The Defence Minister as Local Bully

Did the Defence Minsiter of India have to sound like a gully bully to make a point about the rightwing version of patriotism?

Unfortunately, his lesser crime is being highlighted and not the one that's truly dangerous.

Let's get done with the lesser one first.

He took a potshot at actor Aamir Khan's comment sometime last year about his wife feeling insecure about living in India anymore. One may or may not agree with such sentiments or their expression, and the canny Khan almost took back all that he had said, but dragging it in reveals a gameplan. And that gameplan is to ensure that those who critique the government are boycotted. Aamir lost his endorsement deal with Snapdeal and Parrikar said, "Some of our people are very smart, I know. There was a team which was working on this."

The Defence Minister is admitting that the BJP has a team that will see to it that your work and livelihood can be snatched from you if you utter a word against the government or the country: “I am only trying to point out…if anyone speaks like this, he has to be taught a lesson of his life. That was a very arrogant statement, we have to love our nation.”

The BJP has been in power for barely two years now and the party's supporters have shown us just how much they love the nation by stilling voices — verbally or by putting an end to the owner of the voice.

Randeep S. Surjewala, spokesperson of the Congress asked, "Can this be the 'Raj Dharma?" Under no circumstances must this become common lexicon. The Indian republic does not need any such terminology. We have had enough references to epics that, in a sense, confirm the Hindutva Rashtra dream.

What is far more worrying is that Parrikar has justified the use of force and weapons by the armed forces with the taunt, "I do not want to train the Army to use the lathi." Earlier this month, following the killing of Burhan Wani in Kashmir, the police and the army used pellets that grievously injured and blinded civilians. This goes against every norm of civilised society, not to forget human rights abuses.

The army knows how to use the lathi when forcing out confessions. There is nothing innocent and tame about the lathi; the person who holds it wields control. A mob running amok pelting stones in anger is often first shown the lathi that transmogrifies into a gun. Perhaps, it is a gun already.

The minister further stated:

“Where to use the Army is a civilian decision. However, whenever the Army is used, full power has to be there, otherwise do not use the Army."

In sensitive areas, the Army is used as a political tool. That is as far as a civilian decision is concerned. But if you arm the Forces with teeth and the power to use weapons at any time, then it is about militarising a region and not for civilian support.

When called upon in civilian areas, the job of the Army cannot be to shoot at sight but to maintain the peace. It should also have mastered target training and not hit at random people, including children. One major had the audacity to ask on national television, "What was a child doing there?"

Children, women and men are free to roam the areas. Even if some militants occasionally use them as shields, the figures of killings just do not add up.

More importantly, it is time ministers stopped using organisations to promote patriotism politics. The person who is killed on the land he tilled and lived off had a very close association with and love for it. Every individual who lives in the country is a nationalist, especially the one who wants the betterment of the country and questions it.

Ghalib Guru and the Media Circus

Should the son of a man considered a terrorist be feted for scoring 95 per cent marks and topping the 10th board exams? 

Afzal Guru is now legend. He was hanged to death for his supposed role in the 2001 Parliament attack. He was an educated man. His son Ghalib, named after the poet, seems to be academically inclined too. He is now in the news. Mainstream newspapers are doing profiles on him. Are they, in the process, already profiling him as the heir? 

This is my concern. It is not in the same league as sensationalists glorifying a criminal for copy. In this case, the young man is being pinned against a wall on which they've already stuck his father's posters. It is not Ghalib the media is interested in, but the ghost of Afzal Guru.

Probably the worst line of questioning came from The Times of India. Sagarika Ghose starts with these words:

"The Pathankot attackers said they wanted revenge for the hanging of Afzal Guru; and in the Kashmir valley, Afzal Guru's "martyrdom" has becoming a rallying cry in the valley. But Afzal Guru's 17-year-old son Ghalib Abdul Guru says he has nothing to do with the azaadi (freedom) sentiment and wants to become a doctor and study at AIIMS."

This is such a cheap shot. By including the recent attacks in Pathankot, the interviewer is updating Ghalib's profile. There are many doctors, who have studied at prime institutes, who continue to believe in azaadi. The two are not at odds. 

The interrogation is sneaky with the subject being given key queries from which there is no escape. Since this is not a Q&A format, the inquisitor can get away. 

Ghalib is indirectly quoted as saying he wanted to get an MBBS "just like his dad" (interviewer's words). This is followed with:

"I used to meet dad in prison. The Crime Patrol told me he had done something bad and had hurt some people that's why he was in jail. When I met him he used to tell me to study hard all the time and do well at my studies, to look after my mother and read the Quran."

Isn't it clear what is going on here? The boy is being prodded to talk about his father. This guy is happy with his marks and a journalist goes on hammering him not about aspirations and how the young in Kashmir think, but about Afzal Guru. 

What are his memories of his father? "I don't remember him very well. All I remember is he used to always stay with his books, always reading and studying. He used to tell me to do the same. He used to say everything is in the hands of the Almighty. Whatever is written in your naseeb (fate), that's what will happen."

This gives Ms. Ghose another chance to pounce with, "So is Ghalib also religious?" Not "is Ghalib religious?" but "also religious". Like his father, like the man who he seems to be following, from medical practice to the Quran? This is what the media likes to build up. 

When he says, "I want to work in Kashmir because there is a shortage of doctors here. I wanted to also join the IAS, but my family was against that", the brave questioner has nothing to ask or say. No comment on how the youth of Kashmir wanting to contribute to it is more mainstream than some weird idea of allegiance to the nation. 

It is pertinent to note that he wanted to join the Indian Administrative Services, but his family opposed it. Many young people start out with naïve dreams, but the past returns. It is not what they inherit but that history does repeat itself in circles of deceit.

Towards the end of the interview, we get this:

What does he think about the Pathankot attack where the attackers claimed they wanted to avenge the death of his father? "I don't know much about that. People should not try to harm others. But yes if the Indian government has done something wrong then they will be punished.

And does he agree with the azaadi sentiment? "I don't think about that. I stay with my studies and my work. I work very hard as that's what my mother tells me."

I do not expect a 17-year-old not to be politicised, especially one who is surrounded by politics, and who has to bear the burden of being the son of a shaheed. But why should he be dragged into such indirect battles when the media claims it is celebrating his 94% achievement? To end the interview in this manner seems to be projecting a future martyr. 

A reader left this comment at the end of the piece:

Why are U championing the son of a terrorist as if he is some great Yuga Purusha? There are countless children of soldiers who excel in their studies and career. Why dont U feature them? For all that U know, this son of a 3rd rated terrorist and traitor would still be supporting his father and his philosophy of Jehaad and may be nursing a feeling of revenge towards the nation for the hanging of his father...

This is how deviously some liberals work. They seem to 'champion' a cause, so that it plays right into the hands of patriots frothing at the mouth. The reason they do not feature the children of soldiers or others is because the real aim is to highlight jihad, draw people out so that others perceive it the way this reader has. (Note the last sentence here and of the second last para of Ghalib's interview.)

Such binaries emanate from their own comatose perceptions to benefit only themselves. 

Kashmir Needs You

Almost a million people displaced within a week. The army is out, but it is volunteers who are doing most of the monitoring and arranging for essentials, medical services and boats too.

There is a shortage of rafts, medicines, water, disinfectants, ropes, besides food and a lot else.

