Thoughts While Chasing A Mirage

The following excerpt is a collection of perspective and ideas which I gathered while reading Tarek Fatah’s ‘Chasing a Mirage’. 

 

I was reading this book for the second time. My first encounter with this book was very prejudicial and thus, I was not able to have a clear picture of what I really wanted to see and read. Chasing a Mirage is a book with a parallel view of the Islamic world. Also, Fatah’s way of presenting history in this book would be excruciating for some, still they won’t be able to look beyond it because the events mentioned are very close to reality. Now, I won’t talk much about the book and how bad or good I thought it was, I would rather try to talk about what I felt while and after reading the book. 

Knowing about the history of Islam, I thought even this would be a similar experience just as any other book. But the perspectives were very appealing which made me think altogether in a different way. Let’s start with what the people today know about Islam and the Muslim world? For Indians (including the complete sub-continent), it is restricted to few ‘autocratic’ rulers who invaded India which allegedly played a big part in losing their ‘identity’ as the natives of India. For the Europeans, Muslims were tools to manipulate their colonies before the twentieth century. Americans hardly cared about them before World War 2, but later this community became the center of interest of America to generate power in various forms, Russia was hardly different. All these references don’t necessarily relate to today’s generation. Because, all the modern day generation knows is that after the Prophet’s death, there was absolutely nothing until the 70’s when the Jihadi groups like Taliban were formed to destroy the world. So, overall people in general don’t have basic understanding about how and when the religion which is the most talked subject in the contemporary world was formed. Just to make people understand, even Muslims aren’t aware of the histories of their own religion. Some due to ignorance, and some due to utter blind faith. Now because the base about Islam is so unclear, let me just summaries a bit before going in to the article: Prophet Muhammad was born in the early 7^th century in  present day Saudi Arabia’s Mecca, in a tribe named ‘Quraysh’, he declared that he would be the last of Prophet’s that would step on the planet. He gathered tremendous support from the people of Mecca, Medina and other places like Yemen, Omen and thus he became the undisputed leader of the huge Muslim community which was coming to existence. Prophet Muhammad all throughout his life was an admirer of Greek and Jew philosophies. His ideas were very peaceful. After his death, Abu Bakr Al-Siddiq was chosen to be the caliph of the people and to lead the ever increasing Muslim community, followed by Umar and then Uthman (who was considered unpious and materialistic by many Islamic historians). In this process, Ali who was a direct relative of the Prophet, and also the most loyal one who had pledged an oath to serve Islam was kept far from the caliphate, due to politics for three successive times. Even after he being the caliph of the Ummah (Islamic population), he was assassinated in a Shakespearean manner. The followers of Ali, thus became the second largest Islamic sect; the ‘Shia’! Whereas, the majority decided to have their loyalties to Abu Bakr and co who are known as Sunnis. 

I shall restrict my article to just one major subject matter. As we live in India, the other common faith which came into light in the 12^th century was Sufism, and it has continued to be an integral part of Islam in India. Sufism has been challenged and threatened to be ruled out of the Islamic culture due to the emerging conservative and Wahabi groups. The big question is why? When the Wahabis themselves follow a bunch of rulers of Arabic origin who manipulated Islam according to their beneficiaries, who cared less about what the Prophets ideas about Islam were, who considered them to be the rulers of the population, who differentiated not only between non-Arab Muslims and Arab Muslims, but also a hierarchy race was seen between Meccan groups and Medina groups. One big example of how different the ideas of Prophets were from today’s Ahmedis and Wahabis: Prophet’s youngest wife, Aisha was falsely accused of adultery by Prophet’s associates who wanted to dethrone him. Prophet Muhammad calmly handled the situation after this incident, mentioning in the Quran that any accusation of adultery against women shall not be considered true unless there are four witnesses to support the cause. The ideas of, I would not say Feminism but a sense of respect for women could be seen unlike the modern day conservative Islamic groups’ ideologies. 

