Saturday, April 28, 2012

Bengal Government to spend Rs 90 Crore on salaries of Imams per year.


Kolkata: Chief Minister of West Bengal Mamata Banerjee declared at a conference of Imams here on 3rd April that, West Bengal Government will give honorarium or allowance (a monthly sum of Rs2500) to 30000 Imams of mosques throughout the state. The CM then set up a task force for this purpose in the leadership of Chairman of Wakf Board Abdul Ghani. Members of the task force are eminent Imams and clerics including Maulana Qasim Alwi (Imam Lal Mosque), Maulana Noorur Rehman Barkati (Shahi Imam Tipu Sultan Mosque), Maulana Fazlur Rehman, Toha Siddiquee (Pir of Furfura Sharif), Maulana Athar Abbas Rizvi (religious leader of Shia community)and Maulana Shafique Qasmi (Imama of Nakhoda Mosque). Going ahead, the government on 17th April also published official notice along with application form in several dailies. The form has also been put on the State Waqf Board’s website for download.
However, it seems that the clerics and common Muslims have not accepted the announcement about honorarium wholeheartedly. They are divided over the real motive of the government behind the honorarium as well.



Honorarium may lead to government control of mosques
Jamiat Ulama-I-Hind
Maulana Siddiqullah Chowdhury, leader of Jamiat Ulama-I-Hind, the largest Muslim organization in West Bengal, has opposed any government allowances to Imams. Siddiqullah Chowdhury told TCN: “It is a political gameplan before the Panchayat elections due in 2013. He alleged that by announcing honorarium to Imams, the government of Mamata Banerjee is trying to divert attention from Muslim reservation.In the election manifesto of Trinamool Congress, Muslim reservation was one of the main agenda for development of the minority community.”
Chowdhury demanded Muslim reservation instead of allowances. “If Muslims get government job according to their population in West Bengal, they will pay their Imams from their own pocket, they will not need government’s fund for it,”Chowdhury said.
Jamaat-e-Islami Hind
State Jamaat-e-Islami Hind President Md Nuruddin has similar views. He told TCN: Allowance for Imams is not justified in a secular country. If any government pays allowances to Imams of mosque, the Hindu priests will also demand it. So, any government could not move for religious persons. However, Jamaatis discussing if the allowance to Imams is justified or not. But he apprehends that community may lose control on mosques in future as management bodies of mosques may go in government’s hand.
Explaining his apprehension, he said all mosques in West Bengal do not come under State Waqf Board. Through this move of allowance, the government can take control of all mosques through the state waqf board and government may issue any circular containing directions for mosque imams and management bodies. Moreover, the government can put pressure on masjid committees to recruit imams of its choice, he says and asks the government to look after waqf properties instead.
“Instead of this, Government should look after the prime Waqf properties which are encroached upon for long time, saysNuruddin adding that the announcement of Imam allowance may divide the Muslim society and may be politicized in future.
Honorarium should come from income of waqf board
All Bengal Muslim Council and All India Minority Youth Federation
All Bengal Muslim Council & All India Minority Youth Federation, however, is not against the allowance to imams. The groupheld a meeting last week to discuss the issue. Members of the organizations think the process of Imam allowanceis not in proper form. If government wants to give the allowances to the Imam it should be given from State Waqf funds not from special funds of Government, said the president of the groups Md Kamruzzaman. He says salary from waqf board can continue forever but special funds from government may stop at any time.
Md Shah Alam, the Secretary of Amanat Foundation told TCN, it is most welcome to pay the honorarium to the Imam of Masjid from government. He thinks honorarium should be increased to Rs5000 per month because most of the Imams are living in very poor condition. He is also of the view that salary should come from the income of the Waqf properties. Then not only 30000 Imams, but every Imam may get monthly honorarium.
All India Milli Council
State Secretary of the All India Milli Council Mr Sahood Alamalso says Imam should not take any honorarium form Government fund. They may take honorarium form Waqf Board’s own funds, otherwise that will not be permitted in Shariat. He thinks, not only Imam, Muazzin of the masjid should also be given honorarium. He says Muslims of West Bengal are deprived for last 34 years.Overall development needed for West Bengal Muslims. If Muslims progress financially then the condition of the Imam will also improve as Muslims cannot live without mosque and they always want Imam to be in good condition.
But he also thinks the move may be a political game plan of the ruling party. If Government pays to the Imam, Hindu priest, Christian Father, Jains and others will also demand the same. Then total program will be stopped. So, if government wants to help Imam, they should utilize State Waqf Board funds. Muslims need reservation in government jobs first, later salary for Imam,Alam said.



Mutawalli/Masjid committee should have a say
Shah Alam of Amanat Foundation wants Mutawalli of mosque should have a say in the process. In application form, there is no column for recommendation of Mutawallis. For salary of Imam recommendation of the Mutawalli of the Masjid should be necessary. Otherwise, anyone can send application as Imam to the government official. This can lead to infighting in the community. Mutawalli should be involved in the prescribed application of the salary of Imam, he said. He also said, Government should pay the fund to the Mutawalli or Management of the Masjid. Mutawalli will pay the salary to the Imam. If Imam gets salary directly form Government then the position of Mutawallis will become less important. But he appreciated the initiative to give allowances to the Imam. Previous Government did not think about Imam, now the present Government is trying to do something that is most welcome, he said.
Imam of Jugdia Jame Masjid of South 24 Parganas Mufti Liaqat Ali told TCN, there is no mention in the Application form of Mutawlli or Masjid committee. So, anyone can seek salary as Imam without any consent of Masjid committee orMutawalli. But more importantly, he says Imams should know where the salary coming from – if the source is acceptable in shariah. He says Allah will take care of Imams, not the honorarium of government. His suspects with government honorarium Imam may be misguided by the political party. Imam should keep distance from them.
Mr Amirul Islam of Muslim social organization SANAP (Social Network for Assistance to People) supports the role of mutawalli instead of BDO in recommending salary. He says the government has made it mandatory that application form will be sent through Block Development Officer (BDO). At some places BDOs may not accept the form saying they have not got the government circular, paving way for political intervention. He says if Masjid Committee orMutawalli is not involved, the issue will be politicized.
However, he also says reservation is more important than salary of imam. He also demands increase in budgetary allocation for overall development of the community.