Do visit HERE for more details. It is a comprehensive site and is coordinating with the forces as well.

Where is Bollywood, that has used the scenic locales for many a celluloid romantic interlude? Where are the activists who took pictures with azaadi proponents? Where is Farooq Abdullah?

We know where we are. Emotions need to be translated into concrete action. For, Agha Shahid Ali's "The country without a post office" may be submerged but it still waits for the letters, the rations so that it can see the day when it will be dry again. 

Terrorism and the Indian Muslim: 'Shahid' as Apologia

Soon after the first shot was fired in the first scene, I felt uncomfortable. Anything to do with the riots of 1993 produces a pit-of-the-stomach reaction. I have no control over it. However, barely a few minutes into the film and my discomfort was transferred to the manner in which Shahid subtly works the mainstream.

The problem with the ordinary man as hero, or someone who does extraordinary things, is that everything else begins to be seen as a prop to bolster his story.

Those who have witnessed the 1993 Bombay riots up-close might be able to comprehend the issues I have with the film, based on the real life story of slain lawyer Shahid Azmi, whose portfolio comprised mostly of cases of wrongly-convicted or imprisoned men on charges of terrorism.

Except for that one torture scene, the dilemmas are portrayed in a touch-and-go manner. Not only does the film consolidate stereotypes, it comes across as an apologist for the government. Throughout there is an assertion of how wonderful the judiciary is. As the end credits roll, it is mentioned that in his seven-year career Shahid procured 17 acquittals.

While this is factually correct, there are numerous cases that go unheard, forget about getting justice.

The details, as shown in the film: A teenager from a lower middle-class family watches the riots of 1993. He is deeply affected and leaves for Kashmir. Here he gets some sort of training in handling arms. He escapes from there after a few months. Is arrested on charges of being a terrorist. In the seven years of imprisonment, he studies. Once out, he pursues a law degree, joins a firm, quits to start his own practice, starts fighting cases of 'suspects' who are rounded up without a shred of evidence.

And then one day he is shot dead in his office. The end is the beginning.

The premise was open to raise pointed questions, even as it maintained a narrative structure. Instead, there is no sense of commitment, except for mouthing of clichés.

It pained me when I watched it, and it pains me now as I write it, because this film is being hailed for taking a risk. Some have even said how wonderful it is that such a film was made at all.

What kind of a society are we that what needs to be stated as a matter of course is considered an achievement? It is infuriating that we have to accept these crumbs. Azmi's life was in some ways remarkable, but the biopic is not.

It works on the formula of good Muslim. Had this not been a "gritty" film, one would be tempted to recall Karan Johar's celluloid families. Shahid and his brothers are shown as too perfect. They are educated, clean-shaven, and the bearded men they associate with speak gently. I know loudmouths who are not militant. And much as education needs to be encouraged, should we assume that those who do not have access to it are all suspect?

Why does Shahid escape after the riots and that too for training in jihad? This is a horrible indictment, and assumes that those who are affected by such scenes will as a natural course choose to become terrorists.

We do not know what he is disillusioned about. It would have been an important message to understand that such jihad is not a panacea. But the director desultorily goes through the motions of showing a few men wearing skull caps, holding rifles, saying "Allah-hu-Akbar", and preparing for some grand plan that might come their way.

Upon his return to Mumbai, he goes home. He is later arrested because they think he is a terrorist. Resigned to a life in prison, a Kashmiri militant befriends him over games of chess. Yes, the good Muslim Shahid is pitted against the bad one who will use him as a pawn. This is borne out later when a good Kashmiri (the film is ridden with such good-bad ideas, although it does so quietly) warns him about Umar and how these guys just want to prove their superiority and lord over others. He also tells Shahid about how justice takes time, but it prevails. The fact that they are all unjustly in jail seems to be lost on him.

The good Kashmiri is friends with Professor Saxena. (You cannot possibly have a Prof. Gilani or Raza, can you?) They encourage Shahid to continue with his studies, and the professor pitches in with some tokenism about Sher Shah Suri.

Seven years later, the family has moved to a better residence. There is no evidence of anyone having dissociated with his family. This is not the story of many people, as Shahid himself suggests. Then why was this family spared? Because they are not 'typical'?

Shahid joins the firm of a Muslim lawyer. The avarice puts him off, and he starts on his own. I would like to emphasise here that all this conveys that for a young Muslim to be taken seriously, not only does he have to be clean-shaven and educated, he also has to be squeaky clean.

Maryam, one of his clients, is possibly a spark in many ways. Shahid falls in love with her and proposes. That is when she asks him, "You know I am a divorcee, don't you?" There you go. A Muslim woman who probably had 'talaq' said to her three times, and is now bringing up her son on her own. They marry quietly. Why?

When he later takes her to meet his mother he brings a burqa, something she has never worn. He requests her to do so just this once. I fail to understand this. His mother is not shown wearing one, and if he has married without consent, then does he need this? What exactly does the director want us to know? That all said and done, a Muslim woman will at some point in her life have to wear a veil?

The scenes in the court are slightly better, but again the judge is seen pulling up the public prosecutor more than the defense. This sounds rather utopian. At one point Shahid loses it and asks, "Are you trying to say I am a terrorist?" That is the one true moment. For the most part, he does not even use the word Muslim. He says "minority". If this is not a copout, then what could possibly be?

He fights the case of Faheem Ansari, arrested following the Mumbai attacks of 2008 because his laptop had some maps. Shahid starts getting threatening calls. There is no explanation. The silence is a tacit understanding of not taking sides.

One night, Shahid is called to his office and shot dead. His colleague appears for Faheem in his place. It takes a Ramalingam to justify the work of a Shahid Azmi. This is what the film tells us. This is what people tell us. This is how stereotypes work. This is how Indian Muslims get branded. Patronised.

Fine. I am glad this film was made. It just shows us how celebrity parallel filmmakers play the formula and consolidate the stance that the state is always right.

---

Update

I have been fairly surprised by how the 'populism' of such serious cinema works. To the certified Muslim organisation that has sent this email:

"Go watch SHAHID before it is too late. If you dont have time atleast buy tickets and gift it to some who has. If people are so disinterested, filmmakers wont want to make such brilliant movies again"

I can only say that rather than gifting tickets, acquire the skills and have the gumption to make a movie that tells your story your way, instead of waiting for majoritarian prerogative to speak up for you.

You want to accept magnanimity, and that is the whole darned problem. And you in your elitist hole, there are people who do not need to watch movies to know what they experience.

If on an everyday basis one is taunted as being a jihadi and asked to go to Pakistan, I can only imagine how it is for the people who are rounded up without even the courtesy of a snigger.

I did not need this film to get me thinking. I have done so publicly since 'Bombay', then 'Fizaa' and later the execrable 'Black Friday'. My analysis of the last one is here.

It is no surprise that quite a few 'secular' people, even among Muslims, would want to applaud the film. It is their choice. Just do not expect me to fall for any and every gesture of some 'pathbreaking maverick'. I can turn around and say that I have posed queries that are not in the domain of either popular or even much of offbeat ideas. How does such hat-tipping matter when you are being handed over little bites of predigested bitterness?

What I write is to challenge the reader as much as I am challenged, though not by this film because it plays too safe. But do not tell me that the questions a film/art/book/thinker asks are the final questions and the ones I ought to ask too.

