English हिन्दी
Connect with us

India News

Reflecting On Rahul Gandhi And Cow Belt – With Eyes Closed

Published

on

Reflecting On Rahul Gandhi And Cow Belt – With Eyes Closed

By Saeed Naqvi

I missed out on the “tumult” these past weeks in circumstances which remind me of Shah Sarmad, the great Sufi saint of Jewish extraction, who wrote:

“I slept through the tumult on Judgement Day.

When I half opened my eyes to see if it was over,

I saw that it was still continuing.

I closed my eyes again and slept.”

Strange, the connections the mind makes. Sarmad’s experience came across to me as a variation on the most serene aasana in yoga called Yoga Nidra. In this aasana, as the body slips into the deepest sleep, consciousness is proportionately sharpened, to a point where the mind can traverse the details of the body, the immediate environment and the universe outside.

The blissful combination of Sarmad and Yoga Nidra fell into my lot, paradoxically, in the care of Dr. Cyrus Shroff, who brilliantly stitched together an injured retina in a two and a half hour surgery and confined me to bed upside down, quite literally, adding a new dimension to my yogic experience.

The new Congress President, Rahul Gandhi in his new Hindu avatar, swam into my ken, wearing an unconvincing janaeu over his jacket and temple hopping with frenetic frequency.

Image projection is much more cosmopolitan in his travels overseas. After his visits to US campuses late last year (Berkeley and Princeton, for instance) escorted by Sam Pitroda and, in segments, by Shashi Tharoor and Sunil Khilnani of the Idea of India fame, Rahul Gandhi turned up for a high powered international meet in Bahrain earlier this month. Similar jamborees are lined up in Singapore in March and, later, in Malaysia, then the UK and so on. Foreign travel has been imaginatively woven into the promotion plans possibly to forestall chances of his taking off on his own to unknown destinations, given his compulsive yen for foreign travel.

No one can grudge him his international itinerary. What has to be watched with some concern, however, is his new Hindu projection. It can be argued that it worked to some extent during the recent Gujarat elections where he diligently steered clear of Muslim groups, localities and even Congress leaders who happened to be Muslim. Indeed even a person of Ahmed Patel’s seniority was advised not to be seen in Rahul Gandhi’s vicinity. Electoral results were not altogether bad. Who knows, the trick of treating Muslims as pariahs might work to some extent in the Hindi belt. Beyond this belt, however, a new makeup will have to be applied to his visage. Will that not raise issues of credibility?

Influential segments of the chatterati are already beginning to place their bets on the new soft saffron. For this lot “secularism” is a political burden because it opens the Congress to the charge of being “Muslim friendly”. This image must be discarded at all costs because it gives Hindutva a handle for communal polarization. The unstated theory is: if the Congress embraces soft Hindutva, the BJP will be left with nothing to oppose?

A pity the residual Congress leadership does not see the dangers of competitive communalism. If this is the way the game is to be played, the polity will continue to shift dangerously towards the far right – in the cow belt most certainly.

In this belt, we Urduwallas had placed all our bets on the durability of the Ganga-Jamuni or composite culture which we had forged over centuries of cultural commerce and an overriding love for this land and its soft pastoral tones. I never tire dwelling on Urdu poets having written adoringly on Rama, Krishna, Gokul, Varanasi, Triveni, Koel on a mango perch. Indeed even the Prophet’s birthday was celebrated by Mohsin Kakorvi by describing the clouds floating ecstatically from Kashi to Mathura to catch a glimpse of Krishna.

All of this would have had a chance of surviving had Partition not taken place. I dwell in some detail on this theme in my book “Being The Other: The Muslim in India”.

If Partition could not be avoided, the next best option for all would have been an honest to goodness Hindu Raj: the obvious name for the country would then be “Hindustan” as opposed to “Pakistan”. After the Congress’s unseemly rush to accept Pakistan, (thereby defacto accepting the two nation theory) this should have been the logical next step.

Quite seamlessly we glided from British Raj to Hindu Raj. The problem Congress generated was precisely this: having helped create a Hindu Raj, it proceeded to deny its existence, inciting politics which provoked Hindutva to complete the unfinished business.

Accepting the label, Hindu Raj, it is suggested was against Nehru’s self image. Such a label would also have smacked of the “mofussil” to the thin layer of Macaulay’s elite, clustered around him. Above all, there was that minor matter of Kashmir which could only have been kept in a “secular” state.

An honest bargain could have been struck in a “Hindustan”. I am almost embarrassed to cite Britain as an example. The country is anchored to the Anglican Church, and yet has a Muslim Mayor of London. All religious denominations are in the cabinet (and shadow cabinet). Indeed, at one stage there were four Muslims in the English cricket team. It is a tolerant society where the rule of law applies. Just imagine what a bargain 180 million Muslims would have been able to strike in a “Hindustan”. Conditions for a plural society would have been inherent in an honest arrangement, free of a bogus secularism which today rings like a hollow cliché.

Let me, in my Yoga Nidra state, pull back my consciousness from issues of what “might-have-been”. The current situation is frightening and yet the gloom and doom about fascism having arrived is pre mature. Lift your eyes from the Hindi belt and the perspective changes. The strength for a pluralistic society will come from a multi ethnic, multi linguistic, multi religious federal India, the one pulsating outside the cow belt.

As the only North Indian (and Muslim to boot), who edited a major newspaper covering all the South Indian states with my headquarters in Chennai for full five years, some credit must attach to what I am saying.

