Nupur Sharma Suspension: A Tactical Loss For A Strategic Victory?

Nothing has made BJP's core constituency more upset than the party's decision to suspend Nupur Sharma, a young politician, a feisty woman, and BJP's articulate spokeswoman for many months. I happen to believe strongly in corporate loyalty in the RSS tradition. This means I always frown upon supporters and workers going ballistic over matters that seem to be out of line with the ideology. However, perhaps for the first time in my entire political life, I too found myself rather peeved. I felt that people like me are being taken for granted by the leaders of the ideology.

The reason perhaps is the brazenness of it. Muslims are abusing our dharma openly, and a most reasonable counter rooted in Islamic scriptures, makes the entire ummah go violent. And mind you, I am not complaining about their behavior. I found it appalling that we, the supposedly militant, warrior-like ideologues, who mocked the "softness” of Hindu leaders from Gandhi to Manmohan Singh, we who bravely fought for Ram Janmabhoomi successfully against all odds, capitulated abjectly before murderous supremacists! This was really galling. Exasperated, here is what I wrote to a small group of committed Hindu Nationalists:

"This is unacceptable behavior by BJP. I hope supporters' pressure brings BJP to its senses soon."

However, I always lecture to all that politics requires us to be cool-headed, and perhaps slightly cynical too. In politics, we cannot go berserk with our emotions. We have to assess options coolly in every situation that comes before us. So, I too reflected on what might have happened, and here are the thoughts that followed:

    1. One thing is sure - both BJP and RSS really have ears to the ground. I am talking about top leadership. So there will be corrections.

    2. The only possible (not sure of this too) flaw in Sangh Parivar might be - they still have not developed a thorough knowledge of Islam. Of course they know all about Islamic behavior. But I am not sure if top leadership understands Mohammed and his doctrines so well.

    3. They knew how people would react to this move. Then why exactly did they do it? They are getting no additional vote or support.

    4. Gulf business does not mean so much to India that we should do such a thing. The only thing for which we depend on them is oil. I don't think these countries were going to stop oil supplies. India has a fair amount of diplomatic clout too. The international image doesn't matter anymore. Suspending Nupur Sharma actually worsens India's image.

    5. Then what did BJP expect to gain out of it? If Rahul Gandhi were to do something like this, we could ascribe it to his stupidity. Just can't imagine what BJP is thinking.

    6. Before this there have been only two major political defeats. The first was land acquisition bill. We could argue BJP was too new to push a major thing like that in the face of opposition. The second was Farmers Bills. That is easily explained with votes – we were losing Western UP which we could not afford to. But this suspension of Nupur Sharma?! Nothing seems to explain it.

As of now, I do not have any definite answer. But it is very reasonable to believe that there is some deal that we do not know about. And it is unlikely to be a pure capitulation to ummah's pressure. I would only urge all to bear patience and BJP will deliver something positive on this too. Remember the anguish we felt when Farm laws were repealed. It resulted in a sweet victory in UP. If you were deciding for BJP, and UP election results were to be jeopardized by sticking to the Farm laws, would you rather stick to those laws and risk losing UP to goons and jihadis or would you rather do as BJP did?

I rest my case for patience and forbearance.

Mera Wala Abdul Aisa Nahi ho Sakta!

Committed Hindu Nationalists often face this challenge - how to answer those who are outraged by the suggestion that common Muslims should not be insulated from non - Muslims’ justified anger against Islamic Jehad and terrorism, and that they should be held to the same standards of responsibility as any other community when it comes to behavior of their community leaders as well as extremists.

Mind you, you will hear this (leave common Muslims alone) not only from woke “secularists”, but also from those who otherwise sympathize with the nationalist view and have come to agree that something might possibly be wrong in the inherent nature of Islam. These people, because of the mounting incontrovertible evidence, no more argue that Jihadi terrorists are “aberrations”, “a tiny minority of extremists”, and “not real followers of religion”. Sheer weight of evidence against these opinions has finally made them admit that there may be some basic flaw in the “religion” itself. However, they still find it disturbing that we should view our Muslim neighbor or colleague with the same lens.

Let us say, you are, like me, more of an Islamo - realist (as I like to call ourselves). How to answer these well-meaning folks who fear that all decency and civility will die if we bring our view of Islam to seemingly decent Muslim folks around us who look and talk no different from us?

I have been in many such discussions, and I am always struck by the degree to which highly educated, otherwise intelligent folks change the standards of judgement the moment one is talking about Muslims. Really, the malaise seems so deep and widespread that I feel the need for mass scale training programs just so everyone holds all communities to the same standards. If we all did that, this whole challenge will disappear. We will be more clear - eyed about the nature of Muslims, even those Muslims who are well-educated and appear same as ourselves in all other respects.

Time for some specific examples.

Here is an experience I had multiple times: Being a student of Sanskrit and Ramayana, I have ended up mentioning the character of Shri Ram in front of friends sometimes. Occasionally, when my interlocutors were “secular” inclined, the very name of Ram aroused strong emotions! How could Ram treat Sita so shabbily, they asked. Doesn’t it show that our religion has some basic problem?!

To me, the questions they asked were of secondary importance. More important was the emotion they displayed. They were literally seething as soon as the name of Ram came up. It was as if I had hit a hornet’s nest simply by mentioning the name. And that got me asking - why are they so angry, so ready to heap odium on a man who lived perhaps 3 or 4 millennia ago? Even if you think he did some wrong, all you need to do is to decide you won’t do such things yourself. In any case, the modern

day Indian laws, promulgated presumably by his followers and descendants, negate the value system under which he is said to have done some wrong.

Today, most Hindu men in India will not exile their wives because any of them had to spend nights in some other man’s place against her will. I cannot imagine even a half educated Hindu doing such a thing. Then why all the anger against Lord Ram?

Anyway, coming back to the point - we can see the standards to which many of us hold Bhagavān Ram. Unless he and other revered figures of Hindus followed, even 10 millennia ago, the most modern of Human Rights, they are worthy of the severest condemnation. It doesn’t matter that their behavior was not exceptional for the times. They were supposed to still know what was coming millennia later and act accordingly.

Contrast this with Muslim attitude towards their revered figure. Mohammed carried out multiple genocides, committed / sanctioned rapes, and married and had sex with a 9-year-old child when he himself was 54 years old. I suggest all to google and read about Bani Qurayza (a brutal genocide approved and supervised by Mohammed), about Saafiya and Kinana, about the fate of Bani Khyber, and so on and on.

And what is the attitude of Muslims towards this man? If you so much as write a Facebook post mocking him, there is arson, violence and beheadings. Literally.

You say that all this is done by extremist elements?! Fine, why don’t you sometime check the attitude of your educated Muslim neighbor towards Mohammed? You again say - but he is not like those woke Hindus who hate Bhagavān Ram. Maybe he is like devout Hindus who revere Bhagavān Ram. Well, how many devout Hindus do you find in the same social set as this Muslim person who is supposed to be “just like us”?

Even so, for the moment I accept that too - that our Muslim neighbor / colleague is like millions of devout Hindus in this respect. But let us dwell on it for a little more.

Imagine that you are part of a community in whose name a proper genocide is carried out. People of your identity, who are clearly driven by core aspects of that identity, brutally murder men, rape and murder women, force degrading behaviors on those of “other” identity. What would be your attitude towards those who do it? And towards those “others” who suffered it? Chances are, you will go ballistic at the perpetrators. And you will also take some action to support those “others” who suffered these barbaric crimes. Right?

And now, when was the last time you saw this kind of attitude in educated Muslim neighbors / colleagues who are supposedly “just like us”? I have never seen it. Indeed, whichever Muslims I have seen, are more likely to be outraged by a mention that such things happened, rather than by their coreligionists actually perpetrating these acts.

