Secular props

It is pretty much well known among independent bloggers and twitter users which side of the political divide do the homegrown secularists lean towards. And it should not be a secret to the others either for they have hardly done it subtly. On every possible occasion the secularists have done all they could to prop up and sell us a secular lemon for our leader.

Their joy knew no bounds when the UPA formation took oath to office in 2004. Sonia Gandhi, the quiet suffering, all sacrificing widow was anointed the undisputed queen of secularism. Manmohan Singh, an allegedly honest man, was foisted on us as our PM. One need not recount the suffering our nation has been going through since then. Both of these secular props have failed every leadership test there is. It didn't bother them that Manmohan Singh and Sonia Gandhi employed questionable means to survive no confidence motion in 2008, a grinning epidemic swept national TV studios and Singh was anointed "King". Omar Abdullah's hate filled speech in the parliament didn't stop them from declaring him "India's Obama". The prince, Rahul Gandhi too threw his weight behind him making him CM for J&K. This "Indian Obama" too has failed miserably and Kashmir is now slipping away from our hands.

The nation has been facing countless grave challenges since the secular props took office, but they continue to dither. Political calculations trump national interest. Many ovaries burst in excitement every time Rahul Gandhi exploits a photo-op, but editorial comments are missing on his absent leadership. Shady characters continue in youth Congress even after Rahul Gandhi promising to change the system. And there's hardly anything to write home about the young Congress leaders. There are countless other examples.

Every single "leader" sold to us by the secularists has been a spectacular failure. Lemons all.

AFSPA debate

There is quite a bit that is wrong with the secular debate on AFSPA. NDTV had one recently (see here). Almost all points of views were represented though adequacy of some may be debated. The trigger for this debate is the alleged human rights violation of the armed forces. The human rights brigade has had phenomenal success is hijacking every important issue facing us today, but lets not go there.

It is interesting to watch secularists debate. This particular debate began with the host establishing the human rights violation angle. In their opening comments, army men in the show quickly put things back in perspective. This necessitated a change of course putting the focus back on human rights angle. Sajjad Lone helped do this with his stories with some able help from representatives of "civil citizenry". Enter Kanchan Gupta who put things back in perspective citing statistics that debunk the main charged hurled at our army. Turns out 97% of these alleged violations were baseless. Says who? How about the government and NHRC, among others. So now what is a secularist to do? Well, turn back to the human angle and that's precisely what happened.

Now it is alright to debate the army's accountability. It would carry weight if it was based on large scale violations and heavy handedness on the army's part. But, demanding the removal of AFSPA based on aberrations is where the secularists lose the plot. Myopic pursuits hardly help anyone's cause. The army has never been above law and will never be, unlike or neighbor.

The debate did touch upon something important but did not go further as it should have. The army is called in as a last resort, when the government, police, CRPF have all failed to control a situation. Rules and laws that apply in a normal situation have failed. The situation facing us in J&K is hardly normal. It is warlike situation. Now if you bring in the army under such circumstances and subject it to laws the local police is expected to operate under is utterly fruitless. Makes one wonder what is the "civil citizenry" batting for. A jihadi is not burdened by laws, he does not need an OK from a magistrate to fire at our army. Very easy to guess who is in a favorable situation.

The army is a lethal fighting machine guarding us from external threats. It should not be used to tackle internal situations. With political incompetence necessitating its use in J&K it should be empowered to carry out its job effectively. The AFSPA is that cover. To subject it to criminal laws is to neuter it completely. It will have an adverse effect on its operations.

"Hindu terror"

That is the new buzz in mainstream media these days. Apparently, investigative agencies believe that certain right wing Hindu groups may be behind Mecca masjid (Hyderabad) and Ajmer Sharif blasts. It seems picking up people with Hindu names for interrogation is proof enough of "Hindu terror" existence. This is more an effort to counter popular perception world over about Islam and its band of Jihadi terrorists taking innocent lives and causing much damage to property on almost every continent. Islamic terror is the name given to that phenomenon and it not without reason.

Islamic terror has entered every serious discussion across the world since 9/11 occurred. Attacks by Islamic Jihadis in India, US, France, Spain, Russia, China, indeed parts of almost every continent on earth has everyone taking of terror. And everyone believes it is Islamic terror. Reasons -

1. Every Jihadi quotes verses from Koran or orders from religious leaders to justify their attacks.
2. There is no dearth of Islamic religious leaders exhorting the faithful to wage Jihad in the name if Islam. They claim it is incumbent upon every Muslim to spread Islam all over the world and crush everything coming in the way.
3. There is also no shortage of Muslims willing to take up Jihad, sacrifice innocent people and themselves to spread Islam.
4. Muslim parents sending their children to wage Jihad can be found in plenty. They insist it is their duty.
5. Educated, well off Muslims who have spent significant part of their lives in western or non-Islamic countries have been joining the rank of Jihadis. Religion is the connection.
6. Almost every terrorist attack has been carried out by Muslims.
7. Jihadis also seek to threaten sovereignty of nations.

