By Ajaz Ashraf
The lynching of Tabrez Ansari in Jharkhand has acquired multiple meanings for Muslims. His death has come to symbolise the trauma of Muslims at the atrocities committed on them and the Indian state’s indifference to their plight. His killing represents to them the futility of reposing faith in non-BJP parties for countering the Hindutva brigade. This in turn has persuaded them of the need to express their anger and demand the enforcement of their constitutional rights.
Protests against the lynching of Ansari have been far more widespread than the impression conveyed by the media, which has either focussed on those in which the participation of people was extraordinarily high, such as the one in Malegaon, or those that sparked off communal tension or led to police action, such as in Meerut and Agra in Uttar Pradesh and Surat in Gujarat. In Ranchi, Jharkhand, an anti-lynching protest triggered an incident of confrontation between Hindus and Muslims, but did not spiral out of control.
The media have failed to capture the geographical spread of protests against the lynching. For instance, few know of protest rallies in Bhatkal and Vijayapura in Karnataka, Mau and Jaunpur in Uttar Pradesh and Mewat in Haryana. Just about every town in west Uttar Pradesh is said to have witnessed protests against the lynching of Ansari.
I spoke to four people who were among the key organisers of protests at four different places. Three features were common to their narratives, though differing in nuances. One, the protests were organised under local pressure. These were not coordinated by a national organisation, whether political or socio-religious in orientation. Two, attempts to ensure participation of Hindus in the protests mostly failed. Three, those who delivered speeches at the protest rallies spoke the language of constitutionalism.
MaulanaUmrainMahfoozRahmani, who is one of the four secretaries of the All India Muslim Personal Law Board, was among the principal architects of the massive protest rally at Malegaon on July 1. Rahmani said the anger among the community’s youth triggered apprehensions that they would take the lead if community leaders did not provide them a vent to release their emotions. It is a testament to Malegaon’s fury and dismay that a lakh of people protested.
Malegaon’s was exclusively a Muslim protest, barring the participation of 100-200 Dalits. “We did invite the Hindus to protest, but perhaps the short notice was the reason why they mostly kept away. Perhaps the other reason is that secular-minded Hindus are themselves scared,” Rahmani said. He said Hindus should understand that lynching is not a Muslim issue. “Lynching diminishes India’s image worldwide, portrays disorder and chaos. In such a circumstance, do you think MNCs will establish branches here?”
Rahmani said Muslims have been abandoned and they must prepare to defend themselves. They should, for instance, pursue legal remedies against lynching rather than merely protesting, which, he said, could be exploited to polarise the society even further. But silence and inaction aren’t options either.
“Would Muslims have felt the need to protest alone had the opposition parties launched a movement against lynching?” Rahmani asked. “India no longer has a secular party. Look at the Congress; its Rajasthan government filed an FIR against Pehlu Khan [a victim of lynching].”
Hundreds of miles away from Malegaon, in Mau, Uttar Pradesh, an anti-lynching protest was organised on July 5 by the Mau NagrikManch, a multi-religious body. Yet the only non-Hindus who participated in the rally, which drew an estimated 5,000 people, were those on the stage, most of them belonging to the Left parties.
This wasn’t the first occasion Mau had a protest against lynching – it witnessed one on July 14, 2017. Mohammad Shahzad, a member of the Mau NagrikManch, said that he and a friend went around Hindu colonies for 15 days to mobilise support for the rally. “But it was to no avail. They just didn’t come for the rally,” he said.
They did not turn up for the July 5 rally either. Shahzad blamed their absence on political parties which issue statements against lynching but do not mobilise people to oppose it. “With only Muslims protesting against lynching, I fear the chasm between communities will grow,” Shahzad said.
This is particularly so because Muslim youth are extremely agitated over the barbaric killings. In Mau, for instance, they did not chant the staid slogans the Manch had coined – for instance, “Khamoshhain, majboornahin (We are silent, but not helpless).” Instead, they voiced demands for hanging those accused of lynching.
“In my own speech,” Shahzad said, “I asked the people why they are chanting slogans and applauding speakers, some of whom were a bit aggressive. I asked the crowd: Aren’t we here to mourn the death of Ansari?” From the avowed aim of expressing sorrow, the rally became the site for expressing anger and belligerence.
