Surya Namashkar 1-23-12

From Sectarian to Multi-Religious Congregations

Mirza A. Beg

January 18, 2012

Indian Muslim Observer Jan. 23, 2012

http://www.indianmuslimobserver.com/2012/01/opinion-from-sectarian-to-multi.html

The article “Surya Namaskar, Fatwa and Muslims “, by my friend Mike Ghause (printed below- http://www.indianmuslimobserver.com/2012/01/latest-editorial-surya-namaskar-and.html) brought to my attention a rather juvenile endeavor by the Madhya Pradesh Chief Minister Mr. Chauhan. He wants to congregate the largest assembly of worshipers, to garner a place in the Guinness book of world records, beating the record held by Kazakhstan. Mr. Chauhan has asked the schools to participate, perhaps because it is easy to assemble a large crowd by collecting obligated student.

Every one knows, certainly the Chief Minister of a state should know that a pluralistic society respects all religions equally. A call from the Chief Minister, the chief authority of the state with jurisdiction over the schools with multi-religious body of student is a form of coercion of students from other religions.

Apparently a respected Muslim Qadi (Legal Scholar) advised (Fatwa) that the bowing to any other entity except God is un-Islamic and the Muslim Students should abstain.

I substantially agree with Mike’s views in his article. I might add that the Indian democracy has come a long way, but has not matured enough. Often unnecessary small misunderstandings among different religious communities have been exploited by the sectarian interests to injure the cohesion of the communities. At times they deteriorate in riots and loss of innocent lives.

Press often unknowingly misconstrues the verbiage of religious leaders to mean what it does not. ‘Fatwa’ is one loaded word that evokes exaggerated sectarian passions. Unmitigated and ill-explained opinions even when right can sow unnecessary dissension.

As juvenile as the desire of the Chief Minister is to get into the Guinness book, it offers a teachable moment for our society particularly the youth. Some of the following is well known, but perhaps not fully understood in all its implications:

India is a Pluralistic Democratic Republic. It honors all creeds and their right to worship or not to worship. The government should not promote, impose or suppress any set of beliefs. Such a society works better when we as individuals also honor and respect the belief of others and try to understand them. And when religious scholars or jurists give their opinions on social issues they should be extremely careful in the nuances of their verbiage.

From my childhood my friends and I have worshiped in our own ways, but that did not stop us in participation in the religious festivals of others. It was that much more fun, it created deeper understanding of others and closer friendships.

I do not have Muslim, Hindu, Jain, Christian, Jewish, or friends with other prefixes, but have friends whom I value for who they are and for our unselfish bonds. They also happen to belong to many other religions and beliefs.

If he does hanker for a place in the Guinness book of world records, it would be a lot better if the Chief Minister Chauhan invites people of all religions to come together and offer prayers in their own traditions at the same place and the same time for the betterment and amity in the country and perhaps the world as Mike has suggested. What a grand spectacle and occasion of amity it would be. Guinness may even have to open another category for the Multi-religious congregation of worship.

Mirza A. Beg may be contacted at mab64@yahoo.com, His essays are available at http://mirzasmusings.blogspot.com/

Sponsor Top Post

Friday, January 20, 2012

Home / Columnist , Communalism , Editorial , Featured , Interfaith Relations , Issues , Latest News , Mike Ghouse , Photo Gallery / LATEST EDITORIAL: Surya Namaskar and Muslim response

LATEST EDITORIAL: Surya Namaskar and Muslim response

by IMO admin | January 20‚ 2012 at 2:55 PM 0 comments

Columnist Communalism Editorial Featured Interfaith Relations Issues Latest News Mike Ghouse Photo Gallery

By Mike Ghouse

The Surya Namaskar is a Hindu religious tradition, a beautiful act of bowing to the Sun and welcoming the first rays of dawn as an expression of gratitude to the energy it breathes in to life and everything about life.

India is a pluralistic society, where we have come to respect every which way one worships one, none or many representations of God. Even among Hinduism we have an amazing diversity of people who express their gratitude from no to an iconic to an abstract manifestation of that elusive creator.

The Chief Minister of the State of Madhya Pradesh, Mr. Shivraj Singh Chouhan called on the schools and the public to join him in the Surya Namaskar to beat the Guinness world record set by the Kazakhs who currently hold the world record in mass prayers. The intent of performing this act with a million people was not for spiritual need, but to get on the Guinness Book of World Records; a crazy passion of Indians.

At least Shivraj Singh Chouhan did better than Rick Perry, the governor of Texas who invited the evangelist exclusively to pray for the nation’s well being in a certain way to exclude all other Americans including Christians of different denominations. Indeed he duped the evangelicals in buying their support for his bid to the Presidency.

The Times of India reported that the city’s Chief Muslim cleric Qazi Abul Kalam Qasmi said, "Parents should take a call on sending kids to school, if there is apprehension that the child may be forced." The newly appointed Qazi maintained that Suryanamaskar, which involved 'bowing before the sun', was against Islamic tenets. "If a Muslim performs the 'suryanamaskar' the child and his parents would both be accountable in the act of felony." Qasmi maintained.

Indeed, the Qazi is right; it is not an Islamic practice to bow to any manifestation of God, but the God himself the non-visible energy. Everyone should have the freedom to pray or not pray in certain way and no one should compel or look down for not participating. That is our pluralistic ethos for over 5000 years and we need to be loyal to that heritage.

An alternate way to look at the opinion of the Qazi would have been to participate in the group act, but do it in a way that works from an Islamic point of view. This would have meant that we are all in this together for a better India and better place to live cohesively. However, no one should expect everyone to jump and do what they do. It would have been a good example of working together without compromising our faith.

Prophet Muhammad had led mass Prayers for rain and famine and for other goodness of the society. Two years ago, I was planning on going to Florida and witness a pastor burn the Quraan, if he was indeed burning, I was going to pray my two Rakat (unit) Nafeel Muslim prayers next door to his Church in an open space with prior permission from the City. We all would have prayed for his well being along with several fellow Muslims. Burning Quraan was not an act of bravery but stupidity and countering it with anger would have been greater stupidity. Unfortunately he postponed his act and I had a 9/11 Unity Day event the next day in Dallas as well.

There are examples set by Prophet Muhammad for situations like this. While he was travelling to Taif, a few miscreants pelted rocks at him causing him to bleed, his associates wanted to go get the boys, but Prophet stopped them and instead asked them and the Angel Gabriel to join him in prayers and pray for their well being. This is what Jesus meant when he said, turn the other cheek.

Prophet Muhammad was the ultimate peace maker, every act of his is a model for us to learn from, and he was the consummate conflict mitigater and goodwill nurturer.

When we attend weddings, some of us are strictly vegetarian and some eat variations of meat products from fish and poultry to beef. We wear different clothing’s and drink a variety of sodas to coffee with cream or black and same goes with the tea. Do we have a problem with that? Then we should not have the problem with this either as long as the Chief Minister is not getting his wish at the cost of public funds.

The right wingers among us need to honor Muslims, Christians, Jains, Sikhs and Hindus for their choices and each minority should not take this as an imposition in a free society. Nor any one should be negative if one does not participate.

May Shivraj Singh Chouhan’s dreams to solidify his political stand come true and those who are opposed to him politically can also hold a Chandra Namaskar to get what they want, but together, let Madhya Pradesh go on the Guinness book of world records. Bengal or any other state has a choice to out do it as well.

