Communal Riots In Delhi: “Bhaiyya, Are All Of You Safe?”

Communal Riots In Delhi: “Bhaiyya, Are All Of You Safe?”

                                                                                           Saeed Naqvi

It is heart breaking to receive messages of concern from friends and relatives overseas whenever Hindu-Muslim riots break out. Most painful by far is the query from relatives in Pakistan:

“Bhaiyya, are all of you safe?”

The very transparent sincerity somehow comes across to me like Bergman’s reconstruction of a nightmare: faces of relatives, in a collage, jeering at me.

No deep Freudian interpretation is needed to decode this one. Until the 80s, cousins from Pakistan were regular visitors because they found the “colour” in our lives a relief from their lives, rich in other ways, but set against the monotone of faith. Once, after visiting relatives across the border, my brother Shanney, summed up his impressions succinctly: “nice place, but too full of Muslims.” This apt description found great traction with plagiarists who claimed it as their innovation.

In an age of inelegance, Shanney’s subtlety requires elaboration. In our Qasbah of Mustafabad near Rae Bareli, we grew up in a home where religion was important enough to warrant a mosque in the courtyard, but it did not come in the way of Pandit Brij Mohan Nath Kachar’s annual visits to deliver lectures, to a packed house of Mustafabadis on the battle of Karbala. In Lucknow, likewise, our Eid began with a fixed ritual: Babu Mahavir Prasad Srivastava (Babuji, we called him) placing a one rupee coin in each one of our hands by way of “Eidi”. As much of a fixture was the guest appearance of the Mahant of the nearby Mandir at my father’s celebration of Hazrat Ali’s birthday.

A story comes to mind which clarifies Shanney a little more. Poet Ali Sardar Jafri and I attended a most tasteful Holi organized by the late Nandita Judge at the Times of India bungalow on New Delhi’s Tilak Marg. The versatile Birju Maharaj sat on an elevated platform with a “dholak”. This greatest of Kathak dancers could, on his day, play an incredible range of musical instruments and sing all the “bandishes”, compositions centred around “Braj”, the terrain of Krishan’s dalliance with Radha and the gopis – the cultural core of the spectacle of Holi. It was precisely this which had inspired Raskhan and, in more recent times, Maulana Hasrat Mohani who wrote of his adoration for Krishna in Brajbhasha, Awadhi and Uudu. His Haj was incomplete without a visit to Barsana, the abode of Radha. These are only a few of the traditions which shaped our sensibilities, exactly the ones which found Jafari ‘Saab’ and me, riveted on Birju Maharaj’s “abhinay”, or mime of Krishna’s playfulness, Radha’s controlled spontaneity, rejecting and submitting at the same time. It was an alluring wonderland, its magic enhanced with the light sprinkling of colour and organic gulal.

“Let us organize Eid like this”, I blurted out. Jafri Saab glared at me. Suddenly I realized I had said something very stupid. Eid is a celebration of Abraham’s sacrifice – but it does not have a romantic, spectacular evolution over thousands of years of Holi, Deepawali or Dussehra. Shanney was fortunate to enjoy both traditions: the ones his cousins enjoy across the border and the other which leaves him joyous and free as a lark. These multicultural hues were alluring for our cousins.

Ofcourse, Kashmir came up in discussions to which, pat, came our formulation which we had, over time, come to believe in: “Indian secularism protects, among a billion others, the world’s third largest Muslim population. Every issue, particularly Kashmir, should be touched sensitively, keeping the overall edifice in mind.” How naïve we were.

“The overall edifice” had to crumble because of its faulty foundation but, over a considerable period, it was crumbling imperceptibly.

Even so our multicultural edifice was credible enough to hurry Gen. Zia ul Haq into promoting Nizam e Mustafa as a prophylactic against Indian secularism. His enthusiastic participation in the Afghan Mujahideen project had this important dimension: to wrench Pakistan away from South Asian multiculturalism. Under his auspices, Pakistan would seek salvation in a West Asian Islamic identity.

Just then Prime Minister V.P. Singh pushed a huge boulder into the pond. By dusting up the Mandal commission report reserving government jobs for a large number of Other Backward castes, he drastically reduced the size of the pie to be distributed among the upper castes. V.P. Singh was playing vote bank politics from a social justice platform.

