By Manini Chatterjee
For a long time now, many have suspected Narendra Modi of being the patron saint of the army of trolls that stalks the social media, spewing vitriol against all those deemed to be secular and liberal – or “sickular” and “libtard” – and, of course, “anti-national” in their preferred venomous vocabulary.
The prime minister was given the perfect opportunity to refute that suspicion. He chose instead to confirm it. On June 30, which was Social Media Day, the prime minister tweeted: “I would particularly like to congratulate my young friends for their innovative usage of social media. Their frank method of conveying opinions is extremely endearing. I urge youngsters to continue expressing and discussing freely.”
The timing of the tweet could not have been more significant. For the preceding few days, the external affairs minister, Sushma Swaraj, had been subjected to vicious abuse on social media by Hindutva, right-wing trolls after her ministry had come to the aid of an inter-faith couple who had been denied a passport by the Lucknow passport office.
Narendra Modi, as we all know, has seldom spoken out against hate crimes or hate speech by those who proudly claim to be his bhakts. He has, in fact, tacitly endorsed their actions. Ten months ago, after Gauri Lankesh was shot dead outside her Bangalore home, the social media was awash with vicious tweets celebrating her murder – and some were posted by people followed by the prime minister. In spite of an outcry at that time, Modi not only maintained a toxic silence on the murder but refused to “unfollow” the trolls.
But Sushma Swaraj is no left-wing activist. She is among the senior-most members of Modi’s cabinet, a top leader of the Bharatiya Janata Party. An elementary job of a leader is to stand by his team members. Yet, neither the prime minister nor the BJP chief came out in defence of Sushma. Taking a cue from their silence, no party leader dared speak out on the subject for more than a week in spite of the thousands of abusive tweets that flooded Sushma’s Twitter account. They even targeted her husband, Swaraj Kaushal, with one troll telling him, “When she comes home tonight why don’t you beat her up & teach her not to do Muslim appeasement.”
On Social Media Day, the prime minister could have taken these trolls to task, or at the very least, asked people to be more careful with their language, more sensitive in their remarks. But his tweet sought to humiliate Sushma more than his silence did. It was a ringing endorsement of the “innovative usage” and “frank method” adopted by the the troll army; an explicit encouragement to their hate-mongering.
But what followed is far more curious. Two days after the prime minister’s tweet, the Union home minister, Rajnath Singh, broke the official silence and said the attacks on Sushma were “unfortunate”. On July 3, another heavyweight cabinet minister, Nitin Gadkari, echoed him.
And on July 4, Rajnath Singh directed the home ministry to ask the Mumbai police to register a case and identify the person behind the rape threat directed at the 10-year-old daughter of the Congress spokesperson, Priyanka Chaturvedi. A day later, the ministry of external affairs came out with a detailed statement defending the decision of issuing passports to the Lucknow couple that had caused so much ire in the Hindutva camp.
On the face of it, these are disparate developments concerning separate ministries. But for any discerning political observer, the real significance of the last few days lies not in the “strategic” silence of the prime minister and his cohorts but in the “strategic” actions taken by Sushma Swaraj and Rajnath Singh through their respective ministries. If calculated silence is part of Modi’s pro-troll doctrine aimed at keeping the hard-line Hindutva base happy, the two top ministers of the cabinet have taken deliberate steps to irk that very base.
Take the case of the passport. Tanvi Seth and her husband, Mohammad Anas Siddiqui, accused the Lucknow passport granting officer, Vikas Mishra, of harassment. They said he slammed Seth because she was married to a Muslim but had not changed her name in the official documents, and also asked Siddiqui to convert to Hinduism.
On June 20, the lady reached out to Sushma Swaraj on Twitter. The very next day, a senior official of the MEA stepped in. The passport was issued. Mishra was transferred out of Lucknow to Gorakhpur.
When the Twitter storm broke out, Sushma Swaraj claimed she was not responsible for the decision. “I was out of India from 17th to 23rd June 2018. I do not know what happened in my absence,” she tweeted on June 24, after sharing some of the abusive tweets she had received.
