With Rushdie, Congress again chose cowardice of practicality over courage of morality

Discussion in 'Politics & Society' started by Singh, Jan 28, 2012.

  1. Singh

    Singh Phat Cat Administrator

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2009
    Messages:
    20,305
    Likes Received:
    8,270
    Location:
    011
    For a Moment of Statesmanship


    With Rushdie, the government has again chosen the cowardice of practicality over the courage of morality



    William Dalrymple, the Scotland-born writer and a director of the Jaipur Literature Festival, who is sometimes in medieval robes, has for long insisted that he is Indian at heart. But when he announces that the probability of an event occurring is one hundred per cent, it is not clear if he is being fatalistic the Indian way or if it is the swagger of the White man’s confidence in cause-and-effect, or if it is just that he knows something that others don’t. Last Friday, when I asked him if Salman Rushdie would be visiting the Jaipur festival, Dalrymple said, “Even if there is the threat of a nuclear explosion, Salman will come to Jaipur.”

    The events of the past few days, which have cast a shadow over Rushdie’s visit, suggest that in this great republic the threat of a nuclear explosion is not as serious as the imagination of wounded religious sentiments, especially in the time of crucial elections. After an Islamic cleric objected to the visit of Rushdie because the writer has not apologised for Satanic Verses, and several Muslim groups joined the noise, with one of them even offering a prize of Rs 1 lakh to the lucky person who would fling a shoe at the writer, the Indian government has not told the nation what its position is. At least some Muslim organisations have had the will to strongly condemn those who have threatened violence against Rushdie, a grace the government is yet to show. Instead, the home ministry has conveyed, “law and order is a state subject”. And the Congress Chief Minister of Rajasthan, Ashok Gehlot, in turn, has very clearly said that he cannot promise safe passage for Rushdie because “a section of people” is offended.

    It is believed there is a chance Rushdie will make an appearance at the festival after all, in a shroud of secrecy, as he used to in the days of his hiding from the mad men who had already killed two translators of Satanic Verses. Even if Rushdie does manage to visit the country of his birth, it would be like a fugitive. In this, the cleric of a seminary in Deoband, Maulana Abdul Nomani, who started the entire controversy, is not as complicit as the government of India. An Islamic cleric will say things, he is only doing his divinely ordained job. Without passing moral judgments, issuing sundry threats and stating his interpretation of texts, he is nothing, he has no place in this world, and for all this he endures the consequences of his action by being on the margins of a modern progressive country.

    The Indian government, on the other hand, is a direct beneficiary of not only electoral politics but of the powerful values on which this country was built. If the Indian government enjoys far greater dignity than the Pakistani government, if the Indian Army general has to plead his case with the government or fight in the Supreme Court against it for a one-year extension of his term while, historically, the situation has been the reverse in Pakistan, it is because of the philosophical foundation of modern India. But the government has often chosen the cowardice of practicality over the courage of morality. And it has, once again, failed to stand up against religious thugs because it is afraid that it will lose Muslim voters in UP and elsewhere, who are crying hoarse anyway saying that they are not so stupid. It is atrocious that a representative of such a government will allow himself to be a guest speaker at the Jaipur Literature Festival when his government has not guaranteed the security of Salman Rushdie.

    I may not have the powers of the Maulana of Deoband, nor will all the Malayalees of the world join me in this protest, but still I do state that my sensibilities are deeply offended by the presence of the information technology minister, Kapil Sibal, who is slated to speak on the first day of the festival on the topic, ‘The Truth of Poetry and The Truth of Politics.’

    For lovers of poetry who would be missing Mr Sibal’s session for various reasons, here is a sample from his poetry collection: I Witness: Partial Observations

    Cricket lovers nightmare / Slapstick tamasha / Connoisseurs often complain. / Instant stroke-play / Without any foreplay / This is not cricket they claim.

    Sometimes, religious thugs are protected for no good reason at all. It is absurd how much they can get away with just because politicians do not want to take a chance.