[Mike Ghouse is committed to building cohesive societies where no Indian has to live in anxieties, discomfort or fear of the other. He is a frequent guest at the TV, radio and print media offering pluralistic solutions on issues of the day. His work is indexed at www.MikeGhouse.net and his current articles at www.TheGhousediary.com. Mike Ghouse is now associated with IndianMuslimObserver.com as Foreign Editor. He can be contacted at MikeGhouse@aol.com]

Bigotery in Election 11-6-20

Republican Debate - Stealth Agenda of Gingrich and Cain

Mirza A. Beg

Saturday, June 20, 2011

Counter Currents June 23, 2011

http://www.countercurrents.org/beg230611.htm

Media Monitor Network, June 23, 2011

http://usa.mediamonitors.net/content/view/full/87349

Tuscaloosa News, Sunday, June 26, 2011

http://www.tuscaloosanews.com/article/20110626/NEWS/110719975

OEN OpEdNews.com, June 28, 2011

http://www.opednews.com/articles/Republican-Debate--Stealt-by-Mirza-Beg-110624-554.html

The Republican debate of June 13^th moderated by John King of CNN was generally a collegial affair. It was essentially a “Knock Obama” rally, with understated minor differences among the candidates.

Except, when CNN moderator John King asked former Godfather Pizza magnate, Harman Cain, “You recently said you would not appoint a Muslim to your cabinet and you kind of backed off a little bit and said you would first want to know if they’re committed to the Constitution. You expressed concern that, quote, “a lot of Muslims are not totally dedicated to this country.” Are American-Muslims as a group less committed to the Constitution than, say, Christians or Jews?”

Cain backpedaled a bit and said,” I would not be comfortable because you have peaceful Muslims and then you have militant Muslims, those that are trying to kill us. And so, when I said I wouldn’t be comfortable, I was thinking about the ones that are trying to kill us, number one. Secondly, yes, I do not believe in Sharia law in American courts. I believe in American laws in American courts, period. There have been instances –“

John King turned to other candidates and asked their views on the subject. Some candidates were uncomfortable, but not former speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich.

Trying to resuscitate his dying campaign, stridently he said, “Now, I just want to go out on a limb here. I’m in favor of saying to people, if you’re not prepared to be loyal to the United States, you will not serve in my administration, period.” He added “We did this—we did this in dealing with the Nazis and we did this in dealing with the communists. And it was controversial both times, and both times we discovered after a while, you know, there are some genuinely bad people who would like to infiltrate our country. And we have got to have the guts to stand up and say no.”

For those who do not know, Gingrich was approvingly referring to the Red baiting campaign of early 1950s by the Republican senator Joseph McCarthy of Wisconsin and his cohorts. It has been widely condemned as the most shameful period in modern US history. It lives in infamy as McCarthyism. As Gingrich says, there were “some genuinely bad people”- but it is opposite of the way he construes. The bad people were, Senator McCarthy and his minions, who maligned and tried to destroy decent Americans by innuendos, as Gingrich does.

Yes, a few Muslim citizens have engaged in terrorism against the US, but an overwhelming majority of Muslims are productive and loyal citizens. It is no secret that Muslim bashing is popular among some in the Republican Party. They conveniently forget that some of the plots were thwarted by Muslims contacting the police.

Sadly not one candidate on the podium admonished Cain and Gingrich, as they would have, if such a sweeping statement was made to malign other minorities such as Jews or Blacks. Even sadder yet, it did not elicit much comment in the popular media either.

Not too long ago some Republicans did stand up to challenge such remarks, but the party has changed.

In 2007 Republican debates, while others remained quiet, John McCain condemned Mitt Romney’s remark that he will not appoint any Muslim to his cabinet. McCain said, “I’m proud of the Muslims who are currently serving in the United States armed forces and my sense is that if they can serve in that manner, they can serve in any position of responsibility in America.”

In December 2002, an intemperate remark by Senator Trent Lott cost him the leadership of the Republican Party in the Senate. Celebrating the 100^th birthday of South Carolina Senator Strom Thurmond, Senator Trent Lott, the Republican leader in the Senate said, “When Strom Thurmond ran for president, we voted for him. We’re proud of it. And if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn’t have had all these problems over the years, either.”

Those remarks were construed as racist, because in 1948 Strom Thurmond broke with the Democratic Party on the issue of enforcement of civil rights legislation and ran for the Presidency as a State’s Rights Party candidate.

The US Constitution is secular. Thankfully our laws are not based on religious preference. Although when not in conflict with the civil laws, in some jurisdictions it has accommodated people, who by mutual agreement wanted their personal disputes settled by arbitration by religious tribunal. Courts have enforced the result of such arbitration in case of Jewish, Mormon and other religions as in contract law.

The spurious injection of Sharia in the debate is a “Red Herring” to divert attention and garner cheap popularity from the considerable weight of the xenophobic wing of the Republican Party. There is no monolithic Sharia law. These laws were developed by different schools of thoughts in the 9^th century to check the creeping autocracy of the rulers. They are open to debate, and have evolved on diverse lines through the ages.

The irony is that most rightwing Republicans are opposed to the idea of separation of “Church and State” notwithstanding the first amendment. That is why Rev. Pat Robertson found so much traction in the Republican primaries in the 1980s. Rev. Charles Kimball writes in his book, “When Religion Becomes Lethal “ that Ralph Reed, the head of the Christian Coalition, famously referred to the practice of running “stealth candidates” where the radical agenda would be hidden from voters by focusing on hot button issues such as abortion or homosexuality. By the time the voters knew what victorious candidate really advocated, they would not know what hit them.

Some of the 2012 Republican aspirants are not much different. Some want the United States to be under the Biblical laws, while others in an effort to dupe them are stealthily raising a bogus threat from the Sharia laws. To protect all, multi-religious as well as irreligious citizens, would it not be better to, honestly adhere to the principle of “Separation of Church and State”, no lying, no ifs and no buts?

Instead of the loyalty test for ordinary law abiding citizens of any faith or no faith, the electorate should reject stealth candidates whose support for the US Constitution is dubious. If elected they would have to take the oath of office with fingers crossed.

Mirza A. Beg can be contacted at mab64@yahoo.com or at http://mirzasmusings.blogspot.com/

Islamic Center NY 10-9-10

Dear Friends,

Some of you have asked for my opinion on the contrived Islamic Center controversy. Thanks for asking, I dedicate it to your valuable friendship. If you find it worth reading please forward it to your friends, if you find flaws in it please educate me.

This essay reflects my deeply held views of the baser instincts in us that are prone to political exploitation of religions. An ignoble Florida pastor made to the front pages by his holding the US and all decent people, Christians and Muslims, hostage to the fear of repercussions of his action. I decided not to include him in the essay, because I do not want to add even a modicum to the publicity he seeks. Thanks and warm regards,

Mirza

_____________________________

Contrived Controversy - Islamic Center in New York

Mirza A. Beg

September 9, 2010

The Tuscaloosa News - Sunday, September 12, 2010

http://www.tuscaloosanews.com/article/20100912/NEWS/100919917

Media Monitor Network- Saturday, September 11, 2010

http://usa.mediamonitors.net/content/view/full/78158

Two Circles Network – Saturday, September 11, 2010

http://twocircles.net/2010sep11/contrived_controversy_islamic_center_new_york.html

Indian Muslims – Monday, September 14, 2010

http://indianmuslims.in/contrived-controversy-islamic-center-in-new-york/

Almost everyone except a minuscule minority is born to their religion and adheres to the social traditions of their culture. Religions may preach unity to their flock but give-in to sectarianism. The sects roughly fall into two cerebral groups.

