Home Blog Page 473

I wasn’t educated at drama school with the aim of being a movie star: Nicole Kidman

Hollywood star Nicole Kidman believes she is happy to find her footing as a character actor. “I wasn’t educated at drama school with the aim of being a movie star,” she said. Kidman is also of the view that she ‘played it safe’ with her career in the past but now always looks for roles that will challenge her. ‘I think maybe I played it a little safe in the past, and went for the work I thought I was meant to do, which spoke to the idea of what and who an actress is supposed to be. But, for the most part, I’ve followed my spirit, which motivates me to go against the grain.

‘I’m completely spontaneous and random in my decisions. Never let it be said that I don’t have diverse taste. I love jumping into the deep end. Why not? That’s my favourite saying, I think it has such potential and choice, why not?’ Kidman told Psychologies magazine. The actor said life experiences have made her a better performer and she is happy to be a character actor.

Delhi HC approves release of Film on 1962 Sino-Indian war hero Rifleman Rawat

’72 Hours – Martyr who never died’  – a film based on the life of Rifleman Jaswant Singh Rawat, who was posthumously awarded the Maha Vir Chakra for gallantry during the 1962 Sino-Indian war,  was released on Friday after the Delhi High Court gave its approval.  

Rawat’s family members had moved the court against the release of the film, claiming that it had invaded their and Rawat’s privacy. Besides, they had also sought royalty from Sandhya Entertainment, the producer of the film, and demanded that the actor playing Rawat’s role be changed. The production house told the court that the family’s consent was taken in 2015 and the film was made on the basis of the information given by them. The Court observed that the man’s family members could not claim breach of their privacy as they had consented to the making of the film in 2015.

Rawat was a rifleman in the 4 Garhwal Rifles unit of the Army and had single-handedly prevented the Chinese army for three days from over-running his post during the 1962 Sino-Indian war, before he was killed on November 17, 1962. For his gallantry, he was still being honoured with promotions, the most recent one being of a Major General, it had said. It had also said the post which Rawat had defended against the Chinese Army was now named as Jaswant Garh and there was a room nearby where his personal belongings were still kept safe.

The trend of Judges opting for Recusal is incomprehensible

Justice Lalit Suri and Justice AK Sikri have put too much faith in their notion of “righteousness” and have opted to turn their back on call of duty. While a section of media may continue its slanderous reporting but that should not set the trend of abdication of one’s duty.

Munshi Premchand, the greatest Hindi writer of all times has a message for Justice Lalit Suri and Justice Sikri in his story – ‘Panch Parmeshwar’. The message is that once you sit in judgement, you become God and, in that role, you must put aside your prejudice and preferences, sift facts objectively and judge acts of omission fairly and fearlessly, irrespective of who has committed them and how others would take it if your verdict goes against them. It is obvious neither of the judges fit into Premchand’s idea of a Panch. Both of them recused themselves recently — one from hearing the Ram Janam Bhoomi case and the other from accepting the prestigious nomination for the Commonwealth Arbitral Tribunal – fearing that they will be accused of lacking in intellectual integrity and delivering coloured judgements.

Justice Lalit opted out of the five-member Constitution Bench that was to hear the Ram Janam Bhoomi land dispute, literally in panic. It happened minutes before the hearing began when it was pointed out that as a lawyer, he had pleaded on behalf of Kalyan Singh, then UP Chief Minister, in a case of contempt of court relating to the demolition of Babri Masjid in 1992.  Justice Lalit insisted that it would be inappropriate for him to continue on the bench for he would be seen as favouring the BJP. By his logic, lawyers should not become judges in India, for they would have to frequently recuse themselves from hearing cases of clients whose cases they handled in courts from time to time. The question is, where do you draw the line and what should constitute as irrefutable reason for recusal. Can it be your religion, your caste, the state you come from, your friends, family or your ideological persuasions?

Justice Lalit may be thinking that he has taken a high moral ground but it is not so. He would have gone higher in national esteem had he risen above his professional association with his client, Kalyan Singh and wrote out a reasoned, balanced judgement based on incontrovertible facts in a case that has kept the nation on communal boil for decades. Unfortunately, he chose the easier route. He was afraid that he would be criticised for sympathising with crusaders of constructing Ram Mandir on the disputed site in Ayodhya. Apparently, he was more concerned about what denigrators would say and had no belief in his intellectual integrity and sense of objectivity. 

