What about Bombay 1992?

okhla:

"All muslims accused of even lesser offences have been sentenced to death."

Can someone verify if this is true. My impression was that many Muslims also got lesser sentences and some were found to be not guilty as well. Those who got the death sentence was proved to be involved in actual conspiracy, not just carrying a gun.

GT, man, I like this GT much better! (and no, I can't take ANY credit for it :))

The problem is that that point of view may be lost on liberals (by that one always means elite liberals). They begin to talk about trust and cooperation in vacuum (it may also be deliberately downplayed by people who wish to take advantage, in an unfair sense - when they say: trust us! We mean no harm.)

Before ANY cooperation, must come proper and necessary amount of distrust and suspicion. We must recognize continued and eternal distrust and suspicion (and it need not be the same amount in every case) as simply, merely, legitimately the cost of continued existence and of doing business.

Kaal:

"So tomorrow, as economic conditions and military powers at home increase, the sense toward fighting will change (unless Indians and others begin to do what you want them to do).

Is that right?"

Of course this is right, not only vis-a-vis Pakistan/India but also India/Burma .... Bangladesh/Burma ... Switzerland/Germany etc. etc. But the key issue is that countries can do what each other want them to do and benifit. Plus, each country should be able to deter each other such that they are able to do what is good for it even if it displeases the other country. With such balances IB's POV will be sustained.

So tomorrow, as economic conditions and military powers at home increase, the sense toward fighting will change (unless Indians and others begin to do what you want them to do).

Is that right?

IB bhai, a good post but one question, for clarity.

Is the sense that there is no use fighting (with India and similar others) because it is not pragmatic (affordable, winnable) to fight at this time, or that that kind of fighting is not morally appropriate over and above the issue of current winnability and affordability?

Re: # 139 harish bhai,
I never intended to side with the 'scums' who kill anyone for whatever cause . I am quite aware of the facts and how the 'terrorists operation' - which took place in then Bombay back in 1992.
Yes, Dawood Ibrahim was involved in the financing phase - the actual operations were conducted by locals on ground.
We share a messy past!
- lets not play politics on graves/ashes of the dead . We ( India / Pakistan ) had a history of conducting operations in the past which resulted only in killing of poors / lower and upper middle classes.
There is a sense in Pakistanis now that there no use of fighting with India - and Indians seems to be the same view but does it matter? We live in a inperfect dictatorship and you in a inperfect democracy but I sincerely hope that things will change.
Inida ( i personaly think ) lost a big chance of not co-operating with President Mushraff who has a very open mind regarding Kashmir Issue - and we would have sorted our difference out couple of years ago.
regards,
IB

Blood brothers

by | M J Akbar


Shamshad Hussain
A Hindi film called Mother India, made by a well-known director, Mehboob, released in 1958, became an unprecedented critical and popular hit of its time. Our parents took us to the theatre with the enthusiasm of missionaries escorting children to a moral science class. The Statesman reported that it almost won the Oscar for the best foreign film, losing to Federico Fellini’s Nights of the Cabria by a solitary vote in the third round.

The narrative was constructed around the memories of an old woman, Radha, eponymous wife of Lord Krishna and therefore Mother of India, who had been abandoned by her depressed husband after he lost his arms in an accident. She had three sons: one drowned; the second was a good boy; the third, Birju, a rebel who grew up to become a dacoit. Impoverished Radha was a paragon of virtue, and spurned the attentions of a leering moneylender, Sukhilala, who demanded sex as interest on his loan. Whether this moneylender was a symbol of the World Bank or not was left unclear, but there were plenty of other allegories. In a climax that had father, mother, brother and sister India in tears, Mother India shot her dacoit-son Birju to save the honour of the village. It was an epic superhit, its peasant-patriotism and femme-nobility high on the approved agenda of a nation that still wanted to believe in itself.

Radha was played by Nargis, a Muslim. Jaipal, Kalyan Singh’s slightly precocious son, thought this ridiculous. Mother Pakistan was a Muslim; how could Mother India be a Muslim as well? Could Muslims partition the motherland and still claim ownership of both nations? “You Muslims are greedy. You want everything. You take your own country, and then say India is your country as well.”

“Yes,” agreed Shyam Singh. “Muslims must make up their minds. They go to Pakistan when they like, they live in India when they want. We Hindus can’t do that.”