It is unlikely that ministry officials would have acted unilaterally without the minister’s go ahead. Sushma has made a name for herself by helping out hapless Indians abroad once they reach out to her on Twitter. But this case was different. To take up cudgels on behalf of an inter-faith couple – the target of vitriolic ‘love jihad’ campaigns in Yogi Adityanath’s Uttar Pradesh – was a politically risky step.
Perhaps Sushma had not realized the repercussions of the move. But after the massive trolling she faced, and the humiliating lack of support from her party and her prime minister, the external affairs minister seems to have become more determined to defend the case. On June 26, reports emerged that the Lucknow police had found discrepancies in the passport application: the name given by the applicant in the passport form differed from the one in her marriage certificate; and the applicant lived at an address different from the one given in the form. Sections of the media had a field day speculating that the passport would be withdrawn and criticized the decision to transfer Vikas Mishra for “doing his duty”.
But in an uncharacteristic move, the MEA spokesman issued a detailed statement on July 5 to counter the “misinformation”. It clarified that under new rules effective from June 1, 2018, police verification of a passport application had to ascertain only two things: whether the applicant was a citizen of India and whether the applicant had any criminal case against him or her. A marriage certificate was not necessary; and the address given by Tanvi was the same as on her Aadhaar card and bank account.
If the MEA statement was a stinging rebuttal to the trolls and inspired media reports, the home ministry’s decision to take action against the troll who threatened Priyanka Chaturvedi’s daughter was even more remarkable. Trolls routinely abuse and threaten “liberal” women with rape and worse, but seldom has any action been taken against them. But within a day of the home ministry directive, the Mumbai police arrested a 36-year-old man from Gujarat named Girish Maheshwari for the rape threat. Maheshwari describes himself as an “accounting associate at Bharatiya Janata Party” in his Facebook account. The BJP has not made any comment on his claim or his arrest.
Let us be clear. Rajnath Singh and Sushma Swaraj are no great liberals. They are no rebels either. Both have quietly acquiesced to the assault on constitutional values, the physical attacks on minorities and Dalits, the abuse and intimidation of activists and liberals that India has witnessed over the last four years.
But they have not actively pushed an aggressive Hindutva agenda either, preferring to sit quietly on the sidelines while the Modi-Shah duopoly went about their “Opposition-mukt” mission with the help of their trolls-and-vigilante cadres. That Rajnath and Sushma – far senior to Modi in national politics and belonging to the bygone Vajpayee-Advani era – have chosen to take actions that go against the core Moditva base are signs, perhaps, of a new churn.
They signal that towards the end of his term, Modi is no longer as invincible as he once seemed. There is a chance that he may not lead the BJP to a sweeping victory in 2019. In such a scenario, Rajnath and Sushma and even Gadkari espy a chance to be the Vajpayeesque leader of an expanded coalition. If Modi returns to power, they will anyway be consigned to a Margdarshak Mandal 2.0. By distancing themselves from Modi at this stage, they have much to gain and little to lose. That is why taking on trolls can be a useful political gambit too…
(The Telegraph, Kolkata)
The white man’s burden
By Shahzad Chaudhry
When Samuel Huntington first published his thesis of ‘The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of the World Order’ in 1996, he was laughed upon.
It was thought that he was making a case for the ‘white world’ to have another enemy as big as Hitler’s Germany or the Communist Soviet Union which could give reason for it to continue to spend money on retaining its military domination of the world. That Islam, which Huntington referred to as the other side of the civilizational divide, could be one such adversary. He failed to indicate the means to such an inevitable clash still quite wrapped in conventional applications.
