A
book written by a well-known journalist Rahul Pandita ‘Our Moon Has Blood
Clots’ which I read last week, has impacted me deeply. Pandita has also published
another popular work ‘Hello Bastar’ which introduces the reader to the naxal
movement in Central India. Amidst the heated debate on intolerance in India,
the book by Pandita on the plight of Kashimiri Pandits bears great
significance. We all have read that lakhs of Pandits were persecuted and
hounded out of their own homeland of centuries-Kashmir-by the majority Muslim
population. This is perhaps the only case in the recent past where a large
number of people have become internal refugees in their own country. The book
by Rahul Pandita opens bare the trauma and the angst of a helpless people who
have been largely shunned by the ‘secular’ politicians and media. It is only by their sheer
grit, hard work and perseverance that many Pandits have found a new life
and freedom in various climes across the world. But several thousand still live
the life of a refugee in Delhi.
If
I say that the on the night of January 19, 1990, Muslims in the Valley went
into a mob frenzy and through hundreds of mosques across the State, threatened
the ‘kafir’ Pandits to leave Kashmir or convert to Islam, with blood-curdling
slogans like “We will turn
Kashmir into Pakistan along with Kashmiri Pandit women, but without their men”,
will
I be called a right-winger? On the other hand, if I say that the lynching of a
hapless Muslim man in Dadri for what he alleged to have eaten, must be
condemned unequivocally, does that qualify me as a leftist? And whom do we call
a centrist? A person who walks the tightrope to keep both sides happy, may be!?
In
this melee of the left versus right, we seem to have forgotten that what is
right is always right, whether left or right. Today I read a statement of P Chidambaram who conceded that banning of Satanic Verses was
wrong. We understand the timing, don’t we? In the twilight of his career, one
knows that he is not going to lose much by accepting the truth. When
credibility was the measuring jar for politics anyway? I am also waiting for
the day when some secular leaders accept that the amendment to our constitution to deny
justice to Ms Shah Bano was also wrong. Denying justice to fifty percent of the
Muslim community still continues in the form of triple talaq and polygamy but
if there is a murmur of protest, why it is brushed aside as ‘right-wing
propaganda’? Many Muslim countries have banned these two tenets of Muslim
Personal Law followed so religiously in India. But in the garb of upholding
secularism, a section of the polity in India mollycoddles and cultivates the
religious far right among the Muslims. Ironically, the Muslim religious leaders have no qualms in
accepting criminalization of triple talaq and polygamy in Western Countries and
the US. But here in India, when 70,000 Muslim women give a representation to
the Prime Minister demanding equal rights as their men, mullahs and some politicians
question the credentials of the petitioners. They smell a right-wing
conspiracy, again.
Take
the case of alleged sexual harassment in Madrasas as revealed by a female
journalist and a male film maker in Kerala. I am sure you have noticed that
Arnab is not shouting, ‘the nation wants to know’, Barkha Dutt is not
conducting any panel discussion on the issue. But one statement from a
right-wing political leader will send these media people into a frenzy.
If
someone criticizes the demolition of Babri Masjid as a criminal act which led
to the death of thousands of innocents in its aftermath, permanently driving a
wedge between two communities, do we have to call that person an apologist for
the left? Similarly, will the persons who are demanding an overhaul of the
Madrasa system of education with a thorough investigation into sexual harassment angle be hauled over the coals as
communal?
Being
secular is essential for the growth of a healthy democracy but we cannot be
selective in this. It is time we realized that what is right will always remain
so, whether we paint it with hues of saffron or green.
PS:
Curious to know the origin of these two words, I went to Wikipedia and here is
what I found. Even though we understand the concepts broadly, the clear
definitions below give a proper perspective.
Right-wing politics are political positions or
activities that view some forms of social stratification or social inequality as either inevitable, natural, normal,
or desirable, typically defending this position on the basis of natural law, economics or tradition. Hierarchy and
inequality may be viewed as natural results of traditional social differences and/or from competition in market
economies.
Left-wing politics are political positions or
activities that accept or support social equality, often in opposition to social hierarchy and social inequality. They typically involve concern for those in society who are perceived as disadvantaged relative to others and a belief that there are
unjustified inequalities that need to be reduced or abolished.
(It is also interesting to note that many leftists
these days prefer to criticize capitalism in the cosy confines of a Ritz or a
Taj or a Park Hyatt a la Arundhati
Roy).
