Shades of Gray

Recently, the media has carried a number of reports on one of India’s most famous painter, MF Hussein, who is living in a self-imposed exile in London. The media both print and tabloid, has tried to play down Hussein’s controversial paintings that has actually led to Hussein leaving his country. It would like us to believe that Hussein has been wronged by the Hindu fundamentalists because he is a Muslim. But this is far from the truth.

Let us examine some of the recent cases where people’s sentiments have got ‘hurt’ and then I shall present my judgment as to when the public outrage was justified and when it was uncalled for.

The protests and the ban on Aamir Khan’s film ‘Fanaa’ after the actor visited NBA activist Medha Patkar was totally wrong. As a citizen, Aamir was entitled to his opinion and the attempts of Gujrati activists to arm-twist Aamir and force him to toe their line only added another shameful chapter to Gujarat’s recent history.

Next is the protest against James W. Laine’s book on Shivaji that was published in 2003. The Sambhaji Brigade vandalised the Bhandarkar Insititute in the name of restoring the honour of the great Maratha Hero hero and in the process destroyed rare manuscripts like a copy of the Rig-Veda. Shouldn’t these people be punished for hooliganism? They need to understand that Shivaji is not a mythological or religious figure. He was a great ruler who fought against the Mughals and his greatness will not get eroded if a foreigner has an unfavourable opinion about his rule or life. If the brigade can’t understand this, the police machinery needs to ram the truth down its throat.

In the same way, protests in India about ‘The Da Vinci Code’ were totally uncalled for. In fact, in many ways, it was foolish. The movie was a top grosser in Rome, situated next to Vatican City – The home of Catholic Christianity and back home in Tamil Nadu and Andhra Pradesh, the state government banned it. If the majority of the Christian world can accept it as a work of fiction, what right Indian Catholics have to denounce it or rather not let others to see the movie?

The two incidents where I support the public anger and backlash are

1. Against the movie ‘Fire’

2. Against the nude portraits of Hindu Goddesses painted by MF Hussein

I am not against the lesbian content of ‘Fire’. What was odd in the movie was that the two protagonists were called Sita and Radha – two important and revered names from our Hindu mythology. Surely, the director could have named them Seema and Richa or something else without affecting the story.

The case against MF Hussein is very strong. He has been consistently painting nudes of our Goddesses. Years ago, when he painted Saraswati in the nude, there was a hue and cry. But Hussein didn’t learn his lesson. This time he has painted Bharat Mata in the nude. Clearly, the hindu majority will not tolerate it. The media may call it fundamentalism and argue for an artist’s right of expression, but enough is enough. Why doesn’t Hussein show his creativity by painting something similar to the Danish Cartoons of Prophet Muhammad that caused anger among Muslims all over the world?

Moral policing or censorship on somebody’s political beliefs, historical events ( The uproar against a restaurant called Hitler’s Cross in Mumbai), cultural or social events like Valentine’s day is not justified in a civic society. Having said that, nobody should be allowed to show disrespect to other religions and faiths. If you want to express your artistic side, stick to your own religion.

Today is the fifth anniversary of the terrorist attack on parliament. And the hottest news is that the families of security persons killed during the attacks have returned their gallantry medals to the President. That one of the ministers has declared returning of medals as unconstitutional is the funny side of this story but the situation actually is serious. While all this is a shame for the Central Government, the other interesting piece of news is that Ms. Arundhati Roy, noted author, activist and winner of the Man Booker prize for her novel ‘God of Small Things’ has posed 13 questions to the government. These questions attempt to highlight why and how Afzal has been framed and been made a scapegoat. I found that some of the questions have no basis of at all and instead of campaigning for a clemency for Afzal Guru, she should have spared a thought for those who died defending our symbol of democracy. The interesting point to note here is that Afzal’s brother has accepted that Afzal had links with terrorist organizations and was, in fact, an operative of Hizbul Mujahideen.

Here are the answers for Ms. Roy:

Question 1: For months before the Attack on Parliament, both the government and the police had been saying that Parliament could be attacked. On December 12, 2001, at an informal meeting the Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee warned of an imminent attack on Parliament. On December 13, Parliament was attacked. Given that there was an ‘improved security drill’, how did a car bomb packed with explosives enter the parliament complex?

Answer: Ms. Roy would do well to remember that the terrorists used a car with a VIP pass. But she is right in questioning the slack of security.

Question 2: Within days of the Attack, the Special Cell of Delhi Police said it was a meticulously planned joint operation of Jaish-e-Mohammad and Lashkar-e-Toiba. They said the attack was led by a man called ‘Mohammad’ who was also involved in the hijacking of IC-814 in 1998. (This was later refuted by the CBI.) None of this was ever proved in the court. What evidence did the Special Cell have for its claim?

