Divisive Mindsets at Work

There hasn't been any posts on this diary since the one on Raavan. A lot of things happened during this time.

First there was an unfortunate incident of a college teacher's hand getting chopped off in Kerala. I wrote about it on Kafila. [A Dialogue with God and Dialogues that go missing, with Bobby Kunhu].

The frenzy created by the media and the ire against one community are still on the high. A couple of days back the honourable chief minister came up with a statement that said some Muslim groups are working with an agenda of making Muslims a majority in Kerala. (Numbers suggest otherwise -- The decrease in population growth rate between 1981-91 and 1991-2001 is 34.2% for Kerala. For Malappuram district, it is much higher: 40.4%. We can wait for 2011 census figures for the current trend.) I think that statement from a chief minister of a state was extremely irresponsible, in the mildest terms. He even hinted at a 'reverse Love Jihaad', of Muslim women 'trapping' Hindu men. (A report on the sources of the 'original' Love Jihad can be found here: "Love Jihad was no Farce").

Then there was news about how the induction of Dalit women as cooks for the mid-day meals in schools in Uttar Pradesh angered a section of people. A report on it on the India Today website was very funny, in a sad way. It was as if the schoolkids were all living happily together, and then some "Dalit cooks" came and divided them. I first wrote about it on The Hoot ("Casteist reporting" -- The report on India Today site has changed since then) and followed it up with a post on Insight young voices blog ("Dalit cooks expose divisive mindsets").

All this is certainly disturbing, even if it isn't suprising. It tells us how divided we stand. It tells us we have a long way to go in our journey to becoming a civil society. It tells us progress cannot be gauged in economic terms alone.

An Encounter

I happened to have an 'encounter' with Praveen Swami recently, thanks to Annie Zaidi who mistook me for a Counter Currents editor. I must admit that this is the closest of its sort that one can imagine.

It is upto the readers to decide whether this was fake or not. :-) [See link]

[Also see: Comments at this older post]

Khan Saheb, you better remain Rahul

Scene one: SRK and Obama

Shah Rukh: "My name is Khan, and I am not a terrorist."
Obama: "Yes I know that. Sorry for that airport incident."
SRK: "And my son in the film -- he is not a Muslim, he is actually a Rathore -- is also not a terrorist."
Obama: "I know -- I am sorry for him too.."
SRK: "But all other Muslims excluding my immediate family -- they are probably terrorists. And if they talk of Palestine or Israel, then you can be sure."
Obama: "Mm.."
SRK: "And yes, a terrorist has to be a Muslim, that everyone knows, right?"

* * *

Scene two : SRK and Shiv Sena

SRK: "My name is Khan, and I am not a terrorist."
Shiv Sainiks: "But we are.. and it is people like us who decide who should be called a terrorist. You see, we can even execute a series of riots in a communally sensitive atmosphere and make people remember only the blasts that followed.."

* * *

Scene 3: SRK and audience

SRK: "My name is Khan.."
Audience: "Sorry you better be Rahul. Otherwise we are not going to fill your cinema halls. No matter how much ever a good guy you try to be."

* * *

Scene 4: SRK and me

SRK: "His name is Karan Johar, and he is not a terrorist".
Me: "You want me to believe that, after Kurbaan and MNIK?"

* * *

[Related News: Sena terror prevails; MNIK not to be released in Mumbai
Let those who love Pak-lover SRK watch MNIK: Thackeray]

[Related fact: I went at 6:25 for 6:30 show on the opening day, and got tickets comfortably. The show was not full.]

[Related post: Where does Aamir lead us?]

[.. and a related e-mail]

Dialogue with Maymon: When France bans Burqas

Maymon:

“In our country we cannot accept that women be prisoners behind a screen, cut off from all social life, deprived of all identity,” Mr Sarkozy said to applause in his historic speech to lawmakers in chateau at Versailles.

French goverment decides to impose ban on Burqa. It was one of the headlines in many online and print media.

"Who doesn't see that our integration model isn't working any more? Instead of producing equality, it produces inequality. Instead of producing cohesion, it creates
resentment." Sarkozy said.

Is France again leading by example? It has produced greatest of thinkers who influenced human race over the years. Philosophers like Voltaire, openly stood against Catholic Church dogma for the freedom of religion. He and Diderot regarded religion intolerant and tried to enlighten the society through their writings as early as seventeenth century.

But this ban of burqa, is sure going to invite debates and controversies. Muslim religious leaders in France and over the world is going to see it as yet another bid to stigmatise their religion.

The progressive section in both muslim and non-muslim community is going to welcome this. Who defines the boundary line between secularism and personal freedom.

A similar law in 2004, banned head scarfs at public schools. It invited criticism from the small Sikh community as well, when Sikh boys disallowed from entering class-rooms with turban. In Holland they tried to ban burqa last year, but stopped amid fears of possible backlashes.

