic that gets you Rs 100/-, one packet of free biriyani or luchi-alurdom, at the expense of carrying a red flag, shouting something that makes no bloody sense to you or your listener.

State Welfare: Anything that gurantees that the oppressed remain oppressed, so that "communism" remains in the reckoning..

Read More...

Political Dictionary

"Socialism" : I have two cows. My neighbour has none. I give one to my neighbour.

"Fascism" : I have two cows. The government takes both my cows, shoots one, milks the other and sells me the milk.

"Nazism" : I have two cows. The government shoots me and takes both my cows.

"Communism" : I have two cows. The government takes both and appoints me to milk them everday. I get part of the milk as my salary.

"Capitalism" : I have two cows. I sell one and buy an ox.

"Trade-unionism": I have two cows. The unionists come and take both. They shoot one, milk the other and throw away the milk.

Read More...

Left Bloc's opposition to N-Deal

A lie repeated a hundred times, with the same fervour of truthfullness, begets public acceptance as truth. Unfortunately, in the realms of Indian politics, this ploy has emerged as the singlemost commonality between political parties irrespective of their coordinates in the political spectrum.

The promises on secularism, democracy etc. are just rhetorics to give a rational, humane face to actions that have vindictive underlying objectives. Which is, as far as the Left Bloc's opposition to the N-Deal is concerned, to turn deaf to all rationalities, be inconsiderate to all practicalities and turn blind to economic eventualities of a fall-out and let themselves, and the people they claim to represent, be led solely by the long-time political dogmas and inhibitions associated with countries party to the deal.

Its ironic that while China, with its communism, and US, with its capitalism, agree to march ahead hand-in-hand, do business and narrow their disjoint political visions for the sake of practicality and growth, our politicians, most of them proclaimed communists and self-confessed admirers of the Chinese version of communism, think it prudent to block the deal just because it involves a nation state not known to endorse their political vision or philosophy. It's NOT imperative to me whom our "communists" serve.

Read More...