For American Muslims the choice today is between the Democratic candidate, Kamala Harris and the Republican, Donald Trump: both ‘khula dushmans’ of Muslims. There is, of course, a difference between the Indian and American Muslim contexts. The Indian Muslim response has been based on their own bitter experience as citizens of India. On the other hand, uppermost in the mind of many American Muslims today is not so much their personal experience as citizens of USA, but the hypocrisy and the blatant complicity of the Biden administration in the year-long ongoing Israeli genocide of fellow-Muslims in Palestine and now Lebanon too.

The Democratic Presidential aspirant, Harris unreservedly defends the Biden administration’s unstinted support to the immoral, illegal, outrageous massacre of Palestinian men, women and children. She has even asserted that the biggest enemy of the US is not Russia or China but Iran. Several steps ahead of her, Trump is goading mass murderer Netanyahu to “finish the job” in Gaza and Lebanon and even launch a full-scale war against Iran.

 So who should or will American Muslims vote for come November 5? Democrat Harris, Republican Trump, a third candidate with no chance of winning, or simply stay home on V-day?

Several influential voices among American Muslims are urging the community to go for Trump in order to teach Harris and the Democratic Party a lesson. Included among them, is a group of Imams in the US who an open letter quote the Quran while asking Muslims to shun Harris. A non-American analyst, Sami Hamdani has declared it is the “religious duty” of American Muslims to deny Harris their vote even if means victory for Trump.

The most brazen appeal to religion however has been made by the Green Party’s vice-presidential candidate in the coming polls, Buch Ware. Ware, a Muslim, has tweeted this dire warning: “The ‘Muslims’ that have come out in support of Harris, have inscribed their names on the tablets of eternity alongside that of Nimrod, Pharaoh, Caesar and Yazid. Every soul slain in Gaza has a claim against them on Judgement day. They better dress light – been hearing Hell is hot.”

The ‘Muslims’ in quotes clearly implies that Muslims who support Harris are nothing but fake Muslims who must await their fate come the Day of Judgement. Presumably Allah’s angels are keeping a close watch right now of what American Muslims are thinking and will record their deed on November 5.

Fortunately, there are saner voices too. The most compelling among them is that of the well-known journalist Mehdi Hasan. He ran his weekly ‘Mehdi Hasan Show’ on the American TV channel MSNBC until November 2023 when it was abruptly discontinued for his bosses could not stomach his bold coverage and commentary on the American complicity in the Palestinian genocide. He has since launched his own channel, Zeteo.

In a 9-minute long episode (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d7vOzUmqv-s)

, Hasan challenges those who are asking fellow-Muslims to abandon Harris. He clarifies that as a journalist it is neither his job nor intention to canvass support for Harris. He is only asking Muslims not to succumb to pressure from fellow-Muslims, and think clearly of what is at stake in the coming elections before casting their votes. He questions the wisdom behind the three main propositions and assumptions of the no-to-Harris camp.

Proposition One: Weaponising of faith, introducing religion in essentially secular political disputes. “The increasing invocation of the Quran to tell people to vote the right way, (is) emotionally blackmailing them into not voting for the Democrats and the accompanying insinuation that you are not a good Muslim, or not a Muslim at all, if you think of voting the candidate who is the lesser of two evils”. Hasan rightly asks: who can claim knowledge of what is in another person’s heart, who has the right to judge another person’s faith? While he does not mention it, there is also this to consider: Will such weaponisation of Islam hinder or help Islamophobia not only in the US but globally?

Proposition Two: Humbling of Harris will compel the Democrats to introspect and American Muslims will emerge a force to reckon with. Hasan questions the sheer naiveté and ignorance of how American politics works. He points to the 2000 US polls when American Muslims voted en masse for George W Bush. What happened next was the invasion of Iraq and the killing of half-a-million Iraqi Muslims. He next refers to the 2020 elections when having seen four years of Trump, Muslims voted for Biden. This, of course, has not come in the way of Biden’s unstinted support to Netanyahu.

Proposition Three: Underestimating the implications of Trump’s victory. Hasan asks: If Biden is complicit in the ongoing genocide in Palestine and Lebanon, what about Trump’s complicity with the Saudis in the genocide of Yemeni Muslims during his first term as president?

In his new book, War, the Watergate reporter Bob Woodward maintains that Trump is far worse than Nixon and, ‘the most reckless and impulsive president in American history.’

American Muslims who have endured four years of Trump earlier will survive one more term of his presidency, argues the non-American Samdani. That begs the question: should American Muslims be thinking only as members of a particular faith community? Should they not also be thinking as American Citizens, ponder over what another four years of the pro-genocide, pro-Netanyahu, racist, anti-Muslim, sexual abuse and felony convict, increasingly unhinged Trump mean would mean for all Americans and the rest of the world?

The post American Muslims’ dilemma: Harris or Trump? appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Teesta Setalvad     Javed Anand

A personal (and professional) tribute

To converse and be with Lolly (Lalita) and Ramu (former Admiral Ramdas) was to  see and behold and admire a couple who have been since we knew them– as Editors, Communalism Combat, as also activists and fellow citizens–always two peas in a pod.

Lalita Ramdas is and was always the light of Ramu’s eye and inspiration

(I still remember how he so candidly write for us in Communalism Combat, (June 1998) about his re-visiting his position as a man of the forces to a determinedly anti-nuke position within days, in June 1998 –shedding years of armed force orientation since age 15.)

Buddha Purnima to Amavasya, we called it and it stands proud in the archives of Communalism Combat. The strapline says it all: Admiral Ramdas, former chief of the Indian Navy, who felt ‘proud’ on May 11, now wants the ‘madness’ to stop

Ramu wrote then about how that re-positioning evolved and came about.

And we also recall and bring to you the piece—ever so honest, jointly written by them that we published as cover story for Communalism Combat (March 1996). They had penned it on Martyr’s Day, January 30, 1996,

“An impassioned piece for communal sanity, respect for the rule of law and social justice,” penned by Admiral Ramdas and Lalita Ramdas, exclusively on Communalism Combat.

The Fire Next Time, we titled it.

There is no better way to pay tribute to Ramu then to speak to Lolly.