By 1989, capitalist democracy had vanquished pre-WWI Imperialism, post-WWI Fascism and post-WWII Communism. Towards the end of WWII, the likely victors gathered the world at Bretton Woods to sign them on to a plan to institute a global order which would run on the Western model of a ‘capitalist economy’ and a ‘democratic political system’ ensuring the ‘West’s’ centrality in a reinstituted world order. Having overcome all, it aimed to paint the world in its own colour. Francis Fukuyama, an American political scientist, sealed that stage of finality in the political evolution of the world with his book ‘The End of History and the Last Man’, published in 1992. It is probable that Huntington countered Fukuyama’s thesis through his ‘Clash of Civilisations’ riposte. Fukuyama seemed exuberant while Huntington, initially dismissed, now seems prophetic.
Soon after, in 1998, a German professor at the University of Bremen, Dieter Senghaas, wrote ‘The Clash within Civilisations’ expanding on what Huntington had proffered and building on how such intercultural conflicts may germinate within civilisations, and the means to manage such conflicts. Keep in mind, the Al-Qaeda by then was a reality and had manifested itself with attacks on some of the US interests in Africa. The years between 1998 and 2008 was a period of an exclusive and entrenched conflict in Afghanistan and Iraq and elsewhere of an ongoing war between those who fought in the name of Islam and the Western civilisation.
Economic depression in 2008 brought home another reality. The capitalist system suddenly seemed to have run its course. Economists like Thomas Piketty and George Soros brought home the inadequacies of capitalism which had engendered another critical divide within societies between the 99 percent ‘have-nots’ and the one percent ‘have-all(s)’. Society stood starkly divided on the upward-mobility and prosperity scale. In the US, such deprivation became more noticeable in ‘non-college going whites’, mostly belonging to rural mid-western communities. These over time became the locales where the Church and white supremacists held sway.
Europe’s societies met another consequence with similar results, with the fragmentation of the family system when fewer people got ‘regularly’ married and even fewer gave birth to children. Soon the aged and the less productive outnumbered those who could sustain them. Retaining economies with required growth inevitably needed labour which had to be imported from where such resource was in abundance. Imperatives of an economy meant inviting people of alien cultures which gave birth to multiculturalism.
The phenomenon was initially enriching but later created a crisis of identity among the natives when their cultural ethos mutated or at the very least co-existed. In the US, meanwhile, urban America moved on gorging on the richness of such multiculturalism, while rural America was left to sulk with a sense of isolation and irrelevance.
People who had migrated not only found jobs for being better qualified and more creative and thus productive, they also replaced lazy locals who neither were equipped for the kind of jobs that the information and technology based economy could offer nor were keen to match their skills to move up the ladder. They had given up on college too even as students from all over the world populated their world class universities. What you got were prosperous, hard-working and productive émigrés establishing their cultures, and natives that were unskilled, uneducated and unemployed – isolated within their own habitats bordering on reverse ghettoisation. In Europe, the migrants populated city centres in massive collectivism. Such disaggregation was only consequential.
A creeping sense of alienation and irrelevance soon became a sentiment of hate. Politicians sensed the opportunity and cashed in on it as they moved for the kill. President Trump recently questioned the right of such naturalised citizens to sit in the US Congress. His exact words were more searing. Undoubtedly then, Brenton Tarrant, the monster of the Christchurch killings, hailed Trump as the leader of a resurgent White Power. White power isn’t new; it has existed before in the shape of the Ku-Klux-Klan in the US and the Skinheads of the UK who employed racial hatred and bigotry as their currency.
Restraints of law and a sense of shared stakes borne out of prosperity in rapidly progressing economies subsumed the white supremacists’ fears into acceptable levels of inclusivity – till free-market and laissez faire economics betrayed its partial gains for a selected few. Jobs went to those who could win those corporate profits, and these weren’t the left-behind natives. This brought up latent hate.
Right-wing politics around nationalism in Western societies became the anchor around which such hate has bloomed. It has since become mutually supportive for both sides as an electorate fired by such racial passion raises a leadership which in turn supports exclusivity. The sentiment is now so pervasive that someone as successful and as emblematic of inclusive and integrated societies like Angela Merkel finds it difficult to continue in politics. Brexit in many ways is an effort to rediscover such exclusionary existence.