India News

India hits back at Shehbaz Sharif at UN, says terror will have consequences

India hit back at Pakistan Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif’s UN speech, with New Delhi warning that terrorism will have consequences.

Published

on

India has responded to Pakistan Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif’s remarks at the United Nations, delivering a strong message on terrorism and warning that such actions will have consequences.

The response came after Mr Sharif addressed the UN and raised issues concerning India and Pakistan. New Delhi rejected the narrative presented by the Pakistani prime minister and highlighted the issue of terrorism.

India’s message was delivered by Petal Gehlot, who represented New Delhi in the response to Pakistan.

India warns Pakistan over terrorism

India’s response focused on Pakistan’s record and its approach towards terrorism. New Delhi made clear that terrorism cannot be separated from its consequences and that those responsible cannot expect such actions to go unanswered.

The Indian side also pushed back against the claims and allegations made by Mr Sharif during his UN speech.

The exchange comes amid continuing tensions between India and Pakistan, with terrorism remaining a major point of disagreement between the two countries.

Shehbaz Sharif’s UN remarks

In his address, Pakistan Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif spoke about India-Pakistan relations and raised several issues concerning New Delhi.

India subsequently exercised its right of reply to respond to Pakistan’s statements at the United Nations.

New Delhi’s response underlined its position that terrorism remains a serious issue in the relationship and that there would be consequences for terrorist actions.

The latest exchange at the UN adds to the continuing diplomatic confrontation between the two neighbouring countries.

Continue Reading

India News

Veeramani POCSO case: Vijay questions Stalin over earlier probe

Tamil Nadu Chief Minister Vijay has questioned MK Stalin over the handling of the Veeramani POCSO case, while Stalin has rejected allegations that the previous DMK government protected anyone.

Published

on

Actor Vijay

Tamil Nadu Chief Minister and Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK) president C Joseph Vijay has questioned DMK president MK Stalin over the handling of the POCSO case involving Gem Granites founder R Veeramani. The political exchange follows renewed investigation into allegations involving minor girls.

Vijay’s remarks came as the ruling TVK stepped up its questions about how the case was handled during the previous DMK government. The party’s IT wing has alleged that the earlier investigation was weakened and questioned why a final report was filed.

The allegations have been rejected by the DMK. Stalin has said that no order was issued by the DMK government to protect anyone in the case and has called the allegations false and defamatory.

What did Vijay say about the Veeramani case?

Vijay questioned Stalin over the handling of the case and demanded an explanation from the former chief minister.

The TVK has specifically questioned why action was not taken against Veeramani during the previous administration and why the earlier investigation resulted in a closure report.

The party has also raised questions about the role of officials involved in the earlier investigation. These are political allegations made by the TVK and have not been established as facts.

What is the Veeramani POCSO case?

The case concerns allegations of sexual abuse of minors involving R Veeramani, the founder of Gem Granites.

The case came under renewed scrutiny after a special POCSO court rejected an earlier closure report and ordered further investigation. The expanded probe has subsequently identified additional alleged survivors who were minors at the time of the alleged offences, according to current reporting.

The investigation is also examining the circumstances surrounding the earlier probe and whether there were any lapses in how the case was handled.

What has MK Stalin said?

Stalin has rejected allegations that the previous DMK government protected Veeramani.

He has said that no order was issued by the DMK government to shield anyone in the case. Stalin has also said that everyone responsible for the alleged offences, including anyone who aided or attempted to protect the accused, should face the law.

The DMK president has further said that the focus should remain on securing justice for the affected girls rather than making political allegations.

Why has the case become a political issue?

The Veeramani case has become the subject of a political dispute between the ruling TVK and the DMK over the handling of the earlier investigation.

The TVK is questioning the previous government’s handling of the case, while the DMK has denied that it intervened to protect the accused.

At this stage, claims about political interference or deliberate weakening of the earlier investigation should be treated as allegations unless established by the ongoing investigation or judicial proceedings.

Continue Reading

India News

Women wrestlers challenge Brij Bhushan’s acquittal in sexual harassment case

Four women wrestlers have challenged the acquittal of former WFI chief Brij Bhushan Sharan Singh and co-accused Vinod Tomar in a sexual harassment case.

Published

on

Brij Bhushan Sharan Singh

Four women wrestlers have approached a Delhi court challenging the acquittal of former Wrestling Federation of India (WFI) chief and BJP leader Brij Bhushan Sharan Singh in a sexual harassment case.

The wrestlers have also challenged the acquittal of co-accused Vinod Tomar. The matter is scheduled to be heard by a Special Judge at the Rouse Avenue Courts.

The appeal challenges the order passed by an Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate on August 3, 2026, when Brij Bhushan and Tomar were acquitted in the case.

Wrestlers challenge court’s reasoning

In their appeal, the wrestlers have argued that the acquittal order is legally unsustainable and that the evidence was not assessed appropriately.

They have also alleged that the order relied on assumptions about how victims of sexual assault and harassment were expected to behave instead of assessing the evidence and circumstances of the complainants.

The challenge seeks judicial scrutiny of the findings that resulted in the acquittal of Brij Bhushan and Tomar.

Brij Bhushan was acquitted in August

The Rouse Avenue court acquitted Brij Bhushan Sharan Singh on August 3 in the sexual harassment case involving women wrestlers. The court’s decision followed consideration of the evidence and statements presented during the proceedings.

The case had emerged after several women wrestlers accused the former WFI chief of sexual harassment. The allegations had led to a major protest by wrestlers in 2023.

The latest appeal means the acquittal is now being challenged before a higher court.

Continue Reading

Trending

© Copyright 2022 APNLIVE.com