Resources for all concerned with culture of authoritarianism in society, banalisation of communalism, (also chauvinism, parochialism and identity politics) rise of the far right in India (and with occasional information on other countries of South Asia and beyond)
Centre for Study of Society and Secularism
cordially invites you to the
15th Dr. Asghar Ali Engineer Memorial Lecture
on
“Varieties of Secularism: A Comparative Perspective”
To be delivered by:
Prof. W. Cole Durham Jr.
(Susa Young Gates University Professor of Law and Founding Director, Center for Law and Religion Studies at Brigham Young University)
Chair:
Prof. Tahir Mahmood
(Distinguished Jurist Chair and Professor of Eminence, Institute of Advanced Legal Studies, Amity University)
Date: Saturday, 22nd February 2020
Time: 5:30 pm to 8:00 pm
Venue: Auditorium, Jawahar Bhawan, Dr. Rajendra Prasad Road, New Delhi - 110001
In a space where political debate is an essential condiment to the afternoon snacks and tea at the Ganga dhaba, critical questioning and logical debate is getting subjected to the big O — the politics of offence.
Jawaharlal
Nehru University (JNU), which is known to be a contestatory space, such
that even the subdued walls of the SSS canteen soaked in the sticking
glue of the parcha-poster culture, seem to be shouting up at
the smug building windows, engaged in endless debate. The most quiet
corners and neglected pathways of the JNU campus mark the history and
culture of protest.
But beware, the thought police of
'true belief' is upon us. Pathologisation of rationalist views as
'Islamophobic', belongs to the long tradition of taxonomising
rationalists by turning critical thought into an allegation. While the
progressive and the Left community has always claimed to put up a fight
against right-wing violence and in this project appropriated the icons
of rationalists like Narendra Dabholkar, Govind Pansare and M M
Kalburgi, it has deliberately refrained from taking a principled
political position on the rationalist critique of religion and
systematically upheld Islam apologia as its strategy to counter the
Hindu right-wing.
The rechristening of dissenters,
rationalists and free-thinkers belongs to the historical tradition of
pathologising those with contrarian views. The women non-adherents of
patriarchal norms were dubbed 'witches'. The rationalist non-adherents
of faith were dubbed 'blasphemers', and the non-conformists to the
social strictures were dubbed 'mad'. Now the regime of offence in JNU
has begun the task of taxonomising rationalists with the power vested in
them by the Left political ally.
A file photo of a student at JNU protesting during the Kanhaiyya Kumar row, Reuters
JNU
student politics is witnessing an alarming rise in the politics of
identity, where all protest spaces, modes of organising and articulation
is reduced to the person's immediate identity. Alliances, solidarities
and assertions on the basis of a politics of identity are
self-referential and inward-looking, intolerant to 'outsider's'
criticism or questioning. The Left parties have helped to maintain the
status quo by deliberate and strategic silences on the issue of
'Islamophobia' and 'Islamic feminism'.
This
is reflected in the recent incident where an AISA cadre Aman Sinha was
disowned by the organisation for criticising the idea of "Islamic
feminism". The disowned activist, a student at the Centre for Historical
Studies (CHS), "caused offence" to some truer believers of history by
questioning a historical figure in Islam, and AISA in all contradiction
to the Left's history of speaking blasphemy to power, acquiesced.
Instead of clarifying the organisational position and differences with
their activist's position, it sought to appease offended souls by
severing ties with the culture of rational debate.
To
begin with, one needs to deconstruct the term 'Islamophobia' — it is the
phobia or irrational fear and aversion towards Islam. This term is
misleading and conflationary, as it pigeonholes all critique of Islam as
a 'phobia' or bigotry towards Muslims. In the Indian context, since
Muslims are a religious minority they should be viewed as a social group
too. Islam is a religion and Muslims are the members of that
socio-religious group, who all have different beliefs, interpretations
of the book and relationship with the faith. Multiple interpretations by
various denominations and sects, deflates the notion of the monolith of
Islam.
The fears and aversion of the rationalists are
not irrational phobias, but justified responses in a political context
where 'insensitivity to feelings of hurt and offence' have gone on to
become a trademark allegation to silence their voices and accuse them of
'hate-speech'. Feeling offended and subsequent silencing of voices of
critique of religion to protect the offended feelings, is the sign of a
bigoted mind and weak logic.
The
term 'Islamophobia' is misleading and conflationary, as t pigeonholes
all critique of Islam as a 'phobia' or bigotry towards Muslims. Reuters
It
is important to note that opponents of Islam can also be atheists and
rationalists who could be members or non-members of a social group
called Muslims. The attack on minorities through right-wing projects
such as ghar wapsi, anti 'love jihad' violence, cow vigilantism, are to
be viewed as an attack on the Muslims, not Islam. It is not the Muslim
citizen's right to religion, but their democratic right to equal choice
of food, love and freedom to loiter instead of wapsi, which is at stake.
And which is to be protected most zealously.
Coming back
to the context of JNU, very few arguments that advocate a
deconstruction of the term 'Islamophobia' have come up in popular
debates. Let's revisit some of the most important allegations made in
this article JNU: Left wing Students Shouldn't Act Superior, Islamophobia Is Running Rampant Among Them'.