Justice A K Sikri’s case is even more inexplicable. As a member of the selection committee he had concurred with Prime Minister Narendra Modi to remove Alok Verma as Director of the CBI. The third member was Mallikarjun Kharge of the Congress who disagreed with the majority view. Typical of the slanderous standards of our media reporting, Justice Sikri was accused of siding with the PM Modi to return a favour that PM had bestowed on him by nominating him as a member of the London-based Arbitral Tribunal in the Commonwealth Secretariat. Instead of ignoring this rubbish, Justice Sikri rushed to the press. He explained that the Tribunal membership was not a plum job and that his consent had been taken much before he even knew that that he would be part of a committee that would terminate Alok Verma’s unsavoury dalliance with the CBI.

Justice Sikri did not stop at that. He withdrew his consent to be India’s nominee at the Arbitral Tribunal in the Commonwealth Secretariat. In doing so, he not only let down the country but also encouraged the congenital baiters to hunt for another prey on another day. He forgot that in May 2018, he had set aside governor’s decision and reduced time from 15 days to 48 hours for the BJP leader to prove his majority in Karnataka Assembly, paving way for the Congress-JDS combine to form the government. Still, he was offered the membership of the tribunal by the incumbent NDA (National Democratic Alliance) because government decisions are never taken on the basis of what others feel but what is required to serve the interests of the nation.   

Both Justices must be aware that all individuals have conflict of interest in their lives. But those who refuse to allow these conflicts to cloud their judgement make good leaders and they are remembered. I recall an ICS (Indian Civil Services) officer who had instructed the traffic police inspector to fine his wife for jumping the traffic signal and if she refused, put her in the lock up. During my college days I was an aggressive student leader fighting for the cause of students but that did not deter me from using force as an SP (Superintendent of Police) against the protesting students who were burning buses and looting shops.

All of us have preferences and prejudices which we acquire from the education we receive and the background we come from. But we do not abdicate our responsibilities, worrying that our decisions may be questioned and ridiculed. Justice Sikri and Justice Lalit seem to have put too much faith in their notion of righteousness and opted to turn their back on call of duty. We wanted them to be like Premchand’s Panch and dispense justice like Parmeshwar (God), unruffled by the noise in their surroundings. But Alas!            

Actor Anil Kapoor meets Prime Minister

Bollywood seems to have developed a special interest in meeting Prime Minister Modi. Just a week back a delegation from Bollywood, comprising of stars such as Ranveer Singh, Ranbir Kapoor, Alia Bhatt and Varun Dhawan had met the Prime Minster. Now, actor Anil Kapoor met the Prime Minister Narendra Modi in New Delhi yesterday.

The 62-year-old actor took to Twitter to share the news. “I had the opportunity to meet our h’ble Prime Minister @narendramodi ji today and I stand humbled and inspired in the wake of our conversation. His vision and his charisma are infectious and I’m grateful for the chance to have witnessed it in person,” Kapoor tweeted alongside a photograph with the prime minister.

Not much of a difference between Asiya Andrabi and Mehbooba Mufti : BJP MLC Surinder Ambardar

While speaking on the occasion of Kashmiri Pandit exdous today in Jammu, BJP MLC Surinder Ambardar said that Mehbooba Mufti has separatist tendencies and she is no different from Separatist leaders like Asiya Andrabi and Kashmiri Pandit’s murderer Bitta Kartay and that is the reason BJP broke the alliance with PDP after getting to know the regressive mindset of Mehbooba Mufti.

“It was a bad experience to run the government with Mehbooba Mufti. She had no capacity to run the government which she herself had said after the demise of her father Mufti Mohamed sayed,” Ambardar added. 

While speaking on the topic “Jammu and Kashmir –  The way ahead” , a dialogue in unresolved issues of Jammu and Kashmir with regards to Kashmiri Pandits and 30th year of exile organised by Ten Network and Earth News, MLC added that Kashmiri Pandit exodus was a civilisational onslaught and continues to be so even after three decades. He also added that there is a set pattern and design of Pakistan under which his community was forced was to leave it’s ancient and centuries old habitat for which Kashmiri mainstream and separatists are equally responsible.

Role of Indian diaspora in Nation’s socio-economic development

Diaspora India Media and Communication (DIMC) organised a high powered panel discussion on the “Role of Indian Diaspora in Nation’s Socio Economic Development,” at Ambedkar International centre, New Delhi. The event also witnessed the unveiling of the website of the organization www.diasporaindia.com.

