Paris attacks: Islamic clergy must loudly denounce ISIS, clearly say that IS acts are outside the pale of Islam

Self-styled 'Islamic State' or ISIS has struck once again--killing nearly 140 persons in Paris.

The attacks have outraged the world. Muslims across the globe are are also angry.

ISIS is not just involved in terrorism, wanton killings and bloodshed but it is also defaming Islam and Muslims.

Most Muslims were clearly shocked at the terror attacks in France and condemned ISIS' acts. 

However, there were some tweets and Facebook status messages about how 'killings by ISIS in Beirut and Baghdad this week were not splashed in the media".

There were messages like how the cycle of violence has been going on--West intrudes in Middle East and forces regime changes and in process these countries are forced into civil war in which thousands are killed.

Also, about how extremist groups get help from Western countries. The conversation goes to 'oil'? the great game and even how, media gives disproportionate coverage to events in Paris or England, compared to Africa, Asia or Middle East.

1. ...a lot of it may be correct, but the harsh reality is that ISIS or ISIL or 'Islamic State' is involved in evil acts, genocide, mass killings and acts of terror. And, unfortunately, the 'i' in IS stands for 'Islamic'. We can't erase it.

2. Saying things like, 'When X doesn't condemn for act by Y, why should I do it?', are fine for sake of arguments. The reality is that a very wrong message is going to the world, especially, the ordinary people.

3. We may say that it has nothing to do with Islam and talk of who made it and what it does, but the fact is that it operates in Islamic regions, runs a state, claims to have a Caliphate, raises 'Islamic flag', claims to give punishments to people as per 'Sharia laws'.

4. ISIS claims to be Muslim and hence we must loudly say, that they are NOT. Some Muslims are in a habit of saying that particular countries in the West support(ed) these groups or go about propounding theories about Zionists leading them but the conspiracy theories are to delude themselves. There are definitely Muslims in extremist groups and they are all  hurting Islam terribly.

Even if you believe [like some more knowledgeable friends] that it was US attack on Iraq-Afghanistan which led to this cycle of violence and media doesn't show lakhs dead in these countries and it is 'biased media coverage', even then what are you doing it to tackle the situation, smartly, or show that Muslim world is the real sufferer? At least, do something worthwhile to change the image. If innocents are killed at one place, it doesn't mean innocents can be killed elsewhere as revenge. There is no justification to killing in our faith. It is terrorism, which is against Islamic teachings. So why not a collective fatwa against ISIS! 

5. Either it is the ISIS than can erase this 'i' in their name, else, the Islamic world must strongly denounce this organisation. Muslim clergy must unitedly condemn and clearly say that ISIS is un-Islamic and its acts make it outside the pale of Islam.

6. The clerics of Saudi Arabia and Islamic countries must say it loud and clear. It should be said strongly, so that there is no doubt left in the minds of anyone and those who are its supporters on the ground, should realise that it is not Islamic and is an organisation contrary to teachings of our religion and a group which is destroying Islamic societies and defaming the faith.

7. When terror attacks were going on in India on a regular basis, Indian Muslim clerics strongly issued 'fatwas', hired an entire train and held huge public conferences to declare that 'Terrorism is un-Islamic'.

8. Indian Muslims had even refused to give place to Ajmal Amir Kasab for burial in any graveyard in Mumbai. It is an age of mass media and the message needs to be sent across. Saying it in mosques is not sufficient, you must inform non-Muslims too that ISIS doesn't represent us.

9. Fortunately, India, despite a huge Muslim population, has seen less radicalisation and the country has come out of the phase. Such incidents are now history.

10. ISIS, Al Qaeda and other such groups have done incalculable harm to Muslims. Time for Muslim clerics the world over to stand up, take a very strong stand, and issue a 'fatwa' unitedly, declaring ISIS as a bunch of criminals, terrorists and imposters, who are NOT MUSLIMS.

Down with you ISIS. 

Reaction to Shahrukh Khan's statement exposed BJP leaders, their claims of 'tolerance': King Khan's courageous stand against intolerance in India

Shah Rukh Khan has taken a bold and courageous stand.

The star openly voiced his concern over the climate of intolerance that is prevalent in the country.

The stand is laudable as super stars in India generally refrain from taking positions--so that neither of the sides get angry.

This has been the age-old tradition in India. Bollywood personalities have rarely taken stand, even when there were major issues concerning the country.

Film stars are well aware that they have huge following and whatever they say would be lapped by media.

1. They don't want to upset any section of their fan base. Stars know that their fans come from all political parties and their anger may affect their movies' box office chances. Also, political parties can issue 'boycott star' diktats, which hurt producers-directors too.

2. But King Khan took the unprecedented step. Not only, he spoke about the intolerance, but also said that he supported the writers' move about returning awards, as a protest against the culture of intolerance and hate-speech under the present regime.

3. By any standards, this is praiseworthy. The reaction to his comment, exposed the flag-bearers of 'tolerance'. Immediately, Sangh brigade and BJP leaders were after Shahrukh Khan, who was now their Enemy Number One.

4. The BJP leaders who feel they own the country and can issue certificates of 'nationalism' and 'anti-nationalism' at the drop of the hat. BJP vice-president Kailash Vijayvargiya said that 'Khan's heart was in Pakistan'.

5. BJP MP Yogi Adityanath and Sadhvi Prachi, both notorious for hate speeches, also showed how much tolerant is the current regime. They also revealed their true character, their true sanskaar. Kudos, Shahrukh Khan.

You truly deserve to be called 'King Khan'. 

Facade of liberalism, tolerance falls off: Isn't Indian society intolerant, violent and more discriminatory than other countries?

It is very common to say, that India is the nation of non-violence. Indians take pride in the fact that 'we taught non-violence' to the world.

