[Reader-list] Are Tougher Laws The Answer?

[Taha Mehmood]

Dear Rakesh,

Thank you for your mail.

I think I agree with you on most counts. But I had a little query regarding
your traffic laws example. Do you think that given the case when we already
have a range of traffic laws to look into any deviant behavior would
bringing new laws help?

 If we follow this line of argument further we will tread the same path as
Mr. Bhushan has suggested in his Outlook essay and we will come to the
conclusion that implementation is the key. You also hint towards
implementation in your mail.

The narrative of meaning making in our popular media seems to follow a
circular logic of problems and solutions. Maybe that's how policy makers and
politicians also operate and maybe that's why they see laws and policies as
the only way with which they can bring a problem to an end.

But we are neither politicians nor policy makers here, so how are we to
understand and make meaning.

 I wanted to bring in the idea of -perception- into this thinking process
because I would like to believe that most of what that we see and hear and
think and read do not represent the actual state of affairs. Maybe there is
no such thing as actual state of affairs, maybe there is but we do not know.
Who are we to trust? The choices are limited, really- Is the Indian
Statistical Institute a worthy indicator of social reality? or are our
electronic and print media worthy indicators? Does their language represent
reality as-it-is? What are we made to believe with every visual
juxtaposition and sound byte? Is that valid?

You know what I mean!!

The meta narratology seems to be so obsessed with the big picture that most
of the times we miss the complete picture. I know that I am talking in terms
of macros here but I am hinting towards  different -kinds- of macros. There
seems to be a constant revision of one kind of macro. No wonder that, of
lately  -Remember- has emerged as the key word in the popular discourse of
media coverage of terror.

You are absolutely right in suggesting that all Indian Muslims must condemn
any act of religious hooliganism that is carried out in their name and I
believe some Indian Muslims have most vociferously condemned it too.

But here too perception comes into play for I think there is some flaw in
this typological idea of -Indian-Muslim.

Who is this guy? This- Indian Muslim.

The moment any one says -Indian Muslims- one immediately collapses tens of
hundreds of religious, theological, ritual, lingual, gastronomical,
sartorial divisions into this one big homogeneous entity.

As an Indian who happened to be born in a muslim family I believe that there
is no such thing as an Indian (Muslim).

Just as there are kinds of Hindus or kinds of Jains or kinds of Buddhists or
kinds of Sikhs so as there are kinds of Muslims. An Indian Muslim has got a
national identity which is affirmed only in the event of carrying a
identification token like a passport or ration card or voter id card etc and
then one has a religious identity which is oral. Hence one is often told
that one is a wahabi or a deobandi or a shia or sunni or a bohra or ahmadi
or aga khani or a barelvi or pashtu etc etc.

It is again a perception that there is a thing called Indian Muslim and an
iconic image of non-mustached bearded man with a skull cap comes to ones
mind.

The point I want to hint towards is- agreed that there is a lot of unrest,
also agreed some people who claim to be Indians and follow some sort of
Islam were part of this social unrest in some way, but how do we capture it
in our language, how do we perceive these unrests and the role of actors.

Will law making, fatwa issuing gestures on part of the members of the State
and followers of Islam suffice??

Or should we really start taking small steps really in articulating this
phenomena. What sort of a perception are we asked to consume and why? Who is
presenting the arguments in favor and in against of this preception? How are
these arguments framed and presented?

Of course by this I do not claim that terror of the Islamic variety will be
solved but I think maybe we as citizens of this country and as consumers of
interpretations, may have a one more vantage point to view this problematic.


Regards

Taha











On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 6:06 AM, Rakesh Iyer <rakesh.rnbdj at gmail.com> wrote:

>
> Dear all
>
> I would like to point out a statement made on the floor of the Parliament
> by the Home Minister P.Chidambaram, as the discussion on the anti-terror law
> was taking place in the Lok Sabha. He had said that these terror laws would
> definitely not help in fighting jihadis, who have no fear of death and who
> are ready to die for a cause. This law is being introduced to bring
> confidence among the people, that the state is not just sitting idle, as
> terror attacks take place throughout the country.
>
> Secondly, just because an anti-terror law is misused doesn't mean that the
> law shouldn't be there. This is a completely nonsense argument. The traffic
> laws are also misused in our country to a great deal. Does that mean that we
> should not have any traffic laws? No, it means that we educate our people
> about these laws, ensure that they are strictly implemented, introduce
> reforms in our traffic police and provide them incentives so that they can
> ensure strict implementation of such laws, and moves like these.
>
> Similarly, just because there are some provisions in any law, which can be
> misused, doesn't mean the law must not be there. The way to fight out this
> is to ensure that institutions must be created and people must be educated
> on the possible misuse of the law, and how to counter it. If that means
> police reforms, so be it. If that means courts intervening and punishing
> officials who do so, so be it. If that means society has to change its
> outlook towards those who are arrested under POTA and then acquitted for
> want of any evidence, so be it. But that does not mean repeal of the law.
> So, as far as those provisions which can be misused are concerned, this
> certainly is the case. Let us stop misuse of the law, not repeal it.
>
> The only argument according to me, which is useful, is whether it's against
> the basic tenet of human rights. When a person in USA or England can be
> detained for upto a maximum period of 30 days, or even less than that, why
> is it required that a person in India be detained till about 180 days, is
> beyond comprehension. This is wrong, and hence must certainly be looked at.
>
> Finally, I would say that I am no supporter of anti-terror laws. I
> understand it does alienate people from the society they live in. But
> certainly, they are not introduced for that purpose itself as they are
> supposed to perform, as the Home Minister acknowledges. And one must
> understand that, for the UPA has its own compulsions to do so. To be in it's
> position, is totally problematic. It has to deal with both Hindutva and
> Antulay.
>
> And yes for Pakistan. The Indian Muslim leaders should together release a
> fatwa telling the Pakistani Muslims to mind their own business, and that the
> justice and redistribution of resources on a fair basis is something the
> Indian Muslims can fight for, without requiring any help from Pakistan. And
> more importantly, all such terror help from Pakistan must be denounced in
> all terms.
>
> Regards
>
> Rakesh Iyer
>