Retributions  

If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!

The elephant in the room

It is hard to speculate why A R Antulay suddenly scored a self goal by doubting the killing of Hemant Karkar in an ancounter with Pakistani terrorists. And let’s be clear about it: Despite the partial denials, what Antulay was clearly insinuating was that Karkare killing was a conspiracy hatched by groups hell-bent on punishing the ATS chief for his dogged pursuit of Malegaon bombers. At a time when India has upped the ante against Pakistan, the comments of a minister of the Indian government are foolish, extremely provocative and militate against the basic principle of collective responsibility. In short, ministers don’t indulge in conspiracy theories and definitely not in a case of such monumental importance.

Perhaps the explanation is mundane: Mr Antulay was simply following the example of the likes of Arjun Singh–marginalized politicians who had latched on to emotive topics to ensure their continued political survival. For a politician whose previous claim to fame was extortion, it is not certainly unexpected.

But the larger question remains: Why would Mr Antulay deliberately embarrass his party, the government, and the nation? As he himself points out, he has been in politics for over 60 years so would have been well aware of the ruckus his comments would raise. Sure enough, as Seema Chisti documents in the Indian Express, the Urdu newspapers have endorsed Mr Antulay’s conspiracy theories. Or as Mohammad Shahabuddin, another has-been leader of the Muslim community points out, Mr Antulay has merely articulated what a large section of the Muslims feel. To be fair, other organizations  like Muslims for Secular Democracy have denounced Mr Antulay’s comments. But the larger point remains: If Mr Antulay had not felt that his comments would find traction within the Muslim community, he would have felt no need to say what he did.

Now let’s not mince words here. A large section of the Muslim community remains in denial at the rise of the extremisim within their ranks. After the Batla House encounter, without an iota of proof, Muslim bodies raised doubts about the veracity of the encounter. This despite the fact that a decorated police officer was slain by the same terrorists many Muslim organizations were hell bent on defending. This pattern has been repeated multiple times. Encouraged by a morally and intellectually bankrupt Muslim leadership and a political leadership which relies on fear to garner Muslim votes (as M J Akbar recently argued in an op-ed in Hindustan Times), these organizations continue to dent the legitimacy of the Indian state while ostensibly fighting against terrorism and extremism. How can terrorism be fought by repeatedly doubting the state? How can terrorism be fought by equating Indian state and terrorists? If the terrorists in Mumbai had not been Pakistanis but Indian Muslims, it is hard to believe that theories of Hindu-Zionists would not have found greater acceptability within the Muslim community.

And let’s be clear: This kind of attitude–of conspiracy theories and of perpetual victim hood–angers a lot of us who consider Muslims equal citizens. It infuriates a lot of those who don’t demand that Muslims march against every terror attacks because the ordinary Muslim is as much responsible for acts of those who share his religion as Hindus bears responsibility for murderers and rioters who proclaim the same faith. And yes, it weakens those who believe that it is the Indian state–despite all it weaknesses and its warts–which guarantees the best future for the one billion Indians.

Equally, it would be wrong to blame only the Muslim leadership or the so-called secular politics. What about the instruments of the Indian state–most importantly the police? It would be easy enough to argue that the common Indian generally mistrusts the police. He believes that the police dances to the tune of its political masters. However, it would be amiss to ignore the well-documented cases of prejudice against Muslims exhibited by the Indian police. Perhaps, the most egregious example of it remains the Hashimpura massacre of  innocent Muslims by men of Provincial Armed Constabulary. Indeed, in multiple communal riots–from Bombay to Gujarat–the role of the police has hardly been exemplary, directed more by wishes of their political masters and their own communal bias than the rule of law. Recently, in Hyderabad, after the Meeca Masjid blasts, innocent Muslims were picked up and tortured.

Each such incident weakens the link between the State and the Muslim community. Each such incident provides space for leaders such an Antulay to further their political career at the altar of Muslim grievances. Each such outrage strengthens those who believe that there is no justice for Muslims within India.

What may be the way forward? One way would be for initiation of dialogue between the police and the Muslim community. Indeed, in places like Mumbai where community policing has been pushed forward by few enlightened policemen, it has helped cool communal temperatures. The larger answer may well be freeing the police from political control by implementing police reforms. Whatever may be the solution–and this needs to be debated in larger circles–weakening the Indian state is not the answer.