So often it is said that we are 'sahishnu samaj' i.e. a tolerant society, that people begin to believe it from their childhood without realising that the truth could be just the opposite.

How much we know about tolerance, peace and liberalism? In fact, if you pick up newspaper of any day you will realise that we are a 'hinsak samaj'--a violent society.

Just today, the first story in paper was that of a man who was disabled permanently due to tortured by cops just because his vehicle had hit a cop's vehicle. A youth (Hindu), committed suicide because of harassment by cops.

Yet another case, a schoolboy brutally beaten by his teacher for touching 'thaali' of other students in Rajasthan. Just a couple of days back, a 90-year-old Hindu man was burnt to death in Uttar Pradesh for stepping into a temple.

These are mostly cases of injustice against Hindus. Not just police, anyone in power is engaged in violence against the 'weak', the 'poor, and the 'other. Law is applied in accordance with the victim's and the accused's social-financial status.

Further, recent incidents show that the facade of 'tolerance', 'liberalism', has fallen off completely. Claims about 'sahishnuta, sambhav' are not true. Many of us are beginning to see the reality.

Some of you may not immediately agree to this as the moneyed middle class is generally not the victim of prejudices, state's oppression. The problem is that the moment you feel you are morally superior, your culture is best, your 'sanskar' are ideal, there is no possibility of reform.

For improvement, you have to accept that there are issues with your society, very serious issues. At least, I feel, that we are members of a 'hinsak samaj' that has a 'mob mentality'.

TEN POINTS ABOUT VIOLENCE IN OUR SOCIETY

1. It is common to term other countries as barbaric, but in which country do you hear leaders deliver hate-filled, racist, threatening and poisonous speeches day in and day out. This happens in world's biggest democracy.

2. The sadhvis, saints, threaten minorities on regular basis, demonising them, warning them to kick them out of the country, at the drop of hat, and the politicians 'justifying' hate, killings.

Where does it happen?

Does it happen in countries we contemptuously talk about, and whom we term as 'banana' republics. Are such political statements against minorities, atrocities, mob violence ever heard there?

3. In which country, there is such social sanction to violence, mob killings and discrimination. In which country, there are always 'action-reaction' theories floated.

4. Where would Ministers goes to site of tragedy and declares, "it was an accident". Takes meeting in the temple from where the false, provocative rumour was spread about an air force personnels' father carrying bovine meat in his house.

The minister categorically says, "it was not pre-planned incident". Then, he says, 'justice will be done, to arrested youths too'. This happens in India. Prime Minister doesn't speak up to allay fears or to rein in the fanatic groups. Ministers speak like louts.

5. In this violent society, lives of Dalits, Tribal, Poor, Minorities, so many others don't matter. There is so much hate prevailing in the society among different sections of people on the basis of colour, creed, caste, faith, class and region.

6. The laws are promulgated and applied to discriminate, subjugate your own people, cow slaughter laws made stricter and people are framed, bizarre punishments given.

The law-enforcing agencies put blame on victims. After an innocent man's murder, meat kept in his refrigerator is sent for lab test.

7. Where in the world, 'food fascim' has reached such bizarre levels. The country tops in beef export but people are attacked, killed just on suspicion of carrying beef.

There are housing societies that don't let 'non-vegetarians' live. In schools, children are asked not to bring 'non-vegetarian food', even omelette in the lunch box. In angan-wadis 'anda' is not given to kids, as it 'offends sensibilities'.

So you are taught from childhood that 'meat eaters are bad', that they are evil. This thought process can't be altered easily. All these your 'sanskaar'. The poor malnourished tribal kids are deprived out even egg in angan-wadi. This shameless violence is taking place in a country when 70% Indians are non-vegetarians!

7. Rationalists are killed. People are threatened for speaking in their minds. Governments refuse to act against extremist campaigns and vigilante groups' divisive acts and thuggery, as in Mangalore. Organisations that ought to be banned, are termed 'nationalist'.

8. With due respect to the courts, we all know who gets death sentences, who get hanged in this country. Most of them are Poor, Dalits, Tribal and Muslims. And further, the society has the cheek to claim that they are 'liberal', 'non-violent, 'good to weaker sections'. The list is endless.

9. People don't want to accept their own bigotry. If you talk about 'khaps', immediately the issue will be diverted and you will face the question, 'Why X things happen at Y place, reply first, Why you don't speak about it". So the problem is failure to 'confront bitter truths'.

10. I haven't talked yet about rapes, the gang rapes, the amount of sexual violence, which exists in the country, majority of which goes unreported. I don't even want to venture into this territory, as this piece can't end.

I haven't talked about communal riots, at all. The list is endless. But still we consider ourselves 'sahishnu'. Even on social media, people threaten others just because their opinions don't match with someone.

Hold the mirror and see your face. When I look, I see it as one the most violent, barbaric societies in the world. The reform, the change, can't begin unless we accept that there is a problem. 

Boatman's son who became President of India: Technocrat-turn-leader APJ Abdul Kalam who inspired millions is no more

Former president of India APJ Abdul Kalam, an iconic figure in India, and a technocrat-turn-leader who inspired millions of people, especially, the children, passed away in Shillong on July 27.

Kalam was 83. He was recipient of India's highest honour, Bharat Ratna.

He had gone to North East, and was delivering a lecture at IIM, when he suddenly collapsed. Doctors said that it was a massive heart attack, which caused his death.

Avul Pakir Jainul Abideen Abdul Kalam was born in Rameswaram in Tamil Nadu in 1931. His father was a boat owner. Kalam had worked from early childhood and distributed newspapers to supplement to the family's income.

