As this news broke, the entire media was in QED mode – it had been reporting for some months that the dynamic new Home Minister, PC, was literally shaking the moribund security establishment, that he was taking direct command of all security related issues (like chairing the daily intelligence briefing sessions) , that this was creating a rift between him and NSA, Narayanan ( who in times of Shivraj Patil had a free run) and that ultimately only one would likely prevail. Of course, PC was then the darling of the media, especially broadcast media, so when the story of Narayanan’s removal became public, the media “rightly concluded” that PC had won the turf war – in fact it cheerled the victory !

In a blog post, I did on 18th Jan 2010, I surmised that the removal of Narayanan had nothing to do with PC but everything to do with Prime Minister, Dr. Man Mohan Singh (MMS). My basic argument was this – Narayanan was a known hawk on Pakistan, his career in IB obviously contributing to his deep distrust of Pak. Thus, he was an impediment in the peace process that MMS had embarked upon – it was one thing for a PM to be opposed by a member of his cabinet, quite another to have his most trusted advisor on a parallel path. MMS was gambling on peace with Pak and he could not afford naysayers in his innermost circle – thus shunting out of Narayanan.

I remember no one else taking this line in their writings then, except M.J. Akbar, who a week later wrote on similar lines in The Pioneer. Everyone else bought the story that this was a victory of  PC and perhaps, some sort of defeat for MMS since he lost his advisor ! Of course, thanks to Wikileaks, we now know that Narayanan was almost certainly removed because of his position on Pakistan. He had confessed, some since 6 months before his sacking, to an American diplomat, that he and PM had very differing  and indeed diametrically opposite ideas on Pakistan.

I am going to argue in this piece that what happened with Narayanan in Jan 2010 will happen with Chidambaram in July / August 2011.

The only issue on which MMS has had some measure of autonomy in his premiership has been foreign policy. In his first term he devoted his attention to two issues – the Nuclear Deal with US and the backroom negotiations for peace in Kashmir with Gen Musharraf. When the negotiations with Musharraf fell through in summer of 2007, due to internal discontent in Pakistan, MMS devoted his full-time attention the nuclear deal and persevered to see through its fruitition. However, he had not lost his sights on peace with Pakistan. He was determined to pursue it if another chance arose.

When MMS won a second term in May 2009, it was his golden opportunity.  He could now devote all his energies to the chimera of peace with Pakistan. Perhaps, he had noble intentions too in pursuing it – after all he claimed credit for delivering India economically in 1991 ( although history might credit Narashimha Rao). It was now time for him to deliver India strategically too !!

Thus in July 2009, just 7 months after 26/11, when Pakistan had made absolutely no progress in booking the 26/11 perpetrators, he was ready to smoke peace in Sharm el-Sheikh. Such was the single-minded determination of MMS, that within 7 months of the most dastardly terrorist act on Indian soil, he was willing to concede Pak propaganda on Balochistan. Of course the storm in Indian parliament blew away his first attempt.

It is not a mere coincidence that Narayanan confessed his differences with MMS on Pak, to the American diplomat, in August 2009 – just a month after Sharm el-Sheikh. The first attempt of MMS failed, but he got rid of the naysayer Narayanan  within 5 months of his doomed attempt . By Jan 2010 he had a new NSA – someone who was more “pragmatic” and willing to go along the pipe dream of MMS.

MMS made his second attempt in July 2010 when S.M. Krishna was despatched to Pakistan to negotiate with Mehmood Qureshi.  However, this attempt got derailed too – this time by member of his own government. The interview that then home secretary, G.K. Pillai gave, just days before the talks,  inditing ISI for 26/11 almost certainly killed the talks even before they started. Pillai could not have given this interview without go-ahead from PC. This is the moment, I argue, marks the beginning of end of PC.

Amongst the members of MMS cabinet, PC is the last man holding out against settlement with Pak sans any movement on terrorism. Pranab Mukherjee is too busy in domestic affairs, Antony is hardly likely to pick up a fight while others are not in the league to derail his plans. Only PC had the necessary political weight to argue against a settlement with Pak. That he is articulate and media friendly, as opposed to MMS, makes him even more dangerous. Thus, if MMS has to succeed in his latest gambit, PC has to be sacrificed.

So began the plan to derail PC some months ago, only this time the boot was the other foot. PC was used as the bait to sideline Narayanan, Pranab Mukherjee was going to be the bait to sideline PC. Just as there was a steady build up of the turf war between PC and Narayanan, which presumably PC won, this time there is a build up of a turf war between Pranab Mukherjee and PC. The high-proof of this turf war – the bugging of Pranab’s offices, presumably by IB, which is under PC.

