[Reader-list] Crime and No Punishment: Malegaon Blast Accused Get a Respite

[Rakesh Iyer]

Dear Murali jee

Even the launch and supply of certain products can bring about a public
debate, such as the distress sale of houses (after say riots or pogroms), or
the sale of commodities (in particular, say the sale of Tata Nano, which can
contribute in a vast manner to pollution, or the kind of subsidies granted
to it), or other things as well. And whether a dispute exists or not,
depends on the kind of value systems one wishes to look at. From the
Hindutva based system or simply an economic system which only considers
matters of personal income as of utmost importance, there may not be any
angle from which a dispute exists. But from different other systems (say
secularist, rights-based, capabilities approach of Sen or others), there
could be disputes as well.

It is up to you or others individually to take their own side of the divide.
I have already taken mine.

Most importantly, the claims which RSS professes, preaches and asks to
practice are issues which have to be substantially debated in public, and
then citizens should be allowed to choose as they wish. Otherwise, we will
simply witness more pub attacks of the kind seen in Mangalore. If the RSS
feels that women going to pubs is wrong, it should initiate a discussion and
debate on the same in public, otherwise people who believe in similar
ideologies, even if belonging to different organizations, would take law and
order in their own hands and indulge in similar theatrics (irrespective of
whether law does take its just course or not).

And as for tolerance, Akbar can be considered to be the second-most
tolerating king of India after Ashoka. Of course, it may be difficult for
you to digest that, but this is what Akbar said in the year of 1591-1592,
when the Muslim Hijra calendar completed its 1000 years: (I directly quote
from Sen's book 'Development As Freedom' again for this)

'If a Hindu, when a child or otherwise, had been made a Muslim against his
will, he is to be allowed, if he pleased, to go back to the religion of his
fathers'

The strangest part is that Akbar actually argued for the 'forcible
repatriation of a young Hindu woman to her father's family if she had
abandoned it in pursuit of a Muslim lover.' And this stand is similar to
VHP's stand that Muslim men must not be friends or lovers or husbands of
Hindu women. Great similarities indeed!! (And hence Akbar was even tolerant
of VHP's view of today. Of course, Sen is critical of this argument, and so
am I. )

Of course, there were other kings as well who did practice toleration,
though they used religion in their political affairs also as a policy of
appeasement, to please the Muslim clerics. Of course, the clerics also
accused them of the same, like now some of the people accuse the
'secularist' parties. (I am not denying that claim, but a large part of the
claim seems to be far-fetched).

I do not deny the claims of destruction of temples on grand scale or forced
conversion of Hindus, but I can't accept those to be the criterion for
mistrust of today's Muslims living across the world and in the Indian state.
Neither can I accept that contention that Muslims deserve a similar
treatment as to what some of their ancestors did. It's like saying that the
Hindus should be bombed for the heinous crimes committed by VHP and Bajrang
Dal or other Hindu organizations across various riots.

Regards

Rakesh