Friday, April 27, 2012

The loot of waqf properties in India


A Karnataka government-appointed committee, which surveyed Waqf board lands in the state recently, has stumbled upon a multi-crore scandal and has submitted a 7,000-page report on the scam to the chief minister D V Sadananda Gowda. It has shocked all as the latest Waqf scam is touted to be larger than the 2G spectrum scam that rocked the country last year. The committee found that major irregularities had taken place between 2001 and 2012 in the transfer of Waqf land to private parties through mutation where an estimated loss to the exchequer was likely to be around Rs 2 lakh crores. Mutation is a legal process through which government land is transferred or sold to individuals, institutions, persons or firms after proper verification of all documents related to the land. It’s clear that the legal process was flagrantly violated in Karnataka while selling or transferring the Waqf lands to private individuals. Of the Waqf board's 33,741 properties spread across a whopping 54,000 acres of registered land, around 27,000 acres have not been used for what they are meant for, and were disposed off illegally.
Understanding Waqf
Under Muslim rule in India the concept of Waqf was more broadly comprehended as aligned with the spirit of charitable contributions approved by the Quran. Waqf implies the endowment of property, moveable or immovable, tangible or intangible to Allah by a Muslim, under the premise that the transfer will benefit the deprived. As a legal transaction, the Waqif (settler) appoints himself or another truthful person as Mutawalli (Manager) in an endowment deed (Waqf-namaah) to oversee the Waqf (charitable trust). As it implies a surrender of properties to Allah, a Waqf deed is unchangeable and everlasting. In harmony with the true spirit of Islam, Indian Muslim rulers bigheartedly dedicated property such as land and its revenue rights to Awqaf (plural of Waqf) created with the aim of maintaining Mosques, Madrasas, Dragahs, Khanqahs, Maqbaras, Ashoorkhanas, Qabristans (graveyards), Takiyas, Idgahs, Imambaras, Anjumans, Tombs, Orphanages (yatimkhanas) etc. Besides the charitable intent that clearly underlined these donations, for instance, land could have been Waqf(ed) for the creation of a graveyard where poor people could bury their dead. These donations to Awqaf were also done with the interest of promoting the tenets of Islam. Under Muslim rule, the presence of Islamic courts overseen by Qazis ensured that the Mutawallis discharged their duties fairly. Their mismanagement of the properties was considered breach of the trust reposed in them for which they were duly punished. Therefore keeping all religious obligations in mind the Central Waqf Council, an Indian statutory body was established in 1964 by the Government of India under Waqf Act, 1954 for the purpose of advising it on matters pertaining to working of the State Waqf Board sand proper administration of the Wakfs in the country.

Loot of waqfs
The scam involving the Waqf properties that has surfaced in Karnataka is not an isolated case. Loot of the waqf estates has been going on all across the country. The mismanagement of the properties in India reflects the Muslim community’s failure to build a clean and organized establishment that could look after the vast estate efficiently. Most Muslims in India live in phenomenally bad socioeconomic condition. Poverty, lack of education and unemployment are rampant in the community. If the Waqf properties were managed or utilized the way they are supposed to be, many of the community’s perennial problems could have been resolved without any help from outside. Sadly, those, who wield power and have been installed as leaders in the community, have turned corrupt. Most of them sitting on top of the existing institutions that control the waqf estates have been found selling away the properties piece by piece, for personal gain. It frustrates us as we find that more than 70% of India’s Waqf estates have already been sold away in the past decades by our unscrupulous Muslim leaders.
There is a complex set of reasons for this state of affairs in institutions that claim to work for the benefit of the country’s largest minority and the world’s second-largest Muslim population. Even in the case of Waqf, political hangers-on and operators from the minority community are sent off to man the boards. The policies of successive governments have created a class of “Sarkari Musalmans” adept at capturing institutions and bagging positions through which they can patronize others down the pecking order.
Even common Muslims just see the Waqf placard and believe the land belongs to them. They are encouraged to believe there is some higher religious purpose to Waqf, little knowing the fact that it has become a synonym for daylight robbery. The greatest hypocrisy perhaps is that the men who violate the spirit of charity behind the concept of Waqf then pretend to be committed and dutiful believers. This resource has been mortgaged, sold and encroached upon with the connivance of the very institutions and individuals responsible for safeguarding it, turning it all into a systemic rot. The Waqf boards in most states of India are repositories of corruption, in league with local land sharks and builders. They continue to get away with the daylight robbery of their own community because, whenever there is any demand for scrutiny, they mischievously take cover behind the “Islam in danger” sentiment.


