A Food-thought for Adam Smith

Adam Smith, father of modern economist, wrote a book titled The Wealth of Nations in 1776. The book is considered the magnum opus written at the outset of the Industrial Revolution advocating a free market economy which will be more productive and beneficial to society at large.

In the book, Adam Smith wrote,

“When the quantity of any commodity which is brought to market falls short of the effectual demand, all those who are willing to pay... cannot be supplied with the quantity which they want... Some of them will be willing to give more. A competition will begin among them, and the market price will rise... When the quantity brought to market exceeds the effectual demand, it cannot be all sold to those who are willing to pay the whole value of the rent, wages and profit, which must be paid in order to bring it thither... The market price will sink...”

To put it simply, it means when demand exceeds supply, the price goes up. When the supply exceeds demand, the price goes down.

The above law as laid down by Adam Smith is being challenged in India. The steady rise in the prices of essential commodities is not necessarily a result of law of demand and supply. There is one more element which has the potential to deceive the operating market forces: artificial food inflation.

Artificial food inflation is a creation of long chain of middlemen. The humble price of essential commodities becomes steeper by the time it reaches the ultimate consumer. The cursory glance at the current market prices of essential commodities will make one sweat. Potatoes are retailing at 100 per cent more than a year ago. Fruits and vegetables are 30 per cent more expensive than the last year. It was only when the inflation touched 19% (highest food inflation of the decade), government stepped in just to utter one phrase: that the rising prices are a “cause for concern”.

Outlook magazine has proved that the current food inflation is not a result of law of demand and supply rather it is the result of law of the middlemen. It followed the essential commodities from farm to the neighbouring shop. The survey compared farm prices, Mandi prices and retail prices of tomato, potato, cabbage and onion. The farm prices of four commodities is extremely cheap while the retail price is at at least five to six times higher. This cycle of steep price ride does not benefit millions of farmers as it is evident from the fact that farmer suicide continues to take place. It only benefits a handful of rich and powerful middlemen. This is the irony of a rising India that the price rise of essential commodities does not benefit the actual farmer rather it paves the way for the middlemen to make a booty out of it.

Where does central government stand in this artificial food inflation?

First of all, there is no effective mechanism to check whether there is the real scarcity of food grains. And even if corrective measures are taken to overcome this, there is no way to control the price of essential commodities. As Ashok Gulati, director of International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) puts it,

“The value chain is too fragmented. And if there’s even a slight supply shortage, agents, end-retailers raise prices arbitrarily.”

It is the job of Sharad Pawar, Union agriculture minister, to devise and smoothen the ways in which farmers cut the long chain and sell essential commodities at decent prices. Cutting the long-chain will not only benefit farmers but also the end-consumers.

Union Finance Minister Pranab Mukherjee’s statement in Kolkata on Thursday that ‘cost-push’ element is behind the price rise is silly. He said, “It has to be understood that a cost-push element is responsible for the rise in food prices... it emerges from the Centre’s decision to give fair and remunerative prices to farmers among others [procurement, transportation and stocking prices].” Pranab Mukherjee very conveniently forgot the role played by the middlemen in the price rise. Pranab Mukherjee is no naivete who wouldn’t be aware of the role of the middlemen. One would like to believe in Centre’s sincerity behind such a measure but honestly speaking farmers are not getting much money out of it.

Prime Minister’s Economic Advisory Council (EAC) must take note of Pranab Mukherjee’s insensitive statement.

India is poised to take centre stage as it has the second largest economy after China. India Rising story has graced dozens of magazine covers across the world. We boast of four of the world’s 10 richest billionaires. But yet that does not help. That’s just one-side of the story. The other-side is ugly. Poverty and hunger are written on so many faces of Nehru’s India.

Tarun Tejpal rightly points out,

“While acquire and consume has been the anthem of the elite, a low hum has been gathering in the vast undergrowth of the country’s destitute. By official figures — and we may generously add to them if we are feeling particularly dark — more than 350 million Indians still live below the poverty line (which in itself is appalling: Rs 12 for rural and Rs 18 for urban).”

Adam Smith is no longer alive to witness the wonders of a free market. But economist Manmohan Singh is.

Sunday Inquilab, December 27, 2009

Crime: the Swine flu of politics

Ashok Chavan: The Man in command needs to take initiative

Now that the electoral dust has settled down in Maharashtra, its time we carefully studied each of our representatives with a magnifying glass of honesty. Each one of them is our elected representative and therefore in a democratic parlance our mirror-image. The image which emerges is a collective reflection of us, the voters. It may be beautiful, ugly, twisted and in some cases a camouflage to delude ordinary individuals but nobody can deny the fact that we, the voters, are responsible for that image. Narendra Modi has presided over the genocide of innocent Muslims in Gujarat but he remains a democratic symbol and representative and therefore a mirror-image of Gujaratis. This paradox of democracy is like a bitter pill which each one of us has to swallow it.

We must have celebrated the hat-trick of “clean” and “secular” Congress-NCP alliance. Many of us would have been relieved that voters rejected “communal” and “filthy” saffron brigade. But there is one factor which cuts through all party lines – criminal record of elected members of legislative assembly. Not many would have noted this phenomenon. And those who are aware of this societal reality may not care about it. Or perhaps it makes little difference in their lives.

According to the data compiled by National Election Watch, an NGO working for electoral reforms, Maharashtra leads the list of largest number of legislators with criminal cases pending against them followed by Haryana and Arunachal Pradesh. Out of 288, 143 MLAs have a criminal background or some criminal case is pending against them. Almost half of our representatives come from a criminal background or done some nefarious activity which entitled them to enroll themselves in the muster roll reserved for criminals. The magical figure of 145 is required to form government in Maharashtra. What will happen if all the MLAs with criminal cases pending against them come together to cobble up an alliance and manage to get support of two more MLAs? Will Maharashtra government be led by criminal-like-creatures? This assumption should never come true but the number of 143 is a collective blot on our conscience. It’s a blot on the very idea of democracy because there is no law in India which bars persons with criminal cases from contesting elections. This democratic flaw has enabled some criminals win an election right from inside the jail!

Shiv Sena has 33 MLAs with criminal cases pending against them, the highest from a single party. Congress and BJP are on the second position with 26 MLAs each. NCP is ranked third with 24 MLAs. Then there are 36 successful candidates who are either independents or from other regional parties and have criminal cases pending against them, according to National Election Watch data.

India’s democratic framework is such that crime and politics have always been intertwined. Money and muscle power are supposed to be the first steps in climbing up the political ladder. This political trend does not necessarily apply to all because this election has produced the candidates who have won against the might of money and muscle power. But there can be no denying that fact that use of money and muscle power lead to criminal cases.

The 143 tainted MLAs are dirtying Maharashtra’s political pond. Each one of us is responsible for this criminal contamination. Each one of us is guilty for injecting the criminal blood which is polluting the entire Maharashtra. Each one of us owes a responsibility to wipe out this swine flu which is slowly eating us without our realisation.

Perhaps judiciary can play an important role in the operation cleanup. If not, we can’t expect much from our legislators! Legislators of all hues – green, red and saffron – will come together to save themselves! Therefore, a people’s movement seems to be the last and the most practical option.

Is Mr. Ashok Chavan listening?

Sunday Inquilab, November 1, 2009

Unbottling the Djinn of Jinnah

The powerful persona of Jinnah still reverberates in India sixty years after his death. Dead Jinnah has the potential to shatter and disintegrate an increasingly fascist BJP where freedom and forgiveness are being applied selectively. What would have been the fate of BJP had Jinnah been alive? Nehru and Gandhi have been painted as permanent saints while Jinnah has been portrayed as a permanent sinner in the Indian history. When one looks closely at the cult figure of Jinnah, the famous line comes to mind: No man can be hero all through his life…

Nobody would have thought that Jaswant Singh, one of the tallest BJP leaders, would unbottle the jinn of Jinnah from the bottle of history and mystery! The core issue of the ongoing debate is not that Jaswant Singh’s new book on Jinnah has rattled the BJP but his contention that Jinnah was not responsible for the Partition of India and the blame lay with Nehru and Vallabhai Patel. We will examine this assumption later; let’s first have a look at the kind of man Jinnah was and what drove him towards two-nation theory which culminated in the creation of Pakistan.