    About five years ago, the Mumbai edition of The Times of India ran a feature story about the toilet habits of film stars (‘Superstar and the John’). The story mentioned, in half a line, the name of Manisha Koirala’s dog. A month later, cops went to the house of the reporter, who lived with her old mother. The reporter was not at home, so the mother, who was in the early stages of dementia, took the full blow of the shocking news—her daughter was to be arrested. Apparently, the name of Koirala’s dog is one of the names of the Prophet, and the reporter had been charged with ‘deliberately injuring religious sentiments’. A corporator had filed a police complaint claiming to be offended by Koirala’s dog. The actress quickly denied the name of her dog as reported in the newspaper. While the reporter had to rush to court to save herself from being arrested, a dozen cops went to Koirala’s house to guard her from a paid mob.

    It was a municipal corporator who had filed the complaint and he had successfully conjured a stunt from thin air. A reporter who did not know all the names of a prophet was almost arrested, and an old woman with the symptoms of dementia spent tense days mumbling her new fears to the walls.

    It is humiliating what can happen to you sometimes in the name of religion. One day, I arrived at Mumbai airport to find the exit doors of the terminal blocked by a small mob. They did not let anyone leave. I tried to walk out and the mob said I would be beaten up if I didn’t go back in. Apparently, a godman had tried to board a plane faraway in Lucknow with his holy sceptre, and airport security had requested him to check in the stick, which greatly offended his holiness. He goes nowhere without his sceptre, not even on a plane. He refused to board the plane. So, his supporters in Mumbai had decided to block the exit gates. They managed to do this for nearly three hours. I asked a senior cop how this can be allowed and he said with a calm smile, “Religious matter. But if I get just one call from the commissioner’s office, I will clear the space in a minute.” He did get a call, and his men drove the thugs away, in less than a minute probably.

    Politicians can maintain law and order—if they want to. As a senior police officer in Ahmedabad told me after days of violent riots, “A spontaneous riot can last only fifteen minutes.” Anything longer is an organised attack, and riots that last for days are not possible without the complicity of politicians. The government is powerful and competent enough to ensure Salman Rushdie’s safety, and it is at once comic and shameful for a state chief minister to say that he cannot guarantee such security, a statement that actually amounts to plain intimidation.

    There have been strong reactions from writers and readers, and the media is filled with various views, which are largely uniform—Rushdie has the right to visit India. But what is more important is that he has the right to blasphemy. Rushdie or even his visit cannot be meaningfully defended without accepting the true nature of the conflict. The issue here is not as facile as defending a man whom some mad men have threatened to kill and some clerics in India do not want on their soil. The issue is Rushdie’s right to offend Muslims, and Hindus, and Christians, and everybody. That is at the heart of freedom of speech, and that is the most important freedom literature demands from the world.

    Chetan Bhagat, in a statement to The Times of India has said, while defending Rushdie’s right to visit India, “The fact is that he has been blasphemous and I don’t think it serves much purpose. It doesn’t lead to reform. Even if you want to comment on a particular religion, there are better ways to do it. So, we shouldn’t make a hero out of him.”

    This is nonsense. When Bhagat says, “The fact is that he (Rushdie) has been blasphemous and I don’t think it serves much purpose,” it is important to ask who has the right to decide what the purpose of Rushdie’s novel is. Bhagat says, “It (a blasphemous novel) does not lead to reform.” But the purpose of a novel is not reform. A literary novel is not a how-to book. Bhagat goes on to say, “Even if you want to comment on a particular religion, there are better ways to do it.” This is exactly the sort of rubbish that censorship is all about. ‘There are better ways to do your novel’. I would normally not have used Bhagat’s comments to explain Rushdie, but apart from the hilarity of trying to do so, I believe Bhagat’s comments represent the views of many people who think they are on Rushdie’s side when they really are not. They are just slightly more sophisticated imams. Which is the problem with free speech. Not many people can truly accept it.