Wood factory on Waqf land
Some glaring examples of suspected land deals from across the land:
Chennai: In 1997, the Tamil Nadu Waqf Board took the decision to outright sell 1,710 square feet of land in the commercialized Triplicane High street in Madras for a paltry Rs 3 lakh. A sale like this would have required the sanction of at least two-thirds of the board members.
Mumbai: The Maharashtra Waqf Board got a measly Rs 16 lakh for 4,532square metres in the upscale Altamount Road on which none other than Mukesh Ambani has built his plush 27-storey home.
Bangalore: Developed on about five acres of land, the Windsor Manor hotel here was till recently giving the board a rent of Rs 12,000 a month for a property worth not less than Rs 500 crore.
Faridabad: The Waqf board has been leasing out about five acres of land on 11-month leases for several years at a ridiculously low rent between Rs 500 and Rs 1,500 per month. A factory was built at the place and land use altered.
Kolkata: Shaw Wallace was giving a miniscule amount as rent for the palatial building at the BBD Bag business district in Kolkata until the new Mutawalli of the Prince Ghulam Mohammed Waqf Estate dragged the corporate house to the court.
Encroachment of waqf properties in West Bengal
So across the country, there are examples of the huge Waqf mess. West Bengal which has highest numbers of Waqf properties in the country is no indifferent and has higher record of property encroachment as well i.e., like 4,000 illegal occupants are in possession of a property in Calcutta known as the Mysore Family Fateha Fund Waqf Estate. There are over few hundred mosques in Calcutta and other adjoining districts where Waqf lands have been encroached upon unlawfully. Sixty-four other mosques in the state have been illegally occupied by outsiders. West Bengal which has approximately 184,000 Waqf properties, accounting for 31% of such properties in the country has suffered the most at the hands of corrupt Mutawallis or managers of Waqf properties with the help of officials belonging to the Ministry of Land and Land Reforms (during the left regime) have got many of them sold. The CPI (M) built party offices on several such wakf plots. The Left Front government also transformed a 50,000 sq m property in Tufanganj, Cooch Behar worth Rs 20 crores into a state bus depot and warehouse. In Midnapore (Kharagpur) a big departmental store and other commercial complex have come up on a land which was a Muslim Burial Ground (Kabrastan) not very long ago. Similarly hundreds of Bighas of Waqf land were acquired and transferred to private coal mining company in Burdwan districts for a mere pittance through some shoddy deals. So many prime Waqf plots and properties have changed character because of legal loopholes, thereby denying Muslims a religious endowment under Islamic law, where the income was meant for sole use in charitable purposes.
In Feb 1996, irregularities were first detected at a Waqf property on Collin Street, Kolkata, which involved the prime accused Mr. Hamidul Huda and his family. And with so many unanswered questions and mounting pressure the then chief minister of Bengal Late Com. Jyoti Basu appointed a one-man judicial commission headed by Justice Gitesh Ranjan Bhattacharya in March 1997. Testimonies from the representatives of several Muslim organizations and Imams were recorded. And after almost 5 years of investigation, the inquiry report was submitted on 31 Dec 2001 to the West Bengal government. And on the basis of the report, Mr. Hamidul Huda, a CPI-M leader and former member of the Waqf Board was arrested. But many still feel that prime accused Mr. Hamidul Huda was just being made a scapegoat to shield some CPI-M bigwigs. Many even feel that if the Left Front government desired to clear its name it should have taken upon itself very seriously and must have followed the recommendations made by Justice GR Bhattacharya Commission report.
Recommendations of Justice GR Bhattacharya Commission
-- Decentralize Waqf properties management and form district Waqf boards in view of the mess over listed and unlisted properties throughout the state.
-- Prevent concentration of power and plug the routes to escape responsibilities by the Waqf Board members and Waqf Commissioner.
-- Fix collective and individual responsibility and bar anybody from holding office for more than one term. A member or his close relatives should not be involved in transfer and transaction of Waqf property.
-- Laws and rules regarding lease and tenancy should be changed.
-- Complete survey and enrollment of Waqf properties in the quickest possible time.
-- Empower trustees of Waqf properties to move court against unauthorized sale.
-- No sale of Waqf properties to be registered without the board’s permission
Modus operandi of the scamsters
Outright sale
Builder or businessman identifies a Waqf property.
They approach members of the board.
The land is sold for a pittance.
Board members get their cuts.
Discounted rent
It happens in states where outright sale is not encouraged.
Builder/ businessman approach board members.
The land is given on a ridiculously low lease.
Land use is changed to facilitate commercial exploitation.
Members pocket their cuts.


Naqqar Khana which is on Waqf land but DDA claims it
Obvious allegation of malpractice against board
Although Waqf is a national reserve for use in building institutions and earn income for Muslims, it is so awfully managed that it is the only system where practically no accountability is demanded. Cases of unashamed corruption flourish. Land is sold off to make way for private buildings, hotels, malls or factories for a trifle or given out for shockingly low rents to commercial interests. The boards have become an avenue for political patronage. Muslims who cannot be accommodated in ministries are sent off here. They mostly never do anything to help the community. In most cases, they are hand-in-glove with the land mafia and encroachers. The mess in the boards also reflects the apathy of state governments. Many have not constituted boards; none have carried out a survey of Waqf properties as required by the 1995 Act.
But in West Bengal at least the newly elected government has learnt from the Left’s mistakes and the incumbent Chief Minister Ms. Mamata Banerjee has taken a significant initiative towards sorting out the legal problems surrounding Waqf properties in the state so that their revenue can be distributed for the socio-economic benefit of the Muslim community. She has announced a CBI probe into the dealings of the previous Waqf board, and has launched many pro-minorities proposals which include a scheme of monthly honorarium for the Imams, which is duly linked with the funds at the State Waqf Board. In addition to all above she has sought data on the matter, as Waqf properties are worth more than Rs 70,000 crores in West Bengal, the highest anywhere in India. She is surely aware that Muslims will not need any government help if Waqf revenues are used fairly for their benefit, something which the Left Front ignored. The WB government has already taken action to avoid further dilemmas in managing the Waqf estates in the state. Measures are being planned to prevent recurrence of irregularities and lapses that happened in the past. Elections were held to the Waqf Board. Survey of Waqf property is being undertaken. Tribunal has been set up and more will be constituted if the situation demands. Responsibilities for Board members are now being fixed. Hence to add transparency to the working of the Waqf, “Tenure Restricting Bill” should also be considered.
As matter of fact WAQF is one of those areas in which accountability has not been demanded by anyone. The community itself has not demanded accountability, possibly because Muslims are ignorant about these issues. However, things tend to change once awareness builds up as it’s happening in Kerala, where Muslims are literate and demand accountability. The Waqf board is manned by professionals and headed by two advocates, not by racketeers. Even the Bureaucrats in the ministry of minority affairs in New Delhi cite the work done by Kerala Waqf board as example of good work and ask other states to emulate it.
There is no doubt that widespread misappropriation of the Waqf properties is taking place across India. Safeguarding the estates was the duty of the successive federal and state governments. But none performed their duty. The community itself is also responsible for the build-up of this Waqf mess. Muslims must understand that Waqf is a national resource that should have been tapped for use in the welfare of the “Muslim Community”.

