They don’t have terrorists in Norway?

He is just a killer. Got it? No? Don’t you read the papers, watch the news, listen to the experts? Heck, don’t you see that Muslim organisations are so accustomed to being taken for granted that they jump in claiming that they did it. Ah, one more terrorist attack. But Norway? Why not? There are Muslims there and somewhere in Islam Norway too must have been mentioned. It did not work. This time someone was scoring points. That is what it is made out to be when a nice blond, clean-shaven guy in cop/military uniform, confesses.

He is not called a terrorist, no blanket judgement yet. Even as radical, he has his reasons – he is anti-Islam. He wreaked this terrorist attack to draw world attention to the end of multiculturalism. The New York Times had this precious nugget:

“Yet, some of the primary motivations cited by the suspect in Norway, Anders Behring Breivik, are now mainstream issues. Mrs. Merkel, President Nicolas Sarkozy of France and Prime Minister David Cameron in Britain all recently declared an end to multiculturalism. Multiculturalism “has failed, utterly failed,” Mrs. Merkel told fellow Christian Democrats last October, though stressing that immigrants were welcome in Germany.”

Is this not great? The bloke is now supposedly speaking or echoing the views of world leaders and the international media is going along with it?

The fact that he is seen to have acted alone puts him in the romanticised category of the lone ranger. He has himself said about how it was all “in the head”. They might just analyse it as mental trauma due to seeing so many immigrants around; maybe he suffered from claustrophobia; perhaps he was just playing some video games and decided to re-enact those scenes in real life. It would be attributed to madness. I would like to know why other sorts of such attacks are not. Because, they are not. They are planned and always have a purpose. There is, therefore, no reason to give him the benefit of doubt and to put him on a psychiatric couch only because he was alone. He has already displayed enough gall to declare that he wants to explain his stand. Explain the killing of a hundred people? He also wants to appear in uniform for the court hearings.

I am afraid but all this adds to the ‘heroism’. It won’t be stated in so many words, yet the subtext is clear. In a rather surprising statement quoted in the NYT piece, Joerg Forbrig, an analyst at the German Marshall Fund in Berlin who has studied far-rights issues, said:

“I’m not surprised when things like the bombing in Norway happen, because you will always find people who feel more radical means are necessary. It literally is something that can happen in a number of places and there are broader problems behind it.”

Stunningly simplistic. “More radical means are necessary”? So says the Al Qaeda too, but they are not given this Prozac kind of treatment. “Broader problems behind it”? Sure. While radical Islamists train and prune everything, except their beards, they could have broader problems as well – like their countries being decimated by powers that have no business to be on their land in the first place, and every person being considered a suspect if s/he is a Muslim, and their clothes and lifestyle being questioned.

Had this terrorist – yes, do use this term – been wearing a hijaab would it be seen as concern over multiculturalism? After all, when westerners go bang-bang and bomb-bomb in Iraq and Afghanistan, those places are superimposed by another culture and a fascist regime that seeks puppets to play with. Multiculturalism is not only about one nation deciding who the bad ones are, if they have granted them visas and they are working and in many ways contributing. If they are criminals, treat them as just that. Not as terror suspects. That does not happen. The chap at the pharmacy could well be a terrorist and if he takes an afternoon break for prayers, then he has had it. The teacher who wears a hijaab could be smuggling in Islamic literature for the bright kids who will soon turn into terrorists. Europe and America cannot take such risks.

We will forget the evangelists, the guys who burn the Quran, the people who say god told them to do it, the guys who move away if they see a person who does not look like them. Oh, they love chicken tikka and now vegetable jalfrezi. The curry kingdom was great till it lasted. Now it is time to just take the recipe and make it very clear who the boss is. As though it is not evident. As though it were any different when they ‘got Saddam’, they ‘got Osama’.

Breivik’s terrorism is as bad as any other is, so let us stop making excuses. The immigrant problem is there and must be dealt with by the relevant department. Neo-Nazi groups have been active long before 9/11. The new xenophobia has got a pedestal.


I also have problems with questions about how Muslims must integrate into societies they adopt as home. It brings the idea of globalisation down to a convenient ghetto. It is like Wall Street where you can get bullish and wager over funds the world over sitting at a desk. A closed group. You go to Muslim societies and Westerners work there and make no change in their lifestyle. They are immigrants in Middle-East countries that clearly call themselves Islamic and have never pretended otherwise. There is talk about how people cannot wear bikinis and I have maintained that a bikini is not a dress, not even casual smart. It is meant for the beach and beaches in those countries do permit people to wear what they want.

This is a digression because multiculturalism has different meanings. The West has always promoted itself as such a haven, a melting pot. It appears to be a simmering pot where discontent is now being given a more aggressive form. It is done slyly, as a protective garb.

Breivik’s “individual capacity” act is one such manoeuvre. This is what he had written before going on the killing spree about how he will be portrayal in the media after the act:

"However, since I manifest their worst nightmare (systematical and organized executions of multiculturalist traitors), they will probably just give me the full propaganda rape package and propagate the following accusations: pedophile, engaged in incest activities, homosexual, psycho, ADHD, thief, non-educated, inbred, maniac, insane, monster etc. I will be labeled as the biggest (Nazi-)monster ever witnessed since WW2."

He gets points for getting the media down pat. It has stopped being a kangaroo court; it is now all about pop psychology.

Those people who died and their families do not know why this happened. Do they agree with him? I won’t be surprised if days later some adept media person will land up at their doorstep and get an ‘understanding’ version of the misguided soul who was disturbed by what the world was turning into because their jobs and lives were at stake. He was frightened, do you understand?

And you will see images of Islamic terror more than this act. There will be great editing. Shots of Norwegians weeping. Cut to some bombing by Islamist groups.

Who will this help? Both. The West in its endeavour to keep the ‘war on terror’ iron hot. And the radical Islamic groups who are so gung-ho about their role that the media attention will in fact help them by default. They did not do it, but they could. They always can.

Neither will realise that the world is not about them, but about people who are just living their lives.

(c) Farzana Versey

- - -

Published in Countercurrents

'Burning Patriotism': Et Tu?

Justice V R Krishna Iyer has said that currently the greatest enemy of India is not so much Pakistan but terrorism.

I object, M’Lord. You have rightly connected some part of terrorism to corruption, and even commended the Pakistani government for condemning the Mumbai blasts. Then you pull up “important Muslim organisations” for not doing so. What you say later is shocking:

"I am not challenging the patriotism of the Muslim organisations in India but do suspect the degree of their loyalty. If every Muslim in India feels India to be his motherland and wants to defend it, the Indian police intelligence will easily get information about the secret manoeuvres of hostile Muslim elements."

There were clerics who held prayer meetings; Muslims did condemn the act, for whatever such condemnation is worth. I am sorry to say so but your views expressed here are quite disgusting. If there is a terror attack, why is the onus on Muslims to defend the country unless they are in the police force, the army or security agencies? 

You mean to say that ordinary Muslims have knowledge, or that they are kept informed, or they have extra-sensory perception and can smell every Muslim who could be a threat to the nation? Instead of discussing the role of security agencies, you apportion blame on a community that does not only have to deal with suspicion but also keep a lookout for secret manoeuvres of hostile elements. Does that include non-Muslims? Please clarify this. It is important.