MISSILE MAN OF INDIA

A bright student, he studied Aerospace engineering and went on to join DRDO as scientist. Later, he joined ISRO. The development of Missiles like Agni and Prithvi during his tenure, brought the title 'Missile Man' to him.

In the 90s, he headed DRDO and was also the chief scientific advisor to the Prime Minister. He went on to become President of India. Kalam went on to become one of the most popular leaders in post-liberalised India.

HAD RARE CONNECT WITH CHILDREN, BECAME THEIR 'CHACHA KALAM'

In fact, he managed to have a connect with the students, especially, children, which no one has had, probably, after first prime minister Jawaharlal Nehru. Kalam was also lovingly called 'chacha' by kids who felt inspired by him.

There are few people in the history of modern India, who have been loved so much. While India has had far more popular politicians, it has had few 'leaders' who have been loved so much. People from all sides of the political spectrum liked him.

THE PEOPLE'S PRESIDENT

When Kalam would visit schools, kids would flock to see him. He motivated them, gave them dreams.  His autobiography 'Wings of Fire' has been a permanent best seller. There was something in Kalam, which made everybody admire him.

A humble man, his first love was 'educating' students. Dr Kalam never cared much about protocol and remained active till his last breath. He travelled across the country, interacting with people. During his tenure at President too, he acted like a 'People's president'.

THE TRUE LEADER

In an era, when politicians invited scorn, Kalam emerged as a true leader, someone young generation could look up to. Even those who look at every thing from religious angle, looked at him differently. There was a blend of innocence and charisma in his personality.

APJ Abdul Kalam has left an indelible mark on the minds of countless Indians, and there is no doubt at all that he is one of the greatest Indians ever, who will continue to inspire generations and who can never be forgotten.

Can we have another leader like him? That's the toughest question. Rest In Peace, Kalam Sahab, for you were the real leader, a person who wanted India to achieve progress, who wanted children to dream big and turn their dreams into reality.

Hashimpura massacre, major communal riots took place during Congress rule in UP

One of the oldest pending cases at the Tis Hazari court in Delhi, the killings of innocent Muslims by UP police, has seen a verdict. 

The judge, Sanjay Jindal, has acquitted all the policemen who had herded Muslims from Hashimpura, forced them into trucks, only to take away to deserted spot where they were all shot in cold-blood. 

The bodies were later thrown in canal. A few persons survived to tell the tale.  For 28 years, the families of the victims were waiting for justice. But justice hasn't come. 

Vir  Bahadur Singh

The judge stated that he acquitted them because of lack of evidence. We will come on this issue later, but first going back to Hashimpura. The killings took place in the decade of eighties--1987, to be precise. 

It was the era when Ram Janmabhoomi [Babri masjid dispute] movement was at its peak. But even before the Ram Mandir movement, the notorious PAC was involved in mass killings, city after city. 

This was happening in other states too. Just a few years ago, over 3,000 persons were killed in Neilly. Congress was the ruling party in the country.

 In UP also, Congress was in power. But communal riots in which police readily opened fire, kept occurring. Some party leaders used to say in those days that communal riots and killings can never be stopped in India. 

                                             WHAT HAPPENED IN HASHIMPURA

Congress leaders were disinterested in checking communal riots. But they were very efficient in cover-ups and in protecting the policemen or other police personnel. The 'secular' state was nowhere to protect its minorities. 

After Hashimpura killings, the policemen involved in this massacre, remained in service. There was no action against them. The state police machinery and successive governments fully protected them. 

Muslims were fed up with this attitude of Congress. It claimed to be saving the minorities, but the most horrible riots took place under Congress rule. 

It was this attitude that slowly drove Congress out of UP-Bihar. As the options came, Muslims switched en bloc to 'Third fronts'.

Either it was Hashimpura-Maliana or Muradabad-Firozabad, Neilly-Bhagalpur or Mumbai riots 1992-92, they were all under the Congress rule. 

Congress had opened the locks of the disputed site too. How can it get vote. It claimed to be secular, but beat the BJP at the same game. It could get away with big massacres, with minimum accountability.

Court's judgement, citing lack of evidence. 

While Indian courts are held in high esteem, the fact is that courts are increasingly getting sensitive to cases that are hyped, that affect the affluent or the middle-class, that are taken up as 'causes' by the media. 

When cases drag for decades, how much evidence can last? In this case, the trial was shifted from UP to Delhi, but no fast-track court was set up. When a case continues for a quarter century, how many victims or witness will survive? 

In other cases, there are quick judgments despite lack of evidence. Courts punish to satisfy the 'collective conscience' too. Hashimpura judgment is a clear lesson that Indian state has failed its poor, ordinary citizen.

LINKS:

1. Read what VN Rai, who was SP Ghaziabad in 1987, saw when Hashimpura massacre took place
2. Read the Wikipedia page on Hashimpura massacre
3. SEE PHOTO GALLERY in INDIAN EXPRESS. WHAT HAD HAPPENED in HASHIMPURA. Photo credit Indian Express.

Congress' indifference to Saffron siege in Mangalore, coastal Karnataka may cost it dearly

Mangalore seems to be under Saffron vigilante's rule even though it is the Congress government that is in power in Karnataka. 

The latest incident is that of a couple which was 'caught' on a beach as the teenaged girl and boy 'seemed' to be belonging to different religions.

They were taken to police station, the youth was assaulted brutally and arrested. His mother died of heart attack after the incident.

Also, Bajrang Dal stopped a study tour, because non-Hindu students were also part of the co-ed tour. A nun was also abducted in a recent incident.

Incidents of inter-religious couples targeted by moral police, attacks on places of worship and attacks on minorities' are a regular feature in the city. And this has become a pattern in the entire region.