Sunday, April 22, 2012

Team Anna expels Mufti Shameem Kazmi for recording proceedings

Noida (UP), Apr 22 (PTI) Fresh cracks surfaced in Team Anna today with the expulsion of a Muslim leader after he was accused of secretly recording proceedings of a core committee meeting but he dismissed the charge and claimed he quit the camp as the group was turning anti-Muslim. High drama was witnessed at Team Anna's core committee meeting in Noida this afternoon when Mufti Shameem Kazmi, who was associated with the anti-corruption movement from the beginning, was allegedly found recording the proceedings. Kazmi stormed out of the meeting presided by activist Anna Hazare and announced his resignation to the media outside the venue. "He was caught red-handed," prominent Team Anna member Arvind Kejriwal, who was one of the key members to face Kazmi's ire, told reporters. Presided over by Hazare, the meeting was called to discuss the anti-corruption movement's future course of action against the backdrop of growing unease in Team Anna over the "one-up manship" of yoga guru Ramdev, with whom they had stitched an alliance to fight for the cause. Team Anna sought to put the blame on all news leaks on the deliberations of its previous meetings to Kazmi and said they were astonished earlier how media was getting details of the meetings while it was underway. Claiming that he does not know how to record a conversation using a mobile phone, Kazmi claimed that Hazare was unhappy with the team and that Kejriwal and Manish Sisodia were trying to run the movement like a "private limited company". Kejriwal said the allegations does not deserve any reaction from their side. "The Core Committee was on and one of us noticed that Kazmi was recording the proceedings. We got hold of his phone and found that there were three clips of recording. We sought his explanation but he walked out in a huff," another Team Anna member Kumar Vishwas said. "On earlier occasions also, the details of the meeting were coming on media even when the deliberations were on. We were wondering who was behind it. This is a breach of confidence. Anna asked him to stay away from the next few meetings but he came out and said something else," he said.

Burmese Muslims seeks refuge in India


New Delhi: Making pavements as their homes, over 500 hundred Myanmar nationals, among them women and children, have camped for the past 12 days near the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) office here, demanding a refugee status.

"Life is not easy for refugees like us, who fled our country... at the age of 18... I have faced torture, extortion, trauma and starvation," Dilwana Begum, who works as a maid in Jammu, told IANS. "We are at least happy that unlike in our own country or Bangladesh, in India we feel safe and are not harassed for being Muslims. But the UNHCR is not paying heed to our plight."

Since April 9, Begum and over 500 people like her belonging to Burmese Rohingya community, a Muslim community hounded out from Myanmar (formerly Burma), have made temporary sheds of polythene sheets by the rear compound wall of the UNHCR office in B-2 Block of Vasant Vihar in south Delhi, demanding refugee cards.

"We were issued a asylum seeker card in August 2011 by the UNHCR, but it deprives us from lot of facilities that a refugee would get. We want a refugee card. Our children need education, better living conditions like water to drink and toilets. But we are deprived of this as we don't have a refugee card," said Zia-ul-Rahman, a refugee who left Myanmar two years ago and now lives in Muzaffarnagar, Uttar Pradesh.

The refugees say that for the past 12 days, most of them did menial jobs to get food and water.

"We are at their doorsteps seeking help, but the UNHCR has not even reached us to see how we are managing here with small children and old people, hope they know the real meaning of human rights," lamented Abdul Hafeez, who stays at the camp.

Hafeez speaks very little Hindi, and through an interpreter told IANS: "I lost my parents four years ago as the Burmese Junta shot them saying that they did not support the military regime. I had to discontinue my education. Like other refugees from Burma and countries like Afghanistan, Somalia, we need a refugee status so that I can continue my studies."

Another refugee, Mamoon Rafeeq who works as teacher in Jammu said that the Rohingyas have been sidelined in Myanmar as they are a Muslim community.

"Unlike other Myanmarese refugees, Rohingya has been sidelined because we are Muslims. Other Myanmar refugees who are Christians and Buddhists are given refugee card," Rafeeq claimed.

However, the UNHCR officials say that they discussed the issue with the refugees four to five times, but were not persuaded by their arguments.

The officials said they will now meet 10 representatives of the community on May 20.

"We don't use the term Rohingya - we refer to this group as Muslims from northern Rakhine state. In India, there is no national legal framework for refugees, and because of this there are different approaches to different groups of people," Nayana Bose, associate external relations officer UNHCR, told IANS.

"We have already registered them as asylum seekers and issued identity cards. The card is similar to the refugee card as it helps prevent harassment, arbitrary arrests, detention and expulsion," Bose said.

"Moreover, we are having an on-going dialogue with this group, and for their own safety and well-being, we have asked them to go back to their residential places in India. We have offered to meet their representatives in a more structured manner, to see how best we can assist them, as we do with all groups of refugees and asylum seekers," Bose added.

Saturday, April 21, 2012

Declare Ram Setu a national monument: VHP

Date: April 19, 2012


Criticising the government for refusing to take a stand on the issue, Vishwa Hindu Parishad today demanded that the mythological Ram Setu be declared a national monument.

“We demand that the government file an affidavit in the Supreme Court announcing the cancellation of the Setu Samudram project and declaring the Ram Setu a national monument, VHP leader Praveen Togadia said.

His denouncement of the government’s decision came on a day when Additional Solicitor General Haren Raval submitted in the SC that the government after consultations has decided not to take any stand on the issue of declaring the mythological Ram Setu a national monument.

The government has left it on the Supreme Court to decide on the issue.

The case relating to Ram Setu came under judicial scrutiny due to a bunch of petitions filed in the apex court against the ambitious Sethusamudram project, whose execution allegedly was to damage the mythological bridge.

In a statement, Togadia said the government’s move reflects its “anti-Hindu sentiments” as Hindus have been offering prayers to Ram Setu even before the country gained independence and the Britishers came to India.

