Author: Krishen Kak
Publication: Vigil
Date: May 2, 2006
URL: http://www.vigilonline.com/reference/columns/vicharamala_view.asp?col_id=382
Thoughts on issues of current interest, including
instances of some double standards of our public figures, especially in the
construction of Hindustani identity (all those Macaulayan myths, and the hypocrisy
that is Nehruvian secularism) - Krishen Kak
This offering, being the 100th, it seems apt
to open it with a cricketing reference. Noted film star Aamir Khan, who scored
such a win with the cricket-centred movie "Lagaan", has chosen to
take his game to a new field. Khan, from playing patriotism and secularism
in films, has now graduated from reel to real life. Therefore, we must note
with admiration Khan's public statement:
When something like the Gujarat carnage or
the earthquake in Kashmir or the tsunami happens, we all get stunned. The
time has come when we have to do something stronger. There are grassroots
non-government organisations who are doing a lot of work to help out in these
areas, we should support them financially as well as morally," he said.
From getting justice for the victims of the Bhopal gas tragedy to the relentless
struggle of Medha Patkar and the Narmada Bachao Andolan and even the farmers'
suicides in Vidarbha, Aamir spoke about several non- "filmi" issues.
"When the Gujarat riots happened, people didn't know how to react. I
was afraid, too, of what people might say if I said anything as I thought
people would assume that I was saying this because I am Muslim. But I am showing
concern for innocent human beings killed not because they were Muslims or
Christians, upper class or lower class, but because they were Indians,"
he said ( http://www.hindu.com/2006/04/09/stories/2006040913430100.htm ).
That's right, Mr Khan, because they were "Indians".
But, Mr Khan, you name only Muslims and Christians; what about the Hindus
killed in Gujarat? They are not "Indians"? What about the State-enabled
ongoing genocide of the Kashmiri Hindus? They are not "Indians"?
The notoriously Nenruvian-secular ANHAD gleefully
celebrates Khan's point of view: "Aamir is one of those celebrities who
took a stand on Gujarat....He said he was sad that people responsible for
innocent people being killed got elected to power again. It is much easier
to stand up on natural disasters than on Gujarat. His support is important,
I think, for the whole anti-communal movement," said Shabnam Hashmi of
ANHAD ( http://www.hindu.com/2006/04/09/stories/2006040913430100.htm ).
Just note that Khan is "sad" only
about Narendra Modi's free and fair re-election; he is not sad that those
responsible for the killing of Sikhs, among others, continue in power. Just
note that Aamir Khan's support for the so-called "anti-communal movement"
is essentially for an anti-Hindu one.
Just note that, for Gujarat, Khan used "carnage",
not "earthquake", but for Kashmir he used "earthquake",
not "carnage". Just note, as Khan doesn't, that about 19 times more
Indians died in the Gujarat earthquake than in the Kashmir one, and 20 times
more earthquake relief from the Indian government poured into Kashmir than
into Gujarat (V'mala 96).
Just note Hashmi equating opposition to the
NBA with Hindu communalism. As does Medha Patkar - to support the NBA is "secular",
to oppose it is "communal" ( http://www.hindu.com/2006/04/19/stories/2006041906701200.htm
).
But Aamir Khan has more to say. He tells us
that, in real life, he's not acting; "It was a spontaneous gesture to
help a social cause." His reel life, his films are "irrelevant.
They may generate interest but won't solve the real problems." And so,
to solve the real problems, he's must speak up, he must speak out, he must
speak to the media. Just note that all this speechifying doesn't hurt his
bank balance. Where it could hurt his bank balance, he's very circumspect
- "`But what about Coca Cola?' `I am aware of that controversy and plan
to take up that matter with the authorities.'" ( http://dailypioneer.com/indexn12.asp?main_variable=breakfast&file_name=break1%2Etxt&counter_img=1).
Why did he show no similar planning and circumspection
to first talk to the Gujarat authorities before publicly damning their chief
minister?
