HOME | ABOUT US | Speaker | Americans Together | Videos | www.CenterforPluralism.com | Please note that the blog posts include my own articles plus selected articles critical to India's cohesive functioning. My articles are exclusively published at www.TheGhouseDiary.com You can send an email to: MikeGhouseforIndia@gmail.com


Showing posts with label Minorities. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Minorities. Show all posts

Tuesday, June 10, 2014

Resisting Modi through mass struggles | Praful Bidwai

I will continue to learn the negatives and positives about Modi, this is again a good piece
Mike Ghouse

June 08, 2014

Resisting Modi through mass struggles | Praful Bidwai

The News, 7 June 2014

Resisting Modi through mass struggles

by Praful Bidwai

[Resisting Modi through mass struggles] As Narendra Modi chooses his team of advisers and top bureaucrats, some commentators are appealing to him to follow proper appointment procedures, adopt the dharma of inclusion, and “reach out” to the 69 percent of the electorate who didn’t vote for the Bharatiya Janata Party – and especially assure Muslims that they should feel safe under him despite the 2002 Gujarat pogrom.

These commentators are unpardonably naïve in asking Modi to do the opposite of what he stands for. If Modi wanted to send a message of conciliation to Muslims, he would have long ago mourned and expressed sincere regret for the 2002 killings. He hasn’t done so, and defiantly says there’s nothing to apologise for: “If I’m guilty, I should be punished, but I won’t say sorry.”

While canvassing, he wore every type of headgear, including a Sikh turban and an Arunachali hat with horns and petals, but pointedly, and repeatedly, refused to don a skullcap!

The Modi government’s moral apathy towards Muslims was even more eloquently conveyed by the sole Muslim in the cabinet, minority affairs minister Najma Heptullah, through her first public speech declaring that India’s Muslims are too numerous to be a minority; that term best applies to Parsis – India’s wealthiest and most educated community.

This makes nonsense of the idea of protecting the rights of underprivileged religious-minority groups against majoritarianism, the ministry’s liberal-democratic rationale.

Modi has shown no respect for settled democratic conventions in making appointments. Thus, instead of choosing someone with scholarly gravitas, interest in academic pursuits, or a deep understanding of the challenges education faces in India, he allotted the weighty cabinet-rank human resource development portfolio to former actress Smriti Irani who has shown no interest in or aptitude for education, and who filed contradictory affidavits about her educational qualifications, which may be a criminal offence.

Worse, Modi used the ordinance route to override the Telecom Regulatory Authority Act, which bars the TRAI chairman from ever holding government office. This public-interest bar – enacted, ironically, by a BJP-led government in 2000 – is meant to prevent favouritism and promote impartiality, and should have been respected.

Modi was in a rush to appoint former TRAI chairman Nripendra Misra as his principal secretary. He refused to wait for parliament to convene and amend the act. The ordinance violates the Supreme Court judgement in a 1987 case, which says the ordinance power “is to be used to meet an extraordinary situation and cannot be allowed to be perverted to serve political ends”.

Misra’s is clearly a political appointment. He is no ordinary bureaucrat. He was until recently on the executive council of the Vivekananda International Foundation, a well-funded Right-wing think-tank located in Chanakyapuri, New Delhi’s diplomatic enclave.

VIF (www.vifindia.org) is an offshoot of the Vivekananda Kendra, started in 1972 by Eknath Ranade, former RSS general secretary. VIF played a crucial, if silent, role in Baba Ramdev and Anna Hazare’s anti-corruption protests beginning 2011. It runs several security- and foreign policy-related and “historical and civilisational studies” programmes.

VIF’s website carries hysterical pro-Hindutva and ultra-nationalist articles. One article describes US scholar Wendy Doniger as someone who delights in “denigrating Hinduism. Most of her own and her students’ dissertations/books … have often been described as pure pornography…” Doniger’s book on Hinduism was recently pulped – setting a nasty precedent of successful intimidation by the RSS-sponsored Shiksha Bachao Andolan, since carried over.

VIF’s director is former Intelligence Bureau chief Ajit Doval, now appointed the National Security Adviser. As I discovered during a television debate a few years ago, Doval belongs to a school of policing that believes “in shooting first and asking questions later – that’s the only way to deal with terrorists”, real or imagined.

Doval rationalises fake ‘encounter killings’ and advocates a militarist approach towards Maoists – regardless of legality and human rights consequences. He calls for a hard line against India’s neighbours, including friendly Bangladesh, who he believes, are bent on subverting India’s security.

Many VIF leading lights discount the potential for peaceful coexistence between India and Pakistan. India, they demand, should stop being overly “generous” towards its neighbours in economic cooperation, trade, visas, even water-sharing.

VIF, with other pro-Sangh Parivar outfits such as Deendayal Research Institute, Niti Central, Public Policy Research Centre, Friends of the BJP, Centre for Policy Studies and Rashtriya Seva Bharati, will provide policy inputs to Modi.

