Hindustan Times
Give me dignity, or give me death
By no measure, do I wish to risk comparison with the revolutionary Virginian, Patrick Henry, but truthfully, my angst is no less now than his, when he rose to speak against Britain’s tyranny at the Virginia Convention in 1775.
This great country is ours. We are sons of the soil. I think we can have no greater virtue than patriotism. But let this be said: Dignity or else death, emancipation or else revolution, fair deal or disintegration. And if this is ‘victim mentality’, then so be it. Victimisation cannot beget anything better.
Our names still spell suspicion, our existence worth no more than contempt. We continue to be condemned to second-class citizenship with a sort of bias that is kicked by the boots of the State machinery. The high echelons may avow equality but the left hand knows not what the right hand does.
A young boy in remote Assam, returning from the passport office, tells stories of ignominy. His name sounds incredibly “alien” to the officers. He is asked about his forefathers and where they came from. I ask where did the “Ahoms” come from? Burma and beyond.
Minority institutions, such as St. Stephens in Delhi and Bishop Cotton in Bangalore, are to be fancied as elite, whereas such status for our institutions is to be denied.
Salim’s family, unlike everyone else’s, never got the Rs 5-lakh compensation for being killed in an explosion at the Sufi shrine Ajmer Sharif. After all, he was the ‘terrorist’ who died killing others. Salim was lowered in his Hyderabad grave with the badge of a terrorist. Yet, conclusive leads have now led us somewhere else. Why prejudge us every single time?
When our religious institutions are attacked, we are intuitively blamed, without free or fair exercise of due processes of law and logic.
Bias against us has become a “hidden Apartheid”. It lies latent. When necessary conditions are met, it breaks out.
In Delhi’s Batla House shootout, two alleged terrorists were killed by police. They may well have been terrorists. Probably they are. However, the National Human Rights Commission cut some dangerous corners when it was called to probe the ‘encounter’.
It is not about the NHRC’s findings but the processes that were followed to reach the conclusion, which erode its credibility. The rights body chose not to do the basic things expected of a rights watchdog.
In a dispute, every party has to be heard. Wasn’t this settled by Socrates himself? In respect of the Batla House incident, one may well go on to agree with the police (that the police fired in self-defence and those killed fired on the police first). But the panel should have heard the complainants whose complaint was the basis for the probe in the first place.
Why was Pakistani terrorist Kasab given a fair trail? Because we do not wish to be a banana republic that relies on kangaroo courts.
As our stature grows internationally, so must our commitment to uphold the rights of each of our citizens.
The NHRC did not cross-examine anybody. It did not even examine the site of the incident. The NHRC is probably the only rights watchdog that comprises several retired police personnel, when rights violation by law-enforcing agencies should remain one of its chief pursuits. This is clear conflict of interest. Is this justice?
Our democracy lies bruised if it does not include the due process of law and fair trials. Is this what our founding fathers fought and died for? How long will they round up the usual suspects? Isn’t our sense of security illusory? Let’s have a rights-respecting police force.
The great redeeming feature of this nation is that right-minded people from the majority community who stand up for the rights of the minorities abound. But I am constrained to say, such people are in the minority.
I have no way of judging our place, other than by the attitudes we face, the countenance we command and the smugness we stomach. Our place is not where our founding fathers wanted us to be, but where we stand on the streets today and in the simmering neighbourhoods of our cities. If our present is fettered, can our future be free?
Yet, this is no call to arms, nor an occasion to retreat but a call to action. Let’s deepen, not weaken, our stake in the system.
Let each one of us get an education and occupy positions that higher education can get.
I despise the Muslim who cannot think beyond his nose and religion. I oppose the blind Muslim, just as I oppose the blinkered nationalism that goes by the name of Hindutva.
However, it would be escapist nonsense to think that education alone can change things. For us, democratic politics remains the lever of justice. We need to wield control over, support and strengthen political parties that are disposed to ensure justice for us. We need to transform ourselves from mere political pawns to powerful political leaders.
We need to pursue science and wealth relentlessly. A wealthy Muslim is resilient to prejudice. Income is a function of education and skills.
When we achieve that, let not our prosperity blind us to the requirements of justice, lest we should treat others badly.
Let’s not be self-seeking or easily angered. “If anyone says ‘I love God’ and does not love his brother, he is a lair.” (John 4:20-21).