It is my argument that MMS himself leaked Pranab’s letter. It was a masterstroke by him - PC has now been projected as a conspiring person out to bug his own colleagues – someone who is distrusted by someone as sensible and senior as Pranab Mukherjee. The answer that MMS gave in his press meet, when asked why PC was not involved in investigating the bugging, is most instructive – he said PC was not informed of Pranab’s letter as he was on a “need to know” basis  – the home minister of the country was on a need to know basis on security matters??  If after this he is removed in the cabinet reshuffle, will it not sound as just punishment?

However, unlike other sacrificed Congressmen (such as Natwar Singh, Kalmadi or even Narayanan), PC is unlikely to go down quietly. He is still relatively young, feisty and with a very sharp mind. He could fight back and take down a few with him. Thus part two of the hatched plan – a steady stream of leaks all implicating PC, right from 2G scam to CWG scam. I again argue  that all these leaks are coming from MMS office. These leaks are intended to warn him off – keep your counsel else you could be next in Tihar ! Consider what MMS replied to Dr. Subramaniam Swamy who requested permission for his prosecution – it was ”premature” to grant permission. Yes, not an outright NO as would happen in normal circumstances when someone asks to prosecute your Home Minster but premature ! Clearly a hidden message was sent to PC - the timing could become “mature” in future, if you go out of line too much. The third salvo was fired by Jayalalitha soon after she emerged from her meeting with MMS – when she openly declared that the election of PC as MP was a fraud.

Thus, it is my argument that even if nothing else happens, PC would lose his cabinet portfolio in the impending reshuffle. And the reason will not be what is made out in the media, but something more sinister – the Prime Minster of India  getting rid of people who are opposed to his Pak gamble.

The question to be asked, though, is this – if MMS is willing to go to this lengths to make peace with Pak, where will he stop? A settlement on Kashmir can only be reached by Indian concessions – since it is Pakistan which is fighting to change the status quo while India has fought to preserve it. So how much is MMS willing to concede, because he knows that he has tried and failed thrice in past – first with Musharraf and then in summers 2009 and 2010. This is his fourth attempt – and almost certainly the last. Where will he stop now?

My view – see the paintings and make up your own mind !

Make up your mind, whether the secular fundamentalists are right when they say that Husain deserves Bharat Ratna or whether nationalists are right when they say the Husain deliberately denigrates Hindu sentiments?

The first six paintings : These are of Muslim women and Mother Teresa that Husain has painted in his lifetime.

There is not even one painting amongst these that is even remotely nude. An artist who dabbles in nudes, a perfectly legitimate art form, does not make exceptions based on religion or caste. If Husain’s calling would have been nudes he would have painted all with same gay abandon. Yet, in his lifetime Husain has not even once, painted Muslim women in nude. Never ever. Is this a mere coincidence?

Next eight paintings: Paintings of Hindu goddesses.

If Husain’s calling is not nudes, then surely he would paint Hindu goddesses in non-nudes sometimes. Yet have a look at these paintings. Each and every one of them is nude. Is this a mere coincidence? Muslim women never in nude and Hindu goddesses always in nude !!

Husain’s apologists argue that even ancient scriptures like Khajuraho have nudes. Yes they have. But they have nudes in pure artistic form and never connote or invent sexual relationship that never existed. Husain however, depicts Sita in sexual formations with both Ravana and Hanuman. Did you read Hanuman, who considered Devi Sita as his mother? Yes, that is the level of perverseness that Husain indulges in. And, yet he has his apologists in media !!

Last painting: The real clincher !

Out of the four leaders M. Gandhi is decapitated and Hitler is naked. Husain hates Hitler and has said in an interview 8 years ago that he has depicted Hitler naked to humiliate him as he deserves it ! How come Hitler’s nudity cause humiliation but nudity of  Hindu goddesses do not?  Infact when Husain’s argues that nudity in art depicts purity and is in fact an honor shows Husain’s complete perversion and hypocrisy.

 Finally, this is what Vinod Mehta, the torch bearer of secularism in India had to say about Husain and his real reasons for fleeing India ( tax problems by the way and not some great ethical statement).

Vinod Mehta in Outlook: “Husain is a great artist—even his critics grudgingly admit the fact. But he is not such a great human being.”

At least, Vinod, a self-confessed pseudo secular, had the moral courage to face up to Husain’s “manipulations”. Will other secularists have similar courage?

Therefore, it has not been surprising that the entire English language media has united in this battle – in favour of SRK and against the Sena. That it has come at a time when Sena was making an ass of itself on the Marathi manoos issue has further emboldened the secular mafia – they have cleverly intermixed both the issues while demonizing the Sena.  

The calculation of the secular mafia was ingenious – they knew, that just a day before, Sena had no backers at all on their chavunistic “Mumbai only for Marathi”  issue. For the first time even the RSS and BJP had publicly criticized the Sena. And rightly so, for what the Sena was advocating was extreme parochialism and even some sort of separatism.  So even if the Sena had any merit in their criticism of SRK, the secular mafia knew that no one would come to its defense. And no one did. The secular mafia had a field day in demonizing anything Sena while eulogizing everything SRK.