I dont know how comfortable is Burqa compared to other forms of dress. But I feel most of the time women are forced to wear it on the name of religion. Let us not blame it on Islam alone. Recently there was on incident in Chennai where a college student was banned when she refused to wear a saree according to the college dress code. The case is still under high court's consideration. Lets hope our law would respect her choice!

* * *

Sudeep:

Dear Maymon,

The last line in your note makes a strong point. I think we should all learn to respect other's choices. And I see the ban on Burqas primarily as a disrespect to that choice.

I know it is not so simple. All women who wear Burqa may not be wearing it on their personal choice. (That is true for many things that many people do, and almost anything that women do, in almost all cultures, in almost all parts of the world). But for those who have chosen to wear a Burqa, this moves comes as a violation of their fundamental individual rights.

I have also wondered how could it be comfortable at all to wear a Burqa. But then I have heard and read women who find it very comfortable and even empowering, for various reasons. The simplest one is that they don't have to worry much about the male gazes and passing comments on their body. They are also looked upon with respect. (In the Indian context, Ambedkar did not like Gandhi's idea of burning foreign dresses -- he said for Dalits, the 'English' dress was empowering. A Brahmin or Vysya could be respected even in minimal dress, but not a dalit).

At the end, I think banning Burqas is as bad as imposing Burqas.. And that a ban is certainly not the way to go..

* * *

[Image above: a photoshopped image that has been doing rounds on email. The original can be found here.]

Where does Aamir lead us?

Aamir is being celebrated as a brilliant film by many critics and common viewers alike. The film has also done very good business at the box office, rather unusual for an offbeat film like this.

I am not too concerned about this nor am I suprised at it, but I am worried when it gets labeled as a film that breaks the stereotype of Muslims in Bollywood, and in the psyche of the Middle class (majorly Hindu) India in general. I had heard some people talk of the 'sensitive portrayal of Indian Muslim' in this film, and then there was this article Beyond prisms of prejudice by Ziya Us Salam [The Hindu Magazine, Sunday 24 August 2008].

That is a matter of concern because Aamir in fact upholds precisely those very stereotypes.

Which is why I felt it was only natural for this film to have such a 'universal' appeal among the Middle class Hindu India.

In one line, the film's premise is that Muslims are out to terrorize the nation. 'Brothers' sending in money from all over the world, the kingpins misleading the educated youth by brainwashing them and using them as pawns, the ordinary poor Muslims on the streets silently approving of all this with a smile on their face that they know this is how it works. And we have an exception in the lead character of the film who turns from a victimized, helpless position to be a real Aamir (leader) by refusing to be part of it.

[If that weren't enough, the film tells us through its hero -- Aamir, the real leader -- that he has overcome difficulties by his hard work and become a doctor working abroad, and that is the way to go for the community to get out of the poverty and bad living conditions. Is it any surprise if it finds many takers among the anti-reservation warhead of the elite Brahman class?]

Honestly, I feel this guy is much more dangerous than a bearded terrorist Muslim villain of Bollywood. (We have seen this 'achche Muslims bhi hote hai' caricature also many times in mainstream Bollywood itself).

Aamir might have its directorial high points (I particularly liked the presentation of the villain), but let us not give it the sensitive film tag. This film takes the rotten path, feeding the most insensitive and unhealthy of the psyches precisely what they crave for. That is it.

If you want to catch a more sensible film on a similar theme, try Mumbai Meri Jaan.


Credits:
[Image edited from a poster at the film's web site]
[Thanks to my friend Bhakti who took me for Aamir]

Intolerance and indigestion

The Telegraph, Sunday October 8, 2006. Bharathi S. Pradhan writes about Dor:

"When you first watch Nagesh Kukunoor’s impressively shot Dor, you want to simply applaud it as good cinema. (I even sent him a text message that I loved the film and its performances.).."

"Whether it’s Ayesha’s award-worthy performance or Shreyas’ amusing moments, the credit marks pile up in favour of the director who has made engaging cinema out of a story inspired by the Malayalam film Perumazhakalam.."

I haven't seen the film (it was not even released in this city), so I can't comment on this. I'm not sure I'd have checked it out even if it were running here. I had given Perumazhakkalam a miss, after seeing some of the newspaper promos. But the article is titled "Kukunoor’s minority report". May be there are some interesting observations.

As it turns out, the observations are not just interesting. Funny, ridiculous, alarming..? Or may be all of these.


"..once you stop the gush of compliments and ponder over the film, you realise that Nagesh Kukunoor has a definite agenda other than just entertaining his audience."

[Well, what could it be?]

"He did it very subtly in Iqbal where he set the deaf and dumb aspiring cricketer smack in an agrarian Muslim family. It was done so casually, it could have been any other normal Indian family with its cricket-loving mother and sister, and a hard working farmer-father opposed to the game. There were no Allahs, subhanallahs or mashallahs punctuating every sentence. Except for one scene taken outside a mosque, there were no namaaz versus cricket practice debates either."