To
begin with, the authors have operated from the false binary of Muslim
believers and non-Muslim "Islamophobes". In laying the blame of the
disappearance of Najeeb on the campus Left, they otherise the campus
Left as if they did not constitute Muslim members. Or that the Muslim
members of the Left organisations in JNU were somehow lesser qualified
to represent oppressions of Muslims and their views were less authentic.
The authors' assumption that the rationalists who question Islamic
feminism are all non-Muslim "Islamophobes" or Muslim-less Left, is
reflective of a deep seated prejudice that is characteristic of the Big O.
The
hyperbole and spectre of "derogatory word" logic used by the authors
misses certain very crucial facts. The authors use the instance of
Shehla Rashid's Facebook post which had made a point about 'hate
speech', as an example of Left activist's usage of 'derogatory word' for
Prophet Mohammad. What they fail to conveniently omit is the word was
from a quoted text, which also contained another example about the Hindu
god Ram. Why are such references justified in the case of 'other'
religions, but unacceptable and intolerable for one's 'own' religion?
Any act of questioning Islamic history and historical figures, is just
as much anti-Muslim as questioning the veracity of the claims of a Ram
Mandir or Ram Setu are anti-Hindu. To question one, and not question the
other is bigotry and chauvinism.
While this "offence"
had led to FIR threats and massive trolling culminating into a police
complaint against the leader, AISA and the Left parties on campus
maintained a deafening silence on the Muslim AMU right-wing or the musanghis,
in keeping with its principled politics of appeasement. The fundamental
reduction of all Muslims to their immediate identity does supreme
injustice to the voices of the minorities from within. Neither do all
believers of Islamic faith have a uniform interpretation of Quran, nor
are all Muslims, believers of the faith. Muslims, like other social
minorities in the country have denominational, gendered and caste-based
internal minorities. Additionally, there are ideological minorities of
ex-Muslims, atheists, apostates, rationalists and anti-Islam feminists
who face the threat of legal and social penalties and persecution, apart
from routine oppression, injustices and a general sense of alienation
and marginalisation.
Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a Somali-born
activist who became an atheist after renouncing Islam, faces routine
threats for being vocal in her anti-Islamic views. Ali faced the
oppressive practice of genital mutilation at the age of five and had to
flee in order to escape a forced marriage and the subsequent backlash of
honour killing. She regularly expresses herself against the dangers of
not just radical Islam, but "regular Islam" and has asserted against the
"backward" nature of the religion. The consequences and costs of
resistance have been manifold. A video campaign targeting Ayaan Hirsi
Ali titled 'You Are Not Our Ally' was recently launched on the internet
where prominent Muslim women, writers, activists and others from
Australia projected her as a right-wing white supremacist. The
de-legitimisation of rationalist voices, that exists in JNU context too,
plays into a subtle and hidden apologia for misogynistic attacks on
female rationalists.
The complainants who report sexual
harassment against men of 'progressive' lineages and links find popular
support and solidarity in JNU politics. But the consequent development
of a feminist politics independent of the Left, has been time and again
been characterised as 'bourgeois', 'elite', 'urban' and even written off
as a right-wing conspiracy. And when the independent and rationalist
feminists face religious bigotry and chauvinism by distributers and
wholesale vendors of religion through choicest brandings, the Left
blames them, instead, for acting insensitive. Why do the Left-liberals
not uphold rationalist arguments when women are labelled as
'Islamophobic' and 'bourgeois' for critiquing Islam?
It
has become a left catchphrase to call rational thought and ideas as
"elitist" and "insensitive". Faisal Saeed Al Mutar has attributed this
regressive and reactionary character of the left politics to its "unholy
alliance" with the Islamists. Mutar has called out the hypocrisy of the
left liberals who uphold the universal rights of women and homosexuals
yet side with the Islamists, pleading religious sensitivity, and
supporting Islamic practices from a cultural relativism lens. He
attributes the vindication of backward and regressive practices in Islam
to the fear of Islamophobia or "Islamophobia" phobia, not a concern for
human rights. The pre-emptive "Islamophobia" phobia leaves the space of
criticism open only for the "crazy far right" while demolishing any
right to the critical interpretation by rationalists.
The
pre-emptive "Islamophobia" phobia leaves the space of criticism open
only for the "crazy far right" while demolishing any right to the
critical interpretation by rationalists. Reuters
The
right to logical interpretation of faith, is not the sole prerogative
of believers, or a monopoly of the few believer-jurist men, but the
equal democratic right of every rationalist, atheist and free thinker.
Notwithstanding whether the question is of personal or political rights,
or whether the question is with regard to central tenets or debatable
tenets of Islam; No question of faith is personal and every personal
question of faith is political.
The unqualified right
to interpret is critical for specially women and feminists as they are
the ones suffering systematic denial of their constitutionally
guaranteed rights and freedoms.
Whether it
be restriction of entry, debarring of activities by interpreters and
owners of faith or violence of oppressive practices upheld and
propounded by institutions of faith. Nahid Afrin, a 16-year-old Muslim
singer from Assam, faced a pamphlet campaign by 46 Muslim clerics who
believed that singing was anti-Sharia and would "definitely anger
Allah". Despite facing severe social pressure to give up singing, she
fought back and asserted her democratic right and freedom to sing.
