The Dumbing Down of Debate — Of Bhagwat, Jayalalitha and a news anchor

Why are we a part of so much noise?

Sometime last month, a friend from Pakistan sent me a text message after a long gap of non-communication. He began by asking why I had not written anything on azadi and inquilab, the public protests of Imran Khan's party. I did subsequently post something, but the fact is that unlike earlier I did not feel the need to time it.

Part of the timing thing is, of course, old journalistic habit of commenting on an event or doing a follow up feature story. It wasn't mere deadlines I was meeting; thoughts were racing through my mind and wouldn't rest until they were put down. The mental race continues.

However, I have begun to wonder and ponder. There are many reasons for it, but here are a few.

I was trying to locate an old column of mine after Jayalaithaa's arrest. Not only did I recall where it was published around the time when the case first got in the news, I remembered the picture that was used as well. While rummaging through the piles, I stopped. What was I doing and why? Did I want to scan the piece and put it up? What would it achieve? Did I want to use bits of it? Both were possibilities, and although my views are not dated I am conscious that despite the long articles written now, what registers most are stray sentences. Like some others, I do have a few of such sentences that can be highlighted. But, it is tidbits that seem to overwhelm — the number of the Tamil Nadu CM's domestic staff, what she ate, drank, wore. Would one want to break the linkages, the ingrained cohesiveness? Would one want 'light' readers to snigger about what they register as pop psychology, the calling out of which is another pop fad?

In any event, I gave up the search. Along the way, I found several pieces. One of them was on the RSS, another mentioned Mohan Bhagwat, who is in the news today because as chief of the Hindutva organisation he managed to get direct entry into national TV as Doordarshan telecast his speech live. If he has said pretty much the same things on earlier occasions, why should what happens now surprise me at all? Nothing has changed. If anything, it is the public secularists who are claiming their pound of flesh by revealing how fearful they are when they cannot even critique this kowtowing to a non-party organisation and drag in religious heads of other communities that do not — and thankfully so — have the standing to be so propped up.

It is the political wayfarers who find sustenance in such liberal rabble-rousing. In the process they ignore that history was no different. Perhaps, the ignoring is willful: It is about grabbing a spot in the sun. It is about a whoa moment holding on to the crutch of a meme to make a point that skims only the crust and lacks the drive, patience and integrity to probe the crux.

One would understand had such testosterone response been from novices. Why do seasoned analysts too join in the dirge of "We are going downhill" when all this has happened before, and not in ancient times? It has happened before our eyes in the 80s, 90s and the 2000s. The RSS speeches are the same.

What we should be doing is to keep our antenna up and raise our voices instead of looking like frightened deer before headlights. There is a horrible fallout of this: the guys in the front are getting hit. The mastermind is safe. For example, Doordarshan gets blamed for the Bhagwat speech when we know that the national channel follows government diktats. Besides that, attention is diverted from similar rightwing nonsense from previous regimes. It is one reason you rarely hear about the 1992-93 riots. This bothers me a lot.

Everybody likes a good fight, to be able to nurse wounds and egos, knowing well that in this junk-food version of news things come cheap and don't last long. And that is such a convenient thing for them. There is no fealty expected in the long run, no commitment.

During the PM's trip to the US, the way the word Modi was used revealed how indebted many in the media are to the new government and its head. A play on the name became less pun and more about building the cult.

Following an altercation between a media person and the rightwing cheerleaders, an industrialist close to the PM reportedly conveyed a message that Modi regretted what had happened. This is what should concern us more, that a businessman is acting as the conduit between a PM and a journalist.

Those holding forth have little or no experience in or about the media, just as the neo-experts are not experts at all. Journalistic space has been taken over by rightwing think-tanks or liberals with too many books and a lot of dust in their shelves. All that is debated is not news. Trivia and gossip too are discussed, and they have a place. But in the enthusiasm to legitimise the trivia or the addenda, opponents are getting more importance. Which is what they want and what they probably incited. Worse, the serious is getting reduced to the level of the frivolous, with its own version of flouncy bouncy analyses.

Re-Public

“I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country. Corporations have been enthroned, an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money-power of the country will endeavor to prolong it's reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until the wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed.” 

- Abraham Lincoln

I found this quote applies rather well to us in India as we celebrate our existence as a Republic.

There is much to question, but the Indian Constitution ensures rights. It is our duty to not misuse them. Among these, the right to life, livelihood and dignity should get supremacy. Unfortunately, we as individuals are helpless.

The right to breathe in a secular environment is important. Anyone who dreams of a nation based on religion - and any name given to it in disguise will not help - has no right under this Constitution.

- - -

Also:

Nehru, Ambedkar and a Cartoon

Cartooning the Constitution: Look before you leak

Sanjiv Bhatt's Lost Rebellion

Sanjiv Bhatt with wife Shweta

There is a school of thought about fighting the system from within. It rarely works. The system eats you before you can even bring out your fork or finger it.

There is also the halo-giri, where it is assumed that the fight is being done for honour. One such instance is now before us.

Suspended Gujarat IPS officer Sanjiv Bhatt’s wife Shweta on Friday announced that she will contest the State Assembly elections on a Congress ticket against Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi from Maninagar constituency in the city.