Jinnah was a towering national leader much before Gandhi returned from South Africa and entered public life. Jinnah was a colleague of Gopal Krishna Gokhale and Bal Gangadhar Tilak. He was better known than Motilal Nehru, Tej Bahadur Sapru and M.R. Jayakar. Gandhi’s rise to prominence lies in the Khilafat movement which Jinnah bitterly opposed. Jinnah was a permanent secular liberal while Gandhi adjusted his secularism according to the prevalent condition and the requirement. Gandhi believed in the idea of compromise while Jinnah didn’t. Gandhi appeased Muslims with Khilafat movement and Hindus by intoning Ramrajya. Therein lays the popularity of Gandhi. It is this “compromise” of Gandhi that made him more popular than any other leader in the Indian subcontinent.

In a letter dated October 30, 1920 – which is of historic importance – Jinnah wrote to Gandhi:

“I thank you for your kind suggestion offering me ‘to take my share in the new life that has opened up before the country’. If by ‘new life’ you mean your methods and your programme, I am afraid I cannot accept them; for I am fully convinced that it must lead to disaster. But the actual new life that has opened up before the country is that we are faced with a Government that pays no heed to the grievances, feelings and sentiments of the people; that our own countrymen are divided; the Moderate Party is still going wrong; that your methods have already caused split and division in almost every institution that you have approached hitherto, and in the public life of the country not only amongst Hindus and Muslims but between Hindus and Hindus and Muslims and Muslims and even between fathers and sons; people generally are desperate all over the country and your extreme programme has for the moment struck the imagination mostly of the inexperienced youth and the ignorant and the illiterate...I have no voice or power to remove the cause; but at the same time I do not wish my countrymen to be dragged to the brink of a precipice in order to be shattered. The only way for the Nationalists is to unite and work for a programme which is universally acceptable for the early attainment of complete responsible government. Such a programme cannot be dictated by any single individual, but must have the approval and support of all the prominent Nationalist leaders in the country; and to achieve this end I am sure my colleagues and myself shall continue to work.”

Jinnah was beginning to dislike the dictatorship of Gandhi yet he remained a nationalist. After this, Jinnah’s disillusionment with Congress began to develop and there is historical evidence to this. The famous Nehru report which adopted alternative constitutional proposals ignored Jinnah completely. Jinnah’s 14-points were rejected the report. Further, he was personally humiliated at All-Parties Convention yet Jinnah remained steadfast and did not lose self-control. At the Convention he said, “We are all sons of the soil. We have to live together... If we cannot agree, let us at any rate agree to differ, but let us part as friends.”

In 1928, Jinnah advised and insisted Congress to seek Hindu Mahasabha’s assent to which Nehru arrogantly replied, “There are only two parties in the county, the Congress and the government.” Jinnah shot back, “There is a third party in the country and that is the Muslims.” Jayakar questioned Jinnah’s credentials as a representative and Nehru did the same in 1937 when he said, “May I suggest to Mr. Jinnah that I come into greater touch with the Muslim masses than most of the members of the League.”

Jinnah took up this challenge personally and began to work in order to establish his political credentials.

All this did not dishearten Jinnah to such an extent that he demands a separate homeland for Muslims. Till 1937, Jinnah saw “no difference between the ideals of the Muslim League and of the Congress, the ideal being complete freedom for India.”

Jinnah became to nurse a grudge against Nehru and Congress after his repeated attempts to obtain constitutional safeguards for Muslims and attempts at power-sharing had failed.
In October 1937, he said that “all safeguards and settlements would be a scrap of paper unless they were backed up by power.” In Britain the parties alternate in holding power. “But such is not the case in India. Here we have a permanent Hindu majority....”

This is where Jinnah went horribly wrong. His constant humiliation led him to majority-minority trap. He forgot that the key issue to Muslim development was through empowerment on all fronts including politics. Jinnah was so frustrated that he raised the slogan of “permanent Hindu majority”. As ace commentator A.G. Noorani writes, “The solution lay, not in aggravating the communal divide by his two-nation theory; but in the tactics of the Jinnah of old - mobilise both communities, espouse secular values and seek protection for the rights of all minorities as Dr. B.R. Ambedkar had urged him to do.”

In February 1938, Jinnah delivered a speech which is not well-known. There he poured his heart out: “At that time there was no pride in me and I used to beg from the Congress.” The first “shock” came at the Round Table Conference; the next, in 1937. “The Musalmans were like the No Man’s land. They were led by either the flunkeys of the British government or the camp-followers of the Congress…”

When viceroy asked him about the alternative, he replied on October 5, 1939, that “an escape from the impasse ... lay in the adoption of Partition”.

If Nehru compromised on minorities rights then Jinnah on India’s unity although both men were secularists. A.G. Noorani writes,

“Therein lies the tragedy. Nehru harmed secularism by denying the legitimacy of minority rights. Jinnah ruined it by the two-nation theory.”

He adds,

“Yet, it is doubtful if, in the entire history of India’s struggle for freedom, anyone else has been subjected to such a sustained, determined denigration and demonisation as Jinnah has been from 1940 to this day, by almost everyone - from the leaders at the very top to academics and journalists.”

The Cabinet Mission’s Plan of May 16, 1946, for a united India failed and dragged it “into the abyss of inevitability.” Everyone including Nehru and Patel had given up; only Maulana Abul Kalam Azad remained opposed to it. Both Nehru and Jinnah were equally responsible for the Partition.

“Jinnah”, in the word of A.G. Noorani, “was of a heroic mould but fell prey to bitterness and the poison that bitterness breeds.”

No man can be hero all through his life. It equally applies to Jinnah as well.

The last word should be left to M.J. Akbar:

History might be better understood if we did not treat it as a heroes-and-villains movie. Life is more complex than that. The heroes of our national struggle changed sometimes with circumstances.

Sunday Inquilab, August 23, 2009

Why Diarrhoea does not Matter in Malegaon

According to one estimate, 55 deaths have occurred because of diarrhoea, pneumonia and other related diseases in the last one and half months in the textile town of Malegaon. State government must declare an emergency. Is anyone listening?

Ordinary Indians, politicians and a select group of media organisations may have become paranoid over the issue of swine flu but a placid calm greets dingy by-lanes of Malegaon as the town reels under the shadow of diarrhoea, Calera, pneumonia and other related diseases. The brave hearts of this small and neglected corner of Maharashtra face death with honour. In October 2001, we faced police bullets. The 2006 blasts did not shatter us; we did not lose the element of sanity. 2008 blast was a grave provocation to spark a communal conflagration but saffron souls didn’t succeed. We lost our sense of sanity for sometime but common sense and good judgment prevailed over anger. Malegaon did not crumble.

It’s a different kind of terror this time. It has surfaced in the form an epidemic, a disease which refuses to lie low even after a month, a disease which refuses to take orders from superior government officials. Let’s face it: filth is our recognition. Whether we like it or not, it’s true. That is how a Muslim mohalla is recognised: by heaps of garbage. From Mumbai’s Kurla to Delhi’s Chandani Chowk, it’s the same old story.

That’s only the one part of the story. The second part is equally despicable and ugly. Our representatives have failed us. The issue of Muslim leadership is a mirage. According to records maintained by Bada Qabristan trust, 55 Muslims have died in the last one and half months because of diarrhoea, pneumonia and other related diseases. One may dispute the actual figure of death toll but no Muslim will provide the wrong cause of death to Qabristan authorities. That brings us to an interesting question: Will 2009 be remembered as a year of medical terror? The current estimate exceeds the death toll of two bomb blasts put together. Did anyone realize that?