"What we require therefore is not so much policemen or weapons but burning patriotism. Every Muslim must watch the secret doings of other Muslim organisations especially foreigners. A new wave of patriotism must begin in every school, college and research organisation. Every Indian must watch what his neighbour is doing with a patriotic vision and mission to save the nation. Even children's organisations should be permeated with the spirit of Bharatmatha. Then alone India has hope. New intelligence methodologies are necessary."

Sure. It was this ‘burning patriotism’ that caused two major riots that destroyed people of the community that you expect should act as vigilantes. Do you imagine that every Muslim knows what is going on? What the heck are you trying to convey by referring to foreigners? Take names. Mention countries. 

We know about this new wave of patriotism. It means forcing religious books down the throats of children. We have all learned about the freedom struggle, about those who sacrificed their lives; those were historical lessons. Do not mess around with kids in such a devious manner. Can you imagine street kids and orphanages filled with such nonsense about nationalism without any reference point? Most children grow up with the knowledge of their national identity. They do not need to be tutored. India’s hopes lie not in this sort of baptism into the spirit of Bharat Mata. 

And could you help explain what exactly you mean by this spirit? The flag? The national anthem? The freedom struggle? Economic progress? Modi? Anna Hazare? Baba Ramdev? Nuclear power? Jaitapur tribals? Khap panchayat? Female foeticide? Undertrial prisoners? People waiting for justice for years?

If you want hope to permeate then do not create friction. You are a person in a position of authority and should know better. Patriotism will not work as an intelligence methodology. Our agencies work at it. The cops, the armed forces and even politicians to whatever extent it is possible. There are factors that they can improve and some bad elements. It has nothing to do with anyone’s faith. You don’t say, “Oh, those insurgents entered because some Muslim soldier did not stop them”. Or do you?

I will not be surprised. You know what, sir? My patriotism means questioning people like you as much as the next terrorist bloke. As an Indian I may not have your stature, or ever reach the position you have, or achieve the success you have, but I would not wish to be your kind of Indian. Ever. Because the patriotic spirit of the sort you have displayed is just that: spirit. It just goes up in the air and collects dust to form dark clouds.

- - -

Also published in Countercurrents

NDTV Exposes NDTV?

Last night I did not watch ‘The Buck Stops Here’ on NDTV. I caught it on the Net today. The video showed an image with the words, “This is not an envelope.” I geared up for the expose. It happened to be an ad for DHL couriers. Then began the show. First thought: what were they thinking? It does not take long to figure out that what I had expected has happened: The ‘lynch mob’ is now the ‘give-the-benefit-of-doubt mob’. I had avoided taking specific names in an earlier article here because it was taking away from the issue and it would have only confirmed my point about buffering a cult.

Now, things are different. Barkha Dutt came on her own show to answer questions by an independent panel on a channel in which she is the group editor. The host, Sonia Singh, started by saying that they had earlier wanted someone else to ask Barkha because they believed in a level-playing field. They should have continued with that belief. This show was a farce not because of the emotions, which are natural, but because of several other reasons:

1. It was an unedited version. This does not mean an objective one. No one, not even Manu Joseph the whistle-blower, could make a logical argument.

2. What does independent panelists mean? Are they independent of the channel? Are they independent in their views? Are they independent of any association with any of the people involved in the controversy? Are they independent of their own organisations? All of them are from the media.

Dileep Padgaongar went into his intellectual foreplay and he does seem far better equipped to discuss the finer aspects of French cuisine.

Swapan Dasgupta first talked about how he was always pre-judged, which sort of sent out a little message of empathy, but since he had to be independent he made some noises; this man has been a hardcore Hindutva supporter and now in his role as a TOI person he has gone soft overtly. Independent?

Sanjaya Baru of Business Standard tried to discuss the Radia tapes but insisted that ethics was a different issue. Huh?

This brings us to Manu Joseph of Open Magazine that was the first to carry the transcripts of the tapes. His insistence that Barkha should answer the question about why she did not do a story based on the conversations began to sound extremely churlish. It is a valid poser that has been raised by quite a few people, so there was nothing new. She responded that no one can decide about what story should be covered by whom. This is her opinion and there were several other subsidiaries that could have been asked to pin down this same point.

3. Barkha Dutt said that all she can be accused of is ‘an error of judgment’ and ‘naivete’. Yet, she told Manu Joseph that he did not know about political journalism! If we take her word for it, then why did she trust Nira Radia again and again? Politicians are mentioned. The possibility of talking to them is clearly stated. If she was just listening to Radia’s appeals and playing along, then she is not naïve at all. The error of judgment is not realising that these things would backfire.

4. This brings us to Open Magazine. It has brought out some dirt. What does it plan to do next? Does anyone know? When there is a lot of noise about the mainstream media, on what grounds is Open considered non-mainstream? Here is what the magazine’s site says about itself:

The clean, vibrant packaging and uncluttered presentation adds to the international look. And it comes in a new size—more than an inch wider than the standard A4 size of most magazines—giving the reader more content and the advertiser more ad space.

It is also “boredom-proof”.

All this make it essential to have content that sells. There is no need to be apologetic about that, but Open is owned by RPG Enterprises. Here are some details:

The RPG group is one of India’s fastest growing-conglomerates, owning premium brands like Ceat Tyres, SareGaMa and Spencer’s, with a turnover touching Rs 14,000 crore. The group has diverse business interests, owning more than twenty companies in areas like tyre manufacture, power transmission, IT, retail, entertainment, carbon black and life sciences.

No mobile phones and 2G dreams? What if…?

Is that the reason why the editor insisted that he has not accused Barkha Dutt of corruption? Then what is the tamasha about? Lobbying? Media ethics? He did not accuse her of these. He just wanted to know why it was not covered on NDTV when Barkha Dutt was privy to so much information.

Did any of the panelists believe that they would get an answer? By becoming a part of the show they have in fact lost at least partially any independent thinking. Vinod Mehta declined to be on the show. Manu Joseph should have done the same. If you believe in the material you have, then use your own forum and the processes that civil society grants you. If need be, file a suit in the courts.

Nira Radia is being questioned by the authorities. Let us see what she will squeal. She is more likely to defend her corporate employers than the media people. The corporate guys won’t care about individuals; they can start a media company anytime. The politicians are used to horse-trading.

And the media? How many media-propped celebrities who fight against the corporate lobbies have come forward and spoken about this particular issue? What about their silence – those who know they need the media for their ‘war against big guns’? The same coteries will be back on the panels discussing other people’s ethics. Everyone has a story to sell.

- - -

Also published in Countercurrents. They have uploaded the video.

Play it again, scam

Play It Again, Scam
by Farzana Versey
Countercurrents, August 8

Our favourite sport – corruption – has once again taken centre-stage. Instead of kicking ball, there is talk of kickbacks. Had there been no whistle-blower, no one would know about the expensive pots and pans. We are still giving those embroiled in the Commonwealth Games controversies airtime to clear the air.

Is there a reason for it? Is it about national pride? Or is it one more smart strategy where the media that exposes the scandal cannot afford to miss out on the goodies of advertisements as well as telecast rights and sound bytes?

A couple of days ago there were huge advertisements in the newspapers titled ‘Commonwealth Games Emotional Appeal’. It was signed by ‘A Humble Citizen’, the head of the Sahara Group, Subrata Roy. I could well imagine how many Indians reading it must have had tears brimming over.

