Wednesday, 9 March 2011
Saturday, 29 November 2008
I have stayed glued to the TV since that first day when someone called me in a panic and told me to watch the news. I am sure all of you have watched all those pictures and images that have proved once and for all that India is under attack from forces that resent its economic prosperity, its freedom, its pluralistic traditions and most of all, that essence of being that marks an Indian.
I am writing this not to repeat what all of us already know but to express my deep sorrow and shame for the fact that so called Muslims are behind this attack. I had a discussion with very young Arab Muslims (men and women) who came to commiserate with me and offer condolences and sympathies for all that was going on. I found it ironical that these Muslims, all young and prosperous, condemned these acts of terrorism as "un-Islamic" and quoted from the Quraan to tell me that these acts are abhorrent. Who, then, are the "Muslims" who kill and pillage in the name of Islam? Are there then two brands of Islam? Who are the teachers of these young men who run into hotels, train stations, cafes and gun down people while grinning malevolently? (See pictures captured by CCTV and displayed on BBC and CNN) And, does this mean that these acts of terrorism are directly connected with deprivation and frustration? I am saying this only because whenever I have met "educated", "prosperous" Muslims I have heard words that assure me that the "Islam" of terrorists/ extremists is not the real one.
I have also talked to a lot of Arabs who are sympathetic to the Palestinian cause but are tired of the violence and bloodshed that the Arab world has been dragged into. I have also sensed (though I can assure you that they tried to cover it as much as they could) a resentment of the Palestinians. For instance, the Lebanese have often told me that they resented the Palestinian camps set up in their country years ago and how those camps had become beds of terrorist violence and bloodshed.
When I talk to Indian Muslims who have decent jobs, decent lifestyles, children in schools/university, bank loans and mortgages, I don't hear any talk of terrorism. All I hear are common concerns about the welfare of their children and family and retirement etc. I can sense aspirations, and some sense of pride that they got out of the ghetto.
It also saddens me that when fellow Indians talk to me or mention my family they refer to me as "upper class Muslim" or as someone who belongs to a minuscule minority of Indian Muslims who have done well and are "upscale". It's clear to me that the image that they carry in their minds is that of a poverty stricken, unbathed, bearded semi literate, backward individual with a brood of ill clad, runny nosed kids.
And of course, to some extent it's true that there are Muslim ghettos that do justify the fact that these pictures and images are typical. There is no denying the fact that Indian Muslims like a lot of Indian Hindus are poor and illiterate and living on the borderline of starvation and poverty.
But does this mean we (the Muslims) should look to Pakistan or Gulf Arab countries to be our saviour? Even if the Gulf Arab countries send in funds to "help" their fellow Muslims, it is not to be used for purposes of real development but to build mosques, madarsas and the homes of those who handle these funds. I also know for a fact that these individuals who have control over these large foreign funds use this money to fund the education of their own children in the Western world while mouthing platitudes of sorrow and anger about the condition and backwardness of local Muslims.
What really angered in the recent attack were two things:
1. The parrot like rendering of a speech by a gun toting killer with highly emotional content (anger at how the Muslims of India have to live and are treated) in a totally non-emotive way. (Parrots are not emotional). Though the man was pretending to be from the South of India, he had in fact, a very strong Punjabi accent (Northern India).
2. An interview that I watched (only half of it-- I switched the channel after 7 minutes) on Al Jazeera of a Pakistani from UK. David Frost was interviewing him and the question being discussed was whether India had any real evidence to prove that it was indeed Pakistan that had provided ammunition and training to these so called "fighters". The interview annoyed me (no, angered me) because it was immediately evident to me that the Western media ( mainly UK and the US) would again manipulate issues. For years India talked of how Pakistan had set up terrorist camps and how these were being used to attack India but the US and UK and most of the Western world paid no heed. It was only after 9/11 that this was acknowledged and addressed. In this interview, I sensed again this preference for Pakistan.The West is jealous of India, it doesn't like India, it would prefer to see it poor and lost in darkness. It is also jealous of China and its recent prosperity.
The other thing that maddened me was that this suave, good looking Pakistani talking from his safe haven of British citizenship, advised India to "look within" and not blame Pakistan. He related an anecdote about how he was riding a Bombay taxi one time and how that Muslim taxi driver talked about his poverty and poor living conditions and how he yearned to be in Pakistan.
