In his new and entirely worthless book 'Sunrise over Ayodhya', Salman Khurshid writes
In world history, there have been innumerable souls who chose resistance over submission and supine calculation. Mahatma Gandhi, Emiliano Zapata, Che Guevara, Martin Luther King, Nelson Mandela,
so far so good. All these people championed the underdog. But Khurshid next mentions a great pal of Churchill who helped extend the British Empire and to defeat the Turks
Lawrence of Arabia
Is Khurshid utterly mad? Lawrence served in the RAF in India and had no sympathy whatsoever for the Indian National Congress. Why couple the name of a gifted writer who served his King Emperor with valor with those who rebelled against Imperialism, Global Capitalism, and White Supremacy?
The other big question is why Khurshid does not mention a single Muslim name in an article where he is attacking a fellow Muslim- Faizan Mustapha- who says that little will change if India becomes an officially Hindu country. This is true but Hindus don't want any such thing because we all hope that our own sect will get minority status. The problem with having an Established Religion is that the legislature gets to impose its own stupid shibboleths on the members of the majority sect. Khurshid, however, thinks he himself is Lawrence of Arabia. Faizan probably sodomized him as the Turks sodomized Lawrence which is why that nutter would get himself whipped every year on the anniversary of that happy occasion. It must be said that the Turks were randy buggers. Many a British officer captured at Kut was sodomized in between bouts of dysentery. Lawrence may have been the exception of the rule in that he gloried in this discomfiture- something even his pal Churchill considered uncalled for.Prof. Faizan Mustafa, perhaps, needs to do a rethink. I can hardly imagine the likes of John Stuart Mill, Edward Said, Ronald Dworkin, John Rawls, Noam Chomsky,
We cannot let them down by negotiating peace
The historical trajectories that culminated in the constitutional positions described by Prof. Mustafa are vastly different from our experience. There is no way to believe that a change such as contemplated by Prof. Mustafa will be innocuous as far as human rights are concerned, including the right to citizenship.
Khurshid seems to have forgotten that his party is now an ally of the Shiv Sena. Either Verma's decision was wrong in 1995 or his party is wrong today for allying with a Hindu supremacist movement.
In my own party, the Congress, discussion often veers towards this subject. There is a section that, with growing assertiveness, regrets the fact that our image is that of a pro-minority party and advocates the jeneu-dhari credentials of our leadership; this section responded to the Ayodhya judgment with the declaration that a bhavya (grand) temple should be built on the site, bypassing any further politics over this issue. That position, of course, overlooked or sidestepped the part of the Supreme Court order, directing land to be given for a masjid as well. On one particular occasion, as senior leaders gathered for a cup of tea after flag hoisting, a colleague indulged in a refrain about the BJP’s intention to create a Hindu Rashtra but was left speechless when the party president asked what a Hindu Rashtra would be.
The BJP must know what it intends, but its top leaders skirt the issue in their ambition to secure world recognition,
Seshadri Chari, former editor of Organiser and a rational communicator, has tried to explain Hindu Rashtra in remarkably comforting terms: 'The words Hindu, Hindutva and Hinduism have defied definition . . . The word dharma, as in ‘Hindu dharma’, cannot be equated with the Western concept of religion . . . In fact, the term ‘Hindu dharma’ itself is a misnomer.. . . ‘Hindu’ refers to a society, a group of people with a distinct cultural and civilisational character, a core set of beliefs, traditions, practices—and, yes, prejudices too. In the Indian context, dharma forms the very basis of everyday life, it is about ethics, values and social mores, not religion . . .*
The trouble is that by distinguishing dharma from religion and using that as the core content of Hinduism and Hindutva, by encasing it all as a way of life, we blind ourselves to the major cultural input of Muslims in the medieval age.
Even as celebrated champions of liberal secularism, like Jyotiraditya Scindia,
Yet critics tell us that since we became free in 1947, any talk of freedom now is idle, misconceived, foolish or suspicious, if not patently seditious.