Peace with China:Gen JJ Singh's defeatist & stupid solution



Apr 21, 2012


It takes a soldier to know the true horrors of war. As soldiers who have put their lives on the line, seen up-close the bestiality of conflict, and ordered young men into mindless battle, Generals don’t talk lightly of war in the way that armchair analysts do.
Yet, former Army chief Gen JJ Singh, who today serves as Arunachal Pradesh Governor, has stirred quite a controversy with his peacenik comments vis-à-vis China.
Addressing a seminar in Itanagar last month, Singh dismissed the frequent chatter of a looming war between India and China as “utter nonsense.”
Is a land-for-peace deal a possibility? AFP
“I must tell these futurologists and experts to stop this nonsense of predicting an Indo-China war, first in 2010, then in 2012 and now in 2020. They will be proved wrong as we will not fight. We are competitors, not rivals,” he said. “These experts have no ground knowledge, they don’t know that Chinese and Indian soldiers actually play volleyball on the borders.
But it was Gen Singh’s comments on the merits of a “land-for-peace” with China that have set the cat among the pigeons.
It was important that the border dispute be solved, “and for that some give-and-take is necessary,” he noted. “India will have to move away from our position that our territory is non-negotiable.” India , he added, should be prepared for a bit of “give and take” with China, and perhaps even give away some territory in order to secure a peaceful resolution of the Sino-Indian border dispute.
Given that Gen Singh is Governor of Arunachal Pradesh, the sensitive border State over all of which China claims territorial sovereignty, his comments gave rise to speculation that he was being used by the UPA government as a “trial balloon” to float what is bound to be an unpalatable idea: of giving away land to secure peace with China.
Such a significant statement from someone who holds an official position as Governor could not have come without at least the tacit backing of the Central government, it was felt. Even given Gen Singh’s record of “loose cannon” indiscretions of the past, his latest comments bore the stamp of official approval.
The BJP on Friday criticised Gen Singh’s remarks and said that matters of strategic import ought not to be bandied about loosely. “Issues of accession and territorial integrity are very sensitive to India,” BJP spokesperson Rajiv Pratap Rudy said.
Gen Singh has since clarified that he was merely articulating his personal view, and that his comments had been quoted out of context. He nevertheless reiterated that only a spirit of “give-and-take” could resolve disputes with China over some portions of the Line of Actual Control.
But was Gen Singh really off the mark in suggesting that India should begin an internal debate about the merit of making (unspecified) territorial concessions to China in return for the promise of peace?
As Firstpost has argued earlier (here), ‘Land for peace’ agreements are notoriously hard to sell to a domestic constituency – even for a government that enjoys immense popular support. For one thing, they always entail giving away something now (land) in return for a promise of peace for eternity (which can be broken anytime).
Yet, it’s fair to say that India’s policy – since Nehruvian times – of claiming that there is no border dispute with China, and that therefore there is nothing to discuss, has only compounded the problem. Over time, it led to a hardening of China’s stand, which, combined with Nehru’s reckless advocacy of a ‘forward policy’, virtually invited the 1962 war, the scars of which India needlessly nurses today.
Since then, both countries have held several rounds of talks, but have failed to make headway, in part because China has since 1985 shifted its negotiating position in response to its changed strategic needs (more details here). But in equal measure, Indian negotiators also feel cramped by the fact that the domestic hyperpartisan political environment would never countenance territorial concessions to China. In a sense, Índia’s negotiating strategy is stuck in 1962.
But India need no longer be traumatised by the loss of that war: since then, it has vastly enhanced its military capability, even if – as the recent revelations of India’s inadequate military preparedness reveals, it isn’t “war-ready”.
For far too long, we’ve draped ourselves in a false sense of nationalism and kept alive dreams of a restoration of an “Akhand Bharat” (which encompasses even present-day Afghanistan). Yet, the reality of India is that the maps as we see them don’t quite match the situation on the ground: we therefore find ourselves tilting at overseas publication that wage “cartographic war” on us – by depicting the reality of Pakistan-occupied Kashmir.
As geopolitical analyst Parag Khanna notes (here), there is nothing permanent about maps and about political boundaries. For sure, this could also mean that there is nothing permanent about China’s current-day borders either: Tibet may one day be free. And Pakistan could some day balkanise, leaving India to take back PoK. But those cannot be the base-case scenarios on which we formulate our negotiating stand in disputes.
The balance of power between India and Pakistan has shifted to India’s advantage over time; today, as Firstpost noted here, theazaadi dream that Pakistan nurtured in Kashmir is virtually dead. Yet, with China, the balance of power has if anything shifted to China’s advantage. And India’s stand that there is no border dispute to negotiate with China has, over time, only weakened India’s negotiating position.
Wisdom lies in not repeating the folly of the past and looking out for pragmatic solutions that involve prudent give-and-take, as Gen Singh suggested.
India faces a million mutinies at home, and faces enormous developmental challenges. A border conflict with China is the last thing we need. And if that means preparing the ground for an honest conversation at home, without resort to reflexive territorial jingoism, perhaps we should give Gen Singh’s “personal comments” a fair hearing.

Islamism and Democracy are Inherently Incompatible with Each Other


By Shajahan Madampat
 

DOES the emergence of Islamism, or political Islam, as a potentially transformative force in the Arab world augur well for democratic prospects in the region? Will Islamism graduate, under the compulsions of realpolitik, to become the Arab Muslim equivalent of Europe's Christian Democrats or use the electoral route to eventually try and establish a scripturally vindicated form of theocratic or theo-democratic tyranny?

 The question assumes special significance now, as political developments over the past one year have confirmed that the fall of dictatorships in Arab countries is most likely to be followed by the rise of Islamists to power. Are the core beliefs and ideological fundamentals that the Islamists stand for compatible with even the elementary concepts of democracy?

Islamism: Prevailing Confusions

The general tendency is to conflate on the one hand Islam as a faith and Islamism as a political ideology and on the other Islamism and other streams of Islamic or Muslim perspectives that view the establishment of a Sharia-based Islamic state as a favourable goal. It is noteworthy that no mainstream Islamic sect doubts the favourability of setting up an Islamic state, should the circumstances prove conducive. While the Islamists confer divinely ordained primacy and priority to the task of setting up an Islamic state, others view it as an automatic development once society in its entirety or the majority turns Muslim/Islamic. There is a bewildering gulf between the clearly articulated ideological positions in the core texts of all branches of Islamism and the ambiguous public posturing and tactical positions of the more dominant Islamist groups. The most important factor that complicates the study of Islamism and democracy is the fact that Islamist groups or intellectuals have so far not put forth a blueprint of their political programme or a model of the political system they envisage. Much of the discussion on the contours of a political system as envisaged by the Islamists comprises mere statements of intent laced with self-righteous rhetoric or selective and ambiguous references to a glorious past in relation to an “utterly decadent present”. In the absence of an “Islamist manifesto” acceptable to all Islamists, it is almost impossible to arrive at conclusions that can apply equally to all branches of Islamism.

Islam and Islamism

It is crucially important to state that we are not discussing the compatibility between Islam and democracy. Islam as a faith and democracy as a political concept and a cultural framework are eminently compatible with each other. Many of the core values and concepts that either permeate Islamic scriptures or manifest themselves in the life of the Prophet and his companions can be fairly interpreted as being quite in line with the fundamental concepts of democracy. Shura (internal consultation), justice, strictures against imposing faith, ijma (consensus) and ijtihad (independent interpretive judgment), and assertions of equality are some of those values and concepts generally marshalled to clinch the argument about Islam being democratic. In any case, Islam in its long history as a lived global faith has proved itself to be flexible or elastic enough to accommodate changing social, political and cultural patterns. It has actually coexisted with or has been subsumed within different types of political orders ranging from dictatorships and totalitarian regimes to full-fledged democracies. The question of compatibility with democracy is therefore relevant only in relation to Islamism because it is an ideology that interprets Islam as an essentially political project.

