[Reader-list] Crime and No Punishment: Malegaon Blast Accused Get a Respite

[Rakesh Iyer]

Dear Murali ji

A fatwa in a democracy must and should be debated before people think of
actually obeying the fatwa. We are a democracy, not a banana republic. If
the mullahs and the maulvis feel it's a problem, they are free to feel that
way, but that does not mean we stop that action. Anyways, there is no
policing done to ensure that a fatwa is followed or not, be it for one
banning cow slaughter or one for Sania Mirza not being allowed to wear
skirts.

As far as Akbar is concerned, the arguments I put up are those which he made
in 1591-92, whereas the war you refer to was fought way before that in
1570's. However, that can't be the crux of what I wish to add. The fact is
that while some historians would like to portray that Akbar and the Mughal
rule in general was against the Hindu way of life (or even Rajput way, which
meant destruction of temples), there are others who refute this fact and
state that Akbar was not against the Hindu way of life, but was more
concerned by the idea of ruling upon territories and expanding his empire
(which is wrong and against the spirit of democracy, but this was not then
prevalent as an idea at a larger level, more so because the ruler was only
concerned with collection of taxes from those having land, and the poor were
generally unaffected in such cases).

It is also stated sometimes that like Ashoka, Akbar also turned from the
path of violence to non-violence, but this may also have been because of the
establishment of a stable state in political terms.

To add here, Abul Fazl's accounts, which I haven't read, have been actually
interpreted in two completely different ways by people on either side of the
divide: those who believe Akbar was communal and anti-Hindu, and those who
believe Akbar actually was secular. However, one must not forget the
addition of values of one's own with the interpretation of histories by
those who believe in either dictum. What I have put up is an enactment
declared by Akbar in the year when the 1000th year of introduction of the
Hijra calendar was being celebrated.

And most importantly, at least Akbar had a tradition of allowing discussions
to take place, which is an important facet of democracy. Not like Kautilya,
for whom only upper castes deserved freedom while women and lower castes
were to be kept away from it, as advocated strongly in his 'Arth-shastra'.

And far more important than all this, is just one expression: people should
be able to lead the lives they value. And if Akbar is accused of having
violated this, so can the RSS and the rest of the Sangh Parivar. Therefore,
the question is not whether Akbar is right or wrong, but whether such
actions (as those committed by the RSS in our times, which we have seen and
have reason to believe) are justifiable or not (whether they may be
committed by anyone in future or may have been committed by anyone in the
past).

Regards

Rakesh