Ishrat Jahan: Murder in Cold Blood
Ram Puniyani
In the aftermath of Gujarat carnage the then Prime Minister, Atal Bihari Vajpayee subtly reprimanded Modi Governemtn that Raj Dharma should have been followed. The implication was that state should have actively intervened to protect the innocents who were killed during the violence. What will one say if the same state selectively picks up innocent citizens, kills them and presents false stories to save its skin? While taking the oath, while joining the state one is supposed to treat all citizens as equal irrespective of their religion caste and gender. What do we say about the state, which goes on to kill its innocent citizens who happen to belong to minority community?
As the Citizen’s Tribunal pointed out in the aftermath of Godhra train burning Gujarat State machinery was told to sit back when the rioters were unleashed to kill and maim, to loot and to rape during the carnage. Now we know that in the same state, police officers have become emboldened enough to pick up minority elements, kill them in cold blood and proclaim that it is an encounter! The repeated cry of terrorists planning to kill Modi has been a favorite ploy of the police officers for killing innocents to please the CM, to seek promotions. It also helps to create a larger than life picture of Modi.
When Ishrat Jahan was killed in the June 2005, along with three others, the police officers boasted of their success that they have ably averted the attack on Modi by killing four terrorists of Lashkar-e-Tayyaba. Forensic and post mortem reports confirm that they were killed in cold blood on 14th June, shot at close range in a police custody and then, taken in a car, then put in a row on the road on the outskirts of Ahmadabad. To show that it was encounter, arms-ammunition was kept on their body. At this point of time National Human Rights Commission asked for magisterial inquiry. Later state Government also confirmed of magisterial inquiry going on. At the same time the police investigation was also started.
Justice Tamang has come out with his report that it was not an encounter and that the four killed in cold blood by police were not having any terrorist links. In response the Gujarat government is leaving no stone unturned to say that Justice Tamang had no business to release his report, the Gujarat high court has brought a stay on the report. But already the contents of the report are known through the media reports and Gujarat Government is finding no place to hide its face, also Supreme Court has seen nothing wrong in what Justice Tamang did. The total lack of remorse on the part of Gujarat Government is not surprising at all!
The officer, D. G.Vanjara, who killed these four, was also the one who had brutally killed Soharabbudin and his wife Kauserbi, and is now behind the bars. There is a section of Gujarat people, who are very appreciative of what Vnajara has done, and the situation which Modi Government has brought in. Now the Gujarat Government asks that when the police inquiry was going on, what is the legality of magisterial inquiry? On the contrary as per the law after the death of a person in police custody, or due to police action of this type, inquest, magisterial inquiry and police inquiry all these have to be done.
It is not that it is the first time that encounter, fake encounter killings, are taking place. The difference here is the total identification and defense of such acts by the political leadership of state. The difference is that a section of people are being made to believe such dastardly acts are needed to make the society safe. The effort of Gujarat Government is just to show a brave face in the light of exposure of its brutality in killing the innocents. Incidentally Ishrat was wearing her college, Khalsa College Mumbai, Identity Card around her neck when she was killed in cold blood. Legal nuances and nitty gritty apart where are we heading in twenty in Twenty-first Century?
Just slightly an year ago in the face of police arrest of many Muslim youth in the aftermath of bomb blasts citizens tribunals were held in Hyderabad and then in Jaipur. Legal luminaries and social activists formed the jury of these tribunals. Both tribunals pointed out that the attitude of police is very biased and many a Muslim youth are being arrested without any proof whatsoever. Will such actions by state, will such a defense of killing of innocents, not intensify the sense of injustice amongst a section of Indian citizens?
Where are we heading to? On one hand there are inquiry commission reports showing as to how communal organizations orchestrate crimes and the section of police and part of state administration colludes. On the other plane there is the phenomenon of terrorism, which has many factors contributing to it but it is only Muslims who are blamed for that. We are also witnessing a serious and by now inbuilt discrimination leading to exclusion of minorities from the social facilities. In such an atmosphere what will happen to the psyche of the youth and others from minority community? The social disparities we are creating due to such policies are there for all of us to see. The tragedy is that a section of people have started asserting the correctness of these happenings. The situation which is being created due to all this is further used to blame minorities for it. The Modi-Vanjara duo, which is becoming a law unto them, is the symptom of deeper malaise of
Gujarat.
--
Sunday, September 20, 2009
Friday, September 11, 2009
Partition Puzzle: Role of British
Partition Puzzle: Role of British Policy
Ram Puniyani
Jaswant Singh in his recent book on Jinnah has praised the secular nature of Jinnah and has held Nehru-Patel responsible for Partition of India. Many people from Pakistan are praising Jaswant Singh’s book to the sky, while here in India there is a mixed reaction. Most strong one came from BJP President Rajnath Singh who hinted that any praise of Jinnah, will be met with strict action. The problem with such formulation, Jinnah was secular, Nehru-Patel were responsible for partition, is that it is an extremely superficial analysis and does not look at the complex multilayered phenomenon of partition tragedy. It totally by passes the role of British rulers and the different interests of diverse classes during freedom movement. The response to the book is either at emotive level, our leader versus your leader, or how dare you speak against our icon!
In the midst of the whole debate, the British get away with the cake. As such they not only took all the measures, implemented all policies which were divisive but also accepted all the demands which led to partition. In the process they ensured that even after they leave, the interests of imperial powers, UK-USA, in the Middle East remain safe and secure. This ensured that they continue to dominate the area and retain their military and political base in the region. While the mini battle, Jinnah versus Nehru-Patel is on, the role of the major culprits of partition, the Colonial powers of yesteryears and the imperialist power of today is generally not being brought under scrutiny.
If we look at the British polices, right from the beginning there were germs of divide and rule. They saw Indian society as divided along religious lines, underplaying the fact that the real divisions were not along religious lines but along class and caste lines. Shaken by the massive revolt of 1857, their subtle policies of ‘divide and rule’ started becoming more overt and articulate. In 1858 Lord Elphinstone, Governor of Bombay Province, in his communication to The East India Company’s executives wrote, “Divide et Impera’ (Divide and Rule) was old Roman motto and it should be ours.” In return Charles Wood, Secretary of State for India wrote that, “The antagonism of Indian races was an element of strength to the British India. Therefore ‘a dissociating spirit’ should be kept up, for if India was to unite against us, how long could we maintain ourselves.”
Both these quotes amply indicate towards shape of policies in times to come. As a foundation of these polices, ‘doctoring of mass consciousness’ along religious lines began through specially sponsored History books. The two major ones’ in this direction were Six Volume ‘History of India as told by her Historians’ by Elliot and Dawson and History of India by James Mill, who periodized the Indian History into Hindu Period, Muslim Period and British period. This periodization gave the impression that history’s period is determined by the religion of the king. Needless to say that the medieval administration of Kings was never based along religious lines; their court officials and chain of Landlords were belonging to both the religions. These British sponsored accounts of History argued that Muslims Rulers had enslaved India and now British have come to end the misrule of Muslim Kings. Such an account became a convenient tool in the hands of Hindu communalists, Hindu Mahsabha and RSS, to play their part of divisive politics amongst masses. The Muslim League turned it around to say that Muslim rulers were glorious and great.
This communalization of minds was the fertile soil on which the communalists could plant their narrow agenda of Muslim Nation and Hindu Nation. Another British Historian Sir T.W. Holderness in his book Peoples and Problems of India mooted the idea that Hindus and Muslims regard themselves as separate nations. This book came out in 1923 and in the same year Savarkar came out with his book, ‘Hindutva or Who is a Hindu’?, where the same formulation was presented in a different way.
At concrete level on the political chessboard, Lord Curzon, the then Viceroy of India, partitioned Bengal (1904) with communal motivation and this was probably the first concrete experiment in communalizing the politics at big level. Curzon went on to declare that this is an attempt to invest in the Mussalmans of Eastern Bengal. Just a couple of years later (2006) the delegation of Muslim Landlords and Nawabs was received by Viceroy, where he declared that these Muslim elite to be the representatives of Muslim community. The delegation went to ask for separate electorate for Muslims, and these separate electorates introduced later acted as the trigger to polarize the nation along religious lines. Many a members of this delegation were also part of United India Patriotic Association, an organization of Hindu and Muslim landlords and Kings which had come up in the wake of formation of Indian National Congress. Indian National Congress was critical of British and in response, this association pledged to enhance the loyalty of the people to the British crown.
Thus Viceroy Minto subtly encouraged Muslim communalism, and later the same delegation members went on to form Muslim League. Lady Minto in her communication takes pride in what the Lord had done. She commented that what has happened, the receiving of delegation etc. will pull back sixty million people from joining the ranks of seditious opposition, meaning the rising national movement.
MacDonald’s Communal Award of 1932 was the next step, which enhanced the communal divides. Interestingly in 1939 Congress firmly told the British that they will not join the war efforts until they are guaranteed freedom in return. And lo and behold in 1940 Jinnah comes with the demand for Pakistan at Lahore Muslim League convention. Can such things be coincidental? Demand of Pakistan may have been a bargaining counter but its timing is interesting.