The third person I spoke to was Maulana Abdul AleemBhatkali, a member of the All India Muslim Law Board, who resides in Bhatkal, Karnataka, which witnessed thousands taking to the streets against the lynching on July 5. Organised by a local group, Majlis-e-IslahwaTanzeem, Bhatkali said the participation of non-Muslims in the protest was negligible. “Leaders of all political parties were invited. They promised to come. But very few were noticed,” he said.
Bhatkali, too, spoke of the pressure from the community to protest against lynching. There was a rising murmur among the young that the Tanzeem should organise a protest under its banner or else they would. Even a downpour did not dissuade people from participating in the July 5 protest.
The speeches at the rally were decidedly political in nature. A media report quoted former general secretary of the Tanzeem and senior journalist HaneefShabab as saying, “We did not kill Mahatma Gandhi, Indira Gandhi and Rajiv Gandhi. We all know who did it and we all know who worship their killers.”
Shabab subtly questioned Hindutva’s idea of citizenship, which essentially privileges Hindus over Muslims and Christians. He said, “For those who ask us to go to Pakistan, let it be very clear to them, you can kill us here, we are ready to go to qabristan [graveyard] here but we won’t go to Pakistan. This is as much our country as much as it yours.” To Shabab’s argument, Bhatkali added, “It is so inhuman to kill the weak, as Tabrez Ansari was. This will only give a bad name to Hindustan.”
My fourth narrative came from Niyaz Ahmad Farooqi, who is the secretary of the JamiatUlama-i-Hind, a socio-religious organisation with a 100-year-old history and a pan-India footprint. The Jamiat, famously, opposed Partition and Jinnah’s two-nation theory. On June 26, a three-member team of the Jamiat flew down to Ranchi and presented a memorandum against lynching to the Jharkhand government. For an hour or so, a 100 people protested at the site.
Jamiat, which boasts the capacity to organise protests, had consciously taken the decision to keep the protest outside Raj Bhavan low-key. Farooqi explained, “Our purpose is not to create a rift between communities, particularly in the political environment prevailing currently, by displaying anger. We do not wish to speak against political parties, including the BharatiyaJanata Party.”
Farooqi said the primary target of the Jamiat’s protest is the state’s inaction against lynching. “It is painful to see Muslims getting lynched. Mobs are killing Muslims today; they will kill from another community tomorrow. The need is to create a multi-religious platform to protest against the state.”
For five years, Muslims waited patiently for the opposition to mobilise people against lynching. Perhaps they also refrained from protesting in the hope that the BJP would be voted out in the 2019 Lok Sabha election. Neither happened, and Ansari was brutally killed within a month of the Modi government coming to power. The anger of Muslims has brimmed over.
“These protests,” said M.R. Shamshad, a Supreme Court advocate who engages with Muslim-related issues, “mark a failure at the political, social and judicial levels. It is a failure at the political level because no political party has displayed the courage of conviction to initiate a movement against lynching. At the social level, the protests haven’t drawn support from non-Muslims. At the level of judiciary, trials in lynching cases are being delayed and bail is being granted to the accused.”
It won’t be wrong to say that the protests of Muslims are but a cry of anguish in isolation, a yearning to be heard by the state gone deaf, a prayer to other religious communities to oppose lynching, an expression of disappointment at the parties which take their votes but do not combat the hate politics of the Hindutva groups. In case these messages coded into their protests remain unheeded, Muslim alienation will likely deepen further.
By Amir Sultan
In his book In the Land of Israel novelist and writer Amos Oz classifies a tragedy into two types; one being the Shakespearean and the other Chekhovian. He writes,
“…there is a Shakespearean resolution and there is the Chekhovian one. At the end of a Shakespearean tragedy, the stage is strewn with dead bodies and maybe there is some justice hovering high above. A Chekhov tragedy, on the other hand, ends with everybody disillusioned, embittered, heartbroken, disappointed, absolutely shattered but still alive.”
