They say no one goes to the famous dargah sharif in Ajmer without an inner call from Khwaja Moinuddin Chishti, the 12-13th century Sufi saint whose grave and shrine it is. His devotees, therefore, may not be able to come to terms with the death of Mohammed Salim, who died in the explosion that took place in the dargah on October 11, 2007. Ignominy, worse than death, was also his portion. A piece of wire allegedly found in Salim’s pocket was used by the police as a pretext to declare him a Harkat-ul-Jehad Islami (HUJI) terrorist who died in his own attempt to spread mayhem. Needless to say, Salim’s family was denied the Rs 5 lakh compensation announced for those who died in the blast. When his father took the body home to Hyderabad for the last rites, he was bowed under the shame of being called a terrorist’s father.
Three years on, the arrest of Devendra Gupta and his accomplices—all either Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) members or sympathisers—has cleared Mohammed Salim’s name. The compensation money, though, is still tied up in red tape.
If this is the fate of a Muslim who died in a blast with which he had nothing to do, what to expect for those Muslims who were rounded up as suspects, detained illegally, and tortured for days for what the police now says was a Hindutva terror plot? Maulana Shameem of Khandela and Maulana Khushibur Rahman of Sardarshahar—both towns in north Rajasthan—were illegally detained and tortured for days. A dozen other maulvis and madrassa tutors were subjected to intense interrogation, again in illegal detention. Hundreds of Bengali Muslims in Ajmer were declared Bangladeshis with HUJI links and the slums they lived in were cleared for land sharks to move in.
Sadly, the media—through not being sceptical and asking the right questions—was complicit in these atrocities. Those arrested were immediately painted as fearsome terrorists. Fantastic stories were written and broadcast on the strength of quotes from anonymous police and intelligence sources. These stories gathered weight from the endorsement of the HUJI-LeT theory by no less a person than Shivraj Patil, the then Union home minister.
Those who raised questions then about the human rights of the suspects who no longer are suspects were branded supporters of terrorists both by the police and the media—just the way they are now being called Maoist sympathisers when they question indiscriminate sweeps on tribals by security forces pursuing Maoist rebels.
Another loaded question is: would Islamist jehadis target mosques? They could—inter-sectarian attacks are fairly common outside India and a classical Islamist will conceivably not be especially comfortable with dargahs. Still, the question does offer a natural source of doubt. But any expression of it, or suggestion of a Hindutva angle—despite the fact that the Nanded/Kanpur bomb incidents had already come to light—was mocked at as a conspiracy theory.
Yesterday’s conspiracy theory is today the establishment’s truth about the Ajmer blast, as with Malegaon. Devendra and Sanjay Gupta, Vishnu and Chandrashekhar Patidar and Lokesh Sharma, now named in the Ajmer case, have been found to have links with the RSS and some extremist Hindutva groups. As an organisation, the RSS has denied involvement with any terrorist act. But it has also admitted that some of these suspects had been its members. Now, police are investigating the link between those arrested for the Ajmer blast and Malegaon suspects Sadhvi Pragya Singh, Lt Col Srikant Purohit, Maj (retd) Ramesh Upadhyay, Swami Dayanand and Swami Aseemanand. The Rajasthan police is also investigating possible links between the Ajmer, Goa and Mecca Masjid blasts: for instance, the likelihood of a SIM card being used to trigger them.
But there’s a crucial difference in the coverage of these cases. The Muslims who were illegally detained and tortured were immediately profiled as terrorists; fantastic profiles of The Jehadi Terrorist, his background, upbringing, indoctrination and training were on the front pages and on hour after hour of airtime. The Hindutva extremists held in the same cases, however, are being referred to just as suspects. Nowhere to be seen is the thriller vocabulary of ‘modules’, ‘sleeper cells’ and ‘concentric circles’. No wonder the common Muslim feels discriminated against.
Therefore, a cautionary note for the media is quite in order: Do not unthinkingly accept axiomatic government handouts and join it in hounding those who speak up for human rights. Instead of beating down the doubting Thomases, ask the right questions yourself. You may well end up saving the irreparable human cost innocents—like those held and tortured for the Ajmer blasts—are forced to pay.
