Emraan, Exclusivity and the Pluralistic Indian Society

In a country as diverse as ours, where even physical characteristics differ drastically from one region to another, discrimination towards fellow countrymen is commonplace. Add to this the aspect of multitudinous religions, and the stage is set for exclusivity and narrow mindedness. The Emraan Hashmi episode added some sparks to the dormant, but ever present, debate on partisan housing societies in Mumbai, and raised the more fundamental question about the extent of discrimination faced by the largest minority. From my understanding of the incident, the events took place as stated below.

Mr. Hashmi, on being forewarned (by a broker) about his slim chance of getting an apartment in a particular society on the basis of his religion, decided to put it to the test. The Seller and Buyer agreed to the terms and all that remained was a No Objection Certificate (NOC) from the society. The society delayed granting the NOC beyond a comfortable period of time which immediately brought Mr. Hashmi and his family into action. His family first tried to meet the society members, which the members construe as “barging in forcibly”. Finally the society declined the NOC on the basis of Mr. Hashmi’s onscreen antics as a ‘serial kisser’ thus giving the entire episode a narrow moral dimension.

The moment he was denied an NOC, Mr. Hashmi’s doubts were confirmed. He then decided to do all that was in his power to expose the ‘ulterior motives’ of the society. He leveraged his celebrity status and put into action the all pervasive and powerful media, squarely charging the Nibbana Housing Society with discrimination against Muslims. The consequences of placing the issue in the public domain were two fold. First, the minority community’s feelings of being discriminated against were accentuated, and second, the ‘opposite camp’ immediately charged Mr. Hashmi for playing up the minority card even when no discrimination existed. For every action there is at least an attempt at an equal and opposite reaction.

Both perspectives are parochial in their own way. At times the Muslim community puts faith in a flawed assumption that every Muslim is discriminated against, and in the context of finding accommodation in Mumbai, it is hard for a Muslim to gain admission to ANY housing society. This is an unacceptable generalization. There is no doubt that discrimination on the basis of religion exists in our country, and as the largest minority Muslims are at a greater risk of bearing the brunt of this discrimination, but this does not mean that the problem is faced by Muslims alone, or that every housing society in Mumbai discriminates against Muslims. On the other hand, some representatives of the majority community show no hesitation in accusing minority communities (particularly Muslims) of raking up controversies on false pretences. This argument again creates friction between religious communities and harbours gross generalizations, after all, it would be ignorant to assume that any Muslim who complains of discrimination is subverting the truth.

In the case of the issue at hand, i.e. Emraan Hashmi Vs The Nibbana Housing Society, the former seems to have an upper hand in the battle of allegations. Although the society claims that Mr. Hashmi’s onscreen frivolity is the primary reason for withholding the NOC, the major flaw in the society’s argument is that there are already a number of people associated with the film industry currently living in the building (although none currently active in Bollywood). The biggest chink in the armour is the presence of the Prem Chopra (known for his onscreen notoriety). It is unfortunate that an artist with a long and fruitful association with the Indian film industry has to be dragged into a sleaze contest, but the argument is a valid one. If onscreen ‘obscenity’ is the yardstick by which the society judges prospective inclusions from the film industry, then it must justify the denial of an NOC to Mr. Hashmi, while cordially entertaining Mr. Chopra. Further, the acclaim, respect and remuneration that Bollywood celebrities enjoy today are unparalleled vis-à-vis Mr. Chopra’s heyday. Lastly, time and westernisation have inevitably broadened the tolerance levels regarding onscreen intimacy as compared to yesteryears.

The other perspective to the issue is the heavily accented contention forwarded by Mr. Salman Khan. In his view, the present celebrity status of actors in the film industry may itself by the primary reason behind the refusal by the society. Today’s ‘hero’ inescapably comes with the package of media scrutiny (paparazzi), groups of excitable fans and a loud party culture. This could be one of the factors considered by the conservative and virtuous society, ushering in a new era of ‘celebrity discrimination’.

