The Liberal Reinforcement of the image of a 'bad' Muslim

Disclaimer – In one of my earlier posts on Facebook, I had commented that death penalty for Yakub Memon should be re-looked at, given that he surrendered and had helped in the investigations. However, subsequent readings of the case, including the posthumous column by B Raman (which was incidentally sought to be leveraged in extracting a commute), made it clear that Memon was arrested in Nepal and once in custody, cooperated like any other criminal in the hands of police. If the ostensible reasons why he should not have been hanged were not correct, there is little one could have validly argued in his favor.

---

It is a sign of the dystopian times we live in that hanging of a convicted terrorist was both preceded and is now being followed up by collective breast-beating of our own people.

Broadly, people who protested against the death sentence for Yakub Memon can be divided into two categories – a small minority which is against the concept of capital punishment and the larger majority, which prefers to claim that Yakub was hung because he was a Muslim.

The above distinction is not water-tight as quite a lot among those who are against capital punishment also joined the chorus of ‘a Muslim being hung’. Interestingly, though these people (intrinsically against capital punishment) form a vocal and influential group, there has been no effort from them to get either the Supreme Court or the Government strike down the provisions allowing death penalty in ‘rarest of the rare cases’. It is only when the hanging of a convict draws near that these people dust off their outrage masks and sign petitions and mouth platitudes in television studios.

In any case, the commitment of those claiming to be morally against capital punishment seems shaky when most of them celebrated the award of death penalty to Dara Singh (murderer of missionary Graham Staines and his two children) and registered their disappointment when the higher courts commuted it to life imprisonment. Just how credible are these voices when they resonate with anguish when Babu Bajrangi and Dr Mayaben Kodnani get ‘mere’ life imprisonment rather than the well-deserved noose?

This blogger has previously argued that there is little rational in the arguments forwarded in favour of abolishing the death penalty. Among the many articles penned recently, the one by R Jagannathan is a pretty good defence of capital punishment in India.

Still, while the first group of naysayers have at least some moral arguments against capital punishment, it is the second group, which sees any act only through the prism of identity, which is more dangerous to our society. Such people strike at the very roots of a community as for them, sectarian identities take precedence above all and any person is condemned to be hostage to the identity he was born with. For them, a person's gender, class, religion, education, caste, physical attributes, are all what matters and subsume the most noble or the most ignoble achievements that person could have made.

It was quite unfortunate and at the same time, revealing, that the hanging of Yakub Memon coincided with the demise of a much-loved ex-President of India, Dr APJ Abdul Kalam. Dr Kalam’s passing to the beyond was met with an outpouring of public grief, the scale of which should humble most politicians. Only a few days later, a convicted terrorist was hung to death. His funeral procession was attended by thousands and even in far off Kashmir, the prayer for the departed saw huge crowds and violent protests. The waters were further muddied by many politicians who claimed that Yakub was killed for no fault or that he would not have been killed had he not been a Muslim.

Not to be left behind have been journalists of various hues, who have parroted similar arguments against Memon’s hanging.

All this hullabaloo have made a couple of facts all the more clear – 1. Terrorists have no religion when Muslims commit acts of terrorism. However, if these irreligious/non-religions terrorists do get punished, they become Muslims all of a sudden. 2. Any act committed by a Muslim in the name of religion, howsoever abominable, enjoys a broad degree of support from the ummah. Before I get condemned (I still will be), let it be answered if there has been any voice from the Muslim community or its leadership which says that Yakub was a party to the murder of innocents and was a terrorist?

Finally, and this comes from a gutter piece by Wajahat Qazi, the identity which Muslims in India desire, seems of a ‘Bad Muslim’ - of a community which is regressive, violent and which cares for little but their Islamic identity.

Even at the time when Dr Kalam had been nominated for the post of President of our Republic, quite a few of our fiberals (fake liberals) had commented that he was being rewarded for being a Sanghi Muslim. A few Muslim leaders had gone a step ahead and questioned the very nature of Dr Kalam’s Islam, citing his vegetarianism, his love for Veena and his unconcern with sectarian identities. Some were more cryptic ‘Dr Kalam is not a Muslim leader’. Even in his death, these people did not spare Dr Kalam and insisted on regurgitating their hatred for a noble soul who acted like an Indian all his life.