India has hosted several events in the past, sporting or otherwise. Not all have gone off without glitches. Even without the controversy over underhand deals, we are not quite prepared. Therefore, the manner in which the issue is being raised by a group of elite citizens has little to do with ‘pride’. What is there to be proud about hosting the games? It is done by rotation and whoever bids, gets to do so. It isn’t that the whole world is looking at us with sudden “respect and hope” and it most certainly has nothing to do with “our recent economic growth”.

This is the fantasy of the millionaires. The economic growth has not reached most citizens. In fact, humble sportspersons have to make do with filthy hostel rooms, inadequate practice, slimy food and sexual harassment. Is this our “rich heritage”?

The media has indeed given a great deal of time and space to the scams but that too is to grab eyeballs. Mr. Roy writes, “Due to this continuous and extensively negative coverage, we are creating a withdrawal feeling in thousands of organizers, 23000 volunteers, who are feeling totally demoralized and dejected. This would totally mar the successful conduct of the Commonwealth Games and give a bad image to our beloved country for all times to come.”

While sports are an important part of building the morale of teams and individual players, we have the hierarchy of different games and different sportspersons in place. It is this class system that gives us a bad name for we may flaunt the heroes in our endorsements, but the world is interested in what it will get out of it.

Why the world, is it not true that certain individuals, including Mr. Roy, are directly involved in sports franchises and bidding for foreign ones and could therefore be more concerned about their own image and well-being? Does Mr. Roy not have a stake in IPL and is he not eyeing Liverpool?

Unfortunately, the emotional appeal can have a counter-negative rather than a positive effect on the gullible middle-class that is made to believe that their nationalism rides on hosting a sporting event. It is grandiose efforts that make us believe we are global citizens. Indians are supposed to wake up to their Indianness when foreign dignitaries visit and miraculously roads are cleaned, plants dot the cavalcade location, buildings get a fresh coat of paint, linen is laundered and even the poor are dressed in colourful gear to give them a taste of our heritage.

China put out all stops for the Olympics not because it wanted to impress the world, but because it wanted to assert its power. We still suffer from a slave mentality. What will they think of us, is always a bother. There is never any consideration as to what we think of ourselves and how we treat those with less than what we have.

There have been several scandals before too, including match-fixing deals and doping. No emotional appeal was made then.

It is rather shocking that Mr. Roy feels “the culprits most definitely need to be punished with all their misdeeds thoroughly investigated and all sorts of checks and audits duly conducted by going deep into the matters related to purchase, negotiations & payments etc. But if should all be done after our country's greatest ever sporting event is over. Of course, all the culprits should be severely punished, thereafter”.

This is a classic way of pushing the dirt under the carpet. These culprits will be officially in charge of welcoming visitors, especially dignitaries. They will be the visible face of India, all over the international media. If we know from experience, they will be in the front rows, their relatives, friends and business interest groups will get VIP passes and sit in VIP enclaves.

If, as is suggested, we can still manage to make a success of the games, then there will not be many people to question them. For, it is these mavens who will flash it as a badge of their achievement. It is interesting that in this whole advertised public letter there is just one reference to the players who will be on the field. Clearly, they matter little.

Emotions ride high on the hot air of national pride and these days such pride is inexorably linked with those who can afford cheer-leaders. Humble citizens don’t come cheap.

- - -

This is the image of the ad:

Playing both sides of the religious coin

Playing Both Sides of the Religious Coin
by Farzana Versey
Countercurrents, May 15

“You cannot represent Islam,” I was told by a Muslim friend. It isn’t the first time and it pushes me into an uncomfortable position.

I am also not a ‘communist’ who appears regularly on TV to call the ulema “mad and insane”, for which Javed Akhtar gets into trouble, though the nature of the trouble is not known. So, I don’t get brownie points from non-Muslims.

I have not done research into madrassas to understand the working of the minds of mullahs nor am I a convert to Islam that I can pretend to give a ‘balanced’ picture. No espionage here. So, I am not terribly smart.

I am not a trained religious acrobat who has done time with the faith.

Then why am I a Muslim and why do I now state that I can speak for some of us? Because I was born one; I am secure in my ability to not follow any rules unthinkingly. And I can speak on behalf of my kind of Muslims because I do not feel the need to appease any group.

Hence, I feel quite disappointed to read letters to the mullahs that are an apology for the faith as well as a desperate attempt to sound like the ‘nice Muslims’ that non-Muslims wish to see us as. It is offensive to women who have had to fight several odds to read the “sister-in-Islam”, Nigar Ataulla, write an open letter to the fatwa-makers wherein she states that besides giving a large part of her zakat to the madrassas she is not a “a radical feminist out to attack you out of blind prejudice”. Is one to suppose that radical feminism is about blind prejudice? When any person who believes in an ideology takes a position there is embedded in it a prejudice against the contrarian position. It is done with open eyes and a questioning mind.

While there is some attempt at sarcasm, it does not flip the coin but furthers the stereotype:

“While some of you have issued fatwas declaring watching television (including even Islamic programmes) as wholly haram, I do turn on the TV once in a while, but only to watch my favourite cartoon show ‘Tom and Jerry’ (It’s about a cat and a mouse chasing each other and having loads of fun. You can also watch it, its clean stuff!). For my job as a writer, I have to interact and interview people, and not just women. Given all this, perhaps I do not fit your description of what the ideal Muslimah is.”

Perhaps the writer might have added Discovery Channel where animals mate. Islam has never said anything against cohabitation. The problem with the cat and mouse game is that the positions can get changed. Even in Islamic countries that have a strict code there are programmes that show women in strong positions.

I take exception to a comment like:

“What I wish to convey to you as a Muslim working woman is that your fatwa sends out wrong signals to not just us Muslims but to non-Muslims as well.”

I had already stated in my piece Subjugating the Muslim woman (that led to an interesting discussion on this blog here) that women do earn and contribute. However, it does not mean a non-working woman does not have access to similar rights in other spheres of life. A letter such as this sends out even worse signals. It strives too hard to please. Take this example:

“I sometimes wonder how religious scholars from other communities, such as Hindus Christians, Buddhists, and Sikhs, interact with the common folk among their co-religionists. Frankly, sometimes I really envy them. Non-Muslim women can freely ask questions to their priests, gurus and so on and discuss religious matters with them. I simply cannot, for the life of me, fathom why Muslim women cannot have a healthy and positive dialogue with the ulema. Is it because of some deep-rooted fear on both sides? Is it because of a totally unwarranted hierarchy that seems to prevail between the ulema and the common folk, paralleling that between medieval kings and their subjects? I don’t need to explain who the ‘kings’ and the ‘subjects’ here are, for surely you will understand.”

This is a most ridiculous argument. This fatwa was issued because there was a specific question asked. Therefore, some woman felt the need to discuss it with a maulvi. How many women from the other communities mentioned consult their religious heads? The Confession in churches is not about a religious discourse. Ashrams do not encourage inconvenient queries and are essentially a spiritual salve.

Which woman will have the courage to question any of these holy men about the patriarchal nature of all religions? There is also the aspect about who truly represents the priesthood. There are several sects in all faiths and they have their own cushy set-up. Women as well as men, when they do become a part of the active believer fraternity, end up as slaves to religion and therefore the priests running the establishment. Such slavery can be emotional or physical, as we have seen from some recent reports.

