[Reader-list] Jihadis abduct, rape young girls in Jammu -

[A.K. Malik]

Dear Rakesh,
            Thanks for broadbasing my views on the issues. I appreciate & respect your views, we can live with different perceptions to solutions while agreeing in principle.
Thanks & Regards

(A.K.MALIK)

--- On Tue, 6/30/09, Rakesh Iyer <rakesh.rnbdj at gmail.com> wrote:

> From: Rakesh Iyer <rakesh.rnbdj at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [Reader-list] Jihadis abduct, rape young girls in Jammu -
> To: "A.K. Malik" <akmalik45 at yahoo.com>
> Cc: "Sarai List" <reader-list at sarai.net>
> Date: Tuesday, June 30, 2009, 1:16 PM
> Dear Malik jee
> 
> I am pleased to get this reply, and here is my response to
> the points you highlighted:
> 
> 1) First Sir, I think we need to be clear on the question
> of appeasement. According to me, in any case of appeasement,
> there are three kinds of people or groups. One is the group
> which is being appeased. The other is the group which is the
> authority and has the right to appease. And the third is the
> one who watches from the side and decides upon the impacts
> of such appeasement. And all three suffer (in positive or
> negative sense depends upon case to case) in an act of
> appeasement. 
> 
> 
> Now, in the case of this Muslim appeasement, there are
> things which have happened. I am happy you gladly pointed
> out that Muslims have not received the benefits of education
> and employment, even though the Congress which advocates
> itself to be the champion of the Muslims, has been ruling
> for 50 of the past 62 years of independence. The Congress is
> a huge sham and very different even from the days of Gandhi,
> so the less said about them the better. Earlier it was about
> democracy, getting one's voice heard and fighting for
> the right causes, today it's about worshipping the
> Gandhi-Nehru dynasty. 
> 
> 
> However, in this case too, all the three suffer. The
> Muslims suffer ignimony at the fact that they are accused of
> conducting the blasts and being terrorists, and being the
> ones who are out to divide the nation. There are still
> people in this country who believe that majority of the
> Muslims like to celebrate when Pakistan wins a cricket match
> over India. There are people who believe that Babri Masjid
> demolition was right and Muslims should either hand over the
> land at Ayodhya or go to Pakistan. 
> 
> 
> The other communities suffer. The Hindus suffer because
> they are made a fool of in the prospect of uniting against
> Muslims and Muslim appeasement, and the end result is
> animosity between people of different religions. 
> 
> 
> The Indian state and the people suffer at large because
> resources are used up in containing violence and managing
> peace rather than thinking about schemes and missions which
> can help in improving the life conditions of the people,
> like the Right to Food Act, the NREGA, the National Rural
> Health Mission and so on. And then we also have to deal
> sometimes with cases where the military forces overrule
> themselves by indulging in acts which seek to probably
> remind about the truth of the armies in the world history:
> wherever armies have invaded or gone, they have ensured that
> a woman's dignity has been torn to shreds. We already
> know how the concept of purdah came into India. 
> 
> 
> Therefore, I am against appeasement because Muslim
> appeasement actually doesn't help the Muslims. It's
> only a practice which is to ensure that Muslims are being
> made happy for the sake of making them happy, without doing
> anything good for them. I am happy you have taken it up that
> way. 
> 
> 
> 2) I agree with you when you state that Bangladesh is in a
> way created due to India. After all, the might of the state
> can't be fought with on the basis of people's power
> alone. After all, it required the Second World War to weaken
> the powers of the Britain and give India its independence,
> howsoever much we may credit Gandhi's methods of
> non-violence. However, the fact is that the entire imbriglio
> started because Pakistan was not ready to accept Bengali as
> a national language.
> 
> 
> We were able to place ourselves in the dispute simply
> because Pakistan was refusing to budge from its declared
> stand. Moreover, when Mujibur Rehman's party had won a
> majority, in an election held by free and fair means, then
> he should have been allowed to form a govt. which was not
> allowed. This only further deepened the mistrust among the
> East Pakistanis of their Western counterparts. This is what
> allowed us to enter the fray as people from there started
> migrating towards the border with India. 
> 
> 
> So the problem first started there, and of course, we
> started the war for our own motives. 
> 
> 3) You are absolutely correct that govts. don't listen
> to the people unless the people turn violent. This has been
> found in numerous cases.  But my contention goes that even
> in such cases, govts. listen to you only if you are in a