And she says today, “We want all our friends to know that we are not mourning Ramu’s demise; we are celebrating his life and spirit. We want all our friends and comrades to celebrate ‘him’ with us; celebrate his indomitable spirit that refused to be cowed down by the mighty and the authoritarians! Ramu will continue to be with us in our peaceful struggles for secularism, peace, rights, justice and human dignity! As passionately as always…”

In losing Ramu we say good bye to the era of civil, rational and fair public servant, who served his people and his country as only he knew how, with head and heart. Even in a less than conscious condition, just a few days back, he turned to Lolly to say, “What is happening with India and Pakistan?”

A question that honestly begs a real answer.

Teesta Setalvad                            Javed Anand

We reproduce the June 1998 piece here for young readers to re-visit and understand our times

Buddha Purnima to Amavasya

Admiral Ramdas, former chief of the Indian Navy, who felt ‘proud’ on May 11, now wants the ‘madness’ to stop

The news of the Indian nuclear blasts came as a total surprise to many on the evening of May 11. It was also the same in the Ramdas household except with a difference. My wife was totally shocked, depressed and angry, whereas I felt good, proud and, secretly, even happy. My own immediate reactions were triggered by the thought that we have at last decided to tell the arrogant ‘Nuclear Haves’ that enough is enough and we also need to be counted in this world.

The Pakistan-India Peoples Forum for Peace and Democracy (PIPFPD), India Chapter, was keen to issue a statement condemning these tests, but I found myself unable at that time to go along with the draft that finally ensued and released to the press. This was not a very happy situation considering that I was, and still am, the acting-president of the PIPFPD.

This was further worsened by the wanton jingoism displayed by many important leaders in India who ought to have known better. One thing led to the other and events moved inexorably to the inevitable, when on May 28, Chagai Hills in Baluchistan burst into a whitish glow by the tremendous heat and gamma radiation of the Pakistani tests. The leadership on both sides of the border had outdone each other in the display of their madness and in the rape of Nature!

From the night of May 11 until June 3, I underwent a colossal debate within myself. One part of me was feeling elated, yet there was this other part telling me that there is something very wrong here. Almost 45 years of my life, from the age of 15 to 60, were in naval uniform. I had been brought up in the military environment and belonged to the ‘System’ or the ‘Establishment’. Years of training, brainwashing, discipline, learning the art of naval warfare and technology, being an active member and architect of many projects and schemes, all combined to generate the predictable kind of immediate reactions to our tests. It was almost like reflex action which I am sure readers will understand.

Cooler reflection and a critical analysis of the nuclear tests by India and Pakistan and the security and strategic implications became obvious. The great manthan in my mind had finally churned out the answer. This madness which has landed both India and Pakistan in a total mess must stop before things get out of hand. However, the one thing that this ‘madness’ has done is to initiate a wider public debate on nuclear weapons and their relevance to humanity, with particular reference to the sub- continent and its problems. In the wake of the tests, much has been written and spoken in the press and electronic media about the security and other compulsions that forced India to execute Pokhran II (PokhranI 1 was in 1974). It is obvious today that the timing of the tests was more for meeting domestic political requirements and less for security and strategic reasons.

The traditional arguments put forward by the hawks, namely, deterrence, status, power, and our ability to ‘stand tall’, no longer have any credibility and need to be debunked.

The so called proven effectiveness of the deterrence theory in the Cold War has no relevance in the Indo-Pak scenario. In the Cold War, there was never any dispute between the two great super powers, except for propagating their ideological isms and thereby hoping to influence other nations. In the subcontinent, however, there are many outstanding problems that need to be resolved, including the burning issue of Jammu and Kashmir. Clearly, nothing but a political understanding will really resolve these issues and not nuclear bombs and missiles!

I believe large sections of our peoples have not really understood what a nuclear war implies. Most of them still believe it to be an additional new weapon which will kill the enemy and win the war. But there are no winners in a nuclear war. The horrors of a nuclear holocaust are so different that we need to give this wide publicity. Whilst both countries claim to having set up command and control systems, and fool proof methods for initiating a nuclear attack, I would like to sound a note of caution for the information of our peoples in both our countries. Given the best will in the world there are always many things that can go wrong. Human and material failures are not uncommon.

Even in the area of conventional weapons we have been witness to things going wrong. But the price you pay is miniscule when compared to a similar mistake in this ‘Nuclear weaponised sub-continent’. Any and every approaching missile has to be interpreted as one with a nuclear warhead, which is the first step in the nuclear escalation ladder and mutual destruction. One may argue that this horrendous scenario itself guarantees security as this will deter any such action. This argument is difficult to buy as mutual fears and suspicions continue to exist. No one is likely to believe that the other will honour a non-first- use agreement even if we were to sign it. Where does that then lead us?

Given the kind of emotive leadership in both our countries the risks of accidental or deliberate use to preempt the other, cannot therefore be ruled out. To illustrate the point, India’s minister for parliamentary affairs taunted Pakistan to name the place, date and the venue for the next war. Not to be left behind, the foreign minister of Pakistan boasted the other day that they shall win a war with India in 90 minutes. These are the realities that we are up against.

For all these and many other reasons, today I am committed to the campaign for a ban on all nuclear weapons, right across the world. Perhaps this is also the historic moment for India and Pakistan to understand that both our destinies are intrinsically linked through geography and history. Realpolitik and self-preservation demands that the leadership in both India and Pakistan rise above our previous strongly held positions to defuse this highly dangerous situation.

There is absolutely no justification for any of the ‘Nuclear Haves’ to hold nuclear weapons on national security or any other ground. The need of the hour, though, is for both India and Pakistan to cap their entire nuclear and missile programme and to join hands into pressurise the Pancha Pandavas — the Nuclear Haves — to downsize and subsequently totally eliminate all nuclear weapons in a promulgated time frame.

This may sound too far-fetched to many, but do we really have a choice?

Related:

From a former Chief of the Indian Navy, Admiral Ramdas to Rahul Gandhi

The world is watching us: former Admiral L Ramdas to PM Modi and Pres. Kovind

Open Letter to the President of India from former Chief of Indian Navy, Admiral L Ramdas

The post Adieu Ramu, Admiral Ramdas, a public servant of civility, grace and conviction; for you, a personal & professional tribute appeared first on SabrangIndia.

In December 2020, the Aligarh Muslim University (AMU), Sir Syed Ahmad Khan’s dream-come-true, completed a hundred years. It’s an occasion the global community of its proud alumni – the ‘Aligs’ – would have celebrated in grand style. But the raging pandemic put paid to any such plan. However, it did provide time and space for one Alig to pay a unique tribute to his alma mater in the form of a book: Aligarh Muslim University – The Making of the Modern Indian Muslim. The author Mohammed Wajihuddin is a senior journalist at the Times of India.

