Muppadhu kodi mugamudayal
Enil maipuram ondrudayal
Ival Seppumozhi padhinetudayal
Enil Sindhanai ondrudayal
(This Bharatmata has 30 crore faces
But her body is one
She speaks 18 languages
But her thought is one)
– Tamil poet Subramania Bharathi
Dear caretakers of Indian Muslims (includes secular parties, once-communal parties, confused allies, maulvis, Muslim welfare organizations and generally anybody these days),
You are probably wondering who I am. After all, I don’t have a name like Ahmed or Saeed or Mirza, anything that will clearly establish me as a Muslim. You forget, this writer also writes fiction. So perhaps I, or what I say here, is nothing but a fabrication. However, maybe there’s something useful in there for all you well-wishers.
Everyone seems to care for Muslims, but no one actually wants to listen to us, particularly the youth. I keep hearing political leaders promising to uplift us. I don’t know how they plan to uplift us and only us, without uplifting the nation. But then, I am a nobody, what do I know?
I see them wear Muslim caps, perhaps to show us that they really do mean to improve our lives. However, a cap on your head doesn’t change anybody’s life. Using what’s inside your head might. You haven’t. For why else do we continue to be one of the most backward communities in India?
It is not like India has a shortage of Muslim achievers. There are Muslim stars in almost every field. These people achieved what they did without any cap-wearing politician helping them. They had a modern outlook and a desire to come up in life. We need a leader who understands this, and inspires us to do better. We need jobs. We need good schools and colleges. We need a good, clean home with power and water. We need a decent standard of living. We don’t need it as a handout. We are willing to work hard for it. Just, if you can, create the opportunities to do so.
What makes you think all a leader has to do is wear a cap, dole out some freebies, speak empty words and expect us all to vote in a pack? What are we, a herd of sheep? Does the God we pray to make us all part of one flock when it comes to politics? Is that India? Last I heard we are not a religious republic. We are a democratic republic. So treat us like democratic citizens.
You know what hurts? We do not have a strong modern Indian Muslim voice. If I am an Indian Muslim, who believes in ambition, scientific way of thinking, entrepreneurship, empowerment, progress and personal freedoms, where do I go? Which party is backing that? Can someone give me a leader who represents my aspirations?
I cannot tell you the frustration we feel. It is bad enough we find it difficult to rent an apartment, the police frisks us with greater attentiveness and we have to bear the occasional jibes. But what is truly sick is this: you guys claim to care for us but are only reinforcing that we are backward and doomed to remain so. Because of you, people feel that we vote in a herd and are keeping India backward. You, our caretakers, have led people to think we care only about religion and not about corruption and development. It isn’t true. Corruption is stealing, and stealing is sin. No true Muslim or progressive Indian can support it. Don’t hide your sins behind your fake caring for us. We know you neither care for India, nor for Islam.
Maybe I am being too harsh, and some of you are indeed well intentioned. But realize the consequences every time you slot us by our religion. There is more to us than that.
If you truly want to help, there is one area where you could. We have a wonderful religion. However, like any religion, the interpretation of it can be orthodox or liberal. In many parts of the world, there’s an extremely strict interpretation of Islam in daily life. India is more liberal, and many Muslims would prefer to keep it this way. Can you support us in that? Don’t let our religious heads, extreme voices and fundamentalists control our lives, for that isn’t the essence of India. If you can do that, we will back you. You will truly be our representatives if you promote real progress – through empowerment and modernization of our community. The Indian Muslim has evolved. It is time you do too.
have been destroyed because of internal divisions among the people;
Hence a republic should always strive to achieve unity and good relations among the people
(Therefore the wise authorities should crush the separatist forces trying to assert their strength)
– Mahabharat, Shanti Parva, 108:26
Political leaders, film stars, cricketers, etc. are all falling over one another to pay tribute to the late Bal Thackeray. Amidst this plethora of accolades and plaudits pouring in from the high and mighty, I humbly wish to register my vote of dissent.