Afreen found support in Taslima Nasreen who tweeted, "After getting
fatwa from 46 mullahs in Assam, 16 yrs old Nahid Afrin said she'll never
bow down and will never leave singing. Bravo girl!"
While
Nasreen is openly anti-Islam, not all women and girls can afford to pay
the price of speaking up. So, as easy as it may seem, to call a fatwa
"non-mandatory", unless any such order or interpretation as contained in
a fatwa doesn't mandatorily uphold the equal rights of girls like Afrin
to interpret her faith, it is unjust and unconstitutional. Just like
the Khap panchayat is, for telling women what to wear and eat. The right
to interpretation of both, essential and non-essential features of
faith is a rationalist right, on which scholars, systematic purveyors of
faith and standard believers cannot impose restrictions or qualifiers.
Whether
it be the recent incident of Aman Sinha or that of the several other
left-liberal and free-thinking students and faculty of JNU who think
critically, the offended souls, their kindred spirits and the respected
authors who distribute certificates of "Islamophobia", cannot impose
restrictions on their freedoms to express and interpret. There is no
such right that constitution grants to the believer. While belief is
democratic and open to harshest critiques, caricatures and mockery, it
is dogma stems from a self-righteous claim to incontrovertible truth.
Since
critical scrutiny is a very fundamental basis of rationalism, all
dominant narratives of history are open to rational inquiry and
criticism. No matter how fundamental any principle of belief in Islam,
it is open to scientific inquiry and counter-claims. PN Oak's
proposition in, "Some Missing Chapters of World History", that
Christianity and Islam are both derivatives of Hinduism, and that the
Catholic Vatican, Kaaba and the Taj Mahal were once Hindu temples to
Shiva, is not beyond critical scrutiny, questioning and
counter-propositions.
In fact, as students, activists and
social scientists, there is every need to question faith based
practices like honour killings, denial of girls education, denying women
the right to leave their homes without permission from a male relative,
performing marriages on girls as young as age 9, the continued practice
of female genital mutilation for "purity," and the stoning of
homosexuals, which are often attributed to believer, instead of the
faith.
And while those with differences have the right to
debate, they cannot assume the moral high-ground of a jury. Debate
culture is not a Roman inquisition, where rationalists can be accused
and branded for heresy, but a Socratic dialogue where individuals are
dedicated to the cause of debunking presumptions, not protecting
offence. Abhiruchi Ranjan is a PhD research scholar
at the Centre for Political Studies, JNU and Chitra Adkar is a research
scholar at the Centre for the Study of Social Systems, JNU
Published Date: Apr 11, 2017 09:48 am
| Updated Date: Apr 11, 2017 01:53 pm
The real problem with Jaipur Lit Fest is not the participation of RSS ideologues – it's the sponsor
It's time for writers and
intellectuals to be reminded about Zee's recent campaigns against
people they have branded 'anti-national'.
Image credit:
Facebook/JLF
Should
we criticise the organisers of the Jaipur Literature Festival for
inviting two functionaries of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh to this
year’s edition of the annual festival? Murmurs in the literary circles
seem to suggest that the organisers of JLF succumbed to pressure from
the Right Wing. A glance at the list of speakers and programmes makes it
clear that there are a fair number of liberal and Left-leaning people
among the speakers. Even the general secretary of the Communist Party of
India (Marxist), Sita Ram Yechuri, is in that list. So a balance
appears to have been struck.
Journalist Shekhar Gupta was right
when he lambasted those who oppose the idea of giving Right Wingers
space. By doing so, he argued, it is the liberal space that gets shrunk.
That idea was even upheld by the man who is much hated by the Right
Wing, Jawaharlal Nehru. When he was prime minister, he rejected a
suggestion by the editor of the weekly Blitz, RK Karanjia, to
proscribe the RSS as it was opposed to the constitutional values of
India. Banning ideological groups would only drive them underground
where they could assume a dangerously subversive power, Nehru said.
Even a majoritarian ideology like that of the RSS needs to be fought out
in the open.
Moreover, in present-day India, it is not the
prerogative of Liberals or the Left to decide whether to have a dialogue
with the Right. It is the Right Wing, now in the ascendant, that is in
the position to choose whether Liberals should be allowed access to
prestigious forums. Keeping in mind the sensitivity of the Right-Wing
masters of the day, even people who previously championed liberal
democratic values have started to examine what they say.
We see
it being done in the universities where positions should actually depend
on the recognition of an individual’s work by their peers in academia.
But increasingly, heads of academic institutions are creating occasions
to give platform to the so-called intellectuals of the RSS. So one
should not be surprised or upset that the JLF is inviting intellectuals
belonging to the RSS.
Of course, Right Wing voices need to be made
part of a civil dialogue or conversation. One is only struck by the
timing of this realisation by the organisers of the JLF. The RSS has
been around for a long time, but it has only recently qualified as a
potential participant of the JLF. The real problem with this festival is
not the presence of the RSS ideologues but the main sponsor of the JLF,
whose name is prefixed to that of the festival. Perhaps some of the
finest minds from India and abroad who are attending the event should be
reminded that they will avail of hospitality paid for by people who
were instrumental in vehemently mobilising and instigating lynch mobs
against some of their peers.