Of course, it is totally believable that this taxi driver is poor and lives in squalor but that has nothing to do with his religion. Also, what about Pakistan? Is it really a land where Indian Muslims, who migrated in the Partition, have been treated well and fairly? Is it really a land where its own citizens have access to civil society and good governance? Is it a land where education and health are given priority over acquisition of arms? Is it a land where women are given equity? Is it a land where a woman can gain access to education and advantages (unless she is upper class)? Is it a land where the middle class has been allowed to grow and thrive?
I am angry because I know how the Indian Muslims have been manipulated by so called leaders who have advised them against joining the mainstream. They have advised to keep their "identity". And what kind of "identity" is it? That of being a denizen of ghettoes with poverty, drug smuggling. prostitution, backward laws, illiteracy and petty crime. If this is my true identity then I don't desrve to be a part of the modern India. This identity projection is the scourge that has destroyed my fellow Indian Muslims.
This scourge will alienate the tiny percentage of those Muslims who lead advantaged lives from those whose existence is riddled with disdavantages. It will not allow the community to band together and work for communal upliftment and progress. (btw, my parents run an NGO that has no religious barriers and now my ex-husband has set up an NGO in his city that works for people of all faiths)
Some of you may condemn me for this but I hate Pakistan. I know "hate" is a bad word but when I hear and see things that prove all that I know and believe about that country it makes my blood boil.
I salute all those who have been martyred in this war. I also want to pledge eternal loyalty to my country. I love India and will do so till the day I die. I don't believe in the idea of Islamic nationhood because it simply does not exist. In my 11 years in the Arab world I know that Muslims and Arabs hate each other and express it openly in private conversations.
I am writing this not to repeat what all of us already know but to express my deep sorrow and shame for the fact that so called Muslims are behind this attack. I had a discussion with very young Arab Muslims (men and women) who came to commiserate with me and offer condolences and sympathies for all that was going on. I found it ironical that these Muslims, all young and prosperous, condemned these acts of terrorism as "un-Islamic" and quoted from the Quraan to tell me that these acts are abhorrent. Who, then, are the "Muslims" who kill and pillage in the name of Islam? Are there then two brands of Islam? Who are the teachers of these young men who run into hotels, train stations, cafes and gun down people while grinning malevolently? (See pictures captured by CCTV and displayed on BBC and CNN) And, does this mean that these acts of terrorism are directly connected with deprivation and frustration? I am saying this only because whenever I have met "educated", "prosperous" Muslims I have heard words that assure me that the "Islam" of terrorists/ extremists is not the real one.
I have also talked to a lot of Arabs who are sympathetic to the Palestinian cause but are tired of the violence and bloodshed that the Arab world has been dragged into. I have also sensed (though I can assure you that they tried to cover it as much as they could) a resentment of the Palestinians. For instance, the Lebanese have often told me that they resented the Palestinian camps set up in their country years ago and how those camps had become beds of terrorist violence and bloodshed.
When I talk to Indian Muslims who have decent jobs, decent lifestyles, children in schools/university, bank loans and mortgages, I don't hear any talk of terrorism. All I hear are common concerns about the welfare of their children and family and retirement etc. I can sense aspirations, and some sense of pride that they got out of the ghetto.
It also saddens me that when fellow Indians talk to me or mention my family they refer to me as "upper class Muslim" or as someone who belongs to a minuscule minority of Indian Muslims who have done well and are "upscale". It's clear to me that the image that they carry in their minds is that of a poverty stricken, unbathed, bearded semi literate, backward individual with a brood of ill clad, runny nosed kids.
And of course, to some extent it's true that there are Muslim ghettos that do justify the fact that these pictures and images are typical. There is no denying the fact that Indian Muslims like a lot of Indian Hindus are poor and illiterate and living on the borderline of starvation and poverty.
But does this mean we (the Muslims) should look to Pakistan or Gulf Arab countries to be our saviour? Even if the Gulf Arab countries send in funds to "help" their fellow Muslims, it is not to be used for purposes of real development but to build mosques, madarsas and the homes of those who handle these funds. I also know for a fact that these individuals who have control over these large foreign funds use this money to fund the education of their own children in the Western world while mouthing platitudes of sorrow and anger about the condition and backwardness of local Muslims.
What really angered in the recent attack were two things:
1. The parrot like rendering of a speech by a gun toting killer with highly emotional content (anger at how the Muslims of India have to live and are treated) in a totally non-emotive way. (Parrots are not emotional). Though the man was pretending to be from the South of India, he had in fact, a very strong Punjabi accent (Northern India).