If fatwas have to be opposed, as some of us have done, then it must not become a mandate for everyone else to jump on one community. There is no need to show Muslim women wearing slit-eye veils in the media, when there are very few such women in this country. If we oppose the fatwa, we must be actively involved in opposing the state machinery too that uses these same organisations when it comes to garnering votes or to appease the community. Why is there no anger when the liberals go out to claim that we are not terrorists and use the mullahs for their rallies? Why are the voices silent then?

When there is anger against the Deoband, which the writer has not mentioned by name, then there must be no need for a dialogue. I am not interested in having a chat with the mullahs just as I am not interested in a chat with any establishment figure.

They can refuse to accept me as a Muslim. My friends can say that I do not represent the community. It does not bother me. I work, I wear what I want, and I do represent myself and those who identity with me. I won’t play into the hands of the mullahs or those who watch from the sidelines tittering, “Look, Islam is such a problem”. It is. And so is every religion that seeks to interfere in the public domain that is outside its periphery.

Subjugating the Muslim Woman

Subjugating the Muslim Woman
by Farzana Versey
Countercurrents, May 12

What is worse – the Dar-ul Uloom Deoband’s decree that a woman’s earnings are illegal because according to the Sharia her working among males is wrong or the Allahabad high court ruling that a non-Muslim bride must convert to Islam to marry a Muslim?

In both instances Islam is used to denigrate the position of women.

In the case of the edict, I fail to understand how it is being referred to as a fatwa by the media. This word is being abused in the most blatant manner. What the clerics of the Deoband seminary say is their point of view and they are often responding to specific queries by individuals. Their pronouncements and the questions asked are not universal statements or a general matter of concern or confusion among the Muslim populace.

Here is the Deoband version:

“It is unlawful (under the Sharia law) for Muslim women to work in government/private sectors where men and women work together and women have to talk with men frankly and without a veil.”

As happens often, newspapers have collected stray comments, and all from the religious perspective. Historical examples are a good foundation and place to start an argument, but they need not be used to deal with contemporary lifestyles and attitudes.

Why have the clerics woken up now? If they are supposed to be of any consequence and wish to be taken seriously, then must they wait for someone to raise a point? Don’t they see that thousands of women work and earn and help their families?

Have they not seen women beggars at traffic signals asking for money, displaying maimed children? There are Muslim women among them, too. If groups of Muslims keep talking about the real issue of economic backwardness, it is related to social backwardness that is forced upon them by these mullahs.

It is a tragedy that even where political issues are concerned women have to bear the brunt. Do the mullahs recall how they brought their women out with the same frankness they are against to reiterate their anti-terror position? Do the mullahs realise that everytime there is some backlash and they feel their religion is threatened it is the women who have to start observing the dress code, whether or not they themselves do as a mark of respect to their identity?

While there is no doubt some merit in making references to the Prophet’s liberalism and his wife Ayesha’s participation in the war, these are seen as special cases. For, in a monotheistic faith where the Prophet is held in complete reverence no one wants to emulate him or anyone from that period. They only wish to use their limited understanding of certain sayings in the Quran and either twist them or use them without any concern for the changing mores and requirements.

How many such edicts have been passed against men?

To be fair, there have been voices within the religious fraternity that have objected to this edict. These voices will be very few and not really stand out. It is the women who need to make themselves heard, both with their actions and their words.

The Dar-ul-Uloom is based in India and while the country does have provisions for personal laws, there is the Indian Constitution. If this gives us freedom to practise religion, then it will also intervene in criminal cases and any form of cruelty.

It is for this reason that the Allahabad court judgement goes against the principles of choice provided in the Constitution. The ruling states that matrimony between a non-Muslim woman and a Muslim man will be considered void as it goes against the tenets of the Quran.

This sort of blanket judgement bringing in religion can have disastrous consequences later. Sunita Jaiswal had filed a FIR against Dilbar Habib Siddiqui alleging that he had abducted her daughter Khushboo; she contended that she did not convert to Islam to buffer her case.

The court verdicts states:

“In our above conclusion we are fortified by the fact that in the affidavit and application filed by Khusboo herself subsequent to her alleged contract marriage, she has described herself as Khushboo and not by any Islamic name. As Khushboo, she could not have contracted marriage according to Muslim customs. In those referred documents she has addressed herself as Khushboo Jaiswal daughter of Rajesh Jaiswal.”

Therefore, her marriage is void, says the judgement.

One assumes that she was not abducted because she made the subsequent application. Therefore, unless she was forced, one cannot use that against Dilbar. While many people choose to use religion-specific names, some don’t. Khushboo is an Urdu word and could be a Muslim name. There have been several cases of celebrity nikaahs performed where the couples belong to different religions and opt to retain the cultural rituals of both sides of the family. It may not have religious sanction, but some qazis do conduct such nikaahs.

What if the couple got married under the Special Marriages Act and had it registered? No conversion or name change is required. I should hope the girl is not pressurised as this could well be a ruse to prevent a cross-religious alliance.

If the judge believes she is abducted, he should handle the case at that level as a criminal offence. There is no need to bring in religion and humiliate the young woman. This is just an invitation to divide people and bring in the religious heads to intervene in a personal matter. Incidentally, there was no reference to a non-Muslim male marrying a Muslim woman. The patriarchal mindset even of a secular judiciary believes that only the woman has to convert.

At this rate, the Deoband edict could well reach some high court in the country and we might have an Indian judge pronouncing that Muslim women in the work-place goes against the Sharia and therefore will be kept out of any professional role.

The state and religion are two entities and it is the business of both to protect all its citizens and members. Women are not lesser human beings and if we are expected to perform our duties, we are also in a position to demand our rights. And our rights include non-interference of the state and religion in matters of our well-being.

* * * End of article * * *

Updated on May 13 around 6.30 PM IST:

The role of the state and religion had come to the fore with regard to such religious edicts when P.Chidambaram applauded some maulvis on their stand against terrorism.

Here is an extract from my earlier piece The Farce of Fatwas:

Have the Jamiat or the Darul-uloom ever come to the forefront and fought for the dispossessed within the community? What has been the role of religious organisations during times of riots and such crises? Do they work with traumatised victims as human beings and not merely god’s soldiers? Give us the instance of a single head of such an organisation who is leading such proactive movements. They merely pontificate and pronounce edicts. The opinion of a handful of maulvis cannot be elevated to a diktat.

- - -

Updated on May 14, 5.25 PM IST:

Why does the TOI insist on using pictures such as these when talking about Muslim women in Mumbai? How many women dressed in this manner do you see even in the mohallas? They did it in the initial report and this one is in today's paper where the topic of discussion is the Urdu press opposing the fatwa. So, in effect, TOI is following in the footsteps of the Deoband. Why am I not surprised?

The Curious Case of Dr Afia Siddiqui

The demonisation of violence
The Curious Case of Dr Afia Siddiqui
by Farzana Versey
Countercurrents, February 6, 2010

The mosquito hovered over skin and with one little prick it had sucked out blood, infected an innocent person who might suffer from malaria. If the person is poor and lives in inhabitable surroundings, it could prove to be fatal. The insect is not accused of violence.

Had it been ‘Lady Al Qaeda’, she might have raised her hand and screamed, “Out, damned spot!”

