 | « Back to article | Print this article |
In a critique of Vice President Hamid Ansari's recent speech on the need for "affirmative action" for Muslim empowerment, an article in the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh mouthpiece Panchjanya has accused him of speaking like a "communal Muslim leader".
It said instead of projecting Muslims as victims of discrimination, Ansari should "tell them the truth about how Muslim radicalism is preventing them from integrating with the society".
The article attacks vice president's take that Muslims in India face the challenges of identity, security, education and empowerment.
"There was much dejection in the much-talked speech by Hamid Ansari at All-India Muslim Majlis-e-Mushawarat, as it comes across as one made by a communal Muslim leader. The vice president is expected not to talk preferentially of one community but to speak of benefits for all. But these elements are missing from his speech," the article says.
The piece goes on to cite radical Muslim outfits like Islamic State, Taliban and Boko Haram to say Islam and modernity are "poles apart".
"Islam and modernity are like two poles that can never meet but leaders like Ansari will never tell Muslims that," it says.
It says that the VP's speech "doesn't reflect any sense of self introspection" and added only he can explain "how a religion keen on implementing 1,400 year old rules can be described as modern".
On the issue if identity, it said, "Secular India has paid a heavy price to maintain Muslim religious identity... Uniform Civil Code was not implemented... Muslim Personal Law has distorted India's secular character but no Muslim leader speaks of these facilities which they treat as a right."
It also says the Constitution doesn't provide for religion based quotas.It also sited the constitutional right for minorities to set up and manage their educational institutions and questioned the continuing Haj subsidy.
The RSS mouthpiece has claimed that communal riots are primarily triggered by minorities and when the majority reacts to them, the issue of Muslim security is raised. The article has also said that Muslims were the cause and not the victims of the partition of India.
"Ansari has raised the issue of Muslim security. Did he want to convey that Muslims faced a threat from the majority community. He is perhaps referring to riots. But riots are primarily triggered by minorities and when the majority reacts, it is termed as an issue of Muslim security. In Godhra, Hindus were first burnt alive. When Hindus reacted it was called mass murder," it said.
Stating it would have been better had the vice president spoken about security of all communities instead of just one; the article questions the migration of Hindus from the Muslim-majority Jammu and Kashmir.
"Hindu minority was forced to flee from Muslim majority Jammu and Kashmir. But never did any Hindu majority state do that to Muslims. In this context, it is strange that Vice President Hamid Ansari spoke of the security of just one community," the article said.
It goes further to question the VP's statement that the Muslims have had to bear the burden of political developments leading to partition.
Arguing that the Muslims were in fact the cause rather than the victims of Partition, the article says, "Ansari says Muslims have had to pay the price for political developments leading to the partition. But he forgets that Muslims are not victims but a cause of the partition."
It said, "They voted for (creation of) Pakistan before independence though not all of them went to Pakistan. Instead of projecting the Muslims as victims of disparities, Ansari should speak of how their radicalisation keeping them from harmonising with the society."