Just read this well-written blog titled “Not just a Muslim” in which the writer writes about the difficulties she faces as a Muslim among her friends and colleagues. It’s not just Muslims that become victims of religious or regional stereotypes it happens with every minority group. The same happens when Muslims are in majority and people of other religions are in a minority.

Sikhs, for instance, too face many stereotypical attitudes and in their case what makes this worse is people are normally ridiculing them while stereotyping them. So if you’re acting stupid you’re acting like a “Sardar” and there are umpteen jokes on Sardars. My brother-in-law, being a Sikh who wears a turban, used to face so much redicule (people cracking really nasty Sardar jokes in his presence) that he made up his mind that his son would not have long hair if they were going to stay in the same environment.

I used to protest vocally and sometimes I used to make up my own jokes as a counter-response (jokes on pundits, on having short hair, or having multiple gods). Just as people would impose silly situations on Sardars I would impose equally silly and ridiculous situations on Sharmas and Guptas and Rohatgis. And what made me feel good about them was that they used to be really funny and consequently used to piss my “friends” off big time. Not a good thing to do but it used to be quite effective. In senior school and college, despite having short hair, I used to make it apparent that I am a Sikh when they cracked Sardar jokes. After a while such jokes would stop, at least in my presence.

The French government recently banned Muslim women from wearing the niqab. Some Muslim baiters that I follow on Twitter were naturally upbeat about the entire thing: “these Muslims want their way everywhere they go and it’s good that France is being strict with them” was the general refrain.

Is it about freedom of religion when people oppose the ban or are they simply catering to a religious sentiment that represses women? Changing religious beliefs is quite difficult, and this holds true for every religion, not just Muslims.

The problem with Muslims is, no matter what progressive, seemingly westernised Muslims claim, women and freedom are anathema to each other in the popular perception of Islam; call it a communication gap, Islamophobia, or whatever (to be fair even non-Muslim communities in Asia and Africa treat their women in quite a cruel manner). The Western perception of other religions is quite dismal, accepted (Hindus being pagan, etc.), but the perception of Muslims even among non-Western-non-Muslim countries is hardly positive. They have a millennium of history of violence and forceful conversions. Being a Sikh I’m more sensitive towards their violent nature because Sikhism and its symbols were born to fight against barbaric Mughals.

The moment they try to defend their thoughts and symbols the first expression that comes to one’s mind is “God, they go to other places but never adopt indigenous cultures, they always have to impose their own culture and way of life. ” Of course this is a narrow way of thinking because once a Muslim becomes (or rather a person from any other religion) a citizen of a particular country all the rights and responsibilities are automatically applied to him or her too. So if a country ensures religious freedom this freedom must be available to everybody irrespective of to what religion that person belongs.

Burqa, in reality, shouldn’t be viewed as a “them versus us” problem. It is about suppression of women. It is about devoiding them of an identity.

So what is burqa? It is a full body veil (again, it doesn’t have to be a full body covering, it can also be a scarf over the head are just covering the hair) that Muslim women have to wear when they go out. Muslim women are not supposed to show their faces to other men except for their husbands, brothers and father. Muslim men are easily given to temptations and hence their religion demands that other women be kept under veils so that impure thoughts don’t enter the men’s minds. Even in the pre-Muslim era in India there was no tradition of hiding women’s face; Hindus had to adopt this tradition to save their womenfolks from Muslims who would kidnap any woman they liked. This is a known history, I’m not aware of any other version.

One logic could be since this tradition originates from the hot sands of Arabia and Sahara, perhaps this was done to protect the women’s skin from burning (their veils were of a lighter shade and wearing black burqas in such conditions would be counter-productive). Later on it turned into a religious symbol. Many a times, religious symbols originate from traditional practices.

Hence women wearing burqas do it with two frames of mind: accepting subjugation as a normal consequence of being a Muslim woman, or accepting it as a religious symbol demanded by the Sharia law.