No doubt the Cabinet mission plan could have prevented partition, but it is debatable whether it would not have sown the fissiparous tendencies amongst the princely states and the states where Muslim League was in majority. The other necessity which made British to partition India, related to their strategic needs in the area. At the end of WWII, the global power equations changed. USA and USSR both emerged as major powers. US had posted its representative in India from 1942. With British deciding to leave India, freedom was imperative. The British calculation at this time was that an Undivided India with leadership of Congress will not let Britain continue with its military bases in the area. With USSR coming up in a big way, Mao Tse Tung rising in China and section of Congress leadership impressed by socialism, UK-USA were sure that India will not side with them in their global designs of countering USSR militarily and in continuing their oil plunder in middle east. Here comes the Radcliff Line, which runs in the areas adjacent to Iraq, Afghanistan and Sinkiang. British diplomats had the job cut out for them, to make Jinnah accept moth eaten Pakistan and to make Congress leadership to accept the partition.
Somehow the plans of imperialists were immaculate. And in times to come Pakistan, where Mr. Jinnah wanted to have religious freedom, was converted into a land ruled by Mullahs, Army and American Ambassador. It was the same Pakistan which was supported to the hilt on the Kashmir issue; the idea was that US strategic interests are safe with this arrangement. It is a matter of great relief that Pakistan is struggling to come out from the vice like grip of Army, but can it shed its client state type status vis a vis US, is the million rupee question. The people of Pakistan have been big victim of Imperialist designs all through while Pakistan military has been having all the green pastures for itself.
In partitioning India, colonialists reaped rich harvest at the cost of the people of the subcontinent, millions dead, a single entity India, divided into Pakistan, India and Bangla Desh. These countries keep on spending a major part of their budgets in investing in armaments and fattening of their armed forces, something which could have been meaningfully invested for the growth and development of the region. We need to wake up from the blame game and see the real culprit.
Ram Puniyani
Jaswant Singh in his recent book on Jinnah has praised the secular nature of Jinnah and has held Nehru-Patel responsible for Partition of India. Many people from Pakistan are praising Jaswant Singh’s book to the sky, while here in India there is a mixed reaction. Most strong one came from BJP President Rajnath Singh who hinted that any praise of Jinnah, will be met with strict action. The problem with such formulation, Jinnah was secular, Nehru-Patel were responsible for partition, is that it is an extremely superficial analysis and does not look at the complex multilayered phenomenon of partition tragedy. It totally by passes the role of British rulers and the different interests of diverse classes during freedom movement. The response to the book is either at emotive level, our leader versus your leader, or how dare you speak against our icon!
In the midst of the whole debate, the British get away with the cake. As such they not only took all the measures, implemented all policies which were divisive but also accepted all the demands which led to partition. In the process they ensured that even after they leave, the interests of imperial powers, UK-USA, in the Middle East remain safe and secure. This ensured that they continue to dominate the area and retain their military and political base in the region. While the mini battle, Jinnah versus Nehru-Patel is on, the role of the major culprits of partition, the Colonial powers of yesteryears and the imperialist power of today is generally not being brought under scrutiny.
If we look at the British polices, right from the beginning there were germs of divide and rule. They saw Indian society as divided along religious lines, underplaying the fact that the real divisions were not along religious lines but along class and caste lines. Shaken by the massive revolt of 1857, their subtle policies of ‘divide and rule’ started becoming more overt and articulate. In 1858 Lord Elphinstone, Governor of Bombay Province, in his communication to The East India Company’s executives wrote, “Divide et Impera’ (Divide and Rule) was old Roman motto and it should be ours.” In return Charles Wood, Secretary of State for India wrote that, “The antagonism of Indian races was an element of strength to the British India. Therefore ‘a dissociating spirit’ should be kept up, for if India was to unite against us, how long could we maintain ourselves.”
Both these quotes amply indicate towards shape of policies in times to come. As a foundation of these polices, ‘doctoring of mass consciousness’ along religious lines began through specially sponsored History books. The two major ones’ in this direction were Six Volume ‘History of India as told by her Historians’ by Elliot and Dawson and History of India by James Mill, who periodized the Indian History into Hindu Period, Muslim Period and British period. This periodization gave the impression that history’s period is determined by the religion of the king. Needless to say that the medieval administration of Kings was never based along religious lines; their court officials and chain of Landlords were belonging to both the religions. These British sponsored accounts of History argued that Muslims Rulers had enslaved India and now British have come to end the misrule of Muslim Kings. Such an account became a convenient tool in the hands of Hindu communalists, Hindu Mahsabha and RSS, to play their part of divisive politics amongst masses. The Muslim League turned it around to say that Muslim rulers were glorious and great.
This communalization of minds was the fertile soil on which the communalists could plant their narrow agenda of Muslim Nation and Hindu Nation. Another British Historian Sir T.W. Holderness in his book Peoples and Problems of India mooted the idea that Hindus and Muslims regard themselves as separate nations. This book came out in 1923 and in the same year Savarkar came out with his book, ‘Hindutva or Who is a Hindu’?, where the same formulation was presented in a different way.
At concrete level on the political chessboard, Lord Curzon, the then Viceroy of India, partitioned Bengal (1904) with communal motivation and this was probably the first concrete experiment in communalizing the politics at big level. Curzon went on to declare that this is an attempt to invest in the Mussalmans of Eastern Bengal. Just a couple of years later (2006) the delegation of Muslim Landlords and Nawabs was received by Viceroy, where he declared that these Muslim elite to be the representatives of Muslim community. The delegation went to ask for separate electorate for Muslims, and these separate electorates introduced later acted as the trigger to polarize the nation along religious lines. Many a members of this delegation were also part of United India Patriotic Association, an organization of Hindu and Muslim landlords and Kings which had come up in the wake of formation of Indian National Congress. Indian National Congress was critical of British and in response, this association pledged to enhance the loyalty of the people to the British crown.
Thus Viceroy Minto subtly encouraged Muslim communalism, and later the same delegation members went on to form Muslim League. Lady Minto in her communication takes pride in what the Lord had done. She commented that what has happened, the receiving of delegation etc. will pull back sixty million people from joining the ranks of seditious opposition, meaning the rising national movement.
MacDonald’s Communal Award of 1932 was the next step, which enhanced the communal divides. Interestingly in 1939 Congress firmly told the British that they will not join the war efforts until they are guaranteed freedom in return. And lo and behold in 1940 Jinnah comes with the demand for Pakistan at Lahore Muslim League convention. Can such things be coincidental? Demand of Pakistan may have been a bargaining counter but its timing is interesting.
No doubt the Cabinet mission plan could have prevented partition, but it is debatable whether it would not have sown the fissiparous tendencies amongst the princely states and the states where Muslim League was in majority. The other necessity which made British to partition India, related to their strategic needs in the area. At the end of WWII, the global power equations changed. USA and USSR both emerged as major powers. US had posted its representative in India from 1942. With British deciding to leave India, freedom was imperative. The British calculation at this time was that an Undivided India with leadership of Congress will not let Britain continue with its military bases in the area. With USSR coming up in a big way, Mao Tse Tung rising in China and section of Congress leadership impressed by socialism, UK-USA were sure that India will not side with them in their global designs of countering USSR militarily and in continuing their oil plunder in middle east. Here comes the Radcliff Line, which runs in the areas adjacent to Iraq, Afghanistan and Sinkiang. British diplomats had the job cut out for them, to make Jinnah accept moth eaten Pakistan and to make Congress leadership to accept the partition.
Somehow the plans of imperialists were immaculate. And in times to come Pakistan, where Mr. Jinnah wanted to have religious freedom, was converted into a land ruled by Mullahs, Army and American Ambassador. It was the same Pakistan which was supported to the hilt on the Kashmir issue; the idea was that US strategic interests are safe with this arrangement. It is a matter of great relief that Pakistan is struggling to come out from the vice like grip of Army, but can it shed its client state type status vis a vis US, is the million rupee question. The people of Pakistan have been big victim of Imperialist designs all through while Pakistan military has been having all the green pastures for itself.
In partitioning India, colonialists reaped rich harvest at the cost of the people of the subcontinent, millions dead, a single entity India, divided into Pakistan, India and Bangla Desh. These countries keep on spending a major part of their budgets in investing in armaments and fattening of their armed forces, something which could have been meaningfully invested for the growth and development of the region. We need to wake up from the blame game and see the real culprit.
Friday, September 4, 2009
Whither BJP?
Dilemmas of Defeat: Whither BJP?
Ram Puniyani
The humiliating electoral defeat continues to dodge the BJP. In quick succession lot of things are happening, old pillars are crumbling, earlier cracks are on display with bigger clarity and those who joined the party in the hope of basking in the glory of power are deserting. In the process a lot of things which were slightly hidden are becoming glaringly obvious.
After Jaswant Singh was expelled from the party he talked about certain incidents which show the true nature of the party and the major political personalities involved. Later some of these points were confirmed by Arun Shourie, Brajesh Mishra and Company. The first point which strikes an observer is that it is the nature of people who have come out with statements. First in the row was Yashwant Sinha, then Jaswant Singh, followed by Arun Shourie, another one, Sudheendra Kulkarni, was prompt enough to leave the party. What is common about them is that they all are not having RSS background. Most of BJP leaders, trained in RSS shakhas kept mum on the reasons for defeat and state of disarray in the party. Sushma Swaraj is an exception anyway, as women are not allowed to be members of RSS. Some of the beans which were spilled during the process are very revealing.
