Politicians cannot settle dispute, and this is not a question of striking some compromise between rival litigants in the title suits over the piece of land on which the Babri mosque stood till December 6, 1992 and which many Hindus believe to be the birth place of Lord Ram. Nor is it a question of some religious or political leaders deciding to bury the hatchet.
The basic character of PAS and DAP is to divide people and establish its rule, Change say is the only constant in life. Some minor, some life altering while some leave a lingering aftertaste ’ PAS dirty tricks department’ want to sling mud at anyone sullying it anyone can dare to pull down a man who has the stature of statue? Saheb was using all his power – and the police force – to treat everyone’s beti like his own possession. But instead of bowing to him and giving him a Bharat Ratna, all those jealous, frightened rivals are levelling dirty-dirty insinuations against this upright man.
the blatant endorsements and the modern form of poison-pen postings. Bloggers have fallen into the background as people use their social capital to reinforce their positions.Another tool of choice has been WhatsApp, with its instantaneous messaging, and similar groups that allow the quick spread of information, many of which is unverified and emotive.These tools are compounded by Instagram and Twitter, making the election process an “instant” affair. This new medium of sharing ideas has had an impact, adding intensity to the campaign process and moving the mode of discussion from more reflective person-to-person exchanges to a shallower dynamic.While there have also been a record number of fora, including intensive debates over issues such as Pakatan Rakyat and hudud, the messaging has also taken on a new form.
The attacks have become almost UMNO-like in their viciousness in the all-out smear campaigns. In this type of messaging, principles of integrity and decency have gone by the wayside to be replaced by tactics that do not reflect well on PAS. The enemy appears to have come from within as comrades-in-struggle are now focused on bringing down each other.
While the sense of fairness and honesty has provoked a counter-reaction, with those under attack receiving support and sympathy, the results will be a test of how these principles are actually practiced in the party.
Attack messaging has been accompanied by a different pattern of mobilisation. As a national party, PAS is expanding and with it factionalism is deepening. There has always been cliques, but now there are camps, organised with long “menus” of preferred candidates.
Now more than ever, in many cases in violation of the party’s code of conduct, we see personal attacks. Unfortunately, many of the attacks are blatant lies, from the issue of Shiite to derogatory remarks on character.
The solution to a dispute like this one lies in more robust democracy, and building that is a protracted business. The response of the mainstream political parties and of the non Muslim community should be designed to strengthen the process of building democracy, not to disrupt it.VICTIMIZATION, INTIMIDATION MALAYS BEGINS provocative actions and statements in the past one year, from offering to fight a “crusade” against Muslims dangerous Hindu warning the Malays “anything can happen”. Kamalanathan said the Hindus has the right to question religious ceremony the slaughter of cows …he just don’t respect the religion of the majority race,” ‘Kamalanathansaid you muslims don’t kurang ajar (step … Read more Suara Keadilan Malaysia blogged DAP M Manogaran’s Hindu Defence Brigade and Kamalanathan’s Saffron terrorism against Islam’
The rights of Malaysian’s minorities are best protected by reinforcing democracy, not by patronage of one political party or another. Leaders of the Muslim community should refuse to accept the profuse, insistent offers of patronage that assorted political parties and leaders are guaranteed to extend in the wake of the court verdict on the disputed site.The Ayodhya movement that polarised the polity on communal lines, caused riots and killed people was a political movement, not one of faith, although it manipulated faith to subserve its political goal. Through the immediate, tangible goal of demolishing the mosque, the movement pursued the larger objective of the Sangh Parivar, of redefining Indian nationhood as Hindutva.
Demolishing the mosque, overriding the protection offered by different organs of the constitutional Republic, would demonstrate to the Muslim community where exactly it stood vis-à-vis the relations of power that govern society and its conduct. And this goal was achieved when a mob brought the mosque down.
That marked a rupture in the evolution of India’s polity. The state failed to live up to the constitutional promise to uphold law and order, as well as the rights of the minority. If uppity minorities still refused to appreciate the import of what this meant for how they should conduct themselves in Hindu majority India, they would be taught further lessons, such as the Gujarat pogrom of 2002 and the attack on Christians in Kandhamal, Orissa, in 2007 and 2008.
The state, led by one member of the Parivar, would look the other way, if not actually aid the attackers organised as other Parivar members. This is the politics of the Sangh Parivar. This politics continues today, although it has virtually left behind the specific locus of Ayodhya. The project of creating a democratic polity that guarantees and protects the rights of religious minorities to live with dignity is alien to the Sangh Parivar’s majoritarian vision of privileging Hindus over others in political rights.
It would be a mistake to think that, just because one member of the Parivar, the BJP, has received a setback at the moment, the Sangh Parivar has lost its teeth or that the threat posed by its majoritarian ideology to the project of building constitutional democracy has abated.
India’s mainstream political parties, including the Congress, have been opportunistically communal on various occasions, and this has helped the Sangh Parivar’s cause.