The wave of diarrhoea began in the first week of July. If local administration took time to wake up late then State government was in deep slumber till Shobha Buchao, minister of state for health visited Malegaon on August 10. Her quiet visit to Malegaon did not change the prevalent ground realities. Deputy CM Chagun Bhujbhal repeated the usual platitudes on Saturday when he visited Malegaon General Hospital. He was misled by handful Marathi journalists who even went on to claim that beef-eating and slaughterhouse are the main cause of diarrhoea wave! Muslim politicians kept quiet. Silence may be a virtuous act but in such a time of communal mudslinging, silence must be declared a political sin! It seemed as if those Marathi journalists had been hired to advice the deputy CM and the local administration! The press conference was turned into a public relation conference!

As India marches ahead in every sphere of life, the colonial Indian mindset remains mired in the 18th century. State government is hyper-busy in a much-hyped swine flu precisely because it comes with a made-in-America tag! Diarrhoea is a local phenomenon and it comes with a made-in-Malegaon tag. Any foreign-export even in the form of disease and epidemic is considered worthy of media coverage. Mainstream media may have completely ignored Malegaon epidemic wave because towns are not part of their target audience.

What will happen if this kind of diarrhoea wave grips a metropolitan city like Mumbai? What would have been the response of state government if this epidemic spread in Ashok Chavan’s home town? Malegaon’s diarrhoea wave is more dangerous than India’s swine flu. It has taken more lives than swine flu if we compare it proportionately.

Incidentally, all the victims happened to be Muslims. A question worth-asking: Is Muslim blood cheap in the eyes of state government?

Malegaon should not be remembered only for riots and bomb blasts. Senior journalist Pamela Philipose has rightly observed in September 2006, “The tragedy of the September 8 blasts in this town served to uncover the greater tragedy of Malegaon, a town that Maharashtra — and India — remembers only in times of blasts and riots.”

State government needs to give a human face to human beings of Malegaon.

Inquilab, August 18, 2009

Expectations high as Sonia Gandhi visits Malegaon

Malegaon General Hospital to be inaugurated today by Sonia Gandhi

For people of Malegaon, the long and patient nine-year wait is finally over as Sonia Gandhi visits Malegaon to inaugurate newly-constructed Malegaon General Hospital. The dream of a government hospital was envisioned by the then Chief Minister Vilasrao Deshmukh in the aftermath of October 26, 2001 riots. For six years, Vilasrao Deshmukh kept dreaming about the hospital while people of Malegaon stood silently with an empty bowel. The soulful cry of a father that rose from the debris of 2006 cemetery shook the conscience of Mrs. Gandhi. Vilasrao woke up from the deep slumber of indifference and was compelled to implement his six year old dream.

So, what does people are Malegaon expect from Mrs. Gandhi, the political queen of India? People are of course happy and exuberant that Sonia Gandhi is going to visit their historical textile town. They just don’t want Mrs. Gandhi to cut the symbolic red-ribbon and repeat the usual platitudes. Any Tom, Dick and Harry can do that. People want Mrs. Gandhi to do an Obama in Malegaon. Muslim community, who very often feels betrayed by the state government, expects some plain and bold speaking from Mrs. Gandhi. She has to assure the town that the days of state neglect will be over. She has to utter unequivocally that Malegaon occupies a central place in the heart of Congress. She has to acknowledge that people of Malegaon are not very happy with the functioning of her party. The general election result in Malegaon is a testimony of this fact. If Mrs. Gandhi and her party want to conquer and safeguard Muslim votes, then Malegaon is an important bastion to wage the long and arduous battle.

Mrs. Gandhi should know that the feeling of injustice, alienation runs deep in Muslim psyche here. Her party should pick up a magnifying glass and take a hard look at ground realities. The wives of Malegaon bomb blast accused 2006 are desperately waiting for the completion of CBI inquiry. Mrs. Gandhi must use rightful political means to make sure that it doesn’t get delayed anymore. The growing kids of the accused need to know whether their fathers are really “guilty” in the official book.

People of Malegaon expect overall development of Malegaon. Malegaon is a town where the bellies of local politicians are fatter than a newly-built road. People want Mrs. Gandhi to use her political clout to ensure that central government schemes are duly utilised in Malegaon. They want Mrs. Gandhi’s government to treat Malegaon as a special zone for the development. They want colleges and institutes like the ones in Sonia Gandhi’s Rae Bareli. In the last 4 years, Mrs. Gandhi has managed to set up three institutes in her constituency.
People of Malegaon wonder whether it will also get the same kind of treatment which Rae Bareli enjoys where in a single year alone, 250 crores were sanctioned to build roads in and around Rae Bareli. One such another scheme of 313 crore was sanctioned to connect Rae Bareli to Allahabad.

There is a feeling of injustice among Hindu brethren of Malegaon. Some are of the view Malegaon is deliberately ignored because it’s a minority-dominated town. Mrs. Gandhi’s Congress party can prove this presumption false only by concrete action.

The patience of people of Malegaon can be gauged from the fact that their status has always been that of man waiting in a long queue. The wait never seems to get over. We are still waiting for railways promised 25 years ago. It has got the green signal of state government but the actual work is yet to begin.

Is Malegaon a town of waiting?

Mrs. Sonia Gandhi should know the answer.

Inquilab, June 30, 2009

Unveiling Nicholas Sarkozy

Naked Truth: Nicolas Sarkozy is a hypocrite of secular liberalism. His problem is not that he can't accept Eastern tradition of convervatism in the form of burqa but his inability to come to terms with Western culrure of secularism liberalism.


French President Nicolas Sarkozy is the finest living example of Western hypocrisy. Hypocrisy, bias and double-standard are intrinsic in human nature and Sarkozy is no exception. Sarkozy’s racist, anti-Muslim and anti-immigrant speech at Chateau of Versailles, south-west of Paris on Monday, is bound to draw criticism from the Muslim World. When one dissects Sarkozy and his personal life with the help of a literary and secular knife, he emerges as a confused personality whose hostility against Islam is steeped in his ascendancy; his Jewish origin. His language was quite similar to the one used by Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu recently. The draft of Sarkozy’s speech itself narrates a tale of his outlook towards Islam in general and Muslims in particular.

The tone of his language must be understood clearly, it is only when one can draw conclusion about his intentions. “The burqa”, he said, “is not a religious sign, it’s a sign of subservience, a sign of debasement—I want to say it solemnly. It will not be welcome on the territory of the French Republic….In our country, we cannot accept that women be prisoners behind a screen, cut off from all social life, deprived of all identity.”

Sarkozy is a self-appointed representative of the same West that believes in the doctrine of freedom. The definition of freedom in Western parlance is absolute. It includes freedom of choice rather than freedom of chance. The expression of freedom has been abused and used to suit Western convenience. So when it comes to freedom to choose one’s dress, they have no qualms about bikini but they would always have problem with burqa. A bikini is viewed as a symbol of women’s emancipation while a burqa is looked at a form of forced slavery. To men like Sarkozy, the bodily form of liberation is more important than the mental form of liberation. What more, when bodily form of liberation extends their desired limitation, they take the help of a flaccid morality evaporating slowly from the Western geography. So when an old nude photo of Sarkozy’s super-model wife Carla Bruni was leaked on the internet, Sarkozy left no stone unturned that it doesn’t get republished in any of the French magazine and tabloids!

Will an enlightened West question Sarkozy’s definition of secular liberalism? If he really believed in the doctrine that freedom is absolute then he should have allowed his wife’s photo to be published. That would have made him an icon and torchbearer of absolute freedom of expression!

Sarkozy’s comparison of burqa as a “prison sentence” can be understood if it is forced and made compulsory in a free Western society. But what if a woman chooses to wear burqa voluntarily? Won’t the same freedom to wear a bikini be extended to a lady who wants to don a burqa? In this hypothesis lies the irony of the West. This irony looks like an ugly and a repulsive creature on the mirror wall. The Western leaders claiming to be secular need to take a hard look in the mirror. There they will encounter a bitter pill hard to swallow.

The main problem of Sarlozy is not burqa but his inability to do nothing to stop the rise of Islam in his own country. According to one independent report, Islam is spreading most rapidly in France in the entire Europe. France is the only country in Europe which has the largest number of Muslims, 6 million to be precise.