Jaswant Singh pointed out, later confirmed by Arun Shourie, that Vajpayee wanted to sack Modi when the Gujarat carnage was on. It was Advani who blocked it. It reflects as much on Advani as on Vajpayee. When Vajpayee raised the issue of dealing with Modi, Advani retorted that if that is done there will be bawal, severe turmoil, in the party. As they went for the Goa meeting Modi offered to resign and as if on a cue most of the top brass of the party attending the meeting opposed it. After he realized that most of the party is with Modi in executing the anti minority carnage, Vajpayee changed his tune and said those words, which subtly went in for Modi’s defense, The words were, …but Godhra also happened! This episode shows that while Advani was hard core in supporting Modi line of violence against minorities, most the party stood by Modi, endorsing his violence and making him a Hero. This is what happens when one is trained by RSS, trained in ‘Hate minority’ sentiments. The character of most of the BJP top brass is there for all to see. But what about Vajpayee, he talks of action against Modi and when he sees that most of the party is for supporting what is going in Gujarat, he goes on to give a hidden justification for what Modi was doing. Not only that he made a weak willed attempt to resign but was ‘easily persuaded’ to stay on. The swayasevak, the RSS soul in his body, was alive and kicking and he went on to serve the full term.
Advani’s lies about Kandhar episode do not need further criticizing the person, who driven by the ambition to show his iron man character, kept lying to the whole nation, that much about his leadership qualities. He is not alone in this. Earlier at one point of time Vajpayee had also claimed to be the part of freedom movement and having gone to jail for the same during 1942 Quit India movement. This lie was exposed by two journalists of Frontline, but this has not become so known to the public mind. Vajpayee had been mistaken to be the participant of Quit India agitation by the police and arrested. After his arrest Vajpayee clarified in a letter written to the authorities that he was not part of the procession; agitation but was a mere onlooker to the procession organized by the youth who were part of the national movement. On this ground he sought his release from jail and he was duly released. So in that sense, what Advani has done is not something which the earlier top BJP leader has not done. The cash for votes scam also shows very clearly as to what low level BJP can stoop for the sake of power.
Now despite the fact that the BJP is in tatters, it will not die. The reason is, BJP has been a mere political arm of RSS. At most of the crucial junctures RSS has been controlling BJP from behind the scene. The only difference is that now all is in the open. To begin with majority of BJP workers, leaders are from RSS background, totally indoctrinated in the ideology of ‘Hate Minorities’, in the ideology of Hindu nation. The statement of Shourie that RSS should take over BJP is a bit complex. Shourie must know that as a BJP member he is mostly amidst RSS workers, barring few. On the top of that RSS always keeps a watchful eye on what its subordinate organizations are doing and keeps coordinating their activities. Its agenda is clear, to bring in Hindu Rashtra over a period of time.
Since the electoral debacle, many a commentators said that BJP can give up Hindutva and survive as a rightwing opposition. Such a suggestion has no place in the real politic, as BJP is nothing but a political child of RSS. It has autonomy to work in the given framework, the framework laid out by RSS. While the current RSS Sarsanghchalak says that BJP will decide its own policies that statement is merely something from the World of make-believe. As things are becoming clearer RSS has taken a total and direct charge of the tottering party.
What is the trajectory for future? For some time, with RSS imprints being very direct, the other NDA allies will opt to remain aloof from NDA and BJP. As happened in 1996 all the opposition parties refused to touch it even with barge pole. They came around the next time as it emerged as the big party and lured by the power, they hung on to BJP. It is likely that despite all its efforts BJP will become a marginal national outfit for quite some time.
It does prevail in the form of its power through states, where it is implementing Hindutva agenda with full vigor. It is also likely that it will try to build itself more through states than at national level. Till RSS is alive BJP will be there, goes without saying. The only difference will be the speed of infiltration of RSS agenda of Hindutva by infiltration in the state machinery, media and education will become slightly slower than usual.
--
Ram Puniyani
The humiliating electoral defeat continues to dodge the BJP. In quick succession lot of things are happening, old pillars are crumbling, earlier cracks are on display with bigger clarity and those who joined the party in the hope of basking in the glory of power are deserting. In the process a lot of things which were slightly hidden are becoming glaringly obvious.
After Jaswant Singh was expelled from the party he talked about certain incidents which show the true nature of the party and the major political personalities involved. Later some of these points were confirmed by Arun Shourie, Brajesh Mishra and Company. The first point which strikes an observer is that it is the nature of people who have come out with statements. First in the row was Yashwant Sinha, then Jaswant Singh, followed by Arun Shourie, another one, Sudheendra Kulkarni, was prompt enough to leave the party. What is common about them is that they all are not having RSS background. Most of BJP leaders, trained in RSS shakhas kept mum on the reasons for defeat and state of disarray in the party. Sushma Swaraj is an exception anyway, as women are not allowed to be members of RSS. Some of the beans which were spilled during the process are very revealing.
Jaswant Singh pointed out, later confirmed by Arun Shourie, that Vajpayee wanted to sack Modi when the Gujarat carnage was on. It was Advani who blocked it. It reflects as much on Advani as on Vajpayee. When Vajpayee raised the issue of dealing with Modi, Advani retorted that if that is done there will be bawal, severe turmoil, in the party. As they went for the Goa meeting Modi offered to resign and as if on a cue most of the top brass of the party attending the meeting opposed it. After he realized that most of the party is with Modi in executing the anti minority carnage, Vajpayee changed his tune and said those words, which subtly went in for Modi’s defense, The words were, …but Godhra also happened! This episode shows that while Advani was hard core in supporting Modi line of violence against minorities, most the party stood by Modi, endorsing his violence and making him a Hero. This is what happens when one is trained by RSS, trained in ‘Hate minority’ sentiments. The character of most of the BJP top brass is there for all to see. But what about Vajpayee, he talks of action against Modi and when he sees that most of the party is for supporting what is going in Gujarat, he goes on to give a hidden justification for what Modi was doing. Not only that he made a weak willed attempt to resign but was ‘easily persuaded’ to stay on. The swayasevak, the RSS soul in his body, was alive and kicking and he went on to serve the full term.
Advani’s lies about Kandhar episode do not need further criticizing the person, who driven by the ambition to show his iron man character, kept lying to the whole nation, that much about his leadership qualities. He is not alone in this. Earlier at one point of time Vajpayee had also claimed to be the part of freedom movement and having gone to jail for the same during 1942 Quit India movement. This lie was exposed by two journalists of Frontline, but this has not become so known to the public mind. Vajpayee had been mistaken to be the participant of Quit India agitation by the police and arrested. After his arrest Vajpayee clarified in a letter written to the authorities that he was not part of the procession; agitation but was a mere onlooker to the procession organized by the youth who were part of the national movement. On this ground he sought his release from jail and he was duly released. So in that sense, what Advani has done is not something which the earlier top BJP leader has not done. The cash for votes scam also shows very clearly as to what low level BJP can stoop for the sake of power.
Now despite the fact that the BJP is in tatters, it will not die. The reason is, BJP has been a mere political arm of RSS. At most of the crucial junctures RSS has been controlling BJP from behind the scene. The only difference is that now all is in the open. To begin with majority of BJP workers, leaders are from RSS background, totally indoctrinated in the ideology of ‘Hate Minorities’, in the ideology of Hindu nation. The statement of Shourie that RSS should take over BJP is a bit complex. Shourie must know that as a BJP member he is mostly amidst RSS workers, barring few. On the top of that RSS always keeps a watchful eye on what its subordinate organizations are doing and keeps coordinating their activities. Its agenda is clear, to bring in Hindu Rashtra over a period of time.
Since the electoral debacle, many a commentators said that BJP can give up Hindutva and survive as a rightwing opposition. Such a suggestion has no place in the real politic, as BJP is nothing but a political child of RSS. It has autonomy to work in the given framework, the framework laid out by RSS. While the current RSS Sarsanghchalak says that BJP will decide its own policies that statement is merely something from the World of make-believe. As things are becoming clearer RSS has taken a total and direct charge of the tottering party.
What is the trajectory for future? For some time, with RSS imprints being very direct, the other NDA allies will opt to remain aloof from NDA and BJP. As happened in 1996 all the opposition parties refused to touch it even with barge pole. They came around the next time as it emerged as the big party and lured by the power, they hung on to BJP. It is likely that despite all its efforts BJP will become a marginal national outfit for quite some time.
It does prevail in the form of its power through states, where it is implementing Hindutva agenda with full vigor. It is also likely that it will try to build itself more through states than at national level. Till RSS is alive BJP will be there, goes without saying. The only difference will be the speed of infiltration of RSS agenda of Hindutva by infiltration in the state machinery, media and education will become slightly slower than usual.
--
Sunday, August 30, 2009
Jaswant, Jinnah and India's Partition
Jaswant, Jinnah and Ghost of India’s Partition
Ram Puniyani
Jaswant Singh’s latest book on Jinnah (August 2009) has rekindled the debate ‘who did it’ of partition. The storm created by this work can be gauzed from the fact that BJP, the party of which Jaswant Singh has been the founder member and for which he has been working from last three decades, was expelled him from the party. The basic point Singh is making is that Jinnah was a secular person, he has been wrongfully demonized in India, that Nehru and Patel rather than Jinnah were responsible for partition of India because of which there was gory violence and that Muslims are being treated as aliens in India.
To take the last point first. One concedes that Muslims have and are being treated as aliens in India. One of the major political parties which has targeted Muslims and, whose aggressive anti Muslim campaigns have resulted in their present plight, their exclusion from social and economic space is BJP, itself. The question is what has Mr. Jaswant Singh been doing when BJP has been asserting the concept of Hindu nation, has been part of processes which have relegated Muslims to the status of second class citizens? One is not arguing that the maltreatment of Muslims is only due to BJP. The major factor has been the subtle penetration of RSS ideology in the social and political arena of Indian life. While Jaswant Singh does not come from the RSS shakhas, he has been part of the party, which is the political vehicle of RSS. In this case his cry of ‘alienation of Muslims’ looks like shedding crocodile tears!