    Christopher Hitchens wrote in Vanity Fair, in 2009, recounting the days after the fatwa to kill Rushdie was issued: ‘In the hot days immediately after the fatwa, with Salman himself on the run and the TV screens filled with images of burning books and writhing mustaches, I was stopped by a female Muslim interviewer and her camera crew and asked an ancient question: “Is nothing sacred?” I can’t remember quite what I answered then, but I know what I would say now. No, nothing is sacred. And even if there were to be something called sacred, we mere primates wouldn’t be able to decide which book or which idol or which city was the truly holy one. Thus, the only thing that should be upheld at all costs and without qualification is the right of free expression, because if that goes, then so do all other claims of right as well.’

    But will a day ever come when Indian politicians defend what is important at the expense of what is profitable? Such moments have already occurred.

    Last Friday, during a discussion at Jamia Millia Islamia, social activists Aruna Roy and Nikhil Dey mentioned a moment of incomprehension in their long and tireless struggle for the Right to Information Act. It was a moment that came at the very end of their struggle—why did politicians actually pass the bill? True, there was a genuine people’s movement and long relentless media campaigns, but still these pressures were nothing close to the terror of Anna Hazare’s anti-corruption movement. Yet, the Lokpal Bill was not passed, while the RTI did become a reality. It was not just because the scope of the RTI was much smaller or that it threatened to become a serious issue if ignored. There was another reason. Aruna Roy said, sometimes politicians do want to do the right thing, they do want to convert a good idea into reality. Nikhil Dey called this phenomenon “an act of statesmanship”. A moment when a person in power is liberated from that third-rate virtue called practicality, and does what is right. It may sound naïve but it has happened several times before. And that is what free speech in India needs. A moment of statesmanship.


    For a Moment of Statesmanship | OPEN Magazine
     
  2.  
  3. Singh

    Singh Phat Cat Administrator

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2009
    Messages:
    20,305
    Likes Received:
    8,270
    Location:
    011
    The Rushdie Affair and the Hand of the Congress

    The Rushdie Affair And The Hand Of The Congress


    Salman Rushdie did not need permission from the Government to come to India. The actual danger to him was largely an exercise of fiction that over two weeks came closer to reality only because those who should have known better did not stand up in the first place. This includes not just the Government, it includes the organisers and literati who flock to Jaipur every year.

    The Rajasthan government may have insidiously exerted pressure behind the scenes and publicly made it clear that it would rather not have Rushdie visiting Jaipur, but it is difficult to believe that the organisers of the Jaipur Literature Festival (JLF) did not realise that the perceived threat was largely the result of a politically expedient use of the kind of nonsense the Intelligence Bureau (IB) issues on a daily basis to state governments across the country.

    From all accounts, Rushdie kept away from the festival because of what the organisers were telling him. They have stated that they were shown intelligence dossiers that revealed there was a threat to Rushdie’s life. Perhaps they are rather naïve, but they could have considered asking someone in the Government—after all, Kapil Sibal was invited to the festival—or a journalist who covers a beat other than culture. They would have learnt that IB inputs are rarely worth the paper they are written on, and the dossiers might have read much the same when Rushdie did visit Jaipur in 2007. The threat, if any, was no graver this year. The only difference is that the Congress wanted to create the impression that it was, and the organisers went along with this.

    The Congress was acting according to the twisted logic of political expediency. With its electoral performance in Uttar Pradesh (UP) dependent on how Muslims in the state vote, the party, adept at catering to the needs of what today are more often than not illusory votebanks, felt it would only gain from the controversy over Rushdie’s visit. Even as party spokesperson Manish Tewari was espousing a newfound, and under the circumstances absurd, belief in liberal values (which no doubt was what led the party to ban The Satanic Verses in the first place), Mahesh Joshi, Congress MP from Jaipur, was assuring Muslim ‘leaders’ that Rushdie would be kept away from the city for the duration of the festival.