This is most certainly not a decision she took on her own. She has the backing of her husband, who in turn is backed by the Congress now. I emphasise ‘now’ because he did depose before the Nanavati Commission against Narendra Modi when he, Bhatt, was part of the IPS cadre in Gujarat and wrote to the Supreme Court indicting Modi for complicity. He was suspended.

Shweta Bhatt says:

“We have moved far away from democracy in Gujarat and to restore it, everyone has to do whatever they can. Fighting election against Modi is the logical step in our quest for democracy and to curb anti-democratic forces.”

Electoral democracy means people going to vote and whoever wins is accepted. So Gujarat is a democracy in that limited sense. She could have chosen a word like secularism. Or even dictatorship. But, these are loaded terms and can apply to the party she is now with. By pitting his wife against Modi, he has lost the moral spine of a real dissenter. He stands bare, as one more opportunist willing to sleep with the enemy’s enemy.

Despite some obfuscation and delay on his part, Sanjiv Bhatt did offer a little hope for those who do believe the chief minister owes responsibility for what happens in the state he governs. In a state where Modi is master, the Congress has had no major role to play and, therefore, prove. It knows Modi will win. It does not matter whether they put up a lamp-post against him or Sanjiv Bhatt’s wife. That should concern the officer and gentleman. It will in no way help diminish the crimes he has been fighting against. If anything, he has placed himself in an awkward position where his wife losing could well be used by the Congress as evidence of martyrdom, of having suffered because her husband is a hounded creature.

Well, that is not the case. And Bhatt is probably doing this to keep his options open. A quid pro quo cannot be ruled out, with the Congress promising a Rajya Sabha seat or other goodies. These are political gains.

Modi must be happier than usual. The man who ‘took him on’ on a matter of principle is now playing ball on another court. 

(c) Farzana Versey

Sajda and the Sadhu

How sorry are the attempts at communal harmony. This picture is an example. The Times of India used this caption:

"A sadhu prays while a group of Muslims perform namaz in Jodhpur on Eid"

Was the sadhu invited? Is he leading the prayer? He is a distance away, so where is the harmony here? Look at the expression of those praying. Their attention is diverted to this spectacle. Besides, I wonder how the devotees would be bowing before their footwear. Sajda to their chappals?

It's better not to project such images. Really. We can all live without variety.

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: 

Team Aamir and Arnab

Now that the medics will be free, they should rush to some television channels. First stop is emergency treatment for Times Now's Valmiki. Arnab Goswami is celebrating Diwali - there is so much patakha coming out of his mouth - for the return of Lord Anna from his banwas. Fact is, he was not in exile.

The real agni pariksha (test by fire) does not count. Breaking news is screaming out about "Complete victory". He challenged the viewers: "Is this a victory for Anna or for the billion Indian people?"

Please correct me: is a session in Parliament that has tacitly agreed to the main points a complete victory? Rest assured that Team TOI has ensured that the ads will keep coming. For, the anchor at one point referred with some gumption to "what we call the common man". He was also handing out certificates applauding ministers for conducting the Parliament session so well. "It is creditable..." he intoned.

He refused to entertain "cynicism", although arrogance is his birthright. After Medha Patkar had her say, which was pro-Anna, he used her to fortify his sponsored point. To the extent that he even said, "She does not belong to the constitutional club and may not even be allowed inside the India International Centre." Media people are on quota lists for everything, including membership of IIC, and whatever her stand on this subject it was a cheap shot to earn common man mileage points.

The real cherry was when he was contradicted on his euphoria. He snorted and said, "If one does not understand history in the making, then I would not be true to journalism"!

- - -

My Hindutva party acquaintance has other problems.

The Note:

"I am watching the 7pm news on Times Now. Aamir Khan is sitting next to Anna Hazare. And he is wearing a skull cap, which clearly identifies him as a Muslim.

However Team Anna had consistently opposed any show of Hindu symbolism on the stage.

Strange definition of secularism.

Incidentally, I think one rarely sees Aamir Khan in a skull cap in other surroundings. One has to wonder why he felt it necessary to make his Muslim identity so stand out. Did he take part as a Muslim or as an Indian?"

My take:

This whole tamasha has been about symbolism. Aamir Khan has often used public fora to market his films and himself.

Did anyone object when Swami Ramdev openly propagated a 'Hindu' style of protest? Is everyone wearing a Gandhi topi Gandhian?

Indeed, Aamir does not wear the skullcap, so he perhaps did it to further the cause after the Shahi Imam's objection. And to send out the message that elitist Muslims are with Anna.

Even if he made his Muslim identity stand out, I find it strange that this is seen as antithetical to being Indian.

What about the dhotis and chotis, the sadhus and bhajans? Shall we ask every woman to discard her bindi and the men to put away rudraksha beads so we can be completely secular?

Everyone has used the Ramlila Ground to bribe their way into different groups for their versions of "complete victory".

Indian courts and forked tongues?

'Law and order' sounds like a curious term because the law does not seem to have any order.

The Supreme Court gets a 7-month itch

On September 30, the Allahabad High Court pronounced its threesome verdict about Babri-Masjid/Ayodhya ‘dispute’. Now, the Supreme Court has decided it is all wrong.

