The Hindu
Nov 26, 2003
[Karnataka] Intellectuals plan peace meet
By Our Special Correspondent
A delegation of writers, artists, and thinkers, led by the Jnanpith Award winner, Girish Karnad (third from left), calling on the Chief Minister, S.M. Krishna (right), in Bangalore on Tuesday. Gouri Lankesh and G.K. Govindarao, members of the delegation, are seen. - Photo: K. Gopinathan
Bangalore Nov. 25. Writers, artists, and thinkers will hold a peace and communal harmony meet at Chikmagalur on December 7 and 8 if the State Government fails to ban the "Shoba Yatra" at Bababudangiri. Eminent writers, artists, film-makers, and other intellectuals from all over the State will attend the meet.
In a letter to the Chief Minister, S.M. Krishna, the writers, Girish Karnad, K. Marulasiddappa, G.K. Govinda Rao, Gauri Lankesh, V.S. Sreedhara, and Sudra Srinivas, said the purpose of holding the meet was to assert the cultural importance of Bababudangiri.
Mr. Karnad told presspersons here on Tuesday that the Government should ban religious functions such as Datta Jayanthi celebration, Shobha Yatra, Datta Maala, and yagnas on the hills.
Disturbed by the constant political references to the Dattatreya Peetha at Bababudangiri, he and others visited the hills on November 21 and talked to the local people who were frightened as the situation was tense following the newly introduced so-called religious practices such as the Datta Maala.
Allowing such practices would only add to the already tense situation at Chikmagalur and surrounding localities, Mr. Karnad said and urged the Chief Minister to ban religious activities at the famed hills.
|
November 26, 2003
November 25, 2003
Protests greet Modi at CII event in New Delhi
The Telegraph, November 25, 2003
Mobbed, Modi shows ‘civilised’ face
- One-and-a-half years after the riots, CM expresses regret
OUR SPECIAL CORRESPONDENT
Nafisa Ali (centre) leading the protest against Modi in New Delhi on Monday. (PTI)
New Delhi, Nov. 24: Narendra Modi can’t seem to shake off the ghost of Godhra.
Possibly, in frustration over another row of raucous protests today by social activists led by Nafisa Ali, the man who has been called the Butcher of Gujarat after the carnage in February-March 2002 said he wished the bloody riots had not happened.
“What happened one-and-a-half years ago is something that should not have happened in a civilised society,” Modi said after demonstrators led by Ali blocked the entry of the Gujarat chief minister to the venue of the India Economic Summit being organised here by the Davos-based World Economic Forum (WEF) and the Confederation of Indian Industry (CII).
It is the closest Modi has ever come to expressing regret over an incident that has pitchforked him to the top of the popularity charts within the saffron brigade.
The slogan-shouting demonstrators disrupted proceedings for almost 45 minutes, protesting against the decision to invite Modi to address the annual event that gives ministers, bureaucrats, top industrialists and foreign delegates the opportunity to debate the state of India’s economy and its reform process.
Shouting slogans like “Mass murderer Narendra Modi down, down”, the protesters — who slipped into the venue and came together just before Modi arrived — slammed the WEF and CII for inviting the chief minister to address the meet.
“We want the BJP and those people who support people like Praveen Togadia and Modi to know that the people of India will not tolerate such persons and allow them to repeat what they did in Gujarat,” said Shabnam Hashmi, one of the activists of the NGO that goes by the name Anhad (Act Now for Harmony and Democracy).
Modi was invited to talk about good governance which the irate activists said was a travesty. “How can the CII and WEF even think of inviting someone who has been questioned about the quality of his governance by none less than the Supreme Court of India. The National Human Rights Commission has also questioned the quality of governance in Gujarat,” Hashmi said.
In his speech later, Modi said: “Gujarat is known for good governance and a forward looking and responsive administration.”
“It is wrong to project the state as unsafe for investment. We have signed MoUs worth Rs 66,000 crore with foreign companies during the last Navratri. Chinese and US companies have also shown interest in starting projects in the state.”
“Ahmedabad is the most peaceful city in the world and minorities like Parsis and Muslims are prosperous,” the Gujarat chief minister said.
Today’s incident is the third time that Modi has been heckled when invited to address a gathering of industrialists. The first was in January this year when a former JNU and Oxford student activist, Jairus Banaji, wormed his way into a CII conference in Mumbai and demanded to know why the industry forum was feting a “murderer who had blood on his hands”.
At another conference in Delhi in mid-February, industrialists Rahul Bajaj and Jamshyd Godrej expressed concern over law and order in Gujarat, prompting Modi to upbraid them. Today, Ali was seen urging Bajaj to join the protests — but the industrialist declined.
Most participants were unmoved by the protests. However, a few supported them. Vijay Mahajan, head of consultancy firm Basix India, said: “I refuse to hear Modi speak and preach (to) us on a subject like best practices. This is complete nonsense.”
In an attempt to clear the air after the demonstration, the CII director-general said: “It seems Davos is in Delhi. Protests in India are very normal activity. It is a free country and sections of society have a right to express their views.”
Later, asked about the protests, Modi said: “I don’t know anything about it.”
o o o
related News report
The Hindustan Times
November 25, 2003
Protests greet Modi at CII meet venue
HT Corporate Bureau
(New Delhi, November 24)
Social activist Nafisa Ali along with representatives from the Safdar Hashmi Trust, Action India, Ahad and Basix raised slogans against the decision of Confederation of Indian Industry (CII) and World Economic Forum (WEF) to invite Gujarat chief minister Narendra Modi to speak on The Competitiveness of States: Sharing Best Practices.
About 40 activists trooped into the lobby of the Taj Palace hotel just before Modi was to address the meeting and sang, "We shall overcome". Shouting slogans like "Modi go back", "Khooni" and "Man who instigated the communal riots", the activists alleged that Modi was responsible for the communal violence and killings in Gujarat last year.
The main demand of the protesters was that Modi should not have been invited. They also said that progress in Gujarat was a sham. Nafisa Ali criticised the CII for inviting Modi. Coming as this episode does after CII director general Tarun Das apologising to Modi earlier this year, the CII-Gujarat CM relationship remains strained.
Later, answering queries from the participants, Modi refuted the charges that there was any victimisation in Gujarat and referred to the fact that Muslims in the state had the highest per capita income. He, however, admitted, "Whatever happened in Gujarat one-and-a-half years ago should not have happened in a civilised society."
Earlier, the chief minster told the conference that Gujarat was the best destination for investment that gave unlimited opportunities to industrial houses.