At the upper end a thoughtful and introspective minority that considers humility and service to humanity as the essence of their being and the calling of their religion. At the other end the narrow-minded who consider their creed to have been chosen by God for domination and use selected passages from their scripture in zealous pursuit of political power.

In the middle lives a large majority of usually kind and decent people too busy in the chores of living to think critically the morality of their social setting. They follow religious rituals and usually admire the first group, but succumb to the propaganda of the second in traumatic times.

In dictatorial or feudal regimes the first group is persecuted and the second latches on to power and thrives. In democracies, the first group may draw people to a higher vision, but suffers the onslaught of unethical propaganda by the second, especially during elections in stressful times.

After eight long years of mismanagement, two wars of hubris and a complete economic collapse, the US electorate in the elections of 2006 and 08 threw the Republicans out of power. In the last year and a half the economy has been stabilized, but the jobless rate is still very high, the electorate is not happy. With this backdrop and the trauma of 9/11, the drummed up controversy and misinformation about the Islamic community center two blocks from ground zero in New York follows this pattern.

In the last two months opposition politicians with the help of pundits on the anything, but “fair and balanced” FOX news and talk radio have kept up the drum beat of misinformation and half truths about the Islamic Center. Unsurprisingly, there has been a gradual rise in anti Islamic Center opinion along with anti Muslim feeling in the ephemeral public opinion polls. Many local right wing groups have latched on in opposing Islamic centers in many smaller communities as well.

The fear mongers have found a more potent propaganda, better than the perennial illegal immigration that simmers on the back burner to be resurrected in elections. Even better than the invented new twist of a few months ago, “the Anchor Babies”, implying that people come to US to deliver babies to cash in years later, the eventual right of citizenship under the US constitution.

Muslims should not be disheartened at this turn of events. Immigrants in the past have been subjected to much worse. It is part of the endemic struggle between the idea of the great democracy that the founding fathers envisioned and the drag of the baser human tendencies.

The United States of America came into being as a democracy drawing on the high ideals of enlightenment. Yet the full implementation of the ideals in the constitution took another two centuries to unfold. The genius of the US constitution is that it guides and allows progress, evolving with the needs of times.

The drag of the baser part of our history is well known, the massacre of Natives, the horrible legacy of slavery, the ethno-religious persecution of Jewish, Catholic - Irish and Italian immigrants, and the indigenous Mormon. The exploitation and persecution of imported Chinese and Japanese laborers in the 19^th century is also a part of the same exploitative fabric.

The nation gradually evolved to reject these, once accepted practices. In hard economic times and in times of war it often regresses, but eventually it re-discovers its moorings. It takes time, often a long time. Blacks were forced to immigrate in chains and were kept in political chains up to the 1960s, until the passage of the Civil Rights legislations. During the hysterical fear of the “new age religions” of 1970s and 80s, charlatan “deprogrammers” made a lot of money preying on the fears of the parents whose children opted to experiment with new trends in thoughts. The current anti Muslim propaganda too shall pass.

So the present anti Muslim propaganda is not surprising. What should be celebrated is that in the wake of 9/11 the administration arrested about 1,200 innocent Muslims; justice prevailed and none of them were found guilty. However in the last three years some Muslims have indulged in reprehensible acts and are legitimately being brought to justice. There have been many attacks on Islamic centers and Mosques by the cowardly religious miscreants, but the law is actively pursuing justice.

Though right wing propagandists have succeeded in corrupting the public mind to gain about sixty percent support, it is a great tribute to the US democracy that about thirty to forty percent have not succumbed to the knee jerk reaction. Many Pastors, Rabbis and most editorials in the newspapers and commentary sections have decried this assault on the first amendment. It is a very high index of sanity in difficult times in any country. The founding fathers took special care to check the tyranny of the insidious emotional gullible majority by requiring two thirds majority in the Senate and ratification by three-fourths of the states to change the constitution.

It is important to realize that bigots on all sides are equally reprehensible. Each side considers the nameless, faceless bigots on the other side to be despicable propaganda figures. While the bigots on their side to be human beings who love their children and are good neighbors, therefore are more easily swayed by their rhetoric. In wars of supremacy each side succumbs to those who misuse religion and yields leadership to the most despicable charlatans among them.

The soul of the US resides in its strong and just constitution. Those with baser attitudes are a blight that infects all societies. Unlike many other countries, the US democracy has weathered them for more than two centuries, and has consistently been on an upward humane trajectory, respecting and celebrating the diversity and aspirations of all its citizens. Muslims in the United States know it and they have a lot to learn and contribute to this great nation of immigrants. When things are going well it is easy to be good, the real test of character is to be just and balanced when one’s own ox is being gored.

Mirza A. Beg can be contacted at mab64@yahoo.com, or at his blog http://mirzasmusings.blogspot.com/

Comments:

___________________________________________________

Mirza,

The ground zero mosque debate can be boiled down to a single issue - compassion. If there are so many families affected by the 9-11 attacks and so many of them opposed to the location of the mosque, then isn't it simply the compassionate thing to do to move the mosque?Even if there are but a few families that had love ones die on 9-11 that wish for the site to be moved, isn't that alone reason enough? Regards,

Casey Sears

-----------------

Casey,

Thanks for your thoughtful note. It is easy to be for your sentiments, and I join you. If people, particularly those with power and resources, are really serious it can and should be achieved. I have heard different opinions from the loudest voices such as Bill Oreily to Newt Gingrich that it should be moved to at least 4 blocks to 10 blocks from ground zero.
As you would realize, it can be achieved if a similar property could be found as an almost even swap. I have not heard from any one a plausible proposal. If they really are honest in their expression, they should try to facilitate what they propose; this will put their criticism on solid ground and worth serious consideration. Thanks again,
Mirza

-----------------------------------------------------------

In search of Jesus 2009-10-15

In search of Jesus

Mirza A. Beg
Written Oct 15, 2009

Voices in Wartime, October 27, 2009

This poem, allegorically laments the misuse of the name and the message of Jesus. With a few changed words and syntax it would be valid for any religion.
The age of Information is entwined with the age of misinformation. Thoughtful understanding requires hard work; propaganda only needs bumper stickers. Religious zealots from all sides symbiotically feed on propagandized fear. The internal struggle is between the heart of each religion serving with humility and the strong arm seeking supremacy through misconstrued words.

The paradox is – in all religions; those who claim universality of their brand of religion behave as exclusivist tribal supremacist and those who introspectively value personal responsibility enhance universal amity.


Son of Mary
Celebrated is your name
Your Hellenized name
Jesus!