I know of the maxim De mortuis nil nisi bonum (of the dead speak only good), but I regret I cannot, since I regard the interest of my country above observance of civil proprieties.
What is Bal Thackeray’s legacy?
It is the anti-national ‘sons of the soil’ (bhumiputra) theory.
Article 1(1) of the Indian Constitution states: “India, that is Bharat, shall be a Union of States.”
Thus, India is not a confederation but a union.
Article 19 (1) (e) states: “All citizens shall have the right — to reside and settle in any part of the territory of India.”
Thus, it is a fundamental right of a Gujarati, south Indian, Bihari, U.P.ite, or person from any other part of India to migrate to Maharashtra and settle down there, just as it is of Maharashtrians to settle down in any part of India (though there are some restrictions in J&K, and some North-East States, due to historical reasons).
The bhumiputra theory states that Maharashtra essentially belongs to Marathi people, while Gujaratis, south Indians, north Indians, etc. are outsiders. This is in the teeth of Articles 1(1) and 19(1)(e) of the Constitution. India is one nation, and hence non-Maharashtrians cannot be treated as outsiders in Maharashtra.
The Shiv Sena created by Thackeray attacked south Indians in the 1960s and 70s, and vandalised their restaurants and homes. In 2008, Biharis and U.P.ites living in Mumbai (the bhaiyyas who eke out a livelihood as milk and newspaper vendors, taxi drivers etc.) were described as infiltrators and attacked, their taxis smashed, and several beaten up. Muslims were also vilified
This, of course, created a vote bank for Thackeray based on hatred (as had Hitler, of whom Thackeray was an admirer), and how does it matter if the country breaks up and is Balkanised?
Apart from the objection to the ‘sons of the soil’ theory for being anti-national and unconstitutional, there is an even more basic objection, which may rebound on Thackeray’s own people.
India is broadly a country of immigrants (like North America) and 92-93 per cent of the people living in India today are not the original inhabitants but descendants of immigrants who came mainly from the north-west seeking a comfortable life in the sub-continent (see the article ‘What is India?’ on my blog justicekatju.blogspot.in and the video on the website kgfindia.com ).
The original inhabitants (the real bhumiputra) of India are the pre-Dravidian tribals, known as Adivasis (the Bhils, Gonds, Santhals, Todas, etc.) who are only 7-8 per cent of our population today.
Hence if the bhumiputra theory is seriously implemented, 92-93 per cent of Maharashtrians (including, perhaps, the Thackeray family) may have to be regarded as outsiders and treated accordingly. The only real bhumiputra in Maharashtra are the Bhils and other tribals, who are only 7-8 per cent of the population of Maharashtra.
Several separatist and fissiparous forces are at work in India today (including the bhumiputra theory). All patriotic people must combat these forces.
Why must we remain united? We must remain united because only a massive modern industry can generate the huge wealth we require for the welfare of our people — agriculture alone cannot do this — and modern industry requires a huge market. Only a united India can provide the huge market for the modern industry we must create to abolish poverty, unemployment and other social evils, and to provide for the huge health care and modern education systems we must set up if we wish to come to the front ranks of the most advanced countries.
Hence I regret I cannot pay any tribute to Mr Bal Thackeray.
Malaysia’s most famous council of religious groups can thank the heavens they now have a lawyer in charge.
Why so? Well, if the tapestry of interfaith unity in Malaysia is a delicate wsickeave, then the finger that is pulling at the thread is attached to the long arm of the law these days.
Case in point, it was the government lawyers that came up with a Bill for Parliament to allow just one parent to decide which religion the child should have, even if the other parent objects.And that is where Jagir Singh (pic) comes in. This is familiar territory to him and it helped when the Malaysian Consultative Council of Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Sikhism and Taoism lobbied hard against the Bill. The Bill was finally withdrawn in the face of withering dissent even from the ruling coalition partners.
Until last week, Jagir was the deputy president of the influential council, also known as MCCBCHST. Now he is the president.