Answer: Does this prove that Afzal is not guilty? And if the Special Cell has some insiders who leak information to it, can’t Arundhati understand that such names cannot be disclosed in public or in fact, even in court.

Question 3: The entire attack was recorded live on Close Circuit TV (CCTV). Congress Party MP Kapil Sibal demanded in Parliament that the CCTV recording be shown to the members. He was supported by the Deputy Chairman of the Rajya Sabha, Najma Heptullah, who said that there was confusion about the details of the event. The Chief Whip of the Congress Party, Priya Ranjan Dasmunshi, said: ‘I counted six men getting out of the car. But only five were killed. The close-circuit TV camera recording clearly showed the six men.’ If Dasmunshi was right, why did the police say that there were only five people in the car? Who was the sixth person? Where is he now? Why was the CCTV recording not produced by the prosecution as evidence in the trial? Why was it not released for public viewing?

Answer: Releasing the recording to public may help terrorists to understand the layout of the parliament complex. Is it that Ms. Roy suspects some MP to be in cahoots with the terrorists? Whatever she may think, this question doesn’t weaken the case against Afzal Guru. If the courts want, the honourable judges can see the footage and decide.

Question 4: Why was Parliament adjourned after some of these questions were raised?

Answer: Good question. Ask the MPs. Parliament sessions are often adjourned, in fact, on a daily basis for one tamasha or the other. The public of India wants justice, not answers to such stupid questions.

Question 5: A few days after December 13 attacks, the government declared that it had ‘incontrovertible evidence’ of Pakistan’s involvement in the attack, and announced a massive mobilisation of almost half-a-million soldiers to the Indo-Pakistan border. The subcontinent was pushed to the brink of nuclear war. Apart from Afzal’s ‘confession’, extracted under torture (and later set aside by the Supreme Court), what was the ‘incontrovertible evidence’?

Answer: But how does this concern Afzal? Is she arguing for Afzal or the Pakistan Government?

Question 6: Is it true that the military mobilisation to the Pakistan border had begun long before the December 13 Attack?

Answer: Same answer as above. Military mobilisation can happen for a number of reasons. How does it prove Afzal’s innocence? In fact, Afzal himself has confessed that he aided the terrorist mastermind. Isn’t that ground enough? Are we going to go soft on those who provide logistic support to terrorists?

Question 7: How much did this military standoff, which lasted for nearly a year, cost? How many soldiers died in the process? How many soldiers and civilians died because of mishandled landmines, and how many peasants lost their homes and land because trucks and tanks were rolling through their villages, and landmines were being planted in their fields?

Answer: Has she tried to find out how have the families of those killed in the attacks have managed to make ends meet? What financial difficulties they encounter? Take a look the other bomb blasts like the 2005 Delhi blasts and the 2006 Mumbai serial blasts. Is she aware of the loss of life and property? How much has that cost the Indian Government?

Question 8: In a criminal investigation it is vital for the police to show how the evidence gathered at the scene of the attack led them to the accused. How did the police reach Mohammad Afzal? The Special Cell says SAR Geelani led them to Afzal. But the message to look out for Afzal was actually flashed to the Srinagar Police before Geelani was arrested. So how did the Special Cell connect Afzal to the 13 December Attack?

Answer: Good question. But the police may have had a tip off. This angle can be investigated but doesn’t prove Afzal’s innocence. The police may have nabbed him on the basis of some other evidence. This question has merits but this the way police works all over the world. They don’t and cannot start from scratch. All evidence doesn’t come from the scene of the crime.

Question 9: The courts acknowledge that Afzal was a surrendered militant who was in regular contact with the security forces, particularly the Special Task Force (STF) of Jammu & Kashmir Police. How do the security forces explain the fact that a person under their surveillance was able to conspire in a major militant operation?

Answer: He was in regular contact but he wasn’t behind bars. He may have had contacts with his friends in these terrorist camps. Surely, the STF was not keeping an eye on them all throughout the 24 hours. Or were they? If yes, then they should be charged alongside Afzal.

Question 10: Is it plausible that organizations like Lashkar-e-Toiba or Jaish-e-Mohammed would rely on a person who had been in and out of STF torture chambers, and was under constant police surveillance, as the principal link for a major operation?

Answer: JeM or LeT would know the answer to this. Afzal may have working as a mole even after surrendering. And let’s not forget that he provided only logistic support. Since he wasn’t the mastermind, he may not have known all the intricate details. But he is a terrorist nevertheless, right? Keeping contacts with a terrorist is an unlawful activity. I hope Ms. Roy would agree.