Is Afia Siddiqui a Lady Macbeth metaphorical clone, a “psycho”, anti-Semitic as she is being accused of and which reveals the febrile mindset of those indicting her? Did she carry chemicals that would make bombs? Why did the judge often throw her out of the court accusing her of outbursts, which is a strange reason indeed?

She had fought back by saying, “Since I’ll never get a chance to speak…If you were in a secret prison, or your children were tortured…Give me a little credit, this is not a list of targets of New York. I was never planning to bomb it. You’re lying.”

There are clear divisions in this case and part of the reason is that she was an educated, articulate woman, a neuroscientist. The world cannot yet deal with this ‘type’. Incidentally, Dr Siddiqui has not been convicted for an act of terror but in the popular imagination even felony, if the victim is the lordly West, can pass muster as militancy. It is another matter that no tangible evidence has been provided for this too.

After the judgement she reportedly told her attorney, Elaine Sharp, to inform her supporters abroad of her fate and that she did not want any violence to ensue. What is violence? Support groups? Those who retaliate? The Establishment?

The malaria example might appear a facile metaphor for something that wreaks havoc and creates fissures in society. Truth is that violence is seen through a microscope instead of a telescope. In the laboratory the specimen sample is militancy and not martini. Martini by itself may remain shaken within the confines of a glass, but it stirs the sort of sophisticated idea of good versus evil where good is a given. There are no nuances, no dimensions. You meet the hero and just accept him. To enter into a debate would be travesty. He belongs to Her Majesty’s Secret Service and not the Hizbul Mujahideen or the Ku Klux Klan.

By pinning down one particular stream of fiendishness we completely ignore the more rampant issue of social violence – at the workplace, at home, as petty crime, as psychological aggression.

Religion and nationalism are the two most brutal forces. They do not give you a choice to understand the greys. They are intangible and, as in Sartre’s world, the incommunicable is the source of violence.

Every belief system has arisen due to some skirmishes. Amazingly, we use tribal warfare and mythology as benchmarks in a world that aims for détente. The penury of organised faith to sustain human civility is manifest when temples, mosques, churches are regularly desecrated – a term that takes the shine off violence and transforms it into something akin to a satanic act of sin. Stampedes at pilgrimage sites are further evidence of just this sort of pugnacity.

Using hostile opposites as an example, Leo Tolstoy said, “The churches are arrogance, violence, usurpation, rigidity, death; Christianity is humility, penitence, submissiveness, progress, life.”

The problem is arrogant display often gets wiped out by penitence. Cries of “Allah-u-Akbar” and “Jai Siya Ram” are the precursors of contemporary violence. Thieves and rapists do not shout out slogans.
A headcount of dead patriots glorifies the sense of nationhood that the wrapped-in-flag corpses had no premonition of. In their trail are thousands of cadavers that worked in those conquered countries, had names stamped on identity cards. That did them in. Their being certain people.

Certain people are not important. Their lives standing on footholds of local trains, losing limbs in factories, fighting for basic wages, fighting to enter places of worship, to marry someone from another caste, class, race, religion do not constitute brutality, even if they lose their lives in these battles. They are not burnished with the gold of nationalistic gunfire.

The American people are brainwashed into believing in a just fight. No explanation is given because it is about Being American, an America that can now show off god’s creation and liberty at the White House by installing a totem Harlem. It won’t pay heed to Malcolm X’s words: “If it is wrong to be violent defending black women and black children and black babies and black men, then it is wrong for America to draft us, and make us violent abroad in defense of her.”

Defence is rarely the goal of violence. It is an advertisement for oneself. What tells a militant apart from a James Bond? If we take away the so-called ideology of the former and the willingness to die for it, then both are comic-strip like characters that transmogrify into soap-opera heroes whose travails are ongoing as is their invincibility.

There is one crucial difference in the machismo: a lack of brotherhood. As a loner, Bond tempts the enemies instead of vanquishing them. It is a violence that seeks male bonding. He kills violence using violence.

The fanatically-driven sadist dies killing a lot of others with him. Both use ‘goodness’ as their calling card and although representative of specific places are rootless. Such emotional diaspora makes their aggression almost democratic and global in its sweep. Nothing is above them and everyone is below them.

The targets don’t get brownie points for making them happen. It’s a win-win situation. Therefore, by demonising violence we sanctify it. Why stone a devil that is within?

Survival, Sacrament and the Marketplace

Making Haiti
Survival, Sacrament and the Marketplace
by Farzana Versey
Countercurrents, January 25, 2010

“I survived by drinking Coca-Cola. I drank Coca-Cola every day, and I ate some little tiny things,” he said. Wismond Exantus’s tale of survival conveys a larger lesson about charity franchising. As someone who worked in the grocery store in Port-au-Prince, where he was found after 11 days, his recollection of Coca Cola as opposed to “little tiny things” indicates that the miracle his brother spoke about could have something to do partly with this beverage and the conglomerate idea it stands for.

There are other ideas. His rescue took place as mourners wept outside the shattered cathedral for the funeral of the bishop; his family could not go to the place to save him because of looters, so they approached the rescue team. The looters are home-grown vultures; the saviours are outsiders.

We’ve been through the Pat Robertson viewpoint. Unfortunately, outside of his limited evangelism exists a larger one that sponges on similar thoughts. It is a ready market for do-gooders who may not express their religious fervour in such black and white terms, but the glorification of being blessed works just as well.

“I am a person who has been blessed,” said Jeremy Johnson, a Utah-based millionaire. “To sit back and relax and send a little money or whatever, it just made me feel ungrateful.”

Ungrateful about what? He was not responsible for the earthquake or for the delay in supplies reaching. He bought helicopters to fly essentials. In Jimani, which he has made his headquarter just across the Haiti border, he has set up a tent. Reports describe him with reverence for managing a “bare-bones operation”, dressed in frayed jeans (is this mandatory uniform or designer empathy?) where he sweats it out with only a small refrigerator providing energy drinks.

Strangely enough, his how to be a millionaire story is rife with fraudulent practices, but this, we are told, has not interfered with his altruistic work. He had earlier “provided a home for boys pushed out of a Utah polygamist sect”. And now he is in Haiti where, according to the Utah governor, people rushed to the helicopters for food and it became “really dangerous”. Therefore, Jeremy is a hero because he not only saves people, but saves dangerous people and those who belong to sects that are not morally up to much.

It is not surprising that he is working with Maison des Enfants de Dieu — Children of the House of God — orphanage to send these children to adoptive families. He has already managed 21 visas and transported them to the United States.

Apparently, bureaucracy was not an issue, although it is for his aid effort where he sees boxes of food on the tarmac. “As a result I even stole. There is a lot left to be done,” he said. This is precious, considering that the local looters were considered selfish and almost vicious.

Johnson is not a celebrity, so his compassion is not entirely driven by charity tourism. It is more about personal gratification: “My life is going to change from this, there is no doubt.” He is already planning the next move and has his shopping list of people who need to be set right.

Haiti, having overthrown the imperial yoke, has to allow itself into a numbing social colonialism and aid slavery. Seen as a tribal society it will now be refereed and guided by the superior Red Crosses. A while ago, I read this delicious comment by model Naomi Campbell when she was asked why she chose to raise funds for the UK flood and not for Africa: “I do Third World. I have been doing Third World since 1994.” One wonders about the expiry date of such vanity of the conscience.