You know that I am talking about the genocide in Kashmir, which is now well known thanks to the work of Vivek Agnihotri. But the same thing happened, even at a larger scale, in many other places. In times which are still in living memory. Genocide by Moplas in 1921, Direct Action Day, Calcutta, Noakhali, cleansing of Hindus from Pakistan and Bangladesh. Any of these, even a fraction of these, would arouse revulsion towards perpetrators in a decent person. And I am asking this - why do we never see that sentiment in any Muslim.

The only Muslims who do show humanity enough to feel genuine outrage at all these acts are actually ex - Muslims. Maybe they did not announce their apostasy formally. But that is what they are at their core - apostates. I am not going to go into another big subject here, but I can demonstrate that it is haraam for Muslims to feel outrage at genocide of non - Muslims. Your neighbor may not actually participate in atrocities himself, but if it happens, he will shrug his shoulders and walk away. He will not be outraged. Indeed, he has been like that all the while! You are the one who missed the significance of his attitude!

Which brings me to what I started with - we all have learned to hold Muslims to very different, and I daresay very low standards. We have thus made ourselves party to genocide of non - Muslims wherever Muslims are in majority. We think of ourselves as decent, civilized folks. It is time we applied principles of decency correctly. We have already agreed that those who perpetrate heinous crimes don’t deserve our sympathy. Now, let us also agree on our view of those who observe such atrocities, and have no visible problem with them.

If your Abdul was any different, he would not only have been outraged long back, millions like him would have gotten together, and you would see a political movement that genuinely fights extremism in his community. There is no such political movement, and there is no movement towards one. Indeed, your Abdul will be outraged by this article, but not by an actual genocide of non-Muslims.

Ergo, aapka wala Abdul bhi waisa hi hai. Face this brutal reality in the eye.

On Common Muslims

I started studying the religion of Islam some 8 years back. Like many others, I was also disturbed that such a large population of India and other parts of the free world was seen to be a perennial problem. I was disturbed by history of Islam in India. When you study the history of partition, of Hindus who were left in Pakistan and then were cleansed out, of the brutal genocide of Kashmiri Pandits, you cannot be blamed for thinking that Muslims seem to believe it is their right to murder non - Muslims, and degrade us all in every conceivable way. During partition riots, not only was there widespread bloodshed, initiated and carried out by popular Muslim leadership, but Hindu women were paraded naked on streets multiple times! The relish Muslims seemed to experience in degrading Hindus!!

One argument I oft encountered when raising difficult questions about Islam was - but all Muslims are not bad. You find good and bad people in all communities. And every community has carried out atrocities against other communities. So what is exceptional about Muslims? Sounds fair, and yet Muslims always seem a little different from other communities. In those days, it was hard to pinpoint, but to me it always appeared that there was something wrong with the Muslim community itself, rather than it being a case of a few bad apples in an otherwise normal group of people.

And so, I set out to first answer this question - is it something wrong with the community, or all atrocious behavior of Muslims were exceptional? After a little thought, I found a way to answer this question. You can always understand the mainstream ethos of a community, any community in the world, simply by studying its heroes. After all, a community which has a fundamentally good sense of ethics won’t glorify someone who did terrible wrongs. Or even if such a figure came to acquire respect for some reason, there would be qualifications attached to such respect. Such a person would never be considered an ideal.

And as it happens, Muslims do have an ideal. Such is the status of that ideal, that Muslims recorded every word and action of that man so they could emulate him precisely. Slightest criticism of that ideal results in calls for beheading by Muslims. So, I could simply study this person and then I would know the mainstream values of Muslims.

I did that. I studied two biographies of Mohammed and a number of Hadis. I also read most of Koran for good measure. I was right in saying that a community’s heroes’ tell you what that community is like. After knowing Mohammed, everything fell in place. Muslims are different! They have dehumanized all non - Muslims of the world. In their minds if they don’t have power, and physically when they do, such as during partition of India or in geographies where they have a majority. What is done by evil minds in other communities, is heroic behavior for Muslims.

Subsequently, I engaged in many debates with believing Muslims as well as sympathizers who have little knowledge of Islam. What I heard cemented my belief. I now challenge any apologist of Islam to show me difference between conduct of Mohammed and that of, say, ISIS. Invariably, the apologists lose the argument and resort to name calling instead of answering questions. The ones who were a little more open minded studied the subject themselves and have largely come round to accepting that Islam is fundamentally flawed. I am also happy to note that in public discourse, people display more knowledge of what happened in Arabia between late 6th and early 7th century, and there is growing acceptance of the idea that Islam itself is a problem, an intractable one at that. And non - Muslims have no responsibility for the “distress” Muslims seem to be perennially afflicted with.

As debates progressed, I encountered another line from those desperate to throw a lifeline for Muslims. I cannot, by the way, understand why some non - Muslims have such desperation to defend Muslims. But it’s there in many otherwise normal persons. So those like me who want to change the world have to answer it.

This line is - but what about your Muslim neighbor, office colleague, batchmate etc. He or she is a “normal” person “just like you”. He does not show fanaticism. Nor found involved in terrorist activities. Why should that person suffer discrimination? Why shouldn’t the society ensure that person is not in discomfort on account of his identity?

I agree that we should not stop a “normal” Muslim on the road and unload our anger against him. I am not advocating gratuitous violence against anyone. Not even proactively telling him about our views on Islam. However, we really need to have a hard look at this question - should we really be obliged to bend over backwards for his “comfort”. For instance, should we hold back our thoughts on political issues because a handful of Muslims might feel hurt? At macro level, should our policies be adjusted to ensure this so called “normal” Muslim does not feel bad about anything?

I do not think so. I believe that once we have determined that Islam is fundamentally wrong, any believing Muslims should be assumed to be a follower of that wrong, unless proved otherwise. The Muslim neighbor may indeed seem as no different from any of us. But if he is a believing Muslim, it is impossible that he does not plan to destroy you, or reduce you to second class status as soon as he has adequate political power. Mainstream Muslims have always done that. Unless they change in fundamental ways, they will always do that.

Here is an illustration to understand this point.

I once engaged with just such a Muslim on a whatsapp group. The group has some 100 odd members. Barring a handful, all are Hindus, some notionally, some in belief. There are a few Christians. And there is just one Muslim. Being among those rather vocal on Islam and Muslims, I was advised by one of us to engage with him while others watched. Only request to me and the Muslim - let us call him Faisal, was that we should maintain civility.

And so the engagement happened. I learned enormously about the Muslim mind from that exchange. I am sharing what happened and what emerged out of it.

I started by challenging Faisal that most Muslims are not loyal to India and our Constitution. They want to re-institutionalize Shariah laws (I.e. Hindus have second class status). They cheer Pakistan not only in cricket matches but in wars too (1965 and 1971). Survey after survey has shown it. Along the way, I also told him that I had studied Islam and wanted to ask him how he could accept as his ideal a monstrous evil like Mohammed. Faisal said a few things and then abruptly left. I cannot produce all exchanges, but here is a gist of what Faisal, one of those “normal” mainstream Muslims, said:

I do not agree to surveys that most Muslims are not loyal to the Indian constitution (e.g. seeking Shariah laws). It is not healthy for our society to spread such (mis)information. I know more Muslims than others, and we are not like this.

Muslims / Islam have become a punching bag nowadays. It is easy to blame things on religion. Its all about interpretation. Taliban and ISIS also claim to follow Islam. Look at Muslims around you. Study their behavior.

No more from me. I got to go!

That was it. He refused to answer any questions about what Islam says, what Mohammed did in his lifetime and what Muslims have done all around us every time they had power!

I later thought - Faisal must know about all the violence Muslims have inflicted. He can’t be unaware of the genocide of Kashmiri Pandits, to name one horror committed by his co - religionists. Why doesn’t he acknowledge it? He may express his opinion of it later, but why doesn’t he first acknowledge that such incidents might have made us Hindus view Islam and him in a certain way? Why does he claim unalloyed victimhood? Moreover, he claims to have a version of Islam that is perfectly peaceful and totally different from that of Taliban and ISIS. Why doesn’t he explain how he came to acquire such a version? In all my studies of Islam lasting years, I never came across such a version. And before I could start asking questions about his version, he left!!