You are a messenger
A pristine idea to a few
A God to some
And the Son of God

You are a friend to some
A seer of wisdom
A promise of justice
And salvation

A hope for tomorrow
A redeemer to fallen
A beacon to lost souls
A promise of peace

Some shout your name
From lavish pulpits
Peddling salvation
From fire and damnation

They amass power
To usher your kingdom
At the point of the sword
Or atom tipped bombs

While others
Walk a lonely road
Quietly, humbly
Serving the needy

They love their neighbors
Humbly serve the meek
The sick, the injured
And the bombed

Mirza A. Beg can be contacted at, mab64@yahoo.com, or http://mirzasmusings.blogspot.com/

Iran at Cossroads 09-06-22

Iran at the Cross Roads – What should the US Do

By
Mirza A. Beg
Written Monday, June 22, 2009

Part I -The Tuscaloosa News, Thursday, June 25, 2009
http://www.tuscaloosanews.com/article/20090625/NEWS/906249887
Part II -The Tuscaloosa News, Friday, June 26, 2009
http://www.tuscaloosanews.com/article/20090626/NEWS/906259938

Media Monitors. Network, Thursday, June 25, 2009
http://world.mediamonitors.net/content/view/full/63766

Part – I, The American Muslim, June 25, 2009
http://www.theamericanmuslim.org/tam.php/features/articles/iran_at_the_cross_roads_what_should_the_us_do_part_1/0017427
Part – II, The American Muslim , June 25, 2009 http://www.theamericanmuslim.org/tam.php/features/articles/iran_at_the_cross_roads_what_should_the_us_do_part_2/0017428

Part I – Iran at the Cross Roads

The tenth presidential election in Iran was on the 12th of June. A few months ago, it was widely thought to be an easy win for President Ahmadinijad. Though his popularity had some what declined, because of the economic pressures on an average Iranian, but his very simple unostentatious life style and his strong stand against the tirade of the Bush administration were very popular. It was a matter of national pride. The very fact that Iran was able to withstand the massive American pressure, made Iran look strong and the US appear weak.

The most popular person to challenge President Ahmadinijad was the former two-term President Khatami, who was very popular when first-elected in 1997. Considered a reformer, but by the end of his second term his followers were disappointed. On the domestic front he failed to loosen the grip of the clergy on the levers of power. On the international front his friendly overtures to United States, including his offer of support against the Talibans in Afghanistan were rebuffed by the Bush administration. Instead of taking the hand of friendship, the Bush administration inanely branded Iran to be a part of the Axis of Evil. Mr. Ahmadinejad won the presidential elections of 2005, by painting the reformers as ineffective appeasers of the United States.

The dynamics of the presidential election changed when in March 2009 the former President Khatami, having problems even getting the approval of the Guardian Council to run, withdrew and threw his support to Mr Moussavi.

The other important factor was the end of the Bush era and the election of President Obama, along with the change in the US foreign policy from belligerency to diplomacy. Mr. Obama’s overtures for a civil dialogue with Iran left President Ahmadinejad without an easy mark to rail against. Mr. Moussavi, a loyal supporter of the 1979 Islamic Revolution, was approved by the clerical establishment. He started gathering the support of all who were dissatisfied with the status-quo. It included the intellectuals, liberals, young people asking for the easing of what they considered onerous regulations, but most of all, many average Iranians suffering the economic hardship because of the western embargo on Iran and fall in oil prices since last November.

In this contentious election, almost 40 million Iranians, eighty percent of the electorate voted. The pre-election polls indicated a very close race, with a chance of Mr. Moussavi winning. The election results started trickling in even before the polls closed. Surprisingly, President Ahmadinejad won by a thumping majority of 62% to Mr. Moussavi 33%. To the shock of many, Mr. Moussavi, as well as the other candidates lost by big margins even in their hometowns.

Those who had voted for Mr Moussavi, felt strongly that the election had been rigged. In Iran the system did not allow observers from the campaigns to monitor the voting and tabulation. It fed the dissatisfaction. The authorities refused to entertain any doubts. Within a week the dissatisfaction burgeoned to wide scale protests and civil demonstrations. Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenie first rejected the demand for recount, then accepted a partial recount, again without the monitors.

In the mean time, the government arrested an untold number of people. Many well known names from the 1979 revolution, such as the daughter and some family members of Ayatollah Rafsanjani, and many others former ministers have been detained.

The strong arm suppression of hundreds of thousands of peaceful protesters was beamed the world over, including the beating and killing of silent marchers. According to the Iranian government 17 people have been killed, the opposition and other sources claim hundreds killed.

In this budding revolution, many supporters of the Iranian regime see the hand of the CIA, as it had overthrown Prime Minister Mosaaddeq in 1953 to restore the Shah to the throne. There concerns are legitimate, as the Bush administration had left no doubt that it would use any means to change the regime in Iran. It is quite possible that the Bush policies and spies in place in Iran may have a hand in stirring up the pot.

It is also possible that the election was very close and President Ahmadinejad may have won the election by a small margin, but it is becoming clearer by the day that there was wide scale rigging to ensure the results. On the 22nd of June, the 12 member Guardian Council, that oversees the election, accepted that three million votes may have been miscounted and there were 50 places, where the number of votes cast exceeded the eligible voters. Yet it declared the elections to be fair, allowing only a limited recount. Once people loose faith in the honesty of the process, they can not be satisfied by the promises of unsupervised rectification by the same people.

From the fast changing scene in the past twelve days, it is evident that the CIA may have had its designs, but this wide spread movement was neither planned, nor controlled by anyone including its reluctant leader Mr. Moussavi. The wide spread pent up frustration of a large populace has found an avenue to express itself. Mr. Moussavi finds himself at the head of a budding revolution that he did not plan. He is in no position to contain it without loosing face and his leadership.

Ayatollah Khamenie is in a precarious position. By taking a strong stand against a total and open recount, he missed a great opportunity to control the events peacefully and to co-opt the opposition. One great advantage of democracy is that it allows change to take place without tearing up the fabric of the society. It tolerates a certain level of corruption, nepotism, even small irregularities in vote counting. By taking a strong stand Ayatollah Khamenie is in danger of loosing control or suppressing and closing the country, harming Iran and the people of Iran, to retain power by the force of arms. Iran may lurch from a theocratic democracy to a dictatorship.

Iran is finding it difficult to run a system as part democracy. Half free responding to the will of the people, such as popularly elected president and the Assembly (Majlis) albeit allowing only the candidates approved by the Guardian Council, and half controlled by the Supreme leader, indirectly elected for life, by an elected Assembly of Experts.

When the fog of the fast moving events clears, Iran would have changed, no matter who wins. If the present structure of the government survives by closing the doors shut to the outside world, it would be detrimental to the Iranian people. If it incorporates the opposition, it will be a desirable change; otherwise it may turn out to be a bloody revolution that no Iranian wants.

The Iranian regime is trying to shut the news of demonstrations and repression, but inter-connective technology of the 21st century is proving to be an impediment. The cell phones are ubiquitous, more than 80 percent of the people, especially the young have it and can twitter the information and pictures world wide. The government cannot shut the technology portal to the rest of the world without severely wounding its own economy and communications.

One hopes that the rulers in Iran will remember that violent repression of the voice of the people exposes the bankruptcy of the government. The US may dislike and may have been helping elements opposed to the government within Iran, but the enormous uprising and peaceful demonstrations in support of the opposition is the voice of Iran and its future.

