Politics Of Babri Masjid By Kuldip Nayar

Politics Of Babri Masjid By Kuldip Nayar

Posted using ShareThis

Outliving the Personality Cult

"An election is coming. Universal peace is declared, and the foxes have a sincere interest in prolonging the lives of the poultry."

- George Eliot

I recollect sitting and discussing the political scenario with a few friends of mine way back in 1996, when the BJP had come to power for the first time. As obvious, BJP’s coming to power was being observed as a disheartening and depressing episode. “What would happen now?” I asked one of the most acclaimed friends in the group. “Nothing; we will get a very virtuous and competent Prime Minister in the rank of Mr. Atal Bihari Vajpayee!!” The group slithered with utter disbelief, shock, and silence for a while; and we called off the discussion. It’s almost 12 years since then, and I still recollect how true that friend was in stating about Mr. Atal Bihari Vajpayee – can we ever deny his competency as the Prime Minister of the largest democracy in the world? Before moving any further, let me clarify that I have been a stalwart opponent of the Saffron Brigade, and I still continue to be the same. Nevertheless, I somehow strongly believe in what my friend had said about Mr. Vajpayee, in spite of this.

It is not simple personal preferences or penchants that I wish to maintain here. Our country possesses numerous able and competent leaders like Mr. Vajpayee; irrespective of the political party they belong to. In addition, the country has a plethora of political parties with sarcastically, and sometimes sardonically, separated political views, an ever increasing and never ending phenomenon. The complex mix of individualism, sometimes combined and sometimes separated from the political philosophy, has always tickled the average Indian voter. It would have been really easy to ascertain our choice of the preferred leader(s) if we had to look at individuals separated from the political parties they belonged to. To elaborate – even if we assume that the BJP is communal (a simple assumption, without getting into any niceties), can we say Mr. Vajpyee is communal too? However, voting for the BJP just because one wants Mr. Vajpayee to be the Prime Minister does not appear logical either. The dilemma is that we can neither endorse an individual candidate separated from his/her political party, nor endorse a political party separated from its members. Therefore, even if I strongly endorse an individual political leader, I might not be able to actually vote for him/her because I do not agree with the political views of his/her political party. Any respite?

There was a time when the Indian populace was ascetically driven by the personality cult of the Indian National Congress. Prime Ministers were almost a tradition of royal legacy; from Nehru to Indira to Rajeev. Would it be too harsh to say that the Nehru family is still reckoned as the Royal Political Family of India? We might have Manmohan Singhs and I K Gujrals, but isn’t it self-revealing where the rein of thoughts and actions actually rests? It was believed by almost all average Muslim Indians that Congress was the ONLY benefactor for them (for reasons pretty incomprehensible to me); a belief that has surreptitiously eroded with time. Unfortunately, Congress has probably never been able to rise beyond the personality cult that it was so stitched to even before India got independence. At times, it is so appallingly nauseating to recollect: Though all political parties perform their bit in terms of uplifting the nation, BJP represents nothing but the Saffron Brigade; Congress tersely represents nothing but the festering Nehru legacy…

Remember when Rajeev Gandhi had been elected as the Prime Minister? Public sympathy over the assassination of Mrs. Indira Gandhi was perhaps one of the most prominent motivations for people to vote in favor of the Congress during those times. How logical [or emotional] that decision was is a matter of open debate. India did see a young, energetic, and effervescent India during the tenure of Rajeev Gandhi. In fact, the Prime Ministership of late P.V. Narsimha Rao was probably seen as a respite to Nehru legacy; which was probably too ephemeral to yield results. Evidently, Congress could never gain an absolute majority after that, due to seemingly categorical reasons. This regime also witnessed a dramatic shift in the voting pattern of the Indian Voters; when emotional judgment saw a significant mount in deciding the voting patterns. I would say that the Congress has been a good player of the emotional card, albeit the fact that this emotional [read religious] card might be more vociferously visible in case of communal fronts such as the Saffron Brigade. [Scrutinize the “Jai Ho” television ad of the Indian National Congress as a proof of this statement!!]

