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

[Rakesh Iyer]

Dear Mr. Malik jee

First of all, I am sorry if I hurt or offended you in any way through my
views or while presenting them. At the same time, I agree with you that the
purpose of any discussion is defeated when someone participating in the
discussion has already formulated his/her view and is not going to budge
from that.

However, the mail even then does not answer the arguments which I feel
should have been answered. You are stating that Somnath Temple (and as
Durani ji said about Jama Masjid too) is an archaeological site and hence it
was refurbished by the Govt. of India. I have no objections with that and I
stated that earlier too. And I do know it is a historical site. However, I
can also construe it as an act of Hindu appeasement. Similarly, for Jama
Masjid, the action can be construed as an act of Muslim appeasement. Is it
not possible to do so?

More importantly, I had already stated that in India, appeasement is a form
of action which continues, for every person belongs to one minority section
or the other. We have so many minorities, like the Jats, the Jatavs, the
Muslims, the Ahirs, the Khatiks, the Sikhs, the Christians, the different
kind of Dalits, the Yadavs, the Gurjars, the Meenas and so on. I know you
may say that casteism is wrong and most of these communities are Hindus. But
the fact of the matter is that they mostly assert their identity in terms of
caste rather than religion, at least in political life. The Gurjars and
Meenas in Rajasthan listen more to their maha-panchayats, which is why we
had a clash in Rajasthan between the two communities on the issue of
reservations.

My view point is that while appeasement is wrong, India is such that each
community looks for itself to be appeased. Even now, when such views
opposing Haj subsidies are put up, the point is that the govt. can't simply
remove away the Haj subsidies simply because a few people representing the
Muslims are going to put up a hue and cry. Therefore, the only way to sort
this out would be to go for Hindu appeasement, like say an act by the
Railway ministry to start trains from all capitals to the four dhams where
people can travel for free. Or may be some action of other sorts.

Secondly, if this appeasement is not done, then forget vote bank, there will
be more riots and partitions in India. We have practiced this appeasement
policy in Nagaland and some of the north-eastern states which has ensured
that they haven't gone away from the Indian Union. To ensure that Kashmir
also doesn't go away, the Article 370 was put up. It's appeasement for
Tamils which ensured that Tamil was declared as a classical language, and
Hindi was not accepted as the national language in 1965. Similarly, it was
appeasement for Telugus which led to the creation of the first state based
on language in India, namely Andhra Pradesh. It was appeasement of the
Gurjars which forced the Vasundhara Raje govt. to declare reservation for
Gurjars even though it was against the SC ruling which directed reservation
to be not more than for 50% of the total posts.

I state the case that reservation ensures national unity. If there's one
reason why the north-Eastern states haven't drifted away from the Indian
union, it's because of this appeasement. If Kashmir has still not gone
completely away, it's because of this appeasement. If Hindi would have been
imposed on Tamil Nadu in 1965, a separate 'Dravida Nadu' would have been
formed. If Telugu-speaking people had not been given a state based on their
language, they would have gone for violence. If Mumbai had not been made a
part of Maharashtra, then the Gujarati-Marathi violence would have been
intensified. And if Gurjars would have been dealt with by the army rather
than by the politics of reservation, the Gurjars would have been portrayed
as an anti-national community in the minds of others, and their people would
have been killed. And if tomorrow, Gurjars would have also involved
themselves in violence or turned to some kind of organized violence like
Naxalism or terrorism, who would have been responsible for that?

I can understand Shuddha jee or Anupam jee stating that appeasement should
never be done, and if some regions of India are to go away because of that,
or India has to break as a result of that, so be it. But I can't understand
how nationalists like you can argue for the same. This kind of nationalism
is only going to lead to a break up of India, and not even into states based
on languages, but also based on castes, creeds and so on. We already have
areas like 'Hindu Rashtra', 'Brahmin areas', 'Dalit areas', etc . in
different villages and cities of the country. Do you want all of them to
become into independent states? And if you don't believe me, then remember
that it was the Pakistani state's inability to appease the Bengalis in East
Pakistan by accepting Bengali as the other national language, which resulted
in the creation of Bangladesh (and not necessarily only the Indira Gandhi
declared war as has been portrayed in India for so long).

As for the Sachar Committee Report, I think one needs to read the report
before arriving at conclusions. I haven't read it, and would be very glad if
you can point out from the report itself recommendations proposed by the
Committee, which are against the Constitution of India. After all, if Dalits
and tribals can be provided funds even today and have separate ministries
created for them, simply because they still lack in development parameters
and HDI (human development index) even after 60 years of independence,
what's wrong if the same findings are found for Muslims and a
minority-affairs ministry is created for them? And equally what's wrong if
funds are kept to bring them to the average level of development experienced
by the nation as a whole?

The Committee has noted that the educational, health and employment status
of Muslims in India in different organs of the state and in private sectors
too is not good. It equally has accepted the view that institutions like say
banks don't open many branches in Muslim dominated areas, Muslims are not
given loans easily, and that many areas which have more Muslim population
are declared 'reserved for SC/ST' whereas those having more SC or ST
population are not reserved, with a mindset to ensure that Muslim candidates
are not able to stand in elections.

What is wrong in putting across that view? What's more, what's wrong if a
count of Muslims is organized in the Army to find out whether Muslims are
able to enter the Army or not? Of course, we need to find the reasons also
as to whether it's the Army discriminating against the Muslims and not
allowing them to enter, or is it so that Muslims themselves dont' want to
enter the Army. But does that mean the action is wrong.

I am not saying that the army necessarily should require more Muslims. The
army is an institution which is based on competitive excellence and as such
only best personnel are chosen. And unlike other romantics here, I do
understand that at least in the short term the army is something we have to
live with. The world is not as romantic as some great academics here would
like us to believe, though all of us would like it to turn into one, even
the terrorists (all kinds) who are fighting thinking that the world will be
a romantic one (in their views at least).

But what is the harm in finding out reasons as to why Muslims do or don't
join the Army in relation to the percentage of the population they
constitute for the nation?

Therefore, my issue is that unless you make a comprehensive based argument,
talking about such 'appeasements' and the Constitution of India is useless.
And since you gave the meaning of secularism, let me point out the obvious
here: India is a country where you have appeasment practiced in day in and
day out, and what's more, true secularism can never be followed in this
country, because as I said earlier, this will only lead to break up of the
Indian Union. And if you are ready for that, then ok, go ahead with that.

By the way, my own view on this is that while I am ready for any break up of
the Indian Union (and infact not only India, I would want the entire world
to break down into small principalities with no armies), the statist
structure of the Union would be replicated into the small principalities and
the same oppression would be borne by the people, which I am totally
against. Therefore, if any such kind of break up ensures that a different
kind of state structure is established, then I am totally fine with it. And
as I said, this should be done worldwide, and not only in India alone.

Regards

Rakesh