Police and honourable judges

It is a well-known fact that if a common citizen complains at a police station against the excesses of a policeman, the officer on duty does not register his complaint, scolds him and makes him go unentertained; and in some cases detains him. It is also common in society that a daughter-in-law does not complain to her parents against her in-laws, fearing that following it oppression against her would be increased. The weak in offices, factories and mohallas do not complain to their officers and elders in society against a powerful person. Up to this is comprehensible. – But what will you say if even the honourable judges of higher courts also keep from getting a complaint registered against the excesses of policemen with a view that the police would further torture those on whose behalf the complaint would be registered? It would be called police state. Many would not agree to it. But after all it is a fact. One former Chief Justice of the Apex Court of the country and his two colleagues kept from getting a complaint registered against the sexual assault of a girl by some policemen in Delhi with a view that the police would torture the innocent children who had been eye-witness to the incident.

The relation of this case
This extraordinary case is related to the former Chief Justice of Supreme Court Justice J.S. Verma and his committee, which was formally formed to propose recommendations on making the criminal laws more stringent and effective following the sexual barbarism perpetrated on a 23-year old girl in December last. Justice Leila Seth (former Chief Justice Himachal Pradesh High Court) and former Solicitor-General Gopal Subramaniam were members of the committee. During the process of understanding the gravity of the situation at the grassroots level, the three judges talked to the four tender-aged children who had witnessed three policemen throwing by force a girl into the police van and committing sexual assault on her. The committee submitted its recommendations to the government one month ago; but the government has not taken any specific step in this regard as yet save and except issuing an ordinance to make criminal laws more stringent. The committee has levelled serious charges against the Delhi police. But the government has kept mum on it and it seems it wants to remain silent.

It means even judges fear the police
The question as to why the judges, even after having the statements of four tender-aged eye-witnesses of the excesses of Delhi police, did not get a complaint registered in a police station is very important. Its answer has been given by Gopal Subramaniam to Sandeep Joshi, a reporter of The Hindu thus: “We did discuss the issue and then unanimously decided not to pursue it as the safety and security of the children was our primary concern.” (The Hindu, 21 February) However the learned judges have presented the statements of the children in great detail in their 631-page report. And their interview with them is an important part of the report. Justice Verma Committee has in fact raised questions on the entire police system; to them this behaviour of the police relates to the demerits in the police system; therefore the entire system should be analysed afresh. It would not be out of place to mention what this police behaviour would be during a communal flare-up. In this very issue of The Hindu renowned social activist Teesta Setalvad has presented a picture of this dubious character of police with reference to Dhule riots.

25/02/13 khabar-O-Nazar by Parwaaz Rahmani, sehrozaDAWAT, translated by: Abu Yusuf

“Democracy and Sexual Freedom”

An ‘academic’ of the Oxford University is of the view that human society should now be quite free from sexual repression and every person should have total sexual freedom. This ‘academic’ wants the mindset of society be like we think of democracy. That is, as in democracy everyone is free at the levels of thought and action, similarly he should be free at the sexual plane as well. The argument of this academic is that to be happy is the right of every individual; individuals should be free to decide what makes them happy and sexual freedom is a part of this freedom. The research of this Oxford scholar named Faramerz Dabhoiwala is that “sexual repression is a matter of pre-18th century days when people used to act upon the teachings of the Bible and understood that these restrictions were imposed by God and sex outside marriage was considered a great sin. The Old Testament said adulterers should be stoned. But after the 18th century there began a change in the people’s mindset and today sexual freedom holds the fundamental position in the modern western thinking.”