Earlier, a college student's photo with girls, led to goons thrashing him. There is distrust and widening distance between communities.

With Saffron groups growing culture policing, there is reaction from other sides too. As a result, the Muslim groups are also focusing on moral policing, it is reported. 

Mangalore was once known for its tolerant and syncretic culture. But today it is known for communal conflicts. For almost a decade, the city has been a witness to increasing religious tension. 

After every incident, there is outrage but no tough action--the perpetrators are booked under ordinary sections and promptly released on bail. Karnataka is among the few big states where Congress is still a major player. 

But as the party refuses to take a stand, others are claiming the space. Those aware of the ground situation say PFI is stepping in, as minorities feel Congress can't protect them. Still, the grand old party, doesn't seem to have learnt any lesson.

Congress' lack of conviction on secularism and upholding secular values cost it Uttar Pradesh and Bihar. The situation reached a point where minorities (Muslims) in these states got so sick of it that they won't want to vote for the party, even at the 'risk' of BJP's victory. 

If the party keeps dithering, it will become a marginal player here too, in future. 

RECENT INCIDENTS:

*Couple visiting beach handed over to police, boy's mother dies of shock. READ
*WhatsApp picture raises heckles of moral police in Mangalore. READ
*Church in Mangalore vandalized even after PM's appeal for religious tolerance. READ

OLD POST ON THIS BLOG

Communal bug bites Mangalore: Clashes, rioting reaches the 'auspicious town' 

Controversy surrounding Urdu newspaper Avadhnama after publishing Charlie Hebdo cover and its editor's problems

First, the facts of the entire controversy. Mumbai-based Urdu daily Avadhnama stopped its publication after the controversial cover of French paper Charlie Hebdo was reproduced in this paper.

The editor of Avadhnama, Shirin Dalvi, is now out of job. She has several FIRs in police station in different cities in Maharashtra, for hurting the sentiments of Muslims, and is living in hiding for fear of being attacked.

Either it was mistake or foolhardiness, the newspaper had published apology for the photo. The issue should have ended there. The Avadhnama group shouldn't have shut the paper. Some Urdu editors said that she shouldn't be harassed after the apology.

Her problems, her living away from her children, has been mentioned in several news reports [See the news link HERE], people tweeted in her support, but will this help her? No. The reason is double standards in applying law in the country. Her LETTER, [read it on NDTV website], 'I, an underground citizen...' led to outrage on social media.

Why just 'outrage' won't work: Double standards in applying law in the country

1. Getting multiple FIRs registered against a person is a sure shot way to harass him/her, in a big way. The person would spend years, making rounds to the police stations and courts, dealing with lawyers.

2. In MP, an influential Hindi newspaper published the Charlie Hebdo cover. There were massive protests (and yes a law-and-order issue of bigger magnitude than the one cited in Maharashtra), but the police didn't register a single FIR. The Cops said, 'We are examining the complaints and will take action after preliminary investigation'.

3. But, in Maharashtra, FIRs against Shirin Dalvi was registered in half-a-dozen police stations in different cities. Why? It is because she is not a big shot and probably because her paper was not influential enough.

4. Though, both Maharashtra and MP are BJP ruled states, and the laws are also same. The issue was exactly the same, then why police in MP didn't register FIR despite huge gatherings. The reason is 'show me the Man (person), I will show you the rule' style of functioning.

5. It is totally in the hands of police to deal with such issues. If those at the 'top' give nod, FIR is registered, else police conveniently say, 'give us a written complaint, we will examine'. This is a way to delay the FIR and hush up the issue. Often, people are satisfied by just handing their complaint.

6. It requires political or administrative will to take a decision at that level, not going by the book. Citing law-and-order, police may register FIR or they may not. This happens in almost all crimes around us, depending on complainant/accused's influence, financial status, connectivity.

7. There are exceptions though. Someone like Raj Thackeray may have numerous cases registered against him, but being a politician with a cadre, he can get away for long. MF Husain also faced scores of FIRs but he had the means to live away lavishly, though he had to leave the country.

8. It is just like, if you have a row with an MLA or MP or business tycoon, and you go to police station, they generally ask you to leave your complaint, not registering FIR immediately, unless you also have some 'weight' or you are too persistent. This is the problem in our 'system'.

9. The issue is this 'freedom' to register FIR or not register FIR, at will. To register FIR or not register FIR, under pressure or influence. Everyone is affected by these double standards. And even 'police reforms' in certain states and the introduction of commissioner system in certain states, failed to tackle the anomaly.

10. The issue of filing multiple FIRs also needs to be redressed. Though it is a fundamental right, but often, organisations with all-India presence, do it to hound a person. They are able to do it because of their network. Should such FIRs be clubbed or can it be discouraged! Can this issue be redressed?

Crisis in Islamic world: Clerics have failed, Muslims desperately need statesmen now

(C) INDSCRIBE

A group of terrorists commit an act in a city but Muslims across the world, in towns and cities in faraway countries bear the consequences.

They are expected to condemn it (everywhere--online and offline), worry about hate crimes or Islamophobia and face even more trouble in finding rented accommodations or getting jobs.

This is an unprecedented situation today. The argument is that these terrorists commit crime in the name of Islam.

Yes, they might, but Muslims repeatedly say that terrorists are defaming the Islamic teachings and their acts have nothing to do with Islam.

A man holds a few persons hostage in a city in Australia and because he is a Muslim, the images are shown live across the world, and it becomes a global problem. However, crimes of much higher magnitude are often not reported outside particular countries.

But when a crime qualifies to be 'terror', it becomes an international issue. And when does a crime become 'terror'? It is when the perpetrator is a Muslim. So when a 'terror' releated report breaks out, TV channels and media lap it up, shows it round the clock, and this in turn leads even more scare and 'terror' for society.