William Shakespeare and Anton Chekhov (read as Chie-Kof) were both playwrights and dramatists. Both of them in their works have tried to shed light on various aspects of human nature. However, Anton Chekhov as seen by the renowned novelist Amos Oz gives us a better understanding of the tragedies happening with us. His portrayal of tragedy is what most of us go through. As the quote states that the Shakespearean tragedy ends with death as a solution to all problems and issues that a man faces. Demise of a person(s) like in Romeo and Juliet is what defines a tragedy. In comparison to it, Chekhovian tragedy is epitomized with life, life worth not living.
One of the aspects of modern life that typifies a Chekhovian tragedy in our time is substance abuse. Substance abuse is one of the huge problems that our generation is facing. Globally, according to World Drug Report (2017) there are 29.5 million people who are substance abusers. The number that is almost equal to the population of states like Nepal, Sri Lanka, Czech Republic, United Arab Emirates and many other countries.
It’s self-evident that all people are sober. Living life in light, joy and to its full, but suddenly some of them get introduced to a kind of psychoactive substance say marijuana, heroin or LSD that starts to bring a perpetual change in their life. First the body resists it by producing aversive reactions and this is the time when a person can refrain. But if s/he persists to take the substance the body of a person starts to crave for it. Moreover, the withdrawals and the incentive of pleasure produced by it hinder the process of contemplating and positive thinking resulting in sustaining of act willingly or unwillingly.
All this time the physiological, psychological and social aspects of human life are in a continuous shattering flux. Physiologically, the body weight gets reduced, sleep cycle is disturbed, changes in appetite patterns appear, functioning of vital organs like heart, liver and kidneys gets disturbed, and at times patient gets infected with viruses like HCV and HIV. Anxiety, restlessness, irritability, mood disorders, hallucinations and delusions and last but not the least a chronic psychosis is the harm caused to our psychological aspect by drug abuse.
There are innumerable changes seen in the social life of a substance abuser. From disturbed family relations, abuse with children, mistreatment with parents or a spouse, to disturbed financial status marked with a reckless spending and gambling. Besides, continuous drug seeking behaviour which leads to inefficacy in terms of occupation, school, vocation or sometimes complete sacking from a job, making the person’s life and the life of people around him wrenchingly miserable.
During this saga of self-deterioration, the person tries to look at his lived life through the glasses of past, present and future and founds himself disillusioned as he learns that substance abuse is not fun, embittered as he feels the bitterness of the act, heartbroken at the thoughts of mistreatment to himself and to the near ones and dear ones, disappointed because of not fulfilling the dreams he had seen and absolutely shattered but still alive, in other words, going through a Chekhovian tragedy.
(The writer is a Psychology Postgraduate from University of Kashmir and presently working as a Mental Health Counsellor at Drug De-addiction and Rehabilitation Center PCR Batamaloo. He ca be reached at: [email protected])
ICJ ruling and Into-Pak relations
By Marvi Sirmed
Just as Abdulqawi Ahmed Yusuf, president of International Court of Justice (ICJ), started reading out the much-awaited verdict in the Kalbhushan Jadhav case, both Indian and Pakistani media, quite predictably, started pronouncing high-pitched victory of their respective countries.
Pakistan had claimed that its security forces had arrested Kulbhushan Jadhav, the 49-year-old retired Navy officer, from Pakistan’s Balochistan province on March 3, 2016 after he entered Pakistan via its border with Iran. Jadhav was subsequently sentenced to death by the Pakistani military court on charges of “espionage and terrorism” after a closed trial in April 2017, just over a year after his arrest. India, however, claimed that Jadhav was kidnapped from Iran where he had business interests after his retirement from the Indian Navy.
India followed this by moving the ICJ on May 8, 2017 for the “egregious violation” of the provisions of the Vienna Convention by Pakistan. Islamabad repeatedly rejected New Delhi’s plea for consular access to Jadhav, claiming that India was merely interested in getting at the information gathered by its “spy”. India also sought to suspend the death sentence of Jadhav and ordered his release from Pakistan’s custody. Pakistan had challenged the admissibility of India’s petition on three grounds: alleged abuse of process; alleged abuse of rights; and India’s alleged unlawful conduct. All three grounds were rejected by the court.