    It is already clear that Rahul Gandhi seems to have learnt little from his father’s years as Prime Minister. It may be of concern to the party that his father’s decisions on issues such as the Shah Bano case and Babri Masjid had kept the Congress out of power for a decade, and marginalised it in UP, but for the rest of us, the greater worry is what it did to the nation. The same mistakes are being repeated, the same kind of shallow symbolism that led to the October 1988 ban on The Satanic Verses is being re-adopted. At the very first sign of a real political test, the projected idealism of Rahul Gandhi has given way to the tired old clichés of Congress politics.

    It was thus no surprise that it was the Deoband seminary that obliged the Congress to act as it did. The seminary and the party are old friends who often act in tandem, but over the course of this campaign, Deoband’s self-professed hold over Muslim opinion has been challenged. The state’s Barelvis and other Sufis, who outnumber Deobandis by some admittedly unverifiable counts, have come together under the banner of the All India Ulama and Mashaikh Board (AIUMB). An earlier Open report had quoted Syed Babar Ashraf of the AIUMB, thus: “The Congress listens to hardliners. It has propped up hardline organisations like the Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind and has patronised Deobandis at the cost of Barelvis.” AIUMB General Secretary Maulana Syed Muhammad Ashraf Kichhouchhawi had this to say about Deobandis: “The ideology they teach and spread is hardline Wahhabism… We want to distinguish ourselves, keepers of harmonious Islam, from those who are promoters of terror.” Whatever the truth of these statements, this is the perception of a number of devout Muslims in India.

    When a hardline organisation sees its perceived hold over a community slipping, it usually reacts by building on outrage over a symbolic issue that consolidates the faithful. This is as true of the Hindu right and Sikh fundamentalists as of the Muslim clergy in the country. Rushdie was served up by the JLF just in time, and he was abandoned by the very people who invited him. Within the community, the Deobandi ploy appears to have worked—the Barelvis who had earlier called them ‘Wahhabis’ also joined the protest against Rushdie’s visit.

    It is understandable that Deobandis would work in tandem with the Congress, but what about the JLF’s organisers? Well, they are the only ones who apparently believe that Congress Minister Kapil Sibal deserves a session of his own at the festival, year after year, on the strength of his doggerel.

    The defence the organisers have offered is that there were other writers at the festival, and they had to consider their interests and safety. Well, actually there was no real danger to their safety. And since when has literature become a question of numbers? Is, then, the business of the festival more important than the idea of literature?

    A piece in The Economic Times, with unintended irony, revealed that the budget of the festival this year ‘is Rs 5.3 crore, up from Rs 1.2 crore in 2008. More than 70,000 people are attending this year. More than 400 accredited journalists are covering the event, and hundreds more are here unofficially. The profile of the attendees is deemed so favourable that alcohol firms vie with each other to market themselves at the venue. The high-end fashion label Ritu Kumar has a stall. A large ethnic-wear retailer is indulging in “ambush marketing”, say the organisers.’

    Last year, when JM Coetzee spoke at the JLF, the venue was packed. The audience did seem to have that ‘favourable’ profile that has alcohol firms vying for their attention, but I’m not sure if the vast majority had ever read a book of Coetzee, or ever would. Only a small minority of the people I spoke to later even managed to hear Coetzee’s address. It was the celebrity status of the author, fed by a media that thrives on the money and glamour of literary prizes, that had drawn them to Jaipur.

    Such an audience encapsulates the problem with the festival. Seven years after its inception, it has no local constituency in the city, or for that matter the state of Rajasthan, which is why a few people claiming to speak on behalf of Muslims could act without any local opposition. Jaipur was a venue chosen primarily for reasons that had nothing to do with literature; it was a good place to visit for a party and perhaps (in a few cases) listen to some well-known authors. The festival was primarily an exercise in literary tourism. If it is no longer held next year in Jaipur, maybe the only people with regrets in the city will be hoteliers and youngsters who turn up and enjoy a few drinks at the venue.