So is the French government wrong when it forcefully asks women to give up their burqas or else face discrimination? Personally I’m in favor of such practices and I often recommend them here in India also. Backward religious and cultural practices must be discouraged, even by force if required. Why so? I don’t think burqa, if used as a tool for repression, is any different from the practice of Sati, or forcing women into the devdasi system or tearing their hair off their heads when their husbands die. The sad reality is it takes years for cultures to adopt new ways of life and sometimes these new ways have to be enforced to save lives. For instance if I am a Muslim and if my sister or my mother is forced to wear a burqa I would like this practice to be abolished NOW and not wait for some cultural or social awareness to set in.

But you may say that the burqa doesn’t kill anybody or harm anybody physically and I totally agree. But it is a symbolic repression. I would call it religious symbol if even men wore burqas. For example in Sikhism both men and women can wear turbans because they are religious symbols of empowerment (the French government banned even turbans a couple of years ago, I don’t know what happened after that). Sikh symbols are never used to portray women as inferior or always requiring protection. Once you become a “Kaur” hhypothetically you are a warrior princess.

Burqa on the other hand encourages Muslim women to hide behind the veil so that they don’t have a public identity. They shouldn’t be recognized. They should be talking and walking oblique structures and they should only presume an identity once they are within the peripheries of their father’s or husband’s residence. Correct me if I’m wrong.

Why do many Muslim women insist that they wear burqa? Lack of awareness, I would say. Or Stockholm syndrome may be. Or religious conditioning. A sense of security (as they may feel that they will be more open to sexual assaults once they begin to appear without a veil). Education doesn’t have to do anything with it. Even some of the known journalists in India, including Barkha Dutt (in the name of religious freedom) support the tradition of wearing burqa; so you don’t have to be illiterate or ill-informed to sympathise with such practices.

It is high time Muslim women took a stand and opposed such practices instead of sticking to them. I think the French government has provided them with an opportunity to think progressively and declare their independence. Instead of defining they should support the burqa ban.

Editor arrested for ‘outraging Muslims’ – Asia, World – The Independent

Reminds me of childhood story

We had a storybook at home written by a Russian girl. We had its Hindi translation that mom must have bought from one of those book fairs at Pragati Maidan. It contained short stories about the reminiscences of a girl’s father’s childhood: Chab Papa Bachche The that means “When Papa Was a Child”. It was a collection of short stories about different events occurring in papa’s life.

In one of the stories papa used to get angry whenever somebody raised the finger at him. He would always, without fail take offense whenever somebody raised the finger at him. He would create fuss, he would stomp his feet, he would get into fights, he would run around in rage whenever somebody raised the finger at him.

His cousins, his friends and even the elders in the family were aware of his peculiarity and would raise the finger at him just to have some fun. No matter what he was doing — whether he was playing, sitting, simply chatting or studying — the moment somebody raised the finger at him he flew into a rage. No matter how many times his mother explained to him that people were doing this just to annoy him he wouldn’t cease his tantrums. Mischievous boys and girls would come to him from all over the village just to raise the finger at him and then enjoy his annoyance.

I was just reading this very well written article by a Muslim boy living and growing up in America. He has shared his feelings about how people’s attitude towards him and his religion changed after 9/11. It was very nice to read something like this from a Muslim. In the end of the article he rightly says that terrorists don’t represent Islam, Just like Ku Klux Klan doesn’t represent Christianity. In our India’s case I would like to say that the Hindutva brigade does not represent Hindus, or the Sikh terrorists never represent the Sikhs.

Then why do Muslims invite the ire of the other communities? I think the problem lies in the silence within this community when it comes to terrorist acts all across the globe. The Muslim community rarely stands up when barbaric terrorist attacks take place. Of course there are lone voices but since they are so rare they don’t seem to represent the entire community.