India’s plea to suspend the death sentence and order the release was also rejected. But Pakistan was asked to give immediate consular access to Jadhav as well as ensure his right to free trial under the domestic judicial mechanism of Pakistan. This gives both the countries enough ground to celebrate their respective victories.
The question now is how the verdict will impact the already strained relations of the two countries? While the verdict gives the opportunity to both the governments to maintain aggressive posturing, it has no practical bearing which way Pakistan may eventually choose to decide.
While the verdict of ICJ is not binding upon either party in the strictest of legal sense, it certainly sets a favourable stage for India to continue to portray Pakistan in a negative light internationally, in case the latter does not comply with the verdict. Pakistan, on the other hand, might comply in the end, but not before getting something in return.
The retired army officers in Pakistan, who are usually referred to as ’defence analysts’ when they come to TV studios and spell out what is considered to be the “thinking” of Pakistan’s powerful military establishment, continue their usual antics while aggressively emphasising that Pakistan is not bound to comply with the ICJ verdict. But if recent history is to be at all taken into account, to take their word is akin to falling right into their trap.
In the backdrop of recent economic troubles and political instability Pakistan has been facing for the last one year, it is beyond any basic sense of logical play to expect the nation to allow the aggression to linger, by not granting India’s most basic ask in this case – the proverbial lowest hanging fruit, ie, consular access to Jadhav.
It might not come, however, without a price. At the exact moment when Yousaf was reading out the verdict, American President Donald Trump celebrated the “finding” and the arrest of Hafiz Saeed on Twitter, who he describes as “mastermind” of Mumbai terror attacks. Saeed, however, has been living in plain sight all this while. He was never absconding in the first place. In fact, shortly before his (re)arrest, he was released on bail from his previous arrest. By playing this up, it betrays the mutual advantage it serves to USA and Pakistan.
When Pakistan’s Prime Minister Imran Khan meets Trump next week, he would arrive having already earned some brownie points. The so-called arrest of Hafiz Saeed might ease some tensions at FATF. USA will be in a position to claim winning yet another milestone in its war on terror. If Pakistan offers to graciously comply with the ICJ verdict, it might raise its ask too. The stick raising mood in White House has already changed to a carrot granting one. Bringing India to the table of comprehensive dialogue, after managing to elbow it out from Afghan peace process, doesn’t look like abad bargain.
But if Jadhav gets consular access, India would have the golden opportunity to demolish Pakistan’s claims of the “terror confession” by Jadhav. He would now most definitely claim confession under duress.
At the moment, the key decision makers in Pakistan do not want to disobey the court verdict. Their compliance of earlier Indian plea to delay the sentence bears witness to it. In any case, a dead Jadhav doesn’t benefit anyone. Except may be, Jadhav’s handlers, if he is indeed a spy.
(The author is a journalist with Daily Times and member of the executive council of Human Rights Commission of Pakistan)
America & Pakistan: Back to a cosy future
By Indranil Banerjie
Geopolitical gears appear to be shifting once again in South Asia with Washington being the primary driver. The question is whether this portends a return to the cosy relationship between the United States and Pakistan as in the past?
For, if Washington is once again planning to use Islamabad as a pivot for its South and West Asia policy, then New Delhi has reason to be concerned even though the imperative for such a development is neither hostile nor anti-India.
The hard fact of the matter is that a re-engagement or revival of the strategic inter-dependencies between those two countries has a direct bearing on India. While Washington’s view is global and multi-dimensional, Islamabad’s is not — it has always been India-centric and continues to be so.
New Delhi’s greatest concern traditionally has been the transfer of military systems and technology to Islamabad. It is difficult to forget that the Pakistan Air Force dared to attack Indian targets after Balakot simply because it had American-made F-16 fighter aircraft fitted with AIM-120 Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missiles (AMRAAM).
This missile was supplied to the Pakistanis by the US as recently as 2011. India protested against the sales and for good reason too. It was well known that the missiles supplied would be a game changer in the South Asian context given that this particular variant, the 120C, with its range of over 100km, would out-distance any missile currently in the IAF’s arsenal.
