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...