    There is nothing wrong with the idea of literary tourism, but when it goes with the pretension of a higher purpose, it does get shown up for what it is. For all the claims made for the festival, it has done little for Indian writing. The seven years of its existence have largely been bad years for Indian fiction, and the non-fiction that has emerged has come from the work of journalists who have had very little support from the publishing industry till their manuscripts were ready. What the festival has done, and done well as The Economic Times quote reveals, is promote the marketing of literature.

    Again, this is no bad thing. The few authors who have worked hard on their first books have been rewarded with better advances, but it has also meant that an entire industry of literary journalism has sprung up around the festival. It is this industry that has led us to believe that the festival is an end in itself; otherwise, what explains the decision to go ahead with it in the face of censorship? How many Indian—I stress ‘Indian’ only because it is our battle, the others can only extend support—critics and authors chose to stay away or walk away from a festival where the organisers themselves were complicit in the act of censoring an author, erasing his presence not just in person, but even on video via satellite from London?

    Four authors did run the risk of reading from The Satanic Verses at the festival. Of them, only Ruchir Joshi seems to have taken a coherent and admirable public stand. Hari Kunzru, who began by claiming he wanted to give voice to Salman Rushdie, ended up saying, “I would like to reiterate that in taking this action, I believed, and continue to believe, that I was not breaking the law, and had no interest in causing gratuitous offence. I apologise unreservedly to anyone who feels I have disrespected his or her faith.” In so giving voice to Salman Rushdie, Kunzru seems, by proxy, to have once again forced him to apologise for a crime he has not committed.

    Kunzru’s stand, while lame, is understandable in the light of how the organisers reacted. As soon as they realised that passages from Rushdie’s banned book were being read out, they distanced themselves from the act and issued a statement: ‘Any views expressed or actions taken by these delegates are in no manner endorsed by the Jaipur Literature Festival… Any action by any delegate or anyone else involved with the Festival that in any manner falls foul of the law will not be tolerated and all necessary, consequential action will be taken. Our endeavour has always been to provide a platform to foster an exchange of ideas and the love of literature, strictly within the four corners of the law.’

    According to The Hindu, ‘Despite the lack of any evidence that the authors broke any law, Supreme Court lawyer Akhil Sibal—who also happens to be the son of IT minister Kapil Sibal—advised the festival’s organisers that there were “certain legal questions” regarding the action of the authors.’ Isolated, the four authors left the festival, fearful of the legal consequences.

    Once again, the organisers could have chosen to defend them within ‘the four corners of the law’. Their failure to do so only emboldened the isolated voices that had been asking for the ban in the first place. The final act of this farce was played out when Rushdie was to speak over a video link. Mobs bent on violence outside the venue Diggi Palace served as the pretext for calling off the event. It was another matter that according to no independent report were there more than a handful of protestors.

    Consider the escalation. When Deoband first opposed Rushdie’s arrival, there was no direct threat of violence. No Muslim organisation contacted the organisers, but yet they succumbed and kept him away on day one of the festival, claiming he would make an appearance later. Then Ashok Gehlot’s Congress government in Rajasthan, more overtly, entered the picture and raised concerns about a law-and-order situation, concerns that seem to have bothered no one back in 2007 when a BJP government was in power in the state and the same police force had ensured Rushdie’s security during his JLF visit. Once again, the organisers gave in, betraying among other things a lack of spine. Emboldened by this, a few local Muslim leaders then opposed the video link, which led to another by-now-inevitable capitulation by the organisers, this time on the pretext that the owners of the property, who had gained so much from the festival, would not risk even a satellite hookup for Rushdie to speak and interact with JLF attendees.

    The consequences of such cowardice will stay with us. What started as a plea to throw a shoe at Rushdie has already ended in a death threat to William Dalrymple, a co-director of the festival who has reason to be perplexed, as he was mostly on the sidelines watching festival producer Sanjoy Roy and fellow co-director Namita Gokhale mishandle the situation.

