Did Indira Gandhi Help Shape ‘Anti-Pakistan’ Narrative?

103 years ago to the day, Indira Gandhi was born (19 November 1917). And 36 years ago, on 31 October, when Indira Gandhi was shot dead, we were stunned and genuinely sad. She seemed imperishable. 

She had mastered the art of playing both ‘victim’ and ‘rescuer’ – post-Emergency, after her son Sanjay’s death, even after death as her spirit hovered around when her politically-disinclined son was pulled out to save India. 

As I look back at the three major unfortunate events she was responsible for, we can see how her actions shaped post-Partition politics and that continue to echo today in more insidious forms. 

Read the full article in The Quint

How He Turned The Tables: The Rahul Gandhi Interview

If you are looking for a parody or, more appropriately, a lame attempt at humour, then please skip this.

Rahul Gandhi may not be a great subject for a television interview, he may not even turn out to be a good political leader, but on the much-touted first-ever interview in 10 years (he clarified on camera that this was not the first, but the first formal one!) he did exactly what he set out to do. Say his piece. What seemed like repetition, if not ducking, was a strategy he adopted to bludgeon the inquisitor softly, if not tire him out.

Some in the media have dubbed this a Rahul vs. Arnab fight. I am amazed at the ignorance. No one, I repeat no one, in the higher echelons of power will give such a big interview without vetting the queries. Therefore, Rahul Gandhi must certainly have been aware of what Arnab Goswami (AG) would ask. If AG added specific queries later, then isn’t it funny that at the beginning of the interview he makes it clear and RG says “You can draw me back as much as you want” but would he be okay if he took a broader look? Think about it. Besides, it does not take rocket science (ahem, those Bharat Nirman ads) to figure out what the nation as filtered by the media would want to know. As he said:

"I have done a little media interaction, prior to this. I have done press conferences & spoken to the media. But mainly bulk of my focus has been on internal party work and that's where I have been concentrating, that is where most of my energy was going."

In the latter half I will reproduce some salient points, with quick notes.

First, the minutiae: This was not a live interview; it was conducted at Jawahar Bhavan; it lasted for a little under 90 minutes. According to The Telegraph:

But sources said the Congress leadership wanted to ensure that Rahul’s “outing” should be with a journalist who has a reputation for being unsparing. An off-the-record session between Priyanka Gandhi Vadra and Goswami, over pakoras and tea, also helped pave the ground for the interview, the sources said.

It just so happens that those who are building up this “unsparing” interviewer have rather short or selective memories. Some of us do recall his almost obsequious questioning of Bal Thackeray; even Raj Thackeray has managed to stand firm. So, let us not create heroes only because we need to look down on certain people.

Let us talk about some problem areas.

Why was RG not being specific?

Why should he? He will do so in his speeches when he addresses the nation, not for revenue-run TRP-driven media. Has Times Now donated to the Congress Party’s election campaign? Is there a quid pro quo? No.

Arnab did his business of mentioning names – as the tagline of his show states – and Rahul spoke about the issue. Yes, the issues are more important. It is the system that deals with individual offenders. If he took the names, or repeated them after AG, he would be a bloody stupid politician and VP of his party.

Why did he not take the Modi bait?

This was by far the best thing Rahul could have done. He treated Narendra Modi as just another guy. The persistent questioning about whether he would agree to a debate with the Gujarat CM elicited what I thought was a perfect clincher: “The debate is already going on.” This effectively took the battle to where it belongs – outside the TV studios.

Why did he not apologise for the anti-Sikh riots of 1984?

What would he achieve by doing so? Get brownie points from the viewers and a pat on the back from the media, with Times going berserk by claiming that it was their channel that brought about this major penance? The PM and Sonia Gandhi have both apologised, and if RG has to do so it needs to be done to the people who are waiting for justice.

Why did he not come clean about his degrees?

Here you have an anchor who has netted a huge catch, and he is quoting a shark lapping in the shallows. Arnab brought in Subramanian Swamy to put RG on the mat regarding his educational qualifications. With all his Ivy League credentials, Swamy comes across as an uncouth man. Besides, how is it important? This Oxford-Cambridge showing off might appeal to the urban upper middle class, not the majority of the population.

Has anybody bothered to check for how long exactly Modi ran a tea stall that he is using as his new USP? Is there any evidence of it?

Why did he not commit on the Aam Aadmi Party?

Simple. The AAP is not one that sticks to its own word, so how can anybody else? Here is one bit from the interview

Arnab: Are you using the AAP to split the Anti Congress vote bank, to keep Mr. Modi out of power
Rahul: You are implying that we have brought the AAP...

This was really giving it to those ones in the politest of tones.

Why did he keep repeating about RTI, empowerment of women, the system?

Because these are crucial subjects, though they don’t sound terribly sexy. Indeed, he used these terms to also answer unrelated queries, but as I said at the beginning, he was here to say his piece.

We have got so accustomed in the past few months to war cry rallies and dharnas that someone who comes across as vulnerable, yet refusing to fall prey, is not easy to accept. Calling Rahul Gandhi a fool might prove to be our biggest fallacy.