 An attempt at defining Islamism is fraught with problems, but a lack of clarity on this count can lead one in contradictory directions. The word ‘Islamism' is a neologism that was coined in the 1970s, but the Arabic equivalent for Islamists has been in vogue since at least the 10th century A.D. although the word was used in a general sense referring to the Muslim intelligentsia. Perhaps, the first use of the word ‘Islamists' was in the book Maqalaat al Islamiyyin (Opinions of Muslims) by Abu al-Hasan al-Ash'ari (873-935). Islamism, defined broadly, is an ideological construct based on a political reading of Islam in both its history and its textuality. It was an impassioned response to the two thriving ideologies of the early 20th century, capitalism and communism. This response rose in the context of colonialism and against the backdrop of a widespread sense of defeatism and self-pity that gripped Muslim societies. In other words, Islamist thinkers of the period sought to project their version of Islam as an alternative to the two “isms” then competing with each other for global dominance. According to them, the primary duty of a Muslim was to strive for the establishment of an Islamic state, without which Islam would remain a “house half-built”.

Needless to say, the Islamist zest for the capture of power reflected an unquestioning internalisation of the idea that the state represented the entire emancipatory, therapeutic and transformative potential of a society. Once you establish the kind of state that conforms to your lofty ideals, every other virtue automatically follows, as had supposedly happened in the early days of Islamic glory. In short, the most crucial invention of Islamist thinking is the notion that Islam has unfortunately, and wrongly, been internalised by its followers as a mere instrument of persuasion, to the utter exclusion of its potential as a powerful instrument of coercion. The proper and just utilisation of this coercive potential, many Islamist writings argue, will liberate Muslims from all kinds of bondage. The pacifist sociality rooted in a ritualistic and anaesthetic conception of Islam must give way to a militant politicality based on the “hakimiyyah” (authority, sovereignty) of Allah. That alone is the solution to liberate the society from both “internal decadence and external domination”. Success in this pursuit will guarantee justice on earth and salvation in the hereafter.

Abul A'la Maududi articulated it eloquently as follows: “Human relations and associations are so integrated that no state can have complete freedom of action within its own principles unless those same principles are in force in a neighbouring country. Therefore, Muslim groups will not be content with the establishment of an Islamic state in one area alone. Depending on their resources, they should try to expand in all directions. On the one hand they will spread their ideology and on the other they will invite people of all nations to accept their creed, for salvation lies only in it. If their Islamic state has power and resources, it will fight and destroy non-Islamic governments and establish Islamic states in their place” (Abul A'la Maududi; Haqiqat-i-Jihad; page 64)

Islamist concept of state

There are two clear concepts of an Islamist state within the Islamist discourse. One is the idea of an Islamic state articulated in a populist conciliatory idiom. Representatives of this idea do not accuse the entire civil society of kufr (unbelief) or jahiliyah (a state of pagan ignorance and moral decadence); nor do they dub the lands of Islam Darul Harb (land of war). According to them, the Islamic ruler, the caliph or imam, is a civilian ruler whose legitimacy and authority are derived from people's endorsement, which is expressed by the phrase Ahl al Hall wal Aqd. Hasanul Banna, Hassan al Hudaibi, Mustafa Al Sibai, Rachid Al Ghannouchi and several others promote this concept of an Islamic state.

The other idea, represented by the likes of Abul A'la Maududi, Syed Qutub, Mohamed Abdussalam Faraj, Saeed Hawa, Fathi Yakun and others, represents the Islamic ruler as a theocratic figure who is elevated to the status of God's representative. He derives his authority from God himself and the “shura” for him is a mere consultation that is not binding on him. All the mainstream Islamist groups, it must be stated clearly, argue for a civilian ruler who derives his authority from the community.

The only difference worth noting between the so-called radicals or extremists and the moderates is that while the former's project aims at the seizure of power through revolutionary means and violence, the moderates try to change the system from below and rely heavily on social and charitable activities in addition to political mobilisation. Guilain Dinoeux has noted that the strategy of the radicals follows a Leninist approach.

 

Even within the so-called moderate camp, we often see extremely radical vestiges of the foundational doctrines of political Islam coexisting rather uncomfortably with highly refined and conciliatory ideas that are compatible with the requirements of democratic pluralism. For example, Rachid Ghannouchi, the Tunisian Islamist thinker behind the success of Al Nahda, stated categorically that open expressions of atheism would be not only tolerated but also protected in the Islamic state that he envisaged. At the same time, he argued on another occasion that apostasy should be considered a political crime akin to treason.

Another moderate, Fahmy Huweidi, the famed journalist from Egypt and fellow-traveller of Islamism, is ambivalent on the punishment meted out for apostasy in Islam. Writing in the context of the assassination of seven intellectuals in Algeria by Islamists on charges of apostasy, he tries to express his criticism against the brutality in a rather patronising tone. His main argument is not that the killing is unacceptable in principle or because expressing one's opinion on something should not be the ground for murder. Rather, his criticism is that only the judiciary has the right to pass a judgment on whether or not a person has committed apostasy and the punishment for it. Not fully satisfied with his own ambivalent position, especially since he was flooded with critical letters from Islamist sympathisers from around the world, including from Pakistan, he seeks counsel with the celebrated ‘moderate' Islamist cleric Sheikh Yousuf Al Khardawi. The learned scholar, while emphasising the legal option of death against apostasy, tries to appear benevolent in the end and says there are precedents for apostasy being either punished rather lightly or not being punished at all in the hope of eventual repentance on the part of the alleged apostate.

 The issue of apostasy is of utmost relevance to our present discussion because all art and literature, let alone academic and intellectual pursuits, can be brought under the scanner and judged blasphemous if the law of apostasy is given teeth.