As far as Jinnah being secular is concerned, it is ironical that a party, which Jinnah headed with ‘brilliance’, had the name Muslim League! If that does not clarify the communal evaluation of a person what else will. Jinnah despite his exposure to the Western culture, despite his being part of the Indian National Congress for initial part of his life, did become the ‘sole spokesman’ of interests of Muslims, i.e. Muslim elite, in due course of time. One agrees that the individual attributes of the Qaed-e-Azam of Pakistan were remarkable, but that does not make him secular. Secularism essentially stands for relegating religious identity to private realm to one’s life, while Jinnah chose to lead Muslim League, where the religious identity was the base of the national identity.
There were people like Maulana Abul Kalam Azad, Khan Abdul Gaffar Khan, Rafi Ahmad Kidwai and others who chose to be part of National movement for composite Indian nation. Majority of poor Muslims continued to support and follow Mahatma Gandhi and national movement. There were even Muslim religious leaders, and seminaries like those of Barelvi and Deoband, which stood for composite Indian Nationalism. On the other hand Muslim League, initially a product of the politics of Muslim Landlords and Nawabs and later joined in by section of educated and affluent Muslims, kept talking of interests of ‘Muslims’ and kept labeling Congress as Hindu party, despite its secular policy of Indian Nationalism.
The language of Interests of Muslims, leading to the notion of ‘Muslims are a separate nation’ was quiet akin and parallel to the concept of Hindu nation propagated by Savarkar-RSS, of India being a Hindu Rashtra, Hindu Nation. Do all Muslims have similar interests as asserted by Jinnah? What was the similarity between the interests of Ashraf and Arjal Muslims? What was the similarity of interests between the interests of rich landlord, businessmen Muslims and the poor artisan Muslims? Savarkar and RSS talked of the interests of Hindus, which layers of Hindus were these? Essentially the same layers which as Muslims were the beneficiaries of Muslim Leagues’ articulation, i.e. landlords, clergy and a section of middle classes.
Jinnah’s enticing 12th August 1947 ‘secular speech’ notwithstanding, the whole Muslim League predominantly consisted of those communal elements, who did want to convert Pakistan into a Muslims Nation, which they did in due course. And it was the same Muslim League under Jinnah’s leadership, which called for a separate state for Muslims, Pakistan, in 1940 Lahore resolution. Just because Jinnah was a non-practicing Muslim and a Westernized person does not make him secular. One’s association in politics should determine one’s characterization.
As far as role in the partition of the country is concerned, most of the debate is generally focused at superficial level, Muslim League, Congress, Nehru-Patel. Most of the debate is in the language of Heroes and villains, the deeper processes which gave rise to the political streams, which believed in religion based nation state, the role of British in creating such a situation is missing in the debate. While in Pakistan a large section will blame the intransigence of ‘Hindu Congress’ for partition, in India, Muslim League, Jinnah are blamed for the same. The source of ‘Hate politics’ in India, the RSS ideology, holds Gandhi also as a major culprit. According to the RSS-Hindu Mahasabha thinking expressed in so many ways, most clearly in the speech and action of Nathuram Godse, Gandhi is to blame for partition as he followed the policy of Muslim appeasement leading to their becoming assertive and going on to demand Pakistan. In most of the communal discourse, a large part of which has become part of social common sense in both the countries, the role of British in leading to the divisive path, and class character of communal organizations, which believed in the Religion based nation state, is missing altogether.
After the coming into being of Indian National Congress in 1885, from amongst the rising classes of Industrialist-Businessmen, educated sections and workers, the old declining classes of Landlords and Kings came together (1888) to form United India Patriotic Association. It is in this organization in which the future founders of Muslim League and Hindu Mahasabha were working shoulder to shoulder, e.g. Raja of Kashi and Nawab of Dhaka. British played their cards very well and in pursuance with the imperial policy of divide et empera (divide and rule) recognized Muslim League as the representative of Muslims in 1906. That time it was predominantly formed by Muslim elite, who themselves were contemptuous of low caste Muslims; Arzals and Azlafs. Similarly Hindu Mahasabha, which was founded in 1915 had Hindu elite who were for Hindu Nation and average Hindus and low castes had no place in their scheme of things.
There is a lot of deeper parallelism in the agenda and language of both these communal streams. These were not only predominantly male dominated organizations, they also talked exclusively of identity issues. At that time the process of social transformation of caste and gender was going on but these streams totally kept aloof from those social processes. These communal streams emphasized on Muslim (elite) Hindu (elite) interests. That’s why they kept aloof from the national movement which aimed to bring in people of all religions, regions, castes and gender into a single stream of Indian ness. Jinnah’s focus on Constitutional methods and deep opposition to participation of masses in national movement was quite similar to Hindu Mahasbah and RSS policy of keeping aloof from freedom movement. It is from the Hindu stream, Savarakar, that the concept of Hindu nation and its politics, Hindutva, emerged. This Hindutva was later picked up by RSS. There was not much difference in many a formulation, which came from these two stables. As a matter of fact Savarkar goes on to quote approvingly, Jinnah’s statement that there are two Nations in India, Hindus and Muslims. And then says that since this is predominantly a Hindu nation, Muslim nation has to remain subordinate to the same. The deeper agenda of communal streams was same, the only difference was Muslim League called for parity and Hindu Mahasabha-RSS wanted subordination of Muslim nation.
While Hindu Communalism got fragmented between Hindu Mahasabha, RSS and some part of it entered Congress, Muslim communalism came up as a major force and later on a section of the Muslim educated classes came to support the same.
It is in this background that the logistics of partition has to be seen. For Muslim League and Hindu Mahasabha-RSS it was a control over nation. National movement and Congress targeted for getting freedom, to come out of the shackles of feudal system and to lay the foundation of Industrial society on democratic basis. It is because of this that Nehru refused to accommodate Muslim League demand of take them in UP ministry in 1937, despite the defeat of Muslim League. Nehru’s argument was that since Congress wants to go for land reforms etc., how they can have a landlord representative sitting in the cabinet. Also Nehru refused to believe that Muslim League is a representative of all Muslims, the same way he opposed the formulation that Hindu Mahasabha-RSS are representatives of Hindus. Cabinet Mission plan, to which Congress and Muslim League both had assented, suggested a federal structure with all powers to provinces and have only defense, communication, currency and external affairs with the Central Government. During the course Nehru and Patel both realized that such a weak center will not be able to undertake the programs for country, programs for centralized planning for industrialization and related progress.
Superficially Nehru and Patel can be held responsible for what happened, but that’s like looking at the tip of iceberg. The deeper seed of divisiveness, the protection to interests of landlord elements was the British policy. It is in pursuance with that the Muslim League and Hindu Mahsabha was never the subject of British wrath, while the leaders of national movement had to make the British jails as their second home.
For Advani and Jaswant Singh the deeper fascination for Jinnah has some logic. Jinnah pursued two nation theory and succeeded in forming a Muslim nation. They have the wish to have a Hindu nation, so a subtle admiration as to how Jinnah could achieve his goal and so is a great hero for those pursuing religion based politics. At ideological level they are on the same wave-length, religion based nation state, as was Jinnah. They also visualize that by exonerating Jinnah from the blame of partition they are cornering Nehru and Congress, which at one level serves the BJP agenda. And here lies the problem. Since Nehru and Patel are inalienable as for as the trajectory of practical politics is concerned, Patel also comes in to the gambit of blame game which cannot be tolerated by large section of BJP followers. Another reason is that in RSS shakhas’ indoctrination module, the blame of partition is put on Jinnah’s head and the on the follies of Gandhi and Nehru. So how can Jinnah be resurrected without annoying the RSS module of indoctrination? Here lies the dilemma of RSS controlled Rajnath Singhs, and so the expulsion of Jaswant Singh for writing all this. Advani could save his skin earlier despite his ‘secular Jinnah speech’ because of electoral exigencies, as with sickness of Vajpayee, it was difficult to fill the gap by anybody else.
History has strange lessons to teach. Today lot of powerful opinions are being voiced, but most of them are based on one or the other superficial observation e.g. Jinnah’s earlier period when he was part of Congress or his 12th August 1947 speech in the Parliament. Similar type of historiography is also used for the communal historiography where kings are glorified or demonized according their religion. The deeper issues related to the workers, peasants and other average people are missing in this discourse. Same is the problem with the presentation of recent history, where the roots of communal streams (Muslim League, Hindu Mahsabha, and RSS) from the feudal lords and feudal values (Birth based hierarchy of caste and gender) is undermined and deliberately overlooked. This attitude also revels in creating heroes and villains; one streams’ hero being another streams villain. No wonder Bollywood is so successful in using this formula. And as major section of Bollywood is not bothered about the deeper issues of broad layers of society so are many of the worthy commentators for whom this wavelength is something easily understood and deliberated upon!
--
Ram Puniyani
Jaswant Singh’s latest book on Jinnah (August 2009) has rekindled the debate ‘who did it’ of partition. The storm created by this work can be gauzed from the fact that BJP, the party of which Jaswant Singh has been the founder member and for which he has been working from last three decades, was expelled him from the party. The basic point Singh is making is that Jinnah was a secular person, he has been wrongfully demonized in India, that Nehru and Patel rather than Jinnah were responsible for partition of India because of which there was gory violence and that Muslims are being treated as aliens in India.