The keynote address for the discussion was given by Shri Dnyaneshwar M. Mulay, Secretary (CPV & OIA), Ministry of External Affairs (MEA), Government of India. The panel discussion that followed was chaired by Ashok Sajjanhar, Former Indian Ambassador to Sweden, Latvia and Kazakhstan. The panelists included Professor (Dr.) Kamla Dutt, an Indian American and an accomplished author, Mohammad Haleem Khan, former Secretary, Disinvestment, Government of India,  Ambassador Anup Mudgal, Former Indian High Commissioner to Mauritius and Colonel (Retired) Jaibans Singh, a reputed national affairs’ specialist and an accomplished author.

While terming the Indian Diaspora as a vibrant strength of the nation Shri Dnyaneshwar M. Mulay stressed the need to open communication channels with the community and the creation of a expert base on the subject. “Currently, many Indians who have done very well abroad still do not feel comfortable. Slowly things are picking up, but still more can be done to be much more effective,” he said. “Today evening is very significant that we are moving in the right direction. I’m really delighted to be part of this journey,” added Mulay.

Professor Kamla Dutt said that India is respected for its non-aggressive and holistic approach to life by any country hosting Indians. It is this quality which puts Indians in high credentials against any other country specially Chinese, Russians or British. Our spiritual face is key to the world to live in peace and together. We should stress on these as Indian Diaspora is more connected to roots on the social value systems and sprituality of India.

Md. Haleem Khan, Former Secretary to the Government of India stressed on the need to brings few practical supports and benefits to the Indian Diaspora community so that they feel more connected to the country. One time engagement in year is not sufficient. Highlighting the economic potential of the Diaspora Khan said that India continues to be the world’s top recipient of remittances from its Diaspora, gathering close 72 billion dollars in 2017-18, as opposed to USD 3 billion in 1991. He said that it is a matter of pride and significance that FDI inflows into India can be expected to cross the USD 80 billion mark in fiscal 2018-19.

Ambassador Ashok Sajjanhar presented a global view of the Diaspora community and appreciated the contributions of Indian Diaspora especially from the Gulf region and African region. Mr Sajjanhar observed that significant pie of remittance is contributed by those who are working in the blue collar jobs and not by white collar jobs. India has to build higher credibility, trust and continued engagement for serious partnership with the developed regions’ Indian Diaspora, he said.  “The role and participation of the Indian Diaspora has become more significant now than ever before. Prime Minister Modi has, on his many visits abroad, to countries like the United States, Canada, and the Gulf region etc., been able to enthuse the Indian Diaspora abroad like never before. This has created space for India at the high table at all global for a,” he added. He also said engagement with the Diaspora should not be limited to economics alone, but should be broadened further to include other areas such as culture, sports, literature and the like.

Shri Anup Mudgal said, “India has, over time, realised the importance of the Diaspora and set in motion in the last three to four years, several initiatives for closer engagement between them and India’s own developmental process.” He particularly laid stress on engagement with Indian origin youth living abroad, and particularly the student community, which he opined constitutes a significant component of global Diaspora.

Colonel (retired) Jaibans Singh said his interest in the Indian Diaspora is derived from the fact that 60 percent of his large family is settled in countries across the globe.

He stressed upon the need to look into the social and emotional aspects concerning NRI/PIO’s. “We need to realise that within our country there are a large number of aged mothers of immigrants, who are in various stages of depression. They have the money, build huge homes, spend as if there is no tomorrow, but feel socially isolated. This situation has a severe effect on their children living abroad.” Colonel Singh further opined that one reason behind the Diaspora reluctance to invest in India is their perception that Indians are not hard working or honest enough to put their money on. So, they prefer to make large houses, but won’t spend on business ventures.

Elaborating about the DIMC’s role in the nation’s socio economic development Pooran Chandra Pandey, Founding Chairman, DIMC said that DIMC will lay priority on hardcore research, evidence digging; reaching out to Indian Diaspora families in India and acting as a credible bridge between the Diaspora and the Government of India.

Shri Onkareshwar Pandey, Founder trustee of DIMC and a senior journalist gave an over view of DIMC, an organization that came into existence in 2013 with the sole aim to become the voice and supporting hand of Indian Diaspora and to provide them all possible required support and recognition in India. “In the last five years, DIMC has worked on the ground, started creating its ground network and has established a presence in 20 states of the country. We plan to cover the entire country, including at the district levels by the end of this year,” Pandey added.