For any rational being, the hollowness of a claim that ‘Muslims are under siege in India’ would have been defeated by the very sight of an adulating public grieving for an ex-President who was a devout Muslim, the son of an Imam.  Yet, those against the very idea that people need to and can rise over their humble backgrounds, overcome challenges and discard identity based theatrics, find it convenient to dismiss Dr Kalam. Howsoever abominable Wajahat Qazi’s piece maybe, he is only giving voice to those many who believe that ‘Good Muslim’ (one who is assimilated into the cultural, social and politico-economic fabric of India) cannot be representative of Indian Muslims. For him and his ilk, it is only the ‘Bad Muslims, the one with the wild-eyed fanatical look, always alert for the cry ‘Islam in danger’ and active participant in violent and criminal acts, who can be said to be the ‘True Muslims’

Is it really what India and the Muslim community wants?

One can only shudder at the realization that such thoughts are becoming more and more mainstream. How are the Wajahat Qazis’ of world any better than those handful of fanatics who would want all Muslims to be transported to lands outside India? In fact, they are worse for they want Muslims to remain Muslims first and Muslims only, and backwards, and unassimilated into the cultural, social and politico-economic fabric of India. But why? So that they can claim that Muslims are deprived and not allowed to assimilate into cultural, social and politic-economic fabric of India!

If our Nation cannot make itself punish a convicted terrorist, just how do we propose to fight terrorism? The only way left for is just to succumb, lay down our arms, open our gates and invite them to pillage, rape and kill us with impunity.

-----

Many of our liberals, even when contending that Yakub was hung for being a Muslim, have taken a more nuanced stand and are demanding that justice be done for other cases of terrorism as well. Terrorism, as defined by them, equals riots (in which only the Hindu rioters are to be punished) and Malegaon, Samjhauta and Mecca Masjid blasts, in which involvement of some Hindu groups is being claimed.

Howsoever strongly one may condemn the politics and utterances of Owaisi brothers, one cannot deny the truth in the claim that Sikh terrorists and LTTE terrorists, guilty of equally heinous crimes, were spared the noose because of political support. Of course, the other part of the claim that Yakub was hung because he was happened to be a Muslim bereft of any support, is ridiculous. Still, the very fact of the first part of the statement being factually correct gives a strong reason for an already suspicious people to get swayed by rhetoric of the second claim.

There cannot be any confusion on the fact that punishment for terrorist acts must be swift and at least, in proportion to the crime. The commuting of death sentences of other terrorists only underlines our queasiness, the shameless opportunism of our political classes and our degeneration of our collective sense of nationhood.

Our Nation stands compromised and our war on terror stands compromised when people are effectively pardoned simply because they belong to the ‘right’ community, class or religion.

At the same time, let it be very clear that riots cannot be equated to terrorism. To qualify as terrorism, the act must attack the symbol of power/authority of the state and must aim at overthrow of the present order or at least carving out of a new order. Normally, riots even with all their baggage, fall far short of attempting a systemic change.

In the given case, the liberal argument is around action-reaction. That the Mumbai blasts were a reaction to the Babri Masjid demolition and so justified in some sense. However, the riots which hit Mumbai in December 1992 were a reaction to the demolition. The riots which started again with the burning alive of a Dalit family at Radhabai chawl in Jogeshwari were again a reaction to the demolition. Yet, when the Shiv-Sena led backlash started from January 8, 1993, why is that not seen as a reaction to the preceding days of murder and mayhem?

For argument’s sake, let us imagine a scenario where riots would have followed the blasts (they were a very real possibility then). Would they have been considered a reaction? 

Yes, those involved in riots should be punished. Collectively, let us make sure that the killers of over 300 Hindu victims are brought to justice as well. Let us follow up with the courts asking them to show the same alacrity in pursuing the cases against Muslim rioters the way they have done in the cases involving Muslim victims.

As regards the alleged involvement of Hindu groups in some blasts - even if the allegation is true, they were a 'reaction' to the series of blasts conducted by Islamic terrorists in Mumbai, Delhi, Bangalore, Jaipur, Hyderabad, Varanasi and numerous other places in India. So the fiberal theory of action-reaction applies here too. Unfortunately, the perpetrators of those blasts have not even been apprehended, leave alone conviction and punishment. So, using the logic of Owaisi brothers, should we say that the Muslim perpetrators were let go because of political support but some innocent Hindus incriminated without basis?

And in case the allegation is not true? In what is increasingly becoming clear as a case of attempted frame-up, there is hardly any evidence against Sadhvi Pragya, Aseemanand, Col Purohit and sundry other accused. In spite of years of efforts, even proper chargesheets have not been filed against them. Some claims like that of Samjhauta express being bombed by them seem even more trumped up as US agencies had identified Islamic terrorists to be behind those blasts.