This invited a sharp double fisted response from the upper caste party, the BJP. That is when the then BJP President, L.K. Advani set up the Ram Janmbhoomi and Babari Masjid conflict, custom made for Hindu-Muslim polarization – exactly the polarization which brought Atal Behari Vajpayee’s coalition government to power in 1996 and Narendra Modi in 2014. Modi’s hard anti Muslim plank has synchronized with the western world riding a rampaging Islamophobia. Even the February 2002 Gujarat pogrom was to some extent drowned out by the US air strikes in Afghanistan. The same hard line which brought Modi to power in 2014 earned him greater electoral dividends in 2019. But there remains an almighty fly in the ointment. Modi’s historic win is still based only on 38% of the vote. Remember, communalism whipped up by the Ayodhya movement neutralized casteism aggravated by V.P. Singh – but nowhere near saturation point from where an honest bid can be made for a Hindu Rashtra. Towards that end communalism has to be stepped up to a higher plane, possibly so high as to make the riots in North East Delhi look a trial run.

The descending darkness is disturbing but each one of us has to carry our cross in our own way, from our homes, our neighbourhoods, indeed our country. Is nostalgia misplaced in such circumstances? As a ten year old, I sang Kaifi Azmi’s “Naye Hindostaan mein hum nayi jannat banayenge.” (In new India we shall create a new paradise) at my uncle’s college in Rae Bareli on India’s first Republic Day.

#          #          #          #

Disarray In Democratic Ranks: Has Modi Picked Two Term Trump?

Disarray In Democratic Ranks: Has Modi Picked Two Term Trump?

                                                                                           Saeed Naqvi

A tantalizing tweet or two can change the atmospherics, otherwise Narendra Modi may well be hosting a two term Trump in Ahmedabad next week. The race for the Democratic nomination to fight Trump is a melee at this stage which could help enhance Modi’s reputation as a gambler. It must be remembered, of course, there are nine months left for American elections. Much can change.

So far the Democratic race has similarities with the primaries which lead to a Hillary Clinton-Trump contest in 2016. Back then, what was in bad odour with the electorate was the Washington establishment. The two who reached out for the establishment’s jugular from two diametrically opposite ideological positions were Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders. But the Democratic National Committee (DNC) had set its heart on Hillary Clinton as the party’s nominee for President. In doing so it overlooked a crucial detail: the national mood was against the Establishment and Clinton, more than most was the core of the Establishment.

We all know what happened. Since I was witness to the drama on that fateful night of the election results, let me reproduce bits of what I wrote:

“A dozen or so friends, who had assembled in Lucknow boy turned New Yorker, Nusrat Durrani's trendy DUMBO loft under the Brooklyn Bridge, did not have the heart to uncork champagne bottles because we were not sure which one of the Clinton supporters in the party might be offended. So champagne bottles stood on the table like a row of ponderous bishops.”

“Our adorable Jewish World Banker friend couldn’t bear to look at the screen. ‘I feel faint; I must leave.’  Another from the state department was on frantic long distance calls advising her family to prepare for the worst. A neighbour, banged frantically at the door, and barged in, beads of perspiration on her brow.  She could not bear to watch the results alone.  She needed to hold her neighbour’s hand.  It was all too unnerving, the earth was moving from beneath people's feet.”

Our very own Surjit Bhalla had dutifully alerted New Delhi: Trump’s victory would be the “end of western civilization.”

The reason I have indulged in this bit of nostalgia, even on the pain of being repetitious, is quite straightforward: the nomination race scripted by the DNC and the improvisations introduced en route could make November 2020 resemble its 2016 version when the party’s biased high command waylaid Sanders, ahead in the popularity stakes, by citing a 1962 law.

Now, in 2020, once again Sanders is ahead in the field. This should not surprise observers because the Sanders phenomena did not recede even after 2016. In fact a Fox New Poll in 2017, established his exceptional popularity. The poll showed Sanders +28 rating above all US politicians on both sides of the political spectrum. Trevor Timm of the Guardian, London, wrote:

“One would think with numbers like that, Democratic politicians would be falling all over themselves to be associated with Sanders, especially considering the party as a whole is more unpopular than the Republicans and even Donald Trump right now. Yet instead of embracing his message, the Establishment wing of the party continues to resist him at almost every turn.”