To take the last point first. One concedes that Muslims have and are being treated as aliens in India. One of the major political parties which has targeted Muslims and, whose aggressive anti Muslim campaigns have resulted in their present plight, their exclusion from social and economic space is BJP, itself. The question is what has Mr. Jaswant Singh been doing when BJP has been asserting the concept of Hindu nation, has been part of processes which have relegated Muslims to the status of second class citizens? One is not arguing that the maltreatment of Muslims is only due to BJP. The major factor has been the subtle penetration of RSS ideology in the social and political arena of Indian life. While Jaswant Singh does not come from the RSS shakhas, he has been part of the party, which is the political vehicle of RSS. In this case his cry of ‘alienation of Muslims’ looks like shedding crocodile tears!
As far as Jinnah being secular is concerned, it is ironical that a party, which Jinnah headed with ‘brilliance’, had the name Muslim League! If that does not clarify the communal evaluation of a person what else will. Jinnah despite his exposure to the Western culture, despite his being part of the Indian National Congress for initial part of his life, did become the ‘sole spokesman’ of interests of Muslims, i.e. Muslim elite, in due course of time. One agrees that the individual attributes of the Qaed-e-Azam of Pakistan were remarkable, but that does not make him secular. Secularism essentially stands for relegating religious identity to private realm to one’s life, while Jinnah chose to lead Muslim League, where the religious identity was the base of the national identity.
There were people like Maulana Abul Kalam Azad, Khan Abdul Gaffar Khan, Rafi Ahmad Kidwai and others who chose to be part of National movement for composite Indian nation. Majority of poor Muslims continued to support and follow Mahatma Gandhi and national movement. There were even Muslim religious leaders, and seminaries like those of Barelvi and Deoband, which stood for composite Indian Nationalism. On the other hand Muslim League, initially a product of the politics of Muslim Landlords and Nawabs and later joined in by section of educated and affluent Muslims, kept talking of interests of ‘Muslims’ and kept labeling Congress as Hindu party, despite its secular policy of Indian Nationalism.
The language of Interests of Muslims, leading to the notion of ‘Muslims are a separate nation’ was quiet akin and parallel to the concept of Hindu nation propagated by Savarkar-RSS, of India being a Hindu Rashtra, Hindu Nation. Do all Muslims have similar interests as asserted by Jinnah? What was the similarity between the interests of Ashraf and Arjal Muslims? What was the similarity of interests between the interests of rich landlord, businessmen Muslims and the poor artisan Muslims? Savarkar and RSS talked of the interests of Hindus, which layers of Hindus were these? Essentially the same layers which as Muslims were the beneficiaries of Muslim Leagues’ articulation, i.e. landlords, clergy and a section of middle classes.
Jinnah’s enticing 12th August 1947 ‘secular speech’ notwithstanding, the whole Muslim League predominantly consisted of those communal elements, who did want to convert Pakistan into a Muslims Nation, which they did in due course. And it was the same Muslim League under Jinnah’s leadership, which called for a separate state for Muslims, Pakistan, in 1940 Lahore resolution. Just because Jinnah was a non-practicing Muslim and a Westernized person does not make him secular. One’s association in politics should determine one’s characterization.
As far as role in the partition of the country is concerned, most of the debate is generally focused at superficial level, Muslim League, Congress, Nehru-Patel. Most of the debate is in the language of Heroes and villains, the deeper processes which gave rise to the political streams, which believed in religion based nation state, the role of British in creating such a situation is missing in the debate. While in Pakistan a large section will blame the intransigence of ‘Hindu Congress’ for partition, in India, Muslim League, Jinnah are blamed for the same. The source of ‘Hate politics’ in India, the RSS ideology, holds Gandhi also as a major culprit. According to the RSS-Hindu Mahasabha thinking expressed in so many ways, most clearly in the speech and action of Nathuram Godse, Gandhi is to blame for partition as he followed the policy of Muslim appeasement leading to their becoming assertive and going on to demand Pakistan. In most of the communal discourse, a large part of which has become part of social common sense in both the countries, the role of British in leading to the divisive path, and class character of communal organizations, which believed in the Religion based nation state, is missing altogether.
After the coming into being of Indian National Congress in 1885, from amongst the rising classes of Industrialist-Businessmen, educated sections and workers, the old declining classes of Landlords and Kings came together (1888) to form United India Patriotic Association. It is in this organization in which the future founders of Muslim League and Hindu Mahasabha were working shoulder to shoulder, e.g. Raja of Kashi and Nawab of Dhaka. British played their cards very well and in pursuance with the imperial policy of divide et empera (divide and rule) recognized Muslim League as the representative of Muslims in 1906. That time it was predominantly formed by Muslim elite, who themselves were contemptuous of low caste Muslims; Arzals and Azlafs. Similarly Hindu Mahasabha, which was founded in 1915 had Hindu elite who were for Hindu Nation and average Hindus and low castes had no place in their scheme of things.
There is a lot of deeper parallelism in the agenda and language of both these communal streams. These were not only predominantly male dominated organizations, they also talked exclusively of identity issues. At that time the process of social transformation of caste and gender was going on but these streams totally kept aloof from those social processes. These communal streams emphasized on Muslim (elite) Hindu (elite) interests. That’s why they kept aloof from the national movement which aimed to bring in people of all religions, regions, castes and gender into a single stream of Indian ness. Jinnah’s focus on Constitutional methods and deep opposition to participation of masses in national movement was quite similar to Hindu Mahasbah and RSS policy of keeping aloof from freedom movement. It is from the Hindu stream, Savarakar, that the concept of Hindu nation and its politics, Hindutva, emerged. This Hindutva was later picked up by RSS. There was not much difference in many a formulation, which came from these two stables. As a matter of fact Savarkar goes on to quote approvingly, Jinnah’s statement that there are two Nations in India, Hindus and Muslims. And then says that since this is predominantly a Hindu nation, Muslim nation has to remain subordinate to the same. The deeper agenda of communal streams was same, the only difference was Muslim League called for parity and Hindu Mahasabha-RSS wanted subordination of Muslim nation.
While Hindu Communalism got fragmented between Hindu Mahasabha, RSS and some part of it entered Congress, Muslim communalism came up as a major force and later on a section of the Muslim educated classes came to support the same.
It is in this background that the logistics of partition has to be seen. For Muslim League and Hindu Mahasabha-RSS it was a control over nation. National movement and Congress targeted for getting freedom, to come out of the shackles of feudal system and to lay the foundation of Industrial society on democratic basis. It is because of this that Nehru refused to accommodate Muslim League demand of take them in UP ministry in 1937, despite the defeat of Muslim League. Nehru’s argument was that since Congress wants to go for land reforms etc., how they can have a landlord representative sitting in the cabinet. Also Nehru refused to believe that Muslim League is a representative of all Muslims, the same way he opposed the formulation that Hindu Mahasabha-RSS are representatives of Hindus. Cabinet Mission plan, to which Congress and Muslim League both had assented, suggested a federal structure with all powers to provinces and have only defense, communication, currency and external affairs with the Central Government. During the course Nehru and Patel both realized that such a weak center will not be able to undertake the programs for country, programs for centralized planning for industrialization and related progress.
Superficially Nehru and Patel can be held responsible for what happened, but that’s like looking at the tip of iceberg. The deeper seed of divisiveness, the protection to interests of landlord elements was the British policy. It is in pursuance with that the Muslim League and Hindu Mahsabha was never the subject of British wrath, while the leaders of national movement had to make the British jails as their second home.
For Advani and Jaswant Singh the deeper fascination for Jinnah has some logic. Jinnah pursued two nation theory and succeeded in forming a Muslim nation. They have the wish to have a Hindu nation, so a subtle admiration as to how Jinnah could achieve his goal and so is a great hero for those pursuing religion based politics. At ideological level they are on the same wave-length, religion based nation state, as was Jinnah. They also visualize that by exonerating Jinnah from the blame of partition they are cornering Nehru and Congress, which at one level serves the BJP agenda. And here lies the problem. Since Nehru and Patel are inalienable as for as the trajectory of practical politics is concerned, Patel also comes in to the gambit of blame game which cannot be tolerated by large section of BJP followers. Another reason is that in RSS shakhas’ indoctrination module, the blame of partition is put on Jinnah’s head and the on the follies of Gandhi and Nehru. So how can Jinnah be resurrected without annoying the RSS module of indoctrination? Here lies the dilemma of RSS controlled Rajnath Singhs, and so the expulsion of Jaswant Singh for writing all this. Advani could save his skin earlier despite his ‘secular Jinnah speech’ because of electoral exigencies, as with sickness of Vajpayee, it was difficult to fill the gap by anybody else.
History has strange lessons to teach. Today lot of powerful opinions are being voiced, but most of them are based on one or the other superficial observation e.g. Jinnah’s earlier period when he was part of Congress or his 12th August 1947 speech in the Parliament. Similar type of historiography is also used for the communal historiography where kings are glorified or demonized according their religion. The deeper issues related to the workers, peasants and other average people are missing in this discourse. Same is the problem with the presentation of recent history, where the roots of communal streams (Muslim League, Hindu Mahsabha, and RSS) from the feudal lords and feudal values (Birth based hierarchy of caste and gender) is undermined and deliberately overlooked. This attitude also revels in creating heroes and villains; one streams’ hero being another streams villain. No wonder Bollywood is so successful in using this formula. And as major section of Bollywood is not bothered about the deeper issues of broad layers of society so are many of the worthy commentators for whom this wavelength is something easily understood and deliberated upon!