Play
Concerted campaigns
Let us not forget the
concerted campaign last January against young student activists at the
Jawaharlal Nehru University. So effective was the vilification that
Kanhaiya Kumar, who was president of the university students union, was
brutally assaulted by a group of lawyers in Delhi. In fact, so
pervasive were the hate-campaigns,
led by the very television news channel whose name is prefixed to the
JLF, that they have made Kanhaiya Kumar and other student leaders
permanently vulnerable to attack by people who have been persuaded by
the propaganda that these young students are “anti-national”.
It didn’t stop there. Nivedita Menon, a respected professor and feminist writer, was targeted by the same news channel,
inciting violence against her. Gauhar Raza, an Urdu poet and scientist
at the government-funded Council of Scientific and Industrial Research,
was declared a member of the “Afzal-lover gang”,
a reference to Afzal Guru, the convict hanged for his role in the 2001
Parliament attacks. These were not isolated attacks. The tirade against
these writers and scholars continued on the channel for many days . People
who have not been targeted in this way would perhaps say that such
attacks need not be taken seriously. They fail to realise that for those
whose faces have been displayed prominently on television for days, and
described as friends of terrorists or anti-nationals, it is matter of
life and death. They are under mortal threat.
It is nobody’s
argument that merely attending the event will turn visitors into
advocates of hate-ideology. But they do legitimise their efforts.
The channel has also been at the forefront of a propaganda war against Muslims. Its blatantly false reporting about Kairana in Western Utter Pradesh is only one such example. It has portrayed Muslims as a threatening presence for Hindus in Kairana and in Dhulagargh in West Bengal.
Or
consider how this channel handled the 2015 case in Dadri, Uttar
Pradesh, when 50-year-old Mohammed Akhlaq was lynched by a mob because
it was rumoured that his family had been eating beef. Writers, artists
and scientists protested the killing and the rise of intolerance, which
embarrassed the government and the party in power. But these very
writers were attacked as being anti-national by the channel, which is
the patron of the celebration of creativity in Jaipur. Image Courtesy: Facebook/JLF
Unfreedom and fear
It
has been reported that JLF’s organisers did try to look for other
sponsors but failed. It is being argued that the JLF, having evolved
into a unique institution, could not have afforded any discontinuity.
This school of opinion says that it is vital to understand the
compulsions of the organisers who, it is claimed, want to build a
literary culture in this country where literature is rarely celebrated
publicly.
But do we need such a massive celebration? It is the
gigantic scale that necessitates the participation of corporations, the
head of one of India’s top management institutions told this writer. The
ethical universe of these corporations, he said, is defined by a very
old and simple word: profit. They cannot be expected to be proponents of
freedom and democracy.
The last two and half years have been
difficult for many of India’s minorities. We, in universities and
elsewhere, too have lived with a feeling of unfreedom and fear. This
feeling has brought us closer to understanding what minorities face. We
are being made part of a zombie culture. Therefore, it is difficult to
miss the strategic mind behind the theme of the JLF: Bhakti. Bhakti
sounds sublime. The selection of the theme brings to mind something
Bertolt Brecht wrote: “Times of extreme oppression are usually times
when there is much talk about high and lofty matters. At such times it
takes courage to write of low and ignoble matters.”
In India 2017, we need this courage as badly as oxygen. Apoorvanand is a literary and cultural critic who teaches Hindi at Delhi University.
Do Educational Institutions need
lectures on Patriotism?
Ram Puniyani
The issues related to our
educational institutions-patriotism started coming up to the fore with this Government
coming to power (May 2014). One after the other news of Government intervention
in different institutions, more so the nationally well known ones started
disturbing us. There was the case of IIT Madras where Periyar Ambedkar Study
Circle was banned. Then IIT Bombay Director Prof Shevgaonkar resigned due to
high handed attitude of the Ministry of MHRD. Close to follow suit was Prof
Anil Kakodkar who resigned from the Chairmanship of the Board of Governors of
IIT Bombay again.
The case of FTII Pune dragged for
a long time as students opposed the appointment of a RSS-BJP sympathizer, a B
grade film actor, Gajendra Chauhan. Students went on for a long strike and
after trying to make their point for eight long months, withdrew their strike
as the recalcitrant government refused to heed to the demands of students. Many
other incidents kept happening including those of Allahabad University,
Ferguson College in Pune among others. Two incidents which stood out and shook
the student community were related to Hyderabad Central University (HCU) and
the Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU). In both these cases the issue of
nationalism, patriotism was thrown up by the Central government, along with the
ruling BJP and its associates in RSS combine.
In HCU the local BJP MP, on
insistence from the ABVP branch of the university wrote to MHRD Minister that
anti-national and casteist activities are going on and action should be taken
against the students belonging to Ambedkar Students Association (ASA). Incidentally
the ASA was opposed as they had organized meetings which were opposed by ABVP
as per their political agenda. The incidents were, screening of the film
Muzzafarnagar Baki hai, a film on Muzzafarnagar violence in UP. Then there was
beef festival. On participation in beef festival Vemula wrote on his face book that
he participated in the festival as solidarity with those who consume beef. Then
there was a meeting to oppose the death penalty to Afzal Guru. The argument of
ASA was that the death penalty is inhuman and it is opposite of what the norms
of a civil society should be.