Thirty-seven per cent of Europe’s population was destroyed by the bubonic plaque; ancient cities have been buried by volcanic eruptions. We have had El Salvador, Mexico, Burma, Bangladesh, Pakistan, India, Indonesia — all victims of natural disasters, not to forget Hurricane Katrina and the fires in California.

These calamities have scientific reasons and imbuing them with fatalism makes a mockery of the spirit of enquiry that ought to look into the dangers manifest in our abuse of the environment. Such wimpy sentiments are merely geared to sneak out of political responsibility. Or sneak in political power through the backdoor.

The Bangladesh India Forgot

Of Nations and Notions
The Bangladesh India Forgot
by Farzana Versey
Countercurrents, December 16, 2009



On December 16, a nation was cut off from a nation which was formed out of a larger nation. The second, Pakistan, was essentially a notion that took off from the larger idea that was India.

Today, as Indian states decide to lead microcosmic lives and even the chief minister of Uttar Pradesh, Mayawati, believes it will make things more manageable if her state is divided, the need for Bangladesh stands nullified as an ideology. It was protesting the language issue, the cultural dissonance with an Islamic Republic. Neither of these aspects has given it a distinct identity other than a name. In fact, Bangladesh has its own terror networks and the Jama’at-ul-Mujahideen is being examined by the Intelligence Agencies for its role in bomb blasts and its ties with local groups in India. There is a suspicion that it may also have been involved in the Mumbai attacks in November, 2008. Its avowed aim is to replace the current state of Bangladesh with an Islamic state based on Shariah. Things do come full circle.

Those who rue the partition of India do not appear to have the same reservations about the splitting up of Pakistan. It is no secret that India was an active participant in the civil war between East and West Pakistan. It took almost two good decades after the creation of Pakistan for its Bengali population to realise that they were indeed different. Interestingly, those on the Indian side of what is still West Bengal looked down upon their Eastern connections, quite unlike the memories people in Punjab and the northern states of India have for Lahore or other parts of the Punjab belt of Pakistan.

On the face of it, it did appear to be a people’s movement. As writer-activist-politician, Dr. Enver Sajjad, told me, “If I were Mujibur Rehman, I would have said that the country was created with 51 % of our votes, so we have the legitimate right to call ourselves Pakistan.”

Mujibur Rehman, leader of the Awami League, had a different subtext in his mind and went through the Jinnah-Nehru sort of parallel ego trip with Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto. He wanted to be Prime Minister. Bhutto, who was the democrat with ostensibly no interest in parochial politics, was the architect of the Language Bill and the confirmation of the nation as an Islamic Republic. While he managed to sneak in Sindh into the national Pathan-Punjabi psyche and made use of the Mohajirs from the Urdu belt of India, the Bengalis did not fit into any scheme.

The simmering discontent got shape and form when a quasi government was formed with a war force of freedom fighters – Mukti Bahini. The Bangladesh Liberation War was an Indian war. Indira Gandhi was moving out of her father’s shadow. There was the background of the 1965 war with Pakistan. This time it had an added halo of concern for the underdog. In a battle that lasted a fortnight, 93,000 Pakistani troops surrendered. Indian prisoners of war were forgotten by their own prime minister. Indira was hailed as Goddess Durga.

K.F.Rustamji who founded the Border security Force has been quoted as saying, “The BSF boys started assisting the Mukti Fauj (later Bahini) in causing subversion and sabotage deep inside East Pakistan and even in district headquarter towns, where cash and weapons were looted and made over to the government of Bangladesh.”

The only instructions Indira Gandhi gave was: “Do what you like, but don’t get caught.”

The espionage had begun much before the actual skirmish on the ground. Could a war have been averted? The American and Russians entered the fray as more than observers. It became a big event primarily because India came into the picture. The call for war was given by Indira Gandhi. In 'The British, The Bandits and The Bordermen' there are detailed references to how the BSF played a role in not only the formation of the Bangladesh provisional government, but also in framing its constitution and selecting its national flag and national anthem.

What happened to the Bangladesh dream of language, region, democracy and, most important of all, independence? Was freedom merely a territorial dream?

What did Bangladesh get out of this? Thousands dead. Hundreds raped. An exodus of ten million people who sought refuge in the North Eastern Indian states and West Bengal.

Over three decades later, they are still seen as refugees. Many moved out from these border areas. You will find quite a few in Delhi.

Zuleikhabi works as a domestic help in four houses at Chittranjan Park. She does not dwell on home and sees no difference. She has not heard about Taslima Nasreen, although she does remember Tagore.

The Bard of Bengal brooks no territorial boundaries, his golden boat is laden for all who clutch at the stray straws of a life untrammelled, yet pregnant with possibility.

Zuleikha knows she is not wanted by the political parties, she hears about it at street corners where the menfolk congregate in groups, their common destinies binding them together for a few minutes of respite. She displays a rare pragmatism when she says, “Political parties everywhere do not want the poor. We were not wanted back home, too. But the people here do not seem to mind our presence. My memsaabs like my work and since they are Bengalis there is a common culture.”

Isn’t there resentment against them in the already overpopulated slums? “Here also people understand. We share our poverty. And many of them are refugees too – they have come from Bihar, UP…everyone is seeking shelter.”

The middle-class residents of the area support them on humanitarian grounds. As one of them said, “Many of them are staying here for years, and if we start shunting people out, then there are the Tibetans too. We fought the Bangladesh War for political reasons but now these people have come to look upon us as saviours. If the government is so concerned then they must try and stop the influx instead of letting Opposition parties make political capital out of it.”

Apparently, when the BJP was campaigning against them, the local Bengalis came out to protect the outsiders. As one academician put it, “With us, secularism and parochialism are one and the same thing. We will support each other in any part the globe.”

A project called ‘Citizenship, Identity and Residence of Immigrants in Delhi Slums’ by the People’s Union for Civil Liberties had revealed that workers of the BJP and Shiv Sena had been active in identifying Bangladeshi Muslim immigrants in selected slums. “The police conducted frequent late night raids in some bastis (slum localities) where many people suspected of being Bangladeshi nationals were taken to the police station…The active role of selected political parties in the identification and deportation of Bangladeshi immigrants, recognised for their bias against religious minorities, is very disturbing.”

Jaffer is oblivious to these wheels within wheels. He only knows that occasionally an inexplicable fear overtakes him. “Though there is nothing to be afraid of. What do we have that we must fear losing? Clothes? Vessels? Belongings? Nothing. But there is something...that feeling of not having anything to call our own. I came here in 1975 as a child and even today after 30 years I know that we can be thrown out.”

According to Reena Bhadhuri, an expert on Islam, “These are starving people trying to make a meagre living. How can they be connected to Al Qaeda and the Pakistani intelligence agencies?” On the other hand, there is acceptance of Hindu infiltrators in the North East. The deputy minister for national security during the BJP regime had agreed to give them special treatment. “If they have come here illegally, it may be justified because of the hostility they face in Bangladesh. Some distinction will have to be kept in mind.”

It is such doublespeak and double standards on the part of both India and Pakistan that have left Bangladesh as a fractured nation. It has no identity. Societies that are left with too many histories don’t think about the future. The future subjugates them before they can get there.