We have witnessed this for decades in India. The Indian Mujahideen sent lengthy e-mails quoting Koran to justify their acts. What other logical conclusion could be drawn in face of these facts? Yet "secularists" hesitate; indeed chide anyone mentioning "Islamic terror".

However, all of this is missing from "Hindu terror". Hindu political or religious leaders calling for terrorism? Absent. Sanction for terror in Hindu religious scriptures? Absent. Sanction for terrorism in Hindu society? Absent. LeT, HuJI, AQ like terror groups by Hindus? Absent. Existence of "Hindu terror" world over? Absent. And this despite suffering Islamic terror for decades in modern times. But, "Hindu terror" it is! If talking of Islamic terrorism hurts Muslim sentiments, wouldn't Hindus be upset too? This consideration is clearly missing and casts doubt on intentions behind this attempt.

And how do "secularists" support their claim? Sadhvi Pragya Thakur, Col. Purohit and other Hindus under investigation. It matter less if the charges have'nt been proven yet. On the contrary, the case against them has been weakening with every passing day. All attempts to find some terror connection to them have failed so far. It riles every "secularist" up to learn many Muslims picked up for interrogation are eventually let go for lack of evidence. However, they couldn't be bothered if Hindu connections cannot be proved and continue to be in jail. But attempts to sell the "Hindu terror" theory must continue. How else will "communal" vs. "secular" debate continue? How else will Muslims be portrayed as victims?

Greetings to Gujarat on Swarnim Jayanti

Warm greetings to Gujarat on Swarnim Jayanti. Congratulations to Narendra Modi on bringing about change in Gujarat and taking it to the top in development. Best wishes to the people and CM Narendra Modi for the future.

About Swarnim Gujarat.

Shariah was never in India

Islam was brought to India by the invading Mughals and propagated with force. The natives were converted with force alright, but the invaders found it monumentally difficult to inculcate conduct in compliance with the Hadits or Shariah. Local customs and practices continued to be followed and Shariah could never be imposed on the converts. After all, it is difficult to change centuries old practices in the first place and that with something that was devised 1400 years ago in a far off foreign land much to the frustration of the Mughals. Try as they might – as Aurangazeb did – to impose the Islamic way of life, it was simply too difficult to force a foreign way of life.

One of the founders of Jamia Milia Islamia (and eventually it’s Vice-Chancellor), Prof. M. Mujeeb, records in his book Indian Muslims, that Shariah could never be enforced in India. And with the wane of Mughal rule after Aurangazeb, Shariah became even more irrelevant. The British began imposing laws that were far, indeed the opposite of Shariah.

The Khilafat movement was the fillip the orthodoxy needed and it brought them back to the table. Now the movement itself fizzled of course when the Caliphate was abolished in 1924, but significant momentum was gained. That led to evangelist movements to spread Islam and ‘purify’ it which in turn eventually led to the demand for Muslim Personal Law. Until then, Muslims all over India were governed by local Hindu customs and laws.

Muslims in Malabar and South Canara were followed the Marumakkathayam and Aliyasanthana laws. Local Hindu laws were followed by Bohras, Memons of Kutch, Khojas. Similar was the case in U.P. It was no different in Punjab, North West Frontier Province and other places. In fact, here’s Dr. Ambedkar countering Muslims members of the Constituent Assembly demanding an exclusive law for the Muslims alone –

My first observation would be to state that members who put forth these
amendments say that the Muslim personal law, so far as this country was
concerned, was immutable and uniform through the whole of India. Now I wish to
challenge that statement. I think most of my friends who have spoken on this
amendment have quite forgotten that up to 1935 the North-West Frontier Province
was not subject to the Shariat Law. It followed the Hindu Law in the matter of
succession and in other matters, so much so that it was in 1939 that the Central
Legislature had to come into the field and to abrogate the application of the
Hindu Law to the Muslims of the North-West Frontier Province and to apply the
Shariat Law to them. That is not all.
My honourable friends have forgotten,
that, apart from the North-West Frontier Province, up till 1937 in the rest of
India, in various parts, such as the United Provinces, the Central Provinces and
Bombay, the Muslims to a large extent were governed by the Hindu Law in the
matter of succession. In order to bring them on the plane of uniformity with
regard to the other Muslims who observed the Shariat Law, the Legislature had to
intervene in 1937 and to pass an enactment applying the Shariat Law to the rest
of India.
I am also informed by my friend, Shri Karunakara Menon, that in
North Malabar the Marumakkathayam Law applied to all-not only to Hindus but also
to Muslims. It is to be remembered that the Marumakkathayam Law is a Matriarchal
form of law and not a Partriarchal form of law.
The Mussulmans, therefore,
in North Malabar were up to now following the Marumakkathyam law. It is
therefore no use making a categorical statement that the Muslim law has been an
immutable law which they have been following from ancient times. That law as
such was not applicable in certain part sand it has been made applicable ten
years ago. Therefore if it was found necessary that for the purpose of evolving
a single civil code applicable to all citizens irrespective of their religion,
certain portions of the Hindus, law, not because they were contained in Hindu
law but because they were found to be the most suitable, were incorporated into
the new civil code projected by article 35, I am quite certain that it would not
be open to any Muslim to say that the framers of the civil code had done great
violence to the sentiments of the Muslim community. [Link]