With Christians and Hindus on the other hand people are very vocal when it comes to opposing extremists and fundamentalists. The members of Ku Klux Klan were persecuted by the society and by the government. They were always considered villains and there is no world renown Ku Klux Klan member. Do they have someone like Osama Bin Laden or Qaddafi or Khomeini (the list goes on and on)? Similarly Hindu extremists are looked down upon by the society and intelligentsia and shunned by the government. They never become a part of the mainstream. Even intellectuals who indirectly support such ideologies do so as a reaction to minority appeasement.

In order to gain the confidence of the rest of the world Muslims will have to come out en masse and put up a joint front against terrorists breeding amidst their communities. They will have to shun violent practices. They will have to change the mentality of the Dark Ages that drives these extremists. Of course the problem lies on both the sides but the bigger problem lies on the Muslim side and unless this problem is resolved nothing productive is going to happen and there always going to persist this state of conflict. They have to stop perpetually playing the victim card.

A few days ago we were watching this movie called “Resistance” in which a family of Jew brothers not only saves itself but also thousands of others Jews from the Nazi onslaught. Now the Jewish community had plenty of reason to take to arms and resort to terrorism. But they didn’t. The main protagonist of the movie once comments, “We won’t turn into animals like them and if we die at least we will die as humans.” This is the attitude the Muslim community needs.

I was just now watching the weekly debate program on NDTV called “We the People”; due to its heavily tilted nature I don’t normally watch it but today I watched it (online) because Kanchan Gupta was among the panelists — couldn’t watch the entire program due to time constraint.

The topic of the debate was should P Chidambaram (India’s Home Minister) have used the term “saffron terrorism” while refereeing to the Hindu fringe groups indulging in random terrorist activities.

The common problem in such debates is there are always two differing opinions and every side presents irrational arguments while trying to prove the other side wrong. Of course, all the arguments are not irrational but the format of the program and the way Barkha Dutt conducts it, particular views, even if they make perfect sense to an informed person, get distorted and seem irrational.

So there was a group trying to downplay the Islamist terrorism while thoroughly demonizing saffron terrorism and then there was the the other group (as it happens on all NDTV debates there are just two people differing and the majority supports a particular view) who was trying to downplay Hindu terrorism while listing out instances of Islamist terrorists activities.

The problem with such debates is that nobody is actually interested in talking about the root cause. For instance people were trying to justify Muslim youths becoming terrorists by referring to the babri masjid demolition, the 1992 Bombay riots and Gujarat riots and many other instances of injustice that normally happen in the Indian society in particular and the lesser developed world in general.

Similarly the two isolated voices constituting of Kanchan Gupta and Tavleen Singh were trying to prove how the Islamist terrorism is an international problem and it doesn’t stem from the way Muslims have been targeted by the so-called Hindu nationalists.

This is sad because nobody talks about terrorism as a common problem; they are always pointing fingers at each other and in this way this problem will never be solved. It is like two neighboring ladies quarrelling with each other about who threw the garbage in the street.

The same thing happens with Maoist terrorism: there are some people who give all the reasons under the sun for people becoming Maoists and there are some people who don’t want to go into the details of why people feel victimized by the system and take to the gun.

Terrorists are simply terrorists. They take inspiration from religious texts and misinterpreted contexts but other than this they are simply criminals killing people whether in India or abroad and they should be dealt with accordingly. Muslim terrorists think that the entire world is against Muslims and always trying to insult them or hurt them and the so-called Hindu nationalists (regarding India) derive their motivation from historical facts that say that Muslim invaders perpetrated unparalleled atrocities and eventually they were responsible for the partition. In today’s context, such historical facts are irrelevant because no matter how hard you try you cannot go into the past and undo them. Muslims were invaders but right now most of the Muslims in the country are those who converted to Islam due to the problems they faced in Hinduism.