2. An interview that I watched (only half of it-- I switched the channel after 7 minutes) on Al Jazeera of a Pakistani from UK. David Frost was interviewing him and the question being discussed was whether India had any real evidence to prove that it was indeed Pakistan that had provided ammunition and training to these so called "fighters". The interview annoyed me (no, angered me) because it was immediately evident to me that the Western media ( mainly UK and the US) would again manipulate issues. For years India talked of how Pakistan had set up terrorist camps and how these were being used to attack India but the US and UK and most of the Western world paid no heed. It was only after 9/11 that this was acknowledged and addressed. In this interview, I sensed again this preference for Pakistan.The West is jealous of India, it doesn't like India, it would prefer to see it poor and lost in darkness. It is also jealous of China and its recent prosperity.
The other thing that maddened me was that this suave, good looking Pakistani talking from his safe haven of British citizenship, advised India to "look within" and not blame Pakistan. He related an anecdote about how he was riding a Bombay taxi one time and how that Muslim taxi driver talked about his poverty and poor living conditions and how he yearned to be in Pakistan.
Of course, it is totally believable that this taxi driver is poor and lives in squalor but that has nothing to do with his religion. Also, what about Pakistan? Is it really a land where Indian Muslims, who migrated in the Partition, have been treated well and fairly? Is it really a land where its own citizens have access to civil society and good governance? Is it a land where education and health are given priority over acquisition of arms? Is it a land where women are given equity? Is it a land where a woman can gain access to education and advantages (unless she is upper class)? Is it a land where the middle class has been allowed to grow and thrive?
I am angry because I know how the Indian Muslims have been manipulated by so called leaders who have advised them against joining the mainstream. They have advised to keep their "identity". And what kind of "identity" is it? That of being a denizen of ghettoes with poverty, drug smuggling. prostitution, backward laws, illiteracy and petty crime. If this is my true identity then I don't desrve to be a part of the modern India. This identity projection is the scourge that has destroyed my fellow Indian Muslims.
This scourge will alienate the tiny percentage of those Muslims who lead advantaged lives from those whose existence is riddled with disdavantages. It will not allow the community to band together and work for communal upliftment and progress. (btw, my parents run an NGO that has no religious barriers and now my ex-husband has set up an NGO in his city that works for people of all faiths)
Some of you may condemn me for this but I hate Pakistan. I know "hate" is a bad word but when I hear and see things that prove all that I know and believe about that country it makes my blood boil.
I salute all those who have been martyred in this war. I also want to pledge eternal loyalty to my country. I love India and will do so till the day I die. I don't believe in the idea of Islamic nationhood because it simply does not exist. In my 11 years in the Arab world I know that Muslims and Arabs hate each other and express it openly in private conversations.
Saturday, 2 August 2008
A Poem
A Poem
Lines to CordobaCordoba, your river is full of djinn
that once roamed your olive groves:
they now go up and down
these meagre waves
unable to leave
At dusk,
they stand at your gates like lamenting lovers,
begging that naked man
in the parched courtyard of La Mezquita
"guard that from which we are forever banished"
Test of Faith
Test of Faith
In India, discrimination can be blatant and open or subtle and hidden depending on who you are interacting with. It can also depend on the time and place. So there are millions of variables that can determine the degree of prejudice that you experience.However, there are several paradoxes at play in those situations. Most Indians will talk of their favourite film stars(mostlyt Muslim by birth), their favourite foods, their favourite clothes, their favourite clothes (mostly Muslim in origin) etc and "those Muslim terrorists" in the same breath.Who are these Muslims who have gained us this epithet? Who are these people who gain entry or steal across the countr's borders and then proceed to commit crimes against humanity in the name of Islam? What do they know of Islam? have they ever read about Islam? its history? the life of its prophet?Ironically, most of their "knowledge" has been acquired from the local bearded mullah who is totally threatened by the new world order and the shape of economies.It is these men, with their prejudices agaisnt women, modern education, democracy and liberal thought who trap the poor and the frustrated in their politics of hatred. Again, most Muslims caught in this vortex don't realise that the goals of terrorists are political. These goals are NEVER social or economic upliftment.If they were then there would be a focus on education, social renaissance and movements to take our communities forward rather than reactionary beliefs and so called "fatwas".How can anyone claim with complete faith that his beliefs/faith/religion/ideas are the best, the most correct or the purest?How can anyone kill in the name of God? rape and pillage in the name of religion?To be Muslim was always a test of faith but now in these times, being a Muslim, a woman and a citizen of a third world country has become the greatest test of all
An old post from a previous blog
Wednesday, September 06, 2006
The Absurd Theory of the Clash of Civilisations
In the past few weeks since I have been posting I have received several comments from people either applauding my point of view or deriding it. In some cases I received long diatribes against Islam and ALL Muslims filled with a violent hatred.