Faisal must have seen horrifying attitudes of his community members first hand. He comes from Bihar. In 1946 elections, nearly 90% Muslims voted for Muslim League that openly called for murder and rape of Hindus. The probability that at least one of his grandfathers supported that Muslim League is

nearly 100%. I find it very hard to believe that he had not heard from (or heard about) them. Then why did he feign ignorance of those attitudes in his community. A decent, civil behavior would be to acknowledge it, acknowledge that the Hindu view of Muslims is not without basis, and after that defend himself and his community if needed. He does not do that. He brushes aside our views as misplaced, harmful for the society, and moves on. As if we are supposed to just grin and bear it when we learn about Muslims committing atrocities on Hindus.

That is your “normal” Muslim neighbor / colleague / batchmate who you thought is no different from you. Make of it what you want. As far as I am concerned, Faisal’s behavior of expecting others to never feel angry about genocides shows the real face of Islam. That it is a genocidal ideology of world domination no different from Nazism. It kills basic decency and civility in its adherents. I have never seen an upper caste Hindu fail to acknowledge the horrors of untouchability. Nor a Briton refusing to admit the atrocities of the British Raj. Nor an American White not admitting that they killed Red Indians and committed slavery on blacks. How different a Muslim who studied with us in college! If such a person can dissimulate in front of us, what of the more fanatical types? No wonder you never hear any voices in Muslim community against fundamentalism.

I am more convinced than ever that we all need to rise up to the political challenge of Islam and Muslims if we want to preserve the freedoms of free societies earned with so much blood. And that means not relenting on the political pressure we have just started creating on Muslims. On overt fundamentalists, as also on “regular” folks around us like Faisal. They are no different once one looks beneath the surface.

General Elections and Whatsapp Wars

In the run up to the general elections in India, for at least about a year, a phenomenon

everyone has noticed, and many have been involved in (including me!) is what I am calling “whatsapp wars”. In the many whatsapp groups of which almost all middle class Indians are part, the more political minded ones have engaged in fairly heated arguments, and in many cases, separation and end of friendships. I too left my engineering group permanently, and my relationships with a few of my neighbors / batchmates / acquaintances have pretty much ended. I have known many others in similar situations. In fact, the phenomenon was even reported in the mainstream media sometimes.

What really happens that makes people, otherwise friendly, to start hating each other with such intensity? And what should people do to moderate things? Are relationships more important, or are political biases masquerading as principles and values more important? Having been a part of it a few times, I have some thoughts around these questions, and I thought of putting them down and sharing with some folks I know and perhaps care about.

First lets see what happens – a “Right Wing” (called RW, but not really right winger in the classical sense) Hindu Nationalist pro – Modi person posts something that a secular / liberal person, or rather, one who believes he is one, finds highly objectionable. The number of occasion when the reverse happens are relatively few. Now once objection is raised, a complaint is lodged with the admin of the whatsapp, usually with a threat to quit the group. The admin, who is usually anxious to maintain the group integrity, goes to the offender and requests him to moderate. At times, this leads to behavior change if only temporarily. Other times, the damage is permanent and someone or the other leaves the group.

This is usually the cycle. I found some of the batchmates of one of my colleges too foul mouthed. Not because of their views, but because of the language they used – one of them, in reply to something I posted just said “you are scum”, I quit the group. I was willing to put up with political views, howsoever extreme, but not this kind of outright personal abuse. I, by the way, am a right winger myself, a strong supporter of Modi. On other occasions, I have caused people to quit one of my groups, though thankfully never permanently. I derive some solace from the fact that even those who went to the extent of quitting the group because of my views later acknowledged that I was never uncivil.

To me, it is always a source of distress when this kind of a “separation” happens. Sure enough, some of our views will be considered extreme by someone or the other and vice versa. But personal abuse, threats, demands to silence, that is something I never am able to come to terms with. However, like with everything else, I did endeavor to understand why this happens, and here is what I think goes on:

With me, things on whatsapp group have always gone out of control only on one issue – the nature of Islam. There is something about this matter that some people, instead of responding to a comment with a counter – logic, as they usually do in other matters, simply go ballistic and try to silence me and some others with similar views. On every other matter, I can write the most provocative message, and it will at most elicit a frown and someone pointing out why I might be wrong. On Islam, the outrage of secular / liberals is palpable instantly. Of course, they claim they are upset by the tone of religious discrimination. But that does not explain extreme emotion. Why, for instance, won't they answer me with some logic? Why won't they first show me how exactly I advocated discrimination (I don't think I ever do), rather than demand belligerently that I be silenced.

There is an answer to this. I will lay that out before you. But to start with, I will tell you a very small episode from my life that is analogous to the overreaction of political partisans on whats-app, and illustrate the phenomenon more clearly.

I had a very good friend some 35 years back. In fact we are still connected and he is still a good friend though we have not met for decades. We were the sort of friends who pulled each others' legs with impunity, fully assured that we will remain friends even after taking liberties with each other. I am going to call this friend Markos. He is a Keralite Christian and a really good human being.

As it happens, Markos had a tendency which in my mind was a minor flaw. I did not at all care that he had it. But something interesting happened when I used it to pull his leg once.

Markos liked to pretend that he liked art movies. I thought he really did not enjoy the boring insipid fare that passed for high art. I thought he was just putting on an appearance of liking them, just to come across as a sophisticated guy who liked high art. So what happened when he saw one of these flop movies and came back and told me “I really liked the movie”. I was the wise guy and shot back, full of mischief: “You only think you liked the movie”. I would not do that with anyone but a close friend like Markos. And how do you think Markos reacted? He ceased to be a dear friend instantly! He absolutely went ballistic! He raved and ranted against me and started pointing out every flaw he noticed in me since we first met a few years previously.

I was taken aback of course. I protested that I was only having some fun at his expense. But he was not soothed. He continued his tirade for quite a while more. I did not react after this. After a few days, as it happens with youngsters, our friendship was back to nearly normal.

Moral of the story: If someone fools himself about something, and you point it out, he will go berserk on you.

Now back to Islam and whatsapp groups.

Those secularists who read these thoughts of mine will again burn with rage, but I am certain that they go ballistic because some RW guy reminded them that they are fooling themselves about the nature of Islam. Let us look at some beliefs they hold, or rather, fool themselves that they hold about Islam:

1. Islam is a religion of peace

2. Islam is just like any other religion

3. Muslims are just like other people, they should be seen as such

4. A demographic change has no implication for peace in society

5. Most Indian Muslims feel no loyalty for Pakistan

6. Most Indian Muslims feel loyalty to India

I can list several more.

It is immaterial here how true these assumptions are. Of course, I believe much in these assumptions is false. But that point is not central here. The central point is – deep down the secularists also believe these assumptions are mostly false. It is just that they won't admit it to themselves. In fact, they go to great lengths to continue to lie to themselves. They never examine the whole matter with any rigor. Because they are afraid of what might come out if they did.

Like Markos fooled himself that he liked the movie, they too fool themselves.

And then, when someone brings home to them about the self – deception, they go ballistic!

What is the way out of it then? And when I discuss this final part, I will even admit the possibility that my analysis might be faulty. But first let me proceed on the assumption that it isn't.

If indeed they admit the possibility that they might be engaging in self – deception, they owe it to everyone, including themselves, that they thoroughly study the subject. Islam is the number one political issue in the world. It literally takes thousands of lives every year. In extreme cases, such as when ISIS ruled parts of the world (supported, I might add, by a “mainstream” nation) women were raped and sold like cattle! If mankind is faced with something so horrifying, then every thinking person must have full knowledge of the roots of the problem. No one has to believe people like me, though I do think we spent a lot of time and energy studying it. But they must do it for their own sake if nothing else. It is not an innocuous matter like a boring art movie that can be left alone.