As is clear from the Notes at the end of his book, lots has been written on Sir Syed, the Mohammedan Anglo-Oriental (MAO) College founded by him in 1877 and its later avatar, the AMU. But this is perhaps the first journalistic account on the subject which accounts for the easy-read, engaging text that flowed out of Wajihuddin’s keyboard.

In his book, Wajihuddin reminds readers on more than one occasion how Sir Syed was not interested simply in a university for Indian Muslims to dish out degrees in this or that subject. Rather, by founding an educational institution to act as the “intellectual hub of Indian Muslims”, infuse in them the spirit of modernism, rationalism, scientific thinking, he “stirred the waters of the stagnant Muslim community”.

The success of that venture is evident from the galaxy of freedom fighters, political stalwarts, writers, poets, actors and other luminaries associated with AMU at different points in its hundred-years-old history. Here is a short list of freedom fighters and national leaders with which the average Indian will be familiar with. Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan (Khudai Khidmatgar), Hasrat Mohani, the Ali brothers, Maulana Abul Kalam Azad (India’s first education minister), Dr Zakir Hussain (President of India), Hamid Ansari (Vice-President). Included among the luminaries from the world of art, literature and sports are Saadat Hasan Manto, Ali Sardar Jafri, K.A. Abbas, Asrarul Haque Majaz, Naseeruddin Shah, Saeed Jaffrey, Shakeel Badayuni, Javed Akhtar, Talat Mehmood (playback singer), C.S. Naidu and Syed Mushtaq Ali (cricketers), Olympians Aslam Sher Khan, Govinda and Zafar Iqbal.

On a personal note, Wajihuddin records how his own life is among the numerous examples of the success of Sir Syed’s dream. On how a brief stint at AMU transformed a boy from small-town Bihar into a modern Indian Muslim. “I owe my existence to AMU. Had it not been for the three years I spent there, I would not have been the person I am today… AMU opened my eyes to the world”.

That, however, is only one side of the story of an institution which was once referred to as the ‘Oxford of the East’. AMU has had its ups and downs. Wajihuddin, who loves his alma mater but not blindly, does not shy away from drawing attention to the not so pretty side of the picture. 

The role played by a significant section of the students, staff and administration in the movement for the partition of the country on the basis of religion remains a major blot. Between 1938 and 1945, Mohammed Ali Jinnah, the founder of Pakistan visited the AMU campus several times to a rousing reception on each occasion. Though they refused to be cowed down, “the ‘nationalist group’ at Aligarh was ridiculed, humiliated and pooh-poohed by the ‘pro-Pakistani’ section at Aligarh as they were outnumbered by the aggressively dominant (Muslim) League sympathisers”. In 1945, Maulana Azad who was dubbed the “poster boy” of the Congress by Jinnah closely escaped being lynched by the pro-Pakistan students. Post-independence, the same Maulana Azad along with Dr Zakir Hussain and others played a stellar role in helping the AMU community recover from the trauma of its own role in the partition saga. 

In a chapter titled ‘A modern institution or madrassa?’ Wajihuddin draws attention to the problematic ‘madrassanisation’ of AMU. While recognizing the dire need for the modernisation of madrassas across the country, he bemoans the fact that by opening its doors to madrassa products from the early 1980s onward, the AMU campus opened itself to students groomed in orthodox, conservative, insular, even regressive outlooks. This is something “the founder Sir Syed would not have approved of”.

Another chapter of the book titled, ‘Bastion of liberalism or hotbed of Islamism?, the author recounts how for long the AMU campus has also been a breeding ground for various Muslim religious outfits including the Tablighi Jamaat and the Jamaat-e-Islami. Though it had a benign agenda at birth in the early 1980s, the banned Students Islamic Movement of India (SIMI), spawned by the Jamaat-e-Islami, emerged from the womb of the AMU. 

“Were Sir Syed to return to his beloved campus, he would not recognize it today—and not only for its physical changes alone,” Wajihuddin writes. But being the optimist that he is, the concluding chapter of the book titled, ‘To the students of AMU’, reminds the present generation that Sir Syed’s mission of founding a modern educational institution was not just to hand out degrees but to impart the spirit of modernism and scientific thinking among Indian Muslims.

“You can take an Alig out of Aligarh but you cannot take Aligarh out of an Alig,” goes the saying. Hopefully the Aligs will read this book and introspect on the role they could play in reorienting AMU towards its original vision and mission.  

The post AMU: Sir Syed’s dream and reality appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Ever since my wife and colleague, Teesta Setalvad and I started publishing the monthly journal, Communalism Combat in mid-1993, we often received a certain advice from a few of our readers. The root of communalism, they said, lies in religion; so, fight religion if you really want to destroy the spring source of communalism.

Teesta and I however always had difficulty with such a proposition for reasons of principle, lessons from history and our own lived experience. In principle, there is no denying that communalism is about religion-based politics in the pursuit of power. But that does not make communalism a synonym of religion.

In our own context, Mahatma Gandhi, a Hindu, and Maulana Abul Kalam Azad, a Muslim, were highly religious persons in their personal lives. But both consistently pursued secular politics. In sharp contrast was Vinayak Damodar Savarkar, leader of the Hindu Mahasabha, and Mohammed Ali Jinnah, leader of the Muslim League. Secular in their personal life, both practised communal politics – two-nations theory– to the hilt.

Closer to our time, in our own lived experience, we have had some shining examples of believers from different faiths whose commitment to secular politics has been second to none. Can anyone draw up a list of prominent secular activists in India who have risked their life and limb in fighting the communal demon in the past four decades that does not include the names of Fr Cedric Prakash, a devout Christian and Swami Agnivesh, a devout Hindu?

If I remember right, my first and brief encounter with Swami Agnivesh was sometime in the early 1980s at a Janata Party meet a few hours away from what was then Bombay. Included among the items on the meeting’s agenda was election for the party president’s post. (I was there covering the event for the since defunct The Daily newspaper). Chandrashekhar then was the tallest leader in the Janata Party and his re-election as party president seemed a foregone conclusion. The effort, however, was to have him elected unopposed. That’s when the swami threw his hat in the ring, forcing a secret ballot on the party. This made many party leaders, including Chandrashekhar, very annoyed but the swami refused to budge, pull out of the contest. As he explained to us journalists who rushed to hear his take, his point was simple. Since the Janata Party claims to be a democratic party, it should act as one, elect its office bearers in a democratic fashion. I am not fighting to win, I am fighting for a principle, he added. This insistence on a secret ballot did not make him very popular in the party. Evidently, between popularity and principle, the swami chose the latter.