What shocked me more than anything else was that some of my Indian compatriots are parroting what the western media has cleverly planned and disseminated which is taking a dozen complex conflicts that originated in a dozen countries, stripping them of all historical and political context and lumping them together in an amorphous blob called the "Clash of Civilizations."
So now by the looks of it it is not only East against the West but also Christians against Islam, Jews against Islam and if I am to take any heed of some responses to my blog, Hindus against Islam.
Should we then call it an epic struggle between the East and the West?
If so, then why is the US government now bandying around the dangerous term Islamo-fascism while conveniently forgotting that some of its staunchest allies are undisputed champs in spreading violent Islamic extremism? It is common knowledge now that both Saudi Arabia and Pakistan not only established fundamentalist, anti-Western madrassas all across the world but also funneled gobs of cash to extremist groups, and nurtured and supported them in their infancy. In fact,Saudi Arabia made it a foreign policy priority to spread its brand of Wahhabism, mostly to counter the perceived threat of Pan-Arabism and other anti-colonial ideologies. Pakistan's intelligence service, the ISI -- sometimes called a "state within a state" -- not only supported the Taliban in Afghanistan but funded, equipped and helped train some of the most notorious terror groups that grew out of that country in the 1990s.
Talk all you want about Syria and Iran supporting Hezbollah, these are the great terror-sponsoring states, and they're on the side of the Western democracies, particularly the US.
Now, in columns in Indian newspapers there are hawks exhorting the Indian government to take on "wild, terrorist Muslim" hordes.
Respectable journalists are parroting the Clash of Civilizations rhetoric completely oblivious to the fact that it is obvious nonsense peddled by vested interests playing to xenophobia latent in all human beings, rather than something inherently violent or nihilistic in Islam which may be violent, but no more than any other religion.
"Not all Muslims are terrorists, but all terrorists are Muslims" is a common refrain on the many "war-blogs" that have proliferated since 9/11.
This is not only wrong but racist. Last year, excluding the mess in Iraq (it's awfully tough to distinguish between terrorism, insurgency, sectarian violence, etc.), U.S. government statistics showed that the country with the most terror fatalities was India. Some were inflicted by Muslims, but more were perpetrated by secessionist groups from the Northern provinces, the Communist Party of India and various Hindu extremists. Next up was Colombia, a country with a population that's over 90 percent Roman Catholic. Following in fifth place -- after the mess in Afghanistan -- were the victims of secular Maoist terror groups in Nepal.
Research show that in Indonesia -- the most heavily populated Muslim country in the world which is considered by Western analysts to be a hot-bed of Islamic terror, "violence against innocent civilians has been ... committed by secessionist movements in Sumatra and elsewhere, by Christian and Muslim fanatics [and] by indigenous people threatened by migrants ..." The University of Chicago's Robert Pape, who has studied terrorists exhaustively (and seriously), found that the group that led the world in suicide attacks between 1980 and 2004 was the Tamil Tigers, a secular group that draws its adherents from Sri Lanka's predominantly Hindu population. Saying that terrorism is a result of some deep flaw in Islam just isn't serious at all.
It has to be understood that so called Islamic extremist groups are not fighting one ill-defined and melodramatic conflict with the "West," but a host of conflicts with national or regional origins. For the most part, their primary targets are not liberal democracies or Western decadence, but some of the most brutal, authoritarian regimes in the world, many of which are considered "moderate" by our own extremists. The fact is that virtually all terrorist attacks outside of the disputed Kashmir region are perpetrated by extremists in their own country or in the homelands of states that are occupying their country. Some examples are stateless peoples whose desire for self-rule are violently suppressed -- Palestinians and Kurds the most prominent among them.
Some terrorist groups have recently turned their eyes to the US not because they hate their freedoms or their women's bare shoulders. It's because Americans have supported many of those repressive regimes -- often with troops on the ground -- from Indonesia to Iran.