Mirza A. Beg can be contacted at mab64@yahoo.com and at mirzasmusings@blogspot.com


Iran at the Cross Roads – What Should the US Do

By
Mirza A. Beg
Written Monday, June 22, 2009

Part II - What should the United States do

Iran has been in turmoil since the election on June 12th. For the rest of the world, especially for the US, it is important to understand, it is about Iran and not about the United States. It is the 21st Century, not the 20th, when the super powers manipulated the events in the world with impunity.

Events in Iran are moving fast. Most of the popular punditry in the United States was initially flummoxed, interpreting events with the US-centric biases; particularly the Neo-Con infected Republican Party. In spite of all the horrible mistakes of the eight Bush years, miring the country in un-necessary and terribly mismanaged wars and driving the country to near bankruptcy, they have learned no lessons, certainly not humility. They are taking pot shots at President Obama to be more belligerent towards the Iranian government.

They do not understand that the history of US orchestration of the overthrow of the first democratically elected Iranian regime in 1953 is as fresh in the Iranian psyche as the hostage taking of Americans by Iran in 1979 is for the American mind. The US supported brutal war waged on Iran by Saddam Hussain during the Reagan administration in the1980s has not faded from Iranian memory. Iran lost about a million of its youth affecting most families in Iran. The countries that the Iranians mistrust the most are Great Britain and the United States.

The Neo-Con mindset argues, “The Mullahs in Iran accuse the US anyway, so why not support the opposition”. They do not understand an important distinction. It matters less what the government propaganda machine puts out, it matters enormously what the people believe. So far it appears that because of the election of President Obama and the change in course of the US foreign policy, the Iranian public opinion towards the US has changed from completely negative to largely favorable or ambivalent.

Obviously the killing of peaceful protestors and bystanders in Iran is of concern to all decent human beings. But it is in the interest of the Iranians, the US and the world, that the events in Iran should be handled by Iranians peacefully. If the situation deteriorates in chaos, it is the Iranians who will suffer the brunt. The Iranian opposition has asked for moral support not belligerency towards the Iranian regime.

The United States is, and has been a super power for the last seventy years with world wide interests. It has often supported corrupt dictatorships over democracy in Asia, Africa and Latin America, while paying lip service to the idea of democracy. Mr. Reagan’s opposition of the Soviets is often highlighted by the Neo-Cons, but they never acknowledge his support of the South African apartheid regime while branding Nelson Mandela a terrorist, the support of the murderous Contras in Nicaragua and a deafening silence after the rape and murder of five US nuns and the murder of the Archbishop by the government death squads in El Salvador.

It is important to understand the present crisis in Iran and the role of major players in historical context. The Islamic Republic of Iran was born thirty years ago in a people’s revolution against the corrupt and brutal regime of the Shah wedded solely to aggrandizement of his personal power helped by the western interests. Iran is not a dictatorship as some exaggerate, but a theocratic democracy, not to our liking.

Since the revolution in 1979, Iran has had ten presidential elections, and six presidents. Three of the presidents were elected for two terms each. All the previous elections were largely considered to be fair. The office of the President in Iran is not the highest office. It is more like the office of the chief executive officer, under the ultimate authority of the Supreme Leader (literally, the leader of the revolution).

The Supreme Leader is elected for a life time by the 86 members, Assembly of Experts. The Assembly of Experts is elected from a list of screened candidates by a direct election for an eight year term. That is how the theocracy controls the democracy. The former president Ayatollah Rafsanjani is the current chairman. He along with many in the religious establishment are supporting Mr. Moussavi.

Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini who led the1979 revolution was unanimously elected as the first Supreme Leader. He held the office until his death in June 1989. The Assembly of Experts filled the vacancy by electing Seyyed Ali Khamenei (the president at the time) as the Supreme Leader by a two thirds majority. After twenty years he is still in power. He can only be replaced by impeachment. The reformers have unsucessfully tried to limit the term of the Supreme Leader.

The candidates for presidential election in contention are the children of the revolution and were strong supporters of Ayatollah Khomeini. Mr. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the current president was seeking a second term. The challenger Mr. Mir Hossein Moussavi is a former foreign minister who became the prime minister, during the presidency of, no other than the present Supreme Leader Seyyed Ali Khameini from 1981 to 1989.

Many in the US, particularly in the Neo-Con circles are making the mistake of grouping the Moussavi followers to be an anti Islamic revolution. One of the most potent symbols used by the Moussavi supporters is the green color, popularly considered to be the color of Islam. This is an internal Iranian struggle for power in the Iranian context of freedom; the limit on the power of the state and for the bread and butter issues. Both the candidates are Iranian patriots who support the 1979 revolution and do not disagree with the ideas of constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran; though gradually it is evolving as a struggle for the check on the near absolute power of the Supreme Leader.

Their foreign policy is not likely to be substantially different. While Mr. Ahmadinijad was reactive to the belligerency of President Bush and finds it difficult to change, Mr. Moussavi will perhaps be more nuanced and soft spoken in the Obama mode, but will not yield Iranian interests to the Western pressure. President Obama is appropriately using the soft power words, rather than the bluster and empty threats of the Bush era.

Mirza A. Beg can be contacted at mab64@yahoo.com and at mirzasmusings@blogspot.com

Thoughts for 2008, 07-12-20

Will the year 2008 be Different?

Mirza A. Beg
Tuesday, December 20, 2007

Counter Currents, Wednesday, December21, 2007
http://www.countercurrents.org/beg211207.htm

The American Muslim, Tuesday, December 20, 2007
http://www.theamericanmuslim.org/tam.php/features/articles/will_the_year_2008_be_different/0015294

Media Monitors Network, Monday, December 24, 2007
http://usa.mediamonitors.net/content/view/full/48396

My News India, Sunday, December 30, 2007
http://www.mynews.in/fullstory.aspx?storyid=1601

Asia Peace, Article of the month, December 2007
http://www.asiapeace.org/article_of_month.htm

January 1, of the year 2008 of the Julian-Gregorian calendar will be just another day in the steady flow of time. Some will celebrate because it is customary, while others will rejoice in the ever present hope of renewal, but most of the teaming poor and dispossessed of the world will not notice it. The wars will go on as legalized murder. It will be yet another day of misery and deprivation.

Most people, across the globe, at least wish for peace on Earth and equity and justice for all. They are kind and considerate as individuals. But as a group, “us versus them”, we conveniently forget that it requires treating the distant “others” as we, the “us” would like to be treated. It is easy to find tortuous reasons to justify selfish interests, resulting in wars based on the worst of lies, the self serving lies that we tell ourselves. They propel us to support the politicians who lie most convincingly that killing neighbors or a people in far off lands is necessary to preserve our way of life.

Religions become the most convenient hand maiden of the propagandists, and we willingly with enthusiasm profane what we purport to hold sacred.

Eventually all wars do end, often with the exhaustion of all sides. In the past two centuries, the quantum growth in modern technology has provided unimaginable material conveniences. It has brought prosperity, but sadly there is even a greater growth in weapons to feed the wars; weapons that can be used without any danger to the user; impersonalized weapons.

In my name, with my taxes, a neighborhood full of people with similar dreams as mine, in a far off place, will be destroyed by a rocket delivered by a remote controlled plane, while I am celebrating the New Year festivities and talking of peace and goodwill. If confronted by the deception, the trite explanation will be “collateral damage”, or at best an oft repeated hackneyed phrase “Oops, a mistake for which we are extremely sorry.”