Apostasy as the Sword of Damocles

The case of Dr Nasr Hamed Abu Zeid is a frightful example of what could happen to intellectual life if the state of Islamist dreams comes into being. Abu Zeid was not only declared an apostate by an Egyptian court, but his divorce from his wife was also decreed on the basis of the argument that a Muslim woman should not be married to an apostate or blasphemer. The prominent scholar of Islamic studies and author of a number of profound books was judged an apostate in Hosni Mubarak's supposedly secular Egypt. His crime was that some of the opinions he had expressed on the Quran and its interpretations ran counter to popular positions. More shockingly, the verdict was manipulated through convoluted legal procedures and on the basis of a hasba (third party) petition because Egypt did not have a law on apostasy. He had to flee the country with his wife and seek shelter in the Netherlands because Islamic Jihad declared its intention to murder him on the basis of the judgment.

Two points need to be noted here. First, Abu Zeid's books, especially the one that brought him under attack, were all academic ones. He did not indulge in a polemical offensive against the religion or declare himself blasphemous. Second, he declared himself to be a Muslim who had the right to express his views on the religion even if they differed from popular views on the subject. This is what he said in his defence: “I'm sure that I'm a Muslim. My worst fear is that people in Europe may consider and treat me as a critic of Islam. I'm not. I'm not a new Salman Rushdie and don't want to be welcomed and treated as such. I'm a researcher. I'm critical of old and modern Islamic thought. I treat the Quran as a nass (text) given by God to the Prophet Muhammad. That text is put into a human language, which is the Arabic language. When I said so, I was accused of saying that the Prophet Muhammad wrote the Quran. This is not a crisis of thought, but a crisis of conscience.”

The judges would not concede any of that. They rejected his defence, declared him an apostate and ordered him to divorce his wife. It is important to note here that one of the issues that clinched the verdict of apostasy on Abu Zeid was his criticism against the secondary status accorded to religious minorities in the Islamist discourse.

If a highly reputed thinker of Abu Zeid's stature could meet with such a cruel fate under the influence of Islamists in a political system notoriously opposed to them, imagine the situation when they actually govern a country. Fahmy Huweidi wrote articles empathising with Abu Zeid's detractors. It is instructive to quote from some of Huweidi's articles on the issue, which are marked by cleverly veiled fanaticism and outward expressions of moderation.

The ominous title of Huweidi's first response on the Abu Zeid controversy is “Beware of Playing with Fire”. This article was published before the court verdict came out and dealt with the controversy on the denial of promotion to Abu Zeid at Cairo University. It articulates clearly what a moderate Islamist considers to be tolerable limits of free expression, beyond which one is “playing with fire”. In the Indian context, this statement bears frightening resemblance to many of the declarations from Sangh Parivar ideologues on many occasions, most recently during the debate on A.K. Ramanujan's essay on the Ramayanas.

Huweidi says in the article: “We need to frankly make a comment about the issue of the freedom of scientific research and the uproar raging around it. Those who are calling for unlimited freedom without any regard for the society's values and its public order are wrong in their understanding of freedom. They are playing with fire at the same time, especially if they, on the basis of this mistaken understanding, open the doors to mess around with the faith and sanctities of people.

“We want to clarify the issue this time, citing the opinion of one of the legal luminaries of Egypt, Dr Asmat Saif Al Daulath, who wrote in a study about the topic: The safety of the society, in terms of its existence, limits, territory and humanity, is an objective condition for the right to free expression, in the sense that whoever expresses a thought that occurs in his head which subverts the society, the society has to, by all means, incriminate him, outlaw him, prevent him and to restrict him…. All Constitutions and laws in the world comprise rules that incriminate, outlaw and prevent transgression committed on the pretext of freedom of expression against those elements essential for the shaping of a society.

“In light of the above, we would unambiguously determine that messing around with religious texts, the Quran and the Sunnah precisely, should be out of bounds for those who invoke freedom of expression or research and promote claims that aim at the invalidation and termination of the texts in the name of the historicity of the text and relativity of religious rules, or other pretexts for aggression against the faith of the society and its conscience.

 “With the same amount of clarity, we will say that acceptable and legitimate Ijtihad (independent reasoning) on religious text is only that which springs from conformity to it, meant to put it in its right frame in order to extract from it utmost possible energy for the revival and advancement of the society and for the good of people in this world and in the hereafter. Any adverse Ijtihad aimed at assaulting the religious texts and pulling down their fabric and texture will not include most definitely in freedom of expression. It will be banned and the society has to prevent and outlaw it, particularly if the Constitution stipulates Islam to be the state religion and Shariah to be the principal source of legislation. This is because messing around with texts is an act of aggression against not only the faith of the community but also the Constitution and the public order of the country” (Fahmy Huweidi; Al Muftaroon (Slanderers); Cairo, Dar al Shuruq, 1996; pages 100-101).

Huweidi concludes with a passionate call for the establishment of what he fondly calls “a safe zone” in the world of thought where the religious faith and beliefs of people are preserved away from critical approach. This precisely is the core issue that comes to the fore when we look at the extent to which Islamists can incorporate democratic values when they come to power. The presumption of a mandatory inviolable safe zone in the sphere of thought (we are talking here not about defamation or libel but about thought) is a deeply anti-democratic idea. That the whole argument was made at a time when an academic was condemned to a life of exile and declared an apostate merely for the crime of expressing his opinion is ample proof that the Islamists hardly care about free speech and democratic freedoms.

Democracy and Islamism

 
Islamist views on democracy can be classified essentially into two. The main current of Islamism views democracy as being closer to Islam than other political systems, while the jehadi approach rejects democracy on the grounds that it derives sovereignty/authority from the people instead of from Allah.

 

Islamists of the main current are now of the near consensual opinion that the best method to bring about an Islamic state is to establish a democratic system with Islamic legislative, legal and moral content. But they make it amply clear that it does not spring from any conviction about the virtues of democracy as a whole, but because it is the best bet in the given circumstances to somehow get to power. They are clear that they adopt democracy only to the extent of procedures and institutions and not beyond its formal structures. In his foreword to Rachid Al Ghannouchi's famed book Common Freedoms in Islamic State, Mohamed Salim Al Awa, the Egyptian Islamist scholar, makes these points clear: 1) Democracy is nothing more than a means to organise rotation of power; 2) Democracy is part of a larger integrated system that comprises economy, society, public policy and individual life; 3) In all these aspects, Islam has its own rules of permission, prevention, and prohibition, and only when all these Islamic rules and regulations are implemented will the Islamic project be accomplished; and 4) The difference between means and procedures on the one hand, and principles, values and ideas on the other is clear. The former can be adopted from any source regardless of its faith and communal affiliation.