What must be the way out of this horrible episode of hate and bigotry as evinced in Christchurch? Or may have the making of it in so many events of similar nature spread all over Western societies? Two fundamental separations will need to be created. One, that crime too has internationalised on the back of globalised politics, economics and multiculturalism spawned by the two. It finds succour from the same protocols of connectivity which gave us an interconnected world. Cooperative mechanisms must monitor such association for timely interdiction.
Two, a sentiment of hate or reprisal must be disaggregated and dealt with remedial interventions for the different stages leading to such an eventuality. Politics may stop using hate as currency. A system of democratic governance needs to be revisited; it must revert to be more inclusive.
An economic order which can address the shortcomings of the present form of capitalism needs immediate attention. What can make the current shape of capitalism more empathetic and inclusive? Is the Chinese order the answer or will the Islamic economic model ultimately tend to the poor and the deprived? It is time to get back to Bretton Woods or Davos or Jeddah and Dubai to seek the answers before we become fodder for the next series of hate wars. It is time to replace the challenge of a clash with a dialogue between civilisations. Jacinda Ardern has showed us the way.
Poor Nation, Rich Army
By TAHA SIDDIQUI
On March 23, Pakistan will celebrate its Republic Day with the same “zeal and fervor” as it does every year. As usual, the Pakistani military will come out in full force, with joint parades by the Army, the Air Force, and the Navy. The ostentatious marches will include a display of Pakistan’s nuclear-capable missile system, an air show, and gun salutes to local and international dignitaries present for the occasion.
The extravaganza is always broadcast live on local television channels, set to the fanfare of new propaganda songs produced especially for the event by the military’s media wing. It is rare for the public to question these theatrics—but doing so is more urgent than ever.
Pakistan is going through some serious financial turmoil. Over the last few months, Prime Minister Imran Khan has crisscrossed the globe in search of aid to shore up the economy. Before one recent trip, he even acknowledged the country’s desperation for foreign money. Meanwhile, the country’s finance minister, Asad Umar, has been busy negotiating a new bailout package with the International Monetary Fund—Pakistan has been in the care of the IMF for 22 years out of the last 30. Inflation is at a four-year high, reaching over 8 percent, and Islamabad believes that it could tick even higher.
One-third of Pakistan’s population lives under the poverty line, and the country is ranked at 150 out of 189 countries in the latest United Nations Human Development Index.
Although Pakistan’s recent economic woes are troubling, the country has faced similar pressures for years. One-third of its population lives under the poverty line, and the country is ranked at 150 out of 189 countries in the latest United Nations Human Development Index. The national debt stands at around $100 billion, while its foreign exchange reserves are a meagre $15 billion. The value of the Pakistani rupee, one of the worst-performing currencies in Asia, has dropped 31 percent since 2017.
Yet anyone watching the parade on March 23 may believe that all is well. And they certainly won’t get the impression that the military is, in fact, behind many of the country’s economic problems. But after debt servicing, the military is Pakistan’s biggest economic burden. Already, over 20 percent of the annual budget officially goes to the military, but the armed forces have been pushing for more every year. Just in the last budget cycle, it won a 20 percent hike in its yearly allocation. The actual expense of the military is even higher, but it is hidden by moving some of the expenses to other budget lines. The parliament neither seriously debates the military budget nor subjects its spending to audit. By contrast, the country spends less than 5 percent of GDP on social services like education and health care, well below the regional average.
The military mainly protects itself by keeping the threat of India alive. The two nuclear-armed neighbours have been in conflict since the partition of South Asia in 1947. The militaries have fought four wars, with three of them over Kashmir valley. Even though Pakistan initiated these conflicts, it has told the public that it was only countering Indian aggression. In recent years, Pakistan has avoided a direct war, perhaps because it lost all previous ones. But it relies on militant groups based in Pakistan to keep tensions alive. This February offered a glimpse of such dynamics at play. In turn, the Pakistani Army gets the perfect excuse for its oversized burden on the country’s economy. Like a mafia protection racket, the military creates its own demand.