Much hue and cry had been made on the arrest of ‘innocent Muslim youths’ on terror charges. While it would seem that any Muslim becomes ‘innocent’ by the very fact of his arrest, for the hapless right-wing Hindu, even trumped up charges are Cain’s mark of their crime. One does hope that the courts do not get influenced by the brouhaha over current happenings and consider their bail applications dispassionately.

Take a stand Uddhav

But for the recent pre-election intrigues at Maharashtra, the BJP had over the years, perfected the art of being ‘ditched’ by its so-called allies. So strong was BJP’s sense of self-flagellation that multiple kicks by Mayawati in UP, Mamata in Bengal and Jayalalitha in Tamil Nadu only heightened the urge of its leaders to be once again held in embrace by these parties, even when fully knowing the fate that would follow such alliances. Before Nitish, guided by the delusion of ruling India in 2014 itself, pulled out from the NDA, the BJP had begged, groveled, crawled, swallowed all indignities, parted with Lok Sabha seats, Rajya Sabha berths, in short, continued to act like a traditional Indian wife in an abusive marriage before the inevitable happened. Yet, all those snubs fall short of the divorce masterstroke played by Naveen Patnaik just before 2009 elections. While the BJP continued to press for its original share of seats, Naveen kept up the charade of bargaining to increase his seat share, as in his words – the BJD had gained strength owing to which ground realities had changed’, before pulling out of the alliance just days before the elections. To say that the BJP was nettled would be an understatement. Smug in its belief that the BJD would need its support in the post-election scenario, the BJP unleashed a vituperative campaign, even alleging Naveen’s involvement in the barbaric assassination of Swami Laxmananand Saraswati the year earlier, with some leaders even proclaiming in public rallies that the soul of departed saint would ensure that 2009 is Naveen’s Waterloo.

Well, the electorate thought otherwise. Naveen won a large majority single handedly and the BJP was reduced to single digits in the assembly, a situation which has only marginally improved even 5 years later. So clinically successful was Naveen’s severance in 2009 that even now the secularists celebrate it while the BJP continues to nurse a deep grudge against Naveen and even Pyari Mohan Mahapatro, the then architect of that divorce.

Given its experiences, it was quite ironical to see the BJP adopting Naveen’s book while shrugging off Shiv Sena as an inconvenient partner. The similar claims of higher seat share, the same sham of negotiations, the same last minute desertion, similar poaching of candidates from other parties, wholesale intake of office bearers across constituencies where the BJP’s presence was weak, (though not on a scale as big as Naveen). What was additional was confabulations with the enemy – Sharad Pawar, who seems to end up holding some or the other aces in all elections. It will be foolhardy to dismiss the likelihood that BJP dumped the Sena only after Pawar assured that it would do the same with Congress. Just notice how both the alliances came apart within hours of each other and even post election, NCP barely took time to declare its support to the BJP. Further, it is difficult to visualise that people as canny as Amit Shah and Narendra Modi would have run the risk of running a solo campaign against a Congress-NCP alliance, which even in its most discredited state, together command a vote share higher than that BJP.

Anyway, like Orissa 2009, Maharashtra 2014 too proved that people are hardly bothered with esoteric ideas like ‘betrayal’. So, even though it did not win an outright majority, it won enough to prove that it had indeed become decisively bigger than its erstwhile partner.

The similarities stop here. Unlike the BJP in Orissa, Sena was not decimated in Maharashtra. Not only did it protect most of its strongholds, it gained vote-share and seats to emerge as the second largest entity in Maharashtra. Further, while it is difficult to visualise Naveen seeking Congress support (and Congress reciprocating) had he fallen short, the BJP had no qualms in visibly embracing support of a party which large segments of Maharashtrians see as epitome of corruption and misrule. Add to that the reaction of BJP supporters. Those very people who had nothing but the choicest abuses for Naveen see no wrong in similar acts getting committed against its oldest ally. Lastly, while the angry BJP reconciled itself to an opposition role in Orissa, the Shiv Sena, is acting like the BJP would, when Maya, Mamata and Jaya were concerned. Probably it has something to do with the Hindu Nationalistic DNA of both the parties that make them act thus. Yet, the cringe-inducing behaviour of Sena has only succeeded in lowering its prestige in the eyes of the world.