So, my question is how can people in India just blindly follow a certain path which is fueled by the people who seldom care about the original ideas of Islam? Some of us don’t mind following Uthman, who was just a ruler with flaws like any other man. Following an autocratic ruler is okay for some but following someone who guided the subcontinent towards Islam by peaceful and beautiful means is a crime and ‘shirk’. It’s very dispiriting to see such a downfall in the thoughts of the people who are supposedly taking the religious ideas ahead. Just take a moment to see the sheer beauty Sufism had. The qawwali and the ghazal culture, the teachings of universalism, the teachings of secularity in the midst of heavy ideology transfer is nothing but something to be obliged for. The system of disciples and the way they portrayed their message to the masses, through poems, rubbaiyats, nazranas, etc. How can anyone not like this culture of universal Islam? When the middle-easterners can be loyal to the people who ruled them, why can’t we at least appreciate the work of the people who taught us how to love and how to find God in this chaotic world? My father always says me that, ‘never forget where you come from.’, but the Indian Muslim today has forgot his beautiful roots. I don’t want to sound venerable here, but it is just simple frustration of us living under the guidelines given by people who hardly know the life here. No one should try to fit in the things of 7^th century in 21^st century. Also, it’s high time that the Sunnis accept that injustice was served to Ali and Shias accept that the caliphs were just rulers who wanted themselves to be seen as Godly to take further their dominance.

In Inference, I feel more work should be done in popular culture or in contemporary to unfold the open truths from the history pages. Probably, the Jihadi groups become the difficulty in putting across a work relating to Islam. Even greats like Majid Majidi are not exempted from the conservative onslaught regarding his movie “Muhammad: The messenger of God”.

Also, a look back on the writer and the book because of which I thought of writing this article; Tarek Fatah has now become a household name in India due to his interviews during the heated period of “surgical strikes”. Yes, Pakistan is a failed state and debating about it itself is a stupid thought, and I support Fatah when he says this, but a drastic change is seen when he talks about Modi and the modern day BJP. Why does he sound to me like a paid right winged illiterate media spokesperson of the RSS and BJP? His argument regarding Modi completely go against his ideas about state and administration. How can a historian say “it’s past” when asked him about Modi’s role during the 2002 riots? His actions are highly questionable. And for someone, who understands how the media works, it was evident and visible that he was brought by the BJP PR to show Modi in good light. So who better than a Pakistani who hates Pakistan. (The reasons for the latter are really justified) I wish Tarek Fatah again becomes the old Fatah who can be excruciating yet, significant and worthwhile!

The Chiplun Saga '16

What do we know? What have we learnt? Two questions that would be in the minds of many of the people from Chiplun who would be casting a vote on 27^th November 2016 for the Municipality election. Apparently to which the answer would be ‘nothing’. Writing about a local issue seems like an appetite change for me. Anyway, I would handle it in a satisfactory way I hope!

In the midst of a nationwide, economy shattering process of demonitisation of currency notes, we have a very small scale elections in the not so interiors of Maharashtra. From the outside, this may look very insignificant, as far as the mainstream politics of Maharashtra and India is concerned. Needless to say, it isn’t. Of course, this will not replace the CM of the state, nor would it bring any ‘reforms’. But what is politics if not observed from the ground? Apparently, everything happens here, at the ground level. Right now, we have Municipality elections happening in the smaller cities of Maharashtra from various districts from the state.

So why is that, the city with a meer population over 1 lakh should grab eyeballs? There are many reasons for that. Not just because it is the central destination between Goa and Mumbai, not just because it has the potential of becoming an industrial hub in the near future, not just because it has high tourism value, not because it has those green hills cutting through the beautiful Vashishthi, not just because it is one of the biggest exporter of cash crops, and definitely not because it is my home town; but because of the sheer intensity of the level of politics here. It goes down many layers, and any person who likes politics and has an understanding about the society would find this mouthwatering. The simultaneous elections happening in the state aren’t getting much of a coverage and salience from the media and from the politicians themselves. The Chiplun election is dirty, fascinating and interesting all at the same time.