© Farzana Versey

---

The performances were uniformly above-average. But I cannot bring myself to see it as just a film. Here is the official trailer; what I have written will not come through here:

Cringe-worthy news

Three recent examples.

Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh said:

"I have always maintained that Rahul Gandhi would be an ideal choice for the PM post after 2014 elections (Lok Sabha). I will be very happy to work in the Congress under the leadership of Rahul Gandhi."

As a sitting PM, it does not behove him to 'abdicate'. Whatever the behind-the-scenes happenings, he ought to give the perception of being in charge. He may praise Rahul Gandhi, but the country most certainly does not like its leader to announce that he will work "under" anybody. It was a weak-kneed obsequious comment.

---

Watched a rather nice interview of Zubin Mehta on NDTV after his concert in Srinagar. However, two of his comments were rather off:

• “Let (us) have another way, a spiritual way and I think yesterday there was a beginning of some process of healing because Hindus and Muslims were sitting together in complete harmony."

The Kashmir issue is not a communal matter. If this harmony works, then the Kashmiri Pandits who feel shortchanged and have been applauding the concert should also accept the maestro's version of harmony. They will not. So, one cannot expect it from those who live under the threat of the bullet.

• "Geelani Sahab hum to aapka dost hoon (I am your friend). You don't believe it! I wish all of our opposition would have come and enjoyed the music."

The 'opposition' is made up of several streams of thought. Singling out Geelani just made it appear as though he drives Kashmiri aspirations alone.

Sidelight:

Later on 'We the People' regarding the same subject, someone described as a media person who spoke against elitism mentioned how her car was stopped several times, documents checked and added, "This is not an everyday thing in Srinagar." It was so superficial. In fact, there are barricades and checkpoints and the less privileged are stopped everyday. She ended up doing the varnish job while trying to complain about it.

---

The Times of India carried a story discussing how spirituality and sex and not mutually-exclusive in Hinduism. It started and ended with Asaram Bapu, in effect conveying that he does not have to be a celibate.This was not in their "Sacred Space" or even an Op-Ed or a feature. It was a report.

This is disgusting, considering how the newspaper has been commercialising its concern for rape 'survivors'. Here is how it starts:

"Asaram is being pilloried by everybody, from parliamentarians to journalists, for alleged sexual assault on a teenager and is in jail now. Some of the horrified public responses at his alleged act can also be attributed to the general notion that dissociates sex from spirituality. This notion considers everybody on the spiritual path as 'wedded' to celibacy. But is this perception correct?...This possibly explains why many Hindi newspapers and TV channels are aghast at the preacher's 'fall from grace'."

Rather conveniently, the blame has been placed on Hindi channels, and Christian priests used as a counterpoint in the English media. This is asinine. It also reveals the mindset. Rape is not a sexual relationship. Such idiocy camouflages the intent to airbrush the image of this godman.

"...ancient Hindu rishis were known to have families and children. Even modern spiritualists like Swami Ramakrisnha Paramhansa... were all householders...If Asaram has broken the law with the alleged sexual assault on a minor then of course the book must be thrown at him."

This is for the courts to decide, and not some scripture. Asaram's celibacy or lack of it is not the issue. Had it been consensual with an adult, and had he — and his followers — not gone around promoting some form of sexual purity, it would not have at best been a salacious moment. Remember Nityananda and his video clips? (Aside: The same English media pilloried N.D. Tiwari for being caught with some women, although he is not a godman.)

The article mentions sex abuse by Christian priests, but not a word about many cases in ashrams in India. If Hinduism permits sadhus to have a sex life, then why do they talk about 'sanyas'? It is the pinnacle, and they obviously have not reached it.

All this apart, it is just appalling that when a man is in court for a crime like rape, an attempt is made by a big mainstream newspaper to discuss spiritualism and sexuality with his case as a backgrounder. Shameful, any which way we look at it.

© Farzana Versey

Playing Parvez Rasool: Politics and Pawns

I am glad they left Parvez Rasool out. I am glad because by the act of not sending him — the "first Kashmiri" to represent India — on the field, we are witness to varied kinds of politicking.

On Saturday, Aug 3, India was playing the 5th ODI against Zimbabwe in Bulawayo. We were already in the lead. Of the 15-man squad, Rasool was the only one who was not given a game.

The result was outrage. Why treat a Kashmiri as different when you want him to be India's hope?

Chief Minister Omar Abdullah expressed his anger with his usual dramatic flourish: "Did you really have to take him all the way to Zimbabwe to demoralise him? Wouldn't it have been cheaper to just do it at home?"

The CM is insulting the Indian team, the state he rules and Rasool, especially the latter when he pleaded on the eve of the last match to "give him a chance". Had there been allegations of malpractice or matchfixing, would he have been as quick to ask the team to treat a player from J&K without any favour?

One does not have to think too hard about the machinations and Mr. Abdullah is not the only one.

Kashmiri Pandits who hardly ever referred to Vivek Razdan and Suresh Raina are now emphasising their Kashmiri roots. Clearly, it is one of those 'use the populist sentiment' moments. It is not the same though, for Parvez Rasool lives in Kashmir and, unlike the other two, he has to 'earn' the India cap for reasons beyond cricket.

Does everything in J&K have to do with militancy? Rasool, a resident of Anantnag, has experienced it first-hand. When there were militant attacks in Bangalore in 2009. As India TV reported:

Police along with a few other people detained Rasool, who was a member of his state’s junior cricket team, as they had been staying within the premises of the Chinnaswamy Stadium which became the target of the militants.The youngster was later cleared of all charges and continued with his cricketing career to achieve greater heights.

“I dont want to talk much about that incident...Whatever happened back then is something I have left behind me and followed cricket. Now that I have worked so hard, I have got such good results,” said Rasool.

On the one hand, there is the real issue of the alienation of those from the state, and then there is a hint that even a sop would do. The word sop is not used though; it is called symbolism. That does not change anything. The Times of India said that not giving him a single game defied "both cricketing and symbolic logic". The first being "to test its bench strength in conditions quite different from home against a weak opposition".

This does not sound like an opportunity, but an insult. Experts might differ, but a weak opposition would be like playing at the nets. Besides, the tokenism would fall flat:

It would also have given a player from Jammu & Kashmir an unprecedented India cap, the symbolic value of which could have been huge. Sadly, the men on the spot didn't seem to understand this and nobody higher up nudged them either.

How different would this be from bookies placing calls to swing a match? The BCCI does not, and must not, decide what happens on the ground. And the BCCI is not the government of India. It is the GOI that will ultimately have to work with the state for real decisions, and not mere symbolism. As the report further states:

The first cricketer from J&K team to be selected for the national cricket team, Rasool is also a beacon of hope for players from a region which felt marginalized from Indian cricket's mainstream. By playing Rasool, who is by all accounts competent enough to hold his own against Zimbabwe, the Indian team could have brought joy to Kashmir and given the player confidence to get into the big league.

This is just patronising. Is a Kashmiri only competent enough to play Zimbabwe? If that is a weak team, then how will he gain confidence against bigger players? I read somewhere that his selection was fast-tracked after a good haul against Australia in India.

Kashmiris feel and are marginalised in several areas. And, it may not sound right to say it, but not everyone in the state is looking to represent India in cricket. And not everyone would be crestfallen over this 'picnic to Zimbabwe' because people continue to be killed and have to battle everyday issues.

