English हिन्दी
Connect with us

Latest world news

Since Burqa Has No Quranic Injunction, Why Annoy Host Societies?

Published

on

Since Burqa Has No Quranic Injunction, Why Annoy Host Societies?

~By Saeed Naqvi

In normal times Britain’s former Foreign Secretary, Boris Johnson’s observation that burqa clad women resemble walking “letter boxes” and “bank robbers” would evoke laughter. But these are not normal times.

Just when liberals were beginning to pelt stones at him, a startling turn to the debate was given by Taj Hargay, Imam of Oxford. “The burqa is a Wahabi fifth column……we will wake up in the Islamic Republic of Britain.”

Johnson’s observation is mischievous, and has a political purpose, the Imam’s an exaggeration. The observations are troubling for an Indian Muslim. I would avoid being judgemental on a community which has been under immense pressure because of rampaging Islamophobia since the 90s. And yet, I cannot help asking: is the burqa a response to nasty Islamophobia or a means of aggravating it?

Aggravation of the problem is surely not our purpose. Then whose purpose is served by Muslim women floating around Oxford Circus in gear which distances them, in geometrical progression, from the host population? The clerics, eager to consolidate their congregations? Wouldn’t it be wonderful if these congregations had in their midst scholars, doctors, writers, scientists, entrepreneurs, rather than pliant women fitting Boris Johnson’s description.

I am troubled for another reason. After extensive travel around the world, I am inclined to cast my vote in recent years for Britain as a society where Human Rights, Rule of Law, Race relations are most secure. That is why I am uneasy at the two observations.

Let me turn to India to bring out my point, by comparison, in bolder relief.

Since Burqa Has No Quranic Injunction, Why Annoy Host Societies?

The depths to which Hindu-Muslim relations have sunk in India is attributed by pundits to the brazenly communal politics of the ruling BJP under Prime Minister, Narendra Modi since 2014. If an ancient civilization, embracing 1.25 billion people can be so totally transformed in merely four years, Modi and his cohorts deserve to be celebrated as miracle men. No, the present government has clearly accelerated the communal agenda but the ground for it was diligently laid over 71 years of independence. The ruling party for most of these decades was the Congress.

Social disharmony was built into the manner in which Partition was affected. The Congress was firmly opposed to the two-nation theory enunciated by Mohammad Ali Jinnah, founder of Pakistan – that Hindus and Muslims constituted two separate nations. But the Congress accepted Lord Mountbatten’s June 3, 1947 plan for Partition in double quick time.

Maulana Abul Kalam Azad, former President of the Congress and others warned Pandit Nehru that Partition would mean “unadulterated Hindu Raj”.

By that logic once the Congress Working Committee had accepted a Muslim state, with a small Hindu minority, named Pakistan, it logically followed that the rest of India would be Hindustan or a Hindu state with a substantial Muslim minority. In other words, on August 15, 1947 India glided seamlessly from British Raj to Hindu Raj but Nehru chose not to use the term “Hindu” for a variety of reasons. A “Hindu” state was an affront to his self image. Self image was important to Nehru. In his evolution, there was a phase when he was angry with his father for having hired an English governess for his sister, Vijaylakshmi Pandit. “Bhai (brother) was cross” Mrs. Pandit told me, “because British aristocracy those days preferred French governesses.”

The basic reason why Nehru avoided the term “Hindu” to describe the new found state was Kashmir. How could a Hindu state claim the Muslim majority province of Kashmir on the principle of contiguity?

Look at it from the hard core Hindu perspective. After a thousand years of Muslim rule, 200 of British, the Muslim state of Pakistan does come into being. But, alas, no Hindu state. The sophistry of why it is so, is lost on the millions. This is where the Hindu communalist pitches his tent.

It turns out that, over the decades, a compulsive hatred for Pakistan has emerged an acid test for nationalism. Into this bubbling cauldron has been pushed a boulder – the post 9/11 war against terror. The Islamophobia this has generated globally has been grist to the Hindu communalist’s mill too.