To make things a little more visible for the people out of Chiplun and who would be reading this, here are some things you need to know. Chiplun Municipality is majorly run by the NCP, with Congress being a small yet under-performed partner from the last five years. Shiv Sena is strong in some areas, while the presence of BJP is as powerful as Hillary Clinton’s presence in the United States politics right now, which is needless to say negligible. But that’s the case with pretty much every civic body in the state where now all of them are contesting independently. So what makes Chiplun a stand out amongst the other elections? Well, the presence of a fifth and probably a stronger unit than all the above mentioned makes things interesting. The Shahar Vikas Aghaadi which has been a child born out of disagreements and problems amongst the NCP leaders. It is unofficially headed by NCP’s Konkan strongman, NCP's Ex-Chief of State, MLA Bhaskar Jadhav. It has its roots and support from the majority of the people from the Ratnagiri district. A month back, orders came from NCP supremo that the elections would preside under the leadership of Ramesh Kadam, a former MLA who has been an arch rival of Jadhav since the longest of time. This decision came as a surprise for some as all the rights regarding the party policies in the Ratnagiri and also to some extent Sindhudurg district were given to Bhaskar Jadhav except for Chiplun which was given to Kadam who has been playing hide and seek with the NCP, lately. So now, the disappointed Jadhav supporters who were expecting a ticket from NCP this time, decided to take a rather cunning way out(which is explained later in the article) and end the small yet deadly regime of Ramesh Kadam which has been grasping the city.

So, now that everyone has an idea about what goes into Chiplun politics and why it interests me so much might be clear. Now let us just look into the civic side of the matter keeping all the politics aside. From the past five years there has been a Ramesh Kadam dominated administration controlling the city. The problems which the city faces are pretty much mutual to other towns, except for the fact that here the problems increase tenfold. The roads are pathetic, there is not a single public property which is looked after efficiently, markets are always crowded and the list won’t end till midnight. All the development that has taken place is in the private sector where the Municipality has zero rights to claim credits, thus overall the condition of the administration is all over the place to say the least. I would not brag about the entire situation just like every other local would, although I really want to. Still, I would constrain myself as there are various angles to look at regarding the politics and administration is concerned.

But we are in India and no one wins an election based on the doings and undoings of the past. Now, coming back to the election, the Bhaskar Jadhav backed NCP group is of course not going to support the contesting NCP candidates, so what do they do now? Directly and indirectly they support the second most powerful party which happens to be Shiv Sena (also Congress but that’s just my assumption). On paper, Bhaskar Jadhav is out of politics as far as this election goes but it is an open secret about Jadhav’s strongmen rooting for the demise of Ramesh Kadam administration in the city. The desire to gush out Kadam from the Municipality is justified both at political and institutional or administrative level. Let us look at the political side first; Ramesh Kadam has been seen joining the SKP in the 2014 election against NCP, his decline in the state and city politics is quite visible, the dirty politics in the previous elections where he made many non-party candidate win against the Jadhav supporters, and many other things which I can name were happening under the watch of Kadam. Now the work of Municipality; I shouldn’t mention an earlier stated fact again in the same article, but just the overall situation of the public space is abominable, to say the least. What adds is that the administration turned down the money which was granted by the state government when Jadhav headed the urban development’s ministry of state. This was to shy away Jadhav from the credits he could receive for the city’s development. The Shiv Sena has a role to play here, but it also is questionable that if they come to power, how much authority would actually be in their hands when we know who really holds the strings of the puppet drama.

Well, all said and done, people of Chiplun have the tendency to surprise in every election. They have shown blind faith in the current authorities on a more than an understandable occasion. So I would not play my money on anyone of them as of now, but still overall, the Shahar Vikas Aghaadi backed Sena looks powerful in the whole scenario.

Also, I would add that the understanding of small town elections and their actual political impact is very different from understanding national level politics. Many things go by where every ward says an altogether different story to the voters, where speculating the verdict is difficult, where the flow of money is hard to stop, where personal grudges probably make the basis of an election rather than an issue. Understanding these small scale elections is different, yet a very important task. Elections speak volumes about a certain section of people. I feel, studying elections is very important in order to do a subaltern research.  

Anyway, all the best to the people of Chiplun and hope they do select the proper candidates.

Zakir Naik & The Idiocy

     







       A few days back, I was re-reading George Orwell's essay, 'Why I write?'  which is one of my favourite essays written by Orwell. In that essay Orwell describes with immense honesty about his love and passion for writing. The aftermath of me reading that essay had questions inside my head about why I write. My mind flooded with thoughts and ideas, some very naive to be honest, about what drives me to write. It may be passion it may be some outrage, it is something which has to come out which then leads us to manipulate letters from A to Z and then lay down our opinion.  So, when I thought of writing this article, I discovered how idiocy of the people around you can encourage you to write.
      