The 50-year legal battle for control of the 2.77 acres of Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid will start from scratch, with the Supreme Court on Monday faulting and staying the Allahabad High Court order dividing the temple-mosque complex among Ram Lalla (the idol of Lord Rama), Hindus and Muslims.

“How can decree for partition be passed as the HC has done? Something very strange has been done by the HC on its own when no party had sought such a relief.”

What was it doing all these months? It is rather strange that both the Hindus and Muslims are satisfied with the stay order. They need not be because one really does not know when our courts start contradicting each other. As regards the farce of the early judgment, we got there before the SC in Ayodhya: Where 1=2

A few points from my piece reiterated here again:

1. My judiciary has instead taught me a new math. One is equal to two. The 2.77 acre land has been divided into three parts – one for the master, one for the slave and one for the little boy who cries down the lane.
2.  Has the judiciary defined what exactly it means by the term ‘Hindus’ and ‘Muslims’?...
3. This secular democratic republic has copped out under the weight of its own mythology and given a verdict where religion IS the state…
4. This brings us to the third portion – the demolished mosque. It “belongs to Hindus”. Which Hindus? From an ancient era?

The court gets god

Back to the courts. This time to the Ahmedabad High Court. On May 1, Gujarat Day, the Governor and Chief Justice (CJ) of presided over the bhoomi pujan of a new building on the premises. Mumbai Mirror reported that Rajesh Solanki, who heads an Ambedkarite organisation called Council for Social Justice, wrote to the CJ and sent copies to the Union and State Home Secretaries. No one bothered, so he filed a PIL:

At the end of it, Justices Jayant Patel and J C Upadhyay called Solanki’s view ‘pervert’ [sic] and dismissed his petition with an ‘exemplary’ fine. Stating that the puja was for the successful completion of the proposed building, and for the larger interests of all those who would benefit from its construction, the order defined secularism as based on the principles of ‘Vasudev Kutumbakam’ (the world is one family). Differentiating between religion and ‘dharma’, the judges said dharma meant ‘sarva bhavantu sukinah’ (may everyone be happy).

Solanki took his plea to the Supreme Court, which dismissed it. He is persistent and says if it is about all religions then why are their rituals not included.

The CJ and Guv seeking 'happiness': captured by Solanki in a TV shot

Does the court have any right to call a person’s views perverted when he has said nothing of the nature? The bench should be sued for defamation.

I would like to ask a few further queries:

If constructed buildings benefit people, then what about those that are demolished or crash due to natural disasters? Since the Indian Constitution rules in law, what place do holy scriptures have? This ‘we are family’ cheesiness is best left for popcorn munching films or in social interactions. I find the distinction between religion and dharma rather facile. All religions in some form or the other wish everyone to be happy even if they kill each other in the name of some other happiness. Dharma is embedded within a certain religious idea and it is fair enough, but do not try and make a distinction to sneak out of a sense of responsibility.

I’d say this not only about Gujarat but any state in a non-theocratic country. You have absolutely no business to use government space to flash any kind of religious rituals. The true benefit of a new building would be better facilities for those who have to spend hours waiting for hearings and speedy justice delivered in a non-partisan fashion. This is what the courts are about. Please leave “I’m happy, you’re happy” to individuals.

The TOI pushes it

Is it proper for the Times of India to give its 'Times View' together with a report, as it has done in today’s edition in a piece on the Supreme Court and honour killings? Why are reports being editorialised? Although there is always a bias, this is just not done. There can be a separate editorial or opinion pieces, even if by the editor, and they already have a ‘pro’ and ‘con’ section. But to use a box item with a report goes against all journalistic ethics. There have been a few occasions when the Times View appeared on the front page, which is akin to shouting from the soap box.

What could be the compulsions behind pushing such ‘views’? Do they believe the readers are idiots and won’t know how to formulate their own opinions, if any, on the reports? Or is it insecurity? Or fake bravado – ‘See, we are standing up for the issue’? Spare us. We know what to look for where. And if you must show us how serious you are, then ask the hard questions and push the hard stories.

Playboy and the Muslim Vote

Recently, there were reports of former cricketer Mohammed Azharuddin being used by the Congress to garner Muslim votes. An email asked: “I wonder how the secularists will react if a political party follows an aggressive strategy to get Hindu votes.”

I have a counter-question: How will the Hindutvawadis react if a Hindu girl posed in the nude for Playboy? They have often created a ruckus about Valentine’s Day or certain clothing. My question is based on the news item about a Turkish Muslim girl posing in the buff for German Playboy. Her parents are angry. Many parents would be. She says she wanted to be free. I wonder from what. She is an actress, and does not live in a strict environment. Yet, this is being seen as a protest against stringent Muslim laws.

So, I’d like to know how many good Hindu girls won’t face similar flak.

As regards the secularist question and Hindu votes, what was the whole Ram Janmabhoomi movement about? Can there be anything more aggressive than this? Are there no caste faction political considerations? Even the secular political parties employ such methods. The “Muslim vote bank” has just become a convenient ploy to hide the other ploys. Muslims are not in a majority, so there will be many more Hindu voters anyway.

And Hindutva groups do try and portray their Muslim agenda, including Narendra Modi. They keep their token Mussalman members and they too attempt the Muslim at Ganesh puja and Hindu at Iftaar stunts.