A book titled “Achhi Auratein Aur Anya Kahaniyan” authored by Dr. Kamla Dutt was also released on the occasion and a film on the life and history of the Indian Diaspora in Mauritius, made by IGNOU, was screened. Dr. Daljeet Sachdeva, Deputy Director, IGNOU, and director of this film, gave a brief introduction about the film. 

For Shah Faesal it’s time to wake up and smell the coffee in Kashmir

Shah Faesal is the new flavor in the political landscape of Kashmir. A top rated IAS officer who suddenly had a twinge of conscience that has compelled him to find a new uncharted path. One wishes him well but there is a valid reason to remain skeptical about both his capability as well as his intentions.

Faesal has given interviews and spoken to several journalists after having left the service and it is from his statements that his intent can be deciphered. Faesal says that his decision is in response to the “Unabated killings in Kashmir and absence of credible political initiative from the Centre.” He wishes to “Re-imagine” the concept of electoral politics which, in their current form, he feels, are “an obstacle to the resolution (of Kashmir issue).”

Faesal is emphatic about his decision to not join any political party, but his statements indicate a separatist mindset. “The sentiment is that here people don’t relate to the idea of India,” he has said while also terming the Hurriyat as “the custodian of the sentiment of the Kashmir people.” This can be construed to mean that, in his view, the people of Kashmir are looking for “Azaadi” (freedom from India).

To put it simply, Faesal wants India to come forward, hat in hand, and hand over Kashmir to the separatist Hurriyat and to him to do whatever they will. To achieve his objective he is ready to exert pressure by talking incessantly about the wrongs being committed by security forces (that are fighting to contain terrorism) and play politics with the democratic electoral process in a manner that suits him.

It would be unbecoming to go so far as to say that he is on the payroll of some anti-India forces as is being alluded from some quarters but, at the same time, it would be simplistic to consider his decision to be entirely the product of a emotional upheaval. The fact that he has openly admitted to his admiration for Pakistani Prime Minister Imran Khan and feels “inspired” by him gives a clear idea as to where he will be looking for support.

It is time for Faesal to wake up and smell the coffee! The “unabated killings in Kashmir” that he talks about is something that worries every person in India and the world. In fact, Indian Army is most distressed by the violence, as is apparent from fervent appeals being constantly made to Kashmiri youth from the Army Chief to the junior-most company commander to shun the path of violence and express their problems in a political forum.  If Faesal wishes to make a difference he should also reach out to the youth and wean them away from the self destructive path of terrorism.

If he wants a “credible political initiative” then he should convince the Hurriyat to come on to the table with an open mind and clean hands. One would like to remind him that New Delhi, over the years, and with successive governments of both erstwhile UPA and the incumbent NDA, has given offer for such talks that have been shunned in a most arbitrary, highhanded and literally abusive manner by the Hurriyat. He should read more deeply into the Hurriyat meeting with Deputy Prime Minister Lal Krishna Advani in 2004, the offer for Round Table discussions by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh over two years from 2005 to 2006 and the latest statement by Home Minister Rajnath Singh expressing readiness to talk to those who may not necessarily be like-minded. Apart from waxing eloquent on the subject, Faesal should also specifically state what he wants the government to do beyond what it has done already. He should further give a guarantee that in the eventuality of the government agreeing to his suggestions, he will be able to get the Hurriyat and other political entities on board for meaningful talks. 

So far as the “Re-imagined electoral politics” are concerned, one will have to wait and see how he develops this model before commenting upon the same.  There are inherent contradictions in the posture that he has adopted.  Presently, it is unclear whether his concept involves standing for elections or not.

An initial reaction to his statements is one of dealing with a person who is either confused or intelligent beyond comprehension. He has nothing new to offer but, on the other hand, he seems to be ready to push a few more pliable youth to their deaths as ignominious terrorists. He is willing to join the bandwagon that believes in creating disruption and divisiveness of a type that the common man is fed up with.

One wonders if Faesal has bitten more than what he can chew. Being devoid of any new ideas he will only encroach into the space of the separatist leaders who are known to guard their position with exemplary determination. They are masters in not sharing the goodies even as they keep jumping ships in accordance with the situational demands. Nobody has been able to encroach in their territory for decades on end.