“My father was born in Pakistan, so he went to Pakistan. I was born in India, so I live in India,” answered Mustafa, who had inherited his father’s terse logic.

“Ha!” responded Jaipal, “you stayed back because you want the property that your father left behind! You go and see him whenever you want. What difference does it make to you? Only Hindus suffered in the partition of their motherland.”

“What is there to argue about? Indian Muslims marry among us, so they are one of us,” reasoned Kamala, who was always anxious to find balm in the most obscure cupboard, for he hated confrontation of any kind. “Nargis married Sunil Dutt just after the release of Mother India. Sunil Dutt was her son, Birju, who she killed. Sunil Dutt is a Hindu. She married a Hindu, so it’s all right, isn’t it?” Since Freud had not reached Telinipara, no other interpretation was made.

“You mean to say that I have to marry a Hindu in order to become an Indian?” asked Mustafa, with a touch of anger. “I will never marry anyone but a Pathan girl.”

“Why are we taking film people so seriously? It’s all fake. Which one of us is going to find anyone as beautiful as Nargis?” said Kamala, displaying his usual good sense.

“If it’s all make-believe, why do Hindus keep saying Raj Kapoor is much better than Dilip Kumar?” asked Altaf, rising above his usual timidity.

Raj Kapoor and Dilip Kumar were superstars; the first a Hindu and the second, disguised by his pseudonym, a Muslim. Multiple identities stitched disparate imperatives, but loyalties were absolute. A superstar both borrowed and returned identity to his community.

I was bored by this conversation. My favourite star was Dev Anand, the third of the men who dominated the film industry in the fifties. Dev Anand lived on the street and beyond religion. If he had any faith it was in himself. He would gamble with thieves, dance with bar girls, drink to celebrate and win the day without trying to save the nation. Dev Anand was liberation, and gave our generation its first beautiful essay on love and adultery, forsaking the world for the gorgeous Waheeda Rehman in that wondrous classic, Guide. Dilip Kumar and Raj Kapoor carried the past in their eyes. Dev Anand wore the insouciance of the future.

I loved the songs of Dev Anand’s films.

Main zindagi ka saath nibhata chala gaya, Main fiqr ko dhooen main urhata chala gaya.
I dealt with life as it came, I turned worry to smoke rings.
I dreamt of the day I could start smoking.
Jo mil gaya usiko muqaddar samajh liya, Jo kho gaya main usko bhulata chala gaya.
What I got became my destiny, What I lost, I simply forgot.
Could philosophy be more enchanting than this? […]

The best warren for a loaf was the great Anarkali bazaar, named after the dancing girl in the court of the Great Mughal, Akbar, who won the heart of his son and heir, Prince Salim. The magic of myth burnished these names from history. Anarkali, blossom of the pomegranate, made an empire tremble with the flick of an eyelash, lost her prince but won her legend, and found an immortal home in a grave in the heart of Lahore. Akbar, lord of the world, picked up his sword against a cherished but obstinate son who preferred the love of a slave to the demands of empire.

Happily, while Anarkali and Akbar heated my perennially warm imagination, they also resolved those nitpicking dilemmas of Mother India in a film called Mughal-e-Azam (The Great Mughal).

I saw Anarkali reincarnated in the exquisite poise of Madhubala, the actress who defined beauty for a generation. Lahore, mesmerized by the movie, sparkled with her image. She soared above the Mughal skyline of Lahore on dozens of huge billboards as other faces faded in deference to her grace. At Shah Alam Gate, Anarkali looked up in prayer towards God, mysterious, haunting, bewitching, her face framed by a black dupatta and lit by the soft touch of a candle. She lived again in the protective embrace of Salim, glancing around the hem of a white muslin dupatta, her lips parted in a smile that was both a challenge and an invitation, her eyes dancing to a silent melody. And there again, alone, unencumbered by pretenders: she lifted a shimmer of a veil with fingers dressed in jewels; a large nose ring, swaying slightly, was held by a thin bridge of pearls that swept into her hair; her eyes spun gossamer traps that floated and disappeared and her succulent lips – the arc of a bow above, and lush heart of a melon below – destroyed all the laws that kept this world in place: morality, order, obedience, fear.

I saw the emperor through the looking glass of an enchanting slave.