People trying to explain why Muslims become terrorists get too occupied with playing the victim card and pointing fingers at the majority community, in India’s case, Hindus. Of course, there are some Hindu groups that spread hatred but then such groups exist in every religion and they never enjoy the social acceptance at the grassroots level the way, sadly, Muslim terrorists enjoy. And herein lies the difference.

Terrorism has adopted its current shape primarily due to rampant appeasement and this is happening all across the globe. It seems politicians and lawmakers are not actually interested in solving this problem because if they were the problem would have been solved decades ago. when they wanted to knock down Saddam Hussein they did it within months. with Osama bin Laden, on the other hand, it’s almost been a decade. one reason can be that Osama is an American Frankenstein. the same happens in India. Our politicians have planted journalists and intellectuals who are constantly pointing fingers at the soft target (Hindu majority) and finding excuses for Muslim/Islamist terrorism. They have done this because they don’t want to solve the problem. They want to keep people occupied. They always want to say, look, there is a bigger problem so, stop ranting about silly issues like corruption, backwardness, lack of development, bizarre social disparity and lawlessness.

In India’s case, the solution doesn’t lie in pointing fingers at each other. It lies in branding terrorism as normal crime and then punishing them as criminals not as some ideological crusaders who are carrying out some sort of “war”. Only then we will be able to have a color-less and religion-less terrorism and only then we will be able to tackle it without “hurting” sentiments.

I wonder why some people feel it hard to believe Prahlad Jani’s claim that he hasn’t eaten or drunk for more than 80 years. It’s not like he’s saying he has flown to the moon and back a couple of times. We sometimes develop biological peculiarities that science cannot explain with current level of understanding. When we think about extra-terrestrial life scientists already believe there can be life forms beyond our understanding. Why, even on earth we keep finding life forms living in the extreme temperatures of volcanoes and miles beneath the arctic ice – would you call that supernatural?

This is not to say that we should believe in superstition. For me superstition means when you promote a belief and earn money with it or harm people. Even people like Deepak Chopra come under that category, for that matter. He sells a way of life and earns lots of money with it. We should all fight superstitions that are used to keep people suppressed and backward.

If you simply say that you haven’t eaten for 80 years, then what’s the harm? Instead of moronically rejecting him outright, we should unravel the mystery, if there is one. This is how humanity has evolved.

In terms of being supernatural, life in itself is supernatural. Whenever I look at my daughter jumping around, running around in the house and spreading light around her, I feel, yes, she’s a miracle. She was not there a few years ago. And then she’s here, out of nothingness. I’m not talking about her physical existence, I’m talking about her soul, her thoughts, her attitude, her outlook. If you can see beyond biology, physics and chemistry, what can be more supernatural than life itself?

हमारी बिल्डिंग के कोम्पौंड के एक कोने में छोटा सा एक शिवलिंग हुआ करता था. जब भी बिल्डिंग के लोगों का कोई धार्मिक भाव उमड़ता था वो जाकर वहां पर फूल चढ़ा, पानी छिड़क, श्लोकों के नाम पर कुछ अनाप शनाप उच्चार कर चले आते थे. फिर ज्यों ज्यों retired और वेहले लोगों की संख्या बढ़ी उस शिवलिंग के आसपास एक चबूतरा उगने लगा, और जैसे की हमारे देश में मंदिर, मस्जिद और गुरूद्वारे झट से किसी जंगली बेल की तरहां उग आते हैं, किसी भी जगह, बिना चेतावनी के, उस शिवलिंग के आसपास बन गया एक लोहे का जंगला और वो भोलेनाथ जो अब तक सभी दिशाओं से उपलब्थ थे घिर गए एक कटहरे में और उस कटहरे में लग गया एक गेट. एक परिवार के नाते हमारे लिए वो जंगला एक एहमियत रखता है क्यों की हमारी बिटिया को उसकी छत पर लटके घण्टे को किसी बड़े की गोदे में चढ़ कर, ऊँचे हो कर, बजाने का बहुत शौंक है.