To decide whether the truth lies in Mr. Hashmi’s allegations, Nibbana Society’s counter-allegations, Mr. Khans contentions, or somewhere in between, is the prerogative of the State Minority Commission, which has been approached by Mr. Hashmi. Unfortunately judging the facts may be somewhat of a herculean task in itself due to the problem of justiciability in matters of discrimination. It would be inviting trouble if prejudiced individual or society would cite the reason for denial of a house in a particularly locality or building as “we do not allow X community”. The house could be denied under any pretext, and sometimes the person discriminated against may not even realise it. Here the benefit of doubt must go to the official mechanisms that have been put in place to deal with any such incident, which may come under the purview of law & order, judiciary, or in this case, the State Minority Commission.

Mumbai, as the commercial capital of the country, exemplifies the diversity of our country, and the diverse discrimination that is a part and parcel of it. Mr. Mahesh Bhatt, while defending Mr. Hashmi on popular media channels, extended a pertinent example. His daughter Pooja Bhatt could not inherit her mother’s house because she was a Hindu, while her mother (along with the respective housing society) was Christian. In the same city, an urban and popularly moderate Muslim couple such as Javed Akhtar and Shabana Azmi complained of the hurdles they had to face in order to get accommodation.
From my own experience in Mumbai, when three of my friends decided to take up an apartment in college, they too saw the inclusive tendencies of Mumbai housing societies first hand. On choosing an apartment in Prabha Devi, they realised that the society harboured a heavy pro-Gujarati bias; therefore entry to non-Gujaratis was highly unlikely. This however worked in their favour as one of the three was a Gujarati. These incidents bring to light discrimination on the basis of religion and region, which are the most common types of housing prejudice, not only in the Mumbai metropolis, but across the country. The question is not whether one religion or region is discriminated against or not. It is a fact that this discrimination does exist, and not only against a minority religion, but also against the majority religion in some cases. The fundamental question is: To what extent, and on what grounds, can a housing society persevere to retain its socio-cultural identity, whether linked to religion, cast, language or region? In my opinion, there can be no grounds for maintaining inclusive societies in a pluralistic and drastically diverse country as ours, as it can only lead to further parochialism and enhance an insular mentality.

Today we live in the era of Right to Information and Right to Education. We are living in times where one of the largest political parties is struggling for survival after being dealt a blow by the very people who it was trying to divide through partisan politics. As we make the transition from dormant spectatorship to an active and aware society which better understands its roles and responsibilities, we must appreciate the benefits of long term accordance rather than short term self interest. Herein lies the importance of individual choice; Choosing reconciliation rather than confrontation, choosing tolerance rather than hatred and choosing experience rather than hearsay. In a country where its own citizens face various forms of discrimination on the basis of race, region and religion, only a gradual change in the mindsets of civil society can lead to a harmonious and heterogeneous society. Only if we sow the seeds of tolerance today, can we bear the fruit of peaceful coexistence tomorrow.

Forced Accountability

With the R. Pradhan report finally being criticised for a lopsided appraisal of the reactions of security forces to the Mumbai terrorist attack, one can finally breathe a sigh of relief. This issue has raised immense controversy and received uninterrupted media attention in the past few days. When the first ‘ratiocinations’ of the report were publicised by the media, there were many questions that remained unanswered. How can only one man in the entire Mumbai police department face the blame for the handling of the 26/11 carnage? Why is the Mumbai Police Chief the only casualty of the Pradhan Committee report? Why have other security agencies, such as the Coast Guard & NSG, not been held accountable? Why was Hasan Gafoor not allowed to submit his comments and make a rebuttal? Unfortunately these pertinent questions have not been considered worthy of mention by the mainstream print and television media thus far. The sadistic pleasure that is ingrained in the unbalanced projection of this issue has been disheartening and the damage that such hasty reporting may have caused to the otherwise spotless reputation of Hasan Gafoor cannot be ignored.

When one man is blamed and accused while members of his own force (both subordinates and superiors) are praised, one cannot help but feel the strong undercurrents of a bias emanating from the report. These undercurrents are so apparent that the two member committee comes across as naïve and tactless in lacing the report with prejudice. From the moment he took up the post of police commissioner, Mr. Gafoor has faced turbulent times, both in terms of adverse events befalling the city, and personal attacks from the opposition parties (some even claim they found him sleeping in his car during the attacks). These accusations, however, have never been backed by concrete proof. It is as though a target was picked out long before the blame game had begun. Whether this bias is political, communal, or both, is hard to distinguish, but its existence can hardly be questioned.