Let each one of us fight for our rights in a way we have best known from our apostle of peace. Let’s be obstinate when we demand justice, respect and dignity. Let’s be uncompromisingly stubborn with righteousness. That is closer to Gandhi’s way, than any other.
We are not the enemy. Brothers, live free or die. To quote the French, vivre libres ou mourir.
(14 votes, average: 3.93 out of 5)
Loading ...
KD Reply:
June 21st, 2010 at 3:08 am
” I m a hindu n I eat beef and don’t really give a damn about what the texts say….what i feel is good,i absorb”
Amit, my friend please elaborate on your analysis of good vs. bad when it comes to eating red meat. Please dont say its about how you ‘feel’ and not how you ‘think’ because a lot of nonsense can be justified that way.
Also, one small correction – you are not a practising hindu, you were only born in a hindu family. Hindu is what Hindu does……khuda hafiz !
[Reply]
Akash Reply:
June 21st, 2010 at 10:25 am
KD,
I too eat beef and I can prove that I am a better Hindu than you. Stop judging who is practicing or non practicing Hindu.
[Reply]
Ashish Reply:
June 21st, 2010 at 10:38 am
Hi Akash,
If I may ..
I think the point is slightly different. Eating beef or not is not germane to the debate.
I eat beef too; but, I would not like to hold that up as a mark of secularism as Amit Julka (or Mani Aiyer) did. That way, a vegetarian is the biggest bigot! And, we will start asking Muslims to eat pork to prove they are secular. That would be silly.
And, KD was (if I read him right) reacting to a broader thrust in Amit’s post where he also says, in the same sentence I don’t give a damn what the scriptures say . Surely, KD has a point when he says Amit is not a “practicing” Hindu but merely born in one?
The point is not who is a better Hindu or not; KD never said that.
Akash Reply:
June 21st, 2010 at 10:53 am
Ashish,
“I don’t give a damn what the scriptures say”. KD is quoting that from Julka. I agree with you; I wonder why we are even mentioning that eternal Gandhi family lapdog–Aiyer. Actually, I pointedly disagree with him that eating beef would preclude me from being a practicing Hindu. It does not. Mercifully, I don’t have to face a fatwa on this one.
shan Reply:
June 21st, 2010 at 6:17 pm
Guys , you all have a completely wrong meaning of the” secular”. It has nothing to do with eating habits. Secular means when the STATE and its functioning is impervious to religion. wHAT YOU EAT IT YOUR PERSONAL CHOICE, AS FAR HINDUS ARE CONCERNED , they used to beef like anything, thier favoured one was veal, the shastra are replete with such reference. Regarding pork and islam it is xeroxed from jewish dietary laws. If religion is like a card carrying member of a political organisation , then obviously you cannot transgress , but if it is about something transcendental as providence, then discriminating pork in favour of chicken or beef , should appear rather silly or tripe to the transcendental one., because the ones that did not dicriminate against the pork , did rather well , in fact were it not for them non pork eaters would not be able to visit the porn sites , which they do in such a vigour that Iran ranks first.
Sam Reply:
June 22nd, 2010 at 12:40 am
For some of you..
Who are beef eating hindu secularists..
–in your opinion, you passed secularism test
so find your counterparts in islam..
— deal with pork eating muslims only
(that would be people like Jinnah)..
KD Reply:
June 24th, 2010 at 7:37 am
Akash,
A little bit of that red meat is showing with your knee-jerk reaction of anger. Because Jhulka doesnt care what the scriptures say and eats red meat because he likes to “absorb what he feels is good”, I am only asking him where his good feelings about red meat come from.
I am more interested in his logic than his being more Hindu or less Hindu because of his eating habits. I certainly believe that if you are a better Hindu than I am, your superiority shouldnt depend on your eating habits alone. If you are a better Hindu than me, I am sure you will agree.
R. Gopalakrishnan Nair Reply:
June 26th, 2010 at 7:43 pm
Can you get any muslim friend to subscribe your view saying that he eats pork and give a damn to Quaran. Then I will take you as a good sincere invidual.
Sam Reply:
June 22nd, 2010 at 5:35 am
Let us start a movement.
This for
“Peaceful transfer of unhappy muslims to Pakistan”
Can someone form a charity organization for this and collect donations and funds ?
Anyone can contribute to it.
Secular muslims can show their true secularism by donating to this fund.
[Reply]
Sam Reply:
June 23rd, 2010 at 6:40 am
If you want death, is there a preferred way ?
please tell us more…
[Reply]