'So-Called Liberal And Secular Hindus Cross All Limits'

It is mischievous to suggest that Rajiv capitulated to the mullahs. It was notjust the mullahs who were against this judgement but also ordinary, devoutand religious Muslims. They were deeply affronted. He honoured the wishes of the averageMuslims. Had he not got Parliament to pass a law upturning the SC judgement, it would have led to not justriots and a serious law and order problem, but also to a state of siege in the minds of the Muslim community.They would have been left sulking, hurt, insecure, who would have felt that the promise of thefounding fathers of the Constitution of the country was betrayed. It wouldnot have led to any improvement in the status of women at all.

It would have been a black-chapter in Indian history. If gone unchanged, itwould have exacerbated the in-built insecurity of the Muslims. They wouldhave felt that they were not getting justice from the judiciary, nor fromthe executive and the legislature. It would have been seen not just as anattack on the Holy Quran but also an attack on the beleaguered minorityreligion per se.

That the majority of Muslim women were in favour of the SC judgement in the Shah Banocase is just a canard spread by some so-called feminists and self-styled liberals. They were all combined atbest a minuscule minority. Overwhelming numberof Muslim women were against it, and felt equally deeply insulted. Theirview was not similar to that of Shahbano. As a result of Parliament'sintervention, the lot of the Indian Muslim women is in fact better today. Itis mischievous to suggest that Rajiv Gandhi capitulated to the Mullahs.

What if the Babri Masjid had not been unlocked by Rajiv Gandhi in 1986?

What would have happened? Nothing would have happened. It was a deliberateattempt by some over-smart advisors to an inexperienced but well-meaningyoung PM who wanted nothing else but communal harmony. Little did he realisethat he was letting the genie out of the bottle and creating a monster, muchlike Frankenstein. He was probably counseled that his act would please theHindus, and that the charge of "appeasement" levelled against him by theso-called liberals on the Shahbano case would be neutralised, "ki aam Hindukhush ho jaayegaa". I am happy to say that the common Hindu was actuallyoutraged. The secular Hindu could see the politics behind the issue.

No matter what the BJP/VHP types say, I don't think it would have led to anyriots if the Masjid gates had not been opened. After all, it had been afunctioning Masjid till 1949 when the statues suddenly "materialised" - whenthey were actually surreptitiously sneaked in. The point is, why weren'tthere any riots in the period 1949 to 1986?

This was perhaps Rajiv Gandhi's biggest blunder after the rational decisiontaken in the Shahbano case, which was legitimately to redress a realgrievance under constitutional provisions. This opening the locks of theBabri Masjid, on the other hand, was not based on any real grievance. Theremay have been a dispute, but it was only at a local level. Even in and since1949, the issue had never created any waves. There was no question of anyreligious hurt in the national conscience. I have great love and respect forthe religious feelings of my Hindu brothers and sisters, and if I wasconvinced that they were then actually feeling hurt because the birthplaceof their revered Ram was under dispute, I would be the first to speak ontheir behalf. But let's not forget facts. Ayodhya itself has a large numberof temples, each of them claiming to be the real birthplace of respected andworshipped Lord Rama.

But in political terms, yes, had Rajiv Gandhi not given in to thismisdirected move, the Congress would not have lost out on both the Hindu andthe Muslim votes. Isn't that the biggest irony of it all? Remember that theBJP at that time had been reduced to only 2 seats. The Hindus, because theycould see that Congress was trying to politically exploit the situation, andbecause they were against politicisation of a local problem. The rest ofthem got taken in by the BJP propaganda.

Also, look at the tremendous cost that has been paid by the country, because of the revival of this controversy. None of this would havehappened. The lives of -- Muslims, Hindus, children, women -- innocentswould not have been lost because of resulting riots and chaos. The country'senergies would not have been dissipated and diverted to a local issue thathas not only created a tremendous rift among communities who have livedpeacefully for centuries, but also cost us loss of international face. Indiaperhaps could really have shone even brighter, because all this religiousand political tension has kept insecurities alive and kept us fromaddressing real issues like education, poverty, reforms in personal laws, population, growth..

What if the Satanic Verses had not been banned?

First of all, we have to understand that even more than other religions, forMuslims, the status of the Prophet [PHUH] is supreme. No Muslim, even thosewho call themselves very modern and liberal, can tolerate any insult or evena perceived insult against the persona of the Prophet [PBUH]. They arewilling to lay down their lives if they feel that their revered Prophet[PBUH] has been insulted, mocked, or made fun of or shown to be somethingthat he just was not.

We do have freedom of speech, but it should not be confused with freedom toabuse or to hurt the religious sensitivities and sentiments of the devout.And in my personal view this applies to all religions, not just Islam. SomeChristians may laugh or be liberal about a film on Jesus. You so-calledliberal and secular Hindus in particular cross all limits in depicting ordiscussing your own gods. I fully sympathise with those whose feelings arehurt when mocking articles about revered Lord Krishna or Ganesha or LordRama of the Hindus and other such, are written. They should be equallystopped forthwith. 

Not banning would not have changedanything. Controversies are always there and I am totally against all controversies such as thoseinvolving the painter Husain. He has absolutely no right to hurt anysentiments by his obscene paintings. In fact, the Holy Quran explicitlyprohibits doing any such thing which might cause hurt to Any religioussentiments. Not just Islamic. So all his controversial paintings are deeplyun-Islamic.

I understand your argument that banning of one book may lead it to be citedas a precedent and it may become difficult to draw a line in deciding as towhat is legitimately real or perceived hurt and what is being mischievouslyclaimed as one so as to create trouble. But since we all are mature,educated people, we should all openly discuss such issues as to how tohandle this very delicate question.

But now to come back to your question, I think the ban on Rushdie's SatanicVerses was totally valid. Because of the background I have provided above,you would know why. Had the ban not been placed, there indeed would havebeen great and grave danger to the law and order situation. Not only riotsbut bloody riots would have taken place. It is difficult for you tocomprehend how viscerally we feel about such matters. It would have beenunimaginable. The law and order would have collapsed. Just thinking about itis scary ['bhyankar']. It was an intolerable offence.

Those who claim as to how do I know and that those banning the book do notunderstand the simple fact that the advisor to Penguin India who would havepublished the book advised them very strongly not to do so. He is aneducated, learned and experienced man. He had read the book. If he, who isnot a Muslim, felt that, you can imagine what would have happened. Therewould have been blood baths. We do not need to eat cyanide by the spoonfulsto know that it would be fatal. Just a little speck is enough. So what wasabusive and insulting need not be read in detail. It is a mischievousargument.

And even if you think that somehow the law and order machinery could havecoped with the protests, just imagine the hurt and hatred such a thing wouldhave left in the hearts and minds of Muslims. Imagine 150 lakh hurt peoplewho feel that their ultimate object of veneration has been insulted. I amnot at all condoning violence or painting an imaginary threatening scenario.I am saying it with full responsibility that not banning the blasphemousbook would have led to unimaginable trouble.

So it was one of those cases. While it is true that the Sangh Parivar andothers have been able to politicise even this sensitive religious issue.They invoke it to justify each act of violence that they perpetrate. I amagainst all violence. As I said above, I am also equaly against theso-called "modern" liberal Hindus who think that by abusing their ownreligious figures or mocking them, they are somehow able to paint a verygrand picture of imagined tolerance and greatness in Hinduism. Yes, there isgreat tolerance, but they should be grateful for it and not abuse it inhurting the sensibilities of their more devout, traditional and conservativeco-religionists.