Here is how he answered some of the questions, from Modi to being attacked, and why moving off-track sometimes seemed to be just the right move:

Mr. KPS Gill, did the police tutor Modi on the action-reaction theory?

The fact that the Modi camp rejoices over a few statements by a tainted former deputy general of police reveals the desperation to get a "clean chit".

In May 2002, KPS Gill was called in as security advisor to Narendra Modi. On October 31, 2013, over eleven years later, he says the Gujarat Chief Minister cannot be held responsible for the post-Godhra riots.

His reasoning:

"In law and order situations, it is the police leadership which has to respond and not the political leadership."

It happened to be the anniversary of the anti-Sikh riots when he said this, so it sounds particularly unfortunate. For, then, people like Sajjan Kumar and Jagdish Tytler, who have been tried for their role in the 1984 riots, would also be seen as blameless.

Why should Home Minister Sushil Kumar Shinde, or even Bihar CM Nitish Kumar, be made answerable for the recent Patna blasts, prior and during Modi's rally? After all, they constitute the political leadership.

Why question Akhilesh Yadav and Mulayam Singh for what happened in Muzaffarnagar?

When protestors are beaten with lathis and tear gas shells are used, why does the police force not take responsibility? Why does the matter reach the political leaders, including the President?

KPS Gill has got to have answers to these allied queries, for he cannot be selective.

He was appointed by Modi as security advisor, which is a political process and position, to an extent. It was three months after the riots. What did he do? Whose responsibility are compensations, rehabilitation? Who should visit the refugee camps?

"I realised that people of all political parties who were anti-Modi and anti-BJP were taking advantage of this mayhem and making all efforts to defame Modi one way or the other."

There is no denying that political parties always come in to take advantage, and the BJP is no exception. Could Mr. Gill explain how exactly does defamation of Modi take away his lack of intervention? The fact is that the matter did not end with the "mayhem" (interesting choice of word).

The report further states:

He charged the policemen and the administration had become communal after the incident in Godhra and Mr Modi, who had just become the chief Minister, did not have proper grip over the state machinery...he said that after taking charge as the security advisor of the state, he had visited all places where violence had taken place and policemen from top to bottom refuted having received any direction of the type being mentioned.

• The police deal with communal issues on a routine basis. They are not supposed to be communally prejudiced. The manner in which Gill is running down the Force is rather surprising.

• If Modi did not have a grip on the state, how does it matter? Why did he start using his remote powers? Don't they go against the former DGP's own thesis that it is not a political issue?

• There was much that happened soon after the riots, including the transfer of senior police officers. So, if the police leadership has to take responsibility, why were they shunted out? Would they not stand up for what they did? They did not transfer themselves, right?

Those cases are documented and the cops have served/are serving sentences.

• If they did not get any directions, why has no senior cop from Gujarat come out and said so in clear terms about the murders, the destruction of property, the encounter killings?

And why did Narendra Modi speak about action-reaction at the very beginning? Was he tutored by the cops?

There is a limit to the whitewash job.

---

Speaking of KPS Gill, even a whitewash job by him is not really capable of cleaning. He has, after all, served a sentence himself.

In 1989, he was charged for sexual harassment with 90 IAS officers signing the petition.

Rupan Deol Bajaj, an IAS officer herself, had persisted with the case and later said:

"Gill was convicted of sexual harassment charges by the Supreme Court and it's high time the government withdrew the Padma Shri award it gave him."

It is important to understand the mindset of such a man before taking his clean chit at face value.

End note:

"The rank and file of the Punjab police force feared him. I cannot say that they respected him. He was very supportive of his subordinates as long as they co-operated in achieving his goals. Even delinquents and evil-doers were tolerated if their actions fitted into his grand designs."

- Julio Ribeiro, who inducted Gill in the operations in Punjab


© Farzana Versey

Will Tytler get away again?

The re-opening of the case yesterday against Congress leader Jagdish Tytler for his role in the 1984 anti-Sikh riots could prove to be a boon for the party. Just when it has to deal with those pesky Wikileaks revelations about Rajiv Gandhi's middleman role in procuring fighter jets, it can flash the Delhi Court order as serious intent to seek justice.

Tytler, along with Sajjan Kumar and H.K.L.Bhagat, was largely responsible for what happened in the aftermath of Indira Gandhi's assassination by her security guards, who happened to be Sikh.

What followed was not only genocide, but complete misuse of power. It has been typical of governments to target innocents when they fail to deal with a group's demands or aspirations. It was no different in the case of Sikhs. It was, anyway, the Centre's misguided attitude that resulted in Operation Bluestar. And even if the then prime minister was killed because of disaffection, it had nothing to do with the community, and most certainly not the way a ruling party uses the system to decimate it's citizens.

If it got its ministers and the police to do its bidding then, it continued having a hold on the Central Bureau of Investigation. Therefore, the mere reopening of the case against Tytler, who was exonerated, ought to raise more questions than to result in jubilation.

The Delhi High Court cannot possibly serve as the final stop. It has directed the CBI, which will have to clear its own mischief (what we politely refer to as error of omission) first. Not only did it claim he had no role once, but twice - in 2007 when its closure report was rejected and in 2009.