--
Saturday, August 22, 2009
Emperor's Islamophobia
Emperor’s Islamophobia
Shah Rukh Khan Detained at US airport
Ram Puniyani
Shah Rukh Khan, one of the best known actors from Bollywood was detained for questioning in Newark airport in US (15th August). The actor who is a global icon of sorts was grilled by the US official as his name is a Muslim one, and the legendary actor felt humiliated with the treatment meted out to him. While the star actor was being questioned in this manner the Jet Airways staff vouched for him and many of his international fans were seeking his autographs, but the US official, drunk on the Imperial arrogance and infected by anti Muslim sentiments refused to recognize Khan. That any Google search on his name would have yielded infinite entries to establish his identity, is an elementary knowledge by now.
Just a few weeks ago, India’s ex-President, the scientist of repute, APJ Abdul Kalam was treated like a commoner by the US based Airlines staff. Irfan Khan was also meted with similar treatment. Other actors, with non Muslim names, have also been given such humiliating treatment by US officials but the logic in these cases is different, Neil Nitin Mukesh for having a skin color fairer then his Hindu name and John Abram for having Afghanistan on his passport. In addition the senior ministers from India George Fernandez and Pranab Mukherjee have also been strip searched in the past.
Most of the channels and many eminent columnists criticized Shahrukh Khan and those voicing their protest on the grounds that it is these security checks which have saved US from another terrorist attack post 9/11 2001. The desirability or other wise of these checks apart, there are two basic questions. One is that can those having diplomatic passports and those listed in India’s list of people exempt from such checks be subjected to these ordeals? Secondly why secondary checks are more for those with Muslim names? These commentators realization of the tasks of US security officials notwithstanding the questions remain the double standards of the security check system.
While the major phenomenon visible here is that of US officials have imbibed the anti Islam and anti Muslim propaganda, post 9/11 2001, the additional factor is the inherent arrogance and superiority complex of this Imperial power since US emerged as the sole super power, after the decline of Soviet block in international political arena. The treatment which US officials are giving to Indian dignitaries and celebrities is in stark contrast to the treatment which Indian administration and people are giving to the US dignitaries. The visit of Hillary Clinton just a month ago demonstrates the reality. The US Secretary of State was not only given a red carpet welcome, Indian media also went gaga about her, starting from describing her smart dresses to the details of her smile at different occasions.
The twin phenomenon of US arrogance as a superpower dictating terms to the whole World and its targeting of Islam and Muslims for political goals have got mixed up here. The global democracy which was trying to come up during the middle of twentieth century has really got a set back during last three decades, and despite the humane instincts of Barack Hussein Obama, American system remains as high handed as before. One appreciates the steps of new American President in closing down Guantonamo bay and the subsequent stoppage of the intense torture and insult of accused of 9/11, especially Muslim youth. Despite that it seems the ground level reality of US has not changed much and Islamophobia is still ruling the policies, mindset and attitude of the US system as a whole.
It is after 9/11 2001, the collapse of WTC, and the accompanying statements of Osama bin Laden, which gave the pretext of launching a propaganda against Islam and Muslims. It was at that time that the word Islamic Terrorism was coined and the distorted version of core words, Jihad and Kafir were strongly popularized in the popular thinking. In a way it manufactured a hatred for Muslims and Islam. While Jihad stands for fighting against injustice, it was presented as killing of non Muslims. While Kafir is a concept totally invalid in current times, it was put across as denigrating non Muslims. The net result was that in the global thinking it came to be regarded that all Muslims are not terrorists, while all terrorists are Muslims. The US officials in general and immigration officials in particular stiffened their attitude towards Muslim immigrants to US. Globally also, particularly in our country the trend began where after every blast here and there scores of Muslim youth were apprehended and tortured, and at most of the times their careers were ruined.
The Pakistani film ‘Khuda Ke Liye’ depicted the life of an average Muslims whom US officials suspect to be a terrorist and the outcome of this can be well predicted. Indian film ‘New York’ also puts forward the cruelty of the attitude of US officials. In Indian context films like ‘Black and White’ and ‘Mumbai Meri Jaan’ depicted this sad reality of our society. Many a good articles and literature has also been produced by scholars, which gives us the real story, but despite all this the propaganda by section of US media and the vested organizations in India against Islam and Muslims continues.
The phenomenon of terrorism is very complex. One core point is to understand the genesis of Al Qaeda type organizations, which were the product of indoctrination in the Madrassas, set up in Pakistan. The syllabus and financial support of these came through CIA; the aim was to instigate indoctrinated Muslim youth to fight against the Russian armies who had occupied Afghanistan. Lately this truth is being said by Pakistani leader’s time and over again. In India the rising communal violence and acts of terrorism because of diverse factors, have been used to present the minorities in a negative light.
We in India can feel hurt, insulted and angry to what is being meted out to Indian celebrities and leaders. It is in a way the attitude of US to humiliate ‘others’, to assert its superiority and hegemony. The commentators criticizing the protest against treatment being meted out to the likes of Shah Rukh Khan and Indian dignitaries have to realize that it is not just to uphold the differential status but to protest against the highhanded attitude of United States. The time has come to revive the global democratic equations where the hegemony of one country is not acceptable and people of all countries and religions are treated with equal respect.
Shah Rukh Khan Detained at US airport
Ram Puniyani
Shah Rukh Khan, one of the best known actors from Bollywood was detained for questioning in Newark airport in US (15th August). The actor who is a global icon of sorts was grilled by the US official as his name is a Muslim one, and the legendary actor felt humiliated with the treatment meted out to him. While the star actor was being questioned in this manner the Jet Airways staff vouched for him and many of his international fans were seeking his autographs, but the US official, drunk on the Imperial arrogance and infected by anti Muslim sentiments refused to recognize Khan. That any Google search on his name would have yielded infinite entries to establish his identity, is an elementary knowledge by now.
Just a few weeks ago, India’s ex-President, the scientist of repute, APJ Abdul Kalam was treated like a commoner by the US based Airlines staff. Irfan Khan was also meted with similar treatment. Other actors, with non Muslim names, have also been given such humiliating treatment by US officials but the logic in these cases is different, Neil Nitin Mukesh for having a skin color fairer then his Hindu name and John Abram for having Afghanistan on his passport. In addition the senior ministers from India George Fernandez and Pranab Mukherjee have also been strip searched in the past.
Most of the channels and many eminent columnists criticized Shahrukh Khan and those voicing their protest on the grounds that it is these security checks which have saved US from another terrorist attack post 9/11 2001. The desirability or other wise of these checks apart, there are two basic questions. One is that can those having diplomatic passports and those listed in India’s list of people exempt from such checks be subjected to these ordeals? Secondly why secondary checks are more for those with Muslim names? These commentators realization of the tasks of US security officials notwithstanding the questions remain the double standards of the security check system.
While the major phenomenon visible here is that of US officials have imbibed the anti Islam and anti Muslim propaganda, post 9/11 2001, the additional factor is the inherent arrogance and superiority complex of this Imperial power since US emerged as the sole super power, after the decline of Soviet block in international political arena. The treatment which US officials are giving to Indian dignitaries and celebrities is in stark contrast to the treatment which Indian administration and people are giving to the US dignitaries. The visit of Hillary Clinton just a month ago demonstrates the reality. The US Secretary of State was not only given a red carpet welcome, Indian media also went gaga about her, starting from describing her smart dresses to the details of her smile at different occasions.
The twin phenomenon of US arrogance as a superpower dictating terms to the whole World and its targeting of Islam and Muslims for political goals have got mixed up here. The global democracy which was trying to come up during the middle of twentieth century has really got a set back during last three decades, and despite the humane instincts of Barack Hussein Obama, American system remains as high handed as before. One appreciates the steps of new American President in closing down Guantonamo bay and the subsequent stoppage of the intense torture and insult of accused of 9/11, especially Muslim youth. Despite that it seems the ground level reality of US has not changed much and Islamophobia is still ruling the policies, mindset and attitude of the US system as a whole.
It is after 9/11 2001, the collapse of WTC, and the accompanying statements of Osama bin Laden, which gave the pretext of launching a propaganda against Islam and Muslims. It was at that time that the word Islamic Terrorism was coined and the distorted version of core words, Jihad and Kafir were strongly popularized in the popular thinking. In a way it manufactured a hatred for Muslims and Islam. While Jihad stands for fighting against injustice, it was presented as killing of non Muslims. While Kafir is a concept totally invalid in current times, it was put across as denigrating non Muslims. The net result was that in the global thinking it came to be regarded that all Muslims are not terrorists, while all terrorists are Muslims. The US officials in general and immigration officials in particular stiffened their attitude towards Muslim immigrants to US. Globally also, particularly in our country the trend began where after every blast here and there scores of Muslim youth were apprehended and tortured, and at most of the times their careers were ruined.
The Pakistani film ‘Khuda Ke Liye’ depicted the life of an average Muslims whom US officials suspect to be a terrorist and the outcome of this can be well predicted. Indian film ‘New York’ also puts forward the cruelty of the attitude of US officials. In Indian context films like ‘Black and White’ and ‘Mumbai Meri Jaan’ depicted this sad reality of our society. Many a good articles and literature has also been produced by scholars, which gives us the real story, but despite all this the propaganda by section of US media and the vested organizations in India against Islam and Muslims continues.
The phenomenon of terrorism is very complex. One core point is to understand the genesis of Al Qaeda type organizations, which were the product of indoctrination in the Madrassas, set up in Pakistan. The syllabus and financial support of these came through CIA; the aim was to instigate indoctrinated Muslim youth to fight against the Russian armies who had occupied Afghanistan. Lately this truth is being said by Pakistani leader’s time and over again. In India the rising communal violence and acts of terrorism because of diverse factors, have been used to present the minorities in a negative light.