Sarkozy need to understand the definition of secularism in the Indian context where multicultural and heterogeneous society is flourishing. Noted lawyer Fali S. Nariman has rightly defined secularism as, “secularism in India means the ability to comprehend and tolerate an infinite variety of social problems.”

The present Century is going to be a Century of soft power. In dress code, if a bikini is manifestation of West’s soft-power, then burqa is an Islamic symbol of soft-power. Men like Sarkozy fear that in this bikini-burqa collision, the latter may emerge as a winner given the rise of burqa in the West.

Sarkozy may be comfortable with his wife in a bikini on a beach front but the same will not be true in Eastern countries especially India. No seasoned Indian politician will ever do such a thing. He will not be comfortable in a bikini or a mini-skirt even with his wife. Therefore, if a burqa is a statement of separation as believed by Sarkozy, then a mini-skirt is not an invitation to familiarity.

The ongoing debate about separation of church and state raises some interesting points. If we apply that logic then the Church of England should be disestablished, the blasphemy laws abolished, and religious education in schools replaced by an objective consideration of the role of the various religions as a part of History and Social Studies.

Nicolas Sarkozy is a product of secular hypocrisy. He would do well to remember what a British scholar once wrote, “My old mother, a very proper Christian lady, used to wear a headscarf – whether to quell lust or just in order to look respectable I don’t know. The ‘simple fact’ is that in the customs of most societies men and women dress differently.”

Sunday Inquilab, June 28, 2009

The Real Test of Obama

Let's Talk: President Obama making the historic speech in Cairo

Is Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu following in the footsteps of American President Barack Hussein Obama? Ten days after Obama’s address at Cairo’s Al-Azhar University, Netanyahu delivered a speech at the Begin-Sadat Center of Bar-Ilan University in Israel where he laid down his vision to resolve the Arab-Israeli conflict. One may not agree with his flawed vision but one thing is certain that Netanyahu’s speech was in response to Obama’s castigation of Israel. Then shall we consider it as a step in the right direction? Yes and no.

“I strongly support the idea of regional peace that he (Obama) is advancing”, Netanyahu said on June 14. “I share the President of the U.S.A’s desire to bring about a new era of reconciliation in our region.”

Although his speech was full of flaws, this kind of language has never been used by an Israeli Prime Minister. When was the last time an Israeli prime minister used the word ‘peace’ 32 times in a single six-page speech? We do not hold the view that uttering the word ‘peace’ again and again can bring peace in the Middle-East but there is a fundamental shift in perception-management by the Jewish State of Israel and we have no doubt that this is the result of President Obama’s speech.

Any peace-loving person would be enraged after reading Netanyahu’s speech because apart from the word ‘peace’ which has been used as a camouflage, there is not much in it. The change in lingual tone was to please American President Obama and dullards in United States who believe Israel is committed to the idea of peace. Netanyahu has very carefully pushed the conditional ball of peace in Obama’s court. He wants a “demilitarized” Palestine.

“I told President Obama in Washington, if we get a guarantee of demilitarization, and if the Palestinians recognize Israel as the Jewish state, we are ready to agree to a real peace agreement, a demilitarized Palestinian state side by side with the Jewish state”, he said in the speech.

Even if one assumes that Palestinians recognise Israel as the “Jewish State”, is it possible for any State or country in the world to be “demilitarized?” Any such condition or assumption will be akin to living in fool’s paradise. Even Maldives, one of the smallest countries in the world with a population of 3, 40,000, has a National Defence Force to defend the security and sovereignty of the country.

Now the real test and truthfulness of President Obama’s Cairo speech lies in just one aspect of Israel-Palestine conflict. How Obama returns the conditional ball of peace in Netanyahu’s court remains to be seen. Obama must ponder over this issue with clarity of mind and conscience. How he deals with this condition will prove to be a litmus test. His decision can make or break America’s relationship with the Muslim World. If Obama wants to win over Muslims hearts and minds, then he must reject any such condition outright.

Netanyahu also warned that the Palestinians must decide between path of peace and path of Hamas. Perhaps Netanyahu has forgotten that Hamas is democratically-elected body of Palestinians. If Netanyahu wants Palestinians and Arabs to recognise the Jewish State of Israel then he must also recognise Hamas as a genuine political and military force in the region.

One common feature in both Obama and Netanyahu’s speech was the language of economics. With world economy looming under crisis, both know that to overcome this depression, Muslims all over the world needs to be involved because of their large population.

Action speaks louder than words. Both Obama and Netanyahu would want us to believe that this Century is going to be the Century of peace and dialogue. Their words must be matched by substantive acts. They also understand that the Muslim world is going through twilight-phase where one world is dead and another is waiting to be born.

Sunday Inquilab, June 21, 2009

India's Muslim Ministers

NEW DELHI — A new government has been inducted in India this week, days after the ruling Congress party swept the country's general elections.
The 79-member government is a mix of veteran politicians, Congress stalwarts and several new faces.
Among the new cabinet lineup are five Muslim ministers.
IslamOnline.net gives its readers a glimpse on the Muslim faces in the new Indian government.
Ghulam Nabi Azad, Minister of Health
Hailing from the Muslim-majority Jammu and Kashmir, Azad, 60, is one of India's most powerful Muslim politicians. He served as the chief minister of Jammu and Kashmir from 2005 to 2008. He stepped down after a row over land transfer in Jammu and Kashmir to a Hindu shrine.
Azad was also the parliamentary affairs minister in the government of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh until October 2005.
Dubbed ' crisis manager', Azad is the chief political strategist of the ruling Congress Party. He has been credited for the party election victory in key states, especially in the southern states of Karnataka and Kerala and Jammu and Kashmir.
Azad has served as the general secretary of All-India Congress Committee for record nine times. He was also a member of the party's powerful Congress Working Committee for 18 years. He also served as parliamentary affairs and civil aviation minister in several Congress-led governments.

Salman Khurshid, Minister of Minority and Corporate Affairs
A lawyer by profession, Khurshid, 56, is a prominent Muslim face in the Congress Party.
He is the son of former Karnataka governor Khursheed Alam Khan and a grandson of India's third president, Dr. Zakir Hussain.
He has been credited for establishing various educational institutes across India.
Khurshid served as an Officer on Special Duty in the Prime Minister's office under late premier Indira Gandhi. In the early 1990s, he was minister of state for external affairs.
In 2004, he was elected a member of the party's Congress Working Committee. He was also elected president of Congress Committee in Uttar Pradesh, India's most important and populous state, for two terms.

Farooq Abdullah, Minister for New and Renewable Energy
A son of a nationalist Kashmiri leader, Abdullah, 73, is a high-profile politician and the head of the ruling National Conference party in Jammu and Kashmir.
He has served as chief minister of Jammu and Kashmir on several occasions from 1982.
Starting his political career as 'novice' in 1981, he was named president of the National Conference in 1982.
Abdullah's remarks about Kashmir have repeatedly stirred controversies. He has openly advocated Kashmir's autonomy within the confines of Indian Constitution.
Though he was an anti-Congress politician throughout his political career, Abdullah changed hearts in 2004, going into alliance with Congress Party.
Abdullah still remains a popular politician in Kashmir even after handing over the reins of his party to his son. He has repeatedly stated that his ultimate goal is to be the President of India.
E. Ahmed, Minister of State for Railways
Ahmed, 70, is the President of Indian Union Muslim League (IUML). He has served as minister of state for external affairs in the previous government.
Ahmed has been credited for increasing India's quota of Muslim pilgrims travelling for hajj in Saudi Arabia. He is also a member of parliament from newly-constituted Malappuram in Kerala.
Sultan Ahmed, Minister of State for Tourism Ministry
Hailing from the north-eastern state of West Bengal, Ahmed is a leader of the Trinamool Congress (TMC) headed by Mamta Banerjee.
Ahmed, a first-time member of parliament, swept to parliament after defeating eight-time MP and communist leader Hannan Mollah from Uluberia constituency.
He has been associated with Mohammedan Sporting Club (MSC), one of India's oldest premier football clubs.
Ahmed has vowed greater attention to checking dropouts in the minority community as well as development of rural infrastructure.
IslamOnline.net May 30 2009