I have argued in my book “Being The Other: The Muslim in India” that calling a spade a spade at the very outset would have minimized the social disharmony that has plagued us for 71 years. From day one we should have declared ourselves a Hindu state. This would have obviated the need for an unsettling, double distilled Hindu Rashtra or Hindu Nation. The Hindu in this “raj” would have been at the steering wheel but the minorities would have struck a stronger bargain for education, seats in Parliament, jobs in the cabinet, Civil Service, Police, Armed Forces and so on.

Detractors raise a howl of protest. How can a theoretic state be secular?

In the recent elections in Pakistan three Hindus, Mahesh Malani, Hari Ram Kishwari Lal and Giyan Chand Essrani, won from general seats in Sind – one for the National Assembly and two for the Provincial Assembly.

The fact that Britain is a Protestant monarchy did not come in the way of Sadiq Khan serving as London’s high profile Mayor. Last year Donald Trump banned travel to the US from several Muslim countries. He was therefore not accorded a “state” visit to Britain because in that event protocol would have involved the Mayor of London. Saving Sadiq Khan this embarrassment was important enough for the organizers to deny Trump a state banquet with the Queen.

The Home Secretary Sajid Javid may not be a practicing Muslim but he is there high in public profile to make a bid for the top job. Two years ago when I watched a test match there were four Muslims in the English cricket team. I have met doctors, teachers, civil servants, entrepreneurs from the sub continent, both Hindus and Muslims, thriving. The Anglican Church never came in their way. In India’s circumstances in 1947, a Hindu India may have been better, than the one cloaked in a hollow and bogus secularism where the police watch on as one Muslim (or Dalit) after another is lynched, some to the accompaniment of expert photography.

Latest world news

India envoy Dinesh Trivedi meets PM Modi after talks with Bangladesh PM Tarique Rahman 

India’s High Commissioner to Bangladesh Dinesh Trivedi met PM Modi after talks with Bangladesh PM Tarique Rahman amid diplomatic tensions.

Published

on

India’s High Commissioner to Bangladesh Dinesh Trivedi met Prime Minister Narendra Modi in New Delhi on Tuesday, a day after his meeting with Bangladesh Prime Minister Tarique Rahman in Dhaka.

According to the High Commission of India in Bangladesh, Trivedi sought PM Modi’s guidance on further strengthening the bilateral relationship between India and Bangladesh through a constructive and people-centric approach.

The meeting came a day after Trivedi held discussions with Tarique Rahman on matters of mutual interest and ways to advance ties between the two neighbouring countries.

Dinesh Trivedi Meets Bangladesh PM

During his meeting with Tarique Rahman on Monday, Trivedi conveyed greetings from Prime Minister Modi and reiterated India’s commitment to working with the Bangladeshi administration and its people in a positive, constructive and forward-looking manner.

The two sides discussed issues of mutual interest and explored avenues for strengthening India-Bangladesh relations with a people-centric approach.

The engagement took place at the Prime Minister’s Office in the Cabinet Division at the Bangladesh Secretariat. Trivedi also shared his experience of serving in Dhaka over the previous two months.

Sheikh Hasina Extradition Request

The meeting assumed significance as Bangladesh has expressed hope that India will expedite the extradition process involving former Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina, who was ousted following a student-led uprising in 2024.

According to a statement issued by the Bangladesh Prime Minister’s Office, Dhaka also reiterated its request for India to return individuals it alleges were involved in the killing of Shahid Osman Hadi, a prominent figure associated with the July uprising who was shot on December 12, 2025.

Tarique Rahman stressed the need to create a suitable environment to take forward relations between Bangladesh and India.

Bangladesh Foreign Minister Khalilur Rahman, Prime Minister’s Foreign Affairs Adviser Humayun Kabir and other officials attended the meeting.

India-Bangladesh Ties Amid Diplomatic Friction

The latest high-level engagements come amid diplomatic tensions between the two countries following a virtual press interaction by Sheikh Hasina in New Delhi on August 5.

The event, organised by the Foreign Correspondents’ Club of South Asia to mark the second anniversary of her ouster, prompted strong objections from Dhaka.