    Complicit in this cravenness were also those who made a few odd noises, issued Twitter statements, and stayed on to party. This is in keeping with the larger cowardice of this literary culture, this ability to make the best of both worlds, keeping a clear conscience without risking anything. It begins with reviewers who say one thing about a book in private conversations and quite another when they write about it, and ends in books that never seem to risk anything. The presence on stage at a session, the promise of an event to promote a publishing house or media group, and the attraction of a media partnership are all ways in which a huge number of people are co-opted by the hype around the JLF as a literary endeavour.

    And let us make no mistake. Rushdie’s presence in Jaipur was part of this hype. Perhaps, another Rushdie visit going the way it did in 2007 may have allowed us to believe the hype the festival stands for. The cravenness of its organisers and games of politicians have at least done us the service of revealing how subjugated our literary culture really is, how beholden it is to those in power. In all likelihood, they will all be back in Jaipur next year, organisers, writers and the Twitterati, hosted by the same police force and politicians, with little or nothing to show for themselves in the cause of artistic liberty.

    Perhaps the Judiciary will eventually come to our aid. There is already a petition doing the rounds talking of approaching the courts to revoke the ban on The Satanic Verses, and asking for clear guidelines on which books can be banned. But that is not how a literary culture acquires self-worth. It is when we have writers who write the unnamable, say the unsayable, when readers and critics are willing to defend their right to do so, and when we think of literature as something far removed from the parties and commerce at Jaipur, that we can even begin to be worthy of the freedom we seek.

    The Rushdie Affair and the Hand of the Congress | OPEN Magazine
     
  4. Singh

    Singh Phat Cat Administrator

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2009
    Messages:
    20,305
    Likes Received:
    8,270
    Location:
    011
    Pity The Nation That Can't Defend Liberty

    Pity The Nation That Can't Defend Liberty



    Congress's no-limit, interest-free, Minority Card
    (It's the world's best credit card, issued by Vote Bank of India!)

    Nothing could be more telling about the tarnished and tattered state of our secular republic than the Darul Uloom Deoband vice-chancellor, Maulana Abul Qasim, describing Rajasthan Chief Minister Ashok Gehlot petitioning the Union government to stop Salman Rushdie from visiting India as "a victory for democracy".

    According to Maulana Qasim, "democracy is alive in India" because Gehlot has painted a grim picture of how mobs will run riot and law and order shall collapse if Rushdie were to attend the Jaipur Literary Festival; hence, he should be barred from entering the country of his origin.

    Deoband’s chief maulana wants Rushdie’s entry ‘prohibited forever’ as demanded ‘by so many people.’ That’s balderdash. The ‘so many people’ he refers to are mullahs and those who are prone to running riot over bogus grievances and spurious issues. The vast majority of Indians, irrespective of faith, is not in the least bothered and would, if asked, wholeheartedly support the idea of Rushdie visiting this country whenever he wishes.

    Not so the Congress. It can’t resist the temptation of seizing an opportunity to indulge in crass Muslim vote-bank politics when it senses one. In fact, there’s reason to believe that the Congress has a hand in manufacturing this mullah-led demand and the threat of violence to keep Rushdie away from India. It’s of a piece with the party’s electoral strategy in Uttar Pradesh premised on the cynical belief that pandering to the belligerence of mullahs and their ilk will fetch the party a rich harvest of Muslim votes.

    First we had senior Congress leader and law minister Salman Khurshid brazenly promising that his party will increase the minority quota, which is euphemism for Muslim reservation, from 4.5% to 9%. That pledge fetched the Election Commission’s ire but the message has not been lost. Then we had Congress general secretary Digvijay Singh seeking to reopen the bogus debate over the Batla House encounter of 2008, blaming the prime minister and the home minister for not ordering a judicial inquiry as demanded by the malcontent of Azamgarh who are either SIMI or IM supporters if not closet activists.