          Zakir Naik has been one such person who plays the role of someone we call an opinion leader in media and elsewhere. Such people have the ability to make or break things, to worsen or to strengthen situations. I have seen his lectures (of course on the internet and not live). I never like people who have a religious outlook on the matters of everyday affairs,  Naik is no such exception. I personally never look up to his videos, but sometimes here and there on the internet somethings pops up which makes me watch his videos. To be very blunt, his lectures are simply stupid and and statements made without proper base of reality and facts to it. He is one such person who lacks the ability of political terminology or simple terminology to be precise. He has a well versed modern day brain made to work according to the needs of media and people. He lacks philosophy, his claims over the matters of religion reach the highest point of human manipulation. Let me give you  an example of a video that I watched; here a Hindu person asks Zakir Naik that, and I quote, "According to you, Islam is the only true religion which has to be followed by mankind, so what does this makes our Hindu Gods like Vishnu or Ganpati?" A very frequently asked question to many Islamic scholars to which I expected some answer with logic, but here Naik says, " From Adam to Muhammad, there were total 124,000 Prophets among which 313 were the Messengers of God. Out of that 313 only 25 are known, so the remaining Prophets whom are not mentioned in the Qur'an can be the Hindu Gods you pray". Now any literate man would have problems with Zakir Naik after reading this answer.  We, in the subcontinent, irrespective of the religion, have this knack of believing stories about religion coming from any Tom, Dick and Harry.

         Now that we have talked about the stupidity that is involved in the lectures of Zakir Naik, let us now turn towards the matter which would actually gain views on this blog; the recent controversy of Zakir Naik and the terrorist attack due to which he came into limelight. Agreed and strongly condemn the lectures of Zakir Naik, but simultaneously the part that the media is portraying him  as a terrorist isn't completely right, either. He is a one from the modern day hypocrites who turn towards human sentiments to earn a living with immense PR skills. (Hypocrite; one reason being, he criticises and condemns western culture and conducts all of his lectures in English and well ironed four piece suit). But he cannot be labelled as a terrorist. The media purposely covers people like Sadhvi Prachi and other prominent VHP leaders, and then end up giving very open ending headlines which are open for misunderstandings. Believe it or not, such news in a fast world where news and opinions are made within passing moments, can be harmful for the secular fabric of the country. This widing divide is very dangerous for our country. Muslims may see this as an incident where a Muslim person is facing media trial when the counterparts of the same person but on the other shore walk away with similar comments without any havoc. Whereas, the Hindus would view Naik as a Muslim face and would correspond him to the remaining community.

        The amount of criticism Naik faces from the non-Muslim community is not even the half of what he faces from the Muslim community itself. But, from the people who follow Sufism or who follow Auliyaas and the dargah. Here, people tend to see Muslims under one common umbrella, but there is a whole lot which cannot be explained in this article. (Not just Shea-Sunni). Coming back to the point, the Muslim criticising Zakir Naik don't try to be euphemistic, as he bashes the people who follow Islam in a different way. Not because, I have a slight inclination towards the Sufi ideology due to its history and culture and for all beautiful things, but based on facts and numbers I say that, whatever the terrorism is coming out of Islam(which is 1.5-2% of the total population) it mostly has its links to Wahabism. And history has proven that such people like Zakir Naik who claim to be the people who spread Islam, don't take much long to manipulate the hadith and put it falsely in front

Naik during one of his lectures on his satellite channel 'Peace TV'

of people who have very little knowledge about it.  So, in a way its good that its going to be a ban on his lectures. Matters of faith, according to me should be kept in a different plate and not with criticism. Because such things don't have any base of reality to it but a strong; very strong belief of the mankind. No one has the right to challenge this belief, not even Zakir Naik! 

Who, if not Nehru?