There was no Internet, no email, no mobile connections then and long distance landline calls were quite expensive. So I lost personal contact with Swami Agnivesh. But I stayed in touch with his activities since he was all over the media for his work among bonded labour. The swami came to be nationally and internationally recognised as the founder chairperson of the Bandhua Mukti Morcha (Bonded Labourers Liberation Front). In 1994, he was elected chairperson of the UN Trust Fund on Contemporary Forms of Slavery. Ten years later he was honoured with the Alternative Nobel Prize (Right Livelihood Award).

At the age of 28, a young man born in a Calcutta-based Brahmin family from South India abandoned his name, caste, religion, family and professional career to be henceforth known as Swami Agnivesh. A swami, a sanyasi is normally understood to mean someone who renounces all worldly concerns and undertakes a journey in search of self and God. But the life of a hermit was not for Swami Agnivesh who instead chose the path of what he calls ‘socio-spiritual action’. In other words, he found his God residing amidst the poor, the downtrodden the exploited and the oppressed.

Throughout the 1980s and the early 1990s, I stayed in ‘remote contact’ with the swami  as the mass media regularly reported on his preoccupations, working among bonded labourers, speaking out against child labour, child marriage, discrimination against the girl child, dowry, Sati and all kinds of superstitious beliefs.    

As was only to be expected, a swami such as him would not remain mute witness as a certain brand of politics sought to redefine religion: from a spiritual enterprise to the pursuit of power. For Swami Agnivesh this was nothing short of a “hijack of Hinduism”.  As the growing tide of communalism threatened to swamp secular politics, he found himself in the forefront of the loose coalition of believers, agnostics and atheists in the battle against Hindutva’s hate politics. It was only natural then for me to meet up with Swamiji sooner or later. We did connect sometime in the early 1990s. Since then it has been my privilege to have known him as a dear friend and comrade-in-arms.

Over the years we have shared a common platform on many an occasion. Every time he came to Bombay/Mumbai it was a pleasure exchanging notes on the communal question.  As editors of Communalism Combat, It was our privilege to publish incisive articles that he wrote for our journal from time to time right until late 2012 when financial constraints forced us to cease publication.

Swami Agnivesh’s special contribution to the anti-communal movement lies in the fact that he fought the ‘saffron politics’ of the sangh parivar as a Hindu religious leader dressed up in saffron from head to toe. More important, his battle has been unique because his fight against the mixing up of religion and politics was always part of his larger battle “to rescue God from priestdoms”. Not just Hindu priestdom but all kind of religious orthodoxy and bigotry.

Swami Agnivesh must have addressed Muslim and Christian community gatherings on numerous occasions expressing solidarity, extending support, speaking up against their being targeted by Hindutva. For this reason he continues to be very popular among India’s religious minorities. But this did not mean that he pulled his punches when it came to questioning what is an article of faith for most Muslims and many Christians. I vividly recall that sometime in the 1990s, Swami Agnivesh sent an article for publication in Communalism Combat. It was titled: ‘What kind of a God will burn small children in hell forever?’ We decided to publish it as a cover story in our monthly journal.   

Looking back, I think what brought, and kept, us together over time was our shared understanding that, one, the fight against majority communalism must go hand in hand with fighting minority communalism and, two, fighting communalism must itself be part of the larger battle against orthodoxy, bigotry, intolerance and extremist tendencies in any and every religion.

Also looking back, I suspect that Swami Agnivesh must be harbouring one abiding regret or disappointment. To me he seemed to believe that the battle against the manipulation of Hindu religion by the sangh parivar for political ends was best challenged by a coalition of religious leaders from different communities. For a while he seemed to have found his answer in the common front he formed, comprising of a moulvi a padri and a ‘pandit’: Maulana Wahiduddin Khan, Rev Valson Thampu and Swami Agnivesh. The triad, alas, did not last for long. The reason I think is this. The swami is as head on in his battle to rescue God from priestdom as he is in the struggle to rescue religion from its hijack by cynical politicians. And that’s what I admire most in Swami Agnivesh.

This article was written recently for a forthcoming publication on the Life and Work of Swami Agnivesh

The post Swami Agnivesh, my friend appeared first on SabrangIndia.

(Representational/File) 

Listen, Mister Muslim. You are rightly upset with the verdict of the Supreme Court on the Ayodhya land dispute as it puts faith above law. Not for the first time, secular India has let you down. But truth to tell, you too have let secular India down. In this zero sum game between the Indian state and you, it’s been advantage Hindutva all the way.

This is not to rub salt in your wound. But to point out that Muslims as a community are guilty of the very same thing they are accusing the Supreme Court of: Pitching Shariah law against the Indian Constitution, faith against the law of the land. The rigid, intransigent Islam that our ulema and political leadership continue to preach leaves us little space for manoeuvre or room to negotiate a respectable place for ourselves in a secular-democratic polity. Such inflexibility is bound to land us in the ditch, again and again, be it on the question of a masjid, triple talaq, Muslim Personal Law in general, or the issue of population control.

It’s time for some honest introspection. Was it not us who took to the streets in 1985, protested aggressively against the apex court’s judgment in the Shah Bano case, insisted that Shariah law took precedence over the secular law of the land?

The then Congress government under Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi capitulated and the result was the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986. Faith triumphed over a secular law (Section 125 of the CrPC) and Muslims were euphoric. The consequence: Secular-minded Indians were outraged, while Hindutva organisations grabbed the opportunity to up the ante. If the law can be changed in deference to Muslim religious sentiments, what about Hindu religious sentiments? In a balancing act, the Rajiv government engineered the opening of the locks of the Babri Masjid in Ayodhya. Could it be, Mister Muslim, that in setting a dangerous precedent, we lost the “plot”, not on November 9, 2019 but way back in 1986?