The council has found itself at odds with lawmakers in recent years. It has stood firm against a seemingly rising tide of legal challenges to the old Malaysian way of live and let live.
Given the direction ahead, it is probably very useful that the new chief of the council was a former prosecutor with the Anti-Corruption Agency and an officer there for nine years before he opted out of government service in 1992 to set up his law practice.
He even wrote a book about Malaysian law, taking two years to do it. So… he pretty much knows the law.
And this must come in handy when one of the large challenges ahead for the council is to push back against a tide of opinion that one religion presides above all, even in the law of the land.
Speaking to The Malaysian Insider yesterday, Jagir said, “I first need to say that non-Muslims have never questioned the Federation and its religion. But some people think that Article 3 can be interpreted to mean that Syariah Law can override this.”
He was talking about a common misconception on Islam’s position in Malaysia, arising from an interpretation of Article 3 of the Federal Constitution. It states that “Islam is the religion of the Federation; but other religions may be practised in peace and harmony in any part of the Federation.”
Pointing out that the Constitution clearly says it is the supreme law of the Federation, Jagir adds, “This itself shows that Islamic law is not applicable here and cannot override the supremacy of the Constitution. But when we say this, they accuse us of questioning. But we are not doing that, these are facts.”
He added that as the council stands for the five main non-Muslim religions in Malaysia, it is always praying for the wellbeing of Malaysia as well as championing the principles of the Rukun Negara.
“What the council, which represents 40 percent of the population, has been doing was to make statements in order to move the conscience of those in power, appealing to them to recognise the rights of all,” he said.
But why not have Muslim leaders in the council to complete the circle? Jagir said, “The Muslims say they are superior in terms of religion, so they cannot sit at the same level with non-Muslims.
“And their religious heads won’t want to sit with the non-Muslims. Furthermore, they have their own religious departments, muftis and ulama groups, but for non-Muslims there is only one.”
Jagir said that when the council did discuss issues with Muslims, it was only through Muslim NGOs and not the leaders of the religion.
What about the Cabinet-commissioned interfaith committee that was set up two years ago to promote understanding and harmony among the religious?
Jagir, who is a member of that interfaith committee, said that discussions were not to be revealed in the open, but added that there was no consensus yet on the core issues of religious conversion of children and use of the word “Allah”.
So it is not an easy road ahead and there is an urgent need for strong leadership.
On this, Jagir added that non-Muslims want a colour-blind leadership and not those who go into the battle themselves and accuse others.
Commenting on the remarks by Deputy Prime Minister Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin that non-Muslims insulted Islam, Jagir added: “I am deeply concerned that the simple rural folk will believe his comments, and might think that non-Muslims are in fact insulting the religion.
“This will only create tension among the races, when in actual fact, the non-Muslims have been known to react peacefully when their rights are being trampled on, which seems to be happening on an almost daily basis of late.”
He also took to task community leaders from Sabah and Sarawak for hardly showing any concern on important religious issues.
“They hardly say anything, perhaps they do not want to risk their positions, so the burden of being vigilant has fallen on NGOs like us,” he complained.
In contrast, he commended Tourism Minister Datuk Seri Nazri Aziz, who was the only minister who spoke out against the proposed Bill to allow for one parent to convert the religion of a minor to Islam.
“This shows that within Umno, there are people with conscience,” he said.
Speaking of high profile activists, he said, “However people like Mariam Mokhtar and Marina Mahathir, whom we consider as the voices of conscience, are branded as being too liberal when in fact, these are the people showing the true version of Islam which promotes justice and fair play, and treats all as equals.”
The father of four boys sought to put his council’s work in perspective as it celebrates its 30th year next month. Jagir pointed out that it had always shown restraint and championed issues based on the Federal Constitution, using proper channels.
“We are just a get-together of religious bodies without any legal or executive power,” the new president said.
But a group, he could have added, with a firm hand over the past 30 years in helping weave the precious fabric of interfaith unity for the good of all Malaysians.