Ghannouchi's approach is, however, more nuanced. He accepts democracy as the best bet among the given alternatives in the absence of the Islamic system. According to him, a society ruled by a defective law is better than a society whose law is the will and whims of the tyrant. A reading of his various writings together provide a clearer idea of his approach to democracy. There is a need to distinguish the legal legitimacy of democracy from the religious legitimacy that only an Islamic system can claim. He sees the transition from dictatorship to democracy as a natural and necessary stage leading up to the eventual establishment of the Islamic order.


Mohamed Imarah, the prominent Egyptian Islamist, gives a hand of support to pro-democratic voices within Islamism by saying that the Islamic concept of shura does not differ from democracy in its experiences, institutions and mechanisms. But the fundamental difference between them, he says, is that the democratic notion of freedom is absolute, while shura curtails these freedoms on the basis of the primacy of Allah's rights over those of human beings (ibid page 105).

 
Imarah's candid admission about curtailing freedoms in the name of the primacy of divine rights over those of lesser mortals is significant. It is the hermeneutical hair-splitting on this aspect that determines the dividing line between the so-called radicals and the moderates within the Islamist bloc. The radicals are honest and straightforward on this point: they do not prevaricate or equivocate about the inevitable curtailment of freedoms and the discrimination against “outsiders” inherent in a confessional system. The moderates prevaricate and indulge in semantic gymnastics in order not to appear undemocratic and discriminatory in their approach to “outsiders”.

 When they claim the political order they envisage is democratic, they overlook two cardinal facts: 1. Unlike other confessional systems, the Islamic state as envisaged by the Islamists derives its legitimacy primarily from its adherence to the sharia, a legal framework of divine origin. The problem with such a system is that soteriological and eschatological postulates and concerns, which are absolutist in their essence and abstract and unempirical by their very nature, underpin the entire business of governance and political activity. Therefore it is incapable of running the affairs of a polity that consist of not only a plurality of faiths and belief systems but also a large number of people who prefer to either remain outside the fold of faith or live according to their own subjective understanding of their faith, away from institutional mechanisms of religion. 2. A confessional political party that makes soteriological and eschatological convictions the basis of its political programme is sure to turn the logic of democracy upside down because it is premised on the notion of permanent majorities. Democracy is secure only when the majority keeps shifting on the basis of “competitive interests” of the citizens rather than on the basis of confessional consolidation. The moment a permanent majority around confessional calculations gets solidified in a democracy, it ceases to be a democracy and turns into tyranny.

The following statement by a prominent Islamist scholar is sufficient to demonstrate the ethical dilemmas and undemocratic potential implicit in the Islamist idea of the state in regard to religious minorities and dissenting groups. Muhammad Asad, the Polish convert to Islam and one of the most celebrated figures of Islam in the 20th century, is candid in admitting that an Islamic state is impossible without allowing for certain amount of differentiation between the majority and the minority. He is also clear that members of the minority communities – however great their integrity and loyalty to the state – cannot be expected to work wholeheartedly for the “ideological objective” of Islam. The resemblance between this rhetoric and Sangh Parivar discourse on Muslims is striking!

“To be sure, this fear of discrimination relates only to the theory and not to the practice of government; for in countries where Muslims form an overwhelming majority (and only these can justifiably be termed ‘Muslim countries'), the leadership of the state automatically accrues to them. Nevertheless, in the context of modern political thought, which is strongly influenced by Western concepts and prejudices, even a theoretical discrimination on the ground of religion might be unpalatable to many Muslims, not to mention the non-Muslims living in their midst. One must, therefore, frankly admit from the outset that without a certain amount of differentiation between Muslim and non-Muslim there can be no question of our ever having an Islamic state or states in the sense envisaged in Quran and Sunnah. ...One cannot escape the fact that no non-Muslim citizen – however great his personal integrity and his loyalty to the state – could, on psychological grounds, ever be supposed to work wholeheartedly for the ideological objectives of Islam; nor, in fairness, could such a demand be made of him…[T]hose who are to wield supreme authority in the Islamic state and are to be responsible for the shaping of its policies should always be Muslims; and this not merely de facto, by virtue of their majority in the country, but also de jure, by virtue of a constitutional enactment. If we are resolved to make Islam the dominant factor in our lives, we must have the moral courage to declare openly that we are not prepared to endanger our future by falling into line with the demands of that spurious ‘liberalism' which refuses to attribute any importance to men's religious convictions; and that, on the contrary, the beliefs a man holds are far more important to us than the mere accident of his having been born or naturalised in our country” (Muhammad Asad; The Principles of State and Government in Islam; Kuala Lumpur, Islamic Book Trust, 1980; page 40-41).

 

From what preceded, it will not be unfair to conclude that Islamism in all its diversity is fundamentally incompatible with democracy – in the sense of a liberal, competitive political system that does not discriminate against certain groups and constituencies. A democratic state is impossible to sustain unless it is able to maintain some sense of neutrality with regard to people's faiths and other markers of identity.

 Conclusion

Although claims of moderation and adherence to democratic values by Islamists must be taken at face value, the fact remains that Islamism and democracy are inherently incompatible with each other at their core.

 

While Islam as a faith and lived reality and democracy as a culture and political system are compatible, Islamism as a political ideology is premised upon the total negation of all the fundamentals of pluralist democracy, most importantly the idea of equal citizenship. Dissenters, liberals and freethinkers from within the Muslim community stand to suffer the most in an Islamic state as envisaged by the Islamists.

The construction of a permanent majority throws democracy out and brings tyranny in because a polity can remain democratic only if the majorities are constantly in a state of flux. The wanton use of religion as an instrument of coercion, power and political mobilisation and its consequent desacralisation will impact adversely on the polity in ways that go far beyond the immediacy of electoral politics. It will not only undermine and distort the democratic processes and unleash physical and emotional violence at all levels but also kill the soul of a culture. While religion as faith as well as an instrument of persuasion has historically played a humanising role, religion as ideology and an instrument of coercion has only resulted in structures of violence, hidden and manifest.

Will democracy be ill-fated to become a vehicle to usher in theocracy in West Asia?

Shajahan Madampat is a writer and cultural critic. He has published three books in Malayalam, in addition to articles and essays in Malayalam, English and Arabic.

Add to Google