Nevertheless, in case Faesal is genuine in his concern for the people and aware that their future is secure only so long as they are a part of the democratic Indian Union, one would not hesitate from wishing him success. He has expressed a desire to “bridge the gap to represent the people truthfully,” it remains to be seen as to what he construes to be the truth. If what he has to sell is only “old wine in a new bottle” then he will face ignominy and frustration sooner than he expects, since he will also be seen as yet another self serving politician and a “daily wager” as he so disdainfully refers to the existing leaders of his region.

Muslims are unsafe only in countries where they are in majority: Syed Rizwan Ahmed

Islamic Scholar Syed Rizwan Ahmed blamed the unhealthy association between Muslim clergy and Muslim intellectuals for pushing Indian Muslims away from the mainstream. He termed his cousin and actor Naseeruddin Shah’s comments on “intolerance” as irresponsible and reckless. Rizwan also called for action against the fake Gau-Rakshaks (cow protectors) to build harmony between Hindus and Muslims.

Excerpts of the Interview

Q: The debate over ‘rising intolerance in India’ has cropped up yet again. This ‘intolerance brigade’ has found a fresh breath of air after Naseeruddin Shah’s recent comment on intolerance. A few people have even claimed that they feel ‘safer’ in Pakistan than in India. How do you see this?

Ans: Intolerance in India is the brain child of Muslim incompatibility to co-exist peacefully with other faiths. After the bloody Partition (of India) in 1947, Indian leaders, to whichever political party they belonged, preferred India to be secular. Also, the Hindus of India did not object to it at that time. That was a rare example of tolerance ever exhibited by any faith in history. However, the question is what have the Muslims done to Hindus in return? Sadly, absolutely nothing. And ever since Manusmriti was rejected, and Hindu laws were codified under modern law, the political dispensation of Jawaharlal Nehru offered special privileges to Muslims. Since then, there have been many incidents where Muslims failed to play any pro-active role, be it the Shah Bano case, or the Kashmiri Pandits when they were kicked out of their original birthplace, or the rampant and illegal immigration of Bangladeshis into India. So as time passed, the Hindus started feeling that they were getting ‘raw deal’ under the guise of secularism and that was hurting them somewhere down the line. Gradually, that feeling manifested itself, and now the Hindus have become more articulate, assertive, vehement which today is being perceived as intolerance.

Today, intolerance in India means a person questioning the minority communities such as Muslims, or a person holding minorities accountable for their conduct, or anyone asking them to conduct themselves within the framework of being an Indian. This is considered intolerant.

For me, there is nothing like intolerance. It is just a false narrative of the pseudo-seculars and intolerant Muslims. The statement given by Naseeruddin is reckless and irresponsible. He is just a loose cannon ball.

Q: How do you view this intolerance or the insecurity narrative being talked about over the last few years?

Ans: Muslims have become habituated to throwing tantrums, and being pampered in the name of minorities. The moment someone starts questioning them over their tantrums, they raise a hue and cry about ‘rising intolerance’.

Q: Being a Muslim yourself, do you believe that Muslims are not safe in India as several other Muslims have claimed…

Ans: Muslims are only unsafe in one part of India, i.e. after you cross the Banihal tunnel of Jammu and Kashmir and enter the Kashmir belt (Kashmir Valley) of the country. Muslims are only unsafe in nations where Muslims are in the majority. But unfortunately, wherever Muslims are in the minority, they create such a situation in which they end up being insecure due to manufactured fault lines in the name of divine superiority and thus being victimised by ‘others’.

Q: On social media platforms whenever you speak about the negative side of Islamists or condemn their acts, you are targeted…

Ans: These set of people have forgotten the essence of Islam. Islam was revealed in the land of ignorance that was Arabia. Islam was revealed to reform the people of Arabia. These people today feel that Islam in the form delivered around 1400 years back as the most reformed religion or faith. For them reformed Islam is no Islam; for them, freedom of expression does not exist. The doctrine of Ijtihad, meaning application of mind in the backdrop of Islam to reach a logical conclusion, was shut in the 12th and 13th century. Since then if someone questions or criticises Muslims, that person is branded as an apostate or ‘kaafir’ for questioning or criticising Islam.

Q: While the Narendra Modi government claims that Triple Talaq Bill is the need of the hour, Opposition parties along with some Muslim patriarchal organisations are opposing the move. What is your opinion?