If only there were sops and symbolic gestures to assuage those.

© Farzana Versey

Silencing Kashmir? The Valley’s Voices

Everyone is singing the Kashmir tune. An all girl-band has been banned. Most of us outside, and many in the state of Jammu and Kashmir, had never heard about them until this happened. The problem is not that one should refrain from opposing such censorship, but how the arguments are reduced to basics.

Most engagement with social issues is increasingly becoming one of transaction. This conscience barter is extremely populist and the agenda is clearly not to topple political correctness. Those who profess freedom of expression do not entertain even a devil’s advocate stance, which only reveals how close-minded and muzzling such ostensible independent thinking is. If we want to permit all kinds of thought, why do we seek to curb what in our opinion is regressive?

Three high school students – Farah Deeba, Aneeqa Khalid and Noma Nazir – formed a rock band.  Pragaash (First Light) has performed only one concert. Mufti Bashiruddin Ahmad, Kashmir’s state-appointed grand cleric, issued a fatwa asking them to “stop from these activities and not to get influenced by the support of political leadership”.

Odes are being sung to their talent, their courage. The right to expression does not need a quality certificate and those who back them could well be ignorant of their music. It is about not being allowed to do what they like.

I agree with this, but having lived all my life in Mumbai, the pivot of modern India, I can cite several instances where parents have objected to their teenage children participating in cultural activities, let alone taking an initiative to independently perform. This information is crucial because we use the convenient subterfuge of censorship to camouflage our own dissonant private behaviour. When we speak about Pragaash we are already dealing with young women who have not been stifled, have been exposed to world music, managed to train, buy equipment, and market themselves in a state that is considered repressive. It is rather unfortunate that even though they are way ahead than many of their well-wishers, they are now the object of sympathy.

Those fighting for their freedom are essentially offering condolences. After saying, “We are with you”, has support for the band gone beyond disingenuous analogy?

***

Pragaash’s manager and teacher Adnan Matoo, quoted in The Washington Post, said: 

“They feel terribly scared and want an immediate end to this controversy once for all. First, the girls had decided to quit live performance due to an online hate campaign and concentrate on making an album. But after an edict by the government’s own cleric, these girls are saying goodbye to music.”

As it did not start with the cleric, but an online hate campaign, it would fall under cyber law. Unfortunately, in India the hyperactive media ensures people are drugged and religion takes centrestage in almost every argument. Is the Grand Mufti’s fatwa the final word?

Mr. Mattoo follows the pattern set by the mainstream: 

“I know it from my last eight years’ experience that we could have easily dealt with the online abuse. We were failed by the government-run mufti, who asked us to forget our music and declared our band against the religion.”

While Indians have been arguing for long about the separation of state and religion, it is not possible in a country where building of a temple is the main agenda of the largest opposition party and the ruling party panders to all manner of minority votes. There is also talk about the Islamisation of Kashmir. Part of it may be attributed to the influx of jihadi elements in the separatist movement. However, intellectual discourse too harps on this aspect and uses ‘progressive’ quotes from scriptures, forgetting that much of what we call contemporary culture did not exist in the time of prophets and messiahs.

Why did it take a month for the Mufti to issue a diktat? Was he under political pressure, too? This might seem like a shocking query, but his mosque comes under the government’s purview. J&K isn’t really a rocking state.  Since the concert was for the paramilitary forces, there is a likelihood of intense anger among the locals. Stories of abuse of women by the security forces are a constant refrain in the troubled area. Why did the hate campaign against the girls not address this and instead choose to harp on their ‘un-Islamic’ vocation?

Pragaash band members

One reason is that the moment they criticise the ‘saviours’, they’d be dubbed militants. Anonymity might imbue them with temporary courage, but even in their unknown status there is a need for self-recognition. This is as much of an identity need as the cultural space for freedom. It is their azaadi (freedom) call versus the azaadi of what they perceive to be the copped-out coddled lot. A more nuanced reading would be that Islam, with its broad brush-stroke possibility of what is haraam (heathen), can factor in their ire and keep it alive. Politicians wake up. Pontiffs wake up. Separatist organisations wake up.

This is not to imply that there have been no strictures on modes of dressing, education and cultural activities. But these certainly do not happen in Kashmir alone.  It does not make them right. However, should there be no room for more than simplistic ideas of right and wrong?

The chief minister, Omar Abdullah, was applauded for standing by the band members: 

“I hope these talented young girls will not let a handful of morons silence them. Shame on those who claim freedom of speech via social media and then use that freedom to threaten girls who have the right to choose to sing.”

However, on Headlines Today he said he had not asked them to sing so he cannot ask them to continue to do so. He would be willing to provide security for them, though.

The BJP only needed this to further its anti-Islamic position. Its party president in the state said: 

“It is an attempt towards 'Talibanisation' of the society by certain fundamentalist groups who are uncomfortable with the return of normalcy in Jammu and Kashmir.”

The BJP ought not to speak out of turn. Its record in giving women liberty is abominable. The rightwing does not permit even the celebration of Valentine’s Day, using the same argument that the Mufti has used – it is western culture. Besides, the BJP has earlier had an alliance with the current party, the National Conference. Did they reach normalcy?

***

One cannot wish away politicisation. In fact, pop culture is political, in that it attempts to convey popular consumerist sentiment as retail therapy. Does this exclude political theism?

Mehbooba Mufti, president of People's Democratic Party (PDP), was being intimidated on a TV debate. Despite it, she made a most reasonable comment by saying that as a believer although she would not abuse a religious leader, she could well disagree with his views. Did this get any attention? It does not suit the archetype.

As happens with anything to do with Islam, when in doubt bring in the Sufi. The prevalence of Sufi music is mentioned as an example of the existence of such open expression in the Valley. People do not realise that it is deeply rooted in religion. It may not be seen as theological, but the fact is that it almost always addresses the Higher Being and seeks to drown the identity of the singer into the pool of devotion. The reason Sufi music is now being given a wider platform is because it falls well and truly into the ‘music bazaar’ as a commercial product.

Is this what drives liberalism? Asiya Andrabi, leader of the Dukhtaran-e-Millat, has had some amazing achievements to her credit – blackening the faces of women, shutting down beauty parlours. But, then, her political affiliations do not lie with India, as she openly states. For a moment, let us stand aside and check whether what she says and what some feminists do is much different. She believes that women are objectified; feminists think so too when they discuss certain advertisements where women expose their bodies. How do we decide to accept one version and not the other?

***

If this is indeed a larger issue about artistic license, then why did the Pragaash supporters have objections to rapper Honey Singh soon after the Delhi gangrape? His song, “Main balatkari hoon” (I am a rapist) was not new. It was obvious that this was not about concern, but a need to be acceptable and part of a trending movement. Among the many voices was one of senior journalist Vir Sanghvi, who used the social network to say: 

“For God's sake, Bristol Hotel. Cancel the Honey Singh show. Are you guys in the rape business or the hotel business? If the Bristol does not cancel the Honey Singh show then I would urge every decent Indian to boycott the hotel.”

No one seemed to have realised that the terminology, “rape business”, itself was offensive. Besides, how does one define decency? 