Mobbed, Modi shows ‘civilised’ face
- One-and-a-half years after the riots, CM expresses regret
OUR SPECIAL CORRESPONDENT
Nafisa Ali (centre) leading the protest against Modi in New Delhi on Monday. (PTI)
New Delhi, Nov. 24: Narendra Modi can’t seem to shake off the ghost of Godhra.
Possibly, in frustration over another row of raucous protests today by social activists led by Nafisa Ali, the man who has been called the Butcher of Gujarat after the carnage in February-March 2002 said he wished the bloody riots had not happened.
“What happened one-and-a-half years ago is something that should not have happened in a civilised society,” Modi said after demonstrators led by Ali blocked the entry of the Gujarat chief minister to the venue of the India Economic Summit being organised here by the Davos-based World Economic Forum (WEF) and the Confederation of Indian Industry (CII).
It is the closest Modi has ever come to expressing regret over an incident that has pitchforked him to the top of the popularity charts within the saffron brigade.
The slogan-shouting demonstrators disrupted proceedings for almost 45 minutes, protesting against the decision to invite Modi to address the annual event that gives ministers, bureaucrats, top industrialists and foreign delegates the opportunity to debate the state of India’s economy and its reform process.
Shouting slogans like “Mass murderer Narendra Modi down, down”, the protesters — who slipped into the venue and came together just before Modi arrived — slammed the WEF and CII for inviting the chief minister to address the meet.
“We want the BJP and those people who support people like Praveen Togadia and Modi to know that the people of India will not tolerate such persons and allow them to repeat what they did in Gujarat,” said Shabnam Hashmi, one of the activists of the NGO that goes by the name Anhad (Act Now for Harmony and Democracy).
Modi was invited to talk about good governance which the irate activists said was a travesty. “How can the CII and WEF even think of inviting someone who has been questioned about the quality of his governance by none less than the Supreme Court of India. The National Human Rights Commission has also questioned the quality of governance in Gujarat,” Hashmi said.
In his speech later, Modi said: “Gujarat is known for good governance and a forward looking and responsive administration.”
“It is wrong to project the state as unsafe for investment. We have signed MoUs worth Rs 66,000 crore with foreign companies during the last Navratri. Chinese and US companies have also shown interest in starting projects in the state.”
“Ahmedabad is the most peaceful city in the world and minorities like Parsis and Muslims are prosperous,” the Gujarat chief minister said.
Today’s incident is the third time that Modi has been heckled when invited to address a gathering of industrialists. The first was in January this year when a former JNU and Oxford student activist, Jairus Banaji, wormed his way into a CII conference in Mumbai and demanded to know why the industry forum was feting a “murderer who had blood on his hands”.
At another conference in Delhi in mid-February, industrialists Rahul Bajaj and Jamshyd Godrej expressed concern over law and order in Gujarat, prompting Modi to upbraid them. Today, Ali was seen urging Bajaj to join the protests — but the industrialist declined.
Most participants were unmoved by the protests. However, a few supported them. Vijay Mahajan, head of consultancy firm Basix India, said: “I refuse to hear Modi speak and preach (to) us on a subject like best practices. This is complete nonsense.”
In an attempt to clear the air after the demonstration, the CII director-general said: “It seems Davos is in Delhi. Protests in India are very normal activity. It is a free country and sections of society have a right to express their views.”
Later, asked about the protests, Modi said: “I don’t know anything about it.”
o o o
related News report
The Hindustan Times
November 25, 2003
Protests greet Modi at CII meet venue
HT Corporate Bureau
(New Delhi, November 24)
Social activist Nafisa Ali along with representatives from the Safdar Hashmi Trust, Action India, Ahad and Basix raised slogans against the decision of Confederation of Indian Industry (CII) and World Economic Forum (WEF) to invite Gujarat chief minister Narendra Modi to speak on The Competitiveness of States: Sharing Best Practices.
About 40 activists trooped into the lobby of the Taj Palace hotel just before Modi was to address the meeting and sang, "We shall overcome". Shouting slogans like "Modi go back", "Khooni" and "Man who instigated the communal riots", the activists alleged that Modi was responsible for the communal violence and killings in Gujarat last year.
The main demand of the protesters was that Modi should not have been invited. They also said that progress in Gujarat was a sham. Nafisa Ali criticised the CII for inviting Modi. Coming as this episode does after CII director general Tarun Das apologising to Modi earlier this year, the CII-Gujarat CM relationship remains strained.
Later, answering queries from the participants, Modi refuted the charges that there was any victimisation in Gujarat and referred to the fact that Muslims in the state had the highest per capita income. He, however, admitted, "Whatever happened in Gujarat one-and-a-half years ago should not have happened in a civilised society."
Earlier, the chief minster told the conference that Gujarat was the best destination for investment that gave unlimited opportunities to industrial houses.
ID crisis in Sena, cry bhaiyas
The Telegraph (Calcutta)
November 25, 2003
ID crisis in Sena, cry bhaiyas
CHANDRIMA S. BHATTACHARYA
Mumbai, Nov. 24: The city’s eminent “bhaiyas” think that the Shiv Sena is going through a severe identity crisis. Otherwise why is it attacking its own Hindu brethren coming to the financial capital for something as meagre as a railway job?
“They have to make up their minds,” says Javed Akhtar, speaking on the ongoing Sena onslaught on “bhaiyas” (Uttar Pradeshis) and Biharis. “There is an inherent confusion in the Sena. They will have to decide which vice they prefer — between being Maharashtrian chauvinists and Hindutva chauvinists,” says Akhtar, who could trace his roots to Uttar Pradesh.
“They can’t do both at the same time. As ‘Hindu Hriday Samrat’, the only people Mr Bal Thackeray is supposed to dislike are the minorities. He can’t distinguish between Maharashtrians and non-Maharashtrians. That doesn’t make him a good samrat.”
Over the past week, the Sena has stepped up its attack on the lakhs of “outsiders” from north India who come to the city every year to take exams for railway posts. On Friday at Kalyan, as the candidates from outside Maharashtra who were to take Sunday’s railway board exam poured out of long-distance trains, the Sena activists turned on the heat. The activists — many of them women — kicked, punched and beat up the young men. The women screamed and pulled their hair. Not a few of their victims were Hindus.
The Sena even soft-launched a new movement on the occasion — Bihari ani Bhaiya Baher Kada Mohim (Out with the Biharis and Bhaiyas Movement). The railway board has indefinitely postponed the examination because the Sena activists damaged its office equipment. The Sena has promised more fireworks.
“It is very strange,” says actor Raza Murad, another resident “bhaiya” in Mumbai. “It’s so strange. On the one hand, they will swear by Hindutva. On the other, they will attack Hindus from other states,” says Murad, who is best remembered as the poet-singer in Hrishikesh Mukherjee’s Namak Haram. “But while they attack this community, they also try to woo voters at the local level,” says Murad. “If they are so against Biharis and bhaiyas, why do they nurture the Uttar Bharatiya Sena? And why do they perform the Chhat Puja with Govinda as a guest?”