Muslims Celebrate Secular Congress Win

Congress Gets a Free Hand: Congress workers celebrate party's historic victory in New Delhi (Picture courtesy: Hindustan Times)

NEW DELHI — Many Indian Muslims are content with the victory of the Congress-led alliance in the general elections, saying it upholds the country’s secular values.
"It’s a historic moment for us," Nazia Erum, a Muslim student from the capital New Delhi, told IslamOnline.net on Sunday, May 17.
With some results still being counted, the ruling United Progressive Alliance (UPA) is winning 260 seats in the 543-seat parliament.
The Congress Party, which leads the alliance, was expected to end up with 200 seats alone, its best performance since 1991.
"Muslims are extremely happy with the election result," Khurshid Ansari, of the Nationalist Congress Party (NCP), told IOL.
Ansari, whose party is part of the UPA, said Muslims have largely voted for the UPA, in spite of previous speculations that they would be supporting the newly-emerged regional parties.
"Initially, there was a feeling that Muslim political loyalty is compartmentalized into many zones."
In a statement mailed to IOL, the umbrella All India Muslim Majlis-E-Mushawarat (AIMMM) welcomed the results.
"The results are to a large extent due to a clear Muslim swing, especially in the north," it stressed.
There are some 140 million Muslims in Hindu-majority India, the world's third-largest Muslim population after those of Indonesia and Pakistan.
The month-long, five-stage election was of special importance for Muslims who have long complained of being discriminated against in all walks of life.

Secularism

Like many Muslims, Erum believes that the Congress's win was a victory for secularism.
"Despite its flaws, Congress is the only party whose pendulum swings very close to the idea of secularism."
Ansari, the NCP official, agrees.
"It has become abundantly clear that Muslims have voted for secular parties especially the UPA."
AIMMM President Zafarul-Islam Khan says that while Muslim voters have long rejected the divisive politics of Hindu nationalist parties, led by the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), the UPA secular agenda offered a much better alternative.
He noted that Muslims’ lean towards the Congress party comes for the first time since the demolition of the Babri Mosque in 1992.
Many of India's Muslims have voted for the Congress in the first five general elections after independence in 1947.
But the demolition of the 464-year Babri mosque in Ayodhya by militant Hindus and the Congress government’s reluctance to use force to protect the mosque was a turning point in relations between the Congress and the Muslim community.
The incident has since drained the Congress of the Muslim community's support.
Maulana Abdul Hameed Azhari, a scholar, says Muslim candidates did not fare well in the election because of a double standard of secularism.
"We feel that people expect us to prove our secularism but other people are not required to prove their secularism," he told IOL.
"When there is a non-Muslim candidate, Muslims vote for him."
Apart from the Assam United Democratic Front (AUDF) and the Muslim League of Kerala, dozen-odd Islamic parties did not do well in the election.
Azhari asserts that any candidate should be voted on the basis of his/her agenda rather than religion.
"Proportionate representation was our right and we should have got it."

Popular Singh

Others believe secularism was not the only reason Muslims voted for the UPA.
"The UPA has won not because of the Congress but because of the charismatic personality of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh," Mufti Mohammed Ismail, president of Indian Muslim Congress Party, told IOL.
The election victory means a second term for Singh, whose calm, pragmatic persona appealed to voters looking for political stability.
Ismail says the 77-year-old premier appeals to Muslims because he knows how it feels being from a religious minority in Hindu-majority India.
"The Congress understands the sentiments of minorities because Manmohan Singh comes from Sikh minority."
Singh has long called for Muslims to be given top priority within the development matrix of the country, drawing fierce criticism from Hindu nationalists.
He has appointed a high level Committee, known as the Rajinder Sachar committee, to investigate the social, economic and educational status of Muslims.
Singh has declared a 15-point welfare program to address Muslims grievances, especially in education.
Ismail maintains that although the Congress has miserably failed to implement the 2006 Sachar report, still Muslims have faith in Congress because of Singh.
"UPA has not done much to implement the recommendations of Sachar Committee report but Manmohan Singh’s 15-point program is one of the key-reasons that Muslims voted for the Congress on national level."
IslamOnline.net May 17 2009

The Question of Palestine

Map of Palestine: Law of diminishing returns!

The siege will last in order to convince us that we must choose an enslavement that does no harm in fullest liberty.

(Late Palestinian poet Mahmoud Darwish)

As Palestinians mark Nakba, the catastrophe, signifying the 61st anniversary of occupation of Palestine by the Jewish state of Israel, a question needs to be asked: Is 61 years of Palestinian suffering akin to the holocaust suffered by Jews? In the above question lies the irony of Israel; a nation carved out by the oppressed has become a nation of oppressors.

Theodore Herzel, a journalist, is the father of modern Zionism who toured the world extensively to propagate the idea of a nation for Jews. He worked hard in a mission to explore the possibility of establishing a state for Jews in Palestine. He promoted Zionism through his writings on the international stage. In June 1896, he met the Abdul Hamed II, 34th Sultan of Ottoman Empire in Istanbul, to convince him that Palestine should be handed over to Zionists. But Sultan refused to cede Palestine to Zionists and said,

“If one day the Islamic State falls apart then you can have Palestine for free, but as long as I am alive I would rather have my flesh be cut up than cut out Palestine from the Muslim land.”

In 1898, after meeting with German Kaiser Wilham II, Herzel wrote about Palestine,

“a perfect beautiful woman, fulfill all our requirements but married.”

The words of Abdul Hamid II came true when Ottoman Empire crumbled in 1918, nine years after his death. Abdul Hamid was the last Ottoman Sultan to rule with absolute power. Sykes-Picot agreement of 1916 is seen by many historians as a turning point in Western Arab relations. According to one of the terms of the agreement, Arabs were promised a “national homeland” through T.E. Lawrence for their support to the British forces against the Ottoman army. British never kept their word. In fact, they negated this promise by issuing Balfour Declaration in 1917 promising “a national home for the Jewish people.” The declaration read,

“His Majesty’s government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavors to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.”

The Arabs and Christians of Palestine together disapproved of any such move arguing that it could have serious political consequences.

The seed of Israel as planted by Theodore Herzel was watered by fervent Zionist Winston Churcill, who went on to become Prime Minister of United Kingdom in 1940. The seed took shape of a full-fledged tree on November 29, 1948 when United Nations General Assembly passed a resolution to partition Palestine into Arab and Jewish territories. Out of 56 members, 33 voted in favour, 13 against and 10 chose to abstain.

Thus was born the Jewish state of Israel in 1948; 44 years after the death of Theodore Herzel.

The tide of history turned against the Arabs and Muslims once again but Muslims all across the world should not be disheartened. Islamic concept of power can be summed up in three words: rise, fall and renewal. Muslims all across the world are undergoing the second phase of Islamic concept of power. Muslims have ruled Palestine from 630 CE to 1918 with a brief Christian rule lasting only 88 years (1099 to 1187).

With the creation of Israel in 1948, 7 lakh Palestinians became refugees. Dispossessed Palestinians were substituted with Jews who come from different parts of the world carrying knives, guns and explosives against the civilian population. A religious propaganda and allegations based on the myth and the falsification of history and heritage, to form that particular ideological falsehoods peddled by the Zionists provide energy to achieve the necessary human colonial project on the land of Palestine.

In the last 61 years Palestine-Israel conflict, Jewish state has annexed thousands of acres of cultivable land and now it almost holds 78% of Palestine.

It is in this context that Nakba must been seen. Commemorating the anniversary of Nakba, is not merely an occasion to remember those who experienced bleeding, homelessness and fear, killed, burned and jailed throughout the sixty one years, but to raise the voices of millions who refuse to accept the basis on which Israel was created as a state. It is a rejection of the project called a “Jewish state “and a determination for the right of return of the Palestinian people to their homeland.