The Malik-Chidambaram Face-off

The Malik-Chidambaram Face-off - A Satire
by Farzana Versey
Countercurrents, September 12, 2009

This is an exclusive peek into the private debate that took place between Pakistan Interior Minister Rehman Malik and India’s Home Minister P Chidambaram regarding the 26/11 attacks. Mr. Malik had suggested they meet at any place – India, Pakistan or elsewhere. After much deliberation, Nepal was chosen. They had seen former Spice Girl Geri Halliwell plant a peck on the Nepal king’s cheek. Détente was all about gaal se gaal mila…

P Chidambaram: Just wondering.

Rehman Malik: Now what? You think too much. You remind me of Dalip Kumar, you know he also has this pose of hand under chin. Big tragedy king. India’s gain, Pakistan’s loss.

PC: What happened? He has nukes?

RM: Nahin yaar. He is original Peshawar banda, and you got him. He became so famous doing all those rona roles. Sometimes, I think he misses being with us.

PC: You gave him Nisha award, right?

RM: Nishan-e-Pakistan…

PC: Oh, whatever.

RM: Not vatever. We have enough on plate…

PC: Plate? Are we starting with lunch?

RM: Nahin, I mean we have enough problem; you want us to probe what happens in your country, then you send formal request in Marathi. How can we understand?

PC: It is not for you to understand. This is bureaucracy. Did you understand anything that Baitullah Mehsud used to say? You think only you need time? We also need time.

RM: How much? I told reporters that day that we filed the chargesheet in court within 76 days whereas Indians took more than 90 days to prepare it.

PC: Have you seen our population? Our courts have too much work. And all because of you guys. If you want to infiltrate why did you guys leave during partition at all?

RM: Tohada dimaag toh theek-thaak hain? I was only in kindergarten that time.

PC: You went to kindergarten?

RM: Haan toh…Jack and Jill saath saath vich hill climb and then Humpty Dumpy came tumbling after…

PC: You are mixing up your nursery rhymes.

RM: So vaat? How is Arun Shourie saab? He is ekdum intel gents, full of fatafat rhyming.

PC: Can we get down to business?

RM: Down ya up, business is business. Bolo, kithe shuroo kainda?

PC: So what are you doing with the dossier?

RM: Which one – Baluchistan or Mumbai?

PC: Excuse me, but your own PM made it clear there was nothing given.

RM: We don’t have to give everything we make. Waise, your Man saab is changa aadmi…ekdum jo moonh mein aaya bol diya…

PC: Er…

RM: Err…ghalat honda?

PC: Ok, we both know English.

RM: We both studied statistics also.

PC: Oh, well, I am a lawyer, too.

RM: I got doctorate in criminology.

PC: So find the criminals for us.

RM: Lau ji, if you are saying we send criminals then how we can have them also…this is like eating cake and having it…Mary Queen of Scots said.

PC: No, she did not.

RM: How you know what she said and what she didn’t? The problem with you Indians is jumping the gun and not pumping the gun.

PC: We are the land of Mahatma Gandhi…we believe in non-violence.

RM: Chhad yaar. But I am not minding. You took effort to come over here to debate, I am grateful to Allah.

PC: Hmm…I took the flight you know.

RM: Oh yes, that also in conmy class. That Parnab is on new trip.

PC: We understand that we need to pull up our socks.

RM: Loose hain kya? Please tell me why all Indian finance ministers carry that funny briefcase like someone carrying black money?

PC: The budget report is there.

RM: Ok, so budget has to have small buxa, not big. Nice symball.

PC: “Gham ka heera
dil mein rakho
kis ko dikhaate phirte ho
ye choron ki duniya hai…”

RM: Wah-wah, you know Urdu so well.

PC: All finance ministers must know. In India it is tradition to quote Urdu poetry.

RM: But you did not.

PC: I know. Big mistake. We need to appease people.

RM: But Muslims are poor.

PC: Who is talking about Muslims, we have to show Pakistanis that we are Jack of all trade.

RM: Jack in the box…

PC: Please, can we start the debate?

RM: Ho gaya ji. Baat cheet. Hor ki? Kuchch spice gal ho jaaye.

PC: It does not become us.

RM: Who is wanting anyone to become. I only asked for spice gal…gal meaning talk. You Indians are so big country but you only have one railway track line mind. I don’t want any trouble. Zardari saab said one nice thing to Sarah sahiba and whole of Pakistan was called Republican.

PC: You are anyway half American.

RM: Haan, sahi hain. But you are full Italian.

PC: I take your leave sir.

RM: Allah hafiz…

PC: Thank you for reminding me…where is Hafiz Saeed?

RM: And who is Zaki-ur-Rehman Lakhvi? Make up your mind who did what. Next time we will have more material and debate on border. Then we will see doodh ka doodh, paani ka paani.

PC: We have a shortage of ghee and butter in India, you are rubbing it…

RM: Correct. Rab sab jaanda, I tell you.

Both depart. Rehman Malik takes PIA fusst class and asks for razai. P Chidambaram gets into economy and the seats next to him are vacated.

Ajmal Kasab continues to grin in court.

Before the Taliban: Memories of Peshawar

Before the Taliban: Memories of Peshawar
by Farzana Versey
Countercurrents, May 12, 2009

As the city is on edge, and friends are being seen as enemies, I want to share recollections of the times I spent in the capital of the frontier province on the trips I made to Pakistan between the years 2000 and 2007.

* * *

We were hungry. I told Salim, my guide, I wanted to eat at an authentic Kabuli restaurant. Breads were being baked on upturned woks. The place was packed. I was the only woman in there. A scraggly-looking man came up to us and parted a curtain; the few men having their meal immediately got up and moved out without a word. Chivalry was unspoken and not brandished with a flourish.

The sofa felt wonderfully comfortable after the long drive. The moment I raised my eyes I found (Indian film star) Ajay Devgan staring at me. Stuck on the wall, his photograph typified the Afghan obsession with Hindi films.

We had a hearty meal. There was a stew, some barbequed meats and sautéed vegetables. The food did not leave you feeling full, cooked as it was with a touch so light that even flesh had a feathery texture. Bowls of yoghurt served as dessert.

Driving back to the city, we passed another route. This was Hayatabad; it was called the mini Islamabad due to its well-structured houses, trees peeping out of high walls, bursts of floral colour in the balconies. The inhabitants were invisible. Who were they? Salim explained, ‘Mainly Afghans, the ones who have made it big. But they can only rent the houses, not buy them. There are two million Afghan mohajirs here, so they say Peshawar should be theirs.’ --->

(more of the extract here or on the link in the title)

Did V.P.Singh’s gambles pay off?

The Lonely Punter

by Farzana Versey

Countercurrents, 29 November 2008

He chose the wrong time to die. His timing was often bad. V.P.Singh, former Prime Minister of India, gave up the fight against several ailments that should have killed him 15 years ago on November 27. He was 77.

It was the wrong time because newspapers and the electronic media are covering the horrendous terrorist attacks in Mumbai. VP was not the kind to exit quietly; the Rajput in him cherished a bit of pomp and glory. To his credit, it constituted the superficial aspect, like a garment. It did not as much as scrape his skin, forget enter his soul.

As I scoured a couple of reports, the comments sections threw up the worst invectives. “He was a devil.” “The world will be better without him.” “Thank god he is dead.”