Assuming I am wrong (very unlikely IMO). Then they must answer why they react with such fury when the subject comes up. After all, no one ever sees this kind of fury when similar statements are made about Hindus for instance. In fact, they themselves engage in fairly offensive commentary about other religions, particularly Hinduism, and at most get a rebuttal from some RW guy. No one ever demands to silence them. Moreover, I would like to see at least one common assumption held by “anti – Muslim bigots” (which is how they describe anyone who puts question marks on Muslim behavior) proven false by them clinically and rigorously. Not responded with outrage, rhetoric and non – sequitur.

The Roots of the Muslim Rage against “blasphemy”

There was once a village and it was visited by a smooth talking charlatan who wanted the villagers to be in his control. So, he found the most gullible person in the village and convinced him that if he cut his nose, he would be able to see God. The hillbilly fell into the trap and had his nose cut. Now, he had a problem. If he said he cannot see God, he would be the laughing stock of the village. If he said he did, then he would be lying and the lie might be found out.

Our villager chose the second option. He claimed with all the vehemence at his command that he could see God and even talk to Him. He made a great show of devotion to the charlatan and made him his guru and savior, giving offerings and showing respect every day.

After a couple of days, when this matter became the talk of the village, a second villager fell into the same trap. He thought why not I see the God too. He had his nose cut by the first “nose-less” villager. He could see nothing. But the charlatan and the first “nose-less” one were looking at him expectantly. He now had the same choice as the first one. He too chose to live the lie for the rest of his life.

Over time, a majority of villagers were converted and their noses were removed, and they started living the lie that they were able to see God. As the lie they were living took deeper hold of their lives, they took to mocking those who refused to deform themselves in the hope of something they suspected was impossible. The “nosey” lot rather chose the path of checking everything rigorously before accepting it as truth. Over time, they developed the Scientific Method and made technological advances.

The nose-less lot then made rules that no one could question the fact of God being visible to them. If anyone did, either within the nose-less community, or anyone outside, he or she would be killed. They also deified the charlatan who, long dead now, had started the whole business of nose cutting. Any criticism or mocking of the charlatan threw the nose-less lot into uncontrollable rage. The more rational nosies sometimes applied their scientific reasoning to argue that there was no way God could become visible by cutting the nose. Each such instance resulted in rioting and arson, to a point when it took extraordinary courage on anyone's part to rake up the matter.

Over centuries, the original lie became part of the genetic code of the nose-less ones' culture. Very few amongst them dared to apostasize. The nosey ones either did not bother or, when the nose-less committed acts of violence to re-assert that they could see God, took to claiming that the faith of the nose-less was benign, and only a tiny minority of extremists amongst them indulged in violence.

In such a world, one person, out of hatred for nose-less lot (since he had lived in a country of nose-less ones where his kind were hopelessly outnumbered and, therefore, regularly abused), made a crude movie showing the original act of the charlatan when he fooled the first lot of nose-less ones into cutting their noses. Facing truth they had avoided for all their lives, and indeed generations, was impossible for the nose-less. But letting the filmmaker get away with this act of defiance would tantamount to admitting that indeed their ancestors had been fooled into cutting their noses. So they felt the need to silence the filmmaker. Now there was problem. The filmmaker lived in a powerful country of “nosey” people. This powerful country had no law binding people not to tell the truth about the charlatan. So the rage of the nose-less found outlets in acts of violence against all symbols of the powerful nosey country – flags, effigies, embassy buildings, and in one case, an ambassador and his companions.

As of the time of writing, the rage shows no sign of abetting. Moreover, trouble may be expected even after the violence abates. Because some “nosey” person will again rake up the charlatanry of the charlatan. Maybe this time, the re-creation of history may be artistic, authentic and interesting. Nose-less ones can be seen to be mortally afraid of that. After having run away from the truth for centuries, they are finding it increasingly hard to avoid it. This writer believes that there will be a major fight between the nose-less and the nosey before the truth finally prevails.

On the Ethos of Present Day Indian Middle Class

I joined the managing body of the owners' association of the housing campus where I live in a major Indian city. This was to be my “baby” step into politics. I wanted to put my feet in the public life in this tiny way, and see how people think and act on community matters. I also wanted to influence the community life in whatever way I could.

The experience brought home to me certain aspects of Indian middle class ethos and I would like to share them here.

The place where I live is one of the richest campuses in the city, perhaps in all of India. You will find the elite of Indian society living here e.g. CEOs of top multinationals, rich entrepreneurs, top notch professionals, and so on. We were lucky to buy a place here cheap when this place was not much thought of or else it is unlikely we would be living here.

The governing body has nine members. It concerns itself with community issues, e.g. maintenance of the place, interaction with builder who still has some stake in the campus, formulating and enforcing bye-laws etc. All members are very rich (I being the only exception !), some quit the corporate world early in order to be free to work as they like.

They are all highly educated of course. All of them have seen many countries in the world. Some have also lived for extended periods in developed countries.

Unlike people who have never seen what a developed country looks like, they are unlikely to say that something is not doable. For instance, if a suggestion is made to the association body that we should ensure landscaping quality improves, no one will say that this being India, “ye chalta hai”. They will at least express serious intention to improve things and try to act all they can.

I have seen them take up and implement a number of initiatives. They show a good degree of perseverance that is needed to execute anything new. I have also seen them act on emergencies such as water shortage and implement measures that improved life for all of us.

However, there is a deep flaw in their behavior and perhaps values. Before I explain the flaw, let me give a quick primer on societal ethos and how these influence society's progress.

I believe that societies' ethos plays the most important role in it's progress. I believe that there are good ethos and bad ethos. I also believe that at any point, a society has an entrenched ethos. This ethos is primarily a set of values – what the large body of people consider right and wrong. But the ethos is more than values. It is also a set of habits. The habits are learned through experience of individuals in their interaction with others. The habits may be completely nonsensical, but once learned, individuals figure out a way of justifying the habit.

I would like to give an illustration of a society's ethos, how it can be utterly wrong and why an individual need not accept something only because it is part of the society's ethos. Of this, there can be no better example than caste system and untouchability.

Let us go back to pre – modern India, say middle of 19th century. The society's ethos at the time had, amongst other things, a firmly entrenched caste system. Untouchability of certain very “low” people was part of this caste system. It affected the society's progress in that it seriously weakened the society and enabled enemies of India to overpower us more easily than they could otherwise.

Let us assume there be an individual in this India who feels passionately that untouchability is wrong and should be abolished. What chance would such an individual have of convincing any significant section of Indian society of his views ? How much support he would get for his views of how society should conduct it's affairs ? We can safely say that in pre – modern India, such an individual would be alone, cut off from the rest of the society.

So, the point is – society has a sense of right of wrong and that sense of values may be utterly wrong. For an individual, the implication is that something he believes is not wrong only because society won't accept it. Of course, in such a situation he would need to figure out ways of managing pressures because of his being different from society. He would also need to understand if and how much he can push his views. But he won't be wrong only because all else believe otherwise.

Now, let us come back to our rich people's campus. One of the responsibilities of the association body is to enforce the bye-laws formulated in line with authority given by the general body.

I find great reluctance amongst all members to enforce the rules as soon as it involves any kind of confrontation. Every time a matter comes up whereby the body members have to confront a resident about violation of law, it is as if there is an elephant in the room no one would like to face. If the issue is forced into discussion by pesky members like me, you immediately get to hear fluffy talk such as “we should resolve everything in a good – neighborly fashion” or something like: “we want a peaceful campus where everyone is happy” and so on. This, mind you, for small violations such as dog owners not clearing dog poop or someone playing music too loud.

There are more serious matters such as coercion by local (outside) thugs not permitting all to freely provide services in this rich campus. On these matters, there is not even a desire to bring up the matter. As if the very mention of the matter gives everyone a fear and embarrassment. At most, the body would like to ensure that the thugs don't conduct their fights inside the campus.