In this era of the Congress hatred (which is justified) and mostly a pro-right wing atmosphere; where humans are believing on th

e things they see on a website or social media sites which are by no means unadulterated by certain bias, we have started hating our first (And according to me the best) Prime Minister. Pandit Nehru, through the years, recent years more precisely has undergone tremendous amount of criticism. It is mandatory to face criticism if you're a politician, but Nehru faced hatred, he lost the love which the Indians had for him. And all these things after his death. The time when he was alive, he was probably the most loved man in India after Gandhi. The defamation started happening after his death. 

There are multiple reasons for the downfall of Panditji's publicity. He was never really fond of the RSS which resulted in him banning the institution after Gandhi's assassination; just for one year though. And in the previous two or three decades, the liking towards the right wing ideology of people in India has increased, which explains few things. Secondly, the failure of the INC post Indira Gandhi has risen a tremendous amount of dissatisfaction in the minds of the citizens. The Congress of Nehru and the Congress of Rahul is poles apart. People generally confuse the two, which is another reason for Nehru's degrading image amongst the general public. These being the main reasons, it also has many reasons and many other perspectives (very few of them which really make sense) which turn on the hatred towards Nehru! The question, I wanna ask today is if not Nehru, then who? 

Who was capable and able to lead the nation of such a vast population? A nation with tremendous problems, probably facing the world's largest human migration, A nation who's economy was going nowhere, A nation facing communal riots every other day, A nation in whom no person believed to survive more than ten years, A nation with a nominal literacy rate, all in all, a nation with all kind of problems. As far as I'm concerned, Jawaharlal Nehru was the wisest person who could have led India. Arguably the most moderate man, respecting all cultures and beliefs, with tremendous amount of international respect. His idea of foreign policy, mainly because of his many visits to the European and Soviet countries, and his relations with the diplomats there. His view of building educational institutions realising the importance of them in the coming future, his role in the formation of the constitution. Involving people from various ideologies in his cabinet, and taking forward the idea of 'non-violence'. His role along with Vallabh bhai Patel in keeping Kashmir intact. His way of dealing with the criticism of the opposition. (Read the exchange of letters between JP Narayan and Nehru) his idea of a nation like India was so splendid. I cannot see any other politician equalling the heights of Nehru's achievement. 

One might argue that Patel was a better choice. He was never the first choice to be honest, plus he had his own disputes within the congress party. I have seen some people claiming that Gowalkar should have been the PM. I'm afraid our national flag, then, would have been saffron coloured. His rally at Shivaji Park, Bombay was attended by about 1 lakh people. The speeches there were filled with plain radicalism with the touch of RSS in it. Whereas, Nehru's rally just next week was attended by more than 6 lakh people. This clearly suggests, Nehru was winning this battle of popularity, hands down. Muslims intellects wanted Maulana Azad to be the face of India, but this decision would have definitely encouraged many riots and would have made the situation intense. 

For the horrific communal violence of 1946 and 1947 bore witness to the need for a strong centre. In the words of Kazi Syed Karimuddin, "everyone is not Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru(in respect of his commitment to inter religious harmony). There were weak and vacillating executives in all the Provinces, thus what we want today is a patriotic and a steady government. What we want today is a strong, impartial and an unbending executive". Also we cannot forget the pre Independence inputs of Nehru and the time he spent is jail. Well, the time spent in jail resulted in great literary pieces. 

Of course, mistakes were done by Nehru, especially during the 1962 China war. Nehru thought of the Chinese as their well wishers due to his slight inclination towards left ideology. Also, other administrative mistakes, which can be overlooked. As a head of the country, you're prone to certain mistakes. 

Lastly, I thought of writing this article due to the things I read on social media and comments made on social media. The situation again might not be so explosive against Nehru,(As mentioned earlier; social media mostly show the false side) there would be people who certainly know and realise the contribution of Pandit Nehru towards building our nation. India was lucky to have a Prime Minister like Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru!

The Anti-National

Probably, a bit too late to be writing this article. After all the drama, all the nonsense, all the politics and all the violence, I feel nothing has come out which could be seen as a conclusion to the debate. Of course, expecting a conclusion in these matters itself a stupid thought.