Terrorism COULD BE TACKLED and contained if crimes aren't distinguished i.e. crime remains crime irrespective of perpetrator's faith and if terrorist aren't given publicity, which they badly want. There is no dearth of loonies in our society.

Many commit such acts because they know media would fall in the trap. So the incidents keep happening. Muslims feel that why 1.6 billion people are stigmatised because of acts of a few individuals. But the other argument is always ready, 'the commit the act in the name of Islam'. Huh.

So what's the solution? After 9/11, the Us Vs Them stand has brought the situation to such a passe that no one wants to listen. This is a terrible situation where the entire Muslim world find themselves in. And it's even sad that we have no VOICE.

WHERE ARE THE STATESMEN?

The entire Muslim world hasn't produced an intellectual voice, a statesman, a leader of leaders in these years, why? That's a crucial question.

Though I am not a big fan of Saudi monarchs, but they could have taken the lead, given their celebrity status and their being custodians of the holy mosques.

But they don't utter a word or shown any interest in this regard. The truth is that if they speak, despite the sectarian differences, everybody would pay heed.

They have excellent rapport with the Western rulers, but have remained content with the relationship as long as West doesn't interfere in their internal issues, especially, their poor human rights record and their treatment of women and minorities.

Further, they seem more interested in containing Iran's influence or maintaining their regional supremacy, rather, than taking up a stand. It is such an irony that none of the countries in entire Middle East, has a leader whose voice is heard. Or even who is willing to speak.

The Saudis have a privileged position and could have used it to issue diktats over Islam's liberal tradition, and for shunning fundamentalism. Millions of Muslims go for Haj and throughout the year too for pilgrimage, and appeals or messages by Sheikhs would have worked.

Had they taken a stand to urge Muslims and reminded them about Islamic tradition of tolerance and good treatment of minorities, it would have been heard, and also message would have gone to rest of the world too.

But they are happy living in their ivory towers and managing 'order' in their nations. If not rulers, the religious personalities like Imam Haram could have issued a diktat. Sad. Nothing of that sort is even expected.

Why don't we hear a strong word from them against Boko Haram, Al Shabab or regarding the mindless sectarian violence in many Muslim countries. It is simply beyond comprehension why Muslim world doesn't have a leader today?

MUSLIMS WORLD HAS LEADERSHIP VACUUM

There is a need among Muslims to hear a leader, a statesman who can have DIALOGUE with the West. It is not that you always end up blaming US attacks on Iraq or Afghanistan, for problems in Muslim world.

There is restlessness among Muslims, who want someone to take up the position.There is a vacuum, but no leader is stepping in to the shoes of the statesmen of the past. No one is taking the lead.

Someone who can urge Muslims to do inward looking too. Someone who can also talk to France over the ban on Hijab, if not resolve it, but put this point across. Someone who can tell the world to stop the practice of terming particular crimes as terror, and then putting the entire community in the dock.

Someone who can remind Muslims about the Prophet's teachings regarding tolerance, how Muslims treated their minorities fairly, how to stop the barbaric practices, how to stop misusing laws on blasphemy, give call to make Muslims focus on education rather than sectarian divides, reviving intellectual tradition.

Muslim world should have many statesmen today. Sadly, it has none. Why there are no public speakers, motivators, statesmen who could have come from countries like Turkey, with its cultural affinity to both East and the West.

In the early part of 20th century, we had visionary leaders like Maulana Abul Kalam Azad in India. Even Agha Khan was a major figure in British India.

In those days no one thought which leader belonged to which sect.If today, the current Agha Khan, speaks, won't the world listen? 

I have taken his name just as an example. The point is that there is a space, a huge vacuum. We want to hear someone take intellectual leadership.

No one would prop you up, rather, you have to take up the leadership. But no one is willing to speak to the large number of Muslims and also on behalf of them.

Why?


CLERGY HAS FAILED, MODERN VOICES MUST EMERGE

Islam doesn't have a system of institutionalised clergy. It was once a boon, as there were no separate class of Monks or Gurus.

Unfortunately, it is the clergy which is today seen as the voice of Muslims. But clerics have failed us. BADLY. Another tragedy is that motivational and articulate 'Islamic' speakers who have a huge following, rather than talking of reason, turn towards bigotry and sectarianism--thereby harming the community.

There is need for modern, educated, sensible, liberal Muslim to come forward and claim his religion from the clergy. There is dire need for this. Muslims in countries where they are in a majority, especially, in Middle East, probably don't realise this as much.

The reason could be that they don't face religious prejudices (or Islamophobia) on a daily basis, in their own land, but across the world, Muslims are fed up of the situation. They do feel the need for saner voices.

They won't come from the skies. It's we who have to speak and fill this void.

READ: Media's excessive, hysteric coverage of Australia hostage led to worldwide panic

Terrorist or 'Rebel': Bodo terrorists kill 70 in Assam, yet it is not 'Terrorism'

The heavily armed members of banned outfit, fired on unarmed women and children, killing at least 70 persons in cold blood, and yet this is not termed as a 'terrorist attack'!

This has happened once again in India. On Tuesday, as details began emerging--the death toll rising from 11 to 34, and later crossing 50, most of the TV channels avoided the story.

On certain English channels, it was visible in the scroll, but many 'national channels' had no time for it. For them, results of Jammu & Kashmir election, was the sole important story of the day.

Certain channels had changed their entire home page on the website for the day, and it had nothing except poll results. Such was the brutality that a kid was shot seven times. LINK

Of those dead, around 40 were women and children. Yet none of the major news groups termed it a 'terrorist attack' in plain words, despite the fact that NDFB(S) is also a banned outfit just like Naxals, SIMI or other such extremist outfits.