Following this; the Vice Chancellor,
under pressure from Ministry expelled Vemula from the hostel and stopped his
fellowship. This is what forced him to take his life. In the case of JNU, the
issue of patriotism was brought up in a deliberate way. In a program organized
in JNU some masked students came in and shouted anti India slogans. Kanhiaya
Kumar and two other friends were not a part of this slogan shouting gang. Incidentally
the slogan shouters have not been apprehended and identified so far, for the
reasons best known to the authorities. On the contrary the authorities arrested
Kanhaiya, Amirban and Umar on the charges of sedition. A doctored video was
played repeatedly by some channels and it became clear that arrested student
leaders of JNU had nothing to do with anti India sloganeering. Incidentally the
occasion was that of the anniversary of Afzal Guru. As far Afzal Guru is
concerned lesser said the better! BJP after hectic deliberations have tied up
with the PDP in Kashmir and PDP upholds Afzal Guru as a martyr and someone was
who did not get justice. So it becomes clear that BJP is using the JNU issue to
build up an emotive issue out of the whole thing.
One knows that such slogans have
been there in Kashmir, on similar lines talks of secession have been there in
North Eastern states. The demand for secession from Indian was raised also
raised C.N.Annadurai of DMK, a prominent leader from Tamil Nadu, who had
opposed the imposition of Hindi as a national language. In nut shell there are
different places in the world where the part of the nations have been demanding
autonomy or separation. That has not been presented as an act of anti
nationalism. Many groups and political tendencies have criticized the ruling governments,
but that is not what sedition is. This is a right inherent in democratic
society.
Even in India there have been
various groups which from time to time have been demanding autonomy, secession
etc. In countries there are diverse political tendencies and they do keep
changing with time. It is a question of their dissatisfactions being met. Students-youth
are groups where all types of ideas and ideologies are discussed. There is a
long tradition anti-British Nationalist struggle by student bodies like All
India Students Federation and likes of them. They were not lectured by so
called nationalists to become patriotic. During freedom movement the most
patriotic role was played by the followers of Gandhi who were learnt by the
example of the national movement.
Even at that time the youth and
students influenced by communal ideology of Muslim League and Hindu
Mahasabha-RSS kept aloof from the patriotic act of participation in nation
building, the freedom struggle. One recalls that even the earlier Prime Minister
of India, Atal Bihari Vajpayee was arrested in 1942 as he was n onlooker in the
movement led by students-youth inspired by Gandhi. Vajpayee in a letter to
authorities confessed that he had nothing to do with the national movement and
he was released from prison in two days time. (http://www.frontline.in/static/html/fl1503/15031150.htm)
Universities and other
educational institutions are the places where patriotism is in-built in our
syllabus and pattern of society. One has never been thinking of such lecturing
as is being indulged in by the RSS combine. The cases of JNU and HCU
demonstrate that this patriotism is being manufactured as an emotive issue for
dividing the society. This has been linked with the slogan of “Bharat Mata Ki
Jai’. The way Bhagwat first called for the need to teach this slogan to youth,
and the way Asaduddin Owaisi responded to that shows that both these groups are
in for bringing up Bharat Mata ki jai as a divisive issue, RSS-Bhagwat is
having an aggressive stance on this issue. The position of Constitution as seen
in the Jehovah’s Witnesses case is that one should respect the national symbols
but it is not mandatory to chant or shout any slogan as such is not a must.
In that sense patriotism stands
for following the laws in our Constitution, abiding by them. Criticism of
ruling government can’t be equated with anti-Nationalism. So the present exercises
in imposing slogans etc have nothing to do with patriotism. It is being used as
a political tool. We need to overcome the sectarian tendencies like that of
Bhagwat, Devendra Fadanvis, Baba Ramdev who are trying to force such non important
issues on the society. Baba Ramdev’s statement is very frightening. There is a
very apt phrase, “patriotism is the last refuge of scoundrels’ I will like to
modify that to ‘In India patriotism is being made the refuge by pseudo
nationalists for their political goals’.
Our educational institutions need
to cultivate the culture of debate and dialogue even with dissenting voices;
the need is to promote the deeper values of Indian nationalism and humanism.
We are a group of liberal, secular Kashmiris whose voices mostly go
unnoticed and unheard by the mainstream Indian media and in Kashmir. We
feel deeply concerned and personally affected by the continuing turmoil
and renewed militancy in the valley. But today, we wish to make a
rejoinder to a statement recently published by a group of anonymous women faculty
that claims to be connected to Kashmir through their work. The
anonymous writers are somewhat like the students in JNU who abused the
goodwill, trust and naïveté of their Indian nationalist communist
friends, made hate speeches, threatened war and then ran away, leaving
their friends to suffer the consequences of what they did. We are not
they. We are not anonymous; we believe in standing up for the ideas of
liberty and human rights and take it on our chin instead of hiding
behind someone’s back.
As we watch the students and the faculty of various Indian
universities and institutions rough it out, in a democratic and peaceful
manner, over every Indian’s essential right to freedom of expression
and dissent that make us all proud of our democratic heritage; and yes,
despite the scathing criticisms from mainstream media and repressive
action from some sections of our society, we also look back with dismay
and disquiet at how our democratic rights for the same freedoms in
Kashmir valley were crushed under the heavy boots of suppression by the
Islamized atmosphere in every sphere and institution of Kashmir, and not
many spoke up for us.