That was written in 2017. The situation remains unchanged. In fact there seems to be a greater urgency in Democratic ranks to stop Sanders than to stop Trump winning a second term. This priority has been explicitly spelt out by that superior pundit of American journalism, Thomas Friedman of the New York Times. As early as November, 2019, he began to promote Michael Bloomberg, Billionaire and former New York Mayor, as the Democratic nominee. Friedman demonstrates impeccable manners by making a disclosure: Bloomberg philanthropies has contributed to the Museum Mrs. Friedman is building in Washington to promote reading and literacy. He agrees “capitalism is not working for enough people in America.” Having thus protected himself, Friedman eulogizes the billionaire aspirant in a column titled “Why I like Mike”.

What can anyone say if the NYT grants him his self-indulgence – and not just once. By the time the Democratic race for the nominee hots up in January, Friedman produces another Bloomberg boosting column. This time there is panic writ large all over him because Sanders is ahead in a field of six. If Senator Joe McCarthy were to reappear by some magical incantation, he would hold Friedman in a tight embrace for the columnist’s disdain for an “avowed socialist.” The Trump machine “will cast Sanders as Che Guevara – and it won’t even be that hard.”

Just consider the scale of the exaggeration: America’s best known columnist conjures up images of Che to scare Americans away from Sanders. The senator from Vermont has to be painted in lurid colours because he describes himself as Democratic Socialist, dedicated to a platform which seeks to reverse inequality. “Ours is a capitalist country” Friedman thumps his chest.

To make Donald Trump a one term President, Friedman and his ilk have located the sure-fire Democratic winner – Mike Bloomberg. This most favoured candidate crossed over from the Republican Party just the other day. Frisk and search operations against blacks and Hispanics was a racist nightmare during his terms as New York Mayor. Stories of his sexist misbehavior are legion. He shall be forgiven all his misdemeanor. His big bucks matter. He catapulted onto the stage for the eighth Democratic debate in Las Vegas without having gone through the normal process of primaries. He made a donation of $350 million to the NDC, has already splurged $400 million on ads. Who knows a billion may still be in the pipeline. American exceptionalism possibly bestows on aspiring candidates a choice: they can drudge their way to the nomination by mobilizing the people or, they can simply buy the nomination, off the shelf. In the end the likes of Friedman will probably enlighten us which way to the top is more Democratic?

Trump may well thump his pal on the back during the Motera stadium festivities: “you were clever endorsing me at Howdy Modi; the disarray in Democratic ranks will prove you right.”

#          #          #          #

Illiberal, Identity Politics, Islamophobia, Anti-Semitism, Galloping In Tandem

Illiberal, Identity Politics, Islamophobia, Anti-Semitism, Galloping In Tandem

                                                                                           Saeed Naqvi

Was Shylock victim or villain? The question never arose when Geoffrey Kendal came to school in the 50s and 60s to perform Shakespeare. The Merchant of Venice was a great favourite because it appealed to us at several levels. There was the continuing suspense on whether or not Shylock, Jewish money lender, would be able to exact the pound of flesh he had meanly inserted in the agreement, should the needy merchant, Antonio, fail to pay back the loan.

A pound of flesh closest to the heart was Shylock’s revenge: he had been insulted by the Christians; he had had his “Jewish gabardine” publicly spat upon. But Shylock’s grief reaches epic proportions when Christians inflict a nasty bit of “Love Jihad” on him: his daughter Jessica runs away with Lorenzo, a Christian. Worse, she runs away with his “ducats”, the currency those days. “O’ my daughter; O’ my ducats”. I cannot remember a courtroom with such nail biting suspense when Portia saves Antonio from Shylock’s blade.

Anti-Semitism, from much before Elizabethan times, remained a sentiment in two powerful strands. One was the direct Christian prejudice against Jews in Europe which climaxed with Hitler in Germany. The Islamic conquest of Spain in the 8^th century led to the flourishing of a composite culture in which Muslims, Christians and Jews contributed in equal measure. The Reconquista or the return of Christian rule in 1478 led to the Spanish Inquisitions which were harsher on Jews than on Muslims.