Ans: Triple Talaq is not a part of Islamic theology. It became part of Islamic culture through executive order, and because of this in most Muslim countries, it has been abolished. 90% Muslim women feel that Triple Talaq is undesirable and most Muslim men feel the same way. But the animosity to Narendra Modi runs so deep in the Muslim psyche that they do not want to be seen to be appreciative of Modi’s stand on Triple Talaq. And this animosity is keeping them silent and they are not supporting the idea to abolish Triple Talaq for they may be seen standing next to Narendra Modi.

The people and the organisations who are saying that Modi is targeting Muslims and wants to put them in jail, they should hold a press conference and announce that Talaq-e-biddat ceases to exist in India as per Sharia also.

They should issue a circular to all the Sharia courts and submit an affidavit under the same petition of Triple Talaq in the Supreme Court that as per Sharia also, Talaq-e-biddat ceases to exist. The moment All India Muslim Personal Law Board does this, the bill shall by default, become irrelevant. The law shall not move in because the law and Sharia shall be on the same platform. Thus registration of FIR shall be infructuous with no Muslim male ever going to jail. No Triple Talaq, no jail; win-win for all. But they will never do so because they want to end up showing we made Narendra Modi lose in his endeavour.

Q: It has been more than 70 years since India’s Independence, but the Muslim community is still considered backward. Who do you think is responsible for this backwardness of the Muslim community?

Ans: Two major players are responsible for the backwardness of the Muslim community. One is the Muslim Ulema, and surprisingly, the other is educated Muslims. No community is educated in toto. Any race or community which has been reformed, it has been through a handful of literate people who have the wisdom to see the future.

The problem with Indian Muslims is that the educated class of Muslims connived with the clergy and did not support the reform within the community. Had the Muslim intellectual class challenged the community after Independence and had pushed the community to embrace the mainstream, the scenario would have been altogether different today. However, the Muslim intellectuals and clergy are hand in gloves. That is why I say the idea of the Quran in one hand and laptop in other does not suit my idea of Muslim reform.

I want to add that the political parties who have always shot at the ‘Right Wing’ using the shoulder of average Muslims, have always exploited, threatened and made the Muslims realise that the existence of Muslims and Islam in India is under threat because of Right Wing. It was this threat perception they inculcated in average Muslims, rather than pulling them into the mainstream; they pushed them out of the mainstream.

Instead of ironing out creases of doubts and fears from the minds of average Muslims, the Muslim intellectual class and pseudo-intellectual parties helped the clergy in pushing the community out of the mainstream in the name of religious identity.

Q: It is alleged that Indian Muslims find it difficult to say ‘Bharat Mata ki Jai’ and sing ‘Vande Mataram’. Even most of the time Muslim leaders and organisation openly say that we will not chant ‘Bharat Mata ki Jai’ and ‘Vande Mataram’.

Ans: As a Muslim scholar, I see a difference between ‘Bharat’ and that between India / Hindustan. For me, Bharat is not about geographical boundaries; it is about tradition and the Bharatiya ideology. From ‘Satyug’ till date, everything sums up as ‘Bharat’; the thought, civilisation, culture, tradition, language and ancestors.

Muslim clergy and intellectual class feel that the moment they chant ‘Bharat Mata ki Jai’ or ‘Vande Mataram’, they will submit themselves to the ideology of Bharatiyata. Instead, they depict themselves submitting to Arab ideology or the idea of Ummah, which says that Islam is one community which has nothing to do with isolated nationalism.

Q: It has been alleged many a time that the Modi government is against Muslims. How true is that?

Ans: Any person who shall not pamper the Muslim community or ignore their tantrums shall be perceived as anti-Muslim.

Q: What is your opinion about the Ram Mandir (Temple) at Ayodhya?

Ans: About Ram Mandir, I want to tell my Muslim brethren that as a responsible minority, we should not get into an argument on ‘Where was Sri Ram born?’ The day archaeological evidence proved beyond doubts that a man-made structure existed under Babri Masjid, that was a beautiful moment for the Muslims to withdraw from that piece of land leaving the Hindus to decide where Ram was born or whether Ram Mandir is to be built there or not.

Acknowledging the fact that this land belongs to some other faith, Muslims should have unconditionally withdrawn from the disputed space of 2.77 acres, asserting for this being last such dispute.

Q:  What is your opinion over RSS (Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh)?