The emotional voting pattern was actually induced by the Indian National Congress itself; at occasions when it did not have enough substance to reinforce any logical agenda for elections. The other important weaponry adopted by the Congress was the sponsorship of the Nehru Family as the legal progenies for Prime Ministership. Specifically Nehru Family members who were known to be in agreement with the erstwhile Prime Ministers; others like Sanjay or Maneka Gandhi were probably not deserving because they had the nerve to differ. [I am a politically neural person when it comes to endorsing one between the Congress and BJP; therefore please do not decipher this statement in support of Maneka Gandhi.] This proclivity towards the personality cult was so prohibitive, even in the Pre-Independence era, that perhaps it cost us the division of the nation. This can be further maintained by the fact that Maulana Azad had endorsed the May 16, 1946 proposal of the Cabinet Mission to constitute a federal government with greater autonomy for the provinces. Evidently, Maulana Azad had envisaged that this would subdue Jinnah’s demand for a separate nation. However, unfortunately, the stance was ingeniously hijacked by Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru because a weak center would imply a weak position of Prime Ministership (Nehru Family descendants??). Maulana Azad was perhaps very right in mentioning in his book, “India Wins Freedom”, that if this situation had not been monopolized by the Indian National Congress, perhaps we would not have witnessed the eternally blemishing Partition.

Returning to the personality cult postulate, when the BJP and the likes espoused on religious sentiments to generate their vote bank, it was only a more erudite and bespoke implementation of the Congress stratagem. Perceptibly, the Congress has been brazened out by its own weapon now. What it had adopted to entice the Minorities has now been evidently; and unfortunately, more adequately worn out by the Saffron Brigade to commandeer the Majority vote bank [my apologies, an assumed Majority vote bank]! If things continue the way they appear, we should not expect an absolute majority of any party in at least the next 25 years perhaps. What next?

A coalition government is highly susceptible to what I love calling “leg pulling cricket”. Obviously, a coalition has its own benefits in terms of better accountability; but most of the times, accountability is hijacked in favor of vested interests. Do we see a respite? As responsible citizens of the largest democracy, we ought to handle this fact with care. In addition, we need to ensure that we decide our vote based on cognition and acumen, not pure sentiments or emotions. The BJP might appear communal; let’s not vote for the Congress ONLY because of this. The Congress may pledge evasion from communalism [though temporary and doubtful]; let’s not vote for the Congress ONLY for this reason. To emanate my point, let’s not shy away from rethinking and amending our political predilections from scratch. Let’s do a more effective cost-benefit analysis before deciding our vote. We would also be required to read between the lines of media endorsements and not be swayed by their speculations or exit polls [it is evidently proved that exit polls are a strong means to influence voting patterns]. The media also needs to be neutral and impartial in its true sense to ensure that we get a government “of the people”, not of the “politicians and tacticians”. Let’s use the personality cult in OUR favor, not in the favor of the vested interests.

Long Live India, Long Live Indian Democracy!!

An Indian Muslim Answers to Gen. Musharraf

The Myopia of Rational Thinking

“Thus, a Muslim may incite his followers to violence, or indulge in it himself, but he still remains a pillar of the community as long as he performs ritual namaz, goes on Haj and abstains from pork. A Hindu may do likewise, but as long as he donates to temples, goes on pilgrimage, does not eat beef and holds bovine life more sacred than human, he will pass muster.”

So holds Lalit Mohan, in his article, “Understanding Terror, Religion Link,” published by Hindustan Times on January 13, 2009. [Read this article here]

It is nauseating to read and recollect how Mr. Mohan obnoxiously argues and tries to prove the point that terrorism is spelt by religion. It really failed and baffled my acumen to accept how such a myopic view can be held and published by a National Daily like the Hindustan Times. The article contains everything except substance and grounded logic. The article not only speaks of the indigent knowledge of Mr. Mohan about the religions but also narrates his poor logic. Terrorism is a vast issue, and a myopic view such as this would only hamper in our efforts to counter it.

Arguably, Mr. Mohan has adopted a quite inhibited view of terrorism. To elaborate, he hastily bellows on the terrorism that takes the form of conflicting religious interests, be it Kashmir, Ayodhya, Godhra, or Mumbai. What about the terrorism delineated in the form of LTTE, ULFA, Naxalism, and the likes? Which religion would Mr. Mohan ascribe to explain LTTE-based terrorism? What kind of religious convergence do the ULFA have? Or does he want to contend that these are no instances of terrorism? Surely, if he does so, it would defiantly stand against the national sentiments, since the Government of India has banned most of these terror organizations.