In fact, words used in morning newspapers on Wednesday, showed the attitude of Indian media towards such acts. Even word like militant, radical or extremist was avoided in the newspapers. For Hindi papers, they are 'Ugravadi' not 'Aatankvadi'. Strange.

Telegraph, which is published from Kolkata (West Bengal), a state neighbouring Assam, carried the news in brief on its front page. See news encircled in red on the left. That's how they treat such a massacre, despite the number of deaths!

The headlines were either 'Massacre in Assam' or 'Rebels kill 40', [not terrorists kill 40 or 70] forget bold headlines which are otherwise visible, along with photographs and adjoining stories of outrage. Why? Do you have any answer? Later, in follow-up stories, most papers termed it as 'Assam violence'.

Many papers didn't carry the news on front page. In fact, there have been incidents when one or two persons injured in a suspected extremist attack, has been enough to shake the nation, because of the hysteric round-the-clock coverage. So who is a terrorist and who is a militant or a rebel? Time for definition!

MANIPUR BLAST

If gunshots don't make it a terror attack, then there is another example. Just three days ago, a blast in Manipur had killed three migrants. It wasn't a 'terrorist attack' either for TV channels and newspapers.

Clearly, if the perpetrator is a Maoist or a non-Muslim group, there there is no need for outrage. Numbers are just numbers. There is no outrage, nothing about modules, leaders of the outfit, its members, its aims, its past history and its 'threat to the nation'.

Dangerous Distinction: Indian media must introspect, be objective in reporting

It is very clear that our media indulges has double standards in covering incidents, depending on ethnicity or religion of the perpetrators.

Why else, one of the biggest massacres on Indian soil, in recent years, was simply hushed up?

Once incident in which no one is killed may be termed a 'terrorist attack' and another in which dozens are killed, could be simply hushed up or ignored.

Whether knowingly or unknowingly, whether for TRP or because of biased mindsets, this is happening regularly.

It is poisoning the society. Certain incidents are blown up and panic is created by non-stop coverage while others are blacked out. Shouldn't journalists and media houses be objective and show the correct picture or at least adhere to a certain guideline and agree to using similar terms for similar acts of violence irrespective of perpetrating group and its ethnicity.

If one incident in which 70 persons are killed, is not termed terrorism and the story is not splashed on front page, and only particular incidents are treated as 'cases of terror', then, it is very dangerous game, as it is calculated game to condition minds, stuff biases in the minds of people and misinform the society. Isn't it?

2.5 lakh votes polled, Congress candidate gets just 1,000: Where has Congress' traditional vote gone?

Indscribe

Isn't it shocking that more than 2.5 lakh voters exercise their franchise in an Assembly constituency and while the candidates who come first and second secured well over 1 lakh votes each, the Congress candidate who comes fourth gets just 1035 votes.

NCP candidate had got 1.23 lakh votes and Shiv Sena candidate got 1.17 lakh. Just 0.4% of the voters in the constituency chose Congress.The question comes naturally that where has Congress' traditional vote disappeared?

This happened in Kagal constituency in Maharashtra. But that's not the lone example.

Such trends were witnessed in many other seats in the recently held state elections in Maharashtra, which was seen as a traditional Congress' state.

I find it shocking because we all know there were [are] people who are traditional Congress voters.

Irrespective of their caste or community, they were staunch 'Congressi', and whenever they went to the polling booth, they simply pushed the button and voted for 'hand' [Congress symbol]. But it seems this breed has now vanished.

READ FIRST PART: 

Why Muslims don't want to vote Congress, willing to 'waste' their vote but not vote for Cong?

In the first part, we had analysed the reasons Muslims are angry with the Congress. The issues, which the community has with the party, especially, the long-standing grievances and party's failure to even give a patient hearing to Muslims, let alone take action.

But, it is not just about Muslims. It seems everybody is upset with the way Congress is functioning. During election campaign, it often happens, that on the eve of polling, it gets clear that only two candidates are in the race, and the remaining candidates are relegated to the background.

Still, if Congress' candidate gets just 1,000 votes, it shows how much ground Congress has lost. One after the other, the Rural voter, the Poor, the Dalits, the Tribals, the Minorities, all have left the Congress. 

Even the most committed traditional Congress voter seems getting disenchanted with the party. 

We earlier talked about Muslim dominated constituencies in Haryana, where Congress' Muslim candidates came 4th and 5th.

In Maharashtra too, there is a trend. It is not about Muslim voting for a 'Muslim candidate or a Muslim party'. In Aurangabad, there was clear Muslim support for MIM, and hence one can understand Congress' poor show.

In Aurangabad east, BJP's Atul Moreshwar Save's victory over Dr Abdul Ghaffar Qadri. Both got over 60,000 votes. But a veteran like Congress' Rajendra Darda got just over 20,000 votes. On Aurangabad central, Congress' MM Shaikh came 6th.

Shaikh got just 9,000 votes. Shiv Sena, BJP, NCP, MIM and even BSP candidates got more votes than the Congress. It is clear that Congress' core vote bank has diminished. At many Muslim majority constituencies, Muslims overwhelmingly voted for non-Muslim candidates of parties other than Congress.

In Mumbra, Jitendra Awhad is a popular man and hence the NCP candidate was favoured heavily by Muslim electorate, who didn't choose Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen (MIM) or any other Muslim candidate from here.

Awhad got 86,000 votes and won by a huge margin from Mumbra. The Shiv Sena candidate came second with 38,000 votes. MIM and BJP came third and fourth. Congress' Muslim candidate Yasin Qureshi came 5th with just over 3,847 votes.

IS IT TEMPORARY PHASE, WAVE?