धीरे धीरे उस जंगले-बनाम-मंदिर की प्रसिद्धि बिल्डिंग के चरों और फैलने लगी और लोग आने लगे दूर दूर से फूल चढ़ाने, पानी छिड़कने (इस बिल्डिंग में वैसे लोग प्यासे को पानी नहीं पूछते) और मंत्रोचारण करने. पर इससे शायद भगवान खुश नहीं हुए — कुछ खास बात नहीं बन रही थी. हमारी बिल्डिंग के जो लोग कमज़ोर को तैश दिखाते और झिड़कते हैं, बराबर वाले से कन्नी काटते हैं व् जलन खाते हैं और ताक़तवर को देख कर मिमियाने लगते हैं या फिर निकल लेते हैं पतली गली से, वो भला भगवान से सीधे मुंह क्या बात करेंगे, सो निश्चेय किया गया एक पंडितजी को तनख्वाह पर रखा जाये. सो रोज़ पंडितजी आने लगे. वो मंदिर के देखबाल करते, मूर्तियों को साफवाफ करते और लगे हाथ, अब ज्योंकि आये हैं, तो कुछ पूजापाठ भी हो जाता. शिव की जटाएं ज़रा हिलती प्रतीत हुईं और वो ज़रा खुश लगे.

अब जबकि भगवान, जो की अब तक विस्थापित थे, थोडा खुश लगे, तो उनकी स्थापना का विचार हुआ. बिल्डिंग वालों से पैसा इकठ्ठा किया गया. हमने न तो पैसा तब दिया जब जंगला बनाया गया, न तब दिया जब पंडित जी रखे गए, और न ही तब दिया जब मंदिर स्थापना के लिए और बढ़ाया गया. पता नहीं कितने हज़ार उस स्थापना पर खर्च किये गए. इन्ही लोगों से अगर आप कहें किसी गरीब बच्चे की पढ़ाई के लिए थोड़े से पैसे इकट्ठे कर लो, दस बहाने निकल आएंगे. और तो और, इस बिल्डिंग में ज़्यादातर लोग शिक्षक हैं; न मालूम क्या कांड करते होंगे कक्षा में और छात्रोंको क्या मूल्य देते होंगे. एक बड़ी मज़ेदार बात हुई स्थापना वाले दिन.

हमारे यहाँ दो काम करने वाली आती हैं और वे अक्सर खाना और नाश्ता हमारे घर से कर के जाती हैं. उस दिन उन लोगों ने कुछ नहीं खाया; कहा, आज तो भंडारा होगा, खूब हलवा-पूरी-छोले बंटेंगे. एक ने तो ये भी कहा की अगर आप लोग भंडारे में नहीं जा रहे हैं तो कोई बात नहीं, आप के लिए भी हम लेते आएंगे. ऐसे अवसर पर लोग अक्सर प्रयत्न करते हैं की गरीबों को ज्यादा खिलाया जाये. पर शायद जब आप प्रबंध करते हैं तो ये आपका हक़ बनता ये फैसला करने का की कौन वाकई में ग़रीब है. कुछ ऐसा हुआ उस दिन जो हमने कभी न देखा था न सुना था. जिन लोगों ने स्थापना समारोह का प्रबंध किया था, उन्होंने न तो किसी और को बुलाया, न ही कुछ खिलाया, और जो हलवा-पूरी-छोले बने थे भंडारे के लिए, वो सब वे लोग अपने अपने घरों में ले गए — काम करने वालियों सो कहा खाना-वाना बनाने की ज़रुरत नहीं है. बेचारे काम करने वाले यां तो मुंह बाएँ देखते रहे, यां बेशर्म हो कर, मांग कर थोड़ा बहुत खा गए. वैसे मुझे तो इसमें कुछ खास आपत्तिजनक नहीं लगा क्योंकि दिमागी तौर पर इनसे ग़रीब लोग मुश्किल से ही मिलेंगे, तो शायद ये सब एक फिलोसोफिकल अनुभूति थी.