The Sena denies that the Uttar Bharatiya Sena — a wing formed with north Indians to protect the interests of the community — is directly affiliated to it.
Backlash in Andheri
Two persons, claiming to be Sena activists, today allegedly assaulted the president of the Uttar Bharatiya Vikas Parishad, Mangleshwar Tiwari, in Andheri. Tiwari was going to the high court to file a petition against the Sena’s stance on north Indians appearing for railway board examinations when he was accosted by the two who reportedly told him that party leader Raj Thackeray had said no one should be allowed to move the court.
November 25, 2003
ID crisis in Sena, cry bhaiyas
CHANDRIMA S. BHATTACHARYA
Mumbai, Nov. 24: The city’s eminent “bhaiyas” think that the Shiv Sena is going through a severe identity crisis. Otherwise why is it attacking its own Hindu brethren coming to the financial capital for something as meagre as a railway job?
“They have to make up their minds,” says Javed Akhtar, speaking on the ongoing Sena onslaught on “bhaiyas” (Uttar Pradeshis) and Biharis. “There is an inherent confusion in the Sena. They will have to decide which vice they prefer — between being Maharashtrian chauvinists and Hindutva chauvinists,” says Akhtar, who could trace his roots to Uttar Pradesh.
“They can’t do both at the same time. As ‘Hindu Hriday Samrat’, the only people Mr Bal Thackeray is supposed to dislike are the minorities. He can’t distinguish between Maharashtrians and non-Maharashtrians. That doesn’t make him a good samrat.”
Over the past week, the Sena has stepped up its attack on the lakhs of “outsiders” from north India who come to the city every year to take exams for railway posts. On Friday at Kalyan, as the candidates from outside Maharashtra who were to take Sunday’s railway board exam poured out of long-distance trains, the Sena activists turned on the heat. The activists — many of them women — kicked, punched and beat up the young men. The women screamed and pulled their hair. Not a few of their victims were Hindus.
The Sena even soft-launched a new movement on the occasion — Bihari ani Bhaiya Baher Kada Mohim (Out with the Biharis and Bhaiyas Movement). The railway board has indefinitely postponed the examination because the Sena activists damaged its office equipment. The Sena has promised more fireworks.
“It is very strange,” says actor Raza Murad, another resident “bhaiya” in Mumbai. “It’s so strange. On the one hand, they will swear by Hindutva. On the other, they will attack Hindus from other states,” says Murad, who is best remembered as the poet-singer in Hrishikesh Mukherjee’s Namak Haram. “But while they attack this community, they also try to woo voters at the local level,” says Murad. “If they are so against Biharis and bhaiyas, why do they nurture the Uttar Bharatiya Sena? And why do they perform the Chhat Puja with Govinda as a guest?”
The Sena denies that the Uttar Bharatiya Sena — a wing formed with north Indians to protect the interests of the community — is directly affiliated to it.
Backlash in Andheri
Two persons, claiming to be Sena activists, today allegedly assaulted the president of the Uttar Bharatiya Vikas Parishad, Mangleshwar Tiwari, in Andheri. Tiwari was going to the high court to file a petition against the Sena’s stance on north Indians appearing for railway board examinations when he was accosted by the two who reportedly told him that party leader Raj Thackeray had said no one should be allowed to move the court.
DEFEAT BJP, DEFEAT COMMUNALISM, SAVE INDIA
S E C U L A R M O R C H A
APPEAL TO VOTERS
DEFEAT BJP, DEFEAT COMMUNALISM, SAVE INDIA
As India is inhabited by people belonging to different faiths, caste and creeds, it can progress and prosper only on the basis of secular democracy.
Secularism is one of the basic features of our Constitution which prescribes a mechanism for solving various problems like poverty, unemployment,health, education, housing etc. Such goals enshrined in Indian Constitution can be achieved only if its basic values remain secure. Therefore every political party is required to give an undertaking on oath before its registration with the Election Commission to the effect that it has faith in the basic values of the Constitution i.e. secularism and socialism.
The main question today is : 'Do B.J.P. and its allies believe in the basic values of the Constitution?' The emphatic answer is 'NO'. Therefore they cannot be expected to solve the basic problems of the common people. As such, the undertaking and oath given by the BJP before the Election Commission is only a farce.
The open secret is that BJP and its allied organizations want to convert India into a 'Hindu Rashtra' i.e. an Hindu Empire. In such Hindu Rashtra, only Hindus will enjoy citizens' rights, while other minorities like Muslim, Christians,Sikhs, Parsis, Bodh, Jews etc. will have none. Its administration will function only for Hindus and police will give protection only to them i.e. Hindus. Supreme Court
will also be bound to pronounce judgements only in favour of Hindus vis a vis other communities. The Parliament will be converted into a Dharam Sansad and will legislate only in favour of Hindus. In the ëHindu Rashtraí, it will be legitimate to punish the present generation of Muslims, Christians and other minorities for the so-called crimes ñsupposed or real, committed by their ancestors in the Muslim and British period. Mosques will be systematically demolished and churches will be destroyed. All those who would oppose would be subjected to mass murders, rape and loot. The demolition of Babri Masjid, the brutal murder of Austrailan missionary Graham Stains and his two minor sons, attacks on Churches in Gujrat and Orissa, bloody carnage in Gujrat are living examples of the Hindutva agenda.
The BJP election manifesto may talk of the common problems of the people such as poverty, unemployment, education, electricity, water, and may promise their solutions. But as soon as the BJP comes to power it pushes its promises under the carpet and starts implementing its Hindu agenda by overt or covert means.
When BJP came to power five years back at the Centre, it carried out atomic bomb explosions at Pokharan, though it was not part of its election manifesto.
The ostensible purpose of Pokharan explosion was stated to be to ensure security of India- but in result it enhanced its insecurity. Pakistan soon acquired nuclear weapons. Previously Pakistan did not enjoy superiority in conventional army with India, but now it is equally pitted against it.
Another injurious result of nuclear explosion is that India has to spend huge amount in acquiring and maintaining nuclear weapons, so that it has no money left to reduce poverty and unemployment. The army of unemployed youth is on increase, and in many states, the locals have started detesting the outsiders who are Indians nevertheless. The killings of Beharis in Assam and attacks on non-Maharashtrians in Maharshtra are a disturbing phenomena, which may soon envelope other Indian states if BJPís hawkish polcies are not checked soon. The extent of corruption in the defence and security expenditure is a top secret, and if any citizen raises any question in this regard, he may be dubbed as 'anti-national' and may become victim of prosecution. The violence in various forms is on increase as BJPs Hindutva agenda is incapable of pursuing any socio-economic programme for the upliftman of the common people.