If there is a real problem with secularism, then will these people have the courage to ask Muslims not to vote for them? Just as you don't have to look at Playboy.

Secularism - not yet

So, I open the papers today and I see this picture. The caption says:

RELIGION NO BAR: Hindu members of the Madhursang Ganpati-Muharram Mandal of Crawford Market observe Muharram. The mandal's members also celebrate the Ganpati festival.

Since I have been accused of cribbing about Times of India and generally the media’s attitude of showing images of minorities doing the majority thing, I thought I’d give the flip side as well now that the newspaper has finally given us a peek into it.

I only hope these Hindus are not beating themselves with chains.

Having said this, I reiterate that religion is a private matter and when it does spill out as celebration or mourning, it needs to be confined to a certain space. In the name of secularism let us not make a tamasha of it and disturb the peace.

- - -

Those matkas (pots) of water that you see are placed in many localities; it is to symbolise, among other things, the denial of water to Imam Hussein. Anyone, and I mean anyone, can drink that water. Years ago, my mother was going somewhere and at a small store a woman was feeling faint and thirsty. In those days, bottled water was not available just about anywhere. But these pots were there, so my mother suggested she drink from it; the woman refused saying she would not drink Muslim water. It isn’t much different from how even within Muslim sects some would not touch water in the home of someone from another sect.

If one is not particularly religious, it also becomes difficult to explain some customs. I recall once being asked by a South Indian gentleman how Muslims celebrated Muharram. And because my memory was of those pots, I mentioned it. He looked surprised and asked, “Enough?” Obviously, festivals mean something more. So I told him it had a historical reason. “What?”

“Water problem,” I blurted out. Not the best answer, but he was a builder so it must have made some sense to him.

- - -


kijiye aur koi zulm agar zidd hai yehi
lijiye, aur meri lab pe duaein aayi*

(Jigar Moradabadi)

*My rough translation:

Torture me as much as you will
More prayers will spill forth from my lips

True sacrifice can be encapsulated in these sentiments, according to me. 

Rishtey mein Lord Ram hamare baap lagte hain?

It is lecture time. “The interest of ordinary Muslims in new India lies in embracing modernity,” says Minhaz Merchant. The headline of the editorial page piece in The Times of India is ‘Educate, Don’t Appease’. It assumes, therefore, that only the uneducated are appeased and the white knights like Mr. Merchant are not.

I will tell you how they are. In his own precious words:

As a group of visiting senior Muslim clergy from Ayodhya, with wisdom born of great learning, said recently to Swami Shri Swaroopananda Saraswati, the highly respected Shankaracharya of Dwarka: “Even though our religions are different, we share the blood of the Hindus.” The Shankaracharya replied gently: “That makes our Lord Ram your ancestor as well.”

Very well, we are family and all. Then, rishtey mein Babar is also daddy dearest to Hindus, no? And most certainly Emperor Akbar? After all, he was married to Jodha bai and used to rock the cradle with Krishna’s idol, at least that is what they showed in Mughal-e-azam. So, if you want to play ball, then you have to be on the same court. You can’t just lob it up in the air.

The author goes on to state:

This is not just about genealogy – it reflects India’s embedded religious diversity.

Sure. The TOI used this picture with the headline, ‘Reinforce the tolerance that unifies’.

Tolerance has to be mutual, even though I dislike the word tolerance. You cannot have one idea of god and a stereotype of another religion paying obeisance to that god and call it diversity.


I had written about just such a narrow vision in the article Mainstream Terror:

It is interesting that while the urban elite has taken over religious celebrations and consumerised it, they use the ‘backward’ idea to drive home the point of India’s colourfulness. It almost seems like they are sitting away and cheering at a spectator sport.

My real issue, though, is how the Muslim clergy and the shankaracharyas are considered the only wise folks around worth quoting. Does the author not talk about modernity? Then why is he appeasing religious heads?

Grow up and get your priorities right. It is shameless and insensitive that this piece was written as a prelude to the December 6 Babri Masjid demolition’s 18th anniversary. Was that appeasement or modernity?

The battle for no religion

Islam was written on my birth certificate, but that did not ‘make’ me a Muslim. In school we had to fill such forms. In the later years of college, I would put in NA – not applicable. The clerk was too busy to notice. Most people are, unless it is in an exceedingly important context.

So, what is this hullabaloo over a well-educated couple choosing “to battle an unremitting bureaucracy from the very start and refused to fill in the column titled ‘Religion’ in their child’s most basic document, the birth certificate”? Incidentally, the TOI headline was, "No religion please, we’re liberals"! The amount of time liberals take to discuss religion cannot mean 'no religion'.

Aditi Shedde and Aalif Surti are the Hindu Maharashtrian mother and Gujarati Muslim father of the special baby. Says the mother:

“A few months into my pregnancy, we had decided that we would not give our child any religious identity. We are not against religion, but who are we to choose a religion on our baby’s behalf? We will expose him to the values of different faiths and cultures, and when he grows up he will be free to follow any faith—or none if he wishes.”

That would have been possible even if they had added a religion. There are many of us who do not actively practise any faith even though we have been branded. Heck, we get branded anyway.

