Commentary/Varsha Bhosle

Reply to an Islamist

Wondering whether I’ve ever had the nerve to dub a disputing Muslim’s belief as "pseudo-Islam", I spent last week scrutinising all my past articles. I’m glad to note that though there is a lot of abrasive stuff about the minority mentality and its socio-political implications for India, I’ve said nothing that can postulate my supreme knowledge and exquisite grasp of Islam and the faith of its believers. However, the curtain-raiser of a long mail from Ms Tahseen Khateeb – "Her defense of pseudo-Hinduism promoted by the BJP Parivar is nothing new" – spurs me hereon to shed even the little prudence I have: For, since when does a mlenchchha (a Sanskrit equivalent of kafir – but which does not appear in Hindu tomes) sit in judgement over what is or isn’t "pseudo" about Hinduism…?

Happily, that such a defense is "nothing new" underscores the point that plurality of opinion is alive and kickin’ amongst Hindus ranging from Sadhvi Rithambhara to Kancha Ilaiah. We are free to believe, do and say what we wish – a concept foreign to Islam which describes Muslims as worshippers and slaves of Allah (ibaad Allah). To be a Muslim is to surrender and submit – on pain of being branded an apostate and blasphemer. And what do I think of that? In the words of Robert G Ingersoll, "This crime called blasphemy was invented by priests and prophets for the purpose of defending doctrines not able to take care of themselves." (As a side-note, I’d like to draw the attention of the VHP to this quote.)

Yup, this mail has certainly been an eye-opener. It’s dawned on me how Hindu fundies differ from Islamists: We engage them only on a narrow political front, careful not to assail their religious beliefs, while never realising that they have no such qualms about attacking the veracity of Hinduism itself. For instance, take this assertion: "Islam is not a 5,000-year-old mythology, Islam is 1,400 years young… The life and times of the Prophet is a well documented part of history". Well, Ms Khateeb, thank your lucky stars that Islam isn’t younger – for, a well documented part about the 9-year-old Lady Ayesha would have put guess who in the dock for guess what.

Apropos Why I am not a Pinko, I have been charged with evading the casteist issues raised by Kancha Ilaiah in order to chart my "favourite course of Muslim-bashing". Ms Khateeb writes, "I don’t see Muslims having anything to do with the barbaric treatment meted out to the dalits. Is there any justification for their plight? No. Is there any intentions to change things? No. Is there any remorse for the centuries-old persecutions of dalits and is anybody ready to apologise? No. Is there any promise that dalits will be treated with the dignity and respect that any human being deserves? No."

Gentle readers, please bear with me while I repeat established facts for the slow: As reported by the Times of India on 30 August 1996, the All-India Muslim OBC Sangathan announced that OBCs form over 90% of all Muslims, while the upper-caste Ashraf (Sheikhs and Sayyads) are a mere 2 to 4%. The other actuality the Sangathan confessed was that caste distinctions are practised by Indian Muslims. In The Pioneer of 24 March 1997, Syed Shahabuddin writes: "Muslim India has an in-built caste system, parallel to what exists in Hindu India. Caste came into Indian Islam with the converts who not only retained their traditional occupations but their inter-relationships as well. Their descendants account for the overwhelming majority of Muslim Indians… the so-called Ashraf have to engage in an agonising reappraisal of their attitude towards the non-Ashraf and take corrective action…" Ergo, we can safely conclude that 96 to 98% Muslims are undergoing some sort of centuries-old persecution under the 2 to 4%…

So Ms Khateeb, you know that bit about "no justification for their plight… dignity and respect that any human being deserves" etc? Stuff it. I don’t air my views on the legitimacy of the Sunni-Shia debate, nor do I comment on even the genocide taking place in Pakistan, Iraq, Iran, Algeria, etc. Do set your own divided house in order before weeping buckets over Hindu inequity and the dalit plight. And as for my having evaded the truth about casteism, I paste my statement from the column – please have a neighbour’s child explain it: "Of course, dalits have been and are exploited; of course they make legitimate charges!" That’s it; I’m not into melodrama, nor into groveling.

The Aggrieved One then goes on to state that Ibn Waraq’s Why I am not a Muslim did not "get attention because the writer does not have an identity. Who knows maybe Varsha Bhosle is the real author… the book does not find a mention by the serious minds whereas Ilaiah’s book is a reference for students of the Jawaharlal Nehru University and is also taught in some other universities in the USA."