[Oh, that's certainly not acceptable! Wonder how we missed it in Iqbal! This guy is so clever he is pushing an agenda in such a casual manner that we don't notice!]

"In short, other than introducing the lovable little family, Nagesh never reminded you that this was a Muslim family. On hindsight, one understands that his agenda was to show a Muslim as no different from someone from the mainstream. So far, pretty fair."

[Ok, that would pass, even if it is not entirely fair.]

"But after watching Dor, one suspects Nagesh was only testing the waters with Iqbal."

[Wow! That one sentence takes the cake. "testing the waters with Iqbal". Checking whether we, who are being taught continuously by Ms. Pradhan and others how dangerous and fanatic these Muslims are, can take one film with a "normal" Muslim family!]

"In Dor he goes further and draws a stark contrast between the ‘progressive’ minority community and the ‘regressive’ Rajasthanis (read that as Hindu). Nagesh’s Muslim family has a lively, spirited heroine called Zeenat.."

[But how dare he show a lively, spirited girl in a Muslim family?]
[some storyline details snipped]

"..Very sweet, very innocuous. Except when you move to Rajasthan and contrast Zeenat with Meera, the widow whose signature must be got on that pardon-nama. It is here that Nagesh’s determined agenda to show the Muslim as progressive, independent-spirited and far-from-marching-backwards-into-the-dark-ages, moves into top gear.."

[Blasphemy!]

"Zeenat befriends Meera without revealing who she is or what she wants from her. If you think about it, it’s actually a con, winning the unsuspecting widow’s confidence when there is an ulterior motive behind the hand of friendship."

[Thanks for telling us.]

"But Nagesh strives to ensure that you don’t lose your sympathy for Zeenat. And then, he has Meera go through all the humiliation that a traditional Hindu setup gives its widows. Most of it is unfortunately true, for widows do get treated like sub-humans in the land of sati, dowry and female infanticide.."

[Point noted.]

"However, Nagesh cleverly chooses this backward-thinking traditional family as a contrast, even going so far as to have Meera’s father-in-law, otherwise a proud man, strike a pimplike business deal where the payment is his widowed daughter-in-law’s youthful body! Sure, that happens too, but it looks a trifle mischievous to take the worst elements of this (Hindu) society only to paint a glorious picture of the (Muslim) other.

Go ahead with your agenda Mr Kukunoor, we applaud any story of a normal progressive Muslim family. But must it be at the expense of bashing another community thus?"

That surely we can not take. We'll portray Muslims in general as terrorists, pimps, villains, bad guys, religious fanatics in may be all of our movies but we can not take if a not-so-pleasant picture is portrayed of one single Hindu man or one regressive community (we know that happens but thats not the point..) in a single film. We sure can not tolerate this. We can not digest this. Sorry, no Hajmola, no Gelusil will help.

"Minority" on the other side

"Why can small numbers excite rage? They represent a tiny obstacle between majority and totality or total purity. The smaller the number and the weaker the minority, the deeper the rage about its capacity to make a majority feel like a mere majority." [Arjun Appadurai, Fear of Small Numbers]

Naeem Mohaiemen starts his article with the above quote. Here's some background, in his own words:

"I was stirred from slumber by an e-mail I got from Dhaka last week. With the most volatile elections of Bangladesh history approaching in two months, the minority vote (Hindus, Christians, Buddhists, Paharis, Adivasis) is a target as they are expected to vote for the left-of center AL (Awami League) en masse, vs. the rightist-islamist ruling coalition of BNP (Bangladesh Nationalist Party).

In the e-mail, my friend wrote: "I have already received 3 independent e-mails from
contacts in Bangladesh (2 Hindu, 1 Christian) who are terrified after threats their families have received in the last few days ("don't vote, or we'll kill you", basically). As the rumor-mongering kicks in and accusations are traded, the minorities will again become a pawn between the two main factions."

I wrote the text below in response. An abbreviated version of this was published in the main Dhaka newspaper yesterday.."

To The Polls, Unless Your Name Be Das, Tripura, or Roy, by Naeem Mohaiemen.

Happy Deepavali (I miss the month of Ramzan)

Happy Deepavali to the readers for whom it means much. To me it meant a holiday till I reached Nagpur to do my engineering, where it meant a month of holidays. And then eventually a festival that many of my friends celebrated. Who get goodies from home when they come back after the holidays.

And I miss the month of Ramzan back home. It did mean a lot to us in our school days. (My friend here asks me if I could write this without fear if I were a Muslim. I leave that question to you. On second thoughts, how does it matter when one is living every moment in fear and in pressure to prove one's Indianness?)