If it is different cultures they want to expose the child to, then they could have made him a Jew or a Christian. As it turns out they had to fill in “Others”.

“Others is just to facilitate the generation of the certificate. We know our child has no religion.”

I do not understand. If they insist the child has no religion, why make such a noise about it? It only draws attention to the fact that they have a religion which they are not practising. Adults make these choices. Their baby will grow up and make several others. He could take to certain habits they may not approve of (and I am sure they do have certain values they believe in) – will they leave it to choice?

Why give the child a name when he can choose it when he grows up? Or will they select one of those abstract ones or something from Greek mythology to make certain that their respective religions do not come in the way to brandish their views?
If both of them belonged to the same faith would they have done the same thing? I doubt it. I think this is more statement than a practical reality.

Over a decade ago, I had written this:

But religion per se cannot give anyone an identity in the fluctuating late 20th century society. It can only provide the much-dreaded moral fibre and a mistakenly-interpreted formula for living. Besides, it does colour our interpretation of the world.

If the child under discussion were to make the choice, is there any guarantee he will not be exposed to any religion anywhere? Why are the parents identifying themselves with the different faiths they were born in? What will they tell him when he grows up a bit and sees people around with tags? Therefore, it is about religion, anyway you look at it.

When I was a kid I was asked whether I wanted to have the muliyani come over and I refused. When I stopped participating in certain rituals – which were anyway a rarity at our house – no one questioned me.

Identity is larger than a label. If it is not, then we are in serious trouble and no amount of battling bureaucracy and having something fancy on a piece of paper will change that.

What if the child wants to change his gender later? Why put 'Male' in the form? I know this is stretching it, but how else do you reach out?
- - -

In an incident that worked in an opposite manner I once filled out a form for my mother and put NA in the religion section, but the person insisted it was required. I later informed her about it and she shot back, “Who has given you the right to make this choice for me? I am a Muslim and that is a fact. I don’t tell you what you should follow, so don’t interfere in mine.”

There is nothing like an Indian Muslim PM

Why should anyone want to know how long it will take for India to have a Muslim prime minister? How does it matter?

Some student from Aligarh Muslim University asked this to Rahul Gandhi; he used the term ‘wazir-e-azam’ to make the Muslimness stand out. Stupid.

I am happy with the way Rahul responded:

“Merit is the only password for the top job in the country, religion is no qualification. What will clinch the issue of one’s suitability (for PM) is one’s competence. Other factors are not just secondary, but insignificant. Let me tell you that even when you do have a Muslim prime minister, he will be a prime minister because he is the most capable person.”

Absolutely. It does not matter that merit is often not the criterion; there is nepotism, there is dynasty, there are mai-baaps waiting with protégées tugging at their dhoti-sherwani-saree. Yet, it is an important statement and it is time people stopped posing such queries. What does one expect from a Muslim PM, anyway?

S/he has to follow the Constitution, has to be answerable to the party General Secretary, has to do Diwali patakhas and Eid iftaar and as a sidelight add some Christmas Santa act and Sikh stuff and whatever it is that Buddhists and Jains do. In effect, be a part-time kafir, if you follow the rule books as interpreted by some rule-book types. After all this fancy dress competition, you make the rounds of various dead people’s graves, place flowers, and look sombre. Then put on an international face and go to summits where you make India sound like a global superpower, and add some concern about the environment and terrorism; usually it is the same thing if you follow Obama and not Al (I mean Gore, not Capone).

You return home and deal with the saffron rightwing, who will say you are going green. The jamaati rightwing will expect you to be jamaat type. Then the PM will hold forth on secularism this and secularism that. The world will say, look, look, India has a Muslim PM. We will be called a real democracy, while Wazir-e-whatever has no clue about little bastis, unless it is election time and one snotty Dalit kid is placed on her/his lap. Back to the jeep, Mossie begum/saab will ask for sanitiser. Some enthusiastic bloke will whisper if it has to be halal. PM will be in a fix so someone will bring out ittar-soaked wet wipes. Everyone will applaud secular India, secular PM, secular people. When what really is happening is that it is the religions, stupid. So, cut it out.

We had a Muslim President who happily signed the Emergency edict. (Fakhruddin Ali Ahmed during Indira Gandhi’s time.) Corrupt people in power, spineless fellows will remain just that. Their faith should be relegated to the private domain. It has no place in the public sphere at all.

Therefore, thumbs up to Rahul. Although he kind of tempered it by promising “there would be 30 young Muslim faces in the political centrestage in five years”. Why? How will they suddenly spring out from the merit quota?

And why must they be referred to as Muslims at all? The day we stop adding such tags in public life, we can say we have truly grown up as a society and a polity.

Those things our armymen do...

Now, this forward is supposed to make us go all gooey. I did try. Honest. But it’s not working. Why on earth is it even necessary to ask, “Any one more secular than the Indian army?”

Here are the examples. My two-bits in bold:

As a serving army officer, I never stop marvelling at the gullibility of our countrymen to be provoked with alacrity into virulence in the name of religion. I have never heard the word 'secular' during all my service -- and yet, the simple things that are done simply in the army make it appear like an island of sanity in a sea of hatred.