Ans: How RSS came up? In 1906, Muslim League comes up with two-nation theory; 1909: Separate electorate for Muslims; 1917: Khilafat Movement; 1919-1924: Riots/ Mopla Massacre; 1925: RSS.

From 1947 to 1962-1965 War and the natural calamities India has faced, RSS has always stood up at the hour as an organisation. And when it stood up, it did not discriminate between Hindus and Muslims. On only one occasion—Emergency (1975), Muslims and RSS fought together shoulder to shoulder against the political dispensation. But surprisingly after Congress came to power, India witnessed severe communal riots that subsequently created enmity between RSS and the Muslims, which is still alive. The moment average Muslim starts developing an understanding and compatibility with RSS, the whole idea of pseudo-secularism will fall flat on its face in the country on which several political parties have been enjoying undisputed power for the last 70 years. Hence, they manufacture rift between RSS and Muslims regularly.

Q: What is the solution to ensure Hindu-Muslim harmony in India?

Ans: In the last four years, the primary reason behind the rift between Hindus and Muslims are the Muslim clergy, pseudo-secular parties, Muslim intellectual class and fringe Hindutva elements. A very wrong perception about India has been created globally and also in the psyche of nationalist Muslims because of some deaths in the name of Gau-Raksha (cow protection). The BJP government should have been more impartial and acted strictly against the fake Gau Rakshaks or those who are glorifying the killings in the name of Gau Raksha.

(this interview was first published in Organiser Weekly)

Why women are fleeing Mohammed bin Salman’s Saudi Arabia

Gender inequality is widespread and pervasive in Saudi Arabia. The country’s politics, society and specific interpretations of state Islam work together to impose the most oppressive regime on their women. The Saudi women need a political solution that guarantees their safely rather than just live in a country that allows them to attend football matches, circuses and cinemas.

Saudi Arabia is facing a social problem that requires an urgent political solution. Women runaways, estimated to be over 1,000 cases, are now regular news. Rahaf al-Qunun, the 18-year-old who was stranded at Bangkok airport on her way to Australia, was put under UN custody to be accepted as an asylum seeker.

After blockading herself in a hotel room and broadcasting her plight and fears of being forcibly returned to Saudi Arabia, she finally reached Canada where she expects to lead a normal life.

Rahaf Mohammed speaks to media in Toronto, Canada. 18-year old Rahaf fled from Saudi Arabia and has been granted asylum in Canada.

Bring back the girls

The Saudi government may have tried but failed to forcibly repatriate her. In similar cases in the past, Saudi embassy staff intervened and forced the airport authorities to cooperate and bring the girls back. Rahaf may be lucky but Dina Ali Lasloom wasn’t.

In April 2017, Lasloom publicised her case from Manilla airport: “They took my passport and locked me up for 13 hours … if my family comes they will kill me. If I go back to Saudi Arabia I will be dead. Please help me”.

Thousands of miles away from Saudi Arabia, the 24-year-old was arrested at Ninoy Aquino International Airport in Manila while she was in transit on her way to Sydney. Two uncles, who arrived to return her to Saudi Arabia, kidnapped her from the airport.

She screamed and kicked as they forced her to board Saudia Airline flight SV871 to Jeddah.

The Philippines authority, a signatory to the 1951 United Nations Convention on Refugees, denied that they cooperated with the Saudis in this case. But forcing an adult to enter an aeroplane against her will is not easily accomplished without the cooperation of the police and the airport immigration officers.

In Lasloom’s case, airline security officials and two men secured her forced repatriation to Saudi Arabia, according to eyewitness account.

Saudi women’s plight

In May 2017, only a month after Lasloom’s case was hotly debated in the Saudi press and globally, two sisters, Ashwaq and Arij Hamoud, fled to Turkey to seek asylum according to several brief videos they recorded on their mobile phones.

They posted the videos online and claimed that their family had abused them physically and forced them to live as prisoners in their own homes. According to one report, the Turkish authorities detained the runaway sisters, aged 18 and 19, after their family put a request through the Saudi embassy to bring them back.

The cases of Dina, Ashwaq, Arij and now Rahaf – among others – confirm a persistent narrative about the plight of Saudi women who are constrained by family, religion, state and culture, and the cooperation of foreign governments.