But it is not just the military’s budget that is eating away at the resources of a country that it has directly ruled for half of Pakistan’s 72 years of existence. Today, the armed forces’ empire has expanded well beyond its traditional role in security. It runs about 50 commercial entities. The military’s main business arm, the Fauji Foundation, has seen enormous growth. According to Bloomberg, its assets grew 78 percent between 2011 and 2015, and it has annual income over $1.5 billion. The military-backed organization has stakes in real estate, food, and the communications industry.
It appears that the business wing of the military is expanding even more under the Khan government. Khan’s critics allege that the military backed his candidacy and now, in return, enjoys relative freedom to do what it wants. There is plenty of evidence to back those claims.
Reuters recently reported that the Pakistani Army is moving into another lucrative industry: mining and oil exploration. Khan’s government is reportedly facilitating the arrangements by giving the military preferential treatment during negotiations.
Do Muslim Lives Even Matter?
Just as the world was coming to terms with the horror of the attack on Muslims worshipping at two mosques at Christchurch in New Zealand, I was trying to understand the indignation that my young friend, Shah Alam, felt after news broke of Babu Bajrangi being granted bail by the Supreme Court.
What Shah Alam is trying to discern is the inability of the Supreme Court to comprehend the feeling of insecurity and vulnerability that this development would instil, not only amongst those who were Bajrangi’s direct victims but also amongst the Muslim population from Gujarat and across India. They were seeing a criminal accused of the worst crimes against humanity being granted freedom.
So can the attacks in New Zealand be treated as a crime against humanity? After all, the victims were Muslims as well, living in a particular colony, very small in number, if you compare them with the number of Muslims living elsewhere, even in Gujarat?
It is then questioned why Muslims like Shah Alam, safely ensconced in cities like New Delhi, are distressed? What is their locus standi in this case? How are they affected by Babu Bajarangi’s crimes? Are they not stretching it a bit too far?
By raising such technical objections, Bajarangi’s crimes are sought to be localised. But those raising such questions forget that the message of the Gujarat pogroms was not only intended for those physically trapped in the fire, but for all the Muslims in India – what happened in Gujarat can happen anywhere.
A young Muslim student of my university told me that someone recently subjected him to a catchphrase, “2002 phir se (2002 again)”. When confronted, the fellow student chuckled and explained that it was in reference to Modi’s re-election again, just like the people of Gujarat had returned him to power in 2002. The desire travels so far, in space and time, and yet we, who are not Muslims, tend to ignore it.
I need not go into the exploits of Babu Bajrangi, which were a part of the campaign which ultimately catapulted Narendra Modi to power.
Babu Bajrangi, foolish enough to brag about his “heroism”, was only one of the perpetrators. There were other, more shrewd, more lethal, offenders who didn’t even let their kurta get soiled by the blood of Muslims.
But maybe Babu Bajrangi was not foolish at all. Because his big talk about violence did not repel people from violence, it only drew them towards it. They experience a certain sadistic pleasure in sharing the brutality that they did not have the gratification to commit themselves. They consume and relish it. This is what they wanted to be done.
When we see the mass murderer involved in the Christchurch massacre, live streaming his act, or when we learn that the brutality on Afrazul at Rajsamad was videotaped by the steady hands of a 14-year-old, we know that Babu was not a fool at all!
The 11 men outside the special TADA courtroom in Nashik soon after they were acquitted of all charges. Credit: Special arrangement
Reading Shah Alam and the relief that old age and infirmity brought to Babu Bajrangi, my mind went to a different kind of relief, to a different type of people. This time it is Muslims who got a reprieve from the courts. Jamil Ahmed Khan, Mohammed Yunus, Yusuf Khan, Wasim Asif, Ayyub Ismail Khan, Shaikh Shafi, Farukh Ahmad Khan, Abdul Qader Habibi, Syed Ashfaq Mir, Mumtaz Murtuza Mir and Mohammed Haroon Ansari, all charged with sedition and conspiring to wage a war against the nation and plan violence against Hindus, in the wake of the demolition of the Babri Masjid, were finally acquitted of the charges.