However the saving grace is that majority of Hindus are not supporters of this Hindutva agenda of BJP. Therefore the consistent endeavour of BJP is to utilize the administration for injecting and spreading communal virus in society so that the number of its followers is increased. It has been trying to pervert history to poison minds of young Hindus against the Muslims and Christians. It also starts filling up posts in various departments such as industry, education, police etc. by its own supporters who function with communal outlook and harass minorities.
Another term for BJP anywhere will be highly detrimental to the continuation of secular democracy in India.
Corruption and political opportunism has increased during the rule of BJP led coalition. Its leaders are found most corrupt than others. BJP rule will eventually lead to the destruction of secular democracy and Indian Constitution.
We therefore appeal to voters to defeat BJP in the present elections so that future of India is saved.
V.M.Tarkunde, N.D.Pancholi, Indra Makwana,
Pushkar Raj, Mahipal Singh, Karamvir Shastri
Indian Radical Humanist Association, Lokayan, Forum For Democracy & Communal Amity, Vasudev Kutambkam, Champa- The Amiya & B.G. Rao Foundation, Indian Social Institute, Minorities Council, Manav Foundation.
24.11.2003
APPEAL TO VOTERS
DEFEAT BJP, DEFEAT COMMUNALISM, SAVE INDIA
As India is inhabited by people belonging to different faiths, caste and creeds, it can progress and prosper only on the basis of secular democracy.
Secularism is one of the basic features of our Constitution which prescribes a mechanism for solving various problems like poverty, unemployment,health, education, housing etc. Such goals enshrined in Indian Constitution can be achieved only if its basic values remain secure. Therefore every political party is required to give an undertaking on oath before its registration with the Election Commission to the effect that it has faith in the basic values of the Constitution i.e. secularism and socialism.
The main question today is : 'Do B.J.P. and its allies believe in the basic values of the Constitution?' The emphatic answer is 'NO'. Therefore they cannot be expected to solve the basic problems of the common people. As such, the undertaking and oath given by the BJP before the Election Commission is only a farce.
The open secret is that BJP and its allied organizations want to convert India into a 'Hindu Rashtra' i.e. an Hindu Empire. In such Hindu Rashtra, only Hindus will enjoy citizens' rights, while other minorities like Muslim, Christians,Sikhs, Parsis, Bodh, Jews etc. will have none. Its administration will function only for Hindus and police will give protection only to them i.e. Hindus. Supreme Court
will also be bound to pronounce judgements only in favour of Hindus vis a vis other communities. The Parliament will be converted into a Dharam Sansad and will legislate only in favour of Hindus. In the ëHindu Rashtraí, it will be legitimate to punish the present generation of Muslims, Christians and other minorities for the so-called crimes ñsupposed or real, committed by their ancestors in the Muslim and British period. Mosques will be systematically demolished and churches will be destroyed. All those who would oppose would be subjected to mass murders, rape and loot. The demolition of Babri Masjid, the brutal murder of Austrailan missionary Graham Stains and his two minor sons, attacks on Churches in Gujrat and Orissa, bloody carnage in Gujrat are living examples of the Hindutva agenda.
The BJP election manifesto may talk of the common problems of the people such as poverty, unemployment, education, electricity, water, and may promise their solutions. But as soon as the BJP comes to power it pushes its promises under the carpet and starts implementing its Hindu agenda by overt or covert means.
When BJP came to power five years back at the Centre, it carried out atomic bomb explosions at Pokharan, though it was not part of its election manifesto.
The ostensible purpose of Pokharan explosion was stated to be to ensure security of India- but in result it enhanced its insecurity. Pakistan soon acquired nuclear weapons. Previously Pakistan did not enjoy superiority in conventional army with India, but now it is equally pitted against it.
Another injurious result of nuclear explosion is that India has to spend huge amount in acquiring and maintaining nuclear weapons, so that it has no money left to reduce poverty and unemployment. The army of unemployed youth is on increase, and in many states, the locals have started detesting the outsiders who are Indians nevertheless. The killings of Beharis in Assam and attacks on non-Maharashtrians in Maharshtra are a disturbing phenomena, which may soon envelope other Indian states if BJPís hawkish polcies are not checked soon. The extent of corruption in the defence and security expenditure is a top secret, and if any citizen raises any question in this regard, he may be dubbed as 'anti-national' and may become victim of prosecution. The violence in various forms is on increase as BJPs Hindutva agenda is incapable of pursuing any socio-economic programme for the upliftman of the common people.
However the saving grace is that majority of Hindus are not supporters of this Hindutva agenda of BJP. Therefore the consistent endeavour of BJP is to utilize the administration for injecting and spreading communal virus in society so that the number of its followers is increased. It has been trying to pervert history to poison minds of young Hindus against the Muslims and Christians. It also starts filling up posts in various departments such as industry, education, police etc. by its own supporters who function with communal outlook and harass minorities.
Another term for BJP anywhere will be highly detrimental to the continuation of secular democracy in India.
Corruption and political opportunism has increased during the rule of BJP led coalition. Its leaders are found most corrupt than others. BJP rule will eventually lead to the destruction of secular democracy and Indian Constitution.
We therefore appeal to voters to defeat BJP in the present elections so that future of India is saved.
V.M.Tarkunde, N.D.Pancholi, Indra Makwana,
Pushkar Raj, Mahipal Singh, Karamvir Shastri
Indian Radical Humanist Association, Lokayan, Forum For Democracy & Communal Amity, Vasudev Kutambkam, Champa- The Amiya & B.G. Rao Foundation, Indian Social Institute, Minorities Council, Manav Foundation.
24.11.2003
Ahmadias under attack in Bangladesh
The Daily Star (Dhaka)
November 23, 2003
Editorial
Ahmadias under attack
A blatant violation of people's religious rights
The attacks on police by around 500 people, who were planning to evict the members of Ahmadia sect from their own mosque at East Nakhalpara in the city on Friday, are but an example of religious intolerance finding expression in most unsavoury acts of violence.
The news is disquieting, not least because the attacks follow the Kushtia incidents that forced some Ahmadia families to flee their homes.
The plan to oust some people from their mosque was a blatant violation of citizens' right to have freedom in religious matters. It is also very likely to taint the country's image and send wrong signals to the outside world. Religious tolerance and attack on places of worship cannot simply go together.