In the end, the Clash of Civilizations rhetoric is, by design, a way to cut short any discussion of neo-imperialism, the conviction of the US and other Western nations that they have the right to control the world's resources.
Sure, there is a Clash of Civilizations, but its dividing line is not between East and West but North and South.
Ultimately, these conflicts, like civil conflicts in the non-Muslim world, are about power, control of finite resources or long-term ethnic and tribal friction, regardless of whether they're packaged as religious-inspired "Jihad" or not. Those who embrace the idea of a global struggle against "Islamic fascism" would never suggest that decades of violence in Ireland could be reduced to a story as simplistic as Catholics against Protestants, much less that it was an indictment of Christianity as a whole. They'd be quick to admit that the sectarian divide in Ireland was just one of a number of factors that caused so much bloodshed.
As for Indian Muslims and Hindus, there have been clashes since the time of partition and subsequently-- ALL in the name of politics. All of these have been ignited by political concerns. All have had some roots in economic issues. This includes the violence in Assam. The clashes after the Babri Masjid debacle were also after Shri Advani undertook his infamous rath yatra with the single minded mission of stirring up trouble in communities which had learnt to live with each other. The Gujarat riots two years ago, which gave our country such a good name, were also based in economic rivalries and insecurities.
That's why it's so important to understand that those reactionaries within our own society who are pushing the Clash of Civilizations are mirror-images of the terrorists that inspire their hyperbolic fear; they're just as xenophobic, just as irrational and, ultimately, are just as great a threat to our security. Both have to be challenged aggressively before they give birth to another, even bloodier generation of culture warriors.
"Islamo-fascism" looks like an analytic term, but really it's an emotional one, intended to get people to herd together in fear and terror. It presents the bewildering politics of the Arab world as a simple matter of Us versus Them
What shocked me more than anything else was that some of my Indian compatriots are parroting what the western media has cleverly planned and disseminated which is taking a dozen complex conflicts that originated in a dozen countries, stripping them of all historical and political context and lumping them together in an amorphous blob called the "Clash of Civilizations."
So now by the looks of it it is not only East against the West but also Christians against Islam, Jews against Islam and if I am to take any heed of some responses to my blog, Hindus against Islam.
Should we then call it an epic struggle between the East and the West?
If so, then why is the US government now bandying around the dangerous term Islamo-fascism while conveniently forgotting that some of its staunchest allies are undisputed champs in spreading violent Islamic extremism? It is common knowledge now that both Saudi Arabia and Pakistan not only established fundamentalist, anti-Western madrassas all across the world but also funneled gobs of cash to extremist groups, and nurtured and supported them in their infancy. In fact,Saudi Arabia made it a foreign policy priority to spread its brand of Wahhabism, mostly to counter the perceived threat of Pan-Arabism and other anti-colonial ideologies. Pakistan's intelligence service, the ISI -- sometimes called a "state within a state" -- not only supported the Taliban in Afghanistan but funded, equipped and helped train some of the most notorious terror groups that grew out of that country in the 1990s.
Talk all you want about Syria and Iran supporting Hezbollah, these are the great terror-sponsoring states, and they're on the side of the Western democracies, particularly the US.
Now, in columns in Indian newspapers there are hawks exhorting the Indian government to take on "wild, terrorist Muslim" hordes.
Respectable journalists are parroting the Clash of Civilizations rhetoric completely oblivious to the fact that it is obvious nonsense peddled by vested interests playing to xenophobia latent in all human beings, rather than something inherently violent or nihilistic in Islam which may be violent, but no more than any other religion.
"Not all Muslims are terrorists, but all terrorists are Muslims" is a common refrain on the many "war-blogs" that have proliferated since 9/11.
This is not only wrong but racist. Last year, excluding the mess in Iraq (it's awfully tough to distinguish between terrorism, insurgency, sectarian violence, etc.), U.S. government statistics showed that the country with the most terror fatalities was India. Some were inflicted by Muslims, but more were perpetrated by secessionist groups from the Northern provinces, the Communist Party of India and various Hindu extremists. Next up was Colombia, a country with a population that's over 90 percent Roman Catholic. Following in fifth place -- after the mess in Afghanistan -- were the victims of secular Maoist terror groups in Nepal.
