Why do we need to prove our allegiance to the nation every time few fanatics with Muslim names, who justify their acts on the distorted interpretation of the Qura’n, kill innocent people? Why do people like Mr. Pradhan (see the newspaper report at the end) feel that the causalities and rescuers include only non-Muslims? It has been repeated time and again that Islam has nothing to do with the extremist ideologies that these terrorists promote. Those exhorting mullahs are yet to come to terms with the fact that this world has risen above the nomadic life style of violence. In fact the present situation is Muslim countries is same what existed in Europe pre-second world war, ready to butcher masses to redraw state boundaries. We just need a Hitler among us initiate another world war. Prophet, sallahu alaiye wassalam, brought Islam to the barbaric and belligerent tribe of Arabs. Taught them to live peacefully and that violence should always be the last resort. It took centuries for the Europeans to realise this secret of progress. And most unfortunately our society has degraded from acme of success to the abyss of ignorance. But then peace has to be bilateral, isn’t it? More on this here
Allegations like these sow a seed of alienation among the Muslims. Loyalty of Indian Muslim being questioned time and again has forced the community to ghettos in cities. Anti-social forces don’t leave a stone unturned in extracting the maximum from situations like these and many political leaders use this to strengthen their vote bank.
Being prejudiced is like playing into the hands of the conspirators. Those terrorists want India to be divided on religion lines. And so do organizations like the RSS and Bajrang dal. The incidents of Godhra have proved that this prejudiced attitude could be exploited against Muslims. The fake terrorsit attack on the RSS headquaters further proves my point. In the Rashtriya Sahara, July 18 journalist Zafar Agha has come down heavily on Prime Minister Manmohan Singh for strangulating the voice of reason raised by Union Ministers Arjun Singh and A.R. Antulay. Citing Indian Express of July 13, he reveals that in a Cabinet meeting discussing Mumbai blasts these Ministers held the Hindu extremists, who want to defame Muslims, responsible for these blasts. The HRD Minister Arjun Singh based his argument on a report on the so-called attack on RSS headquarters submitted by a retired judge of Mumbai High Court who had come to the conclusion that the Sangh Parivar itself was behind this ‘attack’. While A.R. Antulay cited another report which showed Hindu extremists disguised as Muslims (to defame them) making bombs in Nanded in April.
Mr. Agha has questioned Prime Minister’s displeasure at this revelation and advised the Manmohan administration to initiate deep probe into the incident; for Hindu extremist organisations are most likely to be found involved therein.
“U.C. Bannerji Report has proved that Muslims had not set ablaze the Sabarmati Express at Godhra but Narendra Modi rather the entire Sangh Parivar not only blamed the Muslims for the fire but perpetrated genocide of Muslims in the whole Gujarat as well. With this case at hand, if Abdur Rahman Antulay and Arjun Singh pointed their accusing fingers towards the Sangh (for its involvement in Mumbai blasts), what sin was it after all?� writes the seasoned journalist.
The same issue of the Sahara editorially questions the temerity of the BJP to demand expulsion of Arjun Singh and A.R. Antulay from their posts in respective ministries for making “very irresponsible statements about Mumbai bomb blasts.� The paper says the party has left out one more name viz. that of Union Minister for Water Resources Saifuddin Soz; in fact these three Ministers had expressed the possibility of Hindu fascist organisations behind the blasts, in the said Cabinet meeting.
“The question is: what was the need to make such haste without any investigation and deep probe? How far is it proper and justified to declare without any investigation and probe that bomb blasts were exploded by Muslims? Was it not the duty of those who make utmost haste in holding Muslims responsible for everything bad and dreadful, to take notice of the news item published in The Telegraph and some other newspapers, in which it was reported that when the Bharat Suraksha Yatra of Shri L.K. Advani entered Maharashtra (on April 6, 2006), some young activists of Bajrang Dal were caught making bombs the same day, and meanwhile explosion of a bomb ripped apart the body of a BD activist Himanshu. This was the activist from whose house the police later seized the clothes (pathan suits) usually worn by Muslims, skull caps and many kinds of counterfeit beards. This they did with the idea to stage-manage bomb blasts and their Muslim-looking attire and make-up would lead the needle of suspicion to Muslims and they would eventually get only them (Muslims) arrested. It is very necessary to deal with the Nanded incident in its right perspective, and it is also necessary to know why the Mumbai blasts occurred only three months after it,� runs the Sahara editorial.
So did something similar happen in the case of Mumbai blasts? Let’s wait for the events to unfold and unmask the perpetrator.
The newspaper report
A well-known criminal lawyer from Mumbai, Nitin Pradhan, who defended the 18 people accused in the trial of the 1993 blasts in Mumbai, has created somewhat of a public stir by releasing to the press a letter addressed by him to his clients informing them that he was withdrawing from the case, vowing not to appear for any accused in the event of a trial pertaining to the 11/7 blasts and disclosing his reason for these decisions. Were Pradhan to withdraw from his briefs privately and without much ado, no one could join issue with him. It must be assumed, however, that in releasing his letter to the press, he submitted his decision to public judgment.