अब जिन लोगों ने स्थापना के लिए पैसा जुटाया यां दिया उनका हक तो भगवान पर ज्यादा बनता ही है. और फिर जब इतना पैसा लगाया ही है तो धार्मिक बहुरूपता क्यूँ न हो? क्यूँ लोग विवश हों केवल शिवजी के दर्शन करने को जब ढेरों विकल्प हैं हमारे पास? भगवानो की कोई कमी है हमारे यहाँ क्या? केबल चैनलों से ज्यादा भगवानी चुनाव हैं हमारे पास. उस बड़े जंगले में जहाँ भगवान शिव अकेले स्थापित थे कई छोटे छोटे खांचे बन गए और उन खांचों में स्थापित हो गए कईयों के छोटे-बड़े भगवान. भगवानों का अच्छा-खासा gang बन गया उस कोने में और बीच में शिवजी खड़े रहते हैं गौड फादर की तरहां. पर अंत बस यहीं पर नहीं हुआ.

भगवान अक्सर कीमती हो जाता है तो चोरी होने का डर लाज़मी है. जितने ज्यादा भगवान लोग उतनी ज्यादा फिक्र. पांच-छेह भगवानों के बक्से हैं वहां पर और सब भगवानों की अपनी शानो-शौकत, और इस लिए, अपनी चिंता है. तो सब बक्सों पर लग गए हैं ताले — जैसे लोगों के बैंक में अपने-अपने प्राइवेटलौक्कर होते हैं यहाँ पर लोगों के अपने-अपने धार्मिक डिब्बे हैं जिनमे उन्होंने अपने-अपने भगवानो को बंद कर दिया है. लेकिन एक बड़ा गेट भी है जहाँ से आप मंदिर में घुसते हैं. अब कुछ विशिष्ठ लोगों के पास उसकी चाभी है और कुछ कम विशिष्ठ लोगों के पास नहीं है. तो अगर आप मंदिर में जा कर पूजा करना चाहते हैं तो पहले पता कीजिये किसके पास चाभी है, अपने साधारण नागरिक होने का परमाण देते हुए चाभी का अग्रेह कीजिये, और अगर चाभी मिल जाये तो जा कर पूजा अचर्ना कीजिये. इस चक्कर में कुछ लोग तूतू-मैंमैं पर भी उतारू हो गए हैं. अब ऐसा तो हैं नहीं की जो लोग करता-धर्ता हैं उनकी आपस में बहुत पटती है — कोई किसी को फूटी आँख नहीं सुहाता. सो हर कोई अब वहां पर अपना ताला लगाना चाहता है, और क्यूँ नहीं? भाई अगर मैंने रोकड़ा लगाया है, अपना कीमती समय और ध्यान दिया है, तो ताला चाभी मेरा क्यूँ ना हो? सब वहां पे अब अपना-अपना ताला लगाने क्या जुगाड़ कर रहे हैं.

एक शिवलिंग जो चारो तरफ से खुला था वो अब चंद लोगों के अहम् के पिंजड़े में बंद हो कर रह गया है. पूजा और भक्ति की बजाये ताला और शक्ति की बाते ज्यादा होती हैं. इसकी भी एक वजह है.

जब आप इंसानी रूप से बौने बन जाते हैं, तो आप को छोटे-छोटे पौधे भी विशाल पेड़ों जैसे दिखने लगते हैं.

Recently a link was posted on Facebook condemning the scheduled sacrificial slaughtering of 20,000 buffaloes by Nepalese Hindus. It is as it is tragic that we slaughter animals for daily consumption and it becomes more grotesque when they’re tortured and killed in the name of god. In some religions, Islam and Christianity for instance, the more the animals suffer, the better it is, because the blood needs to be drawn out drop-by-drop. In Islam since every animal slaughtered is in the name of god, every single animal goes through an agonizing death: gives you goose pimples when you sit quietly and think about the practice that has been going on centuries.