Question 11: In his statement before the court, Afzal says that he was introduced to ‘Mohammed’ and instructed to take him to Delhi by a man called Tariq, who was working with the STF. Tariq was named in the police charge sheet. Who is Tariq and where is he now?

Answer: He may have escaped. Our police and military don’t have intelligence on each and every person involved in anti-India activities.

Question 12: On 19 December 2001, six days after the Parliament Attack, Police Commissioner, Thane (Maharashtra), S.M. Shangari identified one of the attackers killed in the Parliament Attack as Mohammad Yasin Fateh Mohammed (alias Abu Hamza) of the Lashkar-e-Toiba, who had been arrested in Mumbai in November 2000, and immediately handed over to the J&K Police. He gave detailed descriptions to support his statement. If Police Commissioner Shangari was right, how did Mohammad Yasin, a man in the custody of the J&K Police, end up participating in the Parliament Attack? If he was wrong, where is Mohammad Yasin now?

Answer: The J&K police needs to answer this. And that too, if Mr. Shagari is 100% sure of his claims. As for the whereabouts of Md. Yasin, the earlier answer applies. Or better still, ask Afzal.

Question 13: Why is it that we still don’t know who the five dead ‘terrorists’ killed in the Parliament Attack are?

Answer: This is the funniest of all. Seems Arundhati had saved the best for the last. Do we have a database for all terrorists? So many terrorists are recruited for anti-India operations everyday. It’s possible that many of those who took part in the Parliament attack where there in such an operation for the first time(and last as well). How will we know their names and address when then are dead? Surely, their parent terrorist camps won’t give such details to our Intelligence agencies.

I guess Afzal supporters should first decide whose side they are on. Talking about justice and human rights is alright but one should remember that a cold-blooded terrorist is not human and therefore has no human rights. And as far as justice is concerned, how about giving it to those who lost their lives for their motherland.

Shibu Soren is the first MP to be held guilty of murder and to be sentenced to life imprisonment. While the conviction has reinforced the common man’s belief in the system, it also has once again brought to the forefront the question of criminalization of politics. Even if one leaves Guruji, as Soren is known among his followers, aside, there are many others who have cases pending against them. Two years ago, a study by an independent watchdog had said that almost a quarter of the over 540 people elected to the Indian Parliament in 2004 faced criminal charges ranging from murder, extortion and rape. (Source: ANI)

I have always been unable to understand why do our universities need elections or a Student Union for that matter? I did my engineering from a private institution, a deemed university under the UGC act, and we did not have any union. For all our issues and concerns, we used to approach the dean or the warden. Needless to say, sometimes the concerns were addressed and sometimes we were overlooked. But never did we feel the need for a student union. I wonder then why students of our universities are so interested in student politics. Some days back, a teacher was murdered by activists of a student union in MP. In Maharashtra, a professor’s face was blackened on the charge of molestation though there was no evidence to prove the charge. In most of these cases, students wing of political parties are involved.

The Lyngdoh Committee, a six-member committee headed by former Chief Election Commissioner, J.M. Lyngdoh, was constituted on the direction of the Supreme Court in December 2005 to study various aspects of student union elections. The committee examined aspects like the criminalization of student politics, financial transparency, eligibility criteria for students and standards of academic performance and one of its key recommendations was that political parties should have no roles to play in the university and college campus. The committee has recommended a check on the money being pumped into the elections and says students older than 26 years should not be allowed to contest elections and those studying to get a third degree irrespective of the age should also be barred. Despite these recommendations, the UP government has decided to go in the opposite direction. It has strengthened the hands of prospective goons in university campuses by giving gunners to many university students. For those who love numbers – in Lucknow University alone, there are as many as 80 students with a criminal background. With elections in UP round the corner, the region is abuzz with rumours that Mulayam’s Samajwadi Party may offer a ticket to gangster Abu Salem, who is accused of playing a critical role in the 1993 Mumbai serial bomb blasts.

If criminals are to be kept away from public life and politics, it has to be done not only at the centre but right from the state-politics level. Our MPs are not happy with the interference of judiciary in legislative matters but the fact remains that the legislators have let the nation down and it is up to the judiciary to clean up the system. They may not like this judicial activism but the people are all for it.

Unfortunately, the political parties will again turn a blind eye to all this. After all, it serves their interest to scare the common man using the muscle of the criminal activists. And the quality of education and students will go from bad to worse as it has happened in the case of our elected representatives.