It took only 25 years for them to walk to freedom. Freedom, still dear and yet so bleak a word, or feeling for them. 25 years is too small a period for a nation, but in the life of a mortal human, it is a huge void. To make sense of life without or with these 25 years is hard.
I will not go into their stories. I don’t want tears. Because I know that there are eyes which would remain dry even after listening to the stories of horror that they went through. There would be stony souls who would say this is a small price for keeping the nation safe.
To think that grieving is now a partisan act in our country, is a sad state of affairs.
I turn the pages of the manuscript of the book of stories, recorded by Manisha and Alimullah of the wrongs, atrocities and injustices done to Riyaz Ahmad Mohammad Ramzan, Syed Wasim Haider, Irshad Ali, Abrar Ahmad, Rajjab Ali, Dr. Fargo Anwar, Nurool Huda, Waris Sheikh, Mohammad Ilyas, Amanullah Ansari,Mohammad Husain Fazli, Ahmad Dar, Rahmana Yusuf Farooqui, Abdul Muneen who went to different jails of India. All of them were suspected terrorists. They had to sacrifice 10 to 15 years of their individual lives to make the nation feel secure.
I recall the downcast eyes and feeble voices of those young men who were released after losing 7 to 15 years of their lives to the Indian jails only because the police in India thought that for each bomb blast only Muslims can be suspected. And our courts share their feeling. My memory fails to recall their names but I can still feel the loneliness that cut them from us. It has been more than 10 years since the public hearing at Hyderabad where I met them, their mothers and grandfathers and heard them talking about the devastation that befallen them in the name of the nation and witnessed their shaking hands trying to put together the broken pieces of their lives.
As I write these lines, I hear the story of the arrest and killing of Gurfan Alam and Taslim Ansari by the police in Motihari in Bihar. While washing their bodies, their kin found marks of nails hammered into them. An FIR – sans the name of any suspect – has been registered, we are assured by the top cop of Bihar.
Just as when I was trying to understand the unnecessary fuss that Shah Alam was making over a humane gesture by the Supreme Court, I learnt that the Gujarat government is not allowing the prosecution of police officers D.G. Vanjara and N.K. Amin in the fake encounter case of Ishrat Jahan and three others in 2004.
What can the poor CBI do and what can the courts do if the governments think that the accused were, in fact, serving a just cause? Why should that make the Muslims of India feel vulnerable?
What has poor Babu Bajrangi to do with all this? How are all these events connected?
(Apoorvanand teaches at Delhi University. Source: thewire.in)
Pak PM Imran says no room for ‘jihadi outfits, culture’ in Pakistan
Islamabad: There was no room for “jihadi outfits and jihadi culture” in Pakistan, Prime Minister Imran Khan has said amidst...
India boycotts Pak Day event as Kashmiri Hurriyat leaders invited
New Delhi: The government Friday decided to boycott the Pakistan National Day event to be held at its high commission...
Gautam Gambhir begins political innings with BJP, says ‘impressed by Modi’s vision’
Former Indian cricketer Gautam Gambhir has joined the Bharatiya Janata Party on Friday with weeks to go for the Lok...
Hajin gunfight: Two militants, minor killed, 2 Ak 47 recovered
Srinagar: One more militant and the minor who as per police officials was held hostage have been killed in Hajin...
Mirwaiz placed under house arrest ahead of protest call
Srinagar: Hurriyat (M) chairman and Kashmir’s chief cleric Mirwaiz Umar Farooq was placed under house detention on Friday morning. The...
New Zealand women don headscarves to support Muslims after shootings
CHRISTCHURCH: Women all over New Zealand put on headscarves on Friday to show solidarity with Muslims a week after 50...
Trump says US recognises Israeli control of Golan Heights
Washington: President Donald Trump said that it’s time for the United States to recognize Israel’s control over the disputed Golan...
Blast at Chinese chemical plant kills 47, injures 64
Beijing: A massive explosion at a pesticide plant in eastern China killed 44 people and injured more than 600, state...