Ours is an age of information and instant communication. No technology can be secret for very long. Every weapon invented by an established government to oppress others in the name of crass nationalism will eventually leak out or are sold to those fighting the oppression, who after gaining power, in turn become oppressors.

The wars can not be fought or sustained unless the populace is duped into believing that the “ungodly other” or “beastly other” is trying to destroy them. The propaganda is self-sustaining and it grows until we are jolted after falling off the precipice.

Those who see injustice and keep quiet, end up being silent supporters of oppression. The "innocent" bystanders are no longer as innocent as they want to believe, especially in a democracy. If we do not object to our own government's misdeeds at home and abroad, we are guilty, because in a democracy we are the government.

Many of us were not taken in by the lies of warmongers. We foresaw and wrote about the quagmire and destruction that the war would bring, but being right before a majority realizes the folly is perceived as a greater political folly. The strength of ethical principles and intellect is branded as weakness of brawn by the glib power seekers who keep trying to deceive the electorate by appealing to the baser instincts.

We need to speak in louder and clearer voices to inject backbones in politicians who want to be with the winning side. We also need to convince the popular media that people do want to hear the other side as well. It is not economically injurious. They do not need to imitate Fox news. Unless we do it in greater numbers, the malfeasances of the Bush administration in domestic policy and endless indiscriminate wars in the name of peace will continue to create more terrorists and wider wars.

The warmongers had their run. They have sown terrible death and destruction. They have the power of the latest weapons, but they suffer a great disadvantage. They have to be against others to be hegemonic. They thrive on hatred, pitting “us” against “them”.

The ideals of peace and of consideration of others as human beings may appear to be powerless, but they have one great advantage. They can unite across the false divide created by forces of ignorance and war. They extend a hand of friendship across the artificial rift. They can erase the dishonest division.

Let us make the year 2008 a watershed, when the 21st century emerges from the deathly clutches of the wars of the 20th century to claim its much needed place to unfold an era of peace in the flow of time.

Mirza A. Beg can be contacted at mab64@yahoo.com and at http://mirzasmusings.blogspot.com/

Justice & Gujarat 07-12-10

Justice for the Victims of Gujarat Pogrom

Mirza A. Beg

December 10, 2007

Counter Currents, Tuesday December 11, 2007
http://www.countercurrents.org/beg111207.htm


Dear Mr. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and
The Congress President Mrs. Sonia Gandhi.

At this important juncture, the helm of the ship of state, the Republic of India is primarily in your hands. The agenda of the executive and political power has been entrusted to your judgment by the people of India, in the hope that you will leave an ethical and proud legacy for the generations to come. Unfortunately the nightmare of the BJP misrule persists in many parts of the Republic and the constitutionally guaranteed rights of minorities are still being violated with impunity.

The perpetrators, the victims and the average Indians know that Narendra Modi's government engineered the riots in Gujarat resulting in the death of 2000 innocent people and injuring hundreds of thousands more in 2002. The justice to the victims is being denied because the BJP controlled governments in Gujarat and at the Center concealed the evidence, precluding a citizen’s ability to seek redress in the courts of law. Therefore, it was not a spontaneous riot, but a planned Pogrom.

The fig-leaf of lack of legal evidence of Modi government's direct involvement is believed only by the morally bankrupt. Even the American and European governments, though well disposed towards India, know enough to repeatedly deny the coveted diplomatic visa to Modi.

Over the years sectarians within the Congress party stealthily looked the other way while the Hindutva (Hindu sectarians) engineered cyclical riots, too numerous to list, often supported by the police. It culminated in the orchestrated destruction of the Babri Masjid in 1992 while the then Congress Prime Minister Narsimha Rao, feigned helpless surprise for six long hours. The loss of faith among the secular electorate, and the minorities resulted in Congress's defeat in the successive general elections.

After being in wilderness for eight years, the Congress led coalition under your new and vigorous leadership was elected as a repudiation of the fascistic and sectarian agenda of the BJP. Indian electorate gave the Congress another chance in the hope that the party has learned a lesson and returned to its founding secular and humane principles.

The dead and the dispossessed are still waiting for justice after five long years. Some may find them a political inconvenience, but they cannot be wished away.

We understand that political disputes in a democracy are decided by elections; and the division of power between the Central and the Provincial governments are well established in the constitution. But the constitution clearly provides mechanisms to punish provincial governments guilty of blatant criminality. Many times in the past provincial governments have been dismissed by the President for much less.

The brave reporters and editors of the Tahelka News magazine took enormous risks to record irrefutable evidence from the culprits, exposing the hand of Modi and the Gujarat government. They did what the government should have done.

I know the elections in Gujarat are around the corner; some wedded to politics of unprincipled power, afraid of political muscle of the Hindutva forces, want to cajole them. This will be a grave mistake. Instead of more placebos of toothless inquiry commissions, the Central government should protect the Tahelka reporters and promptly bring charges against Modi and his cohorts in the court of law. A five year delay is not too soon. Failure to act will fortify the assessment that the Congress has forsaken the ethos of the Indian Constitution to succumb to the destructive lure of power. It will confirm the perception of Congress as enablers of riots by stealth sectarianism.

Both of you understand the economics of dispossession and personal loss. Steadfastly you have overcome great impediments to reach your present coveted positions, not in search of power, but in pursuit of ideals. Great leaders courageously navigate the country to uphold the Constitution and establish principles that the succeeding generations will be proud to follow. It is time to use the irrefutable evidence provided by the Tahelka reporters to bring the powerful nefarious sectarian forces to justice and set the Indian Republic on the firm footing as a nation of laws.

Mirza A. Beg can be reached at mab64@yahoo.com or http://mirzasmusings.blogspot.com/

Sudanese Justice 07-11-30

Travesty of Justice - Sudanese Caricature of the Islamic Law

Mirza A. Beg

Friday, November 30, 2007

Indian Muslims, Friday, November 30, 2007
http://indianmuslims.in/travesty-of-justice-sudanese-caricature-of-the-islamic-law/

American Muslims, Friday, November 30, 2007
http://www.theamericanmuslim.org/tam.php/features/articles/travesty_of_justice_sudanese_caricature_of_the_islamic_law/0015056

Counter Currents. Org, Sunday, December 2, 2007
http://www.countercurrents.org/beg021207.htm

Sadly a majority of people practice double standards. They tend to judge others more harshly, but find excuses for their own failings. Collectively, other races, countries and religions are judged harshly, while we turn a blind eye to whatever we construe as our own.

I suffer from a reverse malady. I am sad at injustice to anyone anywhere, but it offends much more when it is done in the name of my country, society or religion. That is why abjuring popular sentiments, I am more critical of injustices done in the name of Islam, the United States and India.

When others condemn, some times genuinely, and some times maliciously, the knee-jerk reaction is to criticize the critic that they are equally bad or worse. I hear this often, when I write about the immoral war in Iraq, based on lies; the Pogrom by the state government of Gujarat in India or the horrible things that the Talibanist mentality has done in the name of Islam.

Recently, a woman in Saudi Arabia was gang-raped. She was seen in a car with a person not of her family. She was also found guilty along with the rapists and recommended punishment under the Saudi Law. That is bad enough, but to call it Islamic is travesty of truth and reason.