Yesterday and Today
Dabhoiwala has also published a book on the subject, having read which Srijana Mitra Das, a Times of India reporter talked to him (13 February). According to him, there was no concept of freedom of woman till the 18th century; she was considered only subordinate to man but thereafter people shook themselves off the idea that the Bible is the literal word of God. People having been shorn of that solitary text (way of life) started thinking of living a life according to nature and reason. This
‘academic’ is happy that this western sexual culture is spreading rapidly in the urban habitations of India and the women’s lib movement is getting stronger here. – Much is not known about this Oxford academic but with this article it seems that he is a man of western thinking and wants that this thinking promotes in India as well; and thanks to his good luck, this mean thinking of the unbridled society of the west has already been spreading in this country. Here court verdicts are being pronounced in favour of homosexuality and sexual relationships outside marriage. The world today is seeing with its eyes the real form of what people even couldn’t imagine twenty years ago.

Apprehensions proved true
And thus all the apprehensions and worries expressed by apolitical scholars and Muslim economists at the advent of capitalist system of the west twenty years ago are now proving true. After the end of the cold war America announced to impose its capitalist system on the whole world. India is at the top of the countries that welcomed American aspirations at the cost of their own political interests. The Brahmanic rulers of the Republic of India did so knowing fully well that capitalism is not a mere economic system which makes the rich richer and the poor poorer rather it also brings with it its immoral social system. This ruling class was sitting pretty ready for it had full capacity to merge it with its ancient sexual traditions. And the community which had an alternative system and which had the power to counter the western system, was not active while it remains the fact that if it had made efforts in this direction it might have got support from the scholars in the country. Now when the western concepts of sexual freedom are getting deeper and deeper here every passing day, there is still a chance that it be taken as a challenge.

22/02/13 khabar-O-Nazar by Parwaaz Rahmani, sehrozaDAWAT, translated by: Abu Yusuf

The sensitivity of learned judges

It was the case of Babri Masjid demolition; hearing was going on in the Supreme Court on 7 February. CBI counsel P.P. Rao challenged the decisions of CBI Special Court and Allahabad High Court, which had dropped the charges of conspiracy against Lal Krishna Advani, Kalyan Singh, Uma Bharti, Murli Manohar Joshi and other accused.  When Mr. Rao, while presenting his standpoint, said this is a “national crime” – the leaders of BJP and Vishwa Hindu Parishad committed a national crime – the Bench took a serious notice of it, asking him not to say this word, not to say this is a national crime or a case of national importance. The Bench said to Mr. Rao, “We are yet to decide it. Until we or trial court decide this way or other, you can't make such statements.” (Hitvada, 8 February) The Bench also questioned the CBI over the delay in hearings even if it deems it a case of national importance. Mr Justice H L Dattu is heading this Bench.

The case of national importance?

Even common citizens having an eye on the Constitution, law of the land and the judiciary would agree that the judges of the Apex Court have rightly said that the court has not convicted anyone in this case as yet; so to say that these people committed a national crime is wrong. However, the opinion of the court that this is not even a case of national importance will have to be understood with the help of constitutional and legal experts. Apparently, all the evidences are in favour of it being a national crime – then President Dr. Shankar Dayal Sharma having heard the news of demolition of the mosque on 6 December 1992 burst into tears; against the tradition he issued a very harsh statement from the Rashtrapati Bhawan against this tragedy, condemning the demolishers of the mosque and calling it an act of vandalism. Then Vice President K.R. Narayanan declared it as the biggest tragedy only next to the assassination of Gandhiji. Former Prime Minister V.P. Singh said, “They weren’t three domes of the mosque; they were the three pillars of the State of India: Legislature, Judiciary and Executive.” In the discussions presented by experts in the media soon after the incident, it was referred to variously as a case of national importance – the consequences of which would be felt nationwide. Many parties announced ‘Bharat Band’ against this act of vandalism.