The moral spine of the amoral and unconstrained tends to be willing to bend as the occasion demands. Had there been no immediate ‘case’, there would be no such importance given to the singer or his lyrics. If we understand that art does have freedom – in films, paintings, music – then it follows that there ought not to be conditions that curtail it. Why is one boycott legitimate and another not? Why are the words of liberal sages acceptable and the concerns of the socially-conservative reprehensible?

MC Kash

Omar Abdullah too raised the question about local rapper MC Kash, wondering why he has not been banned for his obscene lyrics. This is telling and not surprising, for the singer questions the authorities and the security forces: 

“You sit your ass down & don't make a sound/you take off that Pheran, you Mother Fucking clown - Words said by Indian Forces durin' a crackdown.” 

Is such obscenity not proactive rebellion?

The online campaign referred to the girls as “sluts” and “prostitutes”. These words are used by supposedly reasonable people in the social media for what they look down upon, be it the item girls in Bollywood films or the increasingly brash young women who do not consider nudity to be an issue. One rarely hears any applause for them. Therefore, who really is in a position to take a high moral ground?

Kashmiri dancers for video albums

Perhaps we’d like to consider this story about dancers and singers in Kashmiri music albums. One of them, Sweety, said: 

“My mom accompanies me to the bus stop when I have to go to Srinagar. My profession annoys my maternal uncles, neighbours talk (bad things) about me.” 

A choreographer explains: 

“Most of them join to support their families after the death of their father. It comes as a handy option because they come from uneducated families and here they do not need any educational qualification. I request them either do something else or to be careful.”

This is a universal concern, more so when people cannot do “what they like” even in their daily routine because death is not too far away. Because singing and dancing are not about the luxury of freedom, but the last resort of orphaned hopes. 

(c) Farzana Versey

India and Pakistan – a Perpetual War: Decapitation vs. Capitulation

Are India and Pakistan at war? If we take a pragmatic view, then there has never been peace between the two nations. Does this translate into war? Should crossing the border, killing soldiers, infiltrating be treated as war during peacetime?

On January 8, the Pakistani army killed two Indian jawans, Lance-Naik Sudhakar Singh and Lance-Naik Hemraj. It was made out to be as though they ambled across, fired at the two, beheaded one and took away the head as trophy or proof. But this wasn’t a random act. The mainstream media has largely been talking in terms of “giving them a bloody nose” whether it is stated explicitly or implied.

Combat across the Line of Control (LoC) where both countries are involved does not amount to “diversionary manoeuvre to push infiltrators into J&K”, especially if the Intelligence Bureau was aware of it.

Winters in Jammu and Kashmir were generally considered as downtime for infiltration, the snow making it difficult for such incursion. If the IB had tipped off the Army, why were there no adequate pre-emptive steps taken? This is where it gets interesting.

False peace

Pakistan has, expectedly, denied any such killings. But what has the Indian government done? It termed it “provocative action”. The Indian Army also called it “grave provocation”. If the ceasefire is not respected, it is beyond provocation. This is not some game.

Foreign minister Salman Khurshid said: 

“I think it is important in the long term that what has happened should not be escalated…We have to be careful that forces ... attempting to derail all the good work that's been done towards normalisation (of relations) should not be successful.”

Who are these abstract forces that want to derail the peace process? Unlike in most countries that have a dispute, here peace is the Damocles Sword that hangs over the heads of India and Pakistan. It is ridiculously forced and caters primarily to the commercial and elite classes that gain points at seminars and encourage exchange of artistes to uphold a common heritage. If the heritage is common, why do we need clones?

Has any treaty been signed without ho-humming about the Kashmir issue? No. So, let us accept that the two governments are not interested in peace or a solution to Kashmir. We treat such casualties as collateral damage for a non-existent détente.

The two sides have taken position – away from the border – and ironically both are using the same excuse: non-state actors. This is particularly perplexing, for after the 26/11 attacks in Mumbai India had categorically blamed the Pakistani government and finally its ‘non-state actor’ Ajmal Kasab was hanged to death. This time, Home Minister Sushil Kumar Shinde has suggested that the mastermind behind those attacks, Hafiz Saeed, was seen having a chat with people across the LoC and therefore the Lashkar-e-Toiba could well be responsible.

How, then, can we blame the Pakistani government for being in denial? If this is an act of terror, then no government will accept the blame, even if there is complicity and jihad training camps.

Besides, between different versions of truth and lies, facts become the casualties. According to a Reuters report: 

“The body of one of the soldiers was found mutilated in a forested area on the side controlled by India, Rajesh K. Kalia, spokesman for the Indian army's Northern Command, said. However, he denied Indian media reports that one body had been decapitated and another had its throat slit.”

The theory of provocation assumes that needling is part of our respective foreign policies.

Who Owns Kashmir?

Rahul Gandhi, like the rest of the Nehru-Gandhi clan before him, will never contest an election from Kashmir. When he says, “I myself am from Kashmiri family and want to have lifelong relations with the people of Jammu and Kashmir”, it is a declaration of the divine right of the potentate in a jigsaw puzzle of a state.

A delegation of panchayat leaders from the state visits him in Delhi; he lands up in Sonmarg and tells the people he wants to “understand your pain deeply”. This makes former chief minister Farooq Abdullah so emotional he blurts out, “We are Indians and we will die as Indians. No power can separate us from India. A day will come when children of Rahul and Omar will see fruits of steps taken by us.” In July, Hurriyat leaders met Pakistan’s foreign minister on her official trip to India.

So, who is ruling the state?

Rahul Gandhi organises a corporate picnic with big industrialists. Many promises will be made. Perhaps for more formula racing, tulip gardens, skiing facilities, to ensure tourist traffic. These are mirages used to market the state to others. He wants to “connect Kashmiri youth with the development process”. There is no introspection as to why that has not happened yet.

>>Read the rest in Express Tribune

Rehman Malik and Ghulam Nabi Fai: A Tale of Two

A mourner in Afghanistan

Is Rehman Malik, Pakistan’s Interior Minister, insensitive or stupid? Neither. He is trapped in a controversy for saying:

"I had appealed to the Taliban that they should respect the Muharram. I am grateful to them that they respected the Muharram this time. This is a good thing."

What is so shocking? He is in charge of the home department in the country. It is no secret that the Taliban do target people in religious places, however absurd this may sound. So, when there is mass mourning during Ashura by the Shias with 177 processions and 900 gatherings, and 7000 security personnel are deployed, it is obviously a matter of some concern.

You talk to people, and that includes non-Shias, and they will tell you how the community has been targeted for years, even when the Taliban was not active.

Why, then, you might ask, does the minister have to thank the Taliban? Does it not amount to being grateful to an extremist group and therefore accepting its role in politics? If the Taliban is everywhere today in Pakistan, it is akin to appealing for peace in a difficult situation. He is not known to use language very well, but there is no way Pakistan can go along by alientating the Taliban completely.

Why is no one talking about the fact that he also lauded the role of the cops?

The fact that there were blasts in Afghanistan killing 59 people is a sad reminder that the two countries have been divided. In fact, there are murmurs that the attacks were orchestrated from Pakistan’s border areas. At one time, the whole Pashtun community was one.

This is not only about shrines or even minorities anymore than it has been for a long time. Countries that have the misfortune of outsourcing their security will have to deal with insurgencies that damage their own society and people.