If such acts are not nipped in the bud, religious obscurantism will continue to divide society and obstruct the emergence of a culture based on respect for the faiths of people, regardless of whoever they might be. The lesson to be learned from Friday's violence is quite clear: the fanatic elements are trying to disrupt social and religious harmony. We must not forget what happened in Pakistan after it failed to thwart the anti- Ahmadia campaign in the late forties, which saw the fanatics pouncing on the members of this small sect. We must also remember what Shia-Sunni sectarian violence has done, and is still doing, to Pakistan.
Bangladesh has traditionally been a moderate country with no record of such intimidating outburst of religious bigotry.
It has transpired that a section of religious leaders are trying to arouse people to frenzied action in the name of service to religion, instead of preaching peace and tolerance-- the real message of Islam. What they have conveniently forgotten is that divisiveness in any form will only add to social tension.
Friday's incidents also indicate that fanatic groups are working in an organised manner. Now, it is the duty of all sane elements in society to resist the disruptive forces. The government, for its part, should take a firm stand on the question of religious tolerance. It must not allow the bigots to decide who is a Muslim and who is not. The role of the Khatib of Rahim Metal Mosque in Tejgaon needs to be investigated by the authorities, as there is ample evidence that he instigated the mob.
Bangladesh is, and must remain, a country of religious tolerance and harmony.
November 23, 2003
Editorial
Ahmadias under attack
A blatant violation of people's religious rights
The attacks on police by around 500 people, who were planning to evict the members of Ahmadia sect from their own mosque at East Nakhalpara in the city on Friday, are but an example of religious intolerance finding expression in most unsavoury acts of violence.
The news is disquieting, not least because the attacks follow the Kushtia incidents that forced some Ahmadia families to flee their homes.
The plan to oust some people from their mosque was a blatant violation of citizens' right to have freedom in religious matters. It is also very likely to taint the country's image and send wrong signals to the outside world. Religious tolerance and attack on places of worship cannot simply go together.
If such acts are not nipped in the bud, religious obscurantism will continue to divide society and obstruct the emergence of a culture based on respect for the faiths of people, regardless of whoever they might be. The lesson to be learned from Friday's violence is quite clear: the fanatic elements are trying to disrupt social and religious harmony. We must not forget what happened in Pakistan after it failed to thwart the anti- Ahmadia campaign in the late forties, which saw the fanatics pouncing on the members of this small sect. We must also remember what Shia-Sunni sectarian violence has done, and is still doing, to Pakistan.
Bangladesh has traditionally been a moderate country with no record of such intimidating outburst of religious bigotry.
It has transpired that a section of religious leaders are trying to arouse people to frenzied action in the name of service to religion, instead of preaching peace and tolerance-- the real message of Islam. What they have conveniently forgotten is that divisiveness in any form will only add to social tension.
Friday's incidents also indicate that fanatic groups are working in an organised manner. Now, it is the duty of all sane elements in society to resist the disruptive forces. The government, for its part, should take a firm stand on the question of religious tolerance. It must not allow the bigots to decide who is a Muslim and who is not. The role of the Khatib of Rahim Metal Mosque in Tejgaon needs to be investigated by the authorities, as there is ample evidence that he instigated the mob.
Bangladesh is, and must remain, a country of religious tolerance and harmony.
Secularism: Constitution, Law and Representation
[SACW | 25 November 2003]
Reproduced from:
The Daily Star, November 25, 2003
http://www.thedailystar.net/2003/11/25/d31125110387.htm
Secularism: Constitution, Law and Representation
By Naeem Mohaiemen [Shobak.Org]
In his 11/19 response to my letter dated 11/14, Mr. Shibly Azad defends Bangladesh's record on secularism: "more than a dozen MPs from minority communities in the current parliament as well as the presence of minority cabinet members."
As far as I know, there are six minority MPs, not a "dozen". Dhirendranath Saha, Gautam Chakrabarty, Moni Swapan Dewan (CHT) from BNP; Suranjit Sengupta, Panchanan Biswas and Bir Bahadur (CHT) from AL. This makes a total of 6 out of 330. Direct demographic representation would be around 36.
There are no minority Ministers, only Junior Ministers. Chakrabarty is Junior Minister for Water Resources and Swapan is Junior Minister for CHT and Tribal affairs. Although CHT is 70% tribal (Pahari), a Pahari was given Junior portfolio, while the full portfolio went to a non-Pahari-- hardly anything to brag about.
Mr. Azad also writes, "Constitution of Bangladesh does not allow superiority of one religion at the expense of others, but grants equal status to all creeds"
In the 1972 Constitution of Bangladesh, this was indeed the case. However, in 1977, Zia government amended the Constitution, replacing "Socialism" and "Secularism" with, respectively, "Social Justice" and "Absolute faith in God Almighty." They also inserted "In the name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful" (in Arabic) into the preamble to the Constitution. Finally, the 1972 ban on religion-based political parties was lifted.
In 1988, the Ershad government passed the 8th Amendment to the Constitution, making Islam the "State Religion". Although a general protest strike paralyzed Dhaka, the Jatiya Party-dominated Parliament (most of the opposition had boycotted elections) easily passed the measure.
At present, the Bangladesh Constitution reads as follows: "8. Fundamental principles of State Policy: The principles of absolute trust and faith in the Almighty Allah, nationalism, democracy and socialism meaning economic and social justice, together with the principles derived from them as set out in this Part, shall constitute the fundamental principles of state policy. Absolute trust and faith in the Almighty Allah shall be the basis of all actions. "(http://www.bangladeshgov.org/pmo/constitution/consti2.htm#2A)
Finally, do not forget the "Vested (Enemy) Property Act" (set up during '65 Indo-Pak war), which has yet to be repealed after four decades. According to "An inquiry into causes and consequences of deprivation of Hindu minorities in Bangladesh through the Vested Property Act" (Abul Barkat, ed.., PRIP Trust, 2000), 2.1 million acres of land were confiscated from Hindu families (by GOB and individuals) since the VPA was enacted.
Reproduced from:
The Daily Star, November 25, 2003
http://www.thedailystar.net/2003/11/25/d31125110387.htm
Secularism: Constitution, Law and Representation
By Naeem Mohaiemen [Shobak.Org]
In his 11/19 response to my letter dated 11/14, Mr. Shibly Azad defends Bangladesh's record on secularism: "more than a dozen MPs from minority communities in the current parliament as well as the presence of minority cabinet members."
As far as I know, there are six minority MPs, not a "dozen". Dhirendranath Saha, Gautam Chakrabarty, Moni Swapan Dewan (CHT) from BNP; Suranjit Sengupta, Panchanan Biswas and Bir Bahadur (CHT) from AL. This makes a total of 6 out of 330. Direct demographic representation would be around 36.