In Sudan, a British teacher was arrested for the “sin” of helping her class of seven year olds to name a cuddly teddy bear, Muhammad. Yesterday, after a court trial, she was sentenced to 15 days in jail, and it is reported that a crowd was clamoring for a death sentence. In a closed dictatorial country a crowd does not gather, it is allowed or urged to gather.

The problem springs from a misunderstanding of cultural norms. In the West people often name their pets after the people they love, including their parents, friends, and even prophets. In the East people give their pets loving precious names, but not the names of people they love and respect. It is considered an insult, akin to calling one’s best friend or a prophet a dog or a cat.

All Muslims consider Islam to be a just and humane religion. The most popular stories that children grow up with are about the kindness, humanity and mercy of the Prophet.

One of the most popular stories is that the Prophet was reviled and cursed by many Meccans, just after his call to Islam. There was a woman who routinely threw garbage on him, when he passed through her street. For a couple of days she did not. He inquired and learned that she had been sick. His reaction was to go to her house to console her.

A well recorded fact of history is that after conquering Mecca he forgave all, including some who had said and done vile things, including a woman, Hinda, who desecrated the corpse of the Prophet’s uncle. There are many other such stories and recorded historical events.

An average person may be forgiven for being impetuous, emotional and blinded by the love for the Prophet, but the Sudanese judge and the government ought to know better. This is complete ignorance and disregard of the primary sources of Islamic jurisprudence. It is an insult to Islam, humanity and justice.

All Islamic scholars would agree that the Islamic laws are based on four principles, in the following order of importance, with a strong caveat that the act is punishable based on intent, and when in doubt mercy over-rides the blind word of the law.

1. The edicts of Quran.
2. Not finding in Quran, the actions or sayings of the Prophet, compiled as sets of Hadeeth by a few scholars about 150 years after his passing.
3. Qiyas – analogy from similar rulings emanating from the first two.
4. Ijma – the consensus of the scholars.

In view of the above, as reported, the British teacher was in Sudan serving the populace. 1-Though the Quran condemns harming or insulting the Prophet, it does not recommend a temporal punishment. 2- The Prophet was the best interpreter of Quran. The life history of the Prophet illustrate that he was kind to even those who insulted or injured him. 3-The teacher was clearly serving the people and her intent was not to insult. 4 - Most scholars in the Islamic world would be at variance with the Saudi and Sudanese interpretation, because not only they violate the intent and mercy clause, but also the 2nd principle.

As children we laughed at a collection of jokes under the loosely translated ditty:
Strange land - Stupid ruler - they sell - Cow for a dollar - Hay for a dollar.
One of the jokes was - a very fat man was condemned to hang. The rope was not strong enough for his weight. So they found a thin man and hanged him, to satisfy the letter of the law.

That was a joke, but this is an insult to all sense of justice, Islam and humanity.

Mirza A, Beg can be contacted at mab64@yahoo.com or http://mirzasmusings.blogspot.com/
_________________________

Response to critics of my article,
“Travesty of Justice - Sudanese Caricature of the Islamic Law”.

Mirza A. Beg
December 3, 2007

Dear Friends

ASAK

There have been lots of responses to my article “Travesty of Justice - Sudanese Caricature of the Islamic Law”. Most have been positive, but a few have been critical, of those all have been civil, but a couple have been abusive. Thanks to all of you, because I did ask for your response. It is perfectly legitimate to criticize the critic. I had hoped that while criticizing people will try to keep three points in mind, but mostly they have not.

1. I had stated in the first paragraph that “others are as bad or worse” is not a legitimate argument in favor of right, decency, justice or the grandeur of one’s own religion or philosophy. At best it is an argument in favor of tit for tat. But some have spent a lot of time blaming the West for many offences. While they are true, they do not help if the evil is done in revenge in the name of Islam.

2. In my article we are not talking of politics, we are talking of law and justice for an individual. There are flaws in many national laws, in the West as well. Bush administration has misused the laws of US to prosecute many Muslims and their institutions. The wheels of Justice grind slowly, but in most cases the administration has been proven wrong in the judgments of the courts. Yet the justice has not always prevailed. Those are temporal national laws and are often criticized by many. I have written strongly critical articles about them such as my article about the “Patriot Act”. In case of Sudan and Saudi Arabia we are talking about laws that are proclaimed to be Islamic and are instituted in the name of Islam. That is where my ire resides.

3. Now talking of Islamic laws. This one needs a bit longer explanation. Please keep in mind that according to Muslim creed, the Quran is God’s word and the Rasool was the best interpreter of Quran.

Obviously the Quran is not very easy to interpret, such was God’s design and will. If it were easy, there would not have been so many sects in Islam and so many interpretations by good, honest and pious people.

Sunnah and the sayings of the Prophet collected as Hadeeth by many hard working meticulous scholars. Some of the best known are Bukhari, Muslim and Tirmidhi. There are a few narrations in these that are considered spurious, many of them of are considered weak in lineage and many are on general same topic, but in different situations.

It is very important to keep in mind the veracity of Hadeeth and the situation under which the action was taken or the word spoken. It is even more important when they are being used as a part of Judicial proceedings. The judge needs to and has a duty to explain them in great detail for the parties to respect the decision.

I had given the most popular two examples that almost every one knows. Those who claim that the Rasool did condemn a person to death for the crime of insult to Islam or his person should educate us by telling us the antecedents of the action. When, where and under what circumstances.

Please be aware that I am not saying that it did not happen. I am saying that I do not know about it and would appreciate to be educated by those who know. The preponderance of the Hadeeth and the character of the Rasool as it emerges from the well known biographies (Seerat) and the Hadeeth is that of a very logical, thoughtful, kind and just person. If he did some thing that seems to be different than his usual practice, I hope you will agree; it needs much closer examination and understanding.

My general observation is that Quran lends itself to harsher as well as more merciful interpretation. The detractors of Islam selectively and at times only partly quote ayahs to castigate Islam. We resent it, but often without thinking, indulge in similar interpretations when it suites us. I think that is much more egregious. This is even truer of the quoting and interpretation of Hadeeth. It very much depends upon our own propensities. It speaks much more about our own values than the veracity of Hadeeth.

Some are quick to blame those who seek more humane interpretation to be stooges of the West. This is particularly sad, because Islam gave us the freedom to think and not blindly follow our own baser instinct, our dictatorial leaders or the West. At the time of the early Caliphs (Khulefa Rashedun) people used to strongly question, even criticize them. They encouraged it in truth and humility and took pains to answer and explain. We lost that early ethos and became subservient to the power of the rulers, and blind obedience. We do not need to learn this independence of character and courage from the West, we should learn it from our own early history.

I find it amazing that when there are many more instances of Rasool forgiving those who had insulted and injured him and Islam grievously, some may give a greater weight to a single incidence of dubious antecedents. One person even wants to name a dog (Bitch according to him) after me. All I can say, in the foot steps of my Rasool; please do, if it assuages your misplaced anger, and enhances your character and understanding of Islam.