Poverty is a terrible thing. There are few things as demeaning to a human being as not having the means to fulfil his basic needs in life.
India is one of the poverty havens of the world. We have all heard of India’s teeming millions, probably since childhood. While one could blame the British for all our mistakes pre-1947, it has been almost 67 years since they left. We are still one of the poorest nations on earth. Many countries in Asia, which started with similar poverty levels in the 1940s, have progressed faster — some of them dramatically. We, however, remain poor.
The continuance of poverty is particularly surprising because there are so many smart and powerful people who claim to be representing the poor. Politicians, academics, poverty economists, NGOs — there are so many people trying to help the poor. It is baffling, then, why we can’t seem to get rid of poverty. Our public debates are virtually controlled by left-leaning intellectuals, who are some of the most pro-poor people on earth. And yet, they seem to be get-ting nowhere.
Well, they won’t. Because while they may be experts on the poor and their suffering, they have little idea about the one thing that eventually removes poverty — money. Yes, it is over-simplistic, but it is perplexing how little our top thinkers and debate-controllers know about wealth creation, true economic empowerment, productivity and competitiveness. For, if they did, they would not support one of the most hare-brained schemes to have ever come out of our illusionist politicians` hat — the food security Bill.
It is a tough Bill to write against. The fashionably left, almost communist, intellectual mafia will almost kill you. The subject is sensitive. You may argue that the numbers just don’t add up — that we will ruin our already fragile economy further if we do this. The retort will be ‘at least a poor mother will see her child sleep peace-fully at night on a full stomach’.
Try arguing with that! You may see financial ruin for the nation, but how will your data-filled presentation ever compete with the picture of a malnourished hungry child in an Indian village. You can’t. I submit all economics, basic arithmetic, common sense, rationality, practicality fails when someone confronts you with ‘so basically you don’t want to help the poor, right?’
Nobody does not want to help the poor. Nevertheless, after being labelled anti-poor, you will be labelled an MNC-favouring, FDI-obsessed capitalist. Stay long enough; you will be branded right-wing, perhaps with a ‘communalist’ slur added too. Welcome to India where one doesn’t debate on reason. We debate on emotions, moral one-upmanship and attacking the debater rather than the argument.
Therefore, like any sane, self-preserving individual, i’d say my official line on the un-opposable Bill is this: Bring on the food security Bill. In fact, i propose a better Bill. Why just two-thirds of India, let’s extend free grains to the entire country. Moreover, why not some vegetables and fruit too? And don’t poor kids deserve fresh milk? We should provide that too. If the debate is going to be won by the guy with the noblest intention, then i am going to make sure i am the one.
Every Indian family must get grain, fruit, vegetables, milk and whatever else it takes to have a healthy balanced diet. It should be free. There, am i not the good guy now?
When irritating questions pop up in my head on who will pay for it, or how will so many commodities be secured, or how will the already debt-ridden government finances look after this, i will tell my mind to shut up. I’ll avoid looking at the astronomical bill (lakhs of crores over just the next few years). If i feel this money could be used to transform rural education, irrigation or road networks, which would make our poor empowered, employable and richer, i will scold myself for thinking with my brain.
It is not important to remove poverty. It is only important to come across as a person who cares for poor people. And i do, more than you. That is why my Bill has fruit and vegetables. Does yours? So what if our fiscal deficit swells, the rating agencies downgrade us to junk credit and foreign investors stop investing in our country? We don’t need them. They are all our enemies anyway.
The government will not spend on productive assets, we’ll scare the foreigners away and we will never have good infrastructure, schools or hospitals. So what? At least we care for poor people. We`ll keep caring for poor people until our money totally runs out, the nation gets bankrupt, inflation is out of control and there are no more jobs.
Of course, that means far more people will be poorer than from where we started. But isn’t that a good thing? After all, it gives us a chance to care for even more people. So, bring on my Food, Fruits, Vegetables and Milk Security Bill. Did i miss something in that? Oh yes, nuts. We do need nuts. Some nuts for all Indians, please. You know the kind of nuts i am talking about, right?