Right enough, when it came to the crunch in the post-Balakot skirmish, there was nothing the IAF could do but throw an aircraft at the intruding enemy and get close enough for a shot. The downing of the MiG-21 piloted by Wing Commander Abhinandan Varthaman proved how much of a disadvantage India was at because of US military transfers to Pakistan.
In recent years, arms transfers by Washington to Pakistan have virtually ceased due to the deteriorating strategic ties since 2016. US President Donald Trump had suspended security and other assistance to Pakistan, accusing Islamabad of repaying US generosity with only “lies and deceit”. The main problem between the two arose from differences over Afghanistan. But now with Islamabad and Washington drawing close to a deal on Afghanistan which would allow an orderly US military withdrawal, the equations once again have changed.
The Taliban, which is controlled by Pakistan’s Army headquarters, seem to have agreed to hold intra-Afghan talks and could be amenable to some sort of power sharing. Perhaps, they might even allow a small US military presence to remain in Afghanistan. However, it is clear that Washington, in its quest to quit the unending Afghan war, is prepared to cede effective control in that country to Islamabad. China could also play a role as guarantor.
President Trump has, however, made it a point to reassure New Delhi that he intends to look after its interests. This is perhaps why he took personal credit for the arrest of arch-terrorist Hafiz Saeed, the mastermind behind the 26/11 Mumbai attacks, in Pakistan on Wednesday. This might suggest that New Delhi may not be left out completely in the cold in these shifting times.
But the story of change doesn’t end here. The Trump administration could be preparing to cosy up to Pakistan not because it hates or dislikes India but because it feels it might need the help of Pakistan’s jihadist generals to further its many and often complex aims in West Asia, where things are in a ferment today.
A hint of what might be in the offing was offered by the US Gen. Mark A. Milley, who was nominated by President Trump as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. In his response to questions for his confirmation hearing at the Senate Armed Services Committee, the general stated: “From East Asia to the Middle East to Eastern Europe, authoritarian actors are testing the limits of the international system and seeking regional dominance while challenging international norms and undermining US interests… Our goal should be to sustain great power peace that has existed since World War II, and deal firmly with all those who might challenge us.”
He pointedly mentioned Pakistan as “a key partner in achieving US interests in South Asia, including developing a political settlement in Afghanistan; defeating Al Qaeda and ISIS-Khorasan; providing logistical access for US forces; and enhancing regional stability”.
Significantly, he called for a strengthening of military-to-military ties with Pakistan, adding: “While we have suspended security assistance and paused major defence dialogues, we need to maintain strong military-to- military ties based on our shared interests.” So now it’s back to the good old days of shared interests!
The first-ever summit-level meeting between Pakistan PM Imran Khan and President Trump is due next week (July 22) at the White House. Pakistan foreign minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi, who will be there, declared that this invitation constituted an “acknowledgement of the inherent importance” of bilateral ties. He was also quick to add that Pakistan was “mindful” of US priorities in war-torn Afghanistan. The times are indeed changing once again!
Perhaps Islamabad’s strategic importance, as an ultimate guarantor of “peace” in West Asia, has assumed more relevance given the rapid breakdown of Washington’s relations with Turkey, a Nato ally, over the purchase of Russian S-400 missile systems and other major disagreements. President Trump had warned Turkey not to go ahead with the S-400 deal, but Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan responded by declaring the S-400 deal to be “the most important agreement in [Turkish] modern history.” Deliveries of the missile system commenced from July 12.
This constitutes a huge snub to the United States. But things could get worse as some reports suggest that Turkey may be planning to assault parts of northern Syria controlled by Kurdish forces supported by the United States.
Things are also not going well for the Saudis in their war against the tenacious Houthis of Yemen, who are Shias supported by the ayatollahs in Tehran. Other Arab nations are quietly leaving the Saudi war. The regime change effort in Syria too has failed.
All this is reason for Washington to be worried. Hence the move to mend fences with estranged allies. New Delhi, on the other hand, which has big plans for boosting its relations with Washington, must heed the changes that could threaten to prick its ballooning ambitions.