This is the context in which the Muslim leadership has to respond to the Ayodhya verdict. No issue of faith is at stake for Muslims at Ayodhya. The issue at stake is political. And asserting a property right is a small detail in the appropriate political project of building democracy.
Moving to build a mosque at the site or to remove the Ram idols being worshipped in a makeshift temple there would hurt the process of building democracy. It would give the Parivar an opportunity to whip up religious passions again. So, even if the high court decides in favour of the Sunni Waqf Board, it should not proceed in this direction.
Should the Muslims graciously hand over the land for a Ram temple to be built? The loser’s magnanimity has few takers; rather, it is seen as a sign of weakness. Winning a case is a minor victory in a larger political battle where the democratic ground lost by the demolition of the mosque is yet to be regained. And a show of weakness, too, would be a setback for the democratic project. a
When Indian democracy evolves to a level of maturity where the security of no religious identity depends on a physical edifice, then would be the time to give priority to faith over politics in deciding what to build at the Ayodhya site. Till then, the status quo will do quite nicely.
Coming from communal forces themselves, masquerading as secularists, this is the cruelest fraud being played So what if another piece of stone was destroyed, since it belonged to the pre-1400 era. It baffles me that this area was not designated a historical site and cordoned off instead of being sold to a developer for profit.What little we have remaining has been destroyed for POLITICAL gain Hiding behind veils is a sign of cowardice.. What will be left for our children and future generations?PAS, you’re every bit a disgrace as your nemesis, the federal government. Thanks to your combined destructive efforts, JUST LIKE that RSS and BJP were fanning saffron terror? Why is there even an iota of doubt that these bodies – or atleast a part of them – do indeed fan saffron terrorism? Why look further than the 2 decades old Babri Masjid demolition and the 10 year old Godhra riots to understand the truth Shame on heartless PAS leaders. Shame on the federal government. There is no excuse for such a heinous crime.PAS has blamed the BN-run federal government for approving the Bujang Valley developer, which acknowledged that the remains of an 8th century temple was demolished to make way for a housing project.Did PAS raise the issue that this is an archaeological site with the federal government? Yes? No?PAS is merely trying to pass the buck. When you sell land to a developer, you must know that the latter is not going to turn the land into an open-air museum. Unless he has specifically stated that he will do so when applying for the grant to the particular land, and you or the appropriate authorities have granted permission for him to establish such an institution.
With the assumed but acceptable or confirmed knowledge that the particular developer intends to develop the land into a residential or mixed-use development, you should grant the title to the land with the provision, which ought to be stated in writing, that he would keep any ancient structures and any related artefacts found on the land intact.
One is very much inclined to suspect that PAS was not in the least bothered about the structures and any other antiquated remains found on the land, as those objects are related not to Islam but to the Hindu-Buddhist civilisation.
Who demolished the Babri Masjid in 1992? Which BJP and Sangh parivar leaders were present in Ayodhya on that eventful day? Who amongst them gave fiery speeches to the frenzied Hindu mob? What was the content of those speeches? Weren’t there exhortations made to the “followers” (whose followers were they?) to go ahead and raze the historical monument down? Who has been accused in the demolition? In fact, who has built a political strategy around Ayodhya and gained the most from it?
Coming to Godhra, which state government ordered its cops to “let the Hindus vent” for three days? (Those of us who lived in Ahmedabad in those days know exactly what I am talking about. Incidentally, even today, the talk in Ahmedabad is about how Modi showed the Muslims their place). Who was the PM who raised the question of “raj dharma” but did nothing beyond asking the question? Which CM and PM candidate is called “Hindu Hriday Samrat” and for what reasons? (Why is he not simply called Gujarat Hriday Samrat if he is indeed taking care of “6 crore Gujaratis”? Which state government has politicized even the state judiciary so much that the Supreme Court routinely shifts hearings outside of the state? Which state has specialized in “encounter killings”, which is nothing but a euphemism for the knocking off of Muslims?
C’mon, lets get real here. The BJP and RSS have fought a pitched battle for decades against the Muslims (they may call it “protecting Hindu culture” or “Hindutva” or whatever). Its strange they don’t openly own up to their acts of aggression, for if it is their belief that Hindus support such acts, then they should publicize them and win the elections right? In fact, have BJP workers forgotten that their party has its beginnings in the All India Hindu Mahasabha founded in 1915, which clearly demanded a “Hindu Rashtra”, and which opposed “the Congress commitment to non-violence, civil disobedience, secularism and its efforts to integrate Muslims and hold dialogue with the separatist Muslim League party, which the Mahasabha deemed to be appeasement.” (source: Wikipedia).
The fact is that saffron terrorism is a reality, just as much as Islamic terrorism is. Even though they are described in such language, the terms “Islamic” and “saffron” are not meant to include all Muslims or all Hindus in their definition. These are neologisms that loosely describe who the chief patrons of these acts of terrorism are. Just like Islamic terrorism, defined in this way, is spawned by certain Islamic organizations, so also is saffron terrorism spawned by the Hindu organizations. For the BJP to split hairs and accuse Shinde of calling all Hindusterrorists is like a comedy show. The party should focus on the core issue he raised. And correct its ways.