It's been a fortnight since Aamir Khan said
that he "would first like to talk to the Coca Cola people"
(http://www.apunkachoice.com/scoop/bollywood/20060415-1.html),
but he never bothered to get in touch with them. It was Coke, bothered that
their "brand ambassador" consorted with their enemy, that asked
to meet him. He's had enough time to do so, and since he hasn't ended his
contract with them, obviously, by his own statement, Coke's talks with him
have not failed. But why should they fail? After all, Coke pays him Rs 6 crores
to be their mouthpiece ( http://www.hindustantimes.com/news/181_1677457,0035.htm
).
So, no condemnation at all of Western multinationalism,
to which he's sold himself. Condemnation only of Hindu nationalism, that doesn't
pay him anything. Such pecuniary expediency, and then the poor man complains
he's "misunderstood" ( http://dailypioneer.com/indexn12.asp?main_variable=breakfast&file_name=break1%2Etxt&counter_img=1
)!
But such "misunderstanding", such
hypocrisy is typical of the Nehruvian-secular crowd. Nehruvian-secular idol
Arundhati Roy criticised Khan for "jumping into the NBA bandwagon even
while advertising for Coke" ( http://dailypioneer.com/indexn12.asp?main_variable=STATES&file_name=state10%2Etxt&counter_img=10)
but, as soon as he criticised Narendra Modi, she realized she'd misunderstood
Khan - and praised him (http://www.hindu.com/2006/04/18/stories/2006041819381000.htm)!
You and I may find contemptible such an amoral switcheroo but, following SAHMAT,
for Nehruvian secularists such expedient side-switching is a "rational
position" to take ( http://www.hindu.com/2006/04/18/stories/2006041815570400.htm)!
Poor misunderstood Aamir Mian. Let's have
some more of his "rational" grist for his "misunderstood"
mill:
Every religion goes through convulsions. Even
if you read the Bible. Christ is love. But Christ could also be a very hard
man.' He added, `Islam has the potential for both. It begins with the thought,
"Allah, the compassionate and merciful." Yet some extremists find
they cannot remember this and take the route that what Allah said was confine
to your own group. And you go out to harm people who have never done anything
to you.' He added, `I would run from Muslim and Christian fundamentalists
and God save us from Hindu extremists.' Aamir pointed out, `People who indulge
in violence are not of religion. They don't believe in God or would not want
to kill innocent people. The sickness is in the head. And that's what makes
it difficult to deal with.'"( http://dailypioneer.com/archives2/vivacity1.asp?ain_variable=VIVACITY&file_name=viva6%2Etxt&counter_img=6&phy_path_it=D%3A%5Cdailypioneer%5Carchives2%5Capr1006&phy_folder_path_it=D%3A%5Cdailypioneer%5Carchives2%5Capr1006%5Cvivacity&phy_inc_path_it=D%3A%5Cdailypioneer%5Carchives2%5Capr1006).
Just note Aamir Mian's "spontaneous" choice of words. He reacts
"emotionally" ( http://www.hindu.com/2006/04/17/stories/2006041703280200.htm).
He doesn't want "God" to save him from."Muslim and Christian
fundamentalists" but only from "Hindu extremists". Work out
why.
Aamir Mian dare not ask his "God"
to save him from "Muslim and Christian fundamentalists" because
this, his god, aka called Allah/Jehovah, himself preaches and practises fundamentalism.
But Allah and Jehovah will gladly save him from "Hindu extremists"
because, as both Islam and Christianity have preached and practised from the
the time they began their conquest of the world, non-believers must be either
converted or killed.
Which is why I'm very sceptical about the
mushy news item of 300 maulanas reciting, for over 2 hours, "the entire
Holy Koran praying for the speedy recovery of ...Pramod Mahajan, who is battling
for his life..." (The Pioneer, Apr 26, 2006).
Friends, just read the "entire Holy Koran"
(mine is the Pickthall translation). It reverberates with Allah's clarion
call to his faithful to go forth and kill kafirs. Pramod Mahajan is a notorious
kafir. So, when these maulanas recite the "Holy" Koran, what are
they reciting? Allah's call to kill the kafir.