“If there was no religious divide, terrorists from across the border would not have come to ravage Mumbai because there would have been no border to cross between two regions that were once one India.” How does Mr. Mohan defend this thesis of his when it comes to LTTE, ULFA, and Naxalites? “So after ‘Islamic terrorism’ there is now ‘Hindu terrorism’, just as we once had ‘Sikh terrorism’ and Christian terrorism in Ireland.” By holding this estimation, Mr. Mohan is doing no good to any of the religions. One might agree to Mr. Mohan (just for the sake of argument) that maybe Islam promotes terrorism. So by saying that we have Hindu terrorism as we had Sikh terrorism and Christian terrorism, does Mr. Mohan want to portray that Hinduism, Sikhism, and Christianity, all promote terrorism? More than three-fourth of the world follows one religion or the other. So, does that mean three-fourth world population comes under the brand of terrorism?

To take a flip-side view, the term terrorism is actually contextual. Do we not recall how Shaheed Bhagat Singh, Sukhdev, and Rajguru were branded terrorists by the British Government, but were heroes in the eyes of every patriotic Indian? Can we afford to doubt the intent of the great Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose and his role in India’s struggle for independence? Still, Netaji was never held in high regards, was in fact branded a terrorist by the British rulers. Similarly, LTTE is a hero organization for the Tamil Tigers, in spite of the fact that it’s declared a banned terror outfit in India. To ensure that I am not misconstrued, I would vehemently proclaim that I do not stand to justify or defend terrorism. The point that I want to set right is that the brand terrorists is contextual in most cases. Whatever said, no logic would ever be able to justify the atrocities and killings inflicted on innocents by any means.

Let me now give a rational religious point of view to this argument; taking the example from the great epic Ramayana. We know that Great Hanuman had dignified powers compared to others in his rank. However, he temporarily forgot his powers because he misused them. He was able to recall his powers when he set out with a virtuous intention to help Lord Ram. This applies to all religions as well. Every religion bestows great powers to its followers, but no religion teaches its followers to torture and kill innocents. Yes, religions do teach us to stand for justice; enforce by power if possible, stand for justice by way of words, and stand for justice by considering a wrong as a wrong. If; however, this power of enforcing justice and renouncing injustice is misused by few people, can we say that the roots terrorism lie with religions? “Terror is not a by-product of religion”; however, our myopic way of looking at religions is. What we need to fight is not religion, but the misuse of religion for vested interests, which is a vulnerable coerce with any religion. “This is the evil we must fight. Denial will not get us anywhere”.

Just to add for the information of Mr. Mohan, if a Muslim may incite his followers to violence, or indulge in it himself for an unjust cause, it is not condoned in Islam. For the Holy Quran states that if a person slays another person without any just reason [which has further been defined and elaborated in the Quran], it is as if he has killed the entire humankind; and if he resuscitates the life of another person, it is as if he has saved the entire humankind.

That Sense of Insecurity…

“I am a Muslim and profoundly conscious of the fact that I have inherited Islam's glorious tradition of the last fourteen hundred years. I am not prepared to lose even a small part of that legacy. ... I am equally proud of the fact that I am an Indian, an essential part of the indivisible unity of the Indian nationhood, a vital factor in its total makeup, without which this noble edifice will remain incomplete.”

- Maulana Abul Kalam Azad

A recent public opinion poll on a popular Muslim Indian e-magazine tries to ascertain the most important issue that is plaguing Muslim Indians this year. The issues discussed are many, ranging from economy and employment, to security and spiritually. Interestingly, majority of the respondents felt economy as the biggest area of concern (almost 37%), followed by security (20%). What appears even more alarming is the fact that the readership of this e-magazine includes majority of elite and educated Muslim Indians (most of whom are NRIs in various parts of the world, including the Americas). The alarming percentage of our elite population that acknowledges insecurity is a disturbing fact. [Maybe, economy has been recorded as the most important issue in this poll as a temporary but important issue, because of the persistent world economic slump underway.] Are we, Muslim Indians, insecure; to the extent that 20% of our elite class believes it to be the prime concern?

Arguably, the answer to the above question should be, YES. Muslim Indians are insecure because we face threats from all nooks and corners. We face insecurity in terms of employment, we face insecurity in terms of civil rights and codes, we face insecurity in terms of our beliefs and the edifice of our beliefs, we face insecurity in terms of our material possessions, and we face insecurity in terms of existence. So much so that we have all developed a fear psychosis that has stripped us from exploring and evaluating the de facto. The insecurity of existence becomes the gravest when we hear of the consistent thumping of the media regarding the relationship between terrorism and Muslims, and Islam. It apparently feels strenuous to revere about anything else when we face this momentous insecurity of existence. We have lived, and continue to live in this abject fear of insecurity. However, have we ever contemplated that this is exactly what the adversaries actually want us to believe?