In the army, each officer identifies with the religion of his troops. In regiments where the soldiers are from more than one religion, the officers -- and indeed all jawans attend the weekly religious prayers of all the faiths. How many times have I trooped out of the battalion mandir and, having worn my shoes, entered the battalion church next door? A few years ago it all became simpler -- mandirs, masjids, gurudwars and churches began to share premises all over the army. It saved us the walk.

So, God is not omnipotent and omniscient, but has a) a foot fetish b) is a fitness instructor

----------------------------------
Perhaps it is so because the army genuinely believes in two central 'truths' -- oneness of god and victory in operations. Both are so sacred we cannot nitpick and question the basics.

In fact, sometimes the army mixes up the two! On a visit to the holy cave at Amarnath a few years ago I saw a plaque mounted on the side of the hill by a battalion that had once guarded the annual Yatra. It said, 'Best wishes from -....- battalion. Deployed for Operation Amarnath.

If there was oneness of god, then there would be no need for an Operation Amarnath.

-------------------------
On another instance, I remember a commanding officer ordered the battalion maulaviji to conduct the proceedings of Janamashtmi prayers because the panditji had to proceed on leave on compassionate grounds. No eyebrows were raised. It was the most rousing and best-prepared sermon on Lord Krishna I have ever had the pleasure of listening to.

Geez, the army has maulvis and pandits? Can people not have their own little holy books they can read from? Would it be the same attitude had a pandit given a sermon about the prophet? Do they also have Catholic priests, Sikh granthis and Buddhist and Jain monks?

-----------------------
On the Line of Control, a company of Khemkhani Muslim soldiers replaced a Dogra battalion. Over the next few days, the post was shelled heavily by Pakistanis, and there were a few non-fatal casualties.

One day, the junior commissioned officer of the company, Subedar Sarwar Khan walked up to the company commander Major Sharma and said, "Sahib, ever since the Dogras left, the mandir has been shut. Why don't you open it once every evening and do aarti? Why are we displeasing the gods?"

Major Sharma shamefacedly confessed he did not know all the words of the aarti. Subedar Sarwar Khan went away and that night, huddled over the radio set under a weak lantern light, painstakingly took down the words of the aarti from the post of another battalion!

Is this secular? If there are no aartis, it would displease the gods? Since they know so much about the working of the mind of gods why don’t they ask the gods (please note the plural…didn’t someone talk about oneness of religion earlier?) to do some jaadu and get the troops on the other side to just disappear?

-----------------------
How many of us know that along the entire border with Pakistan, our troops abstain from alcohol and non-vegetarian food on all Thursdays? The reason: It is called the Peer day -- essentially a day of religious significance for the Muslims.

Only the armed forces seem to know about such days. Which Peer is being commemorated and for what? To the best of my knowledge, Peer is Monday in Urdu. So, how does Monday appear on Thursday? Civilian Muslims eat meat on all days and those who do not drink will not drink on any day. The rest will continue with their chhota and bara pegs.

-------------------------
In 1984, after Operation Bluestar there was anguish in the Sikh community over the desecration of the holiest of their shrines. Some of this anger and hurt was visible in the army too.

I remember the first Sikh festival days after the event -- the number of army personnel of every religious denomination that thronged the regimental gurudwara of the nearest Sikh battalion was the largest I had seen. I distinctly remember each officer and soldier who put his forehead to the ground to pay obeisance appeared to linger just a wee bit longer than usual. Was I imagining this? I do not think so. There was that empathy and caring implicit in the quality of the gesture that appeared to say, "You are hurt and we all understand."

Fine. Nice. Empathy is good anywhere. Have they asked themselves why they have to do what they do? It is better than putting the forehead to the ground and lingering a bit longer.

------------------------
We were deployed on the Line of Control those days. Soon after the news of disaffection among a small section of Sikh troops was broadcast on the BBC, Pakistani troops deployed opposite the Sikh battalion yelled across to express their 'solidarity' with the Sikhs.

The Sikh havildar shouted back that the Pakistanis had better not harbour any wrong notions. "If you dare move towards this post, we will mow you down."

So Santa Singh became Santa Claus for the Indian Army. This is his job. Why see it as a special gesture?

-------------------------------
Finally, a real - and true - gem.

Two boys of a Sikh regiment battalion were overheard discussing this a day before Christmas.

"Why are we having a holiday tomorrow?" asked Sepoy Karnail Singh.

"It is Christmas," replied the wiser Naik Gurmeet Singh.

"But what is Christmas?"

"Christmas," replied Naik Singh, with his eyes half shut in reverence and hands in a spontaneous prayer-clasp, "is the guruparb of the Christians."

Ok, a Sepoy would not know what is Christmas and he is supposed to rattle out the brand names of designer weapons. And a Naik who knows ups his GK quotient and becomes secular because he connects the celebration of something to do with his religion and another. Like taal se taal mila...

I wonder what he would have said if someone asked about the Last Supper. Would he call it temporary reincarnation? Or just say “Rab returning for holy langar”?

Pass the 'poor Muslim' some halal, please

I love it when the media tries so hard to sound secular. The Times of India had this first person account by someone who calls himself ‘A Son of India’. Now this SOI was on a flight back home from some holiday. The flight attendant apparently was rude to a Muslim. The writer is a Hindu. He makes that clear, just in case we make the grievous error of seeing a Muslim take up for a Muslim. That would be so bad, na?