The untimely promotion of Mr. Gafoor as Director General of Maharashtra state police Housing and Welfare Corporation is undoubtedly a safe political move by the ruling parties, particularly in the backdrop of the upcoming state elections. The move disarms the opposition on one hand and ‘promotes’ Mr. Gafoor on the other, thus upholding political diplomacy. Had the state government and CM waited for this clearly unbalanced report to be discussed in the Assembly and had the courage to back the chief of police until proven guilty, it would have been laudable. But we all know that Indian politics is a dirty game where power is the first and only priority.

The irony of the entire situation is that the first agency that must be held accountable for any terrorist attack is the intelligence department. This is because the collection and subsequent provision of crucial information to aid preparation for, and more importantly prevention of, any terrorist threat is the prerogative of this department. However, the commissioner of the State Intelligence Department at the time of the terror attacks (D. Shivananandan) is now the commissioner of the Mumbai Police Department. Furthermore, although this "intelligence failure" has been highlighted in the Pradhan report, it has not hampered the appointment of Shivananandan in any way.

In conclusion, we have witnessed some serious lapses on behalf of the Pradhan Committee, the media and the state government. The Pradhan Committee itself must be investigated for its unfair conclusions, ironically by yet another committee; and a new endeavour to ‘seek the truth’ must be launched. The media should attempt to salvage its reputation as a sensationalist instrument and make a sincere effort to enhance governmental accountability and transparency. As for the Indian politician, till political agendas remain steeped in bias and hatred (against an individual, caste, race, region or religion), energy and resources will continue to be diverted from the key concerns of welfare, justice and security for the citizens of this country.

As unpredictable as ever

In the past few days, there has been excited debate over the recently held elections. I purposely avoided much of the conversation involving predictions of results (including the exit polls). After all, if there is one thing that we learn from history, it is that no one can predict what button the common man will press in that brief moment of card-boarded seclusion. This has been reiterated by one of the most fruitful results for the Congress party. As for me, I was curious about two things, one, will the Narendra Modi-Varun Gandhi strong Hindutva undercurrents in the BJP campaign bear fruit, and two, how the Muslims, particularly in UP and some of the southern left strongholds, will vote.

I was quite sceptical about the secular credentials of the majority community, and had expected more Hindutva bi-polarisation. We were first served with the controversial Varun Gandhi Pilibhit speech, a smart political move in the micro battleground, but which took on new dimensions with the advent of the media. Whether it was meant to cater to a much larger audience, thus enhancing polarity and assuming representation of the hidden feelings of the majority, we will never know. But even if it was supposed to, the message is loud and clear. The fact the every seat outside Gujarat that Narendra Modi campaigned for ended in a loss for the BJP sends out a clear message against hard line and right wing ideology, particularly in the current political scenario. Calling this outcome a beginning of a gradual decline of religion based vote bank politics would undoubtedly be optimistic and idealistic. Some right wing parties may have done well. Maybe the ones that didn’t lacked strong leadership and a broad based political strategy. For all we know the next election might throw up a completely different picture.

But Gujarat has spoken. They continue to wallow in their blood soaked industrialisation and development. To them the balance weighs heavily towards the gain of one community at the expense of another and this indifferent attitude has been demonstrated time and again. A man clearly culpable of genocide, and who has not shown an iota of remorse (which seems to be a matter of pride for him), still remains the king of his Gujarati bastion. The logical inference would be that as long as a party (or person) does enough (infrastructure/development wise) for a majority community, then that majority will not only remain silent, but also vote that party to power repeatedly irrespective of suppression and oppression of any other minority community. Any man or woman capable of efficiently running a state and with good oratory skills can play this political move in a large number of states in this country.

The Muslim vote seems to have swung in favour of Congress even with increased availability of non-BJP (alliance) options. The general populace too seemed to find some solace and stability with the Congress party in the centre. The extent to which this feeling was a result of good campaigning by Congress party workers (including the Gandhi siblings), we will never know. One good move by the party was the removal of Sajjan Kumar and Jagdish Tytler from their respective seats in Delhi. What makes this move even smarter is that such a move hardly influences the indictment and punishment of ‘guilty’ individuals (after all Sajjan Kumar’s brother stood on his behalf), but still helps creat an image of a remorseful Congress which comes out stronger in the backdrop of Pilibhit & Ghodhra. Touche to the Indian politician.