The student protest in JNU and its inept handling has resulted in
many unintended consequences. Instead of focusing on weeding out and
prosecuting those who indulged in provocative sloganeering and
threatened to destroy India, there was an over-zealousness to declare as
seditious those who might not have been. But nothing beats the irony of
some pro-separatist Kashmiri and other academics using it as an
opportunity to open the doors of perception and invite us in to
experience the paradox illusion of #StandWithJNU and/or
#StandWithKashmir.
Through this public statement, we join issue with this group of
‘anonymous women faculty’ that has taken up the task of speaking on
behalf of whole of Kashmir. We claim to speak for us and for every
Kashmiri silenced by the Kalashnikov supporting separatist. Through this
statement we invite all the voiceless, suppressed, secular and
non-violent Kashmiris to join with us to reclaim our voice in Kashmir
from forces of violence and suppression brought about by the ‘azadi’
movement.
Despite the grave suppressions imposed in Kashmir by the ‘azadi’
movement that these academics represent, and even as they claim to
support the defense of free speech all across India, we wish to use this
opportunity to suggest an open dialogue with the ‘azadi’ spokespersons
about the Kashmir issue that these academics claim was triggered at JNU
and then sidelined. Whatever transpired at JNU after that distasteful,
unsavoury event must not stop us discussing some of the ‘fundamental’
concerns affecting every Kashmiri in and outside the valley. We can only
hope that these ‘academics’ are willing to step into spaces for
dialogue that are not the controlled environment that they are usually
most comfortable in and cater to the propagation of only their
viewpoints.
Now, let us take up some of the points of these academics: Harassment: First of all we express our helplessness
and anguish over the harassment and ‘othering’ of Kashmiri Muslim
students by their co-students, landlords, neighborhood bullies, and
sometimes even local police, in various Indian cities. In many ways, the
humiliations that they are subjected to, remind some of us of the slurs
and slights that we endured after our forced eviction from Kashmir in
1990 and during the refuge we took in several parts of the country. The
only difference is that we were called “impotent” “cowards” and they are
being called “anti-national” “terrorists”. This stereotyping and
affrontation of people in India is just short of becoming a national
culture. In the post-1990 Kashmir, it is the Bihari labourer at the
receiving end in Bombay and Kashmir, UP walas earn the abuse in West
Bengal, the Bangladeshi migrant in Delhi and the Africans or the
students from Northeast India elsewhere. Following the JNU incident
triggered by a few faceless, cowardly Kashmiris, we fear that many
innocent Kashmiri Muslims living in several cities of India, may bear
the brunt of the folly committed by a few. As common, secular and law
abiding Kashmiris, we strongly appeal to our countrymen and women to
show tolerance, compassion and kindness towards Kashmiri Muslims, who
are equally citizens of India as any other.
Free Speech: While the JNU students and faculty are
fighting for upholding of civil liberties, it is gravely ironic that the
academia sympathetic to the cause of Kashmiri ‘azadi’ and
self-determination, has never spoken against the gagging and killings of
Kashmiri dissenters, minorities, Leftists, communists and moderate
Kashmiris in the 1990s or 2000s or even now. When Vice Chancellor of
Kashmir University, Mushir-ul-Haq was murdered in Srinagar in 1990, we
did not read any ‘azadi’-sympathizing academic protesting in the letter
to the editor columns of local and national newspapers. When poets like
Sarwanand Koul Premi and Abdul Sattar Ranjoor (member of Communist Party
of India) were killed by the champions of self-determination, we did
not hear any of their academics protesting in the streets of Srinagar or
Delhi or elsewhere. Nor did we hear any such academic whimpering over
the murder of Director Doordarshan Lassa Koul, journalist Saidan Shafi,
columnist PN Bhat, political activist Yousuf Halwai, and many more. We
have seen how some of the self-determination intelligentsia now actively
voicing their support for ‘freedom of expression’ and ‘right to
dissent’ is also the same who actively championed the cancellation of
‘Harud literary festival’ in Srinagar. None of the ‘azadi’ backing
academics uttered a word to support ‘Pragash’, a Kashmiri girls’ rock
band. While we stand by Wendy Doniger and MF Hussain, and also by Salman
Rushdie and Tasleema Nasreen, their kind still justify the continuing
ban and ‘fatwas’ against the latter two. Do we need to remind them about
the tactical silence over another such case, when, in September 2015,
Kashmir University students, chanting slogans of ‘azadi’, disrupted a
marathon (running) event organized on the university premises,
vandalized the event setup, abused and physically harmed the
participants and sexually harassed the female participants? It is also
telling that the ‘azadi’ shouting women academics did not consider it
important enough to raise their voice against the acid attacks on
Kashmiri girls who refused to wear burqas (veils) and defied the
militant dress code diktats in Kashmir in the 90s. As against such
academicians who show selective outrage, we have always stood by the
victims of human rights violations committed by the Indian state.
Whether it is rape victims of Kunan Poshpora or innocent boys who were
killed in a fake encounter in Pathribal, we demand justice for all.