The story is full of crappy stereotypes:

In the seat in front of us, there sat a young, quiet man, with a long beard, a typical Muslim cap, and white salwar.

So, our SOI has checked out the beard and the salwar although the man was in the seat in front. Even if they were travelling Business/First class, and he had to visit the loo in the front, how many people look at the clothes of men?

This Muslim man did what all Muslims are supposed to do – asked whether the non-veg meal was halal. See, what I mean? You cannot be a bloody Muslim until you find out how the animal or bird you are going to eat has been bled to death after some prayers were uttered.

There is also something about how he was not given tomato juice because it was over, but the White man was served. This does happen, but here the motive is different. You see, SOI had “downed a Ballantine’s with soda”, which is just so cool; his mother was also given half a glass of tomato juice. See, lady does not drink and because she is a Hindu she gets at least half a glass of juice. Muslim is offered Pepsi (how could he ever imbibe alcohol…taubah!) and just has to wait for his halal whatever.

The halal thing got our SOI furious. “All the poor man was doing was making sure that the meal was something that he could eat.”

Yeah. “Poor man.” Feeling good, eh? And, yes, our SOI can tell his V apart from his W…sooo werrryyy vonderful…

What really got my goat had started at the very beginning of this fable-like tale. It is about eight “Sardarjis” who were drinking themselves silly, making a noise. Of course, SOI is quick to tell us, “Some of my closest friends are Sardarjis. Some of the kindest, humblest, most intelligent and polished people I have met in Delhi are Sardarjis.”

Oh, cut it out…and some of the best bhangra I have seen is by sarjardis and sardarnis. So? Get to the point.

Here is the point. After that halal thing, he heard someone from the Sikh group say, “This is Indian Airlines, not Muslim Airlines!’’ SOI was aghast:

I could not hold back any longer. I turned to them and said as politely as I could, ‘Sir, please let me inform you that India is a huge nation. We have millions of Muslims. In fact, we have more Muslims than Pakistan. I am a Hindu and I really do not appreciate this kind of talk.’ At this point they all shut up and nodded.

Wahe SOI! He gave them an education. A bunch of people high on drinks wait to finish their meal and hit out at the poor Muslim? Does the poor Muslim not say anything at all? Does the SOI complain to the flight attendant in charge? Does he register a complaint? No. He writes this pathetic attempt at being the magnanimous fellow.

Pathetic because he goes on the ‘Jai Ho’ trip about India being the next superpower. What all his has to do with halal chicken only he knows. “The Europeans did it right, divide and conquer. We were great and rich once upon a time, and we are still the same now.”

Well, if there is anything this SOI has learned from the Brits it is to divide. If he wanted to tell us about the poor Muslim and rude airline staff, he could have written about that. He brought in the Sikhs. Imagine, Hindu saving the Mussalman from the Sikh.

What’s the next episode, kid? Pork on Muslim plate and how you saved the poor Muslim from Christian wrath?

This nonsense will get a lot of claps from people who think they are all liberal. TOI will publish letters. It is like their Sacred Space stuff…no-jhatka chicken for the soul.

People like SOI should just stick to their Ballantine’s and check out a bit of other booze that even Muslims relish. Oh, I forgot to ask whether the salwar was ankle-length or not.

Was it? Just wondering…

With a mouthful of rum-soaked chocolate, here I am signing off,
A Halal Mother of India.

India's Muslims and Communalism

Set the poll rolling:

India's Muslims
by Farzana Versey
The News International, May 20, 2009

My cellphone and Inbox are filled with cheesy messages. “Communal forces have been defeated. Progress and peace are in the offing. God is great. Jai ho!”

It isn’t the BJP defeat that bothers me as much as the Congress victory. For, we are being fed these false images of a young India, an India on the move, an India that is secular. How different is it from the ‘India Shining’ baloney?

The messages like the one I mentioned are mostly from progressive Indian Muslims who blatantly play the communal card, forcing mullahs to walk with them on peace rallies. They don’t even realise the silliness of their stand. Who stopped peace and progress while the non-communal government was in power? And was god not great when the NDA was at the Centre?

The worst part is the assumption that communal forces have been defeated. Take a look at the candidates put up. Why were rookies chosen? Because the majority of the electorate from those areas were from a particular caste or community. Besides that, every religious leader will be wooed.

The tendency to jump the gun is opportunistic. The rally-wallah Mussalmans know exactly which cause to espouse and when. They will join in issues which have international appeal – Palestine, Iraq, Mumbai attacks. How many take out morchas for Dalits, or those killed by Naxalites, or in Malegaon or Bhiwandi blasts?

They get thrilled when local corporators visit the slums that were demolished only because the star of ‘Slumdog Millionaire’ lives there; they get excited about an activist who lands up wherever the cameras are wearing a bindi to show how secular she is. And we have had the disgusting sight of a man whose house was burned down during the Gujarat riots sit before a TV panel and tell the audience to move on. Why? He is a rich.