Research show that in Indonesia -- the most heavily populated Muslim country in the world which is considered by Western analysts to be a hot-bed of Islamic terror, "violence against innocent civilians has been ... committed by secessionist movements in Sumatra and elsewhere, by Christian and Muslim fanatics [and] by indigenous people threatened by migrants ..." The University of Chicago's Robert Pape, who has studied terrorists exhaustively (and seriously), found that the group that led the world in suicide attacks between 1980 and 2004 was the Tamil Tigers, a secular group that draws its adherents from Sri Lanka's predominantly Hindu population. Saying that terrorism is a result of some deep flaw in Islam just isn't serious at all.
It has to be understood that so called Islamic extremist groups are not fighting one ill-defined and melodramatic conflict with the "West," but a host of conflicts with national or regional origins. For the most part, their primary targets are not liberal democracies or Western decadence, but some of the most brutal, authoritarian regimes in the world, many of which are considered "moderate" by our own extremists. The fact is that virtually all terrorist attacks outside of the disputed Kashmir region are perpetrated by extremists in their own country or in the homelands of states that are occupying their country. Some examples are stateless peoples whose desire for self-rule are violently suppressed -- Palestinians and Kurds the most prominent among them.
Some terrorist groups have recently turned their eyes to the US not because they hate their freedoms or their women's bare shoulders. It's because Americans have supported many of those repressive regimes -- often with troops on the ground -- from Indonesia to Iran.
In the end, the Clash of Civilizations rhetoric is, by design, a way to cut short any discussion of neo-imperialism, the conviction of the US and other Western nations that they have the right to control the world's resources.
Sure, there is a Clash of Civilizations, but its dividing line is not between East and West but North and South.
Ultimately, these conflicts, like civil conflicts in the non-Muslim world, are about power, control of finite resources or long-term ethnic and tribal friction, regardless of whether they're packaged as religious-inspired "Jihad" or not. Those who embrace the idea of a global struggle against "Islamic fascism" would never suggest that decades of violence in Ireland could be reduced to a story as simplistic as Catholics against Protestants, much less that it was an indictment of Christianity as a whole. They'd be quick to admit that the sectarian divide in Ireland was just one of a number of factors that caused so much bloodshed.
As for Indian Muslims and Hindus, there have been clashes since the time of partition and subsequently-- ALL in the name of politics. All of these have been ignited by political concerns. All have had some roots in economic issues. This includes the violence in Assam. The clashes after the Babri Masjid debacle were also after Shri Advani undertook his infamous rath yatra with the single minded mission of stirring up trouble in communities which had learnt to live with each other. The Gujarat riots two years ago, which gave our country such a good name, were also based in economic rivalries and insecurities.
That's why it's so important to understand that those reactionaries within our own society who are pushing the Clash of Civilizations are mirror-images of the terrorists that inspire their hyperbolic fear; they're just as xenophobic, just as irrational and, ultimately, are just as great a threat to our security. Both have to be challenged aggressively before they give birth to another, even bloodier generation of culture warriors.
"Islamo-fascism" looks like an analytic term, but really it's an emotional one, intended to get people to herd together in fear and terror. It presents the bewildering politics of the Arab world as a simple matter of Us versus Them
The Dillemma of Indian Muslims
I have blogged on many sites in the last 2-3 years and the blogs that got me the most hate mail were those on Indian Muslims. In fact, it would not be facetious for me to say that I lost several friends because of the views I expressed in my blogs.
Since I am Muslim myself the whole exercise gained several dimensions. Fellow Muslims cursed me for being elitist, fellow Indians (non Muslims) sent me threats that seemed very real. There were blogs posted in response to mine filled with language that should have been checked and controlled by webmasters but obviously wasn't.
However, the good thing was that there was a significant number of those who were fair and rational in their responses.
When I look back at that period of my life when I was blogging almost everyday on a very well known blogging site for non resident Indians, I wonder at my own productivity. I haven't blogged for nearly 14 months now. There should be no excuse for not writing but the hate mail that had poured into my mailbox had so frightened me that I sat at my computer with my fingers completely atrophied and all my writing abilities in a state of petrefaction.
Now, ironically, when I decided to start writing again, I have found that my favourite topic, Indian Muslims, are in the news again and the discussions surrounding them are virtually the same as two years ago.
Alas! somethings never change.
In fact, I read all my old pieces again and was shocked to see that none of them had lost their relevance vis a vis the Muslims of India. I would also like to state here that I am not trying to launch a one (wo)man crusade in their defence. Far from it. However, I do believe that there is more to this question than what is immediately apparent.
However, I don't want to delve into that at the moment.