As the Babri Masjid-Ram Janmabhoomi agitation snowballed, thanks to the ulema’s myopia, what should have remained a legal dispute over land turned into a dharam yudh between faiths, a conflict between Ram and Rahim. The militant “mandir wahin banayenge” war-cry of the “Ram Bhakts” was matched by the equally belligerent “once-a-mosque-always-a-mosque” posture of the Muslim leadership. It’s a position that the All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB) upholds even today. The leader of the All-India Majlis Ittehadul-Muslimeen (AIMIM), Asaduddin Owaisi, has recently reiterated: “A mosque belongs to Allah and no Muslim has any right to give or gift it away”. In Islamic Saudi Arabia any number of mosques have been demolished or relocated for road widening and other public purposes. But in secular India, it’s a different Islam.

The escalation of communal conflict well suited the designs of the Sangh Parivar in convincing more and more Hindus that “Babar ki aulad” are preventing the building of a temple at the birth place of Lord Ram. From two seats in the Lok Sabha in 1984, the BJP’s tally shot up to 85 seats in 1989 and 120 seats in 1991. This should have been a wake-up call for Muslims. But as riot after riot claimed more and more Muslim lives, the leadership remained blind to the reality that a state which failed to protect lives was unlikely to save a mosque.

Does anyone recall the statement of the late Atal Bihari Vajpayee a year or two before the demolition: “The mosque is sacred to Muslims, the spot is sacred to us Hindus as the janamsthan of Bhagwan Ram. I appeal to my Muslim brothers. We Hindus will respectfully lift the Babri Masjid brick by brick and re-build it at another spot. You let us build our Ram Mandir there.” The Muslim response: A mosque does not mean four walls but the land on which it stands. In other words, it’s not a question of law but a matter of faith.

Five months before the Babri masjid was demolished (December 1992), in an article published in the now defunct weekly Sunday Observer, yours truly had argued why in the interest of the minority community and the national interest, Muslims should unilaterally hand over the Babri Masjid, either to the president of the Indian republic or the Supreme Court. Let the chief custodians of secular India decide whatever they thought to be in the best interests of national unity and communal amity. The article reminded Muslims that the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991, offered statutory protection against any future agitations concerning all other mosques in the country. In response, I got a mouthful from even secular Hindu friends who asserted: “The Babri Masjid is not just a property of Muslims. It is a symbol of secular India. Who are you to gift it away?”

The post Listen, Muslim Bhai appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Burhaan Kinu/HT PHOTO

With a constitution bench of the Supreme Court due to pronounce its verdict on “one of the most important cases in the world” (chief justice designate, Sharad Arvind Bobde) anytime before November 17, it feels good listening to sounds of music emanating from all quarters.

Surprise, surprise. In an apparent U-turn, the RSS is asking all Indians to “wholeheartedly support” the impending ruling of the apex court in the Babri Masjid-Ramjanmabhoomi case. Also singing the same tune are several Muslim religious and social organisations, Muslim MPs and intellectuals. What’s more in the last few days, similar sentiments have been expressed at several joint Hindu-Muslim meets, many of them initiated by the BJP, RSS and VHP .

Needless to say all must support and celebrate this new-found love for peace at all costs, respect for the rule of law and the verdict of the highest court in the land. However, considering how much hatred has been generated, how much blood has been spilled in the course of the dispute over this piece of land in Ayodhya, pardon my doubts over the durability of this belated bonhomie.

It is worth recalling that the judgment of the Allahabad High Court in 2010 was prompted by sentimental and political considerations rather than legal ones whereby Hindus got something and so did Muslims. The higher judiciary’s curious take-some-concede-some approach proved to be unacceptable to Hindu and Muslim litigants and therefore the appeal in the apex court.

If legal considerations are the sole criteria, the Supreme Court is unlikely to deliver a please-all, win-win ruling, one party is going to win the case while the other will lose. What then?

Scenario 1: The verdict goes in favour of a Ram Mandir.

In such an eventuality, there is little doubt that even if feeling aggrieved a large majority of ordinary Muslims will simultaneously heave a sigh of relief. The reason is simple: Far too much Muslim blood has been spilt. Even if the verdict is in Muslims’ favour, who will dare re-build the mosque in Ayodhya? Which political party will support it? Which Muslim will go to offer prayers there?

But what about the All India Muslim Personal Law Board with its consistent, intransigent, once-a-mosque-always a mosque stance even while reiterating they will respect the court’s verdict? Will the ulema petition for a review of the judgement of a ruling by a 5-member constitution bench if it rules in favour of a Ram Mandir? Or will they seek solace in their helplessness given a majoritarian dispensation?  Or will they at least now introspect over their own contribution in the astronomical growth of hardline Hindutva since the mid-1980s?  

Scenario 2: The verdict goes in favour of the Babri Masjid.

Will the sangh parivar stop at extending “whole-hearted support” to the highest judiciary? What happens to it’s over three-decades-old mandir wahin banayenge vow? What happens to RSS chief Mohan Bhagwat’s repeated reiteration since 2017: “The Ram temple will be built at the Ramjanmabhoomi and nothing else will be constructed on that land.” Perhaps, the sangh parivar is confident of the apex court’s ruling in favour of the Ram Mandir. Or, perhaps it has been assured by the Modi government that, as earlier demanded by the RSS supremo, in case of an unfavourable judgment it will bring a new law to nullify the court’s verdict. Which political party will today oppose the passage of a law for Ram Mandir?

Remember, above all, for the sangh parivar the Ramjanmabhoomi is a “matter of faith”. And recall, there is a precedent of the Indian Parliament choosing to place faith above law. In 1986, the then Congress government led by Rajiv Gandhi ensured the passage of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Bill, 1986. It was in deference to the Muslim insistence – following the apex court’s verdict in favour of Shah Bano — that the faith-based Shariah Law takes precedence over the law of the land. If the law can be changed for Muslims, why can’t the same be done to respect Hindu sentiments? This has been the RSS parivar’s running argument since the launch of the Ramjanmabhoomi agitation since 1986.

Opinion among Muslims is today divided over what they should do in case the Supreme Court rules in their favour. A section among them has recently been arguing that Muslims should go for a negotiated settlement. Let Hindus build a Ram temple at the disputed spot in Ayodhya in return for certain assurances (from whom?), including the assurance that no future dispute will be raised in respect of any other mosque in the country. A smaller number is arguing that Muslims should unconditionally give up their claim as that would earn them a lot of Hindu goodwill.

Alas, however well intentioned, the time for earning Hindu goodwill, I believe, is long past. Five months before the Babri masjid was demolished (December 1992), in an article published by the now defunct weekly Sunday Observer, I had argued why in the interest of the minority  community and the national interest Muslims should voluntarily hand away their legal claim to the Babri Masjid. Not to any constituent of the sangh parivar but to the President of the Indian Republic or the Supreme Court. Let them decide whatever they thought to be in the best interest of national unity and communal amity. The article reminded Muslims that the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991 offers statutory protection against any future agitations concerning all other mosques in the country.

