The Godmother of India

Thanks a lot to all the members of the UPA, especially to Sonia Gandhi and Man Mohan Singh; now we have Shibu Soren as the Chief Minister of an Indian state.

Shibu Soren, held guilty of conspiracy, kidnapping and murder, was sentenced to life imprisonment and he was to give a fine of Rs 5 lakh as compensation to the widow and daughters of the diseased.

This is just the beginning of execution of the 'deals' that the government had to make in order to avoid an election year in 2008.

Wonderful days ahead...

[Link]

Three Men – Three Destinies…

One man standing who became the Tank Man…

Do you know who Tank Man was? Tank Man, or the Unknown Rebel, is the nickname of an anonymous man who became internationally famous when he was photographed during the 1989 Tiananmen Square protests in China.

Students were protesting against the authoritarian rule of the Chinese Communist Party and wanted democratic reforms. Govt had sent tanks to suppress the students’ movement. At that time, a fleet of tanks were moving towards the square where students were protesting. This man simply walked up to them, and stood in front of a column of 5 Chinese tanks and thus prevented their advance!

What happened to this Tank Man? He could have been one of the hundreds of students, workers, physicians, and children later found dead, shot in the back…

One man is enough… And one tank is not…

One man’s speech – and the after effects…

We all know about the famous speech of Omar Abdullah in the parliament during the trust vote for UPA. He had spoken about how he regreted once being part of the communal NDA/BJP and now he had decided to be with the secular force Congress. He also talked about how the Left parties who were against NDA/BJP then were now joining hands with the BJP.

There, along with wise words, he had also said this, referring to Amarnath land controversy: “Woh hamari zameen ka muddha tha. Hum apni zameen ke liye lade. Aur hum marte dum tak apni zameen ke liye ladhenge!” (That was an issue about our land. We fought for our land. And we will fight for our land till our death.)

(Meaning that the land of J&K is the land of the locals and any Govt of India has no right to take or use the land for any purpose like giving shelter to the outsider (non-Kashmiri) Indians who come there to visit the shrine)

After the speech, Mr. Abdullah says:
“Frankly, my speech was neither rehearsed nor designed to appease anyone. I just spoke what I felt. But to tell you the truth, I was very angry at not being given a chance to speak. I thought to myself that while people were openly talking about an MP being worth Rs 20-25 crore, here I was, not getting even 20 seconds to speak. It was a speech that I almost missed.

After that, I have been flooded with phone calls, letters and requests for interviews. Everyone in Kashmir, including some hard-liners in my own party, appreciated my speech. Yes, it was a moment that one cannot get even in a million years.”

“The National Conference took a stand that the land cannot be given away.” “My party is hoping that the people are fed up with six years of coalition rule and will give us a clear mandate. I am not even thinking of pre-election tie-ups right now.”

Latest: The video of his speech has been watched a record number of times and Mr. Abdullah plans to write a book on the events around his speech!

Politicians will make speeches. And will fall in love with them. And we Indians still think that those who speak well are good leaders. Like kabootars kept repeating: Shikari aayega, jaal bichhayega, dana dalega, usme fassna mat. But do we still keep getting trapped?

One man’s poem and the after effects…

Kuldeep Raj Dogra, in his mid-30s, was participating in a hunger strike at Jammu's Parade Ground. He decided to do something tragically dramatic: He consumed poison, stood up to read out a passionately patriotic poem he had penned, faltered and fell dead.

It was his way of registering his protest against Omar Abdullah's speech in Parliament... he was incensed by the National Conference leader's duplicity.

The police panicked. They forcibly took away Dogra's body to his hometown, Bisnah, 15 km from Jammu, and tried to cremate it using old tyres, kerosene oil and liquor. His widow Shilpi tried to prevent the cremation and raised a hue and cry. The police have been accused of insulting, abusing and assaulting Shilpi to silence her. But a huge crowd gathered and snatched Dogra's body from the police. It was taken to Jammu and the situation subsequently just went out of control. Since then, the Hindu intifada has gathered both force and speed.

Don’t you think we Indians can do it better than the Chinese? And in the mess of Kashmirs and Maharastras, can we still recognize our India?

Three Men – Three Destinies

Three men and three different destinies… The Man walking up to the Tanks – got a bullet in his back and is still anonymous, The Man talking his speech got a million appreciations and is a youth icon, and The Man who was a poet, got to drink poison…

Note: This piece quotes some portions from the following pages, with due acknowledgement and credit to the original articles: One man standing: Link1, Link2, One man’s speech: Link, One man’s poem Link.