Dalits: The concern shown by “the women
academicians” about the abominable Brahminical persecution of Dalits,
appears as nothing more than a political game of ‘holier than thou
upmanship’, a strategic ploy really, to shame Indians about the
structural flaws and imbalances in Indian society and institutions in
order to paint the Kashmiri society in benign light. Their concern for
India’s Dalits, would go a long way in the overall fight against
casteism in India if only they also highlighted the institutionalized
casteist, sectarian, ethnic and religious prejudices and gender
discrimination that Kashmiri society continues to perpetuate against
Ahmadis, non-Peers, non-Sayeeds, non-Aghas, Hanjis, other so called low
castes, Pandits, Sikhs, Christians, Tibetan Muslims, Gujjars, Paharis,
Biharis and LGBT community. Even today, the former scavenger community
in Kashmir, continues to be considered the lowest of the low by many so
called upper caste Kashmiris. Their school and college going children
need as much support from the larger community in Kashmir just as
students like Rohit Vemula and Kanhaiya have drawn from the separatist
Kashmiri academia.
Self-determination: A simple glance at the map of
J&K would show that Kashmir Valley is just one part of the whole
state and not the complete state. (It is in fact a very small part of
the erstwhile Princely State of Jammu & Kashmir). Thus it’d be a
misrepresentation to consider the whole state of J&K as being only
Kashmir. Geographically Ladakh and Jammu divisions together form the
majority of the land mass of the state. They have not seen any demand to
separate from India. Jammu natives have been demanding a separate state
within India and Leh Buddhists have been demanding a Union Territory
within India, so that they could completely divorce themselves from the
complications of sharing resources with the rest of the state and avoid
being dragged into the problem that Kashmir is. Second, demographically
the population of J&K is not just composed of Kashmiris but of
various tribes, ethnic and linguistic groups like Gujjars, Dogras,
Ladakhis, Kargilis, Gilgitis, Baltis, and no group other than Kashmiris
have either voiced such demand or showed their alignment with it. Many
secessionists, most prominently Syed Ali Shah Geelani, reject the whole
idea of secular democracy and yet feel that they should be granted the
right to communal self-determination. Third, among Kashmiris too, not
every Kashmiri Muslim subscribes to the demand of separation from India.
The Kashmiri Pandit (Hindu) population was terrorized, massacred and
forced into migration from the Valley on communal grounds and on account
of not aligning with the demands of Kashmir’s separation from India.
Thus it’s a great misnomer and criminal to present and propagate this so
called “azadi” as a demand of the whole state and its residents.
These are however, only the tip of the iceberg issues that have
bedeviled Kashmir over much of its troubled past. We definitely do need
to discuss and debate them but that discussion needs to start in
Kashmir.
If some people in Kashmir see the debates about freedom of expression
and the ongoing celebration of JNU’s culture of dissent as an
opportunity to ask the ‘foundational questions’ about Kashmir’s disputed
political status, we think that is being opportunistic. We are the
people of Kashmir who disagree with the dominant narrative of Kashmir’s
‘azadi tehreek’ and its spokespersons. We have always wanted to discuss
all these issues and much more, not because of what recently happened at
JNU but because these issues have needed to be discussed openly,
honestly and in an atmosphere of freedom from even before the first
innocent person in Kashmir was killed for azadi.
It is not only ironic but sheer opportunism, that while these
anonymous ‘women faculty members’ seek to ‘find a common vocabulary with
the JNU students and left-liberal faculty, to establish a firm platform
for solidarity with Kashmiri voices and ask some important questions’,
yet they conveniently ignore that the same ‘such democratic venues of
dissent and debate’ have been destroyed by the very people they speak
for. Yes, nationalism, freedom of expression, the everyday brutalities
of living in Kashmir, and even the ‘easy binaries between violence and
nonviolence’ can and should be discussed. But it is first of all for the
people of Kashmir to discuss amongst themselves. This can be possible
only after the public and intellectual spaces all over Kashmir have been
reclaimed from the Kalashnikov advocating public and their intellectual
supporters.
We see dialogue, debate and raising questions as crucial to
resolution of Kashmir. If you do really care for ideals and freedoms
like ‘right to free expression’ and right to dissent’ than we invite you
to join us in asking for the same freedoms in Kashmir. We ask you to
use your influence with the people you claim to speak for, to renounce
violence and fight with us for the same rights and freedoms that you
praise the students and faculty of Indian academic institutions for. The
spirit of freedom of speech that you welcome in JNU is also what we
seek in Kashmir.
Signatories:
Aalok Aima, artist and business executive
Aarti Tikoo Singh, journalist
Ajay Raina, filmmaker
Arshia Malik, teacher
Arif Maghribi Khan, psychiatrist
Bhawna Kak, learning consultant
Chetna Kaul, filmmaker
Ieshan Vinay Misri, social worker
Khalid Baig, entrepreneur
Mushtaq Dar, salesman
Nihansh Bhat, finance professional
Niyati Bhat, writer, visual arts & cinema student
Preeti Bakaya, policy & communications professional
Rajesh Razdan, product manager
Randhir Bhan, architect
Rayan, student (full name cannot be disclosed)
Shantiveer Kaul, writer and columnist
Sualeh Keen, cultural critic
Sushant Taing, Freelance writer
Shahid, procurement professional (full name cannot be disclosed)
Nazariya: A Queer Feminist Resource Group and ANHAD invite you to
BAAT CHEET Interactive Wednesdays at Anhad 6.00 - 7.30 pm January 6, 2016
Topic: Fundamentalism and Our Lives
Speakers: Akshay Khanna, Queer Rights Activist Jaya Sharma, Feminist Queer Rights Activist Dhrubojyoti, Dalit Queer Rights Activist Shabnam Hashmi, Civil Rights Activist. YOU ARE WELCOME
ANHAD C-5, BASEMENT, NIZAMUDDIN WEST, NEW DELHI-110013 TEL- 011-41670722
You heard the hon. Member from Kashmir today and the attitude he represents is as different from communalism as anything could be. My friend, Mr Alva, talked a great deal about a secular State. I wish we were much more of a secular State than we are at present. I wish also that we would approach the ideal we have adopted in our Constitution. Too many people are attacking that ideal; too many people are trying to undermine it. If they do not actually attack it they act in a way which will undermine it. In other words, there are far too many people in this country who are communal and narrow. In Kashmir, it was a straight fight between communalism and the ideal that we hold and it is still the same fight. It is quite absurd to talk of India and Pakistan fighting for possession of Kashmir as if it was some booty to be seized by the stronger party. In Kashmir, people have struggled for a basic ideal. The Kashmiri people have also fought for that ideal more than our Armies did...