Under their influence, we are likely to witness a well-orchestrated campaign to shift India’s foreign, security, economic, social and cultural policies rightwards, in keeping with Modi’s own orientation, but with disastrous consequences.

It’s hard to see how the feeble and demoralised parliamentary opposition can resist this onslaught. Many regional outfits like the Samajwadi Party buy into the BJP’s paranoid ultra-nationalist premises and hardline approaches.

Where does that leave the recent elections’ greatest losers – the Congress, the Left, the BSP and the Aam Aadmi Party? The first two have suffered their worst-ever defeats, winning respectively 44 and 12 Lok Sabha seats (including two Left-backed independents from Kerala). The AAP, which showed great promise in December, has come a cropper, winning only four seats, all in Punjab.

These parties face an existential crisis. The Congress still deludes itself that the Gandhi family will somehow rescue it. The family refuses to own up to its leadership failure. Yet, no one demands that the party frees itself from this millstone and start afresh.

Unless the Congress rebuilds its base among the Dalits, Adivasis, lower OBCs and the urban poor, by agitating for their livelihood rights, it’s likely to go into steep, possibly terminal, decline – especially if it loses the coming assembly elections in Maharashtra and Haryana, as seems likely.

The Left’s base has been eroding everywhere, especially in its former bastion West Bengal, where it won the same number of seats (two) as the BJP. Its leadership should have responded to this with alacrity; several heads should have rolled, and the Left should have returned to vigorous mass activity instead of doing “politics from the top” based on unstable, sterile electoral alliances.

Unless the Left urgently corrects course, updates its programmatic perspectives, and develops a mass-based mobilisation strategy by taking up issues like healthcare, food security, employment, education and defence of people’s livelihoods threatened by predatory industrial, mining and water and power projects, it too will be doomed.

The solution lies in radical, painfully critical introspection, abandoning the democratic centralism organisational doctrine which prevents healthy debate, and joining grassroots struggles. This is a tall order, but the Left has no soft options.

As for the AAP, it must reinvent itself not as a political party, but as a political movement which offers new forms of participatory activity not narrowly focused on corruption or “crony capitalism”. The AAP must practise what it preaches – transparency, political honesty and inner-party consultation. It’s the lack of these that aggravated the AAP’s crisis, leading to Shazia Ilmi’s and Yogendra Yadav’s resignations, and to Arvind Kejriwal’s discrediting as an egoistic, unreliable leader.

The AAP must not shy away from ideology. It must link ‘crony capitalism’ to communal-neoliberal authoritarianism. The BJP embodies all these and is the main enemy. Rather than concentrate excessively on the coming Delhi Assembly elections, the AAP must join a broad-based national campaign against neoliberal Hindutva-capitalism. That’s the way forward.

The writer, a former newspaper editor, is a researcher and rights activist based in Delhi.

Email: prafulbidwai1@yahoo.co.in

Friday, May 30, 2014

Najma Heptullah’s flawed understanding of ‘minority’

WHAT IS MAJORITY-MINORITY IN INDIAN CONTEXT?
http://mikeghouseforindia.blogspot.com/2014/05/najma-heptullahs-flawed-understanding.html

Salil Tripathi is one of my favorite writers, and once again he scores big in my books.   I am please to quote some of his words and add my own that I have been articulating for over 3 months in article over article.


Salil Tripathi, " Majority and minority are about power, not numbers alone.

That is a problem, because the minority then develops grievances because of perceived discrimination and injustice. Muslims are a minority not only because they are fewer than Hindus, but because as the Sachar committee report shows, and as other social and economic indicators, including statistics of their representation in bureaucracy, corporations, judiciary, and even newsrooms reveal, there are disproportionately fewer of them in professions and senior positions than their numbers. Instead of blaming the community, what the state should do is to figure out how best to ensure that Muslims have the opportunities to reach their potential. It is in India’s interest.
The state cannot and should not guarantee equal outcomes, but it has an obligation to extend opportunities equally."
 



Here is my quote - Muslims and other minorities are not looking for any handouts, or seek appeasement, all they want is equal access, equal opportunities and equal justice in employment, housing, governance and all other endeavors in the pursuit of their happiness. It is the role of government to ensure that no citizen is treated any less.