Monmohan Singh’s character also plays a major role in influencing the psyche of the voter. An economist and educationist with a pleasing personality and a simple manner about him is the only prime minister, after Jawaharlal Nehru, to be re-elected after finishing a five year term. Does India want to be represented (even if only in name) by a man whose image still remains free from political dirt (Disregarding the recent hijack commotion)? Did India elect a man who showcases her intelligence, diversity and humility? I certainly think so.

The Swaying Tree

O what a joy it is to see

that sight of moving poetry

a breeze that nestles gleefully

in the open arms, of a swaying tree

With crowns of leaves and greenery

adorning all the scenery

with gifts of fruit and easing shade

those gems of generosity

Have we lost our aesthetic sense?

a bargain for convenience?

without a single caring thought

our printers whir incessantly

We selfishly pollute the air

that all the living creatures share

the air that trees so diligently

try to restore to purity

But hedonism makes us blind

and everywhere the axes grind

chopping and cutting to the ground

the protectors of tranquility

Still they stand, without lament

an embodiment of that quiet strength

if only human beings could learn

something from their humility

Why must they suffer such a fate

at the hands of a human race,

which sacrifices vehemently

for the sake of new technology

Lets hope it isn't much too late

to realise our gross mistake

and give utmost priority

to that selfless gentle swaying tree

Islam & the Beard

Today it is easy for people to “hate” Islam and Muslims in general. With the ever increasing influence of the media, and the actions of a few extremists representing the entire community, I do not blame the layman for falling prey to communal bias. All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing, and radical elements, regardless of region or religion, have always had a more action based approach than their moderate counterparts.

In the case of Islam, one of the primary side-effects of extremism involves facial hair. It is a highly painful decision for a Muslim to keep a beard these days (with or without moustache), without it having any religious connotation. To give a recent example, my cousin had recently graduated from high school and entered the realms of ‘college freedom’. Based on experience, I advised him to experiment with facial hair before he enters the real world of white collars and colourful ties. To my surprise, the idea faced a lot of resistance from some members of the family, particularly my aunt. “He will look like a terrorist, and you know the situation these days” she said. It was the perspective of a concerned mother who feared the social ostracising of her son by the increasingly communal public and an ever suspicious anti-Muslim government.

My cousin managed to sport a beard for a few months and also received some positive feedback about his newly acquired look. But this was the outcome in a reasonably well-off and influential Muslim family (elite?). I wonder what the conclusion would have been if he was living in Gujarat (the modern manifestation of hell for Indian Muslims) or belonged to a poverty stricken and uneducated Muslim family (the true majority), who face much greater risk should the government decide to label one of them as terrorists.

There is no doubt that society generally assumes a correlation between clean shaven individuals and decency, and that this debate has taken place, and will continue to do so, in a large number of households. But for Muslims this decision ceases to be a matter of simply looking proper, and becomes a fear factor. This fear has a negative influence on the psyche of the Muslim youth and helps breed the minority oppression ideology.

There maybe some who wrongly think that emulating a physical attribute of the prophet which was more of a norm at the time, rather than his attributes of justice, equality and peace, makes them endearing to God. But there are many good Muslims who follow the tenets of Islam and want to keep a beard simply for the love of the prophet. I see no fault in their ideology. Then there are others like me who hardly qualify as Muslims in the true sense and want to try out a beard. But who knows, it might catch the eye of a cop with a bias who may harass me unnecessarily. Is it worth the risk?

The day that Muslims lose all sense of victimisation by a "Hindu Raj" will be the day of a true victory for our secular democracy, but that day is far and there is a lot to be done, not only by the fractional secular share of the majority, but more importantly by the quiet eyewitnesses to an open onslaught of their own religion at the hands of people who call themselves Muslims. It is time for real Muslims to take a stand, to take action and to break this silence which allows mentally disturbed manipulators to contort a pure religion and teach violence and hate.