While there are many reasons why Balasaheb and his bunch of Sainiks came to occupy a special place in the hearts of Maharashtrians, one aspect which defined Balasaheb, and by extension, the Sena, was his bravado backed by stubborn adherence to stands once taken, howsoever, politically incorrect they would be. Sena under Balasaheb was akin that neighbourhood toughie, who even with all his vices, is loved because the toughie is a man of his word, of conviction, is available on call and protects the neighbourhood in his own not-so-civil ways. Today, even though Uddhav has managed to score a victory of sorts, having held on to his forts and decisively reclaiming his father’s legacy from his usurper cousin, he is a much diminished leader. He is seen at most like a Maratha sardar of the olden days, who would swallow every indignity to curry some favours from the Delhi Sultanate. Why should people be blamed if they think so – is not the party of late Balasaheb reduced to a pathetic state of begging for invitations to oath taking ceremonies, of beseeching all influencers to gain a foothold in the state government, of any number of inconsequential ministries? This is a party where while at one time, Chhagan Bhujbal, the strongest strongman Sena has known, had to go virtually underground to escape Sainik’s wrath for deserting the party. Today, a political featherweight like Suresh Prabhu can join the central ministry, ostensibly on the Sena’s quota, without as much as a hello, thank you, from Uddhav!

Just what prevented Uddhav from pulling out of the NDA when the BJP so unceremoniously dumped it? What is it that keeps Uddhav hoping that the BJP would finally agree to take him in? Even if it does, will it be worth the immense harm it has already inflicted and will further inflict on the Sena’s image? Just what does it want? Play the role of an effective opposition or continue with its pusillanimity, hoping for crumbs from the BJP?

Let’s not think even for a moment that having tasted power on its own strength, the BJP would ever be willing to sup with Sena as even equal partners ever. They don’t need to. People have spoken. Yet, since both the Sena and the BJP tap a common voter-base for support, the BJP will try its level best to further shrink Sena, if possible to the point of oblivion or at least, to an inconsequential rump. Currently, the BJP holds the maximum number of MLAs from Mumbai, the heart of Sena. Why would the BJP agree to contest the coming civic elections as a junior partner of Sena? And if they fight even as equal partners, it would be a de jure acceptance of Sena of its diminished role in Maharashtra. As an opposition, the Sena stands a stronger chance of withstanding BJP’s onslaught. Not only will it be immune from the charges of commission and omission which will stick to it even if it supports the BJP from outside, it has potential to occupy more of the opposition space ceded by a receding Congress and those sections of the population which have a strong affinity to Hindutva related politics.

It is a sad commentary on the partisan nature of our politics that forget core BJP supporters, even traditional opponents of the BJP have found nothing objectionable in the NCP-BJP live-in. The BJP has every reason to thank NCP. Had it not been for its corruption, the public mood against the State Government may not have been that strong. Had it not been for Pawar’s assurances, the BJP might not have been able to cut Sena to size. But for its brazen support to its Government, the BJP would still have had to make amends with Shiv Sena. But, an alliance with Pawar, howsoever covert it might be, only damages the BJP’s sheen. An indulgent public may turn the blind eye today. Tomorrow, nothing stops them from declaring it as dyed in corruption as the ‘Naturally Corrupt Party.

Moving from Maharashtra, even though the BJP dumped Kuldeep Bishnoi’s Haryana Janhit Party too, the two dumping instances (Sena and HJC) are very different from each other. While agreements need to be honoured, they are entered into with an underlying assumption of the partner’s strenght. HJC even though bouyed by the Modi wave, miserably failed to display any strength in the Lok Sabha polls, with Bishnoi too losing his seat. Add to that HJC’s flirting with other parties (including Congress) tenuous connect with the NDA and a proclivity to run an independent campaign, BJP can be little faulted in parting ways from a vacuous, unreliable ally. The Sena’s case is different. Not only was the alliance old, it was based on a clear understanding of role of the larger party getting swapped in assembly and parliamentary elections. Even more, the Sena performed credibly well in the Lok Sabha elections too, proving that it was a worthy partner as far as electoral stakes were concerned.

Anyway, all analysis are passe. Uddhav has to decide – whether to uphold the Sena legacy and continue a tough, solitary struggle or get reduced to a political cipher in its thirst for immediate fruits of office.

Defend Minority Rights - Liberal Style

How a society treats its poorest and most helpless citizens, often a minority group, is indicative of its strength. While this statement has been ‘Indianised’ to refer only to minorities, its righteous rhetoric cannot be ignored.

Since the protection and furtherance of all minority ‘causes’ is the life defining mission of our ‘liberals’, it is quite surprising to see that rather than protecting, they have ganged up against one of the most vulnerable minorities in India – the Vegetarians!