But the theme of this blog is – does Sena indeed have any merit in their stance against SRK?  Here is my take:

SRK is the owner of Kolkata Night Riders. He was part and parcel of the now infamous IPL 3 auction that kicked up this whole row. And he was part and parcel of the decision, along with others, in not bidding for any Pakistani player. Remember, there was no official diktat from the government to not pick any Pak player. Chidambaram is on record having said this. At best, there was an informal understanding amongst all the owners that they would keep away from potential trouble by not bidding for Pak players.

Informal understanding! Which means it was voluntary and anyone who felt strongly against this understanding could have broken ranks and choosen to tread his / her own path. Yet none did. Not even SRK. He had opportunity to buy Pak players, if he so choose. But he did not. Instead he bought Shane Bond, and not for example Razzak. And neither did any of the other owners buy any Pak players.

When the furore broke out on the media (which I think was appalling and uncalled for), some owners did come out and presented their view point. Preity Zinta and Shilpa Shetty were on TV and said what was essentially the truth – that they could not risk money on Pak players since they were unsure about their participation. Infact they even faced flak for stating this truthfully! And it was indeed the simple truth – all the IPL owners had gone by this dictum alone. It was understandable too – who would put money on something so risky?

But what did SRK do? He chooses to remain silent in the initial days of the furore. And then made his by now famous statement – that he regretted that Pak players were not picked, that it was like an insult to them, that his family is from Pak and that he would like to see Pak Players play in India.

Here is my question – if SRK had such feelings then why did he not bid for the players during the auction itself? Why did he go along with the consensus? As Home Minister clarified, there was no government diktat against picking Pak players. SRK could have choosen to pick a Pak player, if he so wanted. Yet he did not.  He went along with the voluntary consensus. Read VOLUNTARY!

If he did not put his money where his mouth was, what business did he have to opine that Pak players were insulted? Was he not part of the insult process?

SRK is not like the media writers and commentators who could just write articles on the way Pak players were treated and maybe cringe. SRK had the wherewithal to alter the course of event. Yet he did not.

So why did he speak the way he did? As some have already suggested – My Name is Khan (MNIK) is up for release. The large number of Pakistani Diaspora, living abroad, is a major chunk of viewers of his movies.  He wanted to sound reasonable to them, just in case anyone reminded them that SRK was party to the insult of Pak players.

Good enough. This was pure and simple protection of business interests, the overseas earnings of the MNIK. But then, it was pure business - and not some high moralistic position that SRK had taken. Infact what he has done is the absolute opposite of morality – he has been dupliticious in first being fully part of a process and then later denouncing it at his convenience. 

The moral and secular media, which have been so content in bashing the Sena,  has not even once  asked SRK about his  amazing and hypocritical turn around. Maybe, because it does not suit them. They want their straitjacket Nobel (SRK) vs. Evil (Sena) battle to be the lead story. They don’t want to look at the shameless turn around of SRK and acknowledge that he too may have some evil !

Since it is a cricketing issue let me use an analogy – it is almost gospel that what happens in the dressing room remains in the dressing room, never to be talked outside. Everyone involved in the dressing room of IPL 3 auction has followed this code – except SRK.  He choose to break the dictum for his own selfish ends – greater commercial success of his movie.  Infact Hindi language has a much better word for what SRK has done - “Doglapan” – which translated means difference between words and deeds.

Bash the Sena by all means on Marathi manoos issue – but pause and question SRK too on his doglapan!

As I watched the scramble in the media on Narayanan’s removal, I remembered a TV interview that he had given to Karan Thapar for CNN-IBN. This was just after the bombing of the Indian embassy in Kabul in 2008. To a pointed question by Karan Thapar, Narayanan had effectively said that the ISI was an evil organisation and it had to be “crushed” before any meaningful progress took place between India and Pakistan. Of course, this was before the even more diabloic 26 / 11 attacks. But as these words played in my mind, something struck me – Narayanan was always a hawk when it came to matters of Pakistan. The Pakistanis would never tire of telling this – through official channels as also through the writings in the media and other such forums. Possibly it had something to do with Narayanan’s IB background.

My question was – why would a person, who was a hardliner against Pakistan be removed now? Surely we still need to persist with a hardline against Pakistan considering its waffling on prosecuting the 26/11 culprits. Was there some other reason behind this sudden move. After all, a man who had survived the fallout of 26/11 would surley not go out this unceremoniously? What was happening behind the curtain?

