[Reader-list] What if Jaswant was a Muslim

[Rakesh Iyer]

Dear Javed ji

Since you have posted the article of Mr. Sherwani, I have the following
views to point out for him to ponder or think about (or answer as well):

1) It's very interesting as well that he talks about Islamic republics being
the hallmark of secularism. It would also be helpful if he could provide
living examples of nations which are the hallmark of secularism as well.
Because in Pakistan, we have an example of a great nation which has quite
easily forgotten the message of its' own Father of Nation (just as India
has) to become a theocratic state.

2) The acceptance of the form a state would take as its founding principle
has by and large depended on the ruling elites. In our case, it's these
elites who have chosen 'secularism' to be one of the founding principles of
the Indian Republic. Since these elites can decide the policies and
practices as well, I do not see any reason why a Hindu state can't be a
reality in India, or could not have been a reality earlier as well.
Therefore, I don't agree with the constraints Mr. Sherwani had spoken about.


The only idea of unification of Hindus and showing Muslims to be a threat
has been due to the functioning vote-bank politics in India, whereby Muslims
are important for votes and therefore parties compete on a pro and
anti-Muslim mindset, which the Congress, the BJP and other political parties
have exploited for their own purposes without Muslims having been benefited.


And the elites, if required can take the idea of declaring India a Hindu
state. What's more, just as no nation could do anything about China
committing human right violations in both Xinjiang province (again Muslims
are there involved) and Tibet, and Srilanka did the same in Tamil-dominated
Jaffna (in the name of fighting the LTTE), it can also happen with Muslims
in India, and all the hue-and-cry raised by all the Islamic countries of the
world can be turned as one of no avail simply because Indian elites will
simply say that it's our internal business and no country or state has the
moral right to lecture us on it. Plus of course, now India is a nuclear
weapons state, so no state will dare do anything if the Indian elites take
such a decision.

Therefore, the talk that oil-rich states and Pakistan force India to be a
secularist nation is crap. The only reason we prefer to call ourselves as a
secular nation (even a govt led by BJP does it) is because it presents India
as a shining image in South Asia when compared to other troubled regions
across it. And of course, to prove that we follow our Constitution.

3) Wherever whoever lives, there's a depiction of their own identity. When I
went to Bet Dwarka (which is an island off coast of India, near Dwarka), the
island is famous for a Krishna temple but also has a Mosque. There's a
street which branches with one for the temple (which most visit) and one for
the mosque (which is just because Muslims also live on that island). Both
streets have different signs and banners (Islamic ones with crescent
moon-star signs in the latter street and Krishna posters in the former)

Just because India has a majority of Hindus doesn't mean that those Krishna
posters can't exist, as we are supposed to be secular. And that doesn't mean
that Muslims have no right to put their religious posters as well. I don't
think this is the principle followed even in Islamic republics which he
refers to as 'secular'.

The wrong doing is when there is restriction on putting your cultural
identity. If I were to accept Mr. Sherwani's argument, then the wearing of
burqa must be banned in public because it's an expression of one's cultural
identity, which must be compromised for secular ideals to be followed.

4) Different people in India have different views. Hence to accept that
someone's views are prominent and reflect the view of that community as a
whole is one of the gravest mistakes one can commit. Even the views I have
presented are mine and must not be taken as those of the Hindu community.
But then, so also should be the case for others.

If I were to go with selective statement presenting, I can also say that
Muslims are more concerned with things happening in West Asia or outside
rather than India, because they are not loyal to the Indian state( An
example is the protests against Danish cartoons when Muslims came out in the
streets. How many times did they feel to come out like that after a terror
attack?)

I can also say that Qureshi Sahab, who was a minister in SP govt had
declared Rs. 51 crores as reward for someone who will murder the Danish
cartoonist who created those 'blasphemous' cartoons. Such people are
representative of Muslim community and hence the entire community has gone
to dogs and must be thrown out or asked to leave. But is that acceptable? Is
that the view of the entire Muslim community?

Even your views, I won't accept this way, though genuine arguments if
presented must be accepted, provided they have been proved. Selective usage
of arguments is all good to fulfill one's own purpose but that does not mean
things are the way they have been presented.

5) N.T.Rama Rao's dismissal had different reasons for outcry when compared
to Abdullah's,. Things must be looked at context. I can also this way that
Muslims are invaders and have raped Hindu women, and hence their women
should also be provided for rape to Hindus to avenge that. But is that
acceptable, on a humanistic basis (some fools will say so on basis of
religion, so I use human angle)?

Comparison of different situations in different contexts is not correct.

What I would say is this. Yes, Indian state has failed to a certain extent
in protecting the legitimate rights of Muslim community as a minority. But
let's not forget, Muslims are given the right to vote. Muslims do have right
to employment, right to life, right to liberty as much as Hindus or others
have, at least in theory. (Find out how many of these are available to
Muslims in Pakistan and China, and to what extent in the past 60 years of
independence) Social practices followed against them can be discriminatory,
but that is not the fault of the principles or the Constitution, but of the
people. Even Gujarat 2002 is wrong, and though the guilty are scotfree, that
does not mean the Indian Constitution is to be blamed. It's the people, the
Indians who are to be blamed for it.

Muslims have a responsibility to also undertake actions in public affairs
and programmes, and generate public action programs to ensure that they get
their legitimate rights, without any compromise on others' freedoms. And
Muslims are not from Mars, they are native people of those regions in many
cases where they reside. So they have a stake in the country as also the
rest of us. And India is not a 100% democratic nation, at best it's only
50%. The wrongdoings against any person must be fought against, but please
do not mix religion with it. I am not saying 'dont mix politics with
religion' , but 'don't mix fight for justice with religion'. Otherwise,
what's the difference between those who rape in the name of Ram and those
who believe in Mr. Sherwani's theory?

Regards

Rakesh