The tragedy which started with the expulsion of 7 lakh Palestinians now affects the plight of at least 10.5 million Palestinians all across the globe. It is a catastrophe, the largest and the most heinous crime committed against a nation. It is against right and reason, human rights and freedom of people.

When Arabs took the initiative of peace in 2002 Arab Summit in Beirut, they demanded that Israel must go back to June 1967 line of control. There must be an establishment of a Palestinian state with Jerusalem at its capital and right of return of Palestinian refugees as per United Nations Security Council resolution 194. All of this was rejected by Israel.

What more, all these years Israel has secretly continued “Judaization” of Al-Quds (Jerusalem). It is not only Palestinians Muslims who have no access to religious sites but also Palestinians Christians are not allowed to visit their holy shrines.

Everybody knows the role United States has played in Israel-Palestine conflict. Will there be a tilt in President Obama’s administration? Going by the recent news item, one thinks Obama is surely going to change US policy although it may not amount to radical change. Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu’s first planned meeting with President Obama has been called off. Netanyahu was keen to capitalize on his attendance at the annual American Israel Public Affairs Committee conference in Washington to visit the White House but officials have ruled out any meeting because President will not be “in town.” Experts speculate that Obama would not like to continue the Bush legacy of hosting Israeli prime ministers sometimes with just a phone call’s notice!

Jews have always enjoyed special favour under Muslim rule. When Umar, second caliph of Islam entered Jerusalem on foot, he did an agreement stipulating the rights and obligations of all non-Muslims in the holy land of Palestine. Jews were permitted to return to Palestine for the first time since the 500-year ban enacted by the Romans and maintained by Byzantine rulers. The same tradition was followed by was followed by Harun al-Rashid (786-809) who established the Christian Pilgrims’ Inn in Jerusalem, fulfilling Umar’s pledge to Bishop Sophronious to allow freedom of religion and access to Jerusalem for Christian pilgrims.

Jews have forgotten the humane angle of the Muslim rule. How can a people who have witnessed holocaust in the hands of Adolf Hitler tolerate the same kind of madness being leashed by their own government on hapless Palestinians?

Sunday Inquilab, May 17, 2009

India’s Obama Inspires Muslims

Mayawati: The Big sister

NEW DELHI— Just as the election of Barack Obama for African Americans, the rise of Mayawati, India’s star woman politician, from the lowest rung of the social hierarchy is bringing hope of change for Indian Muslims.
"This Maya is no illusion," M.J. Akbar, a veteran journalist and former lawmaker, told IslamOnline.net, referring to the nickname Mayawati is known with among Indians.
"Maya is heaving against prejudice that has congealed over many thousands of years."
Mayawati, chief minister of India’s most populous state Uttar Pradesh and leader of the Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP), is a daughter of "Dalits," the lowest rung of the Hindu social caste system commonly known as the "untouchables."
But the woman, whose party is now a front runner in at least 10 states across India, is an inspiration for Muslims as well as millions of India's lower-caste people.
Akbar compares Mayawati to Obama citing her once unlikely rise from the margins and her extraordinary political skills.
"The Dalits are the blacks of India…and Mayawati is their Obama."
Mayawati became a national figure in 2007 after her party won a landslide victory in Uttar Pradesh state election.
"She has proved herself to be a leader of the people who she has chosen to represent," says Zohra Javed, a political activist.
The Dalits, meaning broken people, have long endured the prejudice and discrimination of India's caste system which separates people into Brahmin priests, warriors, farmers, laborers, and those beyond definition including, the Dalits.
Though caste discrimination is outlawed, many of the 180 million Dalits, who make up one-sixth of India's 1.1 billion population, insist bias against them persists.

Inclusive

Shafeeque Ansari, a Muslim businessman, believes Mayawati represents millions from the lower and marginalized sections of India from all religions and castes.
"The rise of a regional leader like Mayawati symbolizes the empowerment of India’s marginalized lot."
For many Muslims, Mayawati brings hopes for more inclusive politics to engage their own long-marginalized community.
In the 2007 state elections, she fielded more Muslim candidates than ever before.
"In the Uttar Pradesh elections, Maya fielded 403 BSP candidates. Of these 61 were Muslims," Seema Mustafa, editor of India’s only political fortnightly magazine Covert, told IOL.
"Thirty Muslims won."
In the ongoing, month-long parliamentary elections, Mayawati’s BSP is fielding more Muslim candidates than any other party, including the ruling Congress and the Hindu Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP).
Mayawati's unique character, being a woman who knows about the plight of discrimination, and her vows to end religious divide in Hindu-majority India is also appealing to many others.
"She has been able to add a slice of the minority vote bank to her kitty too," notes Javed.
"Being a Muslim I would certainly want someone who would look sympathetically into the problems my community is facing."
Indian Muslims, who account for more than for 13 percent of the total population, have long complained of being discriminated against in all walks of life.
Christians make up less than three percent and minorities such as Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains and Parsis account for nearly four percent.

Premiership

Mayawati's spectacular rise left many predicting that she might do like Obama by rising to the top post in the country after the general polls.
"A woman and a Dalit, somebody from a doubly disadvantaged group, becoming our Prime Minister would definitely be a sign that India has matured as a democracy," Sharifa Siddiqui, a Muslim civil rights activist, told IOL.
"It means we have cocked a snook at the US in terms of choosing a leader from groups other than the traditionally elitist groups."
Mayawati’s party is part of the newly-formed Third Front, a coalition of 10 regional parties, which has 84 out of the 543 seats in parliament.
Third Front is taken seriously by many, especially those hoping for a non-Congress, non-BJP prime minister.
"The old cartelization of Indian politics, monopolized by high-caste leadership, is giving way to a new set of players from the lower strata of Indian polity," argues Ghulam Muhammed, a political analyst.
But many doubt that the Barack Obama scenario can be repeated in caste-based India.
Javed, the political activist, believes that a premier Mayawati is easier said than done.
Though he is a strong supporter of the BSP leader, Ansari, the businessman, also shrugs off the possibility of premier Mayawati as unrealistic.
"To suggest her as a prime minister is akin to daydreaming."
But Akbar, the veteran journalist and former MP, says nothing is impossible in politics.
"All options are possible. The turbulence and direction of change can never be certain."
IslamOnline.net May 3 2009

Indian Democracy: Need for a radical change

Two elderly ladies going to cast their vote in Madhya Pradesh

Now that the electoral dust seems to have settled in Maharashtra with the end of phase III, it’s time we turn our attention to some serious issues plaguing politics, voting and democracy.

The average Indian still does not understand the power of voting. He thinks that a single vote is not going to make much difference because rarely does in India a single vote decide the fate of aspiring politicians. Not many Indians would have heard of Saifuddin Soz whose single vote toppled Atal Bihari Vajpayee’s government in 1999. The average Indian voter interprets national politics through the narrow prism of his individual problem. He forgets that his micro problem is part and parcel of India’s macro problem. He is fed of the same old politicians making same old promises. He thinks the only way out is to skip voting. In some areas including Sonia Gandhi’s Amethi constituency, people have boycotted polls. Boycott is a legitimate tool of protest in a democracy but poll boycott is not driven by mere hopelessness alone; it is fuelled by illiteracy. The Indian voter has started believing in the saying ‘If voting changed anything, they would make it illegal’. The only way to remove this erroneous perception is by mass awareness regarding the power of just one vote.

A careful reading of history reveals that one vote has changed fate of many nations across the world. Indians have forgotten that Adolf Hitler became president of Nazi party of Germany in 1934 just because of one vote. Indian Muslims seem to have forgotten this but Jews still remember it. It was the power of just one vote that caused the execution of Charles I, King of England, in 1649. It was just because of one vote that France became a republic from monarchy in 1875. It was because of a single vote that Texas became part of United States in 1845. It was one vote that saved Andrew Johnson, 17th President of America from impeachment in 1868. One vote per precinct would have elected Richard Nixon, rather than John Kennedy, President of America in 1960. And finally it was the power of one vote that brought down Atal Bihari government in 1999. Indian Muslims must remember these historical instances because those who don’t learn from history are condemned to repeat it.