It has been very disheartening for me to observe this rich Indian class. All they seem to want are secure enclaves for which somebody somewhere ensures there is peace and order. I do not find one of them willing to take responsibility for law enforcement. Supposedly, the police is to do all enforcement. But they would not like to face the question what a body such as this can do within the confines of the law. There is much that is possible, but it takes a little courage to confront the matter and be willing to get into unpleasant situations. Rich India would not like any of that unpleasantness.

This is not to say that they do not ever face unpleasant situations. There have been occasions when body members did face thuggish people and made an attempt to stand up to them. However, I find they go to great lengths to avoid any confrontation and it needs to be forced on them for them to be involved in one.

It is a deep flaw in Indian ethos. If those in leadership positions want only a secure cocoon, without having to pay any price in terms of dirtying their hands to create security and peace, then we leave the political field wide open for crooks and thugs and also for the enemies of the country. Our “secure” people, living in their shells then endlessly complaint about politics being the haunt of crooks alone and good people being absent from politics if not public life.

Such is the ethos of leading India that has made us into a soft society and state. I am not at all surprised that they always vote for someone who is ambiguous in everything he says and does – men like Atal Behari Vajpayee and Manmohan Singh, rather than one who will formulate clear policies and do what is needed to implement them, such as LK Advani. Let us face it, it is because of our ethos that Pakistan is able to nearly get away with horrific terror attacks. Those who would face such problems and try to solve them not only do not get support, but are actually reviled as unnecessary confronters.

What should an individual do when faced with society nurturing a sickness such as this ? Now again let us go back to our Indian in pre – modern India who opposed untouchability. What should he have done ?

It is unlikely he could have changed the society. He would actually struggle to simply remain part of it. The best course for him would be to remain in the society with minimum compromises on his principles. He should advocate his views at every forum. He should try to win as many followers as possible and if nothing else, he should leave a record that he opposed his society's ethos. Those records would be inspiration for future generations.

This is what I try to do now. Oppose the values and behaviors of our body when possible and advocate a different approach at every opportunity. But I tell you, the pressures are significant and it is not easy on me !!

The Anna Hazare Phenomenon

Once Anna Hazare's fast ended and a few days passed, I found myself asking the question – What was this movement all about?

It was not a mass movement like, say, Rath Yatra, yet it moved a significant section of Indian population quite like a popular movement that changes a nation's history. It was a Gandhian sort of effort, yet it attracted the most westernized of Indians as supporters. It was a movement started by a native Indian Hindu, yet supported most by leftists and hardened secularists. Finally, it appeared to be popular, yet it seeks to subvert popular mandate by insisting on a bill that will put handpicked “Nobel prize winners”, “bharat ratna awardees” and such like above the democratically elected representatives, without commensurate accountability to people.

So what was the movement all about?

To answer the question, transport yourself to a village in interiors of India. The village still observes caste though segregation is not unbearably oppressive. In the village is a lone Brahmin family, which gets respected by the entire village solely because of being Brahmins. The Brahmin elder, though he has no temporal powers, still wields his “moral” power, rooted in Hindu values.

Now imagine that the majority of villagers take a decision, say to remove a temple and build a Panchayat office in it's place, the temple structure to come up in a new location.

The Brahmin does not like the decision and believes that the temple should not be moved since for whatever reason, the location is sacrosanct. However, the popular decision (or “democratic” if you will) is that the temple should be relocated.

What does “panditji” do? He announces that he will go and jump into the well if the popular decision is not reversed. The whole village gets excited on hearing Panditji's decision. Panditji also announces (very conveniently) a date and time for jumping into the well. At the appointed hour, the whole village gathers at the well. Panditji comes and gives his speech outlining how the village has forgotten “Dharma” and that he sees no point in living in this kind of society. Since the majority of the villagers have taken the decision that will institute the rule of “Adharma”, he has no choice but to give up his life.

The villagers, of course, would have none of it. Popular will shifts. The village leaders sense that they cannot annoy the villagers. They are now ready for compromise. With folded hands they request panditji to honor the village by reversing his decision. After some hawing and humming, the Brahmin gives up the “sankalpa” to give up his life and comes back. The temple remains where it was, development plans for the village are suitably altered.

This behavior, both of “moral leaders” and of the people, has been a constant feature of the Hindu society over ages. By popular will, the popular will itself is subordinated to the dictates of a moral leader provided such a leader is accepted as epitome of moral values. Gandhi was one such leader. Those who have closely studied his life and politics will agree that he was no democrat in the sense democracy is understood. He was, before anything else, a moral leader in the strictest Hindu sense. He could get his way simply by risking his life.

Anyone who has cared to examine things will realize that Anna Hazare's movement and the Lok Pal bill in the form proposed by him and his followers are profoundly undemocratic. Popular will does not lie with Anna Hazare. Howsoever one might dislike politicians, the truth is that the popular will lies with the politicians. It is for them that literally hundreds of millions come out of their houses, stand up in queues, take other personal inconveniences and vote them to power.

Anna Hazare has no capability to mobilize the real masses of India. He admitted his undemocratic nature openly. He said people don't understand things. They vote because they get a few hundred rupees or bottles of country liquor. Not because they think a politician will do good for the society. Many politicians too came on TV and said he and his movement are undemocratic. Questions were raised if we should give up democracy because certain sections of “civil” society don't like the representatives elected by popular will, howsoever serious be the charges against them.

This brings us to one of the central questions facing all democracies – what if the masses of people are either “evil”, in the sense that they want supremacism of some kind, or if they are so ignorant that giving voting power to them actually spoils governance in the country.

If, for instance, popular will was taken in any Muslim society, one can kiss goodbye to all that modern secular, free democracies stand for.

Anna Hazare, in reality, used a native Hindu tradition to compensate for “bad” decisions taken by democratic popular will in India. Quite like the Brahmin gets his way against a popular decision in the village. We may debate whether such a thing is good in modern India, or whether it is bad and we should go strictly by democratic process, but first let us first understand what happened. And what happened was the triumph of Hindu “moral” authority over popular will.

Now to cast our votes (how ironical!) on whether giving space and even authority to such “moral” crusaders is correct or not in a modern, constitutional democracy. My own view is that in India, we should allow some authority to persons of moral stature like Anna Hazare. India is still an immature democracy. Indians are still rather immature and a little old fashioned subversion of popular will will not harm us. Unless of course we become addicted to it.

I think that we indeed have misused our democratic rights. While old fashioned imperialism cannot be the answer – it's social order was always based on apartheid of some sort, this kind of movement by a person of impeccable moral stature, unsullied by any kind of politicization (note that he was supported by both secularists and nationalists) should get it's way and should have a say in the way the country is governed. I am happy that Anna Hazare bent the government to his will.

That should not take away our political responsibility to improve the democratic and constitutional processes. We cannot forever be dependent on “Nobel prize awardees” and “Bharat Ratna” for ensuring that politicians do not indulge in unbridled corruption. That assurance should eventually come from normal democratic and constitutional processes. Anna Hazare (and other similar persons) can be only a stopgap measure.

Having cast my vote, a word of caution too. This kind of movement has the potential to create a powerful coterie of one or the other political combine that has no accountability to people but wields undue influence on legitimate, democratically elected representatives. It will be a social and political dysfunction if the persons who get influence through this route, instead of fighting corruption and other universally agreed scourges of Indian society, start pushing their “secular” version of Indian narrative with their new found influence. So long as we are able to guard against that risk, Anna Hazare, the modern day panditji in the grand Indian village, will have added value to our political and governance process.

How India might deal with China

How India might deal with China One keeps seeing heartburns in India about China “encircling” India, any day ready to maul India again like it did in 1962. A columnist moaned that India has no capacity to counter Chinese and Pakistani threats and cannot take sustained international pressure so much so it even turned the other cheek on 26/11 attacks also.

Let us look at this issue a little more dispassionately. What is the nature of the threat we are facing and are we completely helpless against it or can we do something about it ?