That is the reason I think the Indian Muslim reaction is kneejerk. Narendra Modi is not a spent force; he may be a regional leader but that is his strength. He has managed to consolidate his position in such a manner that even Muslim businessmen are talking about economic growth. That is all they are interested in. Modi spoke about 50 million Gujaratis without mentioning religion. It will be his smart card for years to come.

In fact, the BJP’s defeat will boost his position. While L.K.Advani is a statesman without a state, Modi will work his way through home ground. And nothing will happen to him. With vultures already preying on the party leadership position, Advani will have to deal with his own creation. He thought Modi would be a domesticated pet who could act as watchdog to warn visitors. The leash, alas, was too long.

The handful of the 150 million Muslims can continue to live in their canny paradise, but they have no right to make fools of those who do not have a choice or a voice.

When Uma Bharti had the gumption to declare before the elections that she and the senior BJP leaders did not know who demolished the Babri Masjid, there were no rallies by these so-called liberal Muslims demanding an explanation. How many bothered to collect the relevant data which is easily accessible and put it forward?

When there were questions asked about certain lies by NGOs in Gujarat, why did these Muslims not come forward and provide facts and figures or ask their own questions? How many of them will speak to the new government about expediting these cases? Or will they only look for their chance of getting a Rajya Sabha seat?

When the Darul Uloom issued a fatwa asking Muslims to vote, why did they not tell the religious organisation to stop interfering in the business of the state even if they were responding to the queries raised by the devout?

Religion and progress are not mutually exclusive; in fact, it is the most potent combination. You can sell faith faster than a burger. With extra cheese and mayo.

As long as this continues, and political leaders go around various places of worship, and you hear duas and shlokas on TV screens with a voice-over luring you with, “If you want this as your caller tune then SMS us”, we will remain a communal country.

Now, a fatwa to vote!

Can I vote for a drunkard? No, that's not my query. I'd be happy to recommend at least a nice after dinner liquer to erase the taste of kebabs from the palate.

This important question, among others regarding how to cast your vote that won't go against the Shariah, was apparently asked by some Muslims. I do not know how true it must be for one has never heard of such a thing before. But the Darul ul Uloom got its opportunity to issue one more fatwa.

This time it is to vote and for democracy. Which is such a dictatorial thing to do. Getting that ink dot is "as important as a testimony or a witness is in Islam", they said.

Then, the faithful are told that they cannot judge Indian democracy according to Quranic or Hadith principles.

Now, this is wonderful except that by issuing this edict and other past ones they are, and have been, going against their own sage advice.

It has got them brownie points and people will go, "Oh, this is the much-needed reform Muslim society needs." The Darul ul Uloom fellows will be seen as 'leaders'. One more joke.

Who knows this fatwa must have been prompted by some candidate who likes to wash down his rogan josh with Scotch?

I'd say lage raho miyan bhai, but please leave the ordinary Muslim alone to decide whether they want a drunkard, a womaniser or a Sufi high on hash.

Signs

Signpost put up by the Army at one of the highest passes in the world...

- - -

Results of earlier poll

The Indian cities/states that represent India best

Mumbai - 3 (17%), Delhi - 4 (23%), Kerala - 2 (11%), Tamil Nadu - 3 (17%), Kolkata - 1 (5%), Gujarat - 2 (11%), UP - 2 (11%), Bihar - 2 (11%), North East - 0 (0%), None - 5 (29%)

On and off - 5

Not on…

The Kerala government confirmed two Muslim police drivers were removed from BJP leader L K Advani’s convoy during his visit to the state but the state’s home minister Kodiyeri Balakrishnan clarified,. “No one was kept out intentionally. There were also four Hindus who were taken off.’’

Slamming a statement made by external affairs E Ahamed criticizing the removal of the Muslim drivers, Balakrishnan said the Muslim League leader’s view was in contrast to the country’s secular values.

Wow. Look who is talking about secular values. If we are so darn secular, then please whenever there is a bomb blast do not mention the religion of the ‘alleged suspect’, okay? Don’t say things like Muslim ghetto or Christian locality. Don’t talk about how Muslims are like this and like that. If you can’t, then stuff your holier-than-thou moral stance.

It seems hundreds of cops were deployed. How many Muslims were in that group? One is compelled to ask only because of what has happened. Otherwise, who cares who protects these politicians? If Mr. Advani is going around giving lectures on secularism, then the right signal would have been to retain those two Muslim policemen.

On…

A judge has thrown out a Nebraska legislator’s lawsuit against god, saying the Almighty wasn’t properly served due to his unlisted home address. State senator Ernie Chambers filed the lawsuit last year seeking a permanent injunction against god.

He said god has made terroristic threats against the senator and his constituents, inspired fear and caused “widespread death, destruction and terrorization of millions upon millions of the Earth’s inhabitants”.

I love this guy Chambers. In one smart move, and I don’t care whether it was intentional or not, he has made god answerable. A god with no fixed address. A god that can reside anywhere in anyone and therefore can cause all the ills he accuses the respondent of.

In a sense it is a most democratic suit. No individual based on specific affiliation can be blamed. Even the god is non-generic.

Chambers conveys that if a country refuses to call itself atheistic, then he has a case. As he stated, “The court itself acknowledges the existence of god. A consequence of that acknowledgment is recognition of god’s omniscience. Since god knows everything, god has notice of this lawsuit.”

Touche.