I’m glad in Sikhism no animal sacrifices are encouraged or tolerated and there are no ambiguities.

Then someone posted this nice link that explains what different Vedas say about animal sacrifice. For example,

The Rig Veda, the most ancient book of the Hindus, says ‘One who partakes of human flesh, the flesh of a horse or another animal and deprives others of milk by slaughtering cows, O King, if such a fiend does not desist by other means, then you should not hesitate to cut off his head (Rig Veda, X. 87. 16).’

Contemporary Hindu ritual is based on the Manusmruti and it is interesting to see that Manu lashed out against all forms of sacrifice and meat-eating. The Manu Samhita (5.48-52) recommends that since ‘meat can never be obtained without injury to living creatures, and injury to sentient beings is detrimental to the attainment of heavenly bliss, let him therefore shun the use of meat. Having well considered the disgusting origin of flesh and the cruelty of fettering and slaying corporeal beings, let him entirely abstain from eating flesh.’

The French president Nicolas Sarkozy has done a right thing by issuing a statement against women wearing the “burq” in France. He has rightly said that “The burka is not a sign of religion, it is a sign of subservience.”

Some misguided people think that it is an attack on the freedom of practicing your religion, and some even go to the extent of comparing the Muslim women wearing the burqa to the Christian nuns wearing their dress. First of all there is no question of comparison; you don’t see teenage nuns running around in the school corridors wearing their religious dresses. Every Muslim girl and woman is expected to wear the burqa. Second, even if the Christianity demands its women to wear something over their heads, societies are changing fast and they are not trapped in a time warp.

And whether Muslim women agree or not, burqa is a sign of subservience; it’s just that they have become so used to its presence in their lives that they think it’s a normal thing and hence, totally acceptable. What they often call, the Stockholm syndrome (it’s about the kidnapped and the kidnapper, but it’s the same thing).

I also see a tinge of hypocrisy here. When someone points out that there are so many violent things prescribed in Islam, they say the time was like that back then and they must be seen contextually and they are no more applicable to Islam during modern times. Good, no problem with that. But then why don’t they see things like the burqa contextually? It’s no longer needed now. May be it was needed back then when it was implemented, but haven’t the times changed now?

A long time back Sati was abolished in India and then too orthodox Hindus had protested, but we all know what a horrible thing it is. Will we allow it if some communities start practicing it again in the name of religious freedom, even if some women do it willingly?

Some Muslim organizations in India are urging the Indian prime minister to raise the issue with the French president. My suggestion to the Indian prime minister would be to introduce such changes in India too.

OK, it’s good to have your own blog. I had posted a comment on Shivam Vij’s FaceBook stream in response to this text:

Those who object to Haj subsidies don’t ask how much money the state spends in organizing and facilitating various Hindu pilgrimages

Personally I have no issue with the Haj subsidies but since he had raised the issue I responded by saying that the only objection could be that the Muslims hardly pay tax; most of the time they are just taking. There are very few Muslims (I know, I know there are exceptions like Bollywood stars, cricketers and people like Azim Premji) who earn enough to pay taxes, so that’s why many people object to using the exchequer’s money to appease a minority. On the other hand there is a significant number of Hindus and other communities from where most of the revenue is generated. I wonder how much subsidies the other communities get. There is a special Haj terminal whenever we go to the Indira Gandhi airport and I’ve heard (I don’t know if it is accurate) there are special ports for them, in case they want to travel by sea.

Aside from raising the tax issues I had also noted that Muslims, when they are in a majority, have totalitarian religious views, and they demand the highest standards of secularism and inclusivity when they are in a minority. I know this was totally uncalled for, but sadly, unfortunately, this is a reality. Tell me one Muslim country where other religions have thrived, and are allowed to build their places of worship.

He quietly deleted my comment. So much for taking stands.