Three murders and the absence of key witnesses in court (they had moved to America) does not prove innocence. Yet, the Congress let him contest from New Delhi, the city of his crime. Why was he not answerable? There are many ministers from various parties who have a criminal record, but this somehow becomes public knowledge. In Tytler's case, the knowledge itself is brushed away, clearly revealing a tony old boys' protective ring.

He had even talked about his emotional incarceration: “It is very difficult to explain what I am going through. Nobody understands that. But after 22 years of fighting false charges, I am thankful to god. I knew from the very beginning that the affidavit was full of lies. Why else would somebody file an affidavit 22 years after the incident happened. I was not even in Delhi on the day of the first incident and was in a TV studio on the second day. But the media hyped that conspiracy to such a level that it dragged on for so long.”

The CBI had said he was not in the gurdwara, where the three men were killed, but in Teen Murti Bhavan, which happens to be in Delhi. And what was he doing in a TV studio the next day? Why was he not helping to quell the mobs?

There are many images that have stayed, whether in the media or through stories related. Of people being beaten up. Of local bullies being paid to kill. Of people fleeing. Of men throwing off their turbans and cutting their hair. Or women and children that remained in camps. Waiting. Justice became a matter of survival. Food. Clothes. Shelter.

I still cannot get over the fact that despite this horrendous black mark, Rajiv Gandhi - the one who explained the murderous rampage as “when a big tree falls the earth shakes" - took over as prime minister in what has been called a ‘sympathy wave'. No sympathy for the hundreds dead.

The police seemed to follow political instructions, but there was this photograph of Kiran Bedi, lathi in hand, fighting a mob. Was she the lone rebel?

In later years, as Director General of Police, K.P.S.Gill took charge of dealing with terrorism in Punjab. I still remember a senior media person writing after Gill's infamous bottom-patting of a woman IAS officer that this should not result in any serious punishment as the ‘supercop' was a national asset.

One must also realise that no group is above political expediency. The 2004 photograph of Tytler is one such example. As Union Minister of State he was honoured with a 'siropa' by Delhi Sikh Gurdwara Management Committee President Prahlad Singh Chandok at a function.

It only shows that those holding positions of authority can forget and be co-opted easily with the promise of a few sops. The ordinary people need to raise their voices. Closure must not wipe out history.

(c) Farzana Versey

Beyond Wisconsin: Page of Terror and Establishment Apathy

Page of Terror and Establishment Apathy
Beyond Wisconsin
by Farzana Versey
Counterpunch, Aug 7

“Nobody's angry here. We're just confused. Was this a random act? Was this directed at us because of the way we look?”

The questions were raised by an onlooker at the site of the Sikh gurudwara at Oak Creek in Wisconsin where six people were killed by a white man on the morning of August 5; he was shot dead by the cops.

Why is nobody angry? Why assume it might be a random act? What does the loaded “way we look” convey and why let it overshadow the terrorist attack? The FBI will conduct the investigations as a “domestic terrorist-type incident”, but for a large section of the media Wade Michael Page, a former sergeant, is a “lone gunman” or a “shooter”.

The motives are as clear as sun in a cloudy sky. It now seems that he was a neo-Nazi. In fact, civil rights groups go a step further and refer to him as a “frustrated neo-Nazi”. Was he frustrated with the ideology or was his frustration a spur to become one? This is a convenient back-up vague term to absolve mainstream terrorism.

To caricature him is easy, for the blueprint is ready and almost cool – balding man with tattoos, strumming the guitar with devilish music in an offbeat band called End Apathy. His motto to “stand proud and raise the white man’s flag” is confusing white supremacy with neo-Nazism. Both have different histories. Tanking up on the latter is a hands-off stance for internalised racism. The Nazi satan image gets props for also psychologically working on public memory as victimisation.

There is tardiness to investigate the possibility of a larger group’s involvement, a routine that is followed when the shoe in on the other foot and forces are deployed to trace leaders, assistants, handlers, trainers, foot soldiers.

The United States is home to 700,000 Sikhs. They are handed out certificates for being “a peace-loving community”, implying their innocence only by default, while the criminal’s antecedents remain enigmatic and diffuse the pattern of devious behaviour.

State Rep. Mark Honadel, whose district includes the temple, said, “Unfortunately, when this type of stuff hits your area, you say to yourself, 'Why?' But in today's society, I don't think there's any place that's free from idiots.”

That we are still battling with terminology to use for terrorists in some parts of the world reveals just how much semantics play a role in brainwashing people.

It includes the victims, who are hostage to the munificence of an all-embracing country. There is diffidence among non-westerners to talk about racism or what is now increasingly obvious as white terrorism.

This has two very dangerous consequences: It results in suspicion and infighting among different ethnic groups, and the claiming of tragedy points makes it possible for the ‘war on terror’ to continue as a sanctimonious bubble for the Western establishments.

The discussion on gun control is just one of the sidelights to obfuscate the issue. A person with a gun does not necessarily go on a killing spree. There are unlicensed weapons available. There are bombs and the use of more basic forms of ‘fundamentalist’ tactics. The latter can spread right from televangelism to a president sneaking into another country to bolster the morale of his forces that have no business to be there in the first place.