There are no minority Ministers, only Junior Ministers. Chakrabarty is Junior Minister for Water Resources and Swapan is Junior Minister for CHT and Tribal affairs. Although CHT is 70% tribal (Pahari), a Pahari was given Junior portfolio, while the full portfolio went to a non-Pahari-- hardly anything to brag about.
Mr. Azad also writes, "Constitution of Bangladesh does not allow superiority of one religion at the expense of others, but grants equal status to all creeds"
In the 1972 Constitution of Bangladesh, this was indeed the case. However, in 1977, Zia government amended the Constitution, replacing "Socialism" and "Secularism" with, respectively, "Social Justice" and "Absolute faith in God Almighty." They also inserted "In the name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful" (in Arabic) into the preamble to the Constitution. Finally, the 1972 ban on religion-based political parties was lifted.
In 1988, the Ershad government passed the 8th Amendment to the Constitution, making Islam the "State Religion". Although a general protest strike paralyzed Dhaka, the Jatiya Party-dominated Parliament (most of the opposition had boycotted elections) easily passed the measure.
At present, the Bangladesh Constitution reads as follows: "8. Fundamental principles of State Policy: The principles of absolute trust and faith in the Almighty Allah, nationalism, democracy and socialism meaning economic and social justice, together with the principles derived from them as set out in this Part, shall constitute the fundamental principles of state policy. Absolute trust and faith in the Almighty Allah shall be the basis of all actions. "(http://www.bangladeshgov.org/pmo/constitution/consti2.htm#2A)
Finally, do not forget the "Vested (Enemy) Property Act" (set up during '65 Indo-Pak war), which has yet to be repealed after four decades. According to "An inquiry into causes and consequences of deprivation of Hindu minorities in Bangladesh through the Vested Property Act" (Abul Barkat, ed.., PRIP Trust, 2000), 2.1 million acres of land were confiscated from Hindu families (by GOB and individuals) since the VPA was enacted.
Pakistan: What should minorities do
(South Asia Citizens Wire | 25 November 2003)
Pakistan: What should minorities do
By M.B. Naqvi
[24 November 2003, Karachi]
For minorities, including smaller sects of Islam, should not organise themselves communally. Instead of being protected, they may only help set up a cycle of revenge violence. Their best chance lies in the liberals in the given majority being mobilised for promoting tolerance and peaceful conditions. Counter violence, in the name of either defence (deterrence) or revenge is to step on a slippery slope, which is sure to promote even greater counter mobilisation by the majority. When a minority organizes a militia, it does so at its own peril. For, the majority is sure to ask: they are organizing (uniting) against whom? Its extremists are sure to magnify the danger from the minority and intensify their mobilization, making it more effective or murderous.
This is an unfamiliar and unsought advice and is not likely to please. The dynamism that results from acting on common notions is generally ignored. Doesn’t every schoolboy know that unity is strength or smaller numbers can be offset by greater commitment? And yet, what is the evidence? No communal mobilisation by a minority can prevent attacks on its members in the fastnesses of the country. They can only be brought into action for taking revenge. That sets up a tit for tat cycle of violence. Once that takes hold, no minority can win; it is bound to lose more often. No minority can mobilise as many men and material as a majority can.
The experience of late 1980s and 1990s sectarian violence is before us. In order to take on Sipah-i-Sahaba, Lashkar-i-Jhangvi etc., the Shias had formed their Sipah-i-Mohammad. After a decade it is necessary to count who had more people killed? There is no doubt more Shias have died in sectarian violence than Sunnis. Supposing the Shias had not had any organisation for avenging their losses, what would be the situation. True, Shias would still have suffered, losses, in the dead and maimed but the total on both sides, would have been less. By the same token, panic and losses among Shias would have been smaller.
In order to illustrate the point, suppose there was also a Muslim militia in Gujarat last year. Would that have meant fewer losses for the Muslim minority or more? Resistance in kind would surely have meant much greater and even more efficient mobilisation by the majority. Total losses of the Muslims would surely have been far greater, even if many Hindus might also have suffered. In Pakistan, this temptation for defensive communal mobilisation is pointless for religious minorities like Hindus and Christians; they are too few to register on the majority’s radar. Sectarian minorities have occupied the place of religious minorities. Majority community takes out its accumulated spleen on the sectarian communities.
Historically too, it is about time to assess what the Muslim community lost and gained from the partition of the Sub-continent, the result of excessive communal frenzy on both sides, involving world’s largest ethnic cleansing to date. The Muslims thinking they would never get a fair deal from the Hindu majority forced the issue. As is peculiar to all communalisms, the Muslim League had taken the vast body of Hindus as one undifferentiated unit that would, for all time to come, take just one (hostile and unfair) view and oppress the Muslims. Like any majority Hindus comprised many schools and had their full share of communalists (who took the Muslims as an undifferentiated mass of united people who will always make trouble). More schools of thought will come into being with time. Isn’t this true of the Pakistani majority? Aren’t there many opinions among Sunni majority about treating the minority sects among Muslims?
The question persists: Was the Muslim League’s victory in 1947, with the help of the British, the best solution of Muslim community’s backwardness and poverty? If a separatist and inimical approach had not been brought to bear on the situation in 1940s to worsen it, Muslims would now be 400 million or more in India that could scarcely be oppressed or seriously discriminated against. Undivided India would have offered more opportunities for development. Despite the short sightedness of Congress leadership and its hatred for Quaid-i-Azam, there were many schools of thought, among them, i.e. leftists of various hues who were genuinely non-communalists who were keen to eradicate the poverty of all Indians, Hindus, and Muslims alike. Moreover, there were many Hindus who shared a lot of cultural traits with Punjabi and Urdu speaking Muslims, as was the case in Bengal and Bihar.
Opportunities for Muslims would have been incomparably greater in an undivided India; without their substantial support no government could run in Delhi. The very Hindus, who frightened the Muslim League so much had to be politically divided, and thus would have needed their votes. How long could the communalist politicians deny benefits to the voter? Only thing that would have made for fair play and justice for all was democracy. And there could be no chance for a non-democratic government in India then and now.
These are however might have beens of history. They have no direct relevance. India was partitioned, hopefully finally for the benefit of all its parts. Let us try and make Pakistan a success in terms of human freedoms and popular welfare. But Pakistan inherited the blight of a hollow militaristic mind that is moved by a shallow, indeed bogus, pan-Islamic sentiment. The result is the curse of military rule; power balance among political groups is heavily tilted in favour of the military. So it pre-empts democracy and thus subordinates human rights and popular welfare to its own needs and preferences.