Contrary to the image of India being a vegetarian land, the vast majority of Indians consume meat. In 2004, as per the Anthropological Survey of India (as against a pop survey by CNN-IBN), barely 220 million Indians out of 1028 million (2001 census) were vegetarians. Even within traditional vegetarian communities, more and more families are taking up meat and fowl consumption. Hence, not only are the vegetarians a minority; horror of horrors, they are a declining minority in dire need of state protection to shore up their numbers and way of life! Without adequate safeguards, it is likely that they will be overwhelmed and consumed by the majoritarian meat-eaters in the country. What a travesty that would be? A beautiful strand of Indian diversity getting subsumed by that anaconda of majoritism! Even the die-hard meat eater will agree that an India sans vegetarians will militate against the very ‘Idea of India’, whosoever’s it is.

Then why, why is this hapless minority the butt of ridicule and attacks from the very people who are supposed to protect them?

The resident agony aunt of ‘secularists’ in India, the venerable Outlook ran a story of how Jains (a very small minority) are terrorizing the palate of Muslims by insisting that their sacred town, Patilana, be declared vegetarian. Soon after, the relapsed Open The Magazine ran another story on Vegetarian Terrorism, bemoaning how the evangelical vegetarians want all to survive on grass and yet again coming down on the Jain minority for seeking to protect, practice and propagate their religious beliefs. But, how could they? Jains, being vegetarians and numerically much smaller than Muslims are a huge (sic) minority. Then, should not the weaker minority be supported in the clash of two minorities?

It must be quite a lapse of judgement for the venerable Outlook to agitate against a sect which is double-minority and granting of minority status for whom, it celebrated only months back. After all, isn’t respect for minority practices a cornerstone of ‘liberal’ activism? Not only do these liberals need to stop protesting against these minorities, they should launch a campaign to protect those vegetarian property owners from those majoritarian meat-eaters who insist on becoming their tenants. The issue is of course not whether an individual’s right of ownership. It is simply religious identity. How can the majoritarian meat-eaters force minority vegetarians to dance to their tunes? Taking the campaign ahead, these liberals should fight for the right of those vegetarian run establishments who do not want meat to be cooked / warmed in their premises. As a next step ‘liberals’ need to get a hate law passed to protect the hapless vegetarian against jibes of her meat eating acquaintance, who asks with mock concern ‘ how do you survive on grass?’, ‘but what do you eat other than paneer in restaurants?’ ‘why don’t you try chicken/mutton/fish?’ This done, ‘liberals’ must pressurise the Government to legislate tough laws on the lines of dalit and women protection laws, to prevent harassment and intimidation of this vanishing minority.

As in the case of sexual orientation, vegetarianism is both a choice and a result of conditioning. So, why should the paternal protection sought for one not be offered to the other group?

Who exactly is a minority in India? The answer is a little complex. For the layperson, any individual or group, which is less than 50% of the total group of people, comprises a minority. However, in the Indian ‘secular’ parlance, the minorities are a broad spectrum group comprising of Muslims, women, tribals, dalits etc. Now, if some 90% of the population gets identified as minorities, how can a mere 10% of the population be considered a majority?

Very clearly, the assumption that minority must equal helplessness, weakness is flawed. After all, a handful of British ruled over India’s teeming millions. And, isn’t it the numerically insignificant tiger, which sits at the apex of the food chain, even when the jungle is full of herbivores?
 

But, paradoxically, for Indian ‘secularists’, some groups remain ‘minorities’ irrespective of absence of any weaknesses attributable to their being a ‘minority’. Hence, an Allahabad High Court judgement pronouncing that Muslims were not a minority (owing to their history, size and political influence) was treated with derision with many ‘secularists’ offering to teach basic arithmetic to the learned judge of the court. So, in India, the matter is settled. Any person who is not a Hindutvawadi, preferably an ‘upper’ caste, Hindu male, is a minority. Hindu here specifically excludes followers of Sikhism, Jainism, Buddhism and for some, followers of Kashmiri Shaivism and the Lingayats.

So, any action by any person who belongs to this abominable group, if against any member of the numerous ‘minorities’ populating India, becomes a communal act. Hence, the crass actions of a Shiv Sena MP becomes an attack on Indian secularism only because the person who was at the receiving end of this ‘religious persecution’ happened to be a Muslim, who was fasting even at night! Wonder why non-Muslim students being denied mid-day meals or being forced to have lunch in school toilets in some North Kerala districts are not seen as worthy of concern, particularly when they too are minorities in those Muslim-majority lands?