How do we deal with a “lone gunman”, a “psycho” and other such assorted creatures that are products of psychiatric superpower wards as opposed to an organisation that can conveniently, and legitimately, be called a terror outfit? Did a group pilot an airplane into the Twin Towers? Were we not told there was just one soldier who walked in the dead of night and shot down villagers in Afghanistan? Anders Breivik was alone when he killed 77 people in Norway. Kiaran Stapleton “kept smiling” as the court pronounced him guilty for the murder of Indian student Anuj Bidve in Manchester.

How individualist are they? Why do we not just say that there is another terrorism that does not need caves or a rugged terrain? Countries carry the baggage of history, of calamities, of attacks. The ruling elite do not have to muddy their hands to clear the rubble, so they muddy the minds of the citizens. The melting pot swirls the ladle and scoops out the good from the bad. It is an act so subtle that no one notices it.

It is left to the conditioned-to-feel displaced and mentally unstable white guy to carry the moral fable forward. He is like any recruit at a terrorist training camp. His ideology is not born in a vacuum. He is doing it for country. The political leadership will quote from the Constitution, but they have whetted the appetite for vengeance with rhetoric. Incidentally, the indictment of soldiers by some senior officers is an even more potent testimony of such lobotomy. Not surprisingly, Page’s six year stint in the US army during the 90s, partly in psychological operations” is mentioned prominently, even if he was demoted and quit the military with a “Less Than Honourable Discharge”.

Despite this, he comes across as a backroom loyalist. His 9/11 tattoo in many ways subliminally exonerates him. America has not allowed the world to live in peace ever since that day. One Sikh leader stated that it “implies to me that there's some level of hate crime there”. Another one wants “to educate Americans about diverse groups and act ‘to lessen this kind of rage’”.

A crime that should be seen in isolation has become communalised. It is, strangely enough, pluralism that has caused it – a pluralism where you may look and dress like Kim Kardashian or Justin Bieber but not like ‘natives’ like you. Instead of pushing for quick action and security, there is trepidation over “mistaken identity”, that some white guy might think you are someone from the al Qaeda. The chairman of the Sikh Council on Religion and Education believes: “There’s always an apprehension and a sense of fear that this kind of incident will take place anywhere, anytime.”

Can this not happen to others, too? Sikhs were killed for being Sikhs in their home country, India, where the ruling party conducted an operation inside the Golden Temple. Sikhs have had to fight for their right to wear turbans and to carry their kirpans, symbolic swords. Was there any al Qaeda then?

If 9/11 is being propagated as a definitive revenge-worthy date to flush out enemies, then will insurgency and terrorist attacks on some Indian states be seen as fallout of the Partition of 1947, and subsequent wars with Pakistan and China too?

Mitt Romney is concerned that the Wisconsin attack took place at a house of worship. This gives the crime another colour. Places of worship draw attention to the faith, more than to the community. But in the world outside America, there are sects, castes, sub-castes. However, in an alien land, a temple of any religion has more than emotive value. It represents an uprooted cultural identity.

There is already guilt by association. Pakistan’s liberals who berate those who sympathise with the plight of Muslims in Assam or Rohingyas of Myanmar instead of the Balochis in their own backyard are themselves reaching out to American Sikhs. The Peshawar ones are a forgotten story. 1984’s massacre of Sikhs is a fade-out for India.

The sense of urgency different communities feel to identify with such sorrow at the individual and group level is most certainly part of a larger political expression. Every such tragedy is about lost human lives. The need to emphasise it beyond the obvious is driven by a subconscious need for self-preservation and, as a consequence, actualisation.

- - -

(c) Farzana Versey

Pakistan's Conversion Circus: Missing the woods for the tree

Sunil on his way to Abdullah

Pakistani society has one more reason to get agitated. A Hindu boy has converted to Islam in front of a live television audience. Sunil became Muhammad Abdullah.

I’d like to take up the editorial in Dawn to show just how this limited concern works.

"In yet another example of how the industry's commercial goals trump ethics, open-mindedness and common sense, on Tuesday a television show broadcast an imam leading a Hindu boy through a live conversion to Islam carried out in the studio as part of the show, complete with the audience joining in to suggest Muslim names for the new convert.

"There is no reason to think the boy was not converting of his own free will, but the whole event had the distinct air of being carried out to give viewers something new and different to watch, even if that meant dragging an intensely personal and spiritual experience into public view.”

This is like suggesting that it is quite nice to carve your meat at a fine dining table, but don’t let us see the butcher’s shop. There is as much ethics in what the paper says as the bleeding rites of passage. I have always maintained my anti-conversion stand, and in this case I might be interested to know a couple of things if ethics is an issue:

1. This is reality TV. Participants on such shows are paid. Was the boy paid to appear on the show or to convert?
2. If he was doing it of his own free will, then the question is not about conversion but about the involvement of imams, who object to entertainment programmes. 
3. Is it not the job of the media to investigate about the motives of the boy – where is he from, what are his reasons, instead of replaying clips?

Sitting on a high horse has become part of the media culture. Editorials are passing judgments and trying to ‘convert’ people into thinking in ways they deem fit all the time, taking political sides, writing treacly pieces on leaders.