We in India can feel hurt, insulted and angry to what is being meted out to Indian celebrities and leaders. It is in a way the attitude of US to humiliate ‘others’, to assert its superiority and hegemony. The commentators criticizing the protest against treatment being meted out to the likes of Shah Rukh Khan and Indian dignitaries have to realize that it is not just to uphold the differential status but to protest against the highhanded attitude of United States. The time has come to revive the global democratic equations where the hegemony of one country is not acceptable and people of all countries and religions are treated with equal respect.
Saturday, August 15, 2009
Victim as Culprit: Emraan Hashmi's House Hunt
Victim as the Culprit
Ram Puniyani
One BJP activist from Mumbai has filed a complaint (August 3rd 2009) against actor Emraan Hashmi accusing him of promoting communal enmity. Mahesh Bhatt who gave statement in support of Emran Hashmi also figures in the complaint. Emraan Hashmi had earlier approached state minorities commission that he has been discriminated against by the housing society, Nibhana in posh Pali hill locality of Mumbai. His complaint has been that he had already paid the advance of a lakh of rupees to the seller of the flat, but the housing society refused to give the no objection certificate on the ground that Hashmi is a Muslim. Many others have challenged this version; the society secretary said that they do not discriminate against people on the ground of religion, etc. A week later the compromise was struck between the actor and the society.
One does not know from newspaper reports, as to which version is true, why should Emraan state what he has stated? One also knows that similar trend of Muslims being denied houses in mixed localities have been there earlier as well. No society or builder will officially state that a people from particular religion are not permitted in their complex, these things operate in a very subtle way. Last year Shabana Azmi also was denied her choice to buy the house in a particular area. To that also many people just disbelieved it and many others ridiculed the actor, doubting the authenticity of the fact. It sometimes really sounds surreal that an actor is being denied a flat in a particular housing complex.
The peak of the reaction is seen in the form of a BJP activist filing a case against the actor for promoting communal enmity! Earlier Shabana Azmi and now Emraan Hashmi have faced this situation. There are many other such cases which might have been there but not known to us. For those who interact with large section of the community it is no secret that this type of denial persists more so in Mumbai and also in other places. The religion-caste based societies are there and they are a big set back to the process of national integration, which began during freedom movement. This process has been going on with lots of hiccups due to the rising communal violence, the outcome of communal politics, which aims at communal polarization.
The exclusions of ‘others’ is of various types. There are Parsi, Jain societies which have excluded those not belonging to their religion. In the aftermath of carnage many a Muslims after taking the beating decide to migrate away from the mixed localities to migrate to safer pastures, which later on come to be dubbed as Mini Pakistan’s. The latest observation has been the members of minority community have not been permitted to return to their original abodes. This was observed in Gujarat and later in Kandhmal. Similarly in areas where Muslims are in majority Hindus have been leaving that area voluntarily. The seeds of suspicion, which make them leave, are sown due to prevailing social common sense which demonizes the minorities. This process of exclusion by choice or by force of circumstances, both is very harmful for the national integration; to the concept of fraternity in particular gets a big beating due to this. Some of Mumbai’s suburbs, Mumbra, Bhendi Bazar, Jogeshwari have come up as areas with heavy concentration of Muslims. This concentration went up in the aftermath of the Mumbai violence of 1992-93. In Gujarat also in most cities Muslims got further isolated in the wake of 2002 carnage.
Due to this pattern of violence the general perceptions in society have worsened and now the whole Muslim community is painted as the homogenous uniform body painted in a color, which has nothing to do with truth. Further this physical isolation intensifies the negativity of perceptions about the ‘other’ community and this is mutually reciprocated by different religious communities. This lack of trust in fellow Indians is extremely dangerous.
So far, those complaining against the discrimination in allotment of housing were at least heard but now they are been alleged to be creating enmity! We cannot gloss over societal problems and expect that they are not there. Ostrich like, we can not hide our heads in the sands of make believe, and deny the realities. It is only after properly understanding the social problems that we can solve it. Emran Hashmi in a way has mustered courage to bring forward the phenomenon which is very much there. To treat such a person as culprit is like accusing the girl who has been raped, as saying that she has invited it! In a way this is also the pattern of society, to accuse the victims as having brought the misery onto themselves because of their own fallacies. There is a perception that Muslims start the riots and invite the trouble for themselves. This of course is far from true as a research by a police officer shows (V.N.Rai, Combating Communal Conflicts) and by the inquiry Commission reports including the latest one of Srikrishna Commission report which studies Mumbai riots.
Technicalities apart we need to address this serious social issue. We have examples in small countries like Singapore, where in the Government housing scheme there are reservations for different ethnic groups. This ensures that people from different ethnic-religious communities are neighbors and have an inbuilt situation where they interact socially. We are far from that. The biased builders and subtle operation of biases in the housing complexes needs to be done away by measures which are multilayered. Legal protection, affirmative action and debunking the misconceptions about minorities are the need of the hour. The compromise struck between the actor and society is welcome and kindles the hope that these exclusionary trends get wiped out in due course, one also hopes we are able to overcome these biases against our own citizens and create a more amicable atmosphere for all of us to live together.
(www.pluralindia.com, ram.puniyani@gmail.com)
Ram Puniyani
One BJP activist from Mumbai has filed a complaint (August 3rd 2009) against actor Emraan Hashmi accusing him of promoting communal enmity. Mahesh Bhatt who gave statement in support of Emran Hashmi also figures in the complaint. Emraan Hashmi had earlier approached state minorities commission that he has been discriminated against by the housing society, Nibhana in posh Pali hill locality of Mumbai. His complaint has been that he had already paid the advance of a lakh of rupees to the seller of the flat, but the housing society refused to give the no objection certificate on the ground that Hashmi is a Muslim. Many others have challenged this version; the society secretary said that they do not discriminate against people on the ground of religion, etc. A week later the compromise was struck between the actor and the society.
One does not know from newspaper reports, as to which version is true, why should Emraan state what he has stated? One also knows that similar trend of Muslims being denied houses in mixed localities have been there earlier as well. No society or builder will officially state that a people from particular religion are not permitted in their complex, these things operate in a very subtle way. Last year Shabana Azmi also was denied her choice to buy the house in a particular area. To that also many people just disbelieved it and many others ridiculed the actor, doubting the authenticity of the fact. It sometimes really sounds surreal that an actor is being denied a flat in a particular housing complex.
The peak of the reaction is seen in the form of a BJP activist filing a case against the actor for promoting communal enmity! Earlier Shabana Azmi and now Emraan Hashmi have faced this situation. There are many other such cases which might have been there but not known to us. For those who interact with large section of the community it is no secret that this type of denial persists more so in Mumbai and also in other places. The religion-caste based societies are there and they are a big set back to the process of national integration, which began during freedom movement. This process has been going on with lots of hiccups due to the rising communal violence, the outcome of communal politics, which aims at communal polarization.
The exclusions of ‘others’ is of various types. There are Parsi, Jain societies which have excluded those not belonging to their religion. In the aftermath of carnage many a Muslims after taking the beating decide to migrate away from the mixed localities to migrate to safer pastures, which later on come to be dubbed as Mini Pakistan’s. The latest observation has been the members of minority community have not been permitted to return to their original abodes. This was observed in Gujarat and later in Kandhmal. Similarly in areas where Muslims are in majority Hindus have been leaving that area voluntarily. The seeds of suspicion, which make them leave, are sown due to prevailing social common sense which demonizes the minorities. This process of exclusion by choice or by force of circumstances, both is very harmful for the national integration; to the concept of fraternity in particular gets a big beating due to this. Some of Mumbai’s suburbs, Mumbra, Bhendi Bazar, Jogeshwari have come up as areas with heavy concentration of Muslims. This concentration went up in the aftermath of the Mumbai violence of 1992-93. In Gujarat also in most cities Muslims got further isolated in the wake of 2002 carnage.
Due to this pattern of violence the general perceptions in society have worsened and now the whole Muslim community is painted as the homogenous uniform body painted in a color, which has nothing to do with truth. Further this physical isolation intensifies the negativity of perceptions about the ‘other’ community and this is mutually reciprocated by different religious communities. This lack of trust in fellow Indians is extremely dangerous.
So far, those complaining against the discrimination in allotment of housing were at least heard but now they are been alleged to be creating enmity! We cannot gloss over societal problems and expect that they are not there. Ostrich like, we can not hide our heads in the sands of make believe, and deny the realities. It is only after properly understanding the social problems that we can solve it. Emran Hashmi in a way has mustered courage to bring forward the phenomenon which is very much there. To treat such a person as culprit is like accusing the girl who has been raped, as saying that she has invited it! In a way this is also the pattern of society, to accuse the victims as having brought the misery onto themselves because of their own fallacies. There is a perception that Muslims start the riots and invite the trouble for themselves. This of course is far from true as a research by a police officer shows (V.N.Rai, Combating Communal Conflicts) and by the inquiry Commission reports including the latest one of Srikrishna Commission report which studies Mumbai riots.
Technicalities apart we need to address this serious social issue. We have examples in small countries like Singapore, where in the Government housing scheme there are reservations for different ethnic groups. This ensures that people from different ethnic-religious communities are neighbors and have an inbuilt situation where they interact socially. We are far from that. The biased builders and subtle operation of biases in the housing complexes needs to be done away by measures which are multilayered. Legal protection, affirmative action and debunking the misconceptions about minorities are the need of the hour. The compromise struck between the actor and society is welcome and kindles the hope that these exclusionary trends get wiped out in due course, one also hopes we are able to overcome these biases against our own citizens and create a more amicable atmosphere for all of us to live together.