One fact is obvious: sectarianism is a part of the larger phenomenon of intolerance, especially over religious matters. It won’t go away until people learn to be tolerant of differing views and faiths of other communities, groups or parties. Rationalist attitude of tolerance of the other viewpoint and resolving differences through reasonable argumentation is needed. Religious intolerance against Hindus, Christians, Parsis and others is a kin of sectarianism and all such phenomena stand or fall together. So, if sectarianism is to be exterminated, people will need a society and state that tolerate all faiths, views and groups. In other words, State should promote a tolerant and democratic society.
There are prerequisites of social peace and harmony: a pluralist society cannot be achieved unless it is embedded in human rights that are truly respected – of all men and women, Muslims or non-Muslims. Only in such a society can Shias, Sunnis, Ahle Haddis, Daudi Bohras, Aga Khanis, Zikris, and Ahmedis can happily co-exist and make progress together. Such a society, to repeat, has to recognize the supremacy of and respect for, human beings, qua human beings, over every other value. Guarantees for freedom, primarily of faith and opinions are implicit in humanistic value. In other words, it presupposes a democracy that does not discriminate in favour of any particular faith or opinion or against any religion or sect or parties. For ensuring social peace and solidarity for all Pakistanis, the basic requirement is to make Pakistan strong through unity of all truly secular approach is vitally needed.
Unnecessary confusion has resulted from demands of an Islamic State. A 95 percent Muslim country like Pakistan, any democratic government would be Islamic. Since the ulema’s 22 demands before Khwaja Nazimuddin in early 1950s, these have grown. Each time a constitution was made in 1954, 1956, 1962, 1973, or even in the case of abortive one of 19th December 1971 by General Yahya Khan – major ulema had expressed satisfaction over its Islamic provisions adequately. Even in 1971 case, Yahya Khan shared the details of his constitution to the then JI chief, who termed it was adequately Islamic. The same was true in the case of 1973 Constitution. Maulanas Mufti Mahmud, Shah Ahmed Noorani and JI’s Professor Ghafoor Ahmad signed it. Even so, they agreed with Zia that scope for more Islamisation exists.
An Islamic dispensation obviously presupposes two things: All Muslims must have no differences over what is Islam or on its rights and obligations for different Muslims and of course non-Muslims. Well, there happens to be no homogenized, simple Musalman; what is to be found, and thanks to ulema as a class, a Sunni Musalman, a Shia Musalman, an Ahmadi or Zikri Musalman. Iqbal, Jinnah or Sir Syed could ignore sectarian distinctions. But can the JUI, JUP, JI or other MMA members do the same? Mufti Mahmud’s idea of Islamic State was the enforcement of Shariah as defined by his Hanafi school of thought. For JUP enforcement of 500 fatwas, the Fatwa-i-Alamgiri, plus the acceptance of actual rites and practices of Indian Islam constituted the implementation of Nizam-i-Mustafa.
Who can escape defining a Muslim accurately to know what Islam demands from Muslims and non-Muslims. Jinnah wanted all Pakistanis to be treated equally; he asked JN Mandal to preside over the first session of the Pakistan Constituent Assembly. How can now a Hindu or Parsi be discriminated against? In the Meesaq-i-Madina, the Prophet of Islam included Jews into his Ummat-i-Waheda. Like Jinnah he too wanted a secular dispensation for the Madina’s incipient state and there is nothing on record that any discrimination was ever shown towards non-Muslims in Islam other than paying a tax in lieu of compulsory Jihad.
Moreover, further efforts to Islamise Pakistan will stoke the fires of sectarianism among Muslims even, if non-Muslims get ignored. The ulema have achieved one thing: the undifferentiated Musalman of Sir Syed, Iqbal and Jinnah has been killed. For them a Musalman is either a Deobandi kind of Sunni or a Barelwi type of Sunni or sympathizer of JI or a Shia or Ahmadi or Bohra or Agha Khani or Zikri or Ahle Hadis. This sectarianism is a natural product of the efforts to capture power by orthodox leaders.
It is dangerous. Muslims are divided in over a hundred sects. Each sect believes it is the true and the only Islam there is. In matters of faith no compromise is possible. Think of the consequences of religious leaders making politics the means of acquiring more support, influence, money and eventuallypower. If sectarianism spreads, Pakistan as a state would collapse. What will then happen is not foreign invasion or intervention. Jealousies among great and neighbouring powers will prevent that. But once sectarian passions flare up, the next stops will be Somalia or Bosnia. Do we want that?
Pakistan: What should minorities do
By M.B. Naqvi
[24 November 2003, Karachi]
For minorities, including smaller sects of Islam, should not organise themselves communally. Instead of being protected, they may only help set up a cycle of revenge violence. Their best chance lies in the liberals in the given majority being mobilised for promoting tolerance and peaceful conditions. Counter violence, in the name of either defence (deterrence) or revenge is to step on a slippery slope, which is sure to promote even greater counter mobilisation by the majority. When a minority organizes a militia, it does so at its own peril. For, the majority is sure to ask: they are organizing (uniting) against whom? Its extremists are sure to magnify the danger from the minority and intensify their mobilization, making it more effective or murderous.
This is an unfamiliar and unsought advice and is not likely to please. The dynamism that results from acting on common notions is generally ignored. Doesn’t every schoolboy know that unity is strength or smaller numbers can be offset by greater commitment? And yet, what is the evidence? No communal mobilisation by a minority can prevent attacks on its members in the fastnesses of the country. They can only be brought into action for taking revenge. That sets up a tit for tat cycle of violence. Once that takes hold, no minority can win; it is bound to lose more often. No minority can mobilise as many men and material as a majority can.
The experience of late 1980s and 1990s sectarian violence is before us. In order to take on Sipah-i-Sahaba, Lashkar-i-Jhangvi etc., the Shias had formed their Sipah-i-Mohammad. After a decade it is necessary to count who had more people killed? There is no doubt more Shias have died in sectarian violence than Sunnis. Supposing the Shias had not had any organisation for avenging their losses, what would be the situation. True, Shias would still have suffered, losses, in the dead and maimed but the total on both sides, would have been less. By the same token, panic and losses among Shias would have been smaller.
In order to illustrate the point, suppose there was also a Muslim militia in Gujarat last year. Would that have meant fewer losses for the Muslim minority or more? Resistance in kind would surely have meant much greater and even more efficient mobilisation by the majority. Total losses of the Muslims would surely have been far greater, even if many Hindus might also have suffered. In Pakistan, this temptation for defensive communal mobilisation is pointless for religious minorities like Hindus and Christians; they are too few to register on the majority’s radar. Sectarian minorities have occupied the place of religious minorities. Majority community takes out its accumulated spleen on the sectarian communities.