Cogitating the historical despoilment of the Great Partition of 1947, I am reminded of a popular informal saying that almost all Muslim Indians would have been worse than bonded labors in Independent India, had it not been for the efforts of Late Sir Syed Ahmed Khan and Aligarh Muslim University. [We do realize the fact how Independent India had been stripped off the elite and intellectual Muslims, our inspiration and think-tank, majority of whom had migrated to Pakistan in lure of greener pastures?] During those overcast days, AMU had emerged as the single source for dispensing distinction and virtuosity to Muslim Indians (and I should not be incorrect to say that perhaps it still continues to be so). Were Muslim Indians secure during those days? Perhaps not. How then, were we able to carve out a niche for ourselves during those days of insecurity – considering the fact that the magnitude of insecurity of existence was the highest during those days?

One prime and important reason that occurs to me is that Muslim Indians were definitely insecure in terms of existence; however, were not insecure in terms of their IDENTITY. Things are probably not much different today – we are in minority today as well, we do face prejudice and biasness today as well, and we do face the same threat to our property and lives today as well. The difference is that we did not face identity insecurity then, which we so deficiently face today. To exemplify – how comfortable do we feel talking about Islam and Muslim Indians in public? How comfortable are we in discussing our rituals and beliefs? Most important of all, how comfortable are we in expressing ourselves as Muslim Indians (not Indian Muslims)? We ensure that we do not talk about the problems being faced by average Muslim Indians because we might be termed intolerant. We avoid expressing our rituals and beliefs because we fear becoming outcasts compared to the Majority. We fear (yes, FEAR) in expressing ourselves as Muslim Indians because we might be branded NON-SECULAR. This, the insecurity of IDENTITY, is the gravest concern that we are evidently faced with today.

The adversaries thrive on our insecurity of identity because they are aware and confident of the fact that this insecurity has all the aptitude to sojourn our rational thinking. And once we are stripped of rational thinking, everything starts slickly falling into their platter! Consider this revised sense of insecurity under the influence of stripped rational – We need to co-EXIST with a Majority. Therefore, we need to live at their disposal. We need to abide by their rules of existence. If we cannot exist, how would we be able to proceed with our subsistence? Everything else (including education, employment, economy, empowerment, disposition, and social recognition and actualization) can wait; first we need to survive, EXIST. This is how things appear, and this is what and how the adversaries want us to believe!

The way out is easier said than done. It all is a vicious circle (something similar to the chakravyuh), the never-ending spiral formation of abjection, which needs to be broken; broken from various fronts simultaneously. The first front that we need to strike is our attitude and thought process, rational thinking, to be more precise. Let’s inspect the conditions a little more objectively, with a more rationale line of thought. Muslim Indians constitute more than 13% of the total Indian populace. What percentage of Muslim representation do we have at various levels of national, social, political, economic, educational, and corporate governance? If we do not have adequate representation, how do we plan to wash out this enduring sense of insecurity? How do we ensure adequate representation if we are not adequately educated and consummate? One may argue that to be educated and consummate, one needs to be secure in terms of existence.

To address the previous concern, let’s appraise Article 29 of the Constitution of India, which states, “(1) Any section of the citizens residing in the territory of India or any part thereof having a distinct language, script or culture of its own shall have the right to conserve the same. (2) No citizen shall be denied admission into any educational institution maintained by the State or receiving aid out of State funds on grounds only of religion, race, caste, language or any of them.” So, if we are not educated and consummate, how can we expect to discern and implement this provision provided to us by our Constitution?

Having realized the importance of educational deficiency, we need to work on it manifolds. First, we need to collectively shun the premise of insecurity to existence being the highest level of our concern. Rather, we need to look at educational deficiency among Muslim Indians as the gravest of all concerns. We need to reconstruct our educational edifice so that our children get impartial education and excel in both religious and contemporary domains. At the same time, we need to hunt down the disgrace and de-branding of Muslim Indians in terms of insecurity of our IDENTITY. This calls for a revolution in its true sense – working on war footing to pull off both these ends simultaneously. We need colossal efforts, sweat, toil, maybe blood, to uplift ourselves out of this sense of insecurity. That is the only way we can candidly and profoundly say that we are not prepared to lose even a small part of that legacy (being a Muslim) and we are equally proud of the fact that we are Muslim Indians, an essential part of the indivisible unity of the Indian nationhood, without which our noble edifice will remain incomplete.