But it was the emperor who gave me back my identity when we went, a cluster of cousins, to see the film. The curtains rose above a dark screen on which, slowly, a map of united India appeared. A deep regal baritone spoke three simple words: “Main Hindoostan hoon!” I am India! I am Mughal. I am Muslim. I am India. My India is not a part of India. It is the whole of India. I am not just Pakistan; I am this vast Subcontinent that sprawls from the rough-diamond mountains of the Hindu Kush in the northwest to the turbulent waves of the Bay of Bengal and the sweet rhythms of the Indian Ocean beyond the shores of sultry, sunburnt Kerala. I am Muslim. I am everywhere.

Through two hours of epic narrative I found myself, my past, my culture, my language, my flirtations, my loves, my rebellion, my poetry, my music, my intrigues, my art, my suffering, my sacrifice, my oath, my father, my mother, my present, and perhaps even my future. Who else could have made this film except an Indian Muslim from Bombay, K Asif, who distilled history in a dewdrop and squandered a fortune in pursuit of an elegant glance? Who else could have been Anarkali except Madhubala, shy and erotic, in life and on screen the quintessential Indian Muslim lady? Life and art overlapped repeatedly like the streams of Muslim and Hindu cultures. Akbar’s son, Salim, was played by Dilip Kumar, named Yusuf Khan at birth. Salim’s mother and the emperor’s wife, Joda Bai, was a Hindu: Salim’s blood fed from both Mughal and Rajput genes. Prithviraj, a towering Hindu Pathan from Peshawar, acted the part of Akbar, an empire-builder with bloodshot eyes and iron will who bowed before Allah while his queen worshipped Krishna. Salim’s childhood friend was Durjan, the son of Raja Man Singh, who gave his life to save Anarkali. Anarkali, a Muslim, danced to an ancient Indian Hindu beat, while the immaculate voice of Tansen floated, paused, rose and fell, went back to the Hindu shastras and then moved four centuries forward to become the music of a contemporary genius, Ustad Bade Ghulam Ali Khan.

They did not toss their heads in the Mughal court, they merely raised their eyes. Anarkali destroyed her nemesis when she looked an emperor in the eye before being led away to death, and passed an immortal judgment: “Yeh kaneez Jalaluddin Muhammad Akbar ko apna khoon maaf karti hai!” This slave forgives Jalaluddin Muhammad Akbar for taking
her life!

In that summer of discovery, Anarkali turned me into a teenager.

‘Elsewhere’ is a section where Himal features writings from other sources that the editors would like to present to our readers. This selection is from M J Akbar’s book Blood Brothers: A family saga, published in 2006 by R

from Vizag (hate to say a Muslim)

#129 Okhla

I realize I am many times harder on the Pakistanis than I need to be.

What the heck, you guys make it too easy! :)

When I moved to the US and read many US newspapers for the first time (it was a while ago), I was particularly struck by such phrases as "Pakistan - India's archenemy". I said, heck, what is an archenemy?! I had never heard (in India) Pakistan being described that way - nor Pakistan having such a perception being mentioned in Indian papers (or by Indian politicos). But then, if one dispassionately examines what the leaders of Pakistan have been doing over the decades, perhaps the Westerners are more accurate - they see things for how those things are rather than the wishful "just another country" across the border perception that SOME Indians would like to see (most Indians, in truth, do not think too much about Pakistan because they have other concerns on their mind).

All of the above having been said, clearly, many of the faults are shared between the two countries - because those faults have the same origin - and, no matter what ideology was force-fed on the west side of the border, we are the same people.

PS: stay off the booze! :)

Tolks,

This religious minority concept is typical of Indian political discourse. Minorities per se - for eg. natives of north America - suffer some disabilities, therefore they needed some incentives to catch up with the rest.

Here in India this blanket brushing of Muslims as minority is not proppa. They are as diverse as Hindus and Christians.

In an open society like India, Muslims, like anybody else had to make their own efforts to rise above. Case in point is a poor girl from Vizag (hate to Muslim) who fought economic disabilities to become an engineer and that too into Infosys.

I put the %age @ 5 for calling a group as minority, it's just an approximation. Look at Sikhs. They are less than 3% of Indian population. Look at their visibility and success.

Despite the constant economic boycott since 90s, Muslism are Gujarat are neck to neck with Hindus in grabbing prosperity. Most of the prosperous Bombay Muslims are not Marathi but Gujju Muslims.

141 Posted by Folio on August 17, 2007 2:44:40 am
Aslam,

!