Here is my theory:

The Times Group in India and the Jung group in Pakistan, which have jointly launched the Aman ki Asha initiative, have differing reader profiles. Times cater to upward mobile English loving elite in India while Jung’s readers are the mass population of Pakistan, who know only Urdu. So why did these two newspapers choose to come together? It is because, the readers of these papers have something very common between them – hostility towards the other country.

In India, the most vocal and the most hostile towards Pakistan is the educated and upwardly mobile middle class. The class that came on TV after 26 /11 and sounded “enough is enough” ! The lower middle class of India, or the uneducated mass in villages really do not care that much about Pakistan. They have their daily lives to care about. They would rather spend their energies thinking about their daily struggles of existence rather than waste time on thinking about Pakistan’s existence. 

The educated, middle class of India, mostly hostile to Pakistan, reads english language newspapers. In this category, TOI is the clear leader – way ahead of any competition.

In Pakistan the situation is reverse. The middle class there yearns for peace with India. They have been educated in elite colleges and realise that India is not their mortal enemy, but just a neighbour. They may still hate India for some of things it does, but also cherish the freedoms that Indian middle classes have. They would want to enjoy similar living conditions and free flow of business and ideas – they would thrive in the commerce so generated.

The common masses of Pakistan, however, are either suspicious of India or are actively hostile. This is because of years of ideological brain washing that they have received in their madrasas.  This have been further fuelled by language papers such as the Jung.

Thus the pairing of TOI and Jung. TOI is the preferred newspaper of the class in India which is most hostile to Pakistan. The Jung group is read most by people in Pakistan who have grown up on anti India propoganda. Both the newspapers, through this initiative, are trying to soften the hostility in each other’s country. That is why TOI did not choose The Dawn of Pakistan. The readers of Dawn, the middle classes, are already better disposed off towards India and thus any effort by Dawn would have been like preaching to the converted. Similarly any initiative by Dainink Bhaskar would have not had the same effect, since the very vocal chatterati does not read Hindi newspapers.

But was this initiative a suo motto initiative of these groups? I would argue that this had the go ahead from the highest seat of powers in each country. Consider this – was it is a mere coincidence that these papers came together? Or was it a very well thought out and carefully crafted move involving the governments of both countries. The TOI would not put its reputation on stake for an issue which has no hope. It would not splurge money on ads which have no future. The Jains of  the Times Group are fiercely business people. They are not going to spend money on an initiative that they know will fail. Unless, that is, they have been given guarantees by someone high up in the government.

My arguments is this – something is brewing between India and Pakistan. And the initiative by these groups is part of a strategy co-authored by India and Pak in official circles. Else Jung, a paper hitherto hostile to India throuhout its history would not have suddenly started singing peace tunes. It is one of the fiercely pro establishment papers in Pakistan. It would not have taken such a big step without a go ahead from the establishment.

So my huunch is – the governemnts of India and Pakistan, in tacit support by Army of Pakistan, have choreographed this move. As a means to prepare public opinion in each other’s country. That is why TOI is confident of spending money on such high profile campaign – it knows it will reap rich benefits as the newspaper which heralded history should a final settlement happen between India and Pak.

And that is where Narayanan’s removal makes sense – he was a hawk on Pakistani matters. A stumbling block if Manmohan Singh has decided to gamble on peace with Pakistan. A person who used terms like “crushing”  the ISI. It was a move which was designed to send a signal to Pakistan – we have taken step one, now is your turn. So all this talk of Narayanan’s removal owing to Chidambram’s hyperactivity is just smokescreen – under which far reaching things are happening.

Also it was no coincidence that the TOI reported Narayanan’s departure much before anyone had even a clue. Could it be that the TOI was leaked this news by top echelons of PMO.  This is perhaps part of the deal – that TOI gets all advance news on Indo-pak front in lieu of it putting its brand name on an inititaive which is still risky !

So this is my prediction – expect some thing big on Indo Pak peace front this year. Something very very big !

And also expect some dramatic, but choreographed events to build up public opinion in both countries, especially India - what if Sachin  Tendulkar is given the highest civilian honour by Pakistan and in the ceremony General Kayani, the Army Chief,  salutes Tendulkar? Imagine the play that the electronic media will bring and the affect this will have on mass imagery.

After that, any concession that India makes on Kashmir will sound as only just reciprocal. And remember – Kashmir can only be solved by Indian concessions – as it is Pakistan which is wanting to change status quo and India has fought to preserve it.

So expect, some dramatic but actually just symbolic act by Pakistan – like the Tendulkar fecilitation – reciprocated by India by changing the status quo on Kashmir.

2010 is going to be interting ! Watch the space.