Thanks again. A decent give and take in dialogue makes us think introspectively and critically about our own beliefs, values and helps us grow and be better. Warm regards,

Mirza

India genocide expose 071031

Tehelka, Journalists Lead Indians to Redeem their Values

Mirza A. Beg

Tuesday, October 31, 2007

Countercurrents, Friday, November 2, 2007
http://www.countercurrents.org/beg021107.htm

My News India, Friday, November 2, 2007
http://www.mynews.in/fullstory.aspx?storyid=1090

Khabrein, Friday, November 2, 2007
http://www.khabrein.info/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=8054&Itemid=88

Indian Muslims; Saturday, November 3, 2007
http://indianmuslims.in/tehelka-journalists-lead-indians-to-redeem-their-values/

Pine magazine, Saturday, November 3, 2007
http://pine-magazine.com/content.php?id=996

Tahelka, the intrepid news magazine did what the Indian government should have done in the past five years. The nation owes a debt of gratitude to the editor of Tahelka, Tarun Tejpal and reporter Ashish Khetan who took enormous risk to procure evidence on video tapes about the planning of the genocide perpetrated by the fascistic Gujarat state government in February – March 2002. The tapes also record admissions of suppression of evidence and bribery by the public prosecutors to protect the guilty.

The culpable Gujarat state government (still in power), got away with it, because at the time their party (BJP) was also in power at the center in Delhi. In 2004 elections for the central Parliament, the Indian electorate exhibited maturity by defeating the fascistic coalition in favor of a secular coalition dominated by the Congress party. However the Congress has been reticent to bring the Gujarat government to the bar of justice. It is afraid of being falsely tarred by the fascists, as anti–Hindu.

That may not come to pass. In the past, when the Congress party was a large undefeatable behemoth, many in its cadre were extremist sectarians who had joined in pursuit of power and weakened the secularist principles from within. To the extent that in early 1990s, Narsimha Rao became the Congress Prime Minister, who by his calculated inaction allowed the demolition of the Babari Masjid, unleashing the demon of naked violence, aided and abated by the guardians of law and order.

Those chauvinists have left the Congress and joined the BJP. The Congress after a long time is again a secularist party and has garnered the votes in 2004 based on secularist values. There is always political danger in taking a principled stand. With the strong evidence provided by the Tahelka reporters, there is more political danger in not following the principles.

Indian newspapers have reported for years that minorities, Muslims and Christians have been harassed in Gujarat since the BJP – a fascistic party came to power. What was not well known is that BJP and its allies were prepared to unleash a state supported pogrom of death, burning and looting on the Muslims. They just needed an excuse. The burning of a train carriage at Godhra on February 28, 2002 provided the pretext. Local Godhra Muslims were accused of setting the carriage afire from outside.

Instead of taking time to bring the culprits to justice, Narendra Modi, the Chief Minister of Gujarat gave verbal license of unrestrained pogrom for three days. It has been known for years, the Tahelka reporter have provided the corroboration on the video tape.
In 2003 a forensic report from the Capital of Gujarat, Ahmadabad came to the conclusion that the fire was set from inside the carriage. In March 2006, a commission appointed by the Ministry of Railways, under the chairmanship of retired Supreme Court Justice Banerjee came to the same conclusion.

The Gujarat state Police and judiciary under pressure from the Modi government have stymied the investigation for years; so much so that the Supreme Court of India passed strong strictures and ordered a proper investigation in the only case filed, because the government could not stop it.

The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, V. N. Khare, referring to the Best Bakery Burning case, wrote on September 13, 2003, “Your rajdharma (governing principle) is to punish offenders and bring the guilty to book. If you can’t, you quit.

In the final judgment, the Justices Raju Doraiswamy and Arijit Pasayat, April 12, 2004 wrote,” The modern day “Neros” were looking elsewhere when Best Bakery and innocent children and women were burning, and were probably deliberating how the perpetrators of the crime can be saved or protected.”

The Supreme Court can only pass strictures on the cases brought before the court. The court has provided the strongest directive to the government of India to take the rights of the oppressed minorities with utmost seriousness.

It is the duty of the state government to follow. In this case the state government is the chief culprit. This puts the onus on the Union (Central) government. The constitution provides for the Union government to intervene when the state government is the oppressor and the state police and judiciary are badly compromised.

The investigations that the Gujarat government suppressed and the Central Bureau of Investigation should have carried out long time ago, were done by Ashish Khetan of the Tahelka magazine at enormous risk. Now the evidence is on the tape and can not be ignored.

For the editorials and articles in the Tahelka Magazine go to-
http://www.tehelka.com/story_main35.asp?filename=Ne031107Tarunspiece.asp
For the Spy-cam video of the culprits boasting of their heinous deeds go to. http://www.tehelka.com/story_main35.asp?filename=Ne031107spycam_videos.asp

Independent observers have widely reported the brutal killing of about 2000 Muslims and the burning and looting of more than 100,000 Muslim homes .The government is the culprit so its figures are suspect. Many of the looters were photographed while the police were looking on. Many social workers, most of them from the Hindu community have taken enormous risk in helping the helpless in preparation of cases and have become voices of the voiceless.

This is not a struggle among the Hindus and Muslims as the bigots would like to propagandize. It is a struggle of decent humane Hindus and Muslims against the oppressive wing of the religion gone astray within Hinduism and Islam.

The greatness of the progressive Indian democracy is evident in that Muslims have done better in India than in many Muslim countries. The struggle against the state sponsored pogroms by the Gujarat government controlled by a fascistic Hindu party is led overwhelmingly by the secularist as well as deeply religious humane citizens, rooted in the Hindu ethos. The Supreme Court Judges, the brave community activists such as Tista Setalvad, Ram Punyani, V. K. Tripathi, and thousands others come from the Hindu tradition. Editor and brave reporters of the Tahelka Magazine and many other national publications such as “The Hindu” have an overwhelmingly Hindu staff.

While India is making great strides, some sectarian criminals in the provincial legislators have become an impediment to peace. Bal Thakary in the name of Hinduism has held the whole state of Maharashtra and its great city Mumbai hostage as his fiefdom. He has engineered riots where hundreds of people have been killed. Narendra Modi is still the chief minister of Gujarat and has used the levers of power to kill and deprive minorities of their constitutional rights.

Last week the Indian government awarded a well deserved national integration award to Professors Punyani and Banduklwala for giving voices to the oppressed. These well deserved awards are not a substitute for justice.

The appointments of judicial inquiry commissions are used as sop. The retired judges do a meticulous job. The inquiry takes a few years to complete. In time passions cool and the national memories fade. The government ignores the recommendations. The guilty not only go free, but also find encouragement to become even more brazen and bold in their evil deeds. It is time to bring cases before the courts to be pursued assiduously against all culprits, particularly those who have used power to spread mayhem and injustice.

Decent citizens of all religions and creeds should raise their voices against the terrorism by misguided individuals. The struggle for the soul of the nation becomes the highest duty when the state itself engages in planned terrorism, in our collective name. The religion we hold dear is besmirched when it is used to justify heinous atrocities. To raise our collective voices to bring the culprits in power to justice becomes imperative and the utmost duty. Those who keep quiet, or find excuses become supporters of the tyranny.

Brave reporters of the Tahelka Magazine have blown the lid off a very well known secret. They have provided the evidence. If the government does not follow through, it will be terribly injurious to the foundational values of Indian democracy.

Mirza A. Beg can be contacted at mab64@yahoo.com, Read his articles at http://mirzasmusings.blogspot.com/