So, the race to prove one's patriotism or nationalism begun with the JNU controversy row and it's still intact. I took so late to express my views over this matter is due to the fact that I was not able to have a clear opinion about the matter, earlier on. The JNU students were pushed in one corner by the media, which apparently sets all the opinions. Thus, common people naturally had this notion that the students are wrong, and the government is doing all the correct things. And then, we also had these videos coming out and circulated through social media. Videos which clearly indicated that those were fabricated. Later Kanhaiya Kumar was seen as a long lost hero, also by the media. This controversy (which actually should have been limited to the university without the government getting involved) was the first push which started this debate of national and anti-national. JNU was just another chirp for the media and food for the dramatic minds in our country. But what followed this is something that worries me.

Ever since I started understanding politics, I never came across such a situation where you can be judged and categorised as an anti-national based on a single statement or an act. This is something very new for me. I would even call this a virtual attack on the freedom of speech and expression. To be very precise and straightforward , it is 'anti-national' to speak out against the BJP. The party and it's supporters cannot tolerate any type of criticism against it. They and their very well managed PR comes up with a few creative pictures, videos, etc to brush away the actual criticism and bring in something very less practical and productive. Well, let's just go step by step. We have Mrs. Irani speaking in the parliament house explaining how patriotic she is and how the JNU students are wrong. I considered it their loss at the first place when a student issue needed to be discussed in the parliament. Then we had Kanhaiya's famous speech where he tried to touch all type of injustice in out society. This speech was never against the BJP, but the the level of intellect the ABVP/BJP possess made them take offence over this matter too. I believe, that in a democracy there are gonna be all types of people; which keeps alive the possibility of having the type of people who are pro-Kashmir. Some misleaded ones, while some due to the problems and injustice faced by them and their families. Yes, we as Indians should accept the fact that the people from the valleys do face injustice due to our government's policies. So, there will be outrage, there will be processions, there will be discontent, but the thing that will give air to this fire would be the violence and sadly the BJP government took the difficult way out. People like you and me who live a relatively peaceful life have a right to question. We have a right to question even the army of our country. With due respect to all the sacrifices made by our jawaans on the boundary, we are citizens of India and we can criticise the army wherever it's needed to. Doesn't make me less of an Indian. People should get one thing straight, Criticising the nation policies of the government, don't make me less patriotic!

This controversy and endless debates over news channels seemed to end when there was another statement by another right winged party. This time, the MIM. (I call it the mirror image of the BJP/RSS) Asaduddin Owaisi says he won't chant "Bharat Mata ki Jay". Now, okay. If you don't want to chant it, don't. These are things which are not supposed to be said in a rally. Indian political parties scarcely understand what's best for the people. Actually they do, they just fail to execute the right thing every time. This statement then gave rise to a huge stupid debate all over the country. Now, it seemed as if the only way left to express our patriotism was to chant "Bharat Mata ki Jay". And then, there were panels in a news room intentionally having a Hindu fundamentalist(RSS guy), a Muslim fundamentalist (MIM guy), a shouting BJP spokesperson, a so called intellectual and a Congressman (Just to increase the number of panellists). I never felt like watching those news debates. Discouraging, disappointing, are the adjectives which kind of define the feeling I get after watching those debates. Someone once said that, "Always keep religion and politics apart". We Indians never understand this, and thus, this anti-national debate took a communal turn. We in Maharashtra have farmer issues, we have student issues, we have economical issues, we have fertility issues (Mango, Jackfruit and cashew nuts which are a  backbone of the konkani farmers, are completely gone and are hardly seen), we have all soughts of other problems; yet, what interests our CM is whether people are chanting "Bharat Mata ki Jay" or no. It's frustrating and sad to see that these are the main issues of our country.

Well, if speaking against injustice is anti-national, then I am anti-national. If criticising the government for the betterment the country is anti-national, then I am anti-national. If speaking up for the poor makes me anti-national then I am anti-national. If I demanding the boycott of religious fundamentalists is anti-national, then I am anti-national. If voicing out my opinion against the violence is anti-national, then yes I am anti-national. I don't feel the need to certify my nationalism or patriotism to anyone. I don't feel chanting any slogan can certify my patriotism. (Though, I love our National anthem and National songs) We are a democracy and forcing our beliefs on someone is something which I absolutely condemn. I hope the absolute freedom of every person should be restored  and the living conditions of every citizen should be improved.

Jai Hind!