In response, I got a mouthful from several secular Hindu friends who asserted: The Babri Masjid is not simply a property of some Muslims but also a symbol of secular India. Who the hell are you (me) to talk of gifting it away? Around the same time, at a small informal gathering of Muslims in Mumbai, friend Gulam Peshimam made a suggestion: “Let us Muslims dismantle the Babri masjid brick by brick and rebuild it some other location. Let Hindus build their Ram Mandir at the disputed spot”. He was shouted down by the rest of the gathering, warning that he will be stoned by fellow Muslims if he made any such suggestion in public.

Given the backdrop of the then simmering secular outrage over the Rajiv Gandhi’s capitulation to Muslim fundamentalists, such a unilateral gesture then could perhaps have saved precious Muslim lives and properties. Perhaps it would have gone a long way in reversing the forward march of militant Hindutva. Perhaps Indian democracy would have been spared the systematic subversion of its institutions. (There is no sign of any court order for punishment of those responsible for the criminal demolition of the Babri mosque, or for the countrywide anti-Muslim violence in its immediate aftermath). Perhaps the country would not have ended up in today’s majoritarian dispensation.

A bit of introspection now might help Muslims realise how, thanks to their own inflexibility and short sightedness, they have contributed to a situation where today they find themselves in a no-win position, irrespective of which way the impending verdict goes. Having failed to engage with secular-minded Hindus, Indian Muslims have now to contend with the votaries of Hindu Rashtra.

javedanand@gmail.com

The post Oh, Ayodhya! It’s time for Muslims to introspect appeared first on SabrangIndia.

 
Within hours of his assurance of a new dawn, however, a handful of his bhakts from Gurugram, a city within shouting distance of the national capital, and another one from Bihar dared him to walk the talk. Will Modi now match words with deed?
 
Mohammad Barkat Alam, 25, a tailor, was returning to his shop around 10 p.m. after namaz at the local Jama Masjid on Saturday when half-a-dozen men accosted him in a public place. They flung his skull cap to the ground, demanded that he chant ‘Jai Shri Ram’ and ‘Bharat Mata ki jai’. On refusing to do so he was thrashed with a stick. According to news reports when he sought help others present on the scene just laughed at him.
 
After keeping him at the police station for six hours on Saturday and Sunday, the police registered a case on charges of promoting religious hatred, causing hurt, criminal intimidation and unlawful assembly. We will now be told that the law will take its own course and the guilty will be punished. Believe it if you will for that is not what happened in the five years of ‘sabka saath, sabka vikaas’.
 
The very next day, a man named Rajiv Yadav shot at a Muslim youth, Mohammed Qasim, and told him, “Go to Pakistan”. In a video shared widely on social media, Qasim later narrated that none of the people witnessing the incident came to his aid.
 
To his credit, the newly-elected BJP MP from Delhi, Gautam Gambhir put out a tweet describing the Gurugram incident as “deplorable” and called for “exemplary action” against the culprits. For this, the cricketer-turned-politician was targeted by trolls while a section of BJP leaders expressed concern that his condemnation would be used against the BJP.

What can, or will, Modi do? He can choose to say or do nothing, as earlier, when Muslims were lynched by ‘cow vigilantes’ and other ‘desh bhakts’. Recall Mohsin Khan (Maharashtra), Mohammad Akhlaq (U.P.), Pehlu Khan (Rajasthan), Hafiz Junaid (Haryana), Murtuza Ansari and Sirabuddin Ansari (Jharkhand), Hafizul Shaikh (West Bengal), Mohammed Riyaz (Karnataka), Afrazul Khan (Rajasthan). Or, he can do something altogether new: take one symbolic step to kindle hope in the hearts of India’s hapless Muslims.
 
Alam was targeted simply because he was a Muslim, the skull cap on his head his only sin. How about Modi and his party president, Amit Shah leading a road-show in Gurugram, skull-cap on their heads in a symbolic gesture? How about him holding hands with Alam at the rally to declare: Alam is us, those who attacked him for no reason are against us? Isn’t that what Modi meant when he declared on May 25 that “nobody should be ‘other’ for us”? 
 
Is this too much to ask of a leader widely believed to be bold and decisive, a leader from whom one can expect the unexpected? We will soon know. But we do have examples before us of how leaders elsewhere respond to hate crimes in their midst.
 
In January 2001, a day after a black youth was stabbed to death by two white supremacists in Norway, the then Prime Minister, Jens Stoltenberg, accompanied by Oslo´s bishop, Gunnar Stålsett, and the city´s mayor, Per Ditlev Simonsen, led a protest march in Oslo, the national capital. “This is not our way, we shall not tolerate hate crimes,” vowed the prime minister at the rally. The lead taken by him triggered countrywide rallies and cultural performances denouncing hate crimes.
   
Or, we need only recall the spontaneous words of the Prime Minister of New Zealand, Jacinda Kate Laurell Ardern, in the immediate aftermath of the terrorist attacks on mosques in Christchurch in March this year. “Many of those who have been directly affected by their violence may be migrants,” she said. “They may even be refugees here… They have chosen to make New Zealand their home. And it is their home. They are us. The persons who have perpetuated this violence against us (emphasis added) is not. They have no place in New Zealand”.
 
By her several symbolic gestures – a headscarf covering her head while consoling her country’s Muslims, opening her speech in Parliament by reciting verses from the Qur’an – Ms Ardern gave a new meaning of “us” and “them”. In the process she found her way into the hearts of millions of Muslims across the globe.

That more than anything explains the response of many Muslims in Mumbai when Islamic extremists perpetrated their terror act against Christians, and others, in Sri Lanka on Easter Day, just a month after Christchurch. The victims of the bombings in Sri Lanka are us, Muslims who targeted them are not us.
 
Modi’s nobody-should-be-‘other’-for-us statement may remind some of Ardern. But for India’s Muslims, who have been hounded and wounded by the words and deeds of his party and parivar wedded to Hindutva, whose very foundation is built on the “us” vs “them” divide, it will take more than sound-bytes to restore some hope, let alone trust.
 