    Simultaneously, the mullahs of Deoband suddenly remembered Salman Rushdie — all these years they were not offended by his many visits to India, including his attending the Jaipur Literary Festival in 2007, but have discovered merit in blocking it now as Uttar Pradesh prepares to go to polls. Not surprisingly, the refrain was taken up by fanatics in Rajasthan where the Congress is in power. We haven’t heard a whimper from anywhere else in the country.

    For the Congress, the minority card is the most powerful credit card in the world. It has no upper limit; it does not bounce; and it comes interest-free. Little wonder that the party has been using this card for the past six decades, encashing votes by pretending to be the sole protector of Muslim sentiments and sensitivities.

    Sadly, there’s little realisation that, in the process, India’s Muslims have been further ghettoised, left to wallow in imagined slight and all-consuming denial. It should be of no comfort to the community that threats of violence generate fear, not respect; nor should it mistake the Congress’s cynical politics of appeasement as the route to social development and economic progress of Muslims.

    The reality, tragically, is to the contrary. And so we have mullahs threatening violence and the Congress capitulating to their demands in pursuit of its policy of limitless appeasement. Rajiv Gandhi’s government banned The Satanic Verses even before Ayatollah Khomeini issued his infamous fatwa. The Shah Bano judgment was subverted by abusing the Congress’s parliamentary majority. In more recent times, Denmark’s prime minister was asked to call off his scheduled visit to India lest it upset Muslim sensitivities allegedly inflamed over cartoons nobody had seen in this country. And Shimon Peres was ‘discouraged’ from attending the annual HT Summit lest the presence of Israel’s President on India’s soil upset Muslims.

    Salman Rushdie may yet visit India and make an appearance at the Jaipur Literary Festival. But that’s really inconsequential. What is of consequence is the amazing audacity of mullahs who now want to have a say on who gets to visit India and who doesn’t, who should live here and who shouldn’t, and the astounding willingness of the Congress to comply to their outrageously vile demands. That way lies the path to disaster.

    This is no longer about Salman Rushdie or his Satanic Verses. It’s about what remains of our secular republic.

    Agent Provocateur: Pity the nation that can't defend liberty
     
  5. Ray

    Ray The Chairman Defence Professionals Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2009
    Messages:
    43,118
    Likes Received:
    23,545
    Location:
    Somewhere
    There is no doubt politics was at play or else why concoct a bogus threat that the Police themselves has rubbished!

    And I understand that Chidambaram has not said a word on such a threat!

    I am afraid that the Congress is the greatest enemy of the Muslims. By pandering to the radical views and giving out sops that are not guarantee by the Constitution and which maybe challenged in the Court, after the heat of the elections are over, the Congress is alienating a large majority of the people and driving the schism even deeper.

    This is politics of disruption and anger (for the sake of calm words) generation amongst the people.

    If the Reservation is knocked down by the Court, the Muslims will be further angered and some may feel that they are being discriminated!

    It will become like another Babri Mazjid issue, an issue that was also organised to inflame by the Congress!
     
    Last edited: Jan 28, 2012
    Mad Indian likes this.
  6. Iamanidiot

    Iamanidiot Elite Member Elite Member

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2009
    Messages:
    5,326
    Likes Received:
    1,493
    In other words elections in UP
     
    Mad Indian likes this.
  7. W.G.Ewald

    W.G.Ewald Defence Professionals/ DFI member of 2 Defence Professionals

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2011
    Messages:
    14,140
    Likes Received:
    8,528
    Location:
    North Carolina, USA
    In Delhi, Rushdie Issues a Battle Cry - NYTimes.com
     
    amitkriit likes this.
  8. Mad Indian

    Mad Indian Proud Bigot Veteran Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2012
    Messages:
    12,830
    Likes Received:
    7,522
    Location:
    Podigai Hills.

    No one Could have explained this issue better, :hail:


    I think Muslims still voted on Identity- SP goons. I still dont think people cheer and say Muslims cant be fooled:frusty:
     

Share This Page