Maya Khan in an earlier stint

The host of the ARY show is Maya Khan, who is seen as an Islamist. It is interesting that actress Veena Malik was supposed to host a Ramzan programme and it was vetoed by the mullahs in Pakistan. Did anyone among the liberals question the ethics of someone like the controversial lady hosting such a show? Was it not to grab eyeballs? Would it not be as bad as mullahs looking beady-eyed over a conversion? What are the ethics about having such shows at all in a country that is constantly discussing religious resurgence and its ill-effects?

Who is to decide what form of religion should be portrayed? If you want a Veena Malik type show, then someone else might find a Maya Khan entertaining. Did not Ms. Malik become the hero of a section of the nation when she took on some mullahs on a channel a couple of years ago for her right to expose her body and perform live canoodle scenes? She suddenly became the ambassador of the nation, of liberal Islam, of a fight for modernity.

These are all circus acts, and one does not expect better from reality television and that includes news channels. Part of the hot air is possibly because this is a competitive game, where ethics are the flakes of pistachio on the phirni, not an ingredient. This is borne out by the fact that the editorial is worried about how just to spice things up “religion is now fair game too”.

Talat Hussain, who hosts a political show on private television channel Dawn News, said:

“Think about how Muslims would feel if Buddhists in Burma show a Muslim being converted on a live TV show.”

If this is not spicy and sensational, then what is?

Religion always has been fair game. Why get pedantic about it in a country that relays every religious detail, and “spiritualism” is sold at shrines, as CDs? And just for the information of those who do not know, conversion is not a private matter. The decision to convert might be, but the individual has to perform certain rituals to show that s/he belongs. The whole reason behind it is often social acceptability or pressure.

Question that. But it would not get as much attention, does not give those expressing anger a primetime slot.

It is surprising to read this:

"more disturbingly, what the channel obviously didn't stop to consider is the message this broadcast would send to the country's minorities…The joy with which the conversion was greeted, and the congratulations that followed, sent a clear signal that other religions don't enjoy the same status in Pakistan as Islam does. In a country where minorities are already treated as second-class citizens in many ways, this served to marginalise them even further”

Who has made a noise about this? Where are the minority groups? It is not about the message a television show sends out. Pakistanis do not live in and off studios. The country’s laws discriminate against minorities.

Can anyone file a petition against the channel? Will it change anything? How many Pakistanis have the courage to flaunt their agnosticism/atheism, if that is their proclivity?

In a moment of perfect coordination, it would appear – and that showcases the hypocrisy – President Asif Ali Zardari has formally invited PM Manmohan Singh to visit Pakistan:

Zardari suggested that if Singh’s visit coincided with Guru Nanak's birth anniversary in November, it would be well received by the Pakistani people and reinforce the desire of both countries to promote inter-religious harmony.

Is this not misuse of religion? Do India and Pakistan need to promote inter-religious harmony? At least, India does not need Pakistan for that. And this is being hailed by the same media that has been frothing at the mouth over a conversion. Weren’t Sikhs beheaded in that country not too long ago?

India has enough of its own problems with different religions and sects and castes. But I dread to think what would happen if we had an Ahmadi Prime Minister. Would President Zardari extend an invitation to celebrate anything and promote inter-religious harmony, when the community is ostracised socially and politically?

Perhaps one of the ‘ethical’ people of Pakistan might like to convert to the Ahmadiya faith on public television and send out a strong message?

If you cannot do that, then a coat of varnish is not going to change the shakiness of the walls.

(c) Farzana Versey

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: 

News meeows

Blasphemy, Bohras, Anti-Sikh riots, Euthanasia 

Killing a minority voice in Pakistan

The killing of Shahbaz Bhatti, the minority affairs minister in the Pakistan People’s Party should alert the government beyond making mourning sounds and attempting cosmetic changes or creating a martyr ethos.

Bhatti was a Christian and he obviously opposed the Blasphemy law. The blanket term “Islamic extremists” is not enough to save Pakistan, for Pakistan is an Islamic nation. Why can it not have a minister for minority affairs from the majority community? Everybody knows these are sop portfolios reserved to further put sections of people in ghettos. Bhatti was the only Christian minister and treated differently by his own party, so let us not get into those who killed him:

Although Islamabad police chief Wajid Durrani said Bhatti was provided a security detail in view of the threats to his life,at the time of the attack,he was not accompanied by any bodyguard. Unlike most ministers who enjoy privileges such as bulletproof vehicles and high-walled houses in Islamabad’s Ministers Enclave, Bhatti was deprived of these facilities.

I think a Muslim minister will be forced to attend to the grievances as a responsible citizen and face the music when needed. And it does not have to be a prominent person. Often the problem lies in this public display and heroism.

Are Dawoodi Bohras being tagged?

Ejamaat is an internet database where every Bohra must enter his or her personal and professional details. It’s an electronic encapsulation of this information—a sort of identity card. Both the database and the cards are controlled by the dawat, a centralised clergy based in Mumbai. The use of powerful technology has sent ripples of anxiety in the community.