Many feel that the fall in Congress' vote share is a temporary phenomenon. The examples of Janata Party era [1977], the National Front's rise [1989] and the loss of Congress in late 90s, are given, to prove that Congress will again bounce back.

There may be some merit in this argument. Also, BJP's rise can't be permanent. But the fact is that BJP has expanded its voter base. On the other hand Congress has disenchanted its voters, due to a host of reasons.

From inaction to poor communication with its electorate, Congress has a lot to do to get back the 'connect' with the people. Congress' organisational structure has weakened across the country. In the sixties and seventies, the party had Indira Gandhi.

Congress had a charismatic leader like Rajiv Gandhi. After its defeat in the 90s, Sonia Gandhi rejuvenated the party. But today, its leaders don't inspire, don't instill any confidence, and that's the sad reality.

Party has lost its voters' confidence in large parts of the country. To reclaim it is a colossal task, and what Rahul Gandhi is doing about it> It is this situation which brings Congress candidates to just 1,000 votes in an Assembly election, less than its candidates used get in a municipal ward election.

Why Muslims don't want to vote for Congress, not even willing to consider party as second or third option?

(C) INDSCRIBE

After Congress' loss in Haryana and Maharashtra, which was not unexpected, a lot of things were analysed but an important aspect was not mentioned.

I don't see anyone discussing the trend of Muslims' voting pattern--not considering Congress even as second or third option. Did you notice the recent voting trend in Haryana? More than 52% Muslims voted for INLD, 27% to other parties and JUST 16% MUSLIMS voted for Congress in Haryana.

We will delve into the statistics, the trend, reasons and implications too. But do remember that this happened in Haryana, not a state like Maharashtra where Muslims have severe issues with Congress or UP-Bihar.

In states like Haryana, Rajasthan, MP, Karnataka, Himachal Pradesh, Muslims are considered traditional Congress voters. But if just one in six Muslims are voting for the Congress, it is not ordinary.

This is alarming for the party, as even after BJP's victory in Lok Sabha, and the supposed feeling among large sections that Muslims tend to vote for Congress to keep BJP away from power, the minorities didn't vote enthusiastically for Congress.

First, let's see the Muslim majority constituencies in Haryana, from where Muslim contestants got elected to the Assembly. The trend is same at all these seats. It seemed Muslims didn't want to vote for Congress, at all.

FEROZEPUR JHIRKA

In Ferozepur Jhirka, most of the Muslim electorate didn't even think of voting for Congress candidate, who faced the humiliation of coming fifth, after two independents who got more votes than him.

Imagine, this is not UP where there are many parties like SP, BSP, RLD, Peace Party, Ulema Council et al.

Still, such is the situation! INLD's Naseem Ahmed won the seat by securing 40,000 votes.

Independent M Khan came second with 37,000 votes, followed by another independent Aman Ahmed who got 18,000 votes. BJP's Alam too got 16,540 votes. Congress' Azad Mohammad got just 15,943 votes.

PUNAHANA

In Punahana, such was the disenchantment with Congress that its candidate was no where in the race. While Independent Raees Khan got 34,000 votes, INLD's M Ilyas came second with 31,000 votes.

Even BJP's Iqbal Bhai got double the number of votes secured by Congress' Muslim candidate. Iqbal got 25,135 votes while Congress' Subhan Khan got 12,809 votes to come fourth.

NUH

In Nuh, INLD's Zakir Hussain won the election.

He convincingy defeated the Congress candidate, getting more than double the votes polled by him.

Hussain got 64,000 votes whilge Congress' Aftab Ahmed secured merely 31,000 votes.

Clearly, this is a major trend. If it is happening in a state like Haryana, you can imagine, how serious is Muslims' disenchantment with Congress.

Also, we will discuss Maharashtra in later posts. But this is pan-Indian phenomenon. There are several reasons. The two seats to MIM in Maharashtra got excessive focus in the media.

Reality is Muslims will vote for anyone other than Congress--from INLD to SP-BSP, AAP [as in last Delhi elections] or even Independents. It is not about going for a Muslim party because of choice, but because of 'majboori'.

In the surrounding din [MIM win], the trends like the
heightened disenchantment of Muslims with Congress were not analysed properly.


What about Sachar panel, Caste-based reservation demand, prison population!

1. Muslims voted for any party or candidate other than Congress. For the last 10 years, UPA was in government, but did it act on Sachar panel's recommendations. Congress did nothing about the Communal violence bill.

2. The presidential ordinance that bars Muslim and Christian Dalits from reservations was enforced during Congress rule, and despite vehement protests and demands to bring these communities in the ambit of caste reservations, UPA didn't act in 10 years.

3. Did it do anything about the fact that more than 35% inmates in jails in Maharashtra were Muslim, a vast number among them, under-trial prisoners. It gave the impression that it is pro-Muslim, but it shied from taking any step that would be seen as 'appeasement'.

4. It fell in a 'secular trap'. Congress has lost Dalits in UP-Bihar-MP-Chhattisgarh and many other states. It also lost tribal vote. Muslims are now forced to vote for it in exceptional circumstances, only in a few states.

5. They don't at all think of the party in UP. However, Congress refuses to learn. It feels Muslims will keep on voting for it. It forgets that Muslims want nothing, just basic respect and a bit of listening and action on their just demands.

6. The most basic thing is to ensure that there is no communal riot and the expectation that government would take action against those involved in excesses, torture or violation of human rights. On the contrary, there are killings--firing on the chest, riots, and yet, no stern action.

CONGRESS-ruled states were WORSE than BJP-ruled STATES IN tackling COMMUNAL RIOTS, KILLINGS in last couple of years

7. Congress talks of Gujarat carnage, which Muslims haven't forgotten, but it easily forgets that in the last couple of years, the worst killings of Muslims took place during Congress regimes, which haven't been forgotten either.