- - -

Ghulam Nabi Fai has admitted that the ISI was funding him “to influence US policy on Kashmir”:

“For the last 20 years, Mr. Fai secretly took millions of dollars from Pakistani intelligence and lied about it to the US government,” said US Attorney Neil MacBride. “As a paid operative of ISI, he did the bidding of his handlers in Pakistan while he met with US elected officials, funded high-profile conferences, and promoted the Kashmiri cause to decision-makers in Washington.”

Right. Now, what will the US do about those policy makers after they pronounce the verdict on Mr. Fai on March 9?

Will they do the boogey-woogey with Pakistan? Will we know how the innocent policy makers were taken for a ride? And will they show us the money and tell us just how they were influenced and how did they act upon it?

We seem to excel at looking at the curst and not reaching the core. Here are two bits from my earlier piece:

Did the ISI do it? Possible. Did Mr. Fai use this money? Possible. Was the FBI unaware about it all these years? Not possible.

and

It would be a pity if due to the ISI angle, the real issues will be pushed aside. America has the arsenal to deal with the ISI, but does it have the will? If Mr. Fai is a front, then why only name the ISI people and not the Congressmen who knew what they were expected to lobby for? Culpability in this case lies across the board. It is utterly ridiculous to make this sound like a terrorist plot when the monies have been traced and people of some stature have been consistently raising the Kashmir issue, not just abroad but at home.

From Surely they’re joking, Mr. Fai?

Of Kashmiri Kids and Obama's NATO

Just the other day, they were telling us how bad the situation is in Mumbai. How do you solve this problem? Bring a group of Kashmiri kids. Here is what happens:

Even though many would prefer the serenity of the valleys of Kashmir, for this bunch of Kashmiri students currently touring Mumbai, the hustle-bustle and traffic jams of the city are more appealing. “It feels so good and comforting to walk into a city where people are not living in constant fear,” said Shabbir Ahmed, a 16-year-old student from Khadi, Kashmir.

This boy’s father or uncle or grandfather is probably in Mumbai selling handicrafts. And not because he wants to feel safe, but because the jobs have dried up in Kashmir.

Are such initiatives worth it? This has been arranged by the 23 RR Battalion of the Indian Army. Major Gurudev Jajot said:

“Our aim is to wipe out this stigma of isolation that they face and to motivate them to dream high.”

In what way is it a stigma? There are people living in many remote villages in our country. They are isolated too. By emphasising on the stigma associated with Kashmiris, it only makes it more evident and real. It is nice that children from different places interact, but not with such an agenda in mind.

Does a Kashmiri not dream high? And even if s/he does not, there can be several factors. Again, how many high dreamers are there in Chhatisgarh or even Chunabatti in Mumbai?

- - -

I do hope Pakistan has sent a Thank You note to Barack Obama for not saying sorry for the NATO strike that killed 24 Pakistani soldiers. It exposes his arrogance.

Some administration aides also worried that if Mr. Obama were to overrule the military and apologize to Pakistan, such a step could become fodder for his Republican opponents in the presidential campaign, according to several officials who declined to be named because they were not authorized to speak publicly.

The military units are sent by the US civilian administration. A democratically-elected leader can overrule the military, just as he can recall them. That is what has been done all along, so why the protocol now? If he is only looking at electoral gains, then he would benefit from the apology because Pakistan will be eager to accept it due to their tacit understanding.

Cameron Munter, the United States ambassador to Pakistan, would have liked it to fix the US-Pak situation, but others disagreed:

Defense Department officials balked. While they did not deny some American culpability in the episode, they said expressions of remorse offered by senior department officials and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton were enough, at least until the completion of a United States military investigation establishing what went wrong.

Wonderful. Even if the Americans and the Pakistanis give different explanations, the fact is that these soldiers were killed, and not by the militants. Where are the investigations when the Americans get trigger-happy? Will there be an inquiry into whether they were defending themselves? Against whom? The militants or the soldiers?

If the top defense guys do not know what their troops were upto, then Pakistan could use them to stand guard outside Habib Bank or something in Karachi.

Converted Kashmiris and Secularists

All Saints Church, Srinagar

Reverend Chander Mani Khanna of All Saints’ Church in Srinagar was arrested following protests in the city against trying to convert a few Kashmiris. While he should be fully represented in court, it is a bit hasty to use this episode to flash liberal credentials just yet. The people have protested for various ills committed by the Establishment. At such times, we are ready to give these same protestors the benefit of doubt. So, where is the need to score secular brownie points now?

How many Christians are there in Jammu and Kashmir? How many Kashmiri pandits or Sikhs have been converted to Islam? Had there been such conversions, there would have been the standard outcry against Islamisation. There is brainwashing of people in the state by other groups as well. It would not be unusual for some missionaries to use this opportunity; it has been done in other parts of the country and there have been protests, and people have even been killed for it.

Rev Khanna had stated:

“The Kashmiri youths were coming to the Church since past one year. They wanted to participate in the Holy Communion like rest of the Christians. I explained they are not allowed to do without undergoing water baptism. They insisted me to baptise them. I am a priest and I cannot deny them this right. Someone later recorded the baptism ritual through a mobile and published it on the YouTube. This was done with a provocative intention to create religious violence.”

If such conversions happen willingly and the pastor has been with the church for seven years, then in a state that is already riddled with violence why would there be a need for such provocation? Had these people been planted? Why did it take them one year to participate in the Holy Communion?

The head of the Amritsar Diocese, Bishop PK Samantaroy, said:

“The law and order situation can change any time in the Valley. The Sharia Court has no locus standi practically, but they are the ones who rule. We have to be very careful. The issue has also put at risk the lives of other local Christians in the state.”

This is an alarmist comment. What other verdicts have been pronounced by these courts? Why make it seem as though they are mandated by the State government or even many separatist outfits? They are not. So, why did the bishop appear before Mufti Mohammed Bashiruddin of the Sharia court that has no locus standi? Why did he and the church authorities not approach the government before things got out of hand? Is the government acting at the behest of the Mufti or to circumvent the situation?

Javed Anand, in his Indian Express piece that begins with the sentence “Eating your cake and having it too may be a tempting thought,” asks, “What’s Islamic law and a sharia court doing in a secular democratic polity?”

Let us jog Mr. Anand’s memory. He was an agreeable party to a fatwa, even if it was ‘secular’, that made a huge song and dance about fighting terrorism. Here is the snapshot:

“Mehmood Asad Madni, the Jamiatul-ulema-e-Hind’s general secretary and prime mover behind the ongoing nationwide campaign against terrorism thought it fit to engage with Javed Anand general secretary MSD (Muslims for Secular Democracy) and his friend and communications expert Alyque Padamsee in strategizing for the May 31 rally of the Jamiat in New Delhi. The New Delhi-based Maulana Madni made three trips to Mumbai in early May where, together with Alyque Padamsee and Javed Anand, the key elements of the proposed rally were finalized: an unambiguous Fatwa from Deoband, an ‘Oath of Allegiance’ to be taken at the rally, the only two slogans to be used on all placards and banners, design of the stage backdrop, the key points of Maulana Madni’s own speech.”

Why was a religious body involved in what is a law-and-order and social issue? Since it came from an organisation, Mr. Anand was quoted as saying, “In the theological universe, it is the equivalent of a verdict of a full constitutional bench of a Supreme Court.”

