Imagineering of words
Muslims In India, the Muslim lives on sufferance. It is the Hindu who has the freedom to attack India and its culture, its vulgarity. The Muslim who objects to something, no matter how
obvious and visible, must
qualify his argument.
. . . Usually the qualification
demanded is that he show himself as patriotic. In India,
this is a term born out of
negative sentiment. To be a
patriotic Indian, one is not
required to be tax-paying,
law-abiding, well-meaning or philanthropic. Patriotism
is demonstrated through
hating a particular country.
The reason the Indian Muslim lives on sufferance is also rooted in this. You see, the Muslim is guilty of original sin, voting for Pakistan in the 1945-46 elections. He divided Mother
India and his generations
must carry this burden of Adam.
Shah Rukh Khan said this,… “I sometimes become the
inadvertent object of political leaders who choose to make me a symbol of all that they think is… wrong and unpatriotic about Muslims in India. I have been accused of bearing allegiance to our neighbouring nation rather
than my own country. This, even though I am an Indian whose father fought for the freedom of India. …Rallies have been held where leaders (of shit sena)have exhorted me to leave and return to what they refer to my original homeland.”
He should have prefaced his remarks (which I find ordinary, inoffensive and accurate) as follows: “I don’t like Pakistan. My fans are mostly Hindus, whom I love more than Pakistanis.”
Having said this, he would
not have offended us no
matter what he unburdened
after. Like children who need a pacifier, the Muslim offering opinion on prejudice must hold out this lollipop to Indians whose natural view of him is coloured by his religion. At all points he must remember this and mumble an apologia pro vita sua.
In not doing this, and I’m
surprised he didn’t because
he should know a thing or
two about politician-driven part of Indian public (influenced by shit sena) opinion, SRK opened himself to an attack which goes in this fashion :
“Aren’t you grateful, are
you not satisfied, with what we gave you- you Muslim!
. . . . .such fame, name, money, success? You didn’t whine about this then, did you? Now the Pakistanis are lecturing us because of your
remarks. You should be
. . . Pathetic !
assumptions we make
about ourselves– secular
nation! Are we? I don’t think so.
democracy! . . . . are not
particularly reflected outside of the constitution.
We should think about that. On Nidhi Razdan’s show on
NDTV on Tuesday night, I
have taken in notice, discussing Modi as prime ministerial candidate. In the BJP corner was a woman called Meenakshi Lekhi. Midway through the discussion, she asked a soft-spoken man, Najib Jung vice-chancellor of Jamia Millia Islamia, if he thought Indian Muslims wanted Pakistan. Why did she bring this up? I don’t know, and there was no occasion to. But it was dropped in casually because it’s the natural thing to say to a Muslim here – hey, are you guys Pakistan-lovers?
Tell us the truth, now. As a writer I can imagine the pressure on Muslim writers who are aware of India and the space they operate in. MJ Akbar wrote an unthinking paean to the BJP’s idiocy after Pokhran, and I suspect that wasn’t
because he’s a fan of nuclear weapons. It’s all quite frightening, or should be. It doesn’t surprise me at all.
In India it has always
mattered who says
something. What is said
depends not on the
intellectual content but
which side it has blown from. How it is said is also always more important than what is said because the Indian is easily offended.
Ashish Nandy shouldn’t have
assumed that he could be subtle and clever only
because it was the
Anglicised middle-class he
was speaking to at Jaipur. They are cut of the same
cloth as other Indians. Quick
to emotion, barely literate
about anything whether
their own culture or the
west’s, and powered on and on by an asinine media.
Or ruthless media?
*People, taking the article offensive are requested to come for a debate (verbal or physical)…