Looking at this columnist and other individuals covering strategic position of India vis – a – vis hostile neighbors, one is reminded of Sirajudaula's attitude towards the growing might of the “company” in 18th century Bengal. Constantly in fear, but also full of hatred and anger since he considered himself the lord and master of Bengal, he lived with a sense of impotent rage and hatred until the British attacked and de-throned him.

In politics, as in other matters in life, one has to be able to use the power of emotions positively rather than let them overwhelm one into inaction and then get steamrolled by the circumstances. In his time, Sirajudaula should have been to make a dispassionate study of East India Company's power, figure out ways of countering the power, if not on his own then by forming alliances, and, if there was no way he could have power enough to counter the British, figured out a way of coming to terms with the British in a way that would enable him to live a dignified life and also provide security to his subjects.

This is politics. I am not suggesting cynicism. Far from it. A politician must believe in good and he must constantly look for ways to advance the cause of whatever is good for mankind. The point, however, is that some amount of dispassionate thinking and action needs to go into management of political affairs rather than fear of others' power, then despondency then inaction and finally extinction.

In the present case, given that China is exceedingly powerful and menacing and it has formed an apparently unshakeable alliance with the terrorist state of Pakistan, what can India do ?

If we pull ourselves out of our despondency and want to ask hard questions, where should we start ? Here are the questions I would find hard answers to first:

1. Ask the army, preferably separately from more than one general, how long we will last in a conflict with China. I won't be shocked if the answer is far more favorable to India than it appears to naked eye. Conventional warfare is still much about logistics and those still favor India even with modern technologies. I remember seeing an analysis by an American military expert and he was emphatic India won't be as weak as it might appear.

2. Can India cope if war starts with both China and Pakistan ? How long we will last in such a scenario before we lose substantial territory to one or both countries ?

3. How will diplomacy influence the conflict ? In one on one as well as in one on two conflicts.

4. What can India do to prolong if not win the one on two conflict ? What can India do to make the cost of such conflict unacceptable to both countries ?

5. And the most important question – who can be India's real friends if a conflict indeed breaks out (or even otherwise). I will return to this question later.

To anyone despondent about India's chances in a “both border” conflict, I would like to point out a few things. One – Indian army has done the thinking. It has been going on for some years now. Recently Gen VK Singh said the Army is prepared for such a conflict.

Does it mean that India can hold it's own to both China and Pakistan ? Likely not. What the General perhaps meant was that India has a plan of action, presumably a detailed one, of how it will conduct the warfare in case both China and Pakistan set upon India in unison. Perhaps he means that militarily, the cost of such an adventure will be very high for them if they undertake such a venture. This itself should soothe our despondent friends a little.

Second, the diplomatic costs of attacking India in a manner like this will be immense for both countries. The sight of a free, democratic and un-threatening nation being attacked brutally is likely to bring unexpected support to India and is likely to make both countries pariah in the eyes of the world (not that Pakistan can become much more of a pariah). To be sure, these countries will be mindful of diplomatic angle and try to start the conflict in a manner as to make India look like the culprit. But success of carrying out an exceedingly delicate diplomatic maneuver has negligible probability.

So, is India secure ? Should we take it that the army is doing it's job and we can sleep peacefully ?

The answer is no.

The army likely cannot hold off for forever. They probably only have worked out a detailed action plan that has the best chance to delay the enemy advance. But even apart from that, there is at least one thing India can do. I return to last question in the list above. India can and should build lasting alliances based on shared values and interests. No, I am not suggesting Indo – US alliance. Indian and American values are similar only on the surface. The differences are deep. India likely does not have many whole nations or governments that will be real allies, the kind that Pakistan and China appear to be. But there are many forces that will gladly help India against it's enemies. Here are some of those:

1. Tibetans. Though India obviously is viewed warmly by those Tibetans who are here, there is no reason why Indian security agencies should not deepen stealthy contacts with native Tibetan population. From whatever one knows of these matters, this should be possible.

2. Nepalese Army. The ties between Indian and Nepalese army run deep. India should strengthen Nepalese army and form a deep, unshakeable alliance. If Chinese try to start a two front war with India, India could also be ready to lighten up all of the Chinese border.

3. North Afghans. Already love India and Indians. Properly strengthened, they will be India's answer to Chinese presence in POK. India should trash west's / America's desires and look to advance it's own interests. India should train and equip their army, build a strong civil society and if India faces two front war, then Pakistan will also face the same. And remember, India has “depth”, Pakistan has none.

4. Many south east Asians can become friends of India. India should particularly consider helping Burmese dissidents with a view to having them as long term allies quite like north Afghans.

5. Israel. Likely to be friendly towards India though it's strong ties with the USA will come in the way.

Politics is all about forming strong alliances. India has far more going for itself than we give ourselves credit for. The despondent columnist forgot that it was the USA / west that wilted under the pressure of India's nuclear posture and not the other way round.

But for us to advance strategically, we need to be playing the game. All of India, unfortunately, is not playing the game.

India is divided between those who can think of Indian nation as an entity and those who are so lost in the small, micro level battles that they have lost the larger perspective. Indeed, India's strategic position is weak because of unresolved internal conflicts.

That is actually a tougher political problem than handling hostile and aggressive neighbors on both the borders.

Is another major terror attack in the offing ?

Our Prime Minister, and I must say here that I am ashamed of being an Indian because that kind of a man is elected as a PM, reduced a cricket match with Pakistan first to some sort of an Aman Ki Asha show, and then to a full fledged diplomatic initiative smelling like “Thimpu spirit” ! He has basically sent out a message that he trusts Pakistan. That Pakistani government and people neither were involved in horrendous terror attacks nor desire that such terror attacks take place. He has virtually absolved Pakistani government and people of any complicity in Mumbai terror attacks. This is truly an atrocity in itself. In the face of a horror such as Mumbai, no nation would have been consolable before proper punishment was meted out to the perpetrators. It is the depth to which this government has plunged India into that we are willing to literally sup with criminals who either carried out terror attacks or knew about them or willingly harbor terrorists. If we go by the past, Pakistan is likely to use this opportunity to launch another horror on India. In the aftermath of Mumbai, it would be nearly impossible to do so again without risking a full fledged war in which they would be isolated. But they wait for opportunities such as the one Manmohan Singh has presented them with. In such a scenario, when a terror attack takes place, it is impossible for India to take a tough line with Pakistan. If Pakistan cannot successfully deny it's involvement, it will take the other tack. It will blame it on “non state actors” who are subjecting Pakistan also to terror. In reality, the terror attacks against India are carried out with full involvement of it's army. I am convinced even the government knows about such “operations” beforehand and the people of Pakistan are happy to reduce India to a pathetic state where it is slapped in the face and is helpless to take revenge. If indeed, as Manmohan Singh's actions seem to suggest, Pakistani government and people are acting in good faith, why don't they hand over the likes of Dawood to us ? Why don't the TV channels film his presence in Pakistan and show it to all the world ? Why do we find who's who of Pakistani society in marriages of his children ? Pakistani people are happy to see terror attacks on India. This can be easily concluded from their past behavior. They have lost the race of development to people they hated from the core of their hearts and a terror attack which indeed makes India look helpless and pathetic, soothes that sentiment of defeat and rage. Against such mindset, India should never have lowered it's guard. The correct posture vis – a – vis Pakistan should have been that if there is another terror attack, a war is inevitable, even if it involves nuclear weapons. It would be easy to send such a message to the world because this is one issue on which the world would have no face to show to India. But the guard is kept up by those who feel some responsibility towards to the people they lead. Those whose existence is centered around keeping themselves in power at any cost cannot care less about lives and dignities of people and the nation. They are cynical to the point of being sleazy. I would put Manmohan Singh in that category along with much of the UPA. They have put Pakistan in a situation, through their mealy mouthed talk about “reconciliation”, where Pakistan can again carry out another Mumbai without serious risk of punitive action. You cannot sing songs of bhai-chara and dine with someone today, and tell him tomorrow that you are a bloody terrorist who deserves to be taken out. As a result of these shenanigans of Manmohan Singh and UPA, aimed at winning votes of Indian Muslims, Indian people are at serious risk. I foresee loss of a few hundred lives and deep humiliation for India once again. May God prove me wrong. The picture is from http://www.rediff.com/news/slide-show/slide-show-1-cricket-dinner-and-diplomacy-in-mohali/20110331.htm

Why true Muslims do not allow “blasphemy” of Islam?