> position to inflict democratic defeats during elections.
> This is why on one hand, Gurjars and Jats are listened to,
> but not Maoists, simply because Maoists don't
> participate in elections, nor allow others to do so. If
> tomorrow, Maoists were to declare their intention to enter
> democracy and fight in elections, the parties would be sunk
> and would be jostling for space to appease Maoists and being
> with them. 
> 
> 
> This is because our politics has not been democratic, but
> it's a combination of feudalism and mobocracy. And our
> own people are responsible for this. It's wrong to say
> that politicians divide us. Anybody can divide us only if we
> are ready to be divided. And we are already divided. There
> are gundas among our own society whom we are afraid of, and
> yet they divide us and make us fight against each other, and
> we are happy to do so for them, just to earn some money or
> get a chance to have (forcible) sex with a girl.
> 
> 
> And the end result is that law and order is implemented
> selectively in India. 
> 
> 4) If Muslims are not entering IIT, I think we have to ask
> the question as to why they are not able to enter IIT. If
> the reason is that Muslims are not able even to get to the
> stage of secondary education, then obviously the problem
> must be solved there, for reservation can only help the
> affluent to come up. However, if the problem is that Muslims
> are being discriminated against in some way or the other,
> then may be reservation can be considered. 
> 
> 
> So I am not saying that reservations must be given in Army
> for the Muslims, but certainly if Army has a bias against
> Muslims, it needs to be seriously corrected. Of course, if
> we can have a competitive exam there for that, what harm?
> 
> 
> I think the issue of reservation is something we have to
> deal with very sensitively. First of all, we must find out
> whether reservations have helped improve the position of
> that community in political, social and economic terms or
> not. And if not, then we have to find out whether the idea
> of reservation itself is flawed, or the problem lies in the
> way it is implemented. I think those are the issues one has
> to look at before deciding on such problems. 
> 
> 
> On the particular issue of reservation among all
> communities, not only among Muslims, I feel the current
> method of implementation only seeks to help the affluent
> among the communities. On the other hand, the school system
> is such that the economically backward people are never
> going to come up under such schemes necessarily, at least
> those whom you raised questions for in your mail. Therefore,
> it's time we seek to change by giving another solution,
> which is to make education for all children compulsory and a
> right to demand. 
> 
> 
> After all, if we can fight for Right to Food and Right to
> Employment, why not Right to Education till 10th standard
> for all at least? And once this starts, automatically
> reservations can be scrapped. 
> 
> And I think it's time we think of a common one
> board/entrance exam for all colleges, across India. Leaving
> aside the IIT, let the AIEEE be the exam to allow all
> students to get entry in all colleges, and scrap the
> state-engineering exams, so that each student can get entry
> in the college he/she desires. A national ranking of all
> colleges should be instituted, and reservations can be given
> but state-based should not be given. 
> 
> 
> We do need education reforms to seriously look at this
> issue, because the only objective reservations are serving
> is to increase national unity, not the cause of the
> community at large. Moreover, they are being sought to be
> looked at as a long term solution, rather than a short term
> solution. 
> 
> 
> 5) The final point is with respect to the Sachar Committee
> point you raised. I think the issue of corruption is a
> larger one and is there in all offices, so just pointing out
> few instances of that would be wrong. It's there in each
> and every scheme across India, and not me but the CAG
> reports are there to show that. At the same time, I feel on
> a personal note that equality doesn't mean that we
> don't try to introduce affirmative actions for those who
> have not come up to the level they should have. 
> 
> 
> Whether that means reservations in institutions of
> education or employment, or reservations in coaching
> classes, or some other move is something which needs to be
> discussed or debated. I am surprised that the Moily
> committee asked for reservation for OBC's without having
> even thought about as to how it arrived at a figure of 27%
> based on the Mandal committee report, which itself was based
> on a census taken before independence. 
> 
> 
> And I feel reservations should be granted if they help the
> community, not if as the SC itself said, everybody wants to
> be a backward. 
> 
> Most of our views are in agreement, but some would
> obviously differ. And where do differences not exist? 
> 
> 
> Regards
> 
> Rakesh
> 
> 
>