So, why was this theological world involved then and why can it not be involved now? Only because it suits a certain kind of limited secular perspective in a state that is not viewed as ‘cosmopolitan’?

Since J&K does not have a law against conversions, Rev. Khanna has been charged under different sections. From Mr. Anand’s column:

“Section 153A pertains to ‘promoting enmity between different groups... and doing acts prejudicial to maintenance of harmony.’ Section 295A has to do with ‘deliberate and malicious acts, intended to outrage religious feelings of any class by insulting its religion or religious beliefs. Why should conversion of a few Muslims to Christianity be deemed a malicious act intended to outrage religious feelings? Why should it be tantamount to promoting enmity between different groups? These might be questions for you and me. But Omar Abdullah and his police may well be wondering whether the FIR and the arrest are enough to douse the flames.”

Protesting more than conversions

In a tinderbox environment, everything hurts religious sentiments. If we are concerned about secularism then he should be happy that instead of the mullahs, the state has acted. Having said this, it becomes imperative for the government to ensure that due legal process is followed. The Kashmir Bar Association has refused to represent the pastor, but there are lawyers from outside who are willing to do so. Omar Abdulla should step in and see to it that the State he heads does not fall prey to other sorts of outside elements.

Besides the screeching mullahs and the angry Christians, there are also the liberals who will use Islam when it suits them. It is unfortunate that Javed Anand has quoted some anonymous punks from websites to justify his theory: 

“The responses to the video clip have apparently been venomous. ‘We promise to kill all Christian missionaries and burn their buildings, schools and churches!’ pronounces one commenter, while another proclaims, ‘we should burn this priest to death!’ Echoes of Pakistan’s obnoxious blasphemy laws?”

This is so mischievous. Does he know that our very own Vishwa Hindu Parishad has jumped in to protest the killing of three Hindus in the Sindh province of Pakistan? Here is what VHP president Ramakant Dubey said: 

“We demand protection of minority Hindus in Pakistan where they have been subjected to repeated attacks. Human rights organisations across the world and the Indian government should seek an explanation from the Pakistan premier about the repeated killings, massacres and conversions of minority Hindus.”

A rightwing Hindu organisation in India can interfere not only in Pakistan’s internal matter – however despicable the crime – but also applaud the US for raising the issue. If anyone from Pakistan even mentions the plight of Indian Muslims, the whole community is branded jihadi or accused of owing allegiance across the border.

It is, therefore, a dangerous argument that what people are saying on social networking sites works as law, whereas when a legitimate law is used it is questioned. This is double standard, too. One does not expect the Ummah to stay quiet, just as the Christian organisations are planning their own counter-protests. Incidentally, the ummah is not a universal body that can work on remote. Jammu and Kashmir does not have any blasphemy laws. If anything, more Muslims are arrested and killed in prisons there.

The sophistry of quoting nice little verses from the Quran does not work in a democratic polity, does it? Besides, it does not alter the soft belligerence of vocational secularists.

(c) Farzana Versey

- - -

Here is the video: 

Is Prashant Bhushan The Fall Guy? Or A Foil?

Bhushan and the goon (TOI pic)

What was the TV channel doing while “goons” thrashed lawyer Prashant Bhushan at his chambers in the Supreme Court when he was being interviewed? The people at Times Now continued filming so that they could replay the images and their newspaper could have a front page with a pictorial strip and talk about how “FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION TAKES A BATTERING”. (Note: In the photo above it is Bhushan who is grabbing his assailant's collar, so what is the channel/paper upto?)

Can you imagine how convenient it is for the media to claim to be upholders of freedom of expression? This is what happened for those who don’t know. Prashant Bhushan is one of the key members of Anna Hazare’s team. However, he apparently has talked about plebiscite in Kashmir and was therefore attacked. So goes the story.

A few facts:

• Certain sections of the media have propped up the Anna campaign without any thought about the consequences and made a hero of a febrile mind.

• Anna had initially expressed admiration for Modi; the Sangh Parivar was also quite happy with this crusade because it helped in the anti-Congress movement.

• Prashant Bhushan is not a Sanghi, and in fact the Sangh has issues with Anna now. Their own guy is on his yatra.

Times Now jumps in (or up) at the opportunity to convert corruption into communalism. Or at least make them walk in tandem. So, if Prashant Bhushan is essentially the guy who should be talking about the Jan Lokpal Bill, where does Kashmir azaadi fit in? For TRPs, it works. You manage to send careless whispers to some small Hindutva group like the Sri Ram Sene, the same ones that were gifted pink panties by ‘liberals’ on Valentine’s Day because they said it was against our culture. Waste of panties, but never mind.

So, what was all this about? Sheer timing. Mr. Bhushan was being interviewed by a channel that has supported the anti-corruption jamborees, but is not known to be supportive of Kashmir in any form. The tactic is to draw attention to the ‘azaadi’ aspect. It does not matter that it is one person’s views, a person who has nothing to do with Kashmir.

It polarises rather shrewdly by saying, look, we are calling these guys goons and discussing freedom of expression…would they do the same in Kashmir, take those stone pelters to task, those terrorists, those jihadis?

We have seen the main anchor here quake before Balasaheb Thackeray, so we know where they are coming from.

Bhushan has said, post the fisticuffs:

"This is an organisation which needs to be socially boycotted and perhaps banned by the government. Such an organisation has no right to exist legally. Sriram Sene is known for its goondaism and unprovoked assault on unarmed people. This is their trademark which they had showed in Bangalore when they beat up many boys and girls outside some restaurants and pubs. They have been known to beat up girls who wear skirts.”

Bingo! Where goes freedom of expression? This sort of thing happens in parts of Kashmir too by fringe elements. Is Prashant Bhushan going round in circles or is he getting trapped in one? Is someone pushing him unwittingly for a ban in J&K?

"They were shouting something about Kashmir but did not bother to discuss anything with me.”

What were they shouting? There are recordings. Or are the Times Now microphones of such bad quality? And why would they discuss anything with him when their purpose is obscure?

There is no way he should have been beaten, no way in which they ought to have managed to get into the chambers and no way others should have watched while it happened. The shameless TV guys should be arrested together with the Sri Ram Sene ones. Will they become witnesses and be able to recount what those guys were shouting against? How will they justify their standing around and not intervening?

“There should be legal proceedings but certainly not violence against the members of the organisation.”

There is physical violence and there is the violence of voyeurism. Bhushan is a victim of it as well as, I am afraid, a predator. If this is comparable to Hitler’s storm troopers, according to him, then Anna’s ‘peaceful’ drama was designed for a similar reaction. It is to incite people without any specific goal.

The Kashmir comment falls into this category. One does not have to reiterate that this is what the Kashmiris have been saying for years. Every part-time activist feels it necessary to whip this out as a trump card and take away from the genuine grievances of the people. The Kashmir issue is becoming top-heavy with every other ‘concerned’ person landing up there to get a slice of the action.

Team Anna should stick to what it is best at. Drink honeyed lime juice served by Dalit and Muslim children.

In Custody: Kashmir

There are custodial killings and there are custodial deaths. It is rather intriguing that when a member of the ruling party dies in police custody, the opposition demands a probe. The BJP jumps in. This is Kashmir. How many people die within the confines of prisons, and how many protests are staged? 