Looking at the bad press Islam receives on it's adherents reactions to “offenses” the kind of which other religions take in their stride, one would think that by now hard-line Muslims might learn to check their natural impulse to indulge in violence on provocations and blasphemies against Islam. Yet, the Muslims do not react to such things – a cartoon here, a remark there, a book depicting Mohammed in unflattering light, with dignified silence. They still, after all the odium from the world public, react to apparently minor provocations with extreme outpourings and violence.

Why?

One might argue it is only contempt for the opinion of other religions' adherents and a certainty about their own. But still, when it makes so much tactical sense to check violent reaction in such cases, why the Muslims still act true to form on perceiving slights to their religions.
Those who have not studied Islam have one of the two reactions. The ones sympathetic to Islam show exasperation and make yet another desperate effort to segregate “extremists” from “mainstream” Muslims and valiantly try to draw parallels between extremists of all religions. It is another matter that they are increasingly devoid of conviction in such efforts and perhaps don't take even themselves seriously any more in defense of Islam. Those who are antagonistic to Islam point out to another proof of inherently violent nature of Islam. Neither of these views, however, answers the question why Muslims are not able to learn making tactically more sensible responses to attacks on their religion.

Once someone has studied Islam, however, and has put himself in the shoes of common Muslim, the answer appears clear.

Muslims are mortally afraid that perfect freedom to express opinion of Islam and depict all it's prophet's deeds will be so embarrassing for them that they will have a tough time explaining why they are at all continuing to be adherents of Islam. To elucidate, I give below my e-mail to a truly moderate and sensible Pakistani, in response to a column of his on why Muslims could not ignore offenses such as Koran burning in the USA:

Hi xxxxx,

I had much to say on this column of yours, but I will only try to tell u why they can't "hit delete and move on". [Note: This was the heading of his column – Why can't they hit delete and move on]

Those who indulge in violence at the announcement of Koran burning (even without the actual event taking place) know that once such actions are ignored (as you advise), it will be followed by more such actions. There will be, for instance, cartoons depicting Mohammed torturing Kinana and taking his wife for himself, or maybe episodes on History Channel showing the massacre of Bani Quraiza in all it's gory details.

They know that if they don't try to suppress such actions with their collective might, who knows, some uncouth infidel might one day make a movie on Mohammed, showing Mohammed's face too, maybe played by an arch villain of Hollywood or Bollywood, and the movie shows all the incidents of his life that Muslims would hate non- Muslims to know. They know that if such things were to happen, more and more infidels will question if Islam is a religion like all others, or it is a brutal and totalitarian political ideology.

People will question prophethood of Mohammed. They will ask why such a man should be considered at par with Jesus and Moses. They know that more and more Muslims might start asking that question. They know it might lead to apostasy on a large scale. They know that most probably, the apostates will look more developed mentally, more free, modern and liberal than Muslims. That will further reinforce the idea that something is fundamentally wrong with Islam.

They fear that if taken to its logical conclusion, ignoring such events will lead to abolition of Islam!!

That is why the desperate desire to suppress all such actions NOW. To prevent the infidels from saying and doing anything that truly free people might want to say or do about Islam!!

That is why they cannot "delete and move on"

I have to say this, with due respect, that they are the ones who really understand Islam. Sorry, but I had to say this bluntly once I read your column.

I am sure you know though, that I respect you as a person.
Cordially
Sanjay

I am tempted to produce my entire exchanges with him in the course of which, he tried to draw equivalence of Islam and other religions and actually attempted to pass off falsehood in support of his hypothesis. However, it is not easy to lie in this age of Internet and I confronted him with the lie. At that point, he simply made an embarrassing face saving statement saying that I have encouraged him to study more and then he pushed off!

But coming back to the original point - why so much support for killing of Pakistani minister for supporting change in blasphemy law? Why the extreme reaction to Mohammed's cartoons, why the violence against Taslima Nasreen? Why the threat of widespread violence against Koran burning?

I have attempted to answer that question after studying the Muslim mind. Muslims cannot afford freedom of speech. Nor, for that matter, or religion. And once these premises are accepted in a Muslim society – that there will be neither freedom of speech nor of religion, the supremacist discriminatory laws against non – Muslims is a logical step. Indeed, this is the root cause why Muslims cannot live with non – Muslims as equals on permanent basis. Islam cannot stand modern day paradigm of equality of religions and freedom of speech.

The picture is from: http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/11/05/2082367.htm

Khelein Hum Jee Jaan Se – III

In this last of the series of articles on this movie made for patriotic Indians, I share with the readers the third and last important strand of my thoughts as I watched Surjyo Sen fight the might of British empire with his band of 65 mostly teenagers.
In the last decade or so, after the BJP came to power, India has started believing that the West led by USA is a potential if not already an actual ally of India. The shared values are indeed very important and visible. We too want an India where every individual free is and flourishes to the best of his potential. We admire nations like UK and USA who have taken in people from all countries including the ones oppressed by colonialism and afforded them freedom, dignity and opportunity. Indeed, it is not unfair to say that the western nations have been more friendly to Indians than perhaps any other group of countries.
India has received some recognition from these countries now, for it's consistent democracy and human rights record, for it's other freedoms and the commitment of all it's politicians of all shades to modernity and secularism. From the perspective of these countries, India alone amongst backward nations has achieved modernity with a free and constitutional framework and therefore worthy of respect.
I have to say that I had become ready to put behind all the animosity of British rule in India and started believing that we should deepen the friendship with the West to a point where there is real alliance with the West to spread modernity and democracy.
The movie forced me to question that belief and desire.
As I watched British ruthlessness and racism in the movie, their brutality and readiness to reduce Indians to a subhuman level, I found myself asking how deep is the West's commitment to equality of all humans and did they ever really abandon their racism. If perchance they indeed believe, without expressing it openly for political reasons, that they are a genetically superior lot, can they ever be true partners of India on equal terms.
We cannot brush aside these questions. We have to objectively evaluate the West's behavior, in colonial period led by Britain and in post – colonial period led by the USA, in order to form a correct attitude and policy towards the West. We should not go by pronouncements and expressions of support. We should look at their actions and the end results sought by them. Then alone we will be understand what really goes on in their mind.
As I tried to go over the key incidents with respect to India – West relationship, the picture is not pretty and indeed, this movie forced me to shift my stance on how we should relate to the USA. If we look at how the Western nations behave, it is clear that their commitment to liberty, freedom and human rights is more or less restricted to their own citizens. They never have and perhaps never will truly believe in the equality of all men. I can give no better example of this than their eulogistic references to Chruchill. Here is a man who routinely proclaimed superiority of his race and made abusive comments about “lesser” peoples. He also maintained that whites must rule over colored peoples. His ideas of liberty and freedom did not extend to peoples like Indians. Yet, if you hear a typical Western man (a white man actually) talk about Churchill, you will get the impression that Churchill was the inventor of the concept of Universal Human Rights.
There are many other pointers, impossible to ignore, that say that in their heart of hearts, white people still want to maintain superiority over others, using foul means if needed. One notices many times in Western media, lists of “biggest” terror strikes on free nations. I lost count of how many times they never mention any terror strike in India. At least one such instance was noticed AFTER 26 /11. The list of the most “horrific terror attacks ever”, posted on frontpagemag site, included Beslan terror attack (justifiably), included the shoe bomber and not the horrific 26 / 11 attack. As if someone making a crude attempt at killing white people and failing is a bigger incident than butchery of 180 + Indians !
They are racists, let us not keep ignoring the elephant in the room.
Nowadays Americans give the argument that since a black man was elected to US presidency, they have washed the sins of their past racism. It is not really a valid argument. I suspect it works the other way round. In a racially polarized society, blacks feel so humiliated that they can't think of voting for a white man if there is a black man in the race. Hence a solid block of minority votes combined with a percentage of white “liberal” votes ensured the victory. This is exactly what happens in one of the most casteist state of India – UP. The Dalits have been oppressed so much, even in modern times, that they cannot dream of voting for parties traditionally identified with upper castes.
I, therefore felt, as I watched the movie, that we must operate with a presumption, a very safe one based on our centuries of interaction with them, that we should never expect a real meeting of hearts with any Western nation. We have to learn a lot of skills from them and hence I would not advocate shutting all doors on them. But we must always be cautious and certainly in strategic matters, we should assume that they will be neutral even in the face of utmost viciousness against us, if not on the side of our enemies.
This means India will not have any significant allies in global politics. This is as it should be. India has a distinct sense of values, different from Islamic world, from China and from the West. Our interactions with all the nations must be transactional and we should not seek a starry eyed (but woolly headed) “partnership” or “natural alliance”. Let us face it. We have no natural allies. The similarities with the West are superficial, the differences profound. With others, there is no superficial overlap either.