So-called “religious sensitivity” is a thing of the mind. It is not something external like the heat from a fire that one can feel, but purely a state of mind. It is what one chooses to make of something. A thing done or said by someone to another of a different race or religion is seen one way by a broadminded person and another way by a narrow minded person. It is seen one way by a wise person and the opposite way by a fool. A rational person interprets it differently from an irrational person. In interpreting one should take into account the manner, tone, context, occasion, etc. in which it is said.
It is akin to a normal person seeing a rope for what it is, and a psychiatric patient seeing the same rope as a dangerous snake and trying to kill it before it attacks him. Remember, the mind is not only capable of playing games under different conditions and circumstances; it can also be conditioned into such a state by external hypnotic pressure. Such pressure can even make a normal person who is unable to resist such pressure, see the rope as a snake.
People’s minds can be manipulated by those who have power over them by the constant harping on something. Teachers, including BTN teachers, therefore have the great power of making or breaking a nation by what they teach their charges. Politicians, as leaders, also have such power. Knowing this, our medical doctor Prime Minister had chosen the way of running his administration on the premise that telling a lie and repeating it would finally have the people believe it is the truth. But repeating lies is like blowing and blowing into a balloon. Some day it will burst.
One question of “religious sensitivity” is that of eating and drinking by non-Muslims in the month of Ramadan. It is now being bandied about that for non-Muslims to eat or drink when in the company or presence of Muslims is to hurt the sensitivities of the Muslims. This was never an issue in the good old days. Muslim scholars have said that Islam does not forbid non-Muslims eating in the presence or company of Muslims in the month of Ramadan. So who started this nonsense and why?
In my school days, school canteens used to sell both halal and non-halal food in stalls side-by-side. No Muslim children ever bought from the non-halal stall, but non-Muslims did buy food like nasi lemak from the Muslim stall. Then they sat at the same table to eat. There was no question of hurting the sensitivities of anyone. The Indians did not say that by eating beef next to them the Malays children were being insensitive to their religious beliefs (it is pantang for Indians to eat beef). Similarly the Malay children did not complain that the Chinese students, by eating pork dishes next to them, were not being sensitive to Islam as pork is harm to the Muslims.
So how and why did the question of non-Muslims being insensitive to Muslims by eating in their presence or company become an issue?
Last week I was at the BNM Penang branch for a discussion on a banking matter. Two officers attended to me, a Malay lady and a Chinese lady. As we sat down, the Malay lady put a plastic glass of mineral water before me and said “this is for you”. I felt so touched by this gesture and respect shown to me as a non-fasting person who would need to quench my dry throat. Did she, as someone who was fasting, do something wrong by giving me the water?
Yesterday I was at another meeting in KL at an office manned by a dozen staff. It ended at 2.00pm and a non-Malay staff and I went for lunch nearby. The staff said she was so hungry as she had not taken any drink or snack the whole morning as she was afraid doing so in the office (it has a coffee corner) during puasa month would be insensitive to the Muslim staff. I was taken aback to hear this. How the words and actions happening around us today have put the fear of offending Muslims if one were to eat in their presence.
Why should it be insensitive to my Muslim friends if I have to eat or drink in their presence? As a non-fasting person, my mealtimes are morning, afternoon and evening. When mealtimes come, I feel the pangs of hunger. A fasting Muslim, as told to me by fasting Muslim friends, does not feel the pangs of hunger during the daytime. This is because the body has received the normal amount of food, with the difference that meal-times are changed from daylight hours to night-time hours. Within 2 or 3 days of the start of fasting, the body adapts to the new schedule of mealtimes.
So could Muslim scholars please put this issue in its proper perspective?
Do I have to hide myself from my Muslim friends when I am eating during fasting hours in the fasting month? Why should they feel I am being insensitive to them if I eat in their presence?