True to form, this is the routine that repeated itself on 1st Jan 2010 too. Except that the time of my waking was around 11:45 A.M. because of revelry, late into previous night,  heralding the new year. This day, as I took the first hot sip of the fabulous tea, my still weary eyes glanced at the front page of the newspaper - Times of India. It looked curiously blank. All I could see was only white spaces all around with some text at the bottom of the page. I thought probaly the hangover from last night is not yet over, and that is why I am unable to read properly. I took one more sip and tried to open my eyes much more firmly. Again it looked the same – bland white all around with some text in one corner. Then it struck me. This must be another of those full front page ads, classified as false front pages, that have become so popular amongst advertisers these days.  My initial reaction was that whoever took the false front page on the 1st day of new year must have paid huge amounts – but had spent no imagination in designing a proper and attractive advertisment.

By this time I had taken several sips of the tea and was now almost fully awake. I read the ad again, just to see who could splurge so much wastefully. And then I saw – by now the famous initiative by TOI group – Aman Ki Asha !

Of cousre the rest of the story is familiar. For the uninitiated, here is a brief recount. Aman Ki Asha is a joint initiative launched by the Times of India and the Jung Group of Pakistan to promote Indo-Pak peace. This they will do through facilitating cultural exchanges and people to contact.

This initiative was launched on 1st Jan 2010. When the ad first appeared in  TOI, it was met with derision by many top voices in the media. Their logic – TOI has in the past taken a strident position against Pakistan, most notably after 26 /11. So wanting to promote peace now was a bit rich. As I am writing this blog, the date has turned to 18th Jan. However in just 18 days, many far reaching things have happened. Let me try and make a sense of all this -

TOI is the largest circulated English daily in India. Jang group has the largest Urdu language newspaper in Pakistan.  This in itself makes the pairing odd. The true peer of TOI in Pakistan would be The Dawn – their largest English language daily. Similarly the actual peer of The Jung in India would be the the Dainink Bhaskar – the largest Hindi daily. So why did the newspapers, if they had to launch this initiative anyhow, did not co-sponsor it with their actual compatriots? That would have made more sense – similarilty of the language and the idiom would have made exchanges much more smoother. Some analysts pondered over this initially but then ignored the issue as they could not see any pattern or discernable reason.

Many had hoped the initiative by the Times Group would be limited to placing advertisments and sponsoring articles in each others papers. Maybe some fecilitation of songs and dances across the border and so on. And slowly the campaign would run out of steam and be forgotten. But then started the TV commercials in major news channels. And most would admit that the commercial running now – where Indians on the border help their Pakistani brethren request a song on AIR and then both dance in delirious joy once they succeed – is a fantastically conceived and very well executed.

I was in a multiplex this weekend to watch a movie. Just before the actual movie was to start, I saw Amitabh Bachhan light up the screen – he was appearing in another ad on Aman Ki Asha and using his baritone to propel the concept forward. As I saw this ad, and remebered the ads running on TV, I could not help but smile. It was clear that the Times Group had not launched this initiative in a fit of drunken blizzard, but that this was a well thought out campaign – and they were now utilising heavy artillery to put the message home.

Around 10 days into the initiative, the curiosity and novelty around the campaign was wearing off. Times was still devoting precious news space to this initiative, but it was all in the inside pages. Nothing that was written in these pages seemed terribly exciting. At least not to me.

Then came the front page news in TOI  on 12th Jan 2010. M K Naryanan, the India NSA was going to be moved out, and possibly would be rahabilitated in Raj Bhavan. It was a bolt from the blue. No other media group in the country had any inkling about this news story. Not the Indian Express, which usually takes leads in breaking stories, not HT, not any TV channel – no one. 12th Jan was Tuesday.  On 13th Jan, Hindustan Times, carried the same news, on front page, though in smaller highlight. This was odd since the HT, a fierce competitor of TOI,  rarely repeats a story that it missed on day one. Yet this was important news and there was no shame in repeating a story broken by competitor. Although HT added no fresh perspective to the story – they just repeated what TOI had already reported.

The news channels had not yet picked the story. It was only on 14th Jan that broadcast journalists started tweeting about this news as breaking news and by the evening it became breaking news on almost all news channels ! Of course by 15th Jan the news was everywhere and by 16th Jan the official list was also out. Naryanan was moving to West Bengal as governor.

Initially when TOI reported this news, no other media house took it seriously that is why there was lack of excitement. They would have thought that this was just kite flying by TOI. But ulimately what TOI had reported on 12th Jan, became breaking news on most TV channels on 14th Jan.

The Times group had clearly beaten everyone by at least two days in reporting this news.

So, is there any pattetn in all these apparently unconnected events?

I will argue in part two of this piece that there is. Possibly a history changing pattern !

Hindustan Times, which I don’t read in my home ( as we are a TOI family), had  kept me hooked all this while ! More specifically, the blog page of Hindustan Times. I can admit to it without being accused of treachery by TOI, that the HT blog page is the best amongst Indian newspapers.  Both in terms of content and in terms of styling, it is the the way ahead of any competition. 