The cases were all related to two issues– first the guardianship system, which is perhaps the most restrictive in the Muslim world when it comes to women’s autonomy, freedom and choices. It restricts women in ways unimaginable in other countries. A woman is not a legal person and remains unable to lead a life free from the authority of others, mainly male relatives.

The guardianship (wilaya or wisaya) system is not legally codified but is enacted through a series of informal and formal bureaucratic arrangements that stipulate that a father, husband, brother, or even son has complete authority to approve matters that dictate the daily lives of women.

State failure

In courts, judges who apply sharia law, according to the most restrictive Hanbali interpretations, side with male relatives and uphold the wilaya system. State institutions (e.g. hospitals, schools, universities, and employers etc.) continue to demand the approval of male guardians before they deal with women. Education, health, travel, employment and marriage among other domains all require the approval of the guardian.

Second, the women runaway problem is a function of the failure of state institutions to provide security and protection for women. Women who are allegedly transgressors can be detained in state-run special centres. They cannot be freed unless a guardian agrees to sign their release documents.

If a woman is abused by a father and runs away and is then detained by the authorities, it is this father who should present himself as her guardian to give permission for her to be free again. The contradiction in the system is obvious: The abuser is still the guardian.

So why are so many Saudi women fleeing the country — often to be forcibly returned? This is happening in the middle of the euphoria about the crown prince’s many social reforms. We are told that women can now drive, go to the cinema, and enjoy concerts. But these apparent new freedoms have not dissuaded these women from fleeing the country.

In an attempt to portray itself as working towards gender equality, Saudi Arabia recently allowed it’s women to drive cars. Activists say this is an eyewash. They say it’s too little and too late. Photo: Reuters

At the heart of this problem, that is symptomatic of wider and pervasive gender inequality, is the way politics, society and specific interpretations of state Islam work together to impose the most oppressive regime on women.

Restriction on movement, the guardianship system, disenfranchisement, forced marriages and unfavourable divorce laws are but varied manifestations of general discrimination against women.

The official narrative

In its official narratives, the Saudi state portrays itself as a paternalistic agent, supporting women through extensive welfare provisions in health, education, social benefits and employment. The state enforces a type of patriarchy that is neither entirely private nor public but where the two spheres complement and reinforce each other.

This patriarchy easily and comfortably moves from the family domain to the public sphere where state agencies monitor its contours and reproduce both the dominant ideology, for example in the schools’ religious study curriculum and the various fatwas from the official ulama, and the practices that keep it intact.

Discrimination and marginalisation are perpetuated in Saudi Arabia because the state, the family and religious institutions cooperate to restrict women’s choices and perpetuate their dependency. Often this starts within the confines of the household. If a woman experiences abuse and restrictions within her own family, she has nowhere to turn.

In the runaways’ cases, state agencies inside Saudi Arabia and outside it (Embassies) promptly become accomplices in the crimes perpetrated by family members. The Islamic judiciary is usually expected to cooperate and issue legal rulings to return the girls to their abusive families.

Running away from an abusive family is a crime, punishable by detention, enforced by state agencies, and sanctioned by strict religious interpretations of Islamic law. State, society and religion work together to maintain gender inequality.

The state provides prison-like shelters that most abused women prefer not to be taken to. Bad conditions and restrictions on their freedom inside the shelters, combined with the stigma of being sheltered, make women hesitate to seek help from such badly run institutions.

A political solution

While many remain silent, a few women have gone public with their cases of abuse. More than a decade after the famous television presenter, Rania al-Baz, was badly abused and disfigured by her alcoholic husband and struggled to free herself from him, many younger women are likewise seeking to flee. Al-Baz’s case was taken up by a charitable organisation under the patronage of a princess.

Only when the presenter was seriously disfigured was she saved and treated in hospital. This happened only after a crime of passion became an affair of state. She then went to France where her memoirs were published in 2005. Despite her injuries, her flight to France gave her an opportunity to register her presence as an abused Saudi woman.

Rahaf, the most recent runaway case, is now in Canada. However the solution to this issue is not the flight of more women in the future. Saudi women need a political solution that guarantees their safety rather than simply a state that allows them to attend football matches, circuses and cinemas.

The real reform is when women — and for this matter men — can feel secure in their own country, free from abuse by family or state agents. For this to happen, only political will is needed to deal with all aspects of oppressive patriarchy that limit women’s choices.

(This article was first published in Middle East Eye. It is being re-published in News Intervention after due permission from Professor Madawi Al-Rasheed)