During the interaction, Hasina said she remained determined to return to Bangladesh in December and restore democracy, while acknowledging the possibility of imprisonment or a death sentence upon her return.

Bangladesh’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs subsequently registered a strong protest and said the development had affected public sentiment and complicated efforts to strengthen bilateral cooperation.

India has said the government had no involvement in the event. Ministry of External Affairs spokesperson Randhir Jaiswal said it was organised by a private media entity and clarified that New Delhi did not endorse views expressed at the forum.

Continue Reading

Latest world news

Trump, PM Modi will resolve tariff issue over Russian oil trade, says US official

White House Trade Adviser Peter Navarro said Donald Trump and Prime Minister Narendra Modi will resolve the issue over US tariff threats linked to India’s Russian oil trade.

Published

on

Modi trump

US President Donald Trump and Prime Minister Narendra Modi will resolve the issue surrounding the threat of US tariffs linked to India’s purchase of Russian oil, White House Trade Adviser Peter Navarro said on Tuesday.

Navarro’s remarks came days after the US Senate passed a bill authorising the US President to impose tariffs of up to 100 per cent on the top five purchasers of Russian oil. The measure argues that such purchases directly contribute to financing Russia’s war in Ukraine.

Navarro comments on India’s Russian oil trade

Speaking to reporters at the White House, Navarro said India was not involved in the oil trade with Russia before the Ukraine war began in 2022.

He alleged that India became heavily involved in the trade after Russia’s invasion and sold refined products on behalf of Russia, which he said helped support the Russian war effort.

“Prior to the Russian invasion of Ukraine, India was not involved in the oil trade with Russia, but afterwards it got heavily involved,” Navarro said.

The White House adviser also claimed that the issue had since been resolved and attributed some of the shift in India’s Russian oil trade to an opinion article he recently wrote in the Financial Times.

Trump and Modi will resolve issue, Navarro says

Navarro said the relationship between Trump and Modi would help address the tariff-related issue.

“The president and your prime minister have a very good working relationship. They are going to work that out amongst themselves,” he said, adding that it was not his place to intervene.

His comments come amid US concerns over countries purchasing Russian oil and proposed measures aimed at imposing additional tariffs on major buyers.

Continue Reading

Latest world news

US Senate passes Russia sanctions bill, India-China face 100% tariff risk

The US Senate has passed a Russia sanctions bill that could allow 100% tariffs on major buyers of Russian oil and gas, including India and China.

Published

on

Donald Trump

The US Senate has approved a bipartisan Russia sanctions bill that could allow President Donald Trump to impose tariffs of up to 100% on major buyers of Russian oil or natural gas, including India and China.

The legislation was passed by an 86-11 vote and will now move to the US House of Representatives, which is scheduled to reconvene on August 31.

The bill is named in honour of Republican Senator Lindsey Graham, a strong supporter of Ukraine who died on July 11. Graham had pushed for tougher sanctions against Russia over its war in Ukraine.

India and China among major Russian energy buyers

The legislation gives the US president the power to impose tariffs on the world’s top five purchasers of Russian oil or natural gas.

India and China are among those countries, along with Azerbaijan, Hungary and Slovakia.

The bill also contains an exception for countries importing less than 15% of their natural gas from Russia and taking steps to reduce their dependence on Russian supplies.

What does the Russia sanctions bill contain?

Apart from the proposed tariffs, the legislation includes sanctions targeting Russian President Vladimir Putin, senior Russian political and military officials, financial institutions and energy projects.

The bill would also expand US sanctions to older and reflagged oil tankers allegedly used by Moscow to bypass existing restrictions on Russian oil and energy revenues.

At the same time, the White House would have the option to waive sanctions or restrictions if the president certifies to Congress that doing so is in the national interest.

Bill also extends Iran sanctions law

The legislation also contains a provision related to Iran. It would extend the expiration date of the Iran Sanctions Act of 1996 until 2031.

The law penalises companies that invest in Iran’s energy sector.

The bill’s passage in the Senate marks the next step in the US legislative process, but it still needs approval from the House of Representatives before it can move forward.

Continue Reading

Trending

© Copyright 2022 APNLIVE.com