Their USP I think is that they have their top editors, all writing on a topic they are experts in. So while Vir Sanghvi writes on general issues of the week, Vinod Sharma mainly writes on Pak related issues. Kushal Gulab has books to feed her readers on while Sujata Anandan writes on Mahrashtra specifc issues.  Pankaj Vohra rants against BJP while Poonam Saxena reviews the film world. 

Thus the reader is aware what to expect from each blogger. This keeps it simple and easy for someone who does not want to browse through all and sundry but only has time for issues of interest to him. For someone like me, who can read almost anything, it is even better, since I get to read on a wide array of topics all under one roof !

This does not mean that it has all been happy sailing. I have had serious arguments with many bloggers. Though none of it has ever degenerated to mudslinging, except maybe with Pankaj Vohra, who has ultimately blocked my comments from appearing on his blog page ! I am OK with it, since his was one blog I had most arguments with ! 

Then there is Vinod Sharam – he responds to criticism with such flowery use of language that the reader has no other option but to smile. Although I disagree with most of his views, yet it is fun interacting with him.

One other aspect of being transfixed with HT blogs has been that I have now started taking interests in topics beyond politics. The most visible amongst this has been the time I  spent on Kushal Gulab’s blogs. When I first started reading HT blogs, I always used to see this blog but skip past it. I tried reading it once or twice but the topics it covered seemed to be beyond me. I mean I love books, read almost something all the time. But this female was kind of maniacal in her love for books. And has happens with such people, she used to write about many books that I had never heard of with such joy as if they were her childhood buddies.  !! Come to think of it, she might actually agree with this.

However, then was once this blog post on her trip to Kerala. That was the first time I read any of her posts in full. And commented on  it. Ever since, I have become a full time and committed follower of her blogs too.

Though, she must be finding me amongst her oddest followers – for the simple reason that while most other regulars to het blog are maniacs like her too and interact in “book language’ alien to me, I try and post comments tangential to her post. Not completely unconnected, but not relevant either, I suppose. Yet she responds to almost all my comments. And probably because of that I keep following her blog, and in the process read a few books recommended by her.  Just shows what intelligent blogging can achieve.

And finally, I have been on Twitter and Facebook. Although Twitter still looks a medium unlikely to last, yet the frequency of my posts has been increasing ! Put it down to my interest in politics.

Here is the link to my Twitter page.

http://twitter.com/amishra77

Facebook. It has comleteley swamped Orkut. Never seen any product so quickly and so completely negate the frst mover advantage that Orkut had. Just shows that internet is a medium unlike any other. Have an idea and it will sell. !!

Happy New Year to all of you. Happy New Decade. A decade I believe will change history in ways uniamgined now.

And keep returning to this blog, since I will now be more regular.

First of all, a very happy new year to you and your family. Indeed nice to be in touch with you after all this while. I frequently see your updates / photographs on Orkut, including your swanking new car, and it really is heartening to know that you have done so well after ISM.  

With regards to the issue below let me respond in this way……. 

1. Day before yesterday was Moharram. I especially mention this because I still remember the day when you were in my room in Diamond hostel and explained to me the battle of Karbala and the martyrdom of Imam Hussein. I distinctly remember that near the end of the story you had tears in your eyes. This convinced me that day, that you were a very devout Muslim. It also told me that you were a true follower who believed in the righteous teachings and virtues of ISLAM. Had, I not been, so convinced, I would not have marked a copy of the email forward to you. 

2. The emailer was a forward which  I received and forwarded further like people generally do on net. However, since it went under my email, I owe full responsibility. 

3. I am really impressed by your scholarly arguments and deep knowledge. 

4. I agree with you that much of the finer points made in the forward, were mere propaganda and exaggeration, like the ones common on net. 

5. However, I disagree with you on the broader point. Let me explain why. 

Mumbai attackers 

Consider the terrorists who attacked Mumbai on 26/11.  Recent transcripts of the phone conversations published reveal that they were instructed to identify Muslims and spare them, while kill anyone else in sight. This they could not do in CST, since there was too large a crowd there and it was impracticable to segregate people in such short time. But this they did in every other place including the Taj, Oberoi, Cama Hospital etc. That is why although 48 Muslims died tragically, yet almost all of them at died at CST and just none at any other place (except TOI food critic at Taj, and that too because the terrorists did not know her identity.). Infact Muslims were stuck in both the Oberoi and Taj and they all escaped. 