Given the importance of just one vote, should voting be made mandatory?

Making it mandatory may have some merits; like people would be compelled to vote out of no choice. But it has some demerits as well. Indian democracy would edge towards authoritarianism. Only on two conditions voting must be made mandatory. Firstly there must be inclusion of the concept of negative voting like negative marking in competitive exams. Secondly, there should be an option where a voter can press the button ‘none of the above’. In simple words, he can register his protest that he does not find any of the candidates suitable for the job of representation. If this option gets the maximum number of votes, there should be a reelection in the concerned constituency.

This provision will certainly empower an ordinary voter who feels let down by politicians all the time.

Now to balance our argument we must ask this question: how should we deal with political parties and politicians who go on making lengthy promises which read like a scroll of honour?
Political manifestos are inaugurated with much fanfare; but once the parties form government, it goes in the dustbin of history. Can we apply some provision of Indian Contract Act, 1872? Can political manifestos be accorded the status of a civil contract? In simple words, the contents of a manifesto should be treated like an offer; a proposal made with the intention to fulfill it. Anybody who votes for a particular party would be accepting the proposal laid down in the manifesto. Once such a ‘contract’ takes place, it should be enforceable in a court of law! Voters will have the right to implement the contents of political manifestos!

Some might term this as impractical political romanticism; but something urgently needs to be done in this regard because politicians take voters for granted. The current voting system does not encourage voters because he can’t do anything after pressing the voting button. Arundhati Roy had raised this issue in an interview once. She had said, “The stupid thing about democracy is that you go into the voting booth and push the button and you have fulfilled your duty. Now for the next five years you can sit back and allow your candidate whatever he wants.”

These matters are of serious nature and in the interests of the voters. Whoever comes to power at Centre, these issues must be raised, discussed and debated in Indian parliament because essence of democracy lies in welfare of the people.

The mood of the voter in the ongoing election can be summed up thus: Don’t vote for the best candidate, vote for the candidate who will do the least harm!

India Muslim District Votes for Attention

Kishanganj - India's largest Muslim constituency

KISHANGANJ — While religious and communal lines usually mark election battles across Hindu-majority India, development is the key word in the northernmost district of Kishanganj, India’s largest Muslim constituency.
"What we need here is an educational movement," Mohamed Mudassir Alam, one of the residents, told IslamOnline.net on Thursday, April 30.
"Education is directly linked to development," noted the 27-year-old Muslim.
Voting in the third of five stages of the India's marathon general elections got underway on Thursday in many regions, including the Muslim-dominant constituency of Kishanganj in the northern state of Bihar.
Kishanganj has about 1.2 million eligible voters, among some 144 million voters in the Asian giant nation.
here are 16 candidates contesting the polls in the constituency, with two front runners from the ruling Congress party and the National People's Party (RJD).
Many of Kishanganj residents will be giving their votes to the candidate who gives more priority to development programs.
Realizing that, competing candidates have shunned religious and ethnic rhetoric, largely employed by candidates across the country, and promised to implement social and economic projects if elected.
"Each one of the candidates is playing the development card to woo the voters," a government official told IOL.
"The people of Kishanganj are not communal. This election is fought on the issue of development."
The election results are due on May 16, and no party is expected to win a clear majority with the Congress and the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) going head-to-head in many areas.
Ignored

Like his main contenders, Maulana Asrar ul Haque, the Congress candidate, pledges swift development reforms if elected.
"By not connecting adjoining villages to Kishanganj through roads and bridges, Public representatives have thrown Kishanganj into an abyss of darkness," he told IOL.
Lush-green Kishanganj, where Muslims constitute almost 80 percent of the population, is known as the most backward district in the country.
Many residents have migrated lately because of the lack of employment opportunities and the large scale poverty and malnutrition.
Kishanganj is also known as the region with the least female literacy in the country.
"Only 30% of the total population is literate here."
Many Muslims believe that Kishanganj has been a victim of institutionalized bias like many other Muslim-dominant areas.
"The area has its special place on the country’s map due to its closeness to international borders with Bangladesh and Nepal," notes Alam.
"But sadly, despite its important position… the area never got proper attention from the state or the central government."
He has stopped believing in politician's promises.
"Only Muslims have been elected from this constituency but still it lags behind in almost all walks of life," he fumes.
"They have connived with the government in order to continue their lavish lifestyle."
But Imran Aslam, another resident, has not lost all hope in politicians to give attention to their much ignored district.
He supports the Congress candidate and hopes this time promises would not end up as empty words.
"We need change. At least Kishanganj desperately needs change."
IslamOnline April 30 2009

India Muslims See Hope in Regional Parties

An old Muslim lady going to cast her vote in Malegaon on April 23

MUMBAI — Fed up of the alienating politics of the Hindu Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and the ruling Congress, Muslims are seeing a glimmer of hope in the more reconciliatory regional parties, seen by experts as a potential threat to the traditional powers.
"Congress and BJP are two sides of the same coin. We need a new coin," Ravish Zaidi, a political activist from the financial hub Mumbai, told IslamOnline.net.
"For a change anything different would do."
Coalitions of small regional parties have emerged on the political landscape lately, with the aim of ending the monopoly of the BJP and Congress.
The Third Front, a coalition of ten regional parties from various ideological backgrounds united under the banner of offering a new political alternative, was launched in March at a massive rally in the southern state of Karnataka.
The Fourth Front, another coalition of three regional parties, also came to surface earlier.
For many Muslims, the rise of regional parties offers a chance to challenge the reign of the Congress and the ultra-Hindu BJP, whose politics have long alienated India's some 140 million Muslims.
"I am fed of Congress and BJP," says Zaidi.
Muslims also credit the pro-poor, pro-women and pro-minorities regional parties for reaching out to them, something they complain the main political parties never did.
In Mumbai alone, the Third Front is fielding two Muslim candidates in the ongoing, month-long general elections, while the ruling Congress has none.
"For sixty years, the Congress has exploited Muslim sentiments," Maulana Hameed Azhari, a Muslim scholar who campaigns for the Fourth Front, told IOL.
"In this election, a major chunk of Muslim vote will move away from Congress and vote for smaller regional parties."
A five-stage polling to elect a new Lok Sabha, the lower house of the parliament, began on April 16 and ends in mid-May.

Threat

Analysts believe the new regional alliances are the result of the national parties’ arrogant policies.
"Third Front and Fourth Front are a phenomenon because of the Congress arrogance," M.J. Akbar, a veteran journalist and former lawmaker, told IOL.
He explained that a few months ago the Congress, the main faction of the ruling United Progressive Alliance (UPA), refused to make any pre-poll fronts.
"[This] paved the way for the formation of Third and Fourth Front."
Analysts believe the new regional alliances pose a serious threat to both the Congress and the BJP in the parliamentary election.
"Regional and potential Third Front partners are increasingly going independent," notes Ghulam Muhammed, a political analyst.
"[They] are loath to give space for the two national parties to attain their high count of seats, to be able to lead any coalition."
Akbar, once a spokesman for late premier Rajiv Gandhi, agrees.
"The Third Front and the Fourth Front may not agree on much," he noted.
"But… if they get together to patch a post-poll alliance, they will not accept a Congress Prime Minister."
IslamOnline.net April 26 2009

Master, Queen and Slave

When Queen met the 'Slave': Sonia Gandhi with L.K. Advani

Is the Congress only party which works on the basis of master-servant relationship? Sonia Maino Gandhi has challenged that assumption by breaking the sound of silence. All these years, her long and stoic silence was being considered as a sign of acquiescence. Sonia has proved that she is indeed the daughter-in-law of Indira Gandhi, who dealt her opponents with an iron fist.