Ms Khateeb, your reticence to cite the reasons in support of your opinions and the ease with which you trash Dr Daniel Pipes makes me suspect that you are about as well read as a certain Bedouin. By your rationale, Shobha De should be on a higher literary plane than Chaim Potok since her pulp fiction happens to be on the list of some US universities while his contemplative opus is not. And as for the JNU, that hot-bed of Marxists and alma mater of Prime Minister I K "Open-The-Borders" Gujral, I would’ve been surprised if anti-Hindu garbage hadn’t been on its list. Do not forget that India is a country where The Satanic Verses is banned but The Moor’s Last Sigh is not.

Ms Khateeb then critiques Wanted: A Hindu bigamist, the relevant excerpt from which I reproduce: "If Muslims are so insecure and hence vigilant over any move to invalidate a part of the Shariat, why don’t they clamour for the Quranic code of criminal justice, too? Simply put, because it will affect far too many Muslims adversely as will the barring of polygamy, talaaq and, above all, the instating of alimony." This inspires Ms Khateeb to write: "What she is implying is that there are far too many criminals among Muslims than among Hindus. The quoted statement – not supported by any data – exposes the shallowness of her intellect. Her arguments are not a result of an honest ideology, but are an outcome of a deep-rooted and well nursed malice and hatred towards Islam and Muslims. The concern for children and women is just a smokescreen to tamper with Islamic laws and thus dilute the faith of Muslims."

Now whoa there! Concern for children and women…? Who ever said I had any? Let’s get this straight: I’m no goody-two-shoes and I’ve never lingered tenderly on the problems of either species. You just don’t get it, do you? I am not interested in the plight of essentially weak adults – men or women, Hindu or Muslim – who don’t see themselves as individuals. People must pick their own battles – and I’m brawling for equitable policies at the Centre which is controlled by interests vested in minority vote banks. Read my lips: whether Muslim women do or don’t get alimony is no skin off my back – that there are separate laws governing Indians, is. And that manipulations by Islamists can halt the passing of the thrice-endorsed Adoption Bill in Maharashtra, is even more so. We are talking politics, democracy and law here, not sodden sentiments swayed by silly superstitions.

But let’s revert to the juicy part – crime statistics. About 8 months ago, The Asian Age had carried a reasonably sound survey of crimes categorised by community, based on the remand sheets of the lower courts in Bombay. The six-month survey was assembled by journalist Jyoti Punwani, well-known for her Hindu-bashing coverage of the Srikrishna Commission probe. The findings: about 80% of the criminals at the petty-crime level were Muslims, that figure decreasing when it came to white-collar crime. Please note that under the Indian Penal Code, petty crime includes armed robbery, dacoity and attempted murder – all of which carry heinous penalties by Shariat, which was the point in discussion. Ms Khateeb, I’ll be grateful if you’d wheedle out this report for me; I didn’t keep a cutting as I never thought I’d need it. And, dear lady, I do not "imply", I make frontal attacks.

But back to the mail, and guess what jumped out at me… sati!! Related quote: "Are not these issues affecting women? Don’t children get affected when their mother has to die because of their father’s death?" Amma qasam, I scratched my head over this one for long. Gosh, sati had become a malaise in my absence! I’m aware that Indian womandom is in a flutter because mullahs have been agitating for the marriageable age of girls to be considerably lowered and because little girls are married off to Arabs for a week or so, but I never knew that feminine self-immolation had made a fashionable come-back after the Rajasthan incident of 10 years ago.

And then, Ms Khateeb dropped some pearls which make me wonder if *I* am all there – for if I were, would I be rebutting the following? "Her accusation that Muslims are responsible for the Bombay blasts is sheer nonsense since there has not been any verdict in the case. It is very much likely that innocent people may have been implicated to bring a bad name to the Muslim community… What was the verdict of the commission which investigated the [communal] riots? Not a single Hindu was convicted." Meaning, the law can be evoked when it comes to the non-verdict on Muslims, but the same law becomes a travesty when Hindus are acquitted… Lalahoo, Ms Khateeb, I admit it – you finally manage to leave me speechless.

Tell us what you think of this column