The movie really gave a perspective of India's experience with the West. We do forget in the goody goody atmosphere of a summit meeting with US how vicious the British were and, examine closely and you find the same in the US. Let us be cautious of them. May our eyes always be dry in dealing with them.

Khelein Hum Jee Jaan Se – II

Like I said in my previous post on the subject, I had many thoughts as I watched the movie and now I move on to the other important facet of the whole incident that a patriotic Indian should ponder over.
Ever since India came under the British rule, Indians internalized that we do not have execution capability, especially in political and military domain. We are a “soft” people. The logic went that since the Hindus came to be dominated by just about every invader who chose to attack India, we must be devoid of political skills and fighting capability and are easily “taken”.
This line flies in the face of all available evidence. India came under Islamic rule much later than parts of Europe did. Even the British could establish their rule not because they had inherently superior military capabilities but because they were part of a growing and expanding civilization that achieved modernity before anyone else. Simply compare how easily Islam established it's rule over other civilizations and how easily the west too did and it will be clear that Hindu resistance to advancing cultures was more stubborn and longer lasting than other comparable nations.
However, the British had to demoralize the majority Hindus and also put us under the sway of their terror and so did everything they could to institutionalize this thinking in Indians (or let us say, Hindus). They were remarkably successful in this and to this day, the educated elite of India cannot bring itself to believe that we too are capable of great political achievements.
Once you closely examine the sheer skill and generalship shown by Surjyo Sen and his group in the Chittagong matter, you realize how much Indians can do. Sure enough, they failed in their plans. But anyone who has been any kind of executive in life and made a difference in his field (and not armchair “commentators”), will appreciate how much skill and capability was shown by the revolutionaries.
They planned extremely well. 65 revolutionaries trained with muskets and pistols for months and no one came to know of it till they actually hit the British installations. They took over all the installations as planned and cut Chittagong off from the rest of the country as they had planned. Then the gaps in their planning caught up on them. They had no idea that ammunition for 303 rifles was kept away from the guns and so were not able to arm themselves as planned and had to make do with older technology muskets and pistols. They did not know that on a Good Friday, all “Europeans” would vacate the club and go home early so were not able to execute them as planned.
They still make good their escape. After a few days there was an encounter with the British at Jalalabad. The encounter was of course lost by the revolutionaries but here are some facts to be considered – they were 65 while the British troops were a few thousand. They had only muskets and pistols. The British not only had 303 rifles – advanced technology of the day, but also machine guns. And finally, the British troops were trained for years. On our side (yes ! OUR side !) were mostly teenagers with very little practice. Sure, we had the advantage of height but all things considered, the fact that in Jalalabad encounter we had 12 casualties while the British had 80 + says something of the fighting spirit of Indians.
They had to retreat again in the face of machine gun fire. They scattered themselves and hid wherever possible. There were a few more encounters. Our revolutionaries killed many and lost few in ALL encounters in spite of the handicaps and it took the British 2 years to finally capture all including the leader – Surjyo Sen. By the end of the fight, the British lost a total of 242 men, 22 of them officers. Out of 65 revolutionaries, 32 were finally aquitted. Rest were killed in encounters or sent to prison for life or hanged.
The whole incident energized India. It stunned the British not only in India but also in Britain. While we have become fond of deriding our own political capabilities, I can bet the British themselves who had much more experience in these matters, would have been full of secret admiration for the courage and skill of this band of mostly teenagers and Surjyo Sen himself. Even though the revolutionaries failed in their objectives, indirectly they did succeed – each such incident convinced the British that their rule in India was unsustainable. They could put out one fire using terror and ruthlessness but one day all India would revolt and they would not be able to suppress all hundreds of millions. I am convinced that Chittagong uprising contributed in it's own way towards the departure of British from India.
I would now like to highlight where we need to improve in our political endeavors, again with Chittagong uprising as the example. I think these gaps remain even now and we would do well to correct them so that the world takes us more seriously.
I think (and this is opinion based on limited knowledge of Surjyo Sen's circumstances from the movie and a bit of internet research) that Surjyo should have first understood the full measure of British power. Even if he had succeeded in his design, what would have been achieved ? Chittagong and perhaps nearby areas would be free from the British, but only for a limited time. People could feel a few days' joy, celebrate, enjoy. And after that ?
The British power was spread all over the subcontinent with hundreds of thousands of trained troops, police force and most modern weaponry. Would the public of Chittagong have been able to hold out against this mighty empire ? With the strongest will and desire too, it would have been impossible without the means. Did Surjyo Sen think that the incident would cause spontaneous uprising all over India ? That too is doubtful. Did he plan that eventually he and the Chittagong people would be overpowered but they will have made the point and the British would be encouraged to leave ? I have doubts if he intended it this way.
I think that before starting his insurrection, he should have tried to form an all India group with people of similar ideology and skills. The might of the British empire would be tested only if there were similar incidents all over India simultaneously. As it was executed, even if the plan had succeeded, it would not have achieved much. It gave the impression of anger at the British being taken out in whatever way possible, rather than an authentic attempt to remove the British from India except in an indirect way.
The other gap we need to consider plugging in our political behavior is a lack of ruthlessness. Politics is, by nature, a cynical and amoral game. Even the finest ideology, if it needs to be successful, has to recognize the brutality of the political world and build it into it's plan and, in measured ways, exercise it too.
During their raid on the armory, the revolutionaries had to contend with a few hundred of British troops (actually Indians but working for the British) who were sleeping in a barrack in the armory complex. The revolutionaries knew where they were sleeping and locked them up while they slept. As the raid proceeded, some of the guards fired, got killed and the sounds awakened the troops. They armed themselves – as it happens all the 303 ammo was with them all along, broke open the doors and came out to fight.
Any “skilled” politician would have burned the barrack and killed the troops while they slept. Looking at the tactics followed by the states, emperors and even the modern day democracies, none would hesitate to act with such ruthlessness while going about an important mission.
Surjyo lacked that ruthlessness and I think so do Indians till today. Contrast this with the attitude of Americans and British who had no hesitation in exterminating their enemies as needed. The Americans have allied with the worst terrorists in fulfillment of their strategic missions in modern times. The British had no hesitation in lying, cheating and killing their opponents when they built their empires.

I do not advocate a complete cynicism in conduct of politics. Certainly this sort of amoral behavior should not become a value by itself as it did in case of many political ideologies. But to understand that the world of politics is like this only and to exercise it in exigencies in limited ways would be in accord with the Dharma and Niti of politics. I really wish we Indians realized it and sent a message to the world that beyond a point, Indians too are capable of it.