Author: Ashok Chowgule
Date: August 26, 2011
In the last week or so, some communal leaders
have been saying that the movement against corruption does not help the minorities,
and some have even gone to the extent of saying that the minorities, being
poor, are really not affected by corruption. As in so many other cases, this
refrain has been picked up by many, who call themselves as intellectuals and/or
secular, who are projecting themselves as protectors and benefactors of the
minorities.
The whole communalization programme started
with the Imam Bukhari issuing a statement (don't know if it was a fatwa) that
Muslims should not participate in the movement because of the slogans of 'Bharat
mata ki jai' and 'Vande Matram'. On cue, two members of the Anna Team, Arvind
Kejriwal and Kiran Bedi, met the Imam the same evening, to convince him about
the secular basis of the movement, and invited him to be on the dias with
Anna. It seems that this did not cut any ice with the Imam.
It is really a reflection on the two members
of the Anna Team to be swayed away with the statement of one who is known
to be a rabid Muslim. In the past, there have been severe criticisms of his
statements. But, with the visit of these two members, clearly it seems that
the Anna Team think that the Imam is a legitimate leader of the Muslims. These
members have completely ignored what they themselves have seen in their
movement - that is there is a participation of all sections of the society,
irrespective of creed and caste. One has to wonder that their anointment of
the Imam as a leader of the Muslims does not expose their agenda.
In a new report, former RJD MLA Asif Mohammad
Khan said, "There are two ways to go. One is to support the movement
and another is to toe the party line. I chose the first one, sensing the people's
mood." Then there is another report which says that the All India Muslim
Women Personal Law Board (AIMWPLB) president Shaista Amber, has condemned
the statement of the Imam, and has confirmed the Muslim participation in the
movement.
Some Christian religious leaders have also
condemned the movement against corruption, as have some who project themselves
as leaders of the lower castes. The presence of Christians in the actual agitation
is there for all who do not want to pretend to be blind. In many places, with
strong Christian presence, the lay members of the community have
taken upon themselves as local leaders, and have mobilized people of all caste
and creed to join the agitation. The same can be said of the members of the
lower castes.
We can well expect the communal leaders to
behave in the way they have done. It is in their interests to keep their community
members in the state of discontent so that they can offer their 'services'
as leaders, who will supposedly solve their problems. They know that once
these problems are solved, they will no longer be needed and will have to
make
honest efforts to keep themselves relevant.
The tragedy is the way the 'secularists' and
'intellectuals' have behaved. While the members of the Anna Team visited the
Imam and invited him to the programme, they have actively kept many apolitical
Hindus away from their programme, or refused them even a presence on the stage.
The projection made by many journalists and the analysts of the obscurantist
views of the communal leaders will do great disservice not only to the members
of the minorities but also to the whole movement against corruption. As in
so many cases, they have authenticated that these communal leaders do speak
for the whole of their community.