UPA and Nuclear Deal

A no-brainer’s Analysis

The basic premises:

· Deal or no deal – Indian public was not ‘affected’ by the nuclear agreement.
· Indians wanted the government to survive, because they didn’t want frequent elections and hence the political instability.
· Indians wanted government to control rising prices (inflation) and would punish all those who play the game while the household compromise.

If UPA had lost the trust vote:

· Left parties would be villain – for playing politics for 4 years and then making the government fall on a non-issue.
· BJP would be a villain – for opposing the nuclear deal just for the sake of playing the role of a non-supportive opposition.
· Congress would gain – for it sacrificed the government for an issue which it believed was good for the nation – for it was defeated because the Left met the BJP in politics of opportunism.

Now that UPA won the trust vote:

· Everyone knows that they procured MPs in order to win votes.
· Everyone knows that they have a history of bribing MPs just to remain in power, after the JMM/Shibu Soren issue last time.
· Everyone knows that they can do anything to remain in power – and don’t have any ideology, however controversial the ideologies can be.

Things to watch for in coming times:

· How the corporate houses that sponsored the bribery of MPs get paid.
· How the government pushes its scheme of Caste based reservations in some new innovative places, apart from the old agenda of reservations in private companies.
· How the government manoeuvres the Setu Samudram project to start off, though it will never complete the project (some conflicts are made never to be solved, for perpetual political gains).
· How in order to control prices, the government destroys India’s industrial growth. How the mediocrity of policy planners would seek short term results at the cost of long term damage to economy.
· How a terrorist waiting for his execution will live more under the Indian hospitality.

Some positive things that Indians will realise:

· Indians will grow more disenchanted from the power politics.
· That the governments play with their hard earned money while their farmers have to commit suicides.
· That no matter how Harvard educated they come, politicians will remain politicians.
· That politics is a thing not worth discussing in blogs too :)

Rethinking issues in Islam

Through his book “Rethinking Issues in Islam” (first edition, 1998, Orient Longman), Asghar Ali Engineer provides a great insight into the religion which has been into controversies and has been used as a means for much unrest throughout the world.

After having read the book, which addresses host of issues and provides a comforting and learned rethinking, I choose to write and reflect on two questions that haunt me:

1. Islam and violence.
2. Islam’s perception of other faiths and religions.

Writings in Italics are quotes from Quran.

Islam as it is

The word ‘Islam’ means surrender to the will of God.

Some of the basic visions of Islam are:

1. Creation of a just and egalitarian society.
2. There shouldn’t be any hierarchy of status
3. There shouldn’t be any accumulation of wealth in a few hands.

Islam and Violence

Some quotes from the Quran:

“And what reason have you not to fight in the way of Allah, and of the weak among the men and the women and children, who say our Lord, take us out of this town, whose people are oppressors, and grant us from Thee a friend, and grant us from Thee a helper” (4:75)

“Those who believe, fight in the way of Allah, and those who disbelieve, fight in the way of the devil (taghut)”

“Fight those who believe not in Allah, nor in the last day, nor forbid that which Allah and His Messenger have forbidden, nor follow the Religion of Truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgement of their defeat”

“And kill them wherever you find them, and drive them out from where they drove you out and persecution is worse than slaughter. And fight not with them at the sacred Mosque until they fight with you in it, so if they fight you (in it), slay them. Such is the recompense of disbelievers” (2:191)

“And if they break their oaths, alter their agreement, and revile your religion, then fight the leaders of disbelief – surely their oaths are unreliable – so that they may desist. (9:12)

“And if Allah didn’t replace some people by others, cloisters, and churches, and synagogues, and mosques in which Allah’s name is much remembered, would have been pulled down…” (22:40)

“So when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters, wherever you find them, and take them captive and besiege them, and lie in wait for them in every ambush. But if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-tax, leave their way free. Surely Allah is forgiving, Merciful” (9:5)

“We never punish, until we have sent a messenger”. (17:15)

Now, on the first glance it seems that Quran asks the believers to fight and slaughter the non-believers, unless they accept their defeat, pray to the God and pay the tax. But the author makes these convincing points:

· The Quran sanctions war if the weak are being persecuted and there is no other way left to rescue them.
· Islam doesn’t permit Muslims to take up sword against the unarmed. It permits one to fight only against aggressors.
· Fighting is permitted only in retaliation.

Still, I wonder how religion comes in the disguise of war-time-motivation. Also, I wonder: on the same justifications, the USA invaded Afghanistan and Iraq! That weak were being persecuted and there was no other way left to rescue them unless someone attacked and ruined the tyranny of the Taliban and Saddam! So what the US did was also a jihad? I wonder…

Things come in perspective when the author explains:

“When it comes to context we must take into account the socio-political and socio-economic conditions of the society in which a particular religion originates.”