(The complete article has been uploaded on my other blog and is accessible at the website if you click the title link)

54 Indian POWs Versus Sarabjit Singh

Rahul Gandhi may have made a politically rash comment, but even if he had not intended to reveal the truth, it hurts. “Hum jo kaam haath mein lete hain, usey poora kartey hain...chahe woh desh ki azadi ho, Pakistan mein batwara ho ya desh ko ekkiswin sadi mein le jana ho.... (We deliver what we promise, be it the independence struggle, dismemberment of Pakistan or leading the country into the 21st century....),’’ he said. In effect accepting that India was responsible for dividing Pakistan. We are back again to 1971. Too much has happened since and Bangladesh is dealing with its own problems. But one major problem is ours. The state of our prisoners of war. 

Look at the scenario today. One more fast unto death. One more case of emotional blackmail. Dalbir Kaur has this time decided to forgo food until her brother Sarabjit Singh is released from Kot Lakhpat jail in Pakistan. Earlier, she had stated, “Both Delhi and Islamabad should know that Sarabjit will not be the only one who will be hanged. We have prepared five nooses at home, and we will commit mass suicide.”

The Indian government has time for this case. Not for those they sent to war to divide another country or fight for the rights of a regional group, whichever way we choose to see it. There is always the ‘trade is more important than Kashmir’ line being dished out during every Saarc summit. We keep count of the dead (official figures only, please) that die protecting our ‘porous’ borders. We just don’t have the time to think of those who were still living in Pakistani jails for a cause they did not even know about or perhaps identify with.

They just went there as Indian soldiers 36 years ago. At that time Indira Gandhi was hailed as Durga. The goddess was so busy playing the pugnacious deity that she apparently forgot to ask for our men to be returned, while we handed over Pakistani POWs. The irony is that Bangladeshis who we helped free are infiltrating our borders while the families of those soldiers just wait.

There are many who think it is foolish to assume they are still alive – it has been over three decades. Why do some of us who have nothing to do directly with the case continue to persist with it? Every few years I write about it because suddenly when I seem to almost give up I get a letter in the mail from some family member writing to say, “The mystery of the missing 54 POWs should not be allowed to die a natural death. The sacrifice of these warriors must never be seen as being in vain by the present and future generations. If even a single politician's or big industrialist's or media baron's immediate family member had been thus sacrificed, am certain the 'great mystery' would have been resolved long ago.”

Someone asks if I can do something. I cannot. I had sent an email to the Ansar Burney Trust that deals with such issues in Pakistan in January 2002; no reply. So, what can I do as an individual? Is it therefore possible to even imagine the extent of the helplessness the families feel?

My first involvement began in 1992. Evidence of the soldiers were alive was produced in the form of frayed postcards, clippings from old magazines. More importantly, it was in the eyes of those who related the stories. Today, they are willing to concede that their sons, husbands, brothers may not be alive. What do they want? News. As one father, who is now dead, had told me, “I want to see his army belt, his uniform and identification disc.”

They want justice. The Pakistani government insists it does not have any Indian defence personnel in its custody; this has been its stand all along, and India has not pursued to contradict it.

M.L. Bhaskar in his book, ‘I Spied For India’, mentioned the names of some of our defence officers who were in jail from the information he had got from a Pakistani official when he himself was in prison. 

The Indian government is quite certain that our army personnel are still in Pakistani prisons. 

However, every Indian government in power has only made half-hearted attempts. Morarji Desai had got his external affairs minister Atal Behari Vajpayee to talk with General Zia-ul-Haq, but Vajpayee got into technical details about international ratio.

As Indira Gandhi’s home minister, Narasimha Rao had asked families of the missing personnel to visit Pakistan. In 1983 a delegation was taken to a civilian jail in Multan. None of the prisoners recognised them; they were shown petty smugglers, trespassers and illegal entrants.

They have been collecting evidence for years. As one of them told me recently, “Through my studies on the subject, and I can only reasonably conjecture, that soon after the war there was a deliberate 'understanding' by India and Pakistan at the very highest levels, to keep all information on the missing POWs absolutely out of view till the picture clears. The embarrassing disclosures may have been 'protected' within the frame-work of larger peace initiatives redefining boundaries within the subcontinent. After the ceasefire, it’s likely that in the confusion and anger among 'uniformed' Pakistanis for losing the eastern wing, many POW undertrials were randomly scattered, without proper accounting, to remote jails.”

Zulfikar Ali Bhutto did hear the cries of some prisoners when he was awaiting his hanging. He was told they were Indian POWs. This was mentioned in Victoria Scholfied’s book ‘The Bhutto Trial and Execution’. Since it was published years after the war, we must ask why the Indian POWs were still behind bars. There could have been a political angle that one of the family members states, “Bhutto claimed to have been disturbed by the screams of demented POWs sharing his prison when he was himself awaiting execution by the military dictatorship that unseated him. That could have been a clever ploy/red herring by him to get India involved to save his neck. It’s quite another matter that we do not know what he did as PM himself after the war to resolve the POW issue.”

Another person is more cautious. He says, “The only and 'extremely remote' possibility of anyone being alive is that a few may have escaped, been caught, and then forced to convert to Islam. This may have been done out of fear and convenience, or when they turned lunatic. This category may have been spared death. Such information will also never be revealed. These living 'zombies' may then be languishing in prisons, along with thousands of other Pakistani civilian undertrials.You must know that close to 80% of all jailed inmates in India and Pakistan are in the 'under-trial' category.”

If, as Scholfied had written, “When the time came to exchange POWs, the Indian government did not accept these lunatics as they could not recount their place of origin. And thus, they were retained at Kot Lakhpat,” then I feel the onus has been on the Indian government, and it has shown complete disregard. Not one political party has included the return of our POWs in its manifesto. Why hasn’t a single government delegation gone to Pakistan? What have our various ambassadors done? What about public opinion?

Yet, when it comes to one individual the highest authorities in the country come out to support an ordinary citizen who happens to be a farmer who ambled across in drunken stupor to the other side of the border, though the Pakistani Supreme Court has sentenced him to death by hanging for detonating bombs five times, resulting in deaths and injuries. He has confessed to being a RAW agent, and yet the then External Affairs minister Natwar Singh discussed the matter with the Pakistan high commissioner in India and reiterated the fact that this was a humanitarian matter and also that there was a strong public sentiment in India for sparing the life of the individual.

Does it mean there is no public sentiment for our POWs? Indeed, except for the occasional TV panel discussion, that too in the past couple of years, and two films which flopped, absolutely nothing is done. Is it because these families are trying to reason and not getting dramatic about it? What if they started going on hunger fasts?

If Sarabjit has already spent 17 years in prison, then what about our soldiers? Were they tortured? Did they lose their sanity? Their memory? Did they die of hunger? Almost every family has been able to produce some evidence that they did not die during the course of the 13-day Bangladesh War. 

Yet no search was ever undertaken. The Indian government would have to look at all possibilities. While the popular theory is that it is merely a political issue, other reasons can also be attributed regarding the missing people. They could be under assumed names, or could have been mistakenly kept back as deranged, or could have been captured a little before the actual outbreak of war, in which case they do not qualify as POWs but as security prisoners or spies. This means that all these categories must be checked.

Can the Indian government be prosecuted and be later pursued in a court of law? A human rights activist lawyer had told me that a prima facie case could be set out if the courts feel the government has not been sincere. The case only gets strengthened if there is evidence to back it.

This is not about false hope, for hope is never false. It is about accountability.

© Farzana Versey