(www.pluralindia.com, ram.puniyani@gmail.com)
Sunday, August 9, 2009
Crime and No Punishment
Crime and No Punishment
Malegaon Blast Accused Get a Respite
Ram Puniyani
Eleven suspects of Malegaon blast, September 9, 2008, got a breather (August 01, 2009) when the special court dropped the charges under MCCOA against 11 suspects of the crime. Prosecution failed to show that all accused were member of a single organized crime syndicate. This MCOCA act also requires that there should be two previous charge sheets against one of them. Since the case prepared by police could not prove these the charges have been dropped. The ATS and Maharashtra Chief Minister have stated that they will ensure that they will go to the higher courts, against the order of this court decision. In past Congress has not undertaken any serious efforts to punish the guilty, so this statement of the authorities has to be taken with a pinch of salt.
MCCOA apart, the overall scenario and line of investigation followed by police has left lot of ground uncovered which can come handy for the culprits getting away lightly if the police does not do its home work well. There may also be deeper political dimensions to the issue as well. The first point which struck the observers so far was that for a long time police line of investigation in the blast cases was based on the premise that some Muslim group is involved in the crime. This created two problems. One was that the innocents kept getting arrested and tortured and second that the real culprits could hide under the cover provided by the popular perception about terrorism. The vicious cycle was broken by Hemant Karakre with the impeccable evidence in the form of the Motor cycle of Sadhvi Pragya Singh Thakur from the crowded lane of Malegaon. Her link led to several people and many organizations. The people involved were Swami Dayanand Pandey, Lt Col Prasad Shrikant Puroit, Ajay Rahirar, retired Major Ramesh Upadhayay, Rakesh Dhavade and many others. The connections with Abhinva Bharat, Hindu Jagran Samiti, Army units, Bhonsala Military School (Nagpur and Nashik), Akanksha Resort Sinhgad all emerged and the picture of a broad conspiracy became clear.
The investigating officer, Hemant Karkare, about whose death in 26/11 terror attack, Antulay raised certain questions, faced immense pressure due to criticism from Hindu right wingers, Thackeray’s paper Saamana went on to say that they spit on the face of such a anti-national person like Karkare, and some others also called him as Deshdrohi. One does not know what direct/indirect impact all this had on the future drafting of the charge sheet. Human Rights activist Teesta Setalvad in her articles in Communalism Combat Feb 2009 raised several questions about the charge sheet, which remain unanswered.
One recalls that the Nanded blast (April 2006) case investigation itself was very much muted and it was only the pressure of campaign form Rights activists that the investigation was pursued. Rakesh Dhawade, one of the accused in the Malegaon charge sheet had confessed to his involvement in the training of few youth, for the preparation and detonation of bombs. The training was done near the Sinhgad Fort, Pune, in July-August 2003. Despite this he was allowed to be discharged from the Purbea masjid blast case on July 27, 2009! ATS says it was because the local police did not file a strong enough charge sheet! One does not know whether it is a lack of coordination or there is something deeper to this?
It is beyond one’s comprehension as to why section 125, waging war against the Indian Nation, has not been applied to these accused. In this case the involvement of the serving military officers and the retired ones has not been probed. It has ramifications far deeper then can be seen from the surface. These military officers had the background of Bhonsla Military School, which is practically controlled by RSS. The RSS has its wing for retired military personnel and has a lot of emphasis on cultivating connections with men in uniform. The theft of 60 Kilograms of RDX by Purohit is a pointer of what the serving and military officers can do once they are ideologically indoctrinated by the notions other than that of secular democratic India. Purohit in his narco analysis on 9th November 2008 had revealed about his role in Samjhauta Express blast and a possible role Mecca Masjid blast.
There are multiple aspects of the case involved. One does not support MCCOA at all, it is not only arbitrary and draconian; it also is a refuge for police not to undertake the trouble for deeper investigation and doing its home work properly. Even if one does not trust the narco analysis, there are enough other evidences to link up all these accused indoctrinated by RSS ideology. The point is why so many links which are there for all to see are not followed? Why resort to the short cut of MCOCA, or Narco analysis.
The core point is the biases of the state apparatus, political, bureaucratic and that of police in particular which has resulted in evolution of two sets of justice delivery systems. One is for the affluent and privileged that can get away with whatever they want and the second is for the weaker sections, including minorities. Here right from the police investigation to the charge sheeting, the political influence and biases which influence the process of justice delivery (or the lack of it) and the final verdict all are having a tinge of bias.
The political polices do determine the whole process. It is such outcomes which make a section of population feel that they are used merely as vote banks and when the time of justice comes they are not considered at all. If the culprits of Malegaon are treated with kid gloves under the theory that violence from Hindu fold is retaliatory that will be the travesty of justice of the worst order.
Malegaon Blast Accused Get a Respite
Ram Puniyani
Eleven suspects of Malegaon blast, September 9, 2008, got a breather (August 01, 2009) when the special court dropped the charges under MCCOA against 11 suspects of the crime. Prosecution failed to show that all accused were member of a single organized crime syndicate. This MCOCA act also requires that there should be two previous charge sheets against one of them. Since the case prepared by police could not prove these the charges have been dropped. The ATS and Maharashtra Chief Minister have stated that they will ensure that they will go to the higher courts, against the order of this court decision. In past Congress has not undertaken any serious efforts to punish the guilty, so this statement of the authorities has to be taken with a pinch of salt.
MCCOA apart, the overall scenario and line of investigation followed by police has left lot of ground uncovered which can come handy for the culprits getting away lightly if the police does not do its home work well. There may also be deeper political dimensions to the issue as well. The first point which struck the observers so far was that for a long time police line of investigation in the blast cases was based on the premise that some Muslim group is involved in the crime. This created two problems. One was that the innocents kept getting arrested and tortured and second that the real culprits could hide under the cover provided by the popular perception about terrorism. The vicious cycle was broken by Hemant Karakre with the impeccable evidence in the form of the Motor cycle of Sadhvi Pragya Singh Thakur from the crowded lane of Malegaon. Her link led to several people and many organizations. The people involved were Swami Dayanand Pandey, Lt Col Prasad Shrikant Puroit, Ajay Rahirar, retired Major Ramesh Upadhayay, Rakesh Dhavade and many others. The connections with Abhinva Bharat, Hindu Jagran Samiti, Army units, Bhonsala Military School (Nagpur and Nashik), Akanksha Resort Sinhgad all emerged and the picture of a broad conspiracy became clear.
The investigating officer, Hemant Karkare, about whose death in 26/11 terror attack, Antulay raised certain questions, faced immense pressure due to criticism from Hindu right wingers, Thackeray’s paper Saamana went on to say that they spit on the face of such a anti-national person like Karkare, and some others also called him as Deshdrohi. One does not know what direct/indirect impact all this had on the future drafting of the charge sheet. Human Rights activist Teesta Setalvad in her articles in Communalism Combat Feb 2009 raised several questions about the charge sheet, which remain unanswered.
One recalls that the Nanded blast (April 2006) case investigation itself was very much muted and it was only the pressure of campaign form Rights activists that the investigation was pursued. Rakesh Dhawade, one of the accused in the Malegaon charge sheet had confessed to his involvement in the training of few youth, for the preparation and detonation of bombs. The training was done near the Sinhgad Fort, Pune, in July-August 2003. Despite this he was allowed to be discharged from the Purbea masjid blast case on July 27, 2009! ATS says it was because the local police did not file a strong enough charge sheet! One does not know whether it is a lack of coordination or there is something deeper to this?
It is beyond one’s comprehension as to why section 125, waging war against the Indian Nation, has not been applied to these accused. In this case the involvement of the serving military officers and the retired ones has not been probed. It has ramifications far deeper then can be seen from the surface. These military officers had the background of Bhonsla Military School, which is practically controlled by RSS. The RSS has its wing for retired military personnel and has a lot of emphasis on cultivating connections with men in uniform. The theft of 60 Kilograms of RDX by Purohit is a pointer of what the serving and military officers can do once they are ideologically indoctrinated by the notions other than that of secular democratic India. Purohit in his narco analysis on 9th November 2008 had revealed about his role in Samjhauta Express blast and a possible role Mecca Masjid blast.
There are multiple aspects of the case involved. One does not support MCCOA at all, it is not only arbitrary and draconian; it also is a refuge for police not to undertake the trouble for deeper investigation and doing its home work properly. Even if one does not trust the narco analysis, there are enough other evidences to link up all these accused indoctrinated by RSS ideology. The point is why so many links which are there for all to see are not followed? Why resort to the short cut of MCOCA, or Narco analysis.
The core point is the biases of the state apparatus, political, bureaucratic and that of police in particular which has resulted in evolution of two sets of justice delivery systems. One is for the affluent and privileged that can get away with whatever they want and the second is for the weaker sections, including minorities. Here right from the police investigation to the charge sheeting, the political influence and biases which influence the process of justice delivery (or the lack of it) and the final verdict all are having a tinge of bias.
The political polices do determine the whole process. It is such outcomes which make a section of population feel that they are used merely as vote banks and when the time of justice comes they are not considered at all. If the culprits of Malegaon are treated with kid gloves under the theory that violence from Hindu fold is retaliatory that will be the travesty of justice of the worst order.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)