“Islam when it originated was also a revolt against the status quo. The main opposition to the Islamic movement came from the riches of Mecca. There is no concept of property in a tribal society. But the rich of Mecca neglected all the tribal norms an busied themselves in accumulating personal riches though international commerce. This created a social malaise in Meccan society.”

“If one studies the history of Arab tribes before Islam and the fierce fighting they indulged in, one would be convinced that the philosophy of passive resistance would not have worked in that environment. A concept emerges in a particular context and works only in that context. Non-violence could not have worked in the conditions prevailing in Arabia then. Moreover, in the verse quoted above, the idea is not to kill unbelievers if they do not accept Islam but to bring them under control by making them accept defeat and pay jazya.”

I wonder how much history is in Islam and how much Islam is in history. And how much the followers are still into the history.

There are two things: when the peace returns and the war-kind of things in the religious texts becomes invalid, either people can change ways and adopt a modern outlook at things and decide not to live in the violent past. Or, they can still recreate the past by unknowingly making way towards them. So terrorists will strike peaceful people and nations and there would be religious disharmony and hatred everywhere – and in such a turbulent condition – it will seem as if all the history that is in Islam is still valid!

Mr. Z has grown up in a family where parents always fought. There was hatred, victimization, fighting and violence. He marries a lovely girl who is in peace with the world. Now, he has to change his outlook! But, he chooses to recreate an environment which makes him comfortable somewhere. He does things that invite confrontation, and the same old environment of hatred and violence starts prevailing in his life again! I think this is the way some part of Islam finds relevance in today’s world…

And the question is: Why should the world suffer if you had a violent past?

Islam’s view of other religions

Some quotes from Quran:

“Surely those who disbelieve, and those who are Jews and the Christians, and the Sabians, whoever believes in Allah and the Last Day, and who does good, they have their reward with their Lord, and there is no fear for them, not they grieve” (2:62)

“O humankind! We have created you from a single (pair) of a male and a female, and made you into nations and tribes, that ye may know each other. Verily the most honoured of you in the sight of God is (he who is) most righteous of you.” (49:13).

“For every (religious) community, there is a direction of its own for worshiping Him. Vie, therefore, with one another in doing good works.” (2:148)

“Unto everyone of you have We appointed a (different) law and way of life. And if God is so willed, He could surely have made you all one single community: but (He willed it otherwise) in order to test you by means of what He has vouchsafed unto you. Vie then, with one another in doing good work.” (5:48)

“And abuse not those whom the (i.e. non-believers) call upon besides Allah, lest, exceeding the limits, they abuse Allah through ignorance.” (6:109)

“Call to the way of thy Lord with wisdom and goodly exhortation, and argue with them in the best manner” (16:125)

“to every people have We made their deeds fair seeming; then to their Lord is their return; so he will inform them of what they did.” (6:109)

It is clear that Quran clearly accepts that there would be people from diverse faiths. It says that all are sons of one God. Even if they practice some other faith, they are also the One God’s creations and hence there shouldn’t be any conflict! It says that the one God meant to create the different faiths also. And it asks people to compete with the people of other faith in doing good work! If only we all practitioners truly understood this much before…

But still, it seems the practitioners are confused about others’ religions. The author himself is an authority and wise enough to be called an intellectual. But see this paragraph from his pen:

There can be prophets other than those mentioned in the Quran. In fact the Quran maintains that for every nation there is a had, i.e. a guide from God. It is for this reason that some sufi saints in India believed that God must have sent prophets to a big country like India and that Rama and Krishna, so highly revered by the people of India, might have been the prophets of God.

I still wonder why Islam thinks so much about others’ religions. This supremacy feeling that I am the wisest and hence I should make the poor people see the light, hear the message and surrender to the will of the God is the cause of much war and hatred that has spread in the world in the name of religion. Why this feeling of “I am saving this world” and showing them the right path?

If I have a pot which is always filled with rice, I can do three things: I can feed those who are poor and starving, I can set up a packaging plant and sell that rice to all, I can ask others to stop eating wheat and any other food and teach them that only rice is the right kind of food.

Why do “I” come into picture? The truth that I know has come to me through this universe! Why have “I” become more important than this universe?