Pradhan claims in his letter that he defended his 18 clients in the 1993 case because he was approached by leaders from three Muslim organisations. No leader of the minority community came forward to give succour to the victims of 11/7 or show their solidarity with victims. Thus, says Pradhan, “I feel let down by the leaders from that community. The reason why I accepted the brief no longer survives.” By implication, Muslim leaders are responsible for the recurrence of blasts in Mumbai. ( HT, July 25 2006,Page 11)
Sharique (http://www.shaarique.com)
Dear Sharique,
It is stupid to hold the entire community responsible for the actions of a few. But what do you make of people like the Shahi Imam of Delhi’s Jama Masjid? He exonerated the Lashkar-e-Taiba, which is a terrorist organisation. He is a public figure, and is seen as a leading representative of the community. Isn’t he too responsible for how he is portraying the community he represents?
Nitin:
Why do you think the Shahi Imam represents the Muslim community? Do we think that somebody like Vinay Katiyar represents the Hindu community? The Shahi Imam is a politician and a blatantly communal one. Like Mulayam in UP. Or Bal Thackeray in Mumbai. Each of them panders to a specific vote bank and says things that they think appeals to their specific vote bank. The key thing is that they merely their belief that it appeals to their vote bank. Actual voting patterns do no necessarily support such beliefs.
Sharique:
Do you seriously believe that an organization like the Bajrang Dal, horrible as it is, is capable of the series of bomb blasts like in Mumbai? It is very tempting to equate the Bajrang Dal to the likes of the Lashkar-e-Tayyaba, both terror organizations as one may like to think of them. But it is not just foolish to pretend that they are equal, it is dangerous since it takes away focus from the very serious threats we face. The Bajrang Dal and its likes are capable of serious violence, but only in riot situations and only with the full connivance of the authorities. They may even be capable of making some crude bombs. But they are not capable of engineering something as sophisticated as the Mumbai blasts. And they have not shown any inclination ever of doing anything of the kind.
It is not a threat to all Muslims to admit that there are indeed organizations, many of them getting support from outside India, that are involved in incidents of terror. It is also not an indictment of the entire Muslim community to say that these organizations cannot operate without some local support. It is independent of our need to fight ideologies of hatred within the country, like the ones the Bajrang Dal and its sister organizations spread. It is important to recognize both threats, but the responses to them are different. Lumping them together only complicates the situation and unwittingly provides justification to those who covertly or overtly support the likes of the LeT or SIMI.
Regards,
Girish
Hi Nitin,
“It is stupid to hold the entire community responsible for the actions of a few.”
Definitely. I never castigated the entire community but mentioned ‘people like Mr. Pradhan’.
Well as far as Shahi Imam is concerned, he is the self proclaimed representative of Indian Muslims with his fan following restricted to few places in Delhi. We Indian Muslims never would take him as our leader. There are such moles in every communities and i did refer to them in my article ‘Those exhorting mullahs’. Well the irony is that all the prominent Muslim figures have adopted silence as their defense for reasons better known to them.
Sharique,
The ‘stupid’ refered to people like Pradhan.
That’s what I find disturbing. That he’s such a loose cannon is not surprising. What is sad, and in many ways feeds all the ugliness, is that very few Indian Muslims stand up to condemn what he says. You will agree that non-Muslims can do so at a great risk of being labelled as communal, and be seen as anti-Muslim by the Muslims.
Hi Nitin,
If you look into the archives of this blog, you would find many posts criticizing Ahmed Bukhari specifically and such ‘rent-a-fatwa’ clerics generally. Please see this post of mine and one more. Infact people like Bukhari have been cultivated by political parties for vote-bank politics. Why, even BJP got a fatwa in its favour by Ahmed Bukhari before the last general elections. Thankfully their value is only symbolic, as Girish pointed out before and Muslims vote as diversely as any other community.
I don’t agree with your last statement either.
Ahmed Bukhari is a loose cannon. He can bring out crowds in the Jama Masjid area but that’s it .
He is not as important a muslim leader as the non muslims and the media think.They vastly overestimate his influence .
Sharique & Mohib,
Thanks for pointing out your earlier posts to me. I hadn’t seen them. My comment, however, is not so much about the authors of this blog. It is more generic in nature. And part of it also addresses Girish’s comments to me:
The position of the Shahi Imam is a bit more complex than that of a Vinay Katiyar or a Bal Thackeray. The Shahi Imam is a religious figure (and given Sharique and Mohib’s clarification, I won’t call him a religious leader) first. He’s using his position at the head of a religious institution, a place of worship, to drive his political wagon. That is what fuels impression that religion is involved. It is different from say, a Shahabuddin or a Yakoob Qureishi playing the religious card. So the comparison between Bukhari and Katiyar/Thackeray is wrong. Bukhari’s counterpart would be Mahant Paramhans.
Let there be no mistake, when religious leaders play politics, they are risking attaching their religion to their politics. Most ordinary people look upon their religious leaders with faith (and believe this to be the case in other religions. Most ordinary people look upon their politicians with scepticism. That’s why what the Shahi Imam says causes greater damage.
(On another note, Deoband and Benares put up a joint front at a public forum Mumbai recently. That’s what I’d expect of religious leaders)
The media always tries to project people like Ahmad Bukhari as the leader of muslims but his influence is not even encompassing Delhi. The media has always played a negative role in the portrayal of muslims.
Yesterday I saw a news item on the website of New Indian express in which a very “important” news about some muslim who had given triple Talaq to his wife in a state of inebriation. what was noteworthy was the news reporters assumption about “Halala” (marrying another male and then divrocing him to be reunited with her first husband)being a common practise among muslims. There was no statistics to prove his assumption. This is an example of how the media creates prejudices against the muslim community.
Pingback: What’s the solution? at Serendipity
Pingback: Rediff waali Sheela Maam | Indian Muslims