Historically too, it is about time to assess what the Muslim community lost and gained from the partition of the Sub-continent, the result of excessive communal frenzy on both sides, involving world’s largest ethnic cleansing to date. The Muslims thinking they would never get a fair deal from the Hindu majority forced the issue. As is peculiar to all communalisms, the Muslim League had taken the vast body of Hindus as one undifferentiated unit that would, for all time to come, take just one (hostile and unfair) view and oppress the Muslims. Like any majority Hindus comprised many schools and had their full share of communalists (who took the Muslims as an undifferentiated mass of united people who will always make trouble). More schools of thought will come into being with time. Isn’t this true of the Pakistani majority? Aren’t there many opinions among Sunni majority about treating the minority sects among Muslims?
The question persists: Was the Muslim League’s victory in 1947, with the help of the British, the best solution of Muslim community’s backwardness and poverty? If a separatist and inimical approach had not been brought to bear on the situation in 1940s to worsen it, Muslims would now be 400 million or more in India that could scarcely be oppressed or seriously discriminated against. Undivided India would have offered more opportunities for development. Despite the short sightedness of Congress leadership and its hatred for Quaid-i-Azam, there were many schools of thought, among them, i.e. leftists of various hues who were genuinely non-communalists who were keen to eradicate the poverty of all Indians, Hindus, and Muslims alike. Moreover, there were many Hindus who shared a lot of cultural traits with Punjabi and Urdu speaking Muslims, as was the case in Bengal and Bihar.
Opportunities for Muslims would have been incomparably greater in an undivided India; without their substantial support no government could run in Delhi. The very Hindus, who frightened the Muslim League so much had to be politically divided, and thus would have needed their votes. How long could the communalist politicians deny benefits to the voter? Only thing that would have made for fair play and justice for all was democracy. And there could be no chance for a non-democratic government in India then and now.
These are however might have beens of history. They have no direct relevance. India was partitioned, hopefully finally for the benefit of all its parts. Let us try and make Pakistan a success in terms of human freedoms and popular welfare. But Pakistan inherited the blight of a hollow militaristic mind that is moved by a shallow, indeed bogus, pan-Islamic sentiment. The result is the curse of military rule; power balance among political groups is heavily tilted in favour of the military. So it pre-empts democracy and thus subordinates human rights and popular welfare to its own needs and preferences.
One fact is obvious: sectarianism is a part of the larger phenomenon of intolerance, especially over religious matters. It won’t go away until people learn to be tolerant of differing views and faiths of other communities, groups or parties. Rationalist attitude of tolerance of the other viewpoint and resolving differences through reasonable argumentation is needed. Religious intolerance against Hindus, Christians, Parsis and others is a kin of sectarianism and all such phenomena stand or fall together. So, if sectarianism is to be exterminated, people will need a society and state that tolerate all faiths, views and groups. In other words, State should promote a tolerant and democratic society.
There are prerequisites of social peace and harmony: a pluralist society cannot be achieved unless it is embedded in human rights that are truly respected – of all men and women, Muslims or non-Muslims. Only in such a society can Shias, Sunnis, Ahle Haddis, Daudi Bohras, Aga Khanis, Zikris, and Ahmedis can happily co-exist and make progress together. Such a society, to repeat, has to recognize the supremacy of and respect for, human beings, qua human beings, over every other value. Guarantees for freedom, primarily of faith and opinions are implicit in humanistic value. In other words, it presupposes a democracy that does not discriminate in favour of any particular faith or opinion or against any religion or sect or parties. For ensuring social peace and solidarity for all Pakistanis, the basic requirement is to make Pakistan strong through unity of all truly secular approach is vitally needed.
Unnecessary confusion has resulted from demands of an Islamic State. A 95 percent Muslim country like Pakistan, any democratic government would be Islamic. Since the ulema’s 22 demands before Khwaja Nazimuddin in early 1950s, these have grown. Each time a constitution was made in 1954, 1956, 1962, 1973, or even in the case of abortive one of 19th December 1971 by General Yahya Khan – major ulema had expressed satisfaction over its Islamic provisions adequately. Even in 1971 case, Yahya Khan shared the details of his constitution to the then JI chief, who termed it was adequately Islamic. The same was true in the case of 1973 Constitution. Maulanas Mufti Mahmud, Shah Ahmed Noorani and JI’s Professor Ghafoor Ahmad signed it. Even so, they agreed with Zia that scope for more Islamisation exists.
An Islamic dispensation obviously presupposes two things: All Muslims must have no differences over what is Islam or on its rights and obligations for different Muslims and of course non-Muslims. Well, there happens to be no homogenized, simple Musalman; what is to be found, and thanks to ulema as a class, a Sunni Musalman, a Shia Musalman, an Ahmadi or Zikri Musalman. Iqbal, Jinnah or Sir Syed could ignore sectarian distinctions. But can the JUI, JUP, JI or other MMA members do the same? Mufti Mahmud’s idea of Islamic State was the enforcement of Shariah as defined by his Hanafi school of thought. For JUP enforcement of 500 fatwas, the Fatwa-i-Alamgiri, plus the acceptance of actual rites and practices of Indian Islam constituted the implementation of Nizam-i-Mustafa.
Who can escape defining a Muslim accurately to know what Islam demands from Muslims and non-Muslims. Jinnah wanted all Pakistanis to be treated equally; he asked JN Mandal to preside over the first session of the Pakistan Constituent Assembly. How can now a Hindu or Parsi be discriminated against? In the Meesaq-i-Madina, the Prophet of Islam included Jews into his Ummat-i-Waheda. Like Jinnah he too wanted a secular dispensation for the Madina’s incipient state and there is nothing on record that any discrimination was ever shown towards non-Muslims in Islam other than paying a tax in lieu of compulsory Jihad.
Moreover, further efforts to Islamise Pakistan will stoke the fires of sectarianism among Muslims even, if non-Muslims get ignored. The ulema have achieved one thing: the undifferentiated Musalman of Sir Syed, Iqbal and Jinnah has been killed. For them a Musalman is either a Deobandi kind of Sunni or a Barelwi type of Sunni or sympathizer of JI or a Shia or Ahmadi or Bohra or Agha Khani or Zikri or Ahle Hadis. This sectarianism is a natural product of the efforts to capture power by orthodox leaders.
It is dangerous. Muslims are divided in over a hundred sects. Each sect believes it is the true and the only Islam there is. In matters of faith no compromise is possible. Think of the consequences of religious leaders making politics the means of acquiring more support, influence, money and eventuallypower. If sectarianism spreads, Pakistan as a state would collapse. What will then happen is not foreign invasion or intervention. Jealousies among great and neighbouring powers will prevent that. But once sectarian passions flare up, the next stops will be Somalia or Bosnia. Do we want that?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