This sensitivity is respectable but…

But however, in this case, efforts should be made to understand the opinion of the learned judges of the Supreme Court that “the case of Babri Masjid demolition is not a case of national importance”. However the remark of the court that none should be called a criminal in this case is worth consideration; the sensitivity of the judges is also respectable. But it would have been better it these courts showed the same sensitivity in the cases of arrest of Muslim youths on charges of terrorism; government agencies present them as “anti-nationals” and “criminals waging a war against the State” and the entire media carries these concocted stories with added bites the world over. The learned judges know much better than common citizens that all citizens are equal in the eyes of law. When the prosecution presents someone as an accused, the judges do not see who the accused is and what position he holds in the society. They only pronounce verdicts or pass remarks on merit. Our learned judges do keep in view these requirements of law. But if some citizens feel that the spirit of law has been affected in a certain case, it is a moment of introspection for the functionaries of judiciary.

19/02/13 khabar-O-Nazar by Parwaaz Rahmani, sehrozaDAWAT, translated by: Abu Yusuf

Who is speaking this?

“The vote bank politics has ruined the country.” Can you say who said this? Yes, you can say, if you take interest in reading, listening to or watching news, that this was said by chief minister of Gujarat Narendra Modi. And if you have a knack for fun and jokes, you might have cracked a smile at the fact that this is said by a man whose entire politics is the politics of vote bank, and who, with the help of vote bank politics, has reached the fame where media is eulogizing him. The only difference is that his rival parties whom he is alleging of playing vote bank politics are to him doing minority vote bank politics while he and his party openly talk of majority vote bank. If someone challenges you on your opinion about this leader then you have its proper and argumentative answer. Recent proof is that after finishing his political and governmental engagements in Delhi in the first week of February he was scheduled to participate in the Kumbh Mela where special arrangements were made for him. A band of reporters was ready to welcome him there. It is clear that taking a dip there, offering puja and meeting sadhus and sants are also related to majority vote bank politics.

The history of facts

Don’t worry if this proof proves insufficient to the challengers, for you have an entire history of facts. When Modi took charge of chief ministership of Gujarat in 2001, only the RSS cadre and BJP leaders knew him. But when a train was burnt at Godhra station under a conspiracy in February 2002 and Modi under the supervision of his government allowed a killing spree against a community then within no time he became (in)famous in the whole world. He became the hero of a particular group within no time. The vote bank of Gujarat got strengthened and widened – so much wide that during the very period of killings and destruction the state assembly was dissolved and fresh election was declared while there was no reason for dissolution of the assembly, nor the Governor had pronounced any order in this regard, nor had the opposition demanded for it, nor was the BJP in minority there. According to the planning of Modi, the elections were held and this guy came to power once again as the hero. And, along with it, the process of his media fame commenced. The efforts of a particular lobby succeeded.

A question to the claimers of his popularity

Now you ask those, who claim that Modi won fame and “popularity” not because of riots and communalism but developments in Gujarat, as to what development was there at that time. Did Gujarat emerge prosperous all of a sudden during the riots? The fact remains that Gujarat is not so much prosperous and developed as Modi and his supporters are claiming. Numerous analyses made by economic and development experts bear witness to it. The only cause of the fame of Modi is anti-Muslim riot and his diatribe; Modi has created this vote bank with propagation of hate and animosity. He refused to accept a skull cap presented by a Muslim citizen merely with the fear of disenchanting majority vote bank. Then it is also a fact that Modi has won only fame, not popularity. And behind this fame is working a strong lobby and wide media network. – Now if such a person says that “the vote bank politics has ruined the country”, what a greater joke than this there would be? Yes, if one talks of vote bank politics about Modi and his party, it would be quite right. The chief minister of Gujarat said this while delivering a memorial lecture at Sri Ram College of Commerce in New Delhi on 7 February. A strong protest against his arrival was also staged there. The slogan of “Killer, killer” was also raised but the media did not pay much attention to it.