For the time being, the only advice to Muslims who want to experiment with facial hair without any social discomfort is to grow a moustache (no bar on style or size). For the more courageous souls, the moustache may be supplemented by a beard.

Warning: This advice is not applicable to Muslims seeking an easier access to heaven at the time of judgement by growing a beard, or those who want to strike fear in the hearts of non-believers.

Lift Off

India proves its technological prowess yet again by flawlessly launching the RISAT – 2 and the ANUSAT satellites on 20th April at 6:45 am (on schedule). The launch showcases the scientific capability of the ISRO and the efficiency of its trustworthy Polar Launch Satellite Vehicle (PSLV – C12), which put the satellites into orbit. The PSLV, of recent Chandrayaan-1 fame, is one of the most reputed launch vehicles in the world and has already launched 14 Indian and 16 foreign satellites.

The RISAT-2 is a 300 kg Radar Imaging Satellite which is equipped with Synthetic-aperture Radar (SAR) technology. SAR, which replaces a single large rotating antenna (used by conventional radar) with many small stationary antennas, is most useful for defence mapping as it enables the processing of high resolution images irrespective of visibility and weather conditions. Apart from this, the increased earth mapping capabilities can be extremely useful in tackling agricultural issues and natural disasters. SAR makes India, which was previously dependent on US and Canadian satellites, capable of independent monitoring.

The international significance of SAR lies in the fact that it has been developed by Israeli Aerospace Industries. After the launch of Israel’s TecSAR using India’s PSLV rocket in January 2008, this collaboration marks a new chapter in India-Israel relations, which have been kept low key but are becoming increasingly important.

The extent of the use of RISAT-2 as a ‘spy satellite’ is not very clear. The ISRO chief Madhavan Nair, who can’t be blamed for being diplomatic, emphasises on the mapping of natural disasters and agricultural land while ignoring the military surveillance aspect completely. At the opposite spectrum an article in the Times of India calls the RISAT-2 “India’s eye on its borders with Pakistan, China & Bangladesh”. Whatever the case may be, the satellite will definitely strengthen India’s counter-terrorism and military operations.

Another key element of the mission is the replacement of a thirty year old computer system by the new ‘‘Advance Mission Computer and Telemetry System’, which guides the PSLV from launch till the injection of satellites. This makes India more self-reliant and adds to the list of ISRO’s achievements.

Apart from the RISAT-2, the launch of ANUSAT will also have a significant impact, particularly on research in Indian technological institutes. The Anna University Satellite (ANUSAT), the first satellite to be jointly developed by an Indian university and the ISRO, will be used to transfer confidential academic material and to monitor drought, wastelands etc. The successful launch of this store-and-forward communication satellite will motivate other universities to increase satellite based practical research and investment in student projects.

The PSLV-C12, RISAT-2 & ANUSAT stand for India’s excellence in the field of science and technology and enhance the reputation of Indian research and educational institutions in the global domain. Let us hope India can tap more of its technological potential, and use it to tackle glaring environmental and agrarian issues rather than limiting it to the enhancement of nuclear and defence capabilities.

The New IPL

The first two days of the ‘International’ IPL have thrown up quite a few surprises for anyone who followed the tournament last year. To begin with, the ‘successful’ teams last year have been beaten comprehensively in the first two days. Chennai Super Kings (runners up 2008) lost to the Mumbai Indians in probably the closest fought match in this IPL. The champions last year, Rajasthan Royals, were walloped by arguably the worst team last year, the Royal Challengers. Finally, the Deccan Chargers, the team that disappointed last year after building up an arsenal of the dream team of pitch hitters, came through with a strong victory over the ‘all show’ Knight Riders. It is as though twenty-twenty cricket has undergone a drastic image makeover. The four’s and six’s have been a rare treat in South Africa as opposed to what we saw last year. The team totals have declined drastically with Rajasthan Royals’ 58 all-out taking the cake hands down.

