[Reader-list] What if Jaswant was a Muslim

[A.K. Malik]

Hi Rakesh,
            It is a pleasure to read your views once again.
Thanks and regards,

(A.K.MALIK)


--- On Tue, 8/25/09, Rakesh Iyer <rakesh.rnbdj at gmail.com> wrote:

> From: Rakesh Iyer <rakesh.rnbdj at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [Reader-list] What if Jaswant was a Muslim
> To: "Inder Salim" <indersalim at gmail.com>, sherwanimk at yahoo.com
> Cc: "reader-list" <reader-list at sarai.net>
> Date: Tuesday, August 25, 2009, 6:03 PM
> 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
> _________________________________________
> reader-list: an open discussion list on media and the
> city.
> Critiques & Collaborations
> To subscribe: send an email to reader-list-request at sarai.net
> with subscribe in the subject header.
> To unsubscribe: https://mail.sarai.net/mailman/listinfo/reader-list 
> List archive: &lt;https://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/reader-list/>