13/02/13 khabar-O-Nazar by Parwaaz Rahmani, sehrozaDAWAT, translated by: Abu Yusuf

A mean act of a “writer”

Javed Akhtar is “very” angry that Salman Rushdie has emailed a very impolite, obscene and immodest message to Shabana Azmi. The Hindustan Times of 3 February, with reference to another English daily, reported that Javed Akhtar is very disappointed with the act of Rushdie and says that Rushdie has misunderstood the meaning of freedom of expression. According to the newspaper, the backdrop of this conflict is that at the Jaipur Literary Festival last year Javed Akhtar strongly defended the participation of Rushdie therein but at the same time he also made light criticism on his writings. Rushdie was pleased with his defence but got angry at his criticism and he expressed his anger by sending an obscene email to Shabana. He says that he wanted to send that email to Javed Akhtar but he sent it to Shabana as he had not the email id of Javed Akhtar. – This Javed Akhtar is a renowned poet and film scriptwriter and Rushdie, as the world knows, is a characterless “writer” and has emerged as the hero of the western world by writing a Satanic novel; many people including Javed Akhtar lend support to him in the name of “freedom of expression”. And Shabana Azmi is a famous personality of the cine world and wife of Javed Akhtar.

Their world is quite different

This entire episode is not deserving of any sincere comment, for it is related to professional litterateurs, poets and novelists, a majority of whom are wayward and wilful. Their very world is quite different and this world is not what meets the eyes. But, as these people go on causing chaos in the human society in the name of “freedom of expression”, sincere persons sometimes feel compelled to take notice of them, especially when their double-standard and double-dealing comes to the fore. In the given case, this is quite apparent; and it is about both the parties. Rushdie felt hurt with the criticism of Javed Akhtar on some of his writings and he went out of proportions. As he is a characterless and conscienceless person, he might not have realised that an entire community had felt mental hurt lakhs of time more than him with his Satanic novel. Javed Akhtar is an advocate of “freedom of expression”, and is to a great extent a conscientious and responsible person, so it is expected that he might have realised the mental hurt the Muslims had experienced with the writings of Rushdie as he has felt with the invective of Rushdie addressed to Shabana.

This is human psychology

And this is nothing new; this is human psychology. Many people get pleased at the time when a foolish person inflicts mental torture to others by throwing mud at the beliefs of others or hurling invectives against something dear to them. These people warmly welcome such a person. But when the same person or someone else (like him), does the same with them (or any one of them) they start crying and come out to claim his life. It is the same Rushdie who was very much pleased by dishonouring the sacred personalities of Islam but when once someone misbehaved with his “wife” Padma Lakshmi in an
American function, he was mad with anger and in the fit of anger proceeded towards that man in order to kill him. It is useless to say something to the characterless like Rushdie; however there must be some dialogue with Javed Akhtar, Shabana Azmi and others like them to discuss where the limits of freedom of speech come to an end, what are the criteria of modern western thought, and where will this society free from morals and character take humanity to. The most important question is that of justice and equilibrium. The persons from among those believing in the modern culture who care even a bit for these values, should guide the society.

10/02/13 khabar-O-Nazar by Parwaaz Rahmani, sehrozaDAWAT, translated by: Abu Yusuf

Rushdie – this proposal of debate and discussion

Recently, on the arrival of infamous (but popular in the west) Salman Rushdie in India, an expected dispute came to fore. At that time some Muslim scholars opined that instead of staging violent protests against (the arrival of) Rushdie, he should be invited to a dialogue on Islam and the Prophet’s Seerah. This proposal was dished out during a seminar on “Azmat-e-Namoos-e-Rasool” organised by Wahdat-e-Islami in Mumbai on 27^th January when renowned lawyer and active member of All India Muslim Personal Law Board Yusuf Muchala, on the question of arrival of Rushdie, said Rushdie should be challenged at the academic level. The Advocate said, “Instead of opposing his visit to Mumbai, let us invite Rushdie to this city and answer our questions. If he has the guts he should explain to us why he wrote such a blasphemous book.” (The Times of India, Nagpur, 28^th January) Professor of Aligarh Muslim University Shakil Samdani and some other persons also supported the view of Muchala but many people opposed the view. They are of the view that no sort of talk can be held with this blasphemer, for he is making these activities quite knowingly and with perfect understanding.