But honeslty, can we expect the BJP and RSS to mend their ways? That will mean them having to jettison their absolutely core philosophy. It’s akin to asking ”Twentieth century Kuala Lumpur Indian temple, eighth century Bujang Valley Indian temple–all same rubbish, no use, just tear down, uproot.
Twenty years ago this day, the Babri Masjid was brought down. Riots broke out around the country. Mumbai was severely affected. Muslims attacked Hindus in retaliation for the demolition. Weeks later, in January 1993, Shiv Sena mobs targeted Muslims across the city in the most concentrated acts of communal violence seen in Mumbai.
Two months later, on March 12, 1993, the “Muslim” underworld of Dawood Ibrahim took revenge yet again – not on Hindus alone but all Mumbaikars. Serial blasts ripped through the city – from the Bombay Stock Exchange (BSE) in South Mumbai to the Sea Rock Hotel in the suburbs.
The Srikrishna Commission, set up to inquire into the riots, had this to say about those four fateful months between December 1992 and March 1993:
One common link between the riots of December 1992 and January 1993 and the bomb blasts of March 12, 1993 appears to be that the former (riots) appears to have been a causative factor for the latter. There does appear to be a cause and effect relationship between the two riots and the serial bomb blasts.
Another common link is that some of the accused who were involved in substantive riot-related offense were also accused in the serial bomb blasts case, though their number is only three or four.
Tiger Memon, the key figure in the serial bomb blasts case and his family had suffered extensively during the riots and therefore can be said to have had deep rooted motive for revenge. It would appear that one of his trusted accomplices, Javed Dawood Tailor, alias Javed Chikna, had also suffered a bullet injury during the riots and therefore he also had a motive for revenge.
Twenty years later, the country has moved on. Young Muslims want to put the past behind them. But will politicians let them? Only two letters separate use from abuse, so there will always be a quack preening himself in the garb of a doctor. But when a person held in high esteem dilutes the trust reposed in him, it affects the collective reputation of the brotherhood.
Justice M S Liberhan did not need 17 years and a thousand pages to tell us what has been public knowledge since December 6, 1992. The Babri mosque was not torn down in the dark of night. It was brought down slowly, stone by stone, in Sunday sunlight, before hundreds of journalists, to the cheers of countless thousands of kar sewaks in and around Ayodhya. The mosque was not dynamited in a minute; it was demolished by crowbar and shovel.
Of course, senior leaders of the BJP and RSS were present, for they were kar sewaks as well. Atal Bihari Vajpayee was not there, but he was in nearby Lucknow, albeit a reluctant guest, but unable to refuse the invitation to the party. Newspapers the next day, and magazines the next weekend, published their pictures, some of which became iconic. We did not need a wait of 17 years to learn that Vinay Katiyar was responsible: he has been claiming responsibility for over 6,000 days.
Sharad Pawar, then defence minister, showed a filmed record of December 6 to an invited group at the home of a party MP a few days later. The Liberhan Commission could have completed half its report by taking a look at that film. The media was equally comprehensive in its coverage of the brutal riots that followed: The Sri Krishna report has done far greater justice to the truth in its findings on the Maharashtra riots, so much so that there is all-party collusion on its non-implementation. There was only one question trapped in doubt: What was prime minister P V Narasimha Rao doing while Babri was destroyed on the longest day of the last two decades? Why was home minister S B Chavan, father of the present Maharashtra chief minister, immobile, inscrutable and stolid?
Shock raced through Delhi when word filtered through that an assault had begun in Ayodhya. Phone calls began to pour into the prime minister’s residence in the hope that he would use the authority of the state to uphold the rule of law and fulfil a political and moral obligation. There was a monstrous response from the prime minister’s personal secretary. The PM was either unavailable or, worse, asleep. It was a lie. Rao’s inaction and Chavan’s collaboration were deliberate.
Liberhan protects Rao with an equally conscious fudge, shuffling the blame on to unspecified intelligence agencies. Everyone knew what was going on, IB officers better than most. Rao called a Cabinet meeting only in the evening, when there was nothing left to be saved — not even reputation. By this time, fires of hatred were lighting up the dusk of Mumbai and dozens of cities across the nation. An elaborate programme of blame, reward and punishment was put into place. Those (including bureaucrats and journalists) who acquiesced in Rao’s charade were rewarded; Congress Muslims got a bonus for silence. Rao remained in power till 1996, but he neither ruled nor lived in peace.
The words of this column will make no difference. A government can reduce the past to rubble as easily as an Opposition party can erase a centuries-old mosque. My apologies for a rare detour into the personal, but this is a rare moment. I was a minor part of the Rao government and resigned on the night of December 6 since the stone wall constructed around the prime minister’s house had become impervious to anything except sycophancy. Words demand a different kind of loyalty, and one was relieved to return to the world of words.
Suara Keadilan Malaysia blogged Dr Raja Ahmad Iskandar to DAP’s Taliban Karpal Singh Poor PR or deliberate? Short term politics prevails over National Interest?