The Art of writing

One observation on the author’s style of writing: He has an excellent way of handling controversial matters and persuading others. We all know that stereotyping is bad, and many of our conventional judgements about things in this world are not always right. But, they are not always wrong too! The author wants us to see what he shows and here is how he goes about it. He first frankly tells us in our face, what the readers think about Islam and Muslims. Then, he brands their perceptions as ‘stereotyping’. This makes the reader conscious and makes him less rigid in his thinking. Then, the author explains how that particular stereotyping happened, giving the historical and societal developments. Of course his arguments are not exhaustive but are a means to show the reader what the author wants him to see. In third step, the author quotes some parts of the Quran which is in reverse to what the reader used to think. Again, there might be some other quotes which can reinstate the reader’s notions, but he won’t quote those now. By this time, the reader would be to some extent impressed by the author’s logic and wisdom, would be feeling to some extent foolish because he was indulging in stereotyping before, and now after he sees the quotes from Quran which show him the other view, there is a high chance that the reader would finally agree with the author and convert his opinion. Nothing wrong in this as such, but I just observed the way author handled very controversial topics and tried to convince the readers to some things they never thought they would agree with.

For example, it is often believed that Islam doesn’t allow freedom of thoughts. In order to prove that Quran allows that, the author quotes, “When it is said to them: ‘Follow what God has revealed’, they say: ‘Nay! We shall follow the ways of our fathers.’ What! Even though their fathers were void of wisdom and guidance?” (2:170)

And the author comments, “Thus the Quran wants people to reject traditions if they are not based on ‘guidance and wisdom’. Faith of course is central to Islam as it is to any religion. But the Quran doesn’t insist on blind faith.”

Now, it is highly visible that when it is said to them ‘follow what God has revealed’ and they want to do the way they have been doing since generations, it is not talking about Muslims but about those who don’t believe in Quran! It is talking about the non-believers who resisted agreeing with Islam. Hence, Quran wanted the non-believers to have freedom of thoughts… And the author presents this quote in order to prove that Islam allows freedom of thoughts to its practitioners and is not based on blind faith! Art of writing…

I think

I think the religions which are based on one single book and came to this world through one single person will always face the threat of being misinterpreted. The same words have more than a single meaning. To make the whole world see the real meaning of the words is a task that is much more difficult than a salvation!

Much more distress has been brought into this world by religions, than by the miseries they were meant to cure. Islam is also one religion which teaches peace and harmony, but in my opinion, it has to come out of its past. There is always a choice.

Note: The views expressed are personal reflections and are prone to be inaccurate based on the limited understanding and comprehension.

Majority Minority

Hearing from the horse’s mouth always helps. Therefore I believed it when my professor said: “Judges in the Supreme Court are no fools. They know very well which cases to delay and for how long. For example, the Ayodhya's Babri dispute will never be solved; because a verdict on either side will result in riots.” Being a practicing lawyer in the HC, he would know…

Now, take the stark contrast in the case of Ram Setu. Here, the government doesn’t think twice before saying that Ram didn’t exist, or that Ram himself destroyed the Setu, and goes on passing the verdict that it can’t be a national monument. Why? Because there won’t be communal riots against these statements?

When I read civics in school days, I wondered how the democratic setup of ‘rule by majority’ would be able to safeguard the interests of the minorities. Now I know. Big doesn’t mean strong.

It is much easier to mobilize the minority votes either in favor or against one political party. But to woo the majority is very difficult. Therefore, parties take shortcuts. One of my close friends who is a Christian, avoided any conflict and argument at any cost; he would just run away. It took me much time to understand his psychology. It may not be politically right to connect this to the fact that he hates the BJP and respects Sonia Gandhi, but this is what I could understand. Every minority group has a 'fear psychology'; it is in our basic nature. No government, however just can ever erase that fear by 100%. But to exploit it or not remains an ethical question that the parties have to face.

I was in Chhattisgarh for 2 years and saw one very good example of good administration. Very near to Raipur bus stand, stood an old Hanuman temple right in the middle of a big Chowk. They had widened the roads and the area had become very spacious and beautiful: but the temple was causing traffic jams. The government quickly built a beautiful temple at nearest safe distance, picked up the idol by a crane, established it with all the rituals and funfair: with all its humble respect. Troublemakers would still have cried and made that an issue: how could you touch my idol? But they didn’t. Why? Because the government treated their faith and feelings with respect and sincerity.

In the case of Ram Setu, the government doesn't have to worry about anything when it opens its mouth Ram. On Ayodhya’s Babri dispute, the same government won’t open its mouth. Irony? No. Politics.

In the short run, keeping the silence and not addressing the fundamental problems may sound like a good policy. It does manage to manage the peace. But it gives incentives to those who start believing that to be able to be heard, you have to make a riot. It is a fact that more number of innocent deaths have happened inside India due to terrorism than due to wars. The end line: the choice is not ours. At present, the state of politics in India seems to be going dumps.

Wait for the renaissance.