So, is Lal Krishna Advani, a slave of Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), as Sonia Gandhi has termed at a poll rally in Margao? Anybody who is aware of India’s political history will bear witness that L.K. Advani has indeed been a ‘slave’ of the RSS. There is nothing new in this utterance but yet it will find a unique place in the political history. Sonia’s lips have given it Congress affiliation. The vacuum left behind by Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru has finally found an echo in the voice of his grand daughter-in-law!

If Congress is a budiya (old lady) then RSS is by no means a gudiya (doll). Congress was born in 1885, an old political party indeed. RSS breathed life in 1925. If one applies Narendra Modi logic, RSS too will fall under the category of budiya! What more, this ‘budiya’ has given birth to ‘gudiyas’ legitimate as well as illegitimate. BJP, VHP and Bajrang Dal can claim to be legitimate while Abhinav Bharat, Ram Sene will be ‘branded’ as illegitimate although both have been begotten by RSS, the gudiya-in-chief of Sangh Parivar!

RSS was founded in September 1925 at Nagpur on Dussehra day by Dr. Keshav Baliram Hedgewar, a medical doctor. Hedgewar was a disciple of Balkrishna Moonje who had sent him to Calcutta in 1910 to pursue medical studies. His unofficial mission was to learn terrorist techniques from the Bengal secret societies. He joined Congress after returning to Nagpur, following in his mentor’s footsteps. Both the master and servant were “disenchanted” with the Congress soon.

In their book The Brotherhood in Saffron, Walter K. Anderson and Shridhar D. Damle record how Hedgewar began to lay intellectual foundations of RSS at a time of escalating Hind-Muslim animosity in Nagpur. They write,

“Hedgewar began to develop the intellectual foundations of the RSS. A major influence on his thinking was a handwritten manuscript Vinayak Damodar Savarkar’s Hindutva, which advanced the thesis that the Hindus were a nation. The central propositions of Savarkar’s manuscript are that Hindus are the indigenous people of the continent and that they form a single national group.”

RSS was succeeded by Madhav Sadashiv Golwalkar after the death of Hedgewar on June 21, 1940. RSS did grow under his leadership but yet remained on the margins of Indian politics. It was known as a militant Hindu group notorious for its role in communal riots.

An understanding was reached between Golwalkar and the Hindu Mahasabha leader S.P. Mookerjee which led to the formation of the political arm of RSS, the Bharatiya Jana Sangh on October 21, 1951. Jana Sangh merged into Janata Party in 1977. After the fall of the government in 1979, Jana Sangh broke away with Janata Party and renamed it as The Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) on April 5, 1980.

After the shameful defeat of BJP in 1984 general election, BJP was given a new lease of life by Rajiv Gandhi government when it opened the locks at the gates of Babri Masjid in February 1986. BJP adopted a resolution on Ayodhya on June 11, 1989 at Palampur which demanded that “the sentiments of the overwhelming majority in this country – the Hindus be respected and the site in dispute must be handed over to the Hindus and a mosque built at some other place.” The resolution did not specify what will happen to the Babri Masjid; it was demonstrated only on December 6, 1992.

Construction of the Ram Temple at Ayodhya is one of the first demands of a ‘cultural’ and ‘fascist’ RSS ‘budiya’. BJP is the 29-year old ‘gudiya’ of the same ‘budiya’!

RSS, as it claims, is apolitical cultural organisation but it has floated its political arm in the form of BJP! The BJP policy has always been dominated and influenced by RSS agenda. Immediately after Palampur resolution, L.K. Advani said, “I am sure it will translate into votes.” After the November 1989 election, he expressed satisfaction that the issue had contributed to the success of BJP. In 1991 election, Advani was confident that Ram Temple movement will influence voters. On June 18, 1991 he proudly said,

“Had I not played the Ram factor effectively, I would have definitely lost from the New Delhi constituency.”

And immediately after the demolition of the Babri Masjid and subsequent riots that followed, he wrote that if the Muslims were to identify themselves with the concept of Hindutva there would not be any reasons for riots to take place. In July 1992, he argued in Lok Sabha speaker’s chamber:

“You must recognise the fact that from two seats in Parliament in 1985 we have come to 117 seats in 1991. This has happened primarily because we took up this issue (Ayodhya).”

From 1999 to 2004, BJP had convened many meetings just to convince the RSS top brass their helplessness over Ram temple because numbers in parliament didn’t add up to pass legislation for the same. Anderson and Damle put it thus,

“It is questionable if the BJP could survive politically without the RSS cadre, and the cadre will not stay unless the leadership of the party stays firmly in the hands of the ‘brotherhood’.”

The Italian scholar Marzia Casolari has documented, on the basis of archival evidence, the RSS’s links with and admiration for Mussolini’s fascist regime.

Doesn’t this brief Advani pattern resemble that of a slave of the master? The sole job of a slave is to serve the interests of his master no matter how despicable and abominable the assigned job is. All through his life Advani has tried his best to please the RSS top brass.

Former prime minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee, who once proudly said – the Sangh is my soul – had worked hard to woo Sanghis. On his visit to Nagpur on August 27, 2000, he had literally surrendered the post of prime minister to a swayamsevak. He had said,

“The post of (prime minister) may go tomorrow, but I will always remain a humble swayamsevak.”

Sonia Gandhi, the queen of Congress, has highlighted the BJP-RSS relationship though there are RSS-sympathisers within the Congress as revealed by RSS general secretary Ram Madhav recently.

Slavery was officially abolished in Britain in 1833 but it is still prevalent in Indian politics.

Sunday Inquilab, April 19, 2009

India Muslim Vote Between Rock, Hard Place

MUMBAI — As India marathon general polls begin, many Indian Muslims find themselves caught between voting for the right-wing Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), an "open enemy" to their community, or the ruling Congress party, an "unfaithful friend".
"It's certainly a tough choice," Zohra Javed, a political activist, told IslamOnline.net on Thursday, April 16.
India's voters started casting ballots on Thursday in the first part of a five-stage election that will end in mid-May.
But for Muslims who live among India's 1.1 billion population, the vote is an impasse as the two main front-runners are seen as least-tempting.
"If BJP is guilty of sins of commission, then Congress is guilty of sins of omission," says Nihal Ahmed, a Muslim leader of the center-left Janata Dal party.
"One party, BJP, accuses us of being appeased while the other, Congress, does very little in the name of appeasement."
Javed agrees that the Congress’s so called "appeasement" of Muslims is an eyewash.
"Muslims have to choose between the Congress that betrayed our trust and the regional parties that promise to keep up their promises of delivering justice," she said.
"The BJP is certainly not in the running as far as Muslim votes are concerned.
"The BJP and its likes use it for Muslim bashing and projecting Congress as being soft on Muslims while Muslims really don’t gain anything in essence and nothing changes for the better for the community on the ground."
There are some 140 million Muslims in Hindu-majority India and they have long complained of being discriminated against in all walks of life.

Third Party

Many Muslims believe that both Congress and BJP have more or less the same policies and have used Muslims for political purposes.
"Both the Congress and the BJP have similar economic and foreign policies and represent for the most the same caste and elite class," says Feroze Mithiborwala, of Muslims Intellectuals Forum.
Mithiborwala believes the solution for Muslims is in finding a third party.
"Muslims especially in the states of Maharashtra, Gujarat, Madya Pradesh, Chattisgargh and Rajasthan will have to take the initiative or join the initiatives challenging the Congress /BJP polarity."
Maulana Abdul Hameed Azhari, a Muslim scholar, also sees that abandoning both parties will be the answer.
"In this election, Muslims will prove that they will not be used as a vote-bank anymore,”" he told IOL.
"Now there are new avenues in the form of regional parties."
But M.J. Akbar, a veteran journalist and former lawmaker, believes the solution is in Muslims own hands.
"For sixty years they have voted out of fear, so that is what they have got from those they elected: the politics of fear."
He also says the problem is that Muslims never tried to think of their own leadership.
"Indian Muslims don’t have leaders, they have pleaders. They plead with their mentors for crumbs; and they plead with their electorate once every five years for survival.
"Indian Muslims will get development the day they vote for development."
IslamOnline.net April 16, 2009