The post Will Modi walk the talk? appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Was Atal Behari Vajpayee “a right man in the wrong party”, a highly sensitive and humane poet who knew the true meaning of insaniyat (humaneness) and samvedna (sensitiveness), as many would have it? Or should one recall the former prime minister’s own words: “The Sangh is my soul”? 
 
One way of answering the question is to refer back to where the BJP leader stood when the sangh parivar bared its own “soul” in 1992 – when the Babri Masjid was razed to the ground, and again in 2002 — when Vajpayee was prime minister while Gujarat’s Muslims were subjected to unprecedented mass crimes under the watch of the state’s then chief minister, Narendra Modi. (https://www.sabrang.com/cc/archive/2002/marapril/index.html).
 
In the Liberhan Commission report (https://www.thehindu.com/news/Report-of-the-Liberhan-Ayodhya-Commission-of-Inquiry-Full-Text/article16894055.ece)
on the role of various actors in the Ramjanmabhoomi movement that culminated in the demolition of the centuries-old mosque, Justice Manmohan Singh Liberhan was unsparing in his damnation of Vajpayee as being among the “pseudo-moderate elements of the Sangh Parivar” who provided “an acceptable veneer to the less popular decisions and a facade for the brash members of the Sangh Parivar” and who “cannot be given the benefit of the doubt and exonerated of culpability”.
 
There’s more. Unlike other BJP stalwarts like LK Advani and Murli Manohar Joshi, who watched the Babri Masjid being brought down in Ayodhya, Vajpayee was in Delhi on December 6, 1992. While he subsequently maintained that he was neither present at the demolition nor had any prior knowledge of what the sangh parivar had planned for that day, a video recorded by the intelligence agencies which surfaced in 2004 (https://scroll.in/video/882331/watch-when-atal-bihari-vajpayee-spoke-of-levelling-the-ground-in-his-speech-to-kar-sevaks-in-1992) raised serious doubts about his pretence at innocence.
 
Again, his role when Gujarat burned in 2002 raises serious questions about what happened to the poet’s insaaniyat and samvedna when it counted the most. During his visit to Gujarat in April 2002, he called upon chief minister Modi to perform his “rajdharma” and lamented over what face he as prime minister will show the world. But in Goa soon thereafter, holding Muslims themselves responsible for triggering the Gujarat carnage, he demanded to know why it was that “wherever there are Muslims, there is extremism”. (https://thewire.in/politics/let-us-not-forget-the-glimpse-we-got-of-the-real-vajpayee-when-the-mask-slipped).
 
Here below are excerpts from the Liberhan commission report:
 
“166. The pseudo-moderate elements within the Parivar
 
“166.1. The conundrum which fixed the Commission during its long hearings and extensive fact finding efforts was to reconcile the stance of the public face of the Sangh Parivar with the actions which defied law, morality and political ethics.
 
“166.2. On one hand, the leaders like AB Vajpayee, Murli Manohar Joshi and LK Advani, who are the undeniable public face and leaders of the BJP and thus of the Parivar, constantly protested their innocence and denounced the events of December 1992. Appearing as a witness before the Commission, Advani sought to reiterate his anguish at the demolition of the disputed structure and was at pains to state that he had never made any inflammatory statement, even during his Rath Yatras.
 
“166.3. On the other hand it stands established beyond doubt that the events of the day were neither spontaneous nor unplanned nor an unforeseen overflowing of the people’s emotions, nor the result of a foreign conspiracy as some overly imaginative people have tried to suggest.
 
“166.4. In such a case, the logical questions that beg to be answered are whether the pseudo-moderates knew what was going on, whether they were in fact the prime movers of the show, whether they were in control of the Parivar and finally, could they have done anything to prevent the demolition and subsequent violence?
 
“166.5. The Commission, having had the benefit of tens of thousands of pages worth of press reports, books, official records and documentation and having analysed many hours of audio and video recordings and having observed the witnesses, is unable to hold even these pseudo-moderates innocent of any wrongdoings.
 
“166.6. It cannot be assumed even for a moment that LK Advani, AB Vajpayee or MM Joshi did not know the designs of the Sangh Parivar. Even though these leaders were deemed and used by the Parivar as the publicly acceptable faces and the articulated voices of the Parivar and thus used to reassure the cautious masses, they were party to the decisions which had been taken.
 
“166.7. These people, who may be called pseudo-moderates could not have defied the mandate of the Sangh Parivar, and more specifically the diktat of the RSS, without having bowed out of public life as leaders of the BJP. They were not in control of the RSS and had absolutely no influence over the direction that they had been told to follow. The pseudo-moderate leadership of the BJP was as much a tool in the hands of the RSS as any other organization or entity and these leaders stood to inherit the political successes engineered by the RSS.
 
“166.8. The BJP was and remains an appendage of the RSS which had the purpose only of providing an acceptable veneer to the less popular decisions and a facade for the brash members of the Sangh Parivar. The much repeated and much denied remarks attributed to Govindacharya who called Vajpayee a Mukhota or a mask may be more appropriately applied to the BJP’s top leadership at the time collectively. Without leaders like Joshi, Advani and Vajpayee, the RSS might have been able to achieve de facto clout, but would not have been able to legitimize its hold on the Indian system by translating that clout into political success.
 
“166.9. The BJP was therefore an essential ingredient in the Parivar smorgasbord and essential to capture de jure power and authority, in furtherance of its goals of establishing the Hindu Rashtra.
 
“166.10. Be that as it may, the evidence that has been led before the Commission does not show that the pseudo-moderates were in charge of the situation, much less capable of changing the course that the campaign was taking. It stands proved that the pseudo-moderates were charged with the task of projecting the RSS’s decisions in the best possible light and to translate them into terms which would be acceptable to the general masses. The role of the BJP pseudo-moderates thereafter came to an end, and beyond acting as translators, could do little more.
 
“166.11. These leaders cannot however be given the benefit of the doubt and exonerated of culpability. The defence of “superior orders” has historically never been available, and least of all to those whom the people have trusted and voted into power.
 
“166.12. These leaders have violated the trust of the people and have allowed their actions to be dictated not by the voters but by a small group of individuals who have used them to implement agendas unsanctioned by the will of the common person. There can be no greater betrayal or crime in a democracy and this Commission has no hesitation in condemning these pseudo-moderates for their sins of omission”.
In his recommendations, Justice Liberhan noted:  “The events of December 6, 1992 and the many subsequent events have already shown to the nation the danger and the disruptive potential of allowing the intermixing of religion and politics. It is imperative therefore for the people, acting through their elected representatives, to undertake an objective study of whether or not the existing constitutional, statutory and institutional safeguards have proven to be efficacious. It seems highly probable from a cursory study of recent affairs that the measures adopted so far have been overly optimistic and have not entirely succeeded in providing secular governance, unaffected and uncoloured by religious or regional affiliations”.
 