The basic conflict, whether in Northern Europe or in the Iberian Peninsula, was always between Christianity and Judaism, not the least because Christians blamed Jews for Christ’s death. What has puzzled me always is the deafening Jewish-Muslim acrimony. I shall never forget the day in the Royal Palace in Rabat, Morocco when I found myself seated in the office of Andre Azoulay, the late King Hasan’s principal adviser. He was the second most powerful man in the Kingdom. He was a Sephardic Jew like so many others in the country who held key posts. A mandatory annual event was the jamboree hosted by His Majesty for Sephardic Jews in the diaspora. This sentimental reunion was a continuation of a medieval tradition. When 50,000 Jews were expelled from Spain after the Reconquista, Morocco and other North African states had accorded the new “refugees”, extraordinary hospitality. Even after Jews from this part of the world had made their homes in Israel, they remembered how well Morocco had treated them. I have seen photographs of King Hasan dominate Sephardic drawing rooms in Jerusalem.

By the 80s the Jewish state and the international Jewry had become so powerful that even “reworking” Shakespeare became a legitimate intervention. Rather than discard the Merchant of Venice and select anyone of Shakespeare’s plays in 1989, Director Sir Peter Hall chose to tweak Shakespeare and impart rationalism to Shylock’s character. Dustin Hoffman virtually reimagined Shylock, toning down his usurious rate of interest, thereby enhancing the sympathy factor for the money lender. A sort of Christian ganging up against a hapless “professional” was played up. Shylock’s tragic end is ironically the heart of the play’s mirth.

The toning down of the Shakespearean prejudice against Jews was clearly a function of guilt on account of the excesses during the second war. The remarkable rise in anti-Semitism in recent decades by comparison leaves one aghast. Sympathy for Jews has given place to an awe for the Jewish state. The exceptional achievements of Jewish people will always shine through but individuals are being submerged in unwholesome Zionist excesses.

These excesses are being amplified by Donald Trump’s singularly one sided support for anything Benjamin Netanyahu demands. The general projection of both as heartless bullies automatically accelerates anti-Semitism. Take the Deal of the Century: only the duet and their closest groups were ecstatic. There will be a corresponding spike in ill will.

Do you think American campuses are falling over each other in adoration for Trump and his Buddy – after he signed an Executive Order aimed at combating anti-Semitism on college campuses.

“This is our message to universities: if you want to accept the federal dollars you get each year, you must reject anti-Semitism.” What must students do to become good boys entitled to federal funds? Abandon “Boycott, Divest and Sanction Israel movement” which has been popular on campuses.

Jewish lobbies in Poland, for example, were bringing to bear their considerable clout on property transactions. Properties owned by Jews before the war were being successfully reclaimed by the old owners at throw away prices. When a Polish law sought to prevent these transactions, the State Department intervened. Officials in Washington would keep a watchful eye to protect Jewish interests. Imagine how Poles would respond to such interference.

Rise of anti-migrant, anti-Semitic leaders in Hungary, Germany, Austria, Poland, is a depressing list. By their behaviour the Trump-Netanyahu duet have only aggravated the situation.

At an international conference in Warsaw last year, Israeli Foreign Minister, Yisrael Katz accused the Polish leadership of anti-Semitism. His language was unbelievably coarse: “Poles suckle anti-Semitism from their mother’s milk.” How would this outburst have registered with Primetime TV viewers in Poland?

An undercurrent of anti-Semitism remains unnoticed because the global media is more willingly focused on Islamophobia. Is under reporting of anti-Semitic incidents a deterrent? The very first question Trump’s first press conference was by Jake Turx, newly minted White House correspondent for Ami magazine, an orthodox Jewish publication from Brooklyn. The question was on the recent surge of hate crimes against Jews. Trump completely misunderstood the question. He thought the young reporter was accusing the new President of anti-Semitism. Some tongue lashing followed. A startled Jake Turx sought to mollify Trump.

“You have Jewish grandchildren. You are their Zayed (Yiddish for grandfather).” The mist may have lifted that day, but Turx’s publication from that day is a useful guide to burgeoning anti-Semitism, of which the vicious knife attack in Monsey, New York, during Hanukkah celebrations last December has been among the minor incidents.

#          #          #          #