8. Assam repeatedly burnt and the horrific killings in BTAD, led to nationwide outrage but Congress couldn't stop it timely. No action was taken against Chief Minister. The same had happened earlier in Gopalgarh killings in Rajasthan. No action was taken against CM.

CHECK THIS LINK: ASSAM riots 2010, more than 50 killed

9. In Maharashtra, the Dhule killings, were treated as non-issue by ruling Congress. Just that we can't forget. The issue of non-implementing Sri Krishna panel report of Mumbai riots, has been repeatedly mentioned on this blog.

10. Once again, I would have to say that the situation in Maharashtra was such that Congress' mis-rule have now prepared the Muslims for the worst situations. Jo hoga jhelengu but you go now. In 1992-93, the Mumbai riots were during Congress regime, not Sena-BJP rule.

Lastly, I am not at all a BJP fan. But if you [Congress] are sincere, do introspect, accept your failures and work to ensure for providing a life of safety and dignity to people, who vote to you to power. You feel Muslims have no option, because if they vote for non-Congress candidate, their vote will get wasted.

Ok, we will waste the vote, but won't give it to you*. That's perhaps, lot of us feel today. 

EARLIER POSTS ON THE SAME ISSUE

If you want to understand the context, the reasons for anger,desperation and disgust among Muslims, you should read these posts. 

1. Arrogant, Apathetic Congress bites the dust in Maharashtra

2. An Indian Muslim's letter to Congress leadership: I am not a BJP supporter but glad to see Congress lose

[Percent of Muslims who voted for Congress obtained through CSDS survey. Published in Indian Express.]
[*Congress will get vote when it acts like Congress, work on the ideology of a real centrist party, as per the aspirations of the early leaders. More on this later]

Role of Islamic clergy: Ulema's rejection of Western world reason behind decline of Muslims?

Zafar Agha is a senior journalist and well-known columnist. In this article, he questions the role of Ulema who opposed the Western culture and rejected the Maghribi dunia*. 

This, he says, is among the reasons behind the decline of Muslims. Either you agree or disagree, do share your thoughts on this article and post them in the comments section below.

By Zafar Agha

There was an era when Muslims held sway over vast regions in the world. Whether you recall the Khalifas at Baghdad, the Mughal emperors at Delhi or the rulers in Constantinople, the Muslim states were superpowers of the period. [Not just art and culture, Muslim world was far ahead in science and technology too]

But, once the renaissance took place in Europe, and the West made giant strides, the Muslim world retreated. The situation hasn't improved since then. In India, even today, Muslims are in a state of defeat and suffer from victimhood.

I often point out the reason behind this colossal failure of the Muslims. The reason is that when Muslims lost their status to the Western civilsation, the Ulema considered it as extension of the conflict from the era of Crusades.

As a result, the loss was termed as a civilizational clash and the entire Western world was rejected. Hence, Muslim world also rejected the industrial culture which had given the Western world a new push, not just in terms of democratic societies but also scientific and technological momentum.

This revolution led to major progress in the Western countries. In the light of these developments, it is pertinent to ask whether a clash between a religion and a particular culture is possible? Of course, there can't be a clash between these two.

Feudal values overtook Islamic values

Islam had brought a radical change in the life of humanity. It brought equality among mankind, ended racism or the difference between black and white, gave rights to women that were unimaginable in that era and even till the modern era.

There was freedom in religion and there was no institutionalised clergy one was bound to. This was the reason that within a century, the message of Islam spread far and wide. Muslims were empowered and prosperous. Islam spread across the world, and Muslim nations became major superpowers.

But what happened in later centuries? In Baghdad and later in Constantinople, the Caliphs became Kings. The feudal system came in place. Kings became 'shadow of God on earth'. The changes were not in sync with Islamic teachings.

Rights of Muslim women curtailed

The rights of women were curtailed steadily. Hejab turned into the Burqa. Because of increasing feudalistic mindset, women were restricted to households. While the Prophet's wife Khadija was a business woman, today if a woman gets into business, it is not seen approvingly in our society.

Muslim women aren't encouraged to go for jobs compared to the men. While Islam gave the right to walk out of marriage to woman, more than 1400 years ago [khula allows woman to get out of wedlock], today Muslims in India are prepared to go to streets to fight for the 'right' to have verbal triple talaq.

The society that had emerged among Muslims after the advent of Islam, was thus transformed into a feudalistic society once again. It has more of 'Shahi-Zamindarana aqdaar' or royal-feudalistic values, which have nothing to do with the ideal Islamic values.

No 'Clash of Civilizations' between Muslim world, West

In many Muslim countries, there is dictatorship and the feudal values are propagated. On the other hand, the religious groups that seize power also have similar ideas. They restrain women from even getting education, let alone participate in other fields.

The Taliban are just one of these groups. The truth is that Muslims' beliefs have no conflict with Industrial culture of Western civilisation. These are remains of the Muslim feudalistic culture, which consider West as Crusading Force, and to uphold their feudal culture, keep pushing Muslims towards backwardness.

This is also a harsh truth that many of the flag-bearers of this 'Muslim' feudal culture and this mindset are the Ulema. Hence, it is not Western world with which we have conflict. We need to oppose and get rid of those who intend to keep Muslims stuck to the regressive and anti-West mindset.

[This is a short translation of Zafar Agha's article 'Muslim Ulama, zamindarana Muslim tehzib ke alambardar' or 'The Muslim Ulama, flag-bearers of feudal Muslim culture. It was originally published in Sahafat, the Urdu daily newspaper]
[*Maghribi dunia=Western World]