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

[Rakesh Iyer]

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