I was talking about Kashmir and the wonderful way in which the people of Kashmir have risen to the occasion. I deeply regret that a small section of the community, especially in Jammu, has played a game which can only be of advantage to Pakistan. It amazes me how the spirit of communal fanaticism makes people blind even to their own interests. The Constituent Assembly is going to be elected next month in Kashmir. The Hindus of Jammu are trying to put difficulties in the way of the Constituent Assembly as well as in the way of the National Conference and doing so in the most vulgar language. This is immature and childish. If I am anxious about anything today, it is the communal spirit in India. Before I can deal with the communal spirit of Pakistan, I want to deal with the communal spirit in India, the communal spirit of the Hindus and Sikhs more than that of the Muslims. I want this House to realise that this spirit will stand in the way of our progress and weaken us. In the event of a war, we cannot fight the enemy if mischief is done behind our backs. No army can fight if its base is not strong. Therefore, it is of the utmost importance that this wild and vague communal talk be put an end to at once. I am stressing this because people tend to express their great patriotism by cursing Pakistan and the Muslims. I want this House and this country to feel friendly to the people of Pakistan, because those poor people are not much to blame anyhow. What would you and I do in their place?
--Jawaharlal Nehru
[Reply to debate on the President's Address in Parliament, New Delhi, August 11, 1951]
with Profs. DN Jha, Kunal Chakrabarti, Apoorvanand, Chair: Prof. Romila Thapar.
(on the withdrawal of Wendy Doniger’s book, shriking secular space and the freedom to read)
http://www.sacw.net/article7868.html
This clip is part 1 of a conversation in between ex IAS officer, activist and author Mr. Harsh Mander, anthropoligist and human rights researcher Mr. Shiv Visvanathan and actress and activist Nandita Das on the theme " Preventing Communal Violence".
This clip is part 2 of a conversation in between ex IAS officer, activist and author Mr. Harsh Mander, anthropoligist and human rights researcher Mr. Shiv Visvanathan and actress and activist
This clip is part 3 of a conversation in between ex IAS officer, activist and author Mr. Harsh Mander, anthropoligist and human rights researcher Mr. Shiv Visvanathan and actress and activist Nandita Das on the theme " Preventing Communal Violence".
This clip is part 4 of a conversation in between ex IAS officer, activist and author Mr. Harsh Mander, anthropoligist and human rights researcher Mr. Shiv Visvanathan and actress and activist Nandita Das on the theme " Preventing Communal Violence".
This clip is part 5 of a conversation in between ex IAS officer, activist and author Mr. Harsh Mander, anthropoligist and human rights researcher Mr. Shiv Visvanathan and actress and activist Nandita Das on the theme " Preventing Communal Violence".
This clip is part 6 of a conversation in between ex IAS officer, activist and author Mr. Harsh Mander, anthropoligist and human rights researcher Mr. Shiv Visvanathan and actress and activist Nandita Das on the theme " Preventing Communal Violence".
This clip is part 7 of a conversation in between ex IAS officer, activist and author Mr. Harsh Mander, anthropoligist and human rights researcher Mr. Shiv Visvanathan and actress and activist Nandita Das on the theme " Preventing Communal Violence".
This clip is part 8 of a conversation in between ex IAS officer, activist and author Mr. Harsh Mander, anthropoligist and human rights researcher Mr. Shiv Visvanathan and actress and activist Nandita Das on the theme " Preventing Communal Violence".
It
is important to note that opponents of Islam can also be atheists and
rationalists who could be members or non-members of a social group
called Muslims. The attack on minorities through right-wing projects
such as ghar wapsi, anti 'love jihad' violence, cow vigilantism, are to
be viewed as an attack on the Muslims, not Islam. It is not the Muslim
citizen's right to religion, but their democratic right to equal choice
of food, love and freedom to loiter instead of wapsi, which is at stake.
And which is to be protected most zealously.
The
right to logical interpretation of faith, is not the sole prerogative
of believers, or a monopoly of the few believer-jurist men, but the
equal democratic right of every rationalist, atheist and free thinker.
Notwithstanding whether the question is of personal or political rights,
or whether the question is with regard to central tenets or debatable
tenets of Islam; No question of faith is personal and every personal
question of faith is political.