This means that every person belonging to the community will be open to scrutiny regarding their prayer habits, their attendance and religious and social functions and other related matters. The community already has a reformist segment which does not strictly adhere to everything that the Syedna deems right, even though they are believers.

At one level the ejaamat is a technological breakthrough, but what a person quoted in a report says is rather worrying:

“By monitoring even more strictly whether we pay our religious taxes, visit the mosque, pray and fast, the card will help us become better Muslims.”

Better than who or what? While diligent devotees have always followed diktats, there are others who prefer to make the choice regarding such norms. Where does it say in the Quran that you must pay religious taxes?

What happens to those who do not gain points for toeing the line? Will this work as a credit card that you can get reward points for and how do you redeem them? And if you renege on ‘payment’, as in doing any of the things ordained, will there be a penalty?

Apparently, the community spokesperson thinks this is a good way by which to show their gratitude to the Sydena who celebrates his 100th birthday on the 25th of this month. It is unlikely that he will be keeping tabs; it will be the second and third rung clerics who will do so and consolidate their position.

1984 Sikh riots trials in the America?

A federal district court in New York issued summons to the ruling party in a class action lawsuit filed by Sikh organization Sikhs for Justice, which has offices in New York and India. The Sikh group has charged the Congress with “conspiring, aiding, abetting and carrying out organized attacks on Sikh population of India in November 1984”.

Can a court in another country try a political party in India? This is a private organisation, so what is its locus standi? Who is funding it and does it have foreign patrons?

I have repeatedly said that the 1984 anti-Sikh riots must get priority and we have the names of the Congress leaders who incited or watched the violence quietly. But this is an issue about India that has to be sorted out in India. We cannot outsource justice anywhere.

It is time for the Congress to wake up and get its act together or else we will have outside interference. It is bad enough that our expats are quietly helping out many rightwing parties of every stripe. Oh, well, some leftwing ones too.

Aruna Shanbaug cannot die…yet

Since 1973 after being raped she has been lying in a hospital bed in a vegetative state.

Opposing a euthanasia plea filed on behalf of Aruna Shanbaug, who has been in a vegetative state at KEM Hospital for 37 years, Vahanvati said western parameters seldom applied to Indian conditions and culture. “We do not lead our terminally ill parents or kids to death. Who decides if one should live or die? Who knows, tomorrow there might be a cure to a medical state perceived as incurable today. And won’t leading the terminally ill impede pro-life medical research?” argued the attorney general.

There are indeed several aspects to this case, but I would really like to know why no one is interested in bringing her tormentor to book when they know where he is.

I have already had my say in the article Whose Euthanasia Is It, Anyway?

Who is asking the Sikhs in Kashmir to convert?

by Farzana Versey
Countercurrents, August 20

Has anyone asked this crucial question? Before it can be voiced in cogent terms, the government ’swings into action’ to protect the Sikhs. Let us not forget that the Congress party had done no such protecting of the community in the capital city and the rest of the country in 1984. Those who were indicted and held responsible for the carnage managed to hold important portfolios and stay in power for years. People are still waiting for compensation.

Therefore, the central government’s prompt action – and it is rather surprising that not only does it come from the home minister, but also the finance minister and the external affairs minister – reveals that it has found a new ruse to deal with the people’s movement in the Valley.

Unlike the Kashmiri Pandits who were systematically made to ‘flee’ by vested interests, the Sikhs are not an extremely wealthy or powerful group and decided to stay back. As the largest minority group comprising 60,000 people, they faced problems just as the other locals did. Now there is news that they have received letters asking them to join the protest or convert to Islam. Some of these letters state: “When you are enjoying the joys here, why can’t you share the grief and sorrow of Kashmiris as well? We know you are afraid of bullets. Hold protests inside gurudwaras or leave Kashmir.’’

In these notes there is no mention of conversion. There is a call for joining forces and fighting in their own religious places. The coordinator of the All Party Sikh Coordination Committee (ASCC), Jagmohan Singh Raina, said, “Our community members have received unsigned letters at various places. Some letters have asked Sikhs to embrace Islam.’’

He said his people would not leave and much rather fight the “evil designs’’. It must be noted that these are unsigned letters. Whose evil designs are these? If members of the community do decide to convert, will it not alert the authorities? Will their converting to Islam not become an even greater hindrance to the civilian war taking place?

Why did Raina choose to appeal to separatist organisations like the JKLF, the Hurriyat and rather incongruously the PoK-based United Jihad Council to ensure peace and amity? Why did he and his organisation not address the issue to the chief minister Omar Abdullah?

The issue reached Parliament and, as reports say, the government “held out an assurance that Sikhs had nothing to fear in Kashmir in the wake of reported threats to the minority community from militants to convert to Islam or leave the Valley”. There is no mention of the letters that asked them to join the protest movement. The NDA members, always on the lookout for such ‘communal’ concerns, had to be placated; Chidambaram told them, “nobody will be allowed to harm the Sikh community”.

Indeed, the community ought to be protected but this verbal heroism is senseless when the local population is being harmed everyday. Has there been such immediate sympathy expressed for the ongoing war and killings of civilians and security personnel? A shoe thrown at Omar Abdullah gets more mileage than the street protests.