I raise this point in response to your “one person’s terrorist is another person’s freedom fighter” argument.  Infact this argument of yours has disappointed me most. The terrorists were freedom fighters for at least some body as per the argument. But if they were fighting against India and probably for Kashmir, why did they specially spare Muslims? Were the Muslims stuck there not Indians? If they were, why spare them??? Why this special affinity for certain citizens of a country, a country against whom they are fighting for freedom (freedom by at least someone’s definition). If the fight is against the country and its oppression, then why spare some citizens of that country? If such so called freedom exhibit religious profiling, is it unfair to profile these terrorists by their religion? 

You brought out the example of Bhagat Singh, Netaji etc. They did employ violent means against Britishers. But there was no hint of religious preference in their opposition. So they did kill Britishers, as they did their Indian supporters. That is why people like Bhagat Singh and Ashfaqulla Khan are freedom fighters for all and terrorists for none!! But can you say the same thing about the present so called freedom fighters? 

Kafeel and Glasgow attacks  

You are well aware of the conspiracy and the issues involved in this. I raise the point in a different perspective. Kafeel was born in India. He was well educated and earned a scholarship to UK. 

Now give a thought to this question. Why do people leave their motherland and go to a foreign country? Why do people leave India and go to US, UK anywhere? Presumably because the conditions offered to their talent there is better. Right? The opportunity could be better in terms of better education, better jobs, better pay, better life style, etc. Some people also migrate because their home country is oppressing them, or does not offer equal chance to them or discriminates against them because of religion, caste etc.  

But consider the turnaround in Kafeel’s case. Kafeel goes to UK from India. The reason could be any of the above identified. Yet in an amazing turn of events, he starts feeling oppressed in UK too!!!!  And decides to take revenge. Who invited him to UK? Was it the British government? If he made the choice on his own free will, then surely he would have known beforehand what UK was offering him. Yet he made the choice to go there, and on his own free will. 

Is it not unprecedented, that one chooses a foreign country as his new residence, utilizes its infrastructure, its education, its money, and then says sorry……..you are too bad a country so I will bomb you? Consider the sheer hypocrisy here. A shameless sense of gratitude. Absence of any morals. If you did not like the country and its ways, why did you go there? And even after you went there and found it not as per your liking, why did you not simply return? Instead you choose to bomb the country.   

Kafeel and his motivation 

Now lets look at Kafeel’s motivation to maybe understand his psyche. Kafeel did, what he did, because he disagreed with British policy in Iraq, and Israel-Palestine issue. This is the kind of motivation that most people in the world have a problem with, and that is why sometimes Muslims get branded.  

You know most people, including me, can understand at least in some way, a Palestinian bombing Israel. He is oppressed, his family might have been killed, or if no harm has come to him and his family, at least his country is under subjugation. Infact sometimes I also understand Kashmiris bombing or killing Indians. They are the direct party feeling oppressed and subjugated. Therefore, although we might not agree with them and their methods, at least we understand the reason. That is why India and such other countries, who do not endorse violent means, still support the cause of Palestine. 

What I, and people like me cannot understand is, what was Kafeel’s relationship to the sufferings of people in Iraq /Palestine? How was he in any way related to these people? Was his family ever affected by policies of Britain and Israel? Were his relatives affected? Was his society affected? Was his country affected?  Was he in any way opressed by any means whatsoever? Infact Kafeel had as much to do with Palestine as I have. Which is zero? 

Oh yes, he had one thing in common with them. He shared the religion with the people of these lands. And for this reason alone he decided to Bomb his new country of choosing. All his loyalties were superseded by his loyalty to his religion. Therefore, when it came to choosing between his country and his religion, he chose his religion.  

Think of it like this. Kafeel says – I will enjoy all the benefits that my new country (UK), which I have chosen on my own free will,  has to offer, I will selfishly use all its facilities created by its citizens over centuries of hard work.  I will fight for the right to earn its citizenship. But if my new country (UK) goes to war with another country (Iraq), whose citizens happen to be of my own religion, then I will betray my new country (UK) and fight on the side of the enemy (Iraq).  You know what is this kind of behaviour called? At least treachary if not more.

End piece 

I raise the above point only to answer the argument, as to why Muslims are sometimes labelled. Because frankly, no other religion and its followers exhibit this trait. A trait where there is para loyalty to their religion above every thing else. A person who has been born and bought up in UK for 25 years ( the 2005 metro train bombers) choose to turn against their own country and murder fellow citizens. Not because Britain had harmed them in any way. Infact, quite the opposite. They had only gained from Britain’s way of life. They killed scores of people not because their loved ones have been killed. Not because they have faced oppression. Not because they have been discriminated against (the usual dfefences of such acts). 

Had any of the above happened, we could have at least understood, if not accepted, the reason. But they choose to murder fellow innocent people, of their own country, because some people in Iraq were killed in a war. And what relationship did they have with those people in Iraq, that made them more loayal towards them than their own countrymen –  None whatsoever, except that they shared the same religion.  