I am not sure if any fellow Indian Muslim is going to read this blog but if someone does this is what I would like to share with him/her:
dear fellow "believer", I hope you are still not labouring under the illusion that you made the wrong decision by not migrating to Pakistan when it first came into being. I hope you know how refugees from India were forced to live in ghetto like colonies with no sewage system and water supply and how this same population was treated with contempt and superiority (Islamic brotherhood notwithstanding!)
I hope you know that even today Indian Muslims are looked down upon by the rest of our Muslim fraternity and that we are not considered "real Muslims"
Do you know that other Muslim countries (mainly in the Persian Gulf) treat all foreign Muslim bretheren worse than beats of burden? That a white coloured Christian/Jew automatically gets more pay and perks than a fellow Muslim?
Do you know that you are being accused of not taking part in India's growth? Do you know that clever politicians are putting forth the argument that Indian Muslims have never taken part in the flowering of Indepenedent India and that they have spent the last 60 years pining for a country across the border because they believe that is their "true homeland"?
Of course, all these questions are rhetorical and no answers are expected.
Some days ago when the news of the Ahmedabad blasts came in I dashed off an angry letter to the Times of India (which they did not publish).
What had maddened me was the luke warm response of Indian Muslims to the libel that Muslims were terrorists and traitors and were threatening to blow up Indian icons and cities in "revenge"! I heard on Zee that some ulema from Deoband had come forward to state grandly that Islam was a religion of peace and decried all manner of violence. But there was no straightforward condemnation of the blasts themselves even though a group of common bandits going by the name of "Indian Mujahedeen" was taking the responsibility.
My point is, when will you learn?
Since I am Muslim myself the whole exercise gained several dimensions. Fellow Muslims cursed me for being elitist, fellow Indians (non Muslims) sent me threats that seemed very real. There were blogs posted in response to mine filled with language that should have been checked and controlled by webmasters but obviously wasn't.
However, the good thing was that there was a significant number of those who were fair and rational in their responses.
When I look back at that period of my life when I was blogging almost everyday on a very well known blogging site for non resident Indians, I wonder at my own productivity. I haven't blogged for nearly 14 months now. There should be no excuse for not writing but the hate mail that had poured into my mailbox had so frightened me that I sat at my computer with my fingers completely atrophied and all my writing abilities in a state of petrefaction.
Now, ironically, when I decided to start writing again, I have found that my favourite topic, Indian Muslims, are in the news again and the discussions surrounding them are virtually the same as two years ago.
Alas! somethings never change.
In fact, I read all my old pieces again and was shocked to see that none of them had lost their relevance vis a vis the Muslims of India. I would also like to state here that I am not trying to launch a one (wo)man crusade in their defence. Far from it. However, I do believe that there is more to this question than what is immediately apparent.
However, I don't want to delve into that at the moment.
I am not sure if any fellow Indian Muslim is going to read this blog but if someone does this is what I would like to share with him/her:
dear fellow "believer", I hope you are still not labouring under the illusion that you made the wrong decision by not migrating to Pakistan when it first came into being. I hope you know how refugees from India were forced to live in ghetto like colonies with no sewage system and water supply and how this same population was treated with contempt and superiority (Islamic brotherhood notwithstanding!)
I hope you know that even today Indian Muslims are looked down upon by the rest of our Muslim fraternity and that we are not considered "real Muslims"
Do you know that other Muslim countries (mainly in the Persian Gulf) treat all foreign Muslim bretheren worse than beats of burden? That a white coloured Christian/Jew automatically gets more pay and perks than a fellow Muslim?
Do you know that you are being accused of not taking part in India's growth? Do you know that clever politicians are putting forth the argument that Indian Muslims have never taken part in the flowering of Indepenedent India and that they have spent the last 60 years pining for a country across the border because they believe that is their "true homeland"?
Of course, all these questions are rhetorical and no answers are expected.
Some days ago when the news of the Ahmedabad blasts came in I dashed off an angry letter to the Times of India (which they did not publish).
What had maddened me was the luke warm response of Indian Muslims to the libel that Muslims were terrorists and traitors and were threatening to blow up Indian icons and cities in "revenge"! I heard on Zee that some ulema from Deoband had come forward to state grandly that Islam was a religion of peace and decried all manner of violence. But there was no straightforward condemnation of the blasts themselves even though a group of common bandits going by the name of "Indian Mujahedeen" was taking the responsibility.
My point is, when will you learn?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)