Mike Ghouse is an Indian American Public Speaker, thinker and a writer committed to offer pluralistic solutions on issues of the day - more at www.MikeGhouse.net

 # # #

Najma Heptullah’s flawed understanding of ‘minority’

By Salil Tripathi
Courtesy: The Mint



Najma Heptullah’s flawed understanding of ‘minority’
Minority affairs minister Najma Heptullah. Photo: Ramesh Pathania/Mint 
The problem with debates on social media is that they flare up one day based on an isolated remark, and people focus only on the remark and often have no idea of the larger context. Life is about nuances and not binaries, but the partisan nature of political debate on the one hand, and the diminishing attention span on social media on the other, force people to reiterate their views quickly and then move on to the next topic du jour.
Something similar happened on Thursday when Najma Heptullah, the minority affairs minister, said: “Muslims are not minorities. Parsis are. We have to see how we can help them so that their numbers don’t diminish.” When reporters persisted in asking her questions about Muslims, her response was: “This is not the ministry for Muslim affairs, this is the ministry for minority affairs.”
She is of course right; her role is not to safeguard the interests of only one community. And as some writers pointed out to me, in his presidential address at the Ramgarh Congress in 1940, Maulana Abul Kalam Azad (Heptullah is his grand-niece), explained the meaning of being a minority: “It is not enough that the group should be relatively the smaller, but that it should be absolutely so small as to be incapable of protecting its interests. Thus this is not merely a question of numbers; other factors count also. If a country has two major groups numbering a million and two millions respectively, it does not necessarily follow that because one is half the other, therefore it must call itself politically a minority and consider itself weak. If this is the right test, let us apply it to the position of the Muslims in India. You will see at a glance a vast concourse, spreading out all over the country; they stand erect, and to imagine that they exist helplessly as a ‘minority’ is to delude oneself.”
Azad is right in trying to delink a minority from its perceived weakness—and his remarks were made in pre-partition India to assure Muslims that they would be safe in India. Muhammad Ali Jinnah’s rationale was that they wouldn’t be, and eventually Jinnah succeeded. But on 11 August 1947, Jinnah was to tone down the rhetoric and present a remarkably liberal interpretation of the kind of country he wanted Pakistan to be. He told Pakistanis: “You are free; you are free to go to your temples, you are free to go to your mosques or to any other place of worship in this state of Pakistan. You may belong to any religion or caste or creed—that has nothing to do with the business of the state.” That today the vulnerability of Pakistan’s Shias, Ahmadiyyas, Christians, and Hindus has only increased tells us more about Pakistan’s rapidly deteriorating governance. 
But even if the intellectual basis of Heptullah’s view comes from her ancestor Maulana Azad, it is not enough to say therefore that Muslims aren’t a minority; that they are capable of defending their interests; or that real focus should be on the Parsis so that their numbers don’t decrease. Arguably, nobody asked Parsis if they want any special favours, nor is it in any way clear what the Indian government can do to increase the Parsi population. 
Heptullah’s literal interpretation of her ancestor’s remarks reveals two flaws. First is her understanding of minorities only in numerical terms; and second is her understanding of minorities only in religious terms.
In an ideal world, all Indian citizens are Indians, and the gods they worship—or not, the language they speak—or not, the food they eat—or not, the caste to which they belong by the accident of birth—or not, none of these factors should matter. But they do, and they do because the discourse on majority and minorities misses the vital aspect of power. If Muslims or dalits or adivasis require affirmative action in some areas, it is because of discrimination and their powerlessness. 
When the majority wields power and enjoys a large share of benefits, it is often unaware of the inherent advantage its constituents have because of its majority status. That is a problem, because the minority then develops grievances because of perceived discrimination and injustice. Muslims are a minority not only because they are fewer than Hindus, but because as the Sachar committee report shows, and as other social and economic indicators, including statistics of their representation in bureaucracy, corporations, judiciary, and even newsrooms reveal, there are disproportionately fewer of them in professions and senior positions than their numbers. Instead of blaming the community, what the state should do is to figure out how best to ensure that Muslims have the opportunities to reach their potential. It is in India’s interest. An imaginative, forward-looking minority affairs ministry would look towards extending those opportunities, rather than questioning if a group of people who number 138 million represent a minority or not. In Apartheid-era South Africa, blacks were the majority but they lacked power, and were, in effect, a discriminated minority, because all the levers of power were with the white minority, which acted like the majority. Majority and minority are about power, not numbers alone. 
The second part is harder—it is high time India stops seeing minorities only in religious terms. A minority affairs ministry should focus on eliminating discrimination, not only in matters of faith, but also language spoken, the caste in which the person is born, the person’s marital status, his or her food habits, and his or her sexual orientation. A minister meant to protect the rights of a minority is meant to empower the vulnerable. 
This means thinking of laws to prevent arbitrary denial of housing to people of another faith or food habits; of changing laws that criminalize certain sexual practices among consenting adults; transforming the nation’s outlook so that everyone is truly equal—not only as voters, but as equal participants in the great Indian adventure. The state cannot and should not guarantee equal outcomes, but it has an obligation to extend opportunities equally. Only then would what is now the real minority in India become the majority—and that minority is the group of people who see themselves as Indians, and not as Punjabi or Tamil, Muslim or Hindu, Kayastha or Chitpavan, or vegetarian or meat-eaters, or whatever else our devious minds come up with to divide people into us and them.

# ##