Thank you to all those who have taken the trouble to read the article and share their thoughts. Out of the arguments made here, there are two that perhaps need answering. So here they go.
1. The first part of the article compares outcomes (relative percentages of population of the religions concerned) irrespective of the process that led to those outcomes - whether immigration, relatively faster population growth or conversions. This was for two reasons. One, to put the figure of 2.3 per cent in "numerical perspective", as the article itself explained. The second reason was that outcomes are ultimately what the crux of debate is about. The rest of the article in any case dealt with process - or conversions in this case, from both a contemporary and historical perspective.
2. Some commenters have tried to cast doubts on the reliability of Census 2001. Those who do this should bear in mind that Census 2001 was conducted by a BJP government. Considering the extreme importance that BJP gives to this issue, it would be reasonable to expect that IF it had perceived a problem with the methodology that was distorting the numbers, it would have fixed it. As the article mentioned, BJP or BJP-supported governments have been in power for 10 of the last 40 years, or about a quarter of the time, and the only reasonable conclusion one can arrive at is that any misreporting of numbers, real or perceived, would be marginal and hence, not of importance.
To all other arguments made, my answer is the following: Please read the article again, with particular focus on the quotations of Vivekananda and Monier Williams, and the history of the missionary efforts in Bengal and their outcome.
We at Outlookindia.com welcome feedback and your comments, including scathing criticism
1. Scathing, passionate, even angry critiques are welcome, but please do not indulge in abuse and invective. Our Primary concern is to keep the debate civil. We urge our users to try and express their disagreements without being disagreeable. Personal attacks are not welcome. No ad hominem please.
2. Please do not post the same message again and again in the same or different threads
3. Please keep your responses confined to the subject matter of the article you are responding to. Please note that our comments section is not a general free-for-all but for feedback to articles/blogs posted on the site
4. Our endeavour is to keep these forums unmoderated and unexpurgated. But if any of the above three conditions are violated, we reserve the right to delete any comment that we deem objectionable and also to withdraw posting privileges from the abuser. Please also note that hate-speech is punishable by law and in extreme circumstances, we may be forced to take legal action by tracing the IP addresses of the poster.
5. If someone is being abusive or personal, or generally being a troll or a flame-baiter, please do not descend to their level. The best response to such posters is to ignore them and send us a message at Mail AT outlookindia DOT com with the subject header COMPLAINT
6. Please do not copy and paste copyrighted material. If you do think that an article elsewhere has relevance to the point you wish to make, please only quote what is considered fair-use and provide a link to the article under question.
7. There is no particular outlookindia.com line on any subject. The views expressed in our opinion section are those of the author concerned and not that of all of outlookindia.com or all its authors.
8. Please also note that you are solely responsible for the comments posted by you on the site. The comments could be deleted or edited entirely at our discretion if we find them objectionable. However, the mere fact of their existence on our site does not mean that we necessarily approve of their contents. In short, the onus of responsibility for the comments remains solely with the authors thereof. Outlookindia.com or any of its group publications, may, however, retains the right to publish any of these comments, with or without editing, in any medium whatsoever. It is therefore in your own interest to be careful before posting.
9.Outlookindia.com is not responsible in any manner whatsoever for how any search engine -- such as Google, Bing etc -- caches or displays these comments. Please note that you are solely responsible for posting these comments and it is a privilege being granted to our registered users which can be withdrawn in case of abuse. To reiterate:
a. Comments once posted can only be deleted at the discretion of outlookindia.com
b. The comments reflect the views of the authors and not of outlookindia.com
c. outlookindia.com is not responsible in any manner whatsoever for the way search engines cache or display these comments
d. Please therefore take due caution before you post any comments as your words could potentially be used against you
10. We have an online thread for our comments policy:
You are welcome to post your suggestions here or in case you have a specific issue, to directly email us at Mail AT outlookindia DOT com with the subject header COMPLAINT