Ok, we were talking of Ramzan. Yes it meant a month of holidays-- when I was in primary school (till 7th std) Ramzan used to coincide with the month of June. Our school, along with other "Muslim" schools, closed one month late and opened one month late on 1st July when all other schools opened on 1st June. It also meant Patthiri and Irachi (thin Rice roti and chicken/mutton/beef) coming in from the neighbourhood houses in the evenings. And more..

Things aren't so good these days-- a Hindu has to wear signs of being a Hindu (one my little friend in class 2 asked his parents why wasn't he wearing a tika when every other Hindu child in his class did), and a Hindu is not really welcome in a Mosque (this doesn't apply to temples, as "non-Hindus not allowed inside" or "ahindukkalkku pravesanamilla" board was always there). Don't know where we are headed..

Let that not stop the celebrations. Happy Deepavali and Id Mubarak!!

[image courtesy : "jung aur aman"/anand patwardhan]

Afzal zinda hai

The title refers to news that Mohammad Afzal Guru's execution, originally scheduled for today morning 6am, has been put off. However, this post is not about Afzal. But I got to writing this thanks to him.

Yesterday being the last day before the fazi, I happened to enter a couple of noicy rooms filled with people baying for blood, one on an orcut community and another on The Times of India page, and one would be shocked to see the amount of misinformation that gets propagated and becomes common wisdom.

It seems the Supreme Court order said "[the attack on parliament] had shaken the entire nation and the collective conscience of the society will only be satisfied if capital punishment is awarded to [him]. But scanning through the aawaaz, I realized that this "collective conscience" won't be satisfied until the last Muslim in this nation is hanged.

The blogpage ToI promoted on its page had comments like

"DHANAJAY SERVED 14 YEARS IN JAIL AND THEN HE WAS HANGED
THE IDIOT PRESIDENT DID NOT EVEN ALLOW HIS FAMILY MEMBERS TO MEET HIM IN RASTRAPATI BHAVAN

BECAUSE HE WAS A HINDU

HOWEVER A MUSLIM TERRORISTS FAMILY GOT AN APPOINTMENT FOR HALF AN HOUR WITH PRESIDENT IN A DAY"..

(yes, in all caps) and

"B*star'd Abdul Kalam finally he also chose to be Mus'lim first than an Indian President"..

(and much more)

When I responded to making Dhananjoy vs Afzal a Hindu/Muslim issue, asking him to get their facts right (If one chooses to make it a Hindu versus others issue then it has been a huge triumph for the caste Hindus, as almost 100% of the people hanged in independent India are Dalits or religious minorities), someone (who calls himself "SUDIP IS AN ASSHOLE") writes, "WHY DO YOU DIVIDE BASED ON CASTE FIRST OF ALL"?[** footnote on this below the post]

S.I.A.S continues: "YOU MUST BE A COMMIE ASS* STILL SUPPOTING MUSLIMS
DO YOU KNOW IN KERALA, WEST BENGAL (COMMIES LAND) MUSLIM POPULATIONS HAVE EXCEEDED THAN THAT OF HINDU POPULATION IN MORE THAN 50% DISTRICTS

IN KERALA MANY PLACES HINDUS ARE DISALLOWED TO COOK IN THE DAY TIME IN THE MONTH OF RAMZAN"

Well I didn't know this one! I hail from Kerala, and from the *only* district in Kerala that has more Muslims than Hindus (Kerala has 14 districts). I still would like to know the source of this guy's information, as this gives an idea how intense is the hate campaign against Muslims of this country.

I do get to hear glimpses of such "wisdom" making rounds once in a while from various sources. For instance, when I once visited some schools run by the Sangh Parivar in the tribal areas of Maharashtra. They are teaching the children, so far so good, but one lesson that is repeated often is that Muslims and Christians are our enemies. Even the games and songs talked of how one should take to talvaar (the sword).

Another popular myth links Bombay riots (1992 Dec-93 Jan/Feb) to 1993 March Bombay blasts, about which Dilip writes here.

And about the "bombs in every house" that is women, and the parents who allow her to go to college which ends up in them in "having love affairs, often with Muslims" and how can we prevent this from happening..? Prasant Jha in Himal, got link from Shivam's blog. By now, not quite shocking.

* * *

[** Why do you divide based on caste? Seemingly innocent question. Like those people who say "why do you want to divide people with reservations". There was a time when I used to ask this too. When one section takes all the privileges that it has got in the society being the "dominant" section, and when some sections are denied most of those previleges, that is not "dividing" people. When one tries to account for the discrimination, she is.

Why is it that it is always Dalits (who are outside the castes), and then Muslims and Christians, who get death sentence?

I don't count Afzal in this, his has been a speacial case, he got good media attention, has got good connections including foreign ones.. Most other victims of death penalty in independent India haven't had such luxury. Here's one reference.]