Many people opposed the Iraq war. There were indeed many legitimate reasons to oppose the war. International law, strategic calculations, human rights, proper justification, and myriad other reasons. And  a vast majority of people did indeed oppose the war in legitimate ways. But these terrorists opposition had only one reason. Shared religion.  And the manifestation of their opposition – mass murder of fellow innocent citizens. Were they freedom fighters for anyone? Anyone?

Muslims are also labelled because of another reason. Perfectly normal people, who are living otherwise very normal lives, choose to use all kinds of arguments to defend such actions. That Muslims are oppressed. That they are alienated. That they are demonized. 

Is it not unprecedented that Muslims are alienated in India and in US and in UK and in Australia and in Spain and in France and in China and in Russia and in any other country of consequence? Ironically, and not by coincidence, these countries are considered as the most open, free and just socities. 

However, I also agree with you, that not only a majority of Muslims but a very vast majority of Muslims are peace loving and have nothing to do with the actions of these terrorists. But what is most disappointing is that many educated individuals are not part of this majority. Because educated individuals, like the one I am addressing in this email, use arguments and language skills to defend acts of violence.  

Hinduism had over the middle years been plagued by many vices like sati, dowry etc. But it was rescued by educated leaders of the religion like Raja Ram Mohan Roy and Swami Vivekananda. These people fought against the clergy and dogma of those times, and did not defend the self serving actions of the entrenched order, but tried to change it. And that is the reason that Hinduism reinvented itself. 

The other great religion of the world, Christianity had similar movements across many countries which rescued it from the medieval vices and grip of the papacy. And it was also led by the educated class of that religion.   

When will this happen to the only other great religion of the world – Islam? We are awaiting that educated leading light, who will admit the there are problems in the way the religion is being practised and not always blame others for it. He will be revered because he will show to his people that Islam is a great religion. But he will also show to his people that like other religions, some of the followers of this great religion have twisted it during the middle ages and many distortions have crept in. And trust me, he may well be recognized as the greatest personality of that era. I hope it will be in my life time. 

Post Script 

I had marked the copy of the forward email to you, although it was controversial and provocative, only because I remembered that day in Diamond Hostel. And I remembered that you were such a true follower. And thus I had full confidence that you will understand the reason why I forwarded it. Although we have disagreed on many things but yet the tenor of your reply has only reinforced my belief.  

Only a true and genuine person could have been so polite, in face of such provocation. We disagree. But it is indeed heartening that we are not disagreeable. This alone gives me immense hope. 

Regards,

Akhilesh Mishra 

With reference to the situation in Israel, I just want to repost a quote from Benjamin Netanyahu.

Regardless of your feelings about the crisis between Israel and the Palestinians and Arab neighbors, even if you believe there is more culpability on Israel ‘s part, the following two sentences really say it all:

‘If the Arabs put down their weapons today, there would be no more violence.  If the Jews put down their weapons today, there would be no more Israel‘ -Benjamin Netanyahu

Recently I received a forwarded email on the Israeli actions in Gaza. As is wont of forwards these days, it was high on rhetoric and exaggerations and used some highly inventive ways to make its central point. In some ways it was funny too ( although I am sure many would disagree with me on the funny bit ). Like a faithful netizen I forwarded the email further to a large number of friends, not necessarily because I agreed with whatever was said in the email but more as a ritual. All the recipients of my email were my friends, some of whom happened to be Muslims. And therin lay the pitfall.

A good friend of mine, from college days, incidentally a Muslim, was one of the recipients. And he replied to the forward. A long, well argued and probably a pained reply. I am presuming that he was pained by what was implied in the email forward. He was, although, very deferential in his reply, a throwback to my college days, where he was a year junior to me. And yet, I could not agree with the broad strokes of his reply, as much as I might have disagreed with exaggerations in the original forward. I had no other option but to frame a response.

Produced in the accompanying pieces ( part – I  & part – II of the article with same name)  is the conversation in full. That is, the original forward, my friends reply to the forward and my response to his reply.

Why do I produce it here? – Because I think the conversation raised some very pertinent points which needed wider dissemination. 

Have I taken his permission to reproduce the conversation here? - No I have not.  But I believe, there is nothing in conversation which is private. It is a conversation between two individuals in writing, ( as opposed to verbal debates) and therefore  well thought out and from deeply held beliefs. 

Do I reproduce my friends name here? – This is the question that I had most difficulty in deciding on. Should I let his name out to the whole world, or just reproduce the conversation minus his name.  After an agonising few hours, I have decided to let his name out. For the sake of authenticity and and also for the reasons outlined in response to the previous question.

I am aware that some people, not least my friend himself, may feel appalled at what I am doing here. The reason for doing it is simple. Dialogue.  A dialogue at this stage, embarrassing as it may be, is better than future acrimony.

Regards,

Akhilesh Mishra