The argument of the dissent is strong

The argument of those opposing Rushdie that this so-called writer has written this Satanic book against Islam and the Prophet of Islam under the planning of anti-Islam forces, is weighty. However, the proposal of Advocate Muchala also is not wrong rather is in accordance with the practice of Islam and the Prophet of Islam. The Qur’ān has challenged such persons, saying that they should bring forward any argument against the truth if they have one. Besides, it enjoins the believers to argue with such persons in a good manner. When the leaders of Quraish proposed to the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be to him) that he should follow their faith for one year and in return they would follow his faith for one year, the Prophet of Islam, even knowing that this was an impossible, impractical and ridiculous proposal, told them to wait while he would seek guidance (in this regard) from his Lord. Then Surah al-Kafiroon was revealed to him which was in response to the proposal of the polytheists. Islam is in favour of academic debates and discussions based on arguments. Just for the sake of argument, it is necessary to invite a liar to such a discussion. Therefore, this should be our approach howsoever we are in know of their reality.

But it’s a wrong number

However, Muchala and his supporters have dialled a wrong number. They should throw this challenge to those forces who are exploiting Rushdie, Taslima and other unfortunates of this sort. Rushdie in himself is nothing; he is an instrument in the hands of anti-Islam forces – he is their carrier; and no talk can be held with the carrier of a message. Every Muslim having knowledge and wisdom knows that the appreciation Rushdie and other unfortunates like him are getting in the world is part of the international campaign against Islam. When Rushdie penned this Satanic book in 1980s, the enemies of Islam in the west gave him warm welcome. Again, when 9/11 happened, viz. when on 11^th September 2001 America having destroyed the towers of New York launched a global campaign of character-assassination of Islam and the followers of Islam, it was the time for the unfortunates like Rushdie and Taslima to gain ground; their importance got boosted in the eyes of the west. The protest of the Muslim Ummah against this attitude of anti-Islam forces was and is right. But along with it, there must be debates at academic level. And the real addressee of such debates should be unbiased people of the world.

07/02/13 khabar-O-Nazar by Parwaaz Rahmani, sehrozaDAWAT, translated by: Abu Yusuf

“Never forget, never forgive”

Dr. A.P.J. Abdul Kalam wants India to adopt ‘never forget and never forgive’ attitude on the question of terrorism as America and Israel have done. According to him, these two countries are ensuring their solidarity by adopting stiff attitude towards terrorists; India too should do the same. Not only this, he also wants that these three countries should come together with an integrated task force to tackle the threat of terrorism. He says that America and Israel attack the hubs of terrorism only in those countries that are hostile to them and these attacks generally prove successful. That is, now India too should adopt this method. This stiff attitude of America and Israel has helped greatly in making the lives of the peoples of the two countries safe and secure. The former President expressed these views while delivering the R.N. Kao memorial lecture in New Delhi on 25^th January. The lecture was organised by RAW (Research and Analysis Wing). R.N. Kao was one of the founders of this secret agency.

The language of the lecture

The reports of the lecture published in the newspapers of 26^th January with reference to P.T.I. show that the entire lecture was on this line, and the language employed against terrorism and terrorists therein is the same as used by the hard-core elements of the government and politics as well as all secret agencies including RAW. Now it is not known whether Dr. Abdul Kalam wrote this lecture himself or got it written by some of his assistants or some officer of RAW prepared it. Whatever the fact, the text of the lecture will be deemed his. Dr. Kalam is a missile scientist, is called the missile man, and the work of a missile is destruction, not construction. In this regard, his views are in consonance with his profession. But since he is a responsible apolitical citizen, had been the President of the Republic of India, and as President presents talks of very constructive, high moral and just nature, these views of his appear somewhat awkward; that is they do not behove his position and status. Rising above politics and superficial patriotism, he should have guided the public thought as well as the government.