Pranab Mukherjee became magnanimous: "Not only Muslims of Kashmir but the whole of India would rise as one to stand by the Sikh community.” When was the last time the whole of India stood as one to stand by a community, and how could it when the establishment orchestrates such harm?

Has anybody informed the whole of India about where those letters have come from? Why did the Sikh representative in Kashmir talk to the militant groups? Why was the PoK organisation informed? Assuming these threats are coming from the Pakistani side, why would they be interested in “peace and amity”? It just does not sound right.

While Syed Ali Shah Geelani has called these letters fake and had on an earlier occasion dramatically stated that the Sikhs could not be forced to join the protests and harming them would be like inflicting a wound on his body, it conveys the impression that his body has a great deal of importance. And if the JKLF and the Hurriyat do have a say in every such matter, then it begs the query as to what is the status of an elected government in the state?

It is a known fact that when militant groups send out threats, they like to flash their credentials. Since this is an upsurge from the ground level, it would be presumed that the locals are sending those letters. This is damaging to them as well as to what they have held important all along – the coexistence with minorities. This is reminiscent of the planted fliers posted on walls during the exodus of Pandits.

This time both the central and state governments do not know how to deal with the uprising in the Valley. Omar Abdullah can only give assurances when he knows well that there is nothing he can do because there is nothing he has done to salvage the situation. The separatist organisations are also riding on the wave rather than taking responsibility for it.

Instead of assurances in Parliament and smart talk, the government should find out where the mischief is taking place and the origin of those letters. The Sikhs who have received them should file FIRs in the police station. That will be the first step towards getting the government involved rather than the government just standing from afar and issuing homilies.

There is far more here then appears evident and the shoe could point in any direction. It’s time for the establishment to talk on its feet.

Rahul's Pakistan and Arnie's Sikhs

In recent times, Rahul Gandhi has made a few small strides in appealing to public sentiment for things other than the cuteness factor.

Now the cute boy is acting all grown up:

“India is giving too much time to its neighbour. It is not even half as important as we are making it. India cannot be compared to Pakistan in world affairs... India has a larger role and status internationally... Pakistan shall occupy a small piece of our diplomatic policy. I do not wish to talk even for five minutes about Pakistan,’’ he said, refuting the charge that Delhi faced embarrassment after the joint declaration at Sharm el-Sheikh.

He is right about us being obsessed with Pakistan. But why has he woken up now? How does pitting ourselves against that country, as he is in fact doing, make it less important? If you don’t think something is worth it then do not say that we are better. You can be better than something that occupies the same space – in real terms or in your mind.

To get to the more crucial aspect of diplomatic policy, this is a rather juvenile statement. The small part is enough to cause us untold agony. And this small part is more crucial than attending some G-string summit, because it has to do with a stretch of land more than anything else. Pakistan is not interested in how much we are shining and our GDP. Pakistan is interested in Kashmir; we are interested in Kashmir. And, guess what? Kashmiris are interested in Kashmir. So, we will have to spend more than five minutes on anything to do with Pakistan. I know it is a heck of a long time for someone who is busy tasting different kinds of Dalit cuisine, but tough luck.



- - -

How many Sikhs do you know in your regular life who go around carrying kirpans?


California governor Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed a Bill seeking to educate law enforcement officers about the religious significance of kirpans, one of the five Ks that Sikh religion expects its followers to adhere to.

“This loss for the Sikh community is a reminder of our serious lack of political clout in this state. After months of hard work and 100 per cent support from our lawmakers, the Sikh voice was still not strong enough to overcome the whim of one man,” said Prabhjot Singh, chairman of the advocacy group Sikh Coalition.

Over the last few years, there has been a sudden rise in the arrests of Sikhs nationwide for carrying kirpans. In most cases, the Sikh Coalition said, the police take kirpans to be concealed weapons.

Like religious resurgence and identifiable marks in many societies, it is happening among the Sikhs too. This is not about clothes or beliefs. A weapon is a weapon. How would teaching the cops about its religious significance make it less worrisome? Would Sikhs in the US expect to board flights with their kirpans when people are not allowed to carry tweezers? I would be curious to know how many of them wear kachhas, the boxer shorts sort of undergarment. Is it feasible to wear it beneath tight jeans? These are supposed to be visible symbols to display faith, and the kirpan is to be used only as protection and self-defence.

When the Sikhs had to distance themselves after 9/11 from terrorists, they used their different faith. Now, it is their different faith that is being asked to follow what everyone considers mainstream norms of the United States of America, and it does have to do with security issues. American lobbies are pretty strong against the gun culture too.

So, does anyone have anything to say about Arnie and his move?

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.

The way we are - 5

Do Gurleen Kaur’s plucked eyebrows decide if she is not a “true Sikh”?

Endorsing a hardline stand by the Shiromani Gurdwara Prabandhak Committee (SGPC), who barred a young Sikh girl admission in a minority institution on grounds that she violated a fundamental tenet of the religion by plucking her eyebrows, the Punjab and Haryana high court ruled the SGPC was fully justified in doing so.