Justice Liberhan’s findings and recommendations were ignored just as the recommendations of numerous previous judicial commissions of enquiry. Meanwhile, India has “progressed” from a Vajpayee to a Modi and the sangh parivar it appears is no longer in need of a mukhota.
 

The post Atal Behari Vajpayee: A saint and a sinner appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Image: NDTV

Imagine the scene. Its January 26, Republic Day. In a Muslim neighbourbood of some small town, residents are setting up chairs at a chowk named after Veer Abdul Hamid, in preparation of hoisting the national flag. It was Havildar Abdul Hamid, remember, whose act of extraordinary courage and sacrifice gave the Indian army a crucial edge during the 1965 Indo-Pak war. For this he was posthumously awarded the Param Vir Chakra, the highest military honour any Indian can aspire for.

Imagine the symbolism embedded in this scenario. Away from the media gaze, Indian Muslims are quietly displaying their respect for the national tricolor, recalling with pride the sacrifice for the country of a fellow Muslim. What more “proof” does one need of Muslims’ love for their motherland?

This, however, does not fit the image of the Indian Muslim that the RSS has been projecting before the nation for nearly a century now. Hindus alone are the legitimate inhabitants of India, wrote the most revered Guru of the sangh parivar, MS Golwalkar in his We, or Our Nationhood Defined in the late 1930s. Some two decades later in his Bunch of Thoughts, he warned Hindus to beware of Indian Muslims, their “enemy number one”. The internal enemy, he pointed out, was worse than any external enemy. For the sangh parivar the Indian Muslim remains a “Pakistani within” whose patriotism is forever suspect.

On a separate note, as is well-known Golwalkar and the entire sangh parivar were staunchly opposed to the national tricolor. “Indian tricolor will never be respected and owned by the Hindus”, Golwalkar wrote in the RSS mouthpiece Organiser in 1947. “The word three in itself is an evil, and a flag having three colours will certainly produce a very bad psychological effect and is injurious to a country”, he added. Golwalkar also hated the Indian Constitution.

Accordingly, the RSS refused to unfurl, pay respects to the tricolor for decades after independence. In recent years, however, political expediency has dictated that the sangh parivar “respect” and “own” the tricolor. And now that it “owns” the national flag, how can it tolerate the sight of Muslims affirming their “co-ownership” of the same?   

Understand this and you have a clue to the likely perpetrators and their motive in triggering the communal clash that erupted last Friday – Republic Day — in Kasganj town of UP. 

Even as Kasganj struggles to return to normal one thing appears certain: There was nothing spontaneous in the flare-up on January 26 in a town with no history of Hindu-Muslim conflict. It was a riot by design, a pre-meditated act with deliberate intent to provoke Muslims.

Consider this. On the morning of Republic Day, Muslims from Badu Nagar (a Muslim-predominant neighbourhood) in Kasganj are lining up chairs at the Veer Abdul Hamid chowk, in preparation of hoisting the national flag. Out of nowhere, a “tiranga rally” with activists of the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) and the Akhil Bharatiya Vidyarthi Parishad (ABVP) riding motor-cycles descend on Badu Nagar. Police say no permission was asked or given for the rally.  

The bikers demanded that the chairs be removed for them to pass through. The Muslims instead invited them to join the locals in the hoisting of the flag. The bikers then resorted to raising provocative slogans which have been videographed: “Hindi-Hindu Hindustan! “Katwe bhago Pakistan!”, “Jai Shri Ram!”! “Hindustan mein rehna hoga toh Vande Matram kehna hoga!” (India is for Hindus! Muslims go to Pakistan! Jai Sri Ram! Chant Vande Mataram if you wish to stay in India).

Some news reports have quoted the VHP-ABVP activists as alleging that Muslims raised pro-Pakistan slogans. The Muslims say this is an outright lie adding it even defies common sense to suggest they would raise pro-Pakistan slogans at a function they themselves have organized to salute the national tricolour.
On Friday morning the provocation had its intended effect. In the heated argument that followed, finding themselves outnumbered the VHP, ABVP activists left the scene. Reportedly the bikers who were then joined by others descended on Bilram Gate area about a kilometer away from Badu Nagar. It is here that reportedly both Hindus and Muslims resorted to firing in which two persons – Chandan Gupta and Naushad — received bullet injuries. While Gupta died in the hospital, Naushad was moved to a hospital in Aligarh where he is undergoing treatment.   

The situation took a turn for the worse on Saturday morning following a highly provocative speech during the cremation of Gupta by Rajveer Singh, BJP’s MP from the Etah constituency. Immediately after Gupta’s cremation, mobs selectively set Muslim shops and vehicles on fire. By Saturday evening, just when the administration claimed the situation was under control three more vehicles were torched.

On Sunday, the Yogi Adityanath government announced compensation of Rs. 20 lakh to be paid to the parents of Chandan Gupta. No compensation has been declared for Naushad or for others injured or for those whose property has been destroyed.

The UP police meanwhile have formed a Special Investigation Team (SIT) to probe the matter. An impartial probe into a criminal incident requires that the crime be explored from all possible angles. Here are two possible motives that the SIT should consider exploring. One, the “Hindu nationalists” deliberately disrupted the flag unfurling ceremony by Muslims as it does not sit well with their agenda of constantly demonizing Indian Muslims, projecting them as pro-Pakistani, anti-nationals. Two, could the communal conflict be part of the sangh parivar’s rehearsal for the 2019 polls?

Looking at how the incident is now being exploited to the hilt by Hindutva’s hate-mongers on the social media, it seems clear that the Kasganj flare-up has served the intended purpose. Twisting the tale hyperactive trolls are busy peddling their propaganda that Muslims opposed a “Tiranga Rally”, refused to sing Vande Matram, raised pro-Pakistan slogans and therefore their nationalism is suspect.  

The post Message from Kasganj: Muslims, damned if they unfurl the tricolour, damned if they don’t appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Amit Dave/Reuters
 

The post Haj subsidy: Inaction of Muslim leaders allowed BJP to perpetuate bogey of minority appeasement appeared first on SabrangIndia.