But the Muslim Personal Law, hoisted on India in 1937, itself is not fully compliant with Shariah. The law board is divided from within and has split a few times with different sects and women forming their own boards. And when you learn that few Muslims abide by it, it becomes clear that the demand for Shariah is a political tool for the orthodoxy to remain relevant and to seek concessions from the state and most importantly, to counter uniform civil code as mandated by the Constitution (article 44) which states "The State shall endeavour to secure for the citizens a uniform civil code throughout the territory of India." The demand for Shariah or personal law is retrograde, backward looking and contradicts our Constitution.

(Much of the above can be found in Arun Shourie's A Secular Agenda).

"a mind with a secular bent"

The recent Swiss referendum to ban constructions of new minarets has riled every "mind with a secular bent". One such mind, Vishnu Som of the NDTV, declared -

"It represents a fundamental threat to millions of Muslims in our country" [Link]

It would seem strange that someone would declare a ban which is the result of a democratic referendum in a sovereign country and which is applicable only within the country's borders to be a fundamental threat to Muslims of another country. And this question was rightly asked by Nitin and others (follow the debate here). The response from Vishnu was unsatisfactory to begin with and entirely typical of "a mind with secular bent". His answer -

"This is as easy to comprehend as it gets." (Complete answer here)

What he seems to imply here is that the issue is so simple only a fool could not comprehend the threat to Muslims. The long, meandering response is anything but an answer. Instead it is a "secular mind" wondering why "right wingers" fail to get it. And Vishnu is guilty of doing the same things he accuses others are doing. In his response he says -

"I cannot tolerate such a generalisation and cannot tolerate people who believe that to be the truth. And it is generalisations like this which represent a fundamental threat to Muslims in India and around the world." [Link]

He disapproves of generalisations yet he paints all those who criticized his views as having a "right-wing edge". So any view that is not congruent to that of a "secular mind" is automatically "right-wing". And the connotations associated with "right-wing" are well known in India. Ergo, all contrary views are invalid. Only Vishu's, possessing a "secular mind", are correct. Indeed in this very first comment he sets a prerequisite to win any debate, one needs "a mind with a secular bend" to understand what he said. After this a "right-winger" can never win.

Another thing that's typical of a "secular mind" is the desire to jump to speak on behalf of the Muslims. If the Indian Muslims feel threatened by something that happened to Muslims elsewhere, let them say so, why should Vishnu feel compelled to do so? The Indian Muslims are capable and have the necessary freedom to do so. Indian Muslims are Indian, Swiss Muslims are Swiss and sovereignty of nations must be respected.

Much of what I feel has been articulated very well here, here and here. This is a very good example of the techniques the left uses when debating, declare your's is the right way, label opponents as "right-wingers", continue arguing "right-wing" is wrong hence anything it says is invalid and declare victory -

"Enough of the great minaret debate. Horrified by the right wing wall I ran into. New subject today ... Will tweet later today." [Link]

Perpetuating stereotypes

The characters that appear on mainstream media debates are nothing more than stereotypes of respective segments of society. And what goes on during these debates does nothing to dispel them. Instead, stereotypes are only reinforced. It would be a mistake to think this is an innocent phenomenon. Rather it is by design to keep the secular vs. communal debate alive.

The only ones that ever represent the "Muslim voice" in the television studios are the fatwa dispensing Mullahs. None of the other well meaning ones ever seem to get invited. And when there is an outrage against the extreme views of the Mullahs, the secular kind ask - why are the Muslims forced to prove their patriotism? They have suddenly found use for the non fatwa reading Muslims. Feigning naivete, the secular kind think the criticism is directed at all Muslims in general. Similar is the case when seeking opinions from the "other side". Groups like the Ram Sene seem to represent Hindus because they fit the secular idea of a fundamentalist. Over 60 years of Independence and we still have the same charade going on.