I know one should jump in to defend the student. I won’t. She was seeking to get admitted to an institution that had specific “requisite of maintaining Sikh swarup (Sikh appearance) was a permissible precondition for admitting students under the Sikh minority community quota”. No one is dilly-dallying here.

Posh clubs have their rules, so why do we get so agitated when religious organisations lay down their terms? If she wants to get into a college, she can use a non-communal one. The problem is that many people want to belong to a ghetto with their superficial cosmopolitanism.

I think these arguments are a waste of time. The bench came out with a 152-page report! What can she challenge? There are Sikhs who do shave off their beards because of several reasons; most women, especially in the glamour world, would not be seen without plucked eyebrows. I am sure if they tried to join any religious committee, they would be debarred.

If we question any one institute, then we must ask whether what is written down in the scriptures or wherever should be evaluated again.

Of course, no one has any business to make a blanket judgment of whether a person is a true Sikh or not. There are many parameters to measure these and each will choose theirs. No point splitting hairs over this.

- - -

Shiv Sena executive president Uddhav Thackeray wants Kasab hanged.

“It is a shame that we are spending crores from public funds to provide security to Ajmal Kasab, who had mercilessly murdered so many police officers and citizens. Why is he being kept alive for so long.”

To provide evidence, since we don’t seem to know how to find it.

Criticising the clean shit given by Ram Pradhan committee to city police and the state government on 26/11, Thackeray called the panel’s report a “farce’’. “We are trying to run away from the truth. Everybody knows who is responsible for the deaths of officers like Hemant Karkare, Ashok Kamthe, Vijay Salaskar and several other cops,” said Thackeray.

Who is everybody? As a responsible citizen, you must come forward and say it aloud. Yes, the report is a farce. But what does it have to do with Kasab? And what about the enquiry into the Malegaon blasts? Because the question is not only about them being killed but why.

Hanging Kasab is a technicality. Getting to the root of the reason is more important. Are you ready for what will come out of it?

No comments

Why no comments? Because the news reports are self-explanatory. Because I am tired of repeating myself. Because how the hell can we trust the CBI and other organisations that keep changing their tune all the time? They are not like witnesses that alter their stand due to pressure or when they turn approvers or dissenters. Okay, this was a sort of comment.

Tytler case (1984-2009)

CBI director Ashwani Kumar overruled the opinion of senior officers on the issue of a clean chit to Congress leader Jagdish Tytler in a 1984 anti-Sikh riots case, sources said.

The joint director and a DIG of the agency recommended that there was a strong case of murder, rioting and damage to property against the leader in the Bara Hindu Rao riots where a number of Sikhs were killed by a mob allegedly incited by Tytler.

Modi case (2002-2009)

One headline read, “Probe Modi’s role in Gujarat carnage”.

I am tired of reading these headlines sporadically for the past seven years.

The current move is in response to Jakia Nasim Ahsan Hussain Jafri’s affidavit. She is the widow of ex-Congress MP Ahsan Jafri, who was killed by a mob at Gulbarg Society. Her charges are:

“The constitutionally elected head of the state (is) responsible for fundamental rights, right to life and property of all citizens regardless of caste, community and gender. Alleged to be the architect of a criminal conspiracy to subvert constitutional governance and the rule of law; unleash unlawful and illegal practices during the mass carnage and thereafter protecting the accused who played a direct as well as indirect role and abetted commission of the crime.”

I am sorry to say nothing will happen. Modi will win by a huge margin.

Picture imperfect, in more ways than one:

L.K.Advaniji, it should be sar pe topi haath mein resham ka rumaal, but the Gandhinagar messiah won’t wear a Gandhi topi and the rumaal would be too mulayam for his taste, so it goes to his head. Or is it a metaphor for ‘logoun ko topi pehna liya’?

Too much shoe-sha

Reductionism. That is what everything has become.

By now the whole world and its sole-maker knows that home minister P.C.Chidambaram got a shoe thrown at him by an angry journalist from Dainik Jagran. I wish Jarnail Singh had tried to locate Jagdish Tytler, instead.

There are some who feel the action was uncalled for and uncouth. Our ministers are renowned for chappal-throwing right within the hallowed precincts of parliament when it is in session. The query was about Tytler, the criminal who has been let loose to contest elections again and been exonerated by the CBI. Unfortunately, the shoe throwing will not have much of an effect, unless this Jarnail Singh was planted by some members of the Congress who either genuinely believe that the culprits of 1984 must be arrested and sentenced or they just don’t like Tytler. There was a suggestion he could have been set-up by the BJP. Unlikely. The BJP would want Tytler to contest and then thrash him out.

I don’t care about the political parties. I just want this man to get the sentence he deserves. We label whole communities as criminals and only because this fellow is a big name there are tut-tuts about him being branded thus.

Having said this, I am completely against the Shiromani Akali Dal announcing a Rs 2 lakh cash award for the journalist. It isn’t about the support and anger expressed by an individual but the fate of thousands. The Dal could have donated this money to some charity working with the riot victims; I hope Jarnail Sigh either refuses the money outright or publicly donates it to whichever Sikh charity that still works among those affected he deems fit.

Or it would turn out to be just one more symbolic gesture reducing the immensity of the crime.