It would have been better if…

But if the suggestions advanced in the lecture are his own, it would have been better if he had described the meaning of terrorism and pinpointed some incidents which to him are acts of terror. But as he has referred to the methods adopted by America and Israel, it is clear that to him the meaning of terrorism is the same as America and Israel believe; that is, he has no independent opinion of his. The source of his information is also provided by America. After the 9/11 drama America and Israel are staging terrorism the world over and by projecting them as “real incidents” they are holding a particular way of life and its followers responsible for them. America is killing innocent citizens including little boys and girls by drone attacks on the northern regions of Pakistan in the name of countering terrorists and Dr. Abdul Kalam is declaring them as “successful” and exemplary. America and Israel killed lakhs of human beings in Afghanistan, Iraq and Palestine, and are killing even today. But I cannot recall Dr. Abdul Kalam ever condemned those terrorist countries. Is there any citizen having conscious conscience in the country who can talk to Dr. Sahib on this subject?

04/02/13 khabar-O-Nazar by Parwaaz Rahmani, sehrozaDAWAT, translated by: Abu Yusuf

This statement of Home Minister

Since the statement made by the Union Home Minister Shushil Kumar Shinde that RSS and its political wing BJP have been fanning terrorism in the country and supporting training camps of terrorists and that it is these two parties that are responsible for most of the terror incidents, discussions in the media and hue and cry in Sangh circles are still continuing. Congress and its government are perturbed about the expected effects of this statement; but some of their leaders like Digvijay Singh and Mani Shankar Iiyar are also supporting the statement. The concern of the Congress is right. Its rival party has benefited with this statement; it has revitalised its body politic. The immediate gain BJP got is that the attention of people has diverted from the inner wrangling on the question of its presidentship. The party has launched a countrywide campaign to instigate the so-called Hindu majority. Like in other issues, Congress has come in defensive position. BJP and its allied circles are demanding the government to quit, saying the Congress and its government should apologise the “Hindus” for this. That is, Shinde had to pay a heavy price for calling terrorists terrorist.

The need of psychological analysis

But whether the Home Minister made this statement knowingly or this true but secret fact slipped out of his mouth? In fact there is a need to do a psychological analysis of it. Shinde is at present Union Home Minister. The responsibility of internal security and law and order rests directly on him. Police and secret agencies are working under him and provide him with every bit of news. However, to take action on this information or not, and if to take action then on which scale, depend on the set policies of the government. And the policy of the government in this regard is the same as that of BJP, the difference lies only in methods. It can also be said that the Home Minister made this statement with a purpose to benefit the BJP, for his political background is also not very much “secular”. Some time ago the Prime Minister too benefited it unconsciously by saying that “the first share in national resources is of Muslims”. But even if we suppose that the purpose of Home Minister was indeed to unmask Saffron terrorism then he did the act carelessly against the set policy of his party and the government. However, the statement is after all true.

Let the standard-bearers of justice come forward

And there are arguments for it. Mr. Shinde made this statement while talking on internal security in a meeting of All India Congress Committee in Jaipur on 20 January. That is, he did not make any political statement in public. It was but natural for him to acquaint the inner forum of his party of a delicate and sensitive issue like law and order. He just forgot that this statement can go public via media and that the statement going public is against the interest of the party. Some people of the party and the government do refer to Saffron terrorism from time to time but do not want to take any action against it. All the thrust of the government is to prove the assumed Muslim terrorism as a fact. And the police and security agencies are doing this work well by arresting Muslim youth. – Therefore it would be wrong to think that Shushil Kumar Shinde and his Home Ministry would take any due action against Saffron terrorism. However, Muslim leadership and all the circles aspiring to take the country onto the path of truth and justice should devise their course of action in the light of the statement made by the Home Minister. 

02/02/13 khabar-O-Nazar by Parwaaz Rahmani, sehrozaDAWAT, translated by: Abu Yusuf