I am reminded of a Christian memorial service
I attended a few years ago. The church was full of leading Christians, leading
Nehruvian secularists (including Harsh Mander and Nirmala Deshpande) and leading
infidels. All went feelingly, till the pastor led the congregation in a prayer
"for our country, under Christ". Even on such an occasion, with
numerous infidels respectfully present, the pastor had to proselytise.
There are despotic Islamic states, including
Pakistan and the Koranic kingdom of Saudi Arabia, but no Aamirian will dare
preach secular democracy to them. There is a despotic Christian state, but
no Aamirian will dare propose the conversion into a secular democracy of the
Vatican State. And no Aamirian will dare critique the holy terror of communism.
Hinduism, however, is fair game, as exemplified
by (the European Union! - "EU asks Nepal King to revive Parliament soon",
The Pioneer, Apr 27, 2006, and) this our latest Nehruvian-secular hero, Aamir
Khan.
Hinduism is fair game for Nehruvian secularism.
So Nepal, the world's only surviving Hindu polity, teeters for its existence
on our border, and our Nehruvian-secular government preaches democracy to
its king while Maoist terror, spreading against us in our own Hindu-majority
country, steadily engulfs our only Hindu neighbour ( http://dailypioneer.com/indexn12.asp?main_variable=EDITS&file_name=edit3%2Etxt&counter_img=3).
Mian Aamir Khan is only the most recent to
go public of our duplicitous "secular" Muslims. Mian Amjad Ali Khan,
who, it is claimed, "chooses art over spirituality", wants censorship
of "religious TV stations" because they are "very dangerous"
and "a threat to national unity" ( http://in.rediff.com/news/2005/dec/28sarod.htm).
How curious - the only really popular such
TV channel is Aastha, and even a cursory viewing of its programmes shows no
threat to national unity. So Amjad Ali Khan ko gussa kyon aata hai? Is it
because he is islamically enjoined only to "watch TV when it presents
good and Islamically interesting program and put it off when it presents the
otherwise" ( Mufti Yusuf Al-Qaradawi, fatwa, http://66.249.93.104/search?q=cache:F50VuH4lCpQJ:www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite%3Fpagename%3DIslamOnline-English-Ask_Scholar/FatwaE/FatwaE%26cid%3D1119503544868+islam+%2B+fatwa+%2B+TV&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&lr=lang_en
)? And Aastha, being kafir-oriented, cannot by definition be "Islamically
interesting", therefore it must be attacked and denigrated, it must be
"put off".
And before Amjad Ali Khan, we have had Shabana
Azmi (V'mala 12), Nafisa Ali (V'mala 28, 97), Shabnam Hashmi (V'mala 44),
Anees Jung (V'mala 48), Jaaved Jaaferi and Syeda Hamid (V'mala 53), Teesta
Setalvad (V'mala 77), Zoya and Mushirul Hasan (V'mala 85), MF Husain (V'mala
97) and, not least, APJ Abdul Kalam (V'mala 93).
All these "secular" Muslims who
are Indian citizens know very well of the Islamic jihad against Hindus in
Hindustan, yet not one of them has chosen to condemn jihad and the jihadis.
"In Islam, if you see wrong being committed, you should try to stop it
- or, at least, condemn it. Otherwise you, too, become responsible for that
wrong" ( Maulana Wahiduddin Khan, http://dailypioneer.com/archives2/default12.asp?main_variable=OPED&file_name=opd1%2Etxt&counter_img=1&phy_path_it=D%3A%5Cdailypioneer%5Carchives2%5Cmar206
).
Since neither Aamir Khan nor any of these
"secular" Muslims has ever condemned jihad, we can "rationally"
conclude that Aamir & co. do not see jihad, the killing of Hindus, as
"wrong", as un-Islamic.
And it is this Aamir Khan that that leading
Nehruvian-secular newspaper The Hindu approvingly titles "Raja Hindustani"
( http://www.hindu.com/2006/04/17/stories/2006041703280200.htm).
A ghazi is a kafir-killer (even Akbar, so-called
The Great, was a ghazi, V'mala 26). The real Aamir Khan has finally stepped
forward to show he's a ghazi-backer.
Therefore, the more appropriate title for
Aamir Khan is "Ghazi Hindustani".