Saeed Mohammad Yousuf, a member of the National Conference, was accused by two colleagues of corruption, the new hip crime. He admitted to accepting Rs 11 odd million to get the two legislative posts. 

Chief Minister Omar Abdullah thought it was serious enough and transferred the complaints to the state home minister. This was on September 29. The next day Yousuf died in a police hospital. Abdullah says the crime branch was examining the case. 

This is real quick work. No doubt, taking money to get plum posts is a crime, but did those two get the positions promised? Would anyone really know if it had been kept within the party and Yousuf could have been thrown out? In comparison to what takes place in J&K, this is really a gamble and not at all unusual. 

So, did Yousuf's kidneys/lungs/heart fail because he had accepted a bribe and admitted to it? Or was he killed because, as his family alleges, he knew too much about the Abdullahs since he was close to them? 

Forget the bit about secrets. If he was indeed close to them, then Omar was perhaps trying to consolidate a cleaner than detergent image by showcasing a 'friend' as an example of his own honesty. Or, he felt betrayed. Or...

The leader of the main opposition the People's Democratic Party, Mehbooba Mufti, and activists staged a protest march. She demanded: 

"To ensure a fair probe into the death of the National Conference worker, Omar Abdullah must step down. Otherwise the probe would be nothing more than an eyewash."

While there is no doubt that this is a political move, it is rare. Besides, think about the analogy from the other scams. Is not the Congress on the mat for the Rajas and Kanimozhis?  
Resignations are often a way out, if it is forced upon 'loyal solidiers', something Yousuf might have done had he been given an opportunity. As CM, Abdullah has refused to quit. It is true that it might cause further problems, but it cannot get worse than it already is. 

His response to Mehbooba Mufti's statement about an eyewash is tepid:

"How is it possible? The judge who will be inquiring the case will not be answerable to my government. Where does the question of influence arise? Moreover, it is in the best interest of me and my government that truth and only truth should come out. I will be deposing before the Commission and answer each and every query."

How independent is the judiciary? How many judgements have ever been passed against ruling governments? Omar may not exert influence, and he may well be clean, but the judiciary will try and play the establishment game. We do know that bribery cuts across the board and is not only a political evil. 

I am afraid that the truth is, as always, relative. The truth here is a member if his party took money. He should have been slapped with a legal case, not a crime branch probe. 

As regards deposing before a Commission, L K Advani has been doing so before the Liberhans Commission for years now; Narendra Modi deposed. They answered queries. So?

"People have lot of faith in the courts. So let us not make a mockery of the faith of millions of people."

In Jammu and Kashmir or in La-la land?

Omar said that by summoning Yousuf he had only performed his duty to ensure that the vicious cycle of corruption was put to an end.

Really? We never heard about this cycle earlier from him. Has he pulled up corruption in the army, the police, at places of worship, in hospitals, at universities? Why Yousuf?

Seeking to put a stop to "trial-by-media", the Chief Minister said "it is unfortunate that certain section of media nowadays pronounce people guilty without even waiting for a judicial process to begin, forget about waiting for its end."

This is true. But he can call a press conference; he can appear on television. Why does he do so? Does the judicial process end? What about celebrity cases that are covered by the media and get fast-tracked by the judiciary precisely because they become eyeball grabbing? Certain sections of the media demonised 'stone pelters'. What does one say about that? 

Almost every TV channel has its favourites, and if you do not want the ball in your court, then also stay away from the game when it suits you. This applies to every politician, industrialist and celebrity. 

It is perturbing that the CM is holding a high moral ground about the exchange of money:

"Should I turn a blind eye to these allegations? I called him (Yousuf) and he agreed that he had taken money from the two others. All I wanted him to return the money. I guess that was not a crime. And I had told him and two others that the case will be probed by the Crime Branch in any case. Here I am handing over bribe giver as well as bribe taker to police. What is wrong in this?" 

If all he wanted was for Yousuf to return the money, then it would not have been such a complicated procedure. There are positions up for grabs without the exchange of funds. Why did Yousuf not deny it? Are those two so important that they can get an audience with the chief minister? 

And Abdullah, who has decried passing of judgement by the media, has this to say:

The Chief Minister said that no one had "touched" Yousuf at his residence and "I believe that no one touched him during the custody as well as the preliminary post mortem report was clear that there were no injury marks on him and he had died because of massive heart attack."

Now, now, where is the role of the judiciary that millions have faith in? What does a public pronouncement of "I believe" amount to? Why is he commenting on the post mortem report and whether Yousuf was "touched" or not? Is this not pre-judging a case when he has himself left it to the courts to bring out the truth?

As I said, the PDP will play politics. But it has earlier protested against other custodial deaths as well. However, it does not behove the CM to make churlish comments:

Omar dubbed PDP’s demand for his resignation to "empty vessels making lot of noise" and accused it of being an "obtrusive opposition rather than a healthy one."

"The allegations made by the party will be aptly replied by my lawyer as I have faith in the judicial system. In the past, some of the opposition leaders had to tender an apology after I sued them for defamation and I know for sure that this time also, history will repeat itself."

A healthy opposition, apparently, is a blind one. His attitude reeks if arrogance. They are demanding a probe into a custodial death and his resignation because he handed the man to the cops. Is this noise by empty vessels? We make such demands on ministers all the time because it is called accountability. Yousuf's family says he had no history of heart attack; Abdullah says it can happen. Of course, but again why is he not waiting for a judicial probe? 

He seems to be concerned only about defamation and how his lawyers will sue the opposition parties and get an apology. Fine. If the opposition has gone beyond decency and acused him of the worst and his lawyers prove that, does it take away from the seriousness of the case itself? 

We have a great martyr here. The man is honest and will take his own party man to task for accepting a bribe for something he was not even in a position to do. In fact, has anyone asked Abdullah what his equation with Yousuf was and whether he was in such a dandy position at all? Did Omar know the two bribe givers and where they got the funds from?

Of course, this is all for the judiciary's ears. Meanwhile, the CM can keep talking extra-judicially and be "sure" that he will get an apology. And all will be well with the washing machine...er...image. 

- - -

Published in Countercurrents

---

Updated October 8, about 5 pm)

How many interviews has Omar Abdullah given since his "faith in the judiciary" and "trial by media" comment?

Here is one such, with excerpts (read the report for his version of mimicry):

Omar said allegations against Syed Mohammed Yousuf were brought to his notice about two months ago but it slipped out of his mind to act on those allegations. "I am only human (and) with the entire pressure of handing a peaceful summer, the Amarnath Yatra, governance and a whole host of other things, it just slipped my mind,'' he told a TV channel.

Now, after listening to the guy who accused Yousuf, he says it is the opposition plot:

Omar hinted that Reshi could be working at PDP's behest. "Three independent and credible sources have told me about his contact with a high level PDP functionary." He also called Yousuf a "crook" and denied his close links to the Abdullahs. There was no evidence, he said, that Yousuf was roughed up. "He died 24 hours later. Look at the timeline. The stress killed him."

Of course.

"I tendered my resignation (over allegation of involvement in a sex scandal) and was called immature,'' he said. "I am not losing any sleep over this. I have a job to do and I will continue to do that." He said would not apologize for how he handled the issue and would do the same thing again under similar circumstance.

It is good he can sleep well, unlike many Kashmiris. And his job includes seeing to it that custodial deaths are prevented.