A population that constituted 50+% in some regions of India (pre-47) cant be called a minority. In a stricter sense any pop group that constituted 5% or less can be called a minority, not a group of 25%.

Even now Muslims @ 15% in contemporary India cant be called a minority.
-----------------------------------------
IMHO using m\words like MINORITY is not enough and i agree with your contention that muslim population vary from 50% to 15 % but never less than 5% the arbitary criteria for being considered minority ,,,many other groups can be defined a minority such as Brahmins, Different linguist group when compared with whole of India or national language Hindi ....And word minority WORD is only politicaly term feebly to imply and not be too abrasive to mention MUSLIM...but the fact to be minority neumerically just like telugu tamil even sikh & jain is a little different than if you are consideredto be a outsider RELIGION which none of the other MINORITIS are ever considered.. what i men is being minority is not only the problem but being of DIFFERENT religion makes double wammy ...now what ever argument may be Two nation theory identification of muslims in ndia as pakistani and given the 4 wars with Pakistan enemy no 1 for India is Pakistan and even well meaning secularist cannot convincing the others that this does not apply to Indian muslim being enemy no 1

Mr. Syed,

'And Prime Minister Narasimha Rao, India’s answer to Nero, who had presided over the destruction of the mosque at Ayodhya, continued to fiddle with the characteristic diligence.'

PVR was the PM of the Union govt. Since law and order is a state subject, PM cant overstep his limitations. At best he made the central forces available for any kinda eventuality.

He banked MOSTLY on the SOLEMN ASSURANCES of Kalyan Singh to Supreme Court. Like many Indians do, this daddu CM Kalyan Singh broke his promise and facilitated masjid's demolition.

There's a positive side to it. That Babri Masjid was a bugbear! Sangh Parivar killed the golden goose. They (BJP) stopped growing after the initial rise that coincided with Babri's demolition.

Are u not aware the masjid demolitions are common in KSA?

(Btw, I said worst things abt Sanghis & their criminal adventure at Ayodhya and the aftermath like Bombay).

Aslam,

Jinnah fighting for underdogs? U must be kidding...the ML leadership shud remind u the bulldogs not any underdogs!

A population that constituted 50+% in some regions of India (pre-47) cant be called a minority. In a stricter sense any pop group that constituted 5% or less can be called a minority, not a group of 25%.

Even now Muslims @ 15% in contemporary India cant be called a minority.

Aslam,

Jinnah fighting for underdogs? U must be kidding...the ML leadership shud remind u the bulldogs not any underdogs?

A population that constituted 50+% in some regions of India (pre-47) cant be called a minority. In a stricter sense any pop group that constituted 5% or less can be called a minority, not a group of 25%.

Even now Muslims @ 15% in contemporary India cant be called a minority.

#137 Posted by IB

Angry Indian Muslims conducted the Bombay Bombings.. most of them Gujratis Memon -
it' was out of anger - and nothing else!

IB Bhai, I know you're a police officer somewhere in Sindh, but I think you got your facts wrong on this one. The blasts were masterminded by Dawood Ibrahim, a Konkani Muslim. Tiger Memon to planned it and it was executed by local Muslims (Marathi?). So it is factually incorrect to say most of the folks involved in it were Memons.

And the blasts may have been an angry response to Babri Masjid, but it was a terrorist act in which hundreds of innocent people lost their lives, so the perpetrators deserve punishment. As for the Shiv Sainiks who massacred thousands of Muslims in Mumbai, they deserve punishment too, but unfortunately, they happen to be powerful. Some day, when enthusiasm for their cause has waned, we hope they'll get their just desserts.

#137 Posted by IB

Angry Indian Muslims conducted the Bombay Bombings.. most of them Gujratis Memon -
it' was out of anger - and nothing else!

IB Bhai, I know you're a police officer somewhere in Sindh, but I think you got your facts wrong on this one. The blasts were masterminded by Dawood Ibrahim, a Konkani Muslim. Tiger Memon to planned it and it was executed by local Muslims (Marathi?). So it is factually incorrect to say most of the folks involved in it were Memons.

And the blasts may have been an angry response to Babri Masjid, but it was a terrorist act in which hundreds of innocent people lost their lives, so the perpetrators deserve punishment. As for the Shiv Sainiks who massacred thousands of Muslims in Mumbai, they deserve punishment too, but unfortunately, they happen to be powerful. Some day, when enthusiasm for their cause has waned, we hope they'll get their just desserts.