With underdogs consistently outperforming the favourites and teams fighting for triple digit totals, the new pitches and weather conditions seem to have a much greater bearing on the game than one would have previously imagined. The experience of the old guard, which was undermined last time, now seems to be a great asset. The bowlers (particularly spinners) have an upper hand on the batsmen, a rare spectacle in the sub continent. Can these changes be attributed only to a change in location? Have the teams that had performed below expectations now revamped their teams and strategy? Is the rain just a short term feature in the tournament? Do the batsmen need more time to get used to the conditions? These questions will be answered as the tournament unfolds, but we can definitely say that this IPL, as compared to its predecessor, is a whole new ball game.

mr Mo... an engaging piece on an observation that most of us in our enclosed micro-societies tend to overlook... although, by the end of it you seem to have answered your own question, it seems... avidly waiting for your next post, especially with the elections coming up along with the imminent BJP win, would be glad to read how your elite view (read Congress) minces the idea of BJP's win, a view not just endorsed by me but by other small town and rural citizens who sleep and wake up with fear of death by terror and are unaware where their next meal may come from in these torrid economic times our government has led us into...
kranti ka waqt aa gaya hai... Is it time for another JP to rise and save us gullible Indians from a dynasty in a democratic cloak?

Whose India is it?

Last night a show on television was hosting a debate on issues stemming from Hindutva groups claiming to protect Indian culture and the consequent opposition expressed by liberal sections of society. The show was by a news channel catering to the urban educated middle class and predictably assumed that the position of the liberal progressive urbanite was the one to reckon with. However, despite the idealogical bias in the show, it did manage to throw out one interesting and fundamental contradiction existing in Indian society at this point. A question was raised about the difference in perception between small town India and big city India on what is considered morally and culturally acceptable in Indian soceity.

First and foremost, this question throws to light the reality of an increasingly diversified India, one where differences in perceptions, aspirations and ideals are glaring not only between small towns and big cities, but even more so between a rural and an increasingly urbanised India. It is an India where social spheres are increasingly drifting apart as a result of the enormous economic evolution underway in the country. From an economic standpoint some might still argue that the economic trajectory will have these spheres converge eventually. But there is no doubting the enormous social and cultural gap that is establishing itself as part of the evolutionary dynamic.

It is not surprising then to see that the idea of what might be socially acceptable to a big city person might not necessarily bode well with people from the small towns with a villager possibly not being able to relate to either of the two mindsets. A villagers social realm rests on principles of close nit community life where everyone knows everyone and every individual's activities are open to public scrutiny. Most are deeply religious and allow themselves to be governed by well established socio-religious customs and norms. Small towns in India largely consist of families with small scale businesses with the majority of the populace engaged with them in some way or the other. The towns consist of close knit areas having a few well known families where the lives of the members are closely followed by the common populace. The increased exposure to different media and western ideas is met with almost stronger opposition from the joint family system which lays utmost importance to public impression and reputation. Big cities on the other hand are characterised by shallow social relations and nuclear families. With ample opportunities to earn and spend, people have little time to think beyond their limited social groups. The general attitude is largely self-centred with little time or inclination to bother about others in the city. The scale and size of the cities also allow for avenues where one can remain unknown and unnoticed.

The socio-economic equations of each of the three groups are so drastically divergent, it is unreasonable to expect any one to relate to, let alone accept the others viewpoint. Also, each group is economically and politically significant enough in its own right so as not to give way to the perception of the others. Each has its own unique social dynamic in which it sees sense and purpose. Unfortunately, these social spheres do not operate in isolation. Further, each has a well developed sense of being part of the Indian identity and in turn feels that it has a right to influence it. The problem gets worse when people feel insecure about their identity and in retaliation attempt to force a particular identity onto others. Who then has a right to determine what is understood as socially acceptable or not in this country? Who has a right to lay claim to the idea of India and what it should be like?

Each social sphere has a definite right to define and follow the limits that make sense to its members in their respective social contexts. Limits cannot be absolutely followed within social spheres just as they cannot be expected to be uniform across them. It is important to realise and inculcate the understanding that today's India is one where multiple and often clashing dynamics exist. There needs to be a conscious recognition of the increasing social divide and a concomitant shift in attitude from confrontation to reconciliation. It is for this very reason that a system of democracy becomes ever so relevant. We are lucky that we have such a system in place and it is thus increasingly important for us to effectively use the institutions available within this system to resolve and reconcile the contradictions which are developing between our ever evolving social spheres. For all its contradictions, we cannot have an India that is one's and not the others. No 'ONE' can lay claim to it.