Twenty-Five Years After 9/11: America, India and the Question of Inclusion

 Twenty five years after the Islamic terror group Al-Queda attack on America on 9/11, many shocking things have happened in America. There is no Islamophobia rather many terror apologists and extremists have won elections in US.

World was shocked to see the US had suffered the deadliest Islamist terrorist attack in the world history. More than 3, 000 people had been killed. However, the people of America remained calm and cool. Mosques and Madrasas were not threatened, Muslims were not attacked, and hate crimes did not soar. The voters of US have elected many Muslims at different positions.

Muslims became more vocal and polarized in the democracy of America. Keith Ellison became the first Muslim voted to Congress. Many more followed. Now they are four in the Congress. According to the Council on American Islamic relations, there are 255 five Muslims have been elected in 26 states- 46 legislators in states, 11 mayors, 18 elected judges, 98 council members and 63 education officers. Surprisingly, 43% of these elected people are women.

Could anyone expect such miracle in an Islamic nation or society where non-Muslims are given so much respects and space? The answer is big NO.

And then came the most shocking news from the Ground Zero. New York, the epicenter of 9/11 horror and deaths, voted a terror apologist Zohran Mamdani, as mayor. Mamdani fights for the rights of Palestinians and Muslims. He took the oath of office on the Koran. Means America and secularism have no meaning for him. This is a failure of American democracy and very callous of the part of the voters of Americs that who have forgotten their dead near and dear ones so soon.

It has become a fashion in America and other democratic countries to show the support to Palestine, Hamas, Hezbollah etc. Ironically, all the Muslims leaders in America are hardcore supporters of Palestine, Iran, Hamas, Hezbollah etc. America and interests of America are secondary to them. Now, Afghanistan is ruled by Taliban. Syria and Iraq are ruled by ex-terror groups. 

Now back home, turn to India. India was never free of communal hatred. In Gujarat in 2002 is a brutal reminder of the death of Hindu Karsewaks in Godhra train burning by Muslims. Even then, the political scene offered the best example of the inclusive, tolerant and liberal ideology of the Hindus. Vice President of America Dick Cheney astonished at this in 2006, mentioning that " the religious majority is Hindu, the largest political party is led by a Christian, the President is Muslim, and the Prime Minister is Sikh." He was referring to Sonia Gandhi, Aubdul Kalam and Manmohan Singh. This is the inclusiveness and liberalism of the Hindus.

However, Muslims don't believe in secularism and inclusive society. Their religious identities are stronger than national identity. They are not ready to sing national anthem or national geet "Vande Matram."  They don't stand for the rashtriya gana. They donate money very liberally to Iran or Palestinians but not for national disasters in India. No Hindu, has been elected the Chief Minister of Muslim majority, Jammu and Kashmir. 

Democracy is very strong and secular in India only due to the Hindu majority. Indian voters elect governments and defeats governments out very peacefully baring a few aberrations like Bengal and Kashmir. The representation of Muslims is satisfactory. Media or social media are almost free of Islamophobic hate. On the contrary Muslims are highly polarized against the ruling NDA. They don't elect or vote for any NDA candidate or the Hindu candidate in the Muslim dominated areas.

Worse, it is almost impossible for any Hindu religious yatra or procession to pass safely from the Muslim dominated areas be it Durga Visarjan, Ganpati Visarjan, Amarnath Yatra, Kanwar Yatra, Ram Barat, Holi colours, Diwali lights and firework. Police and security personals are deployed for the safety and security of the devotees. Every year armed forces are deployed for the safety of Amarnath Yatra due to the fear of attack by Muslim terrorists. Even Muslim clerics issued a fatwa against the participation of Muslim women in the festival of Onam in a fully literate state of Kerlam.  

Muslims in India has the wide spread tendency to encroach upon the government land. Most of the Muslim colonies, mosques, dargahas, madrasas etc are on the encroached public land. The authorities find it very difficult to get back the encroached land even after the favourable court ruling. They are expert in using the victim card and put the blame on others. There is no discrimination against the Muslims and they are the biggest beneficiaries of the welfare programmes of the government.

Democracy should be about majority rights as well as minority rights. That makes the contrast with America and other European countries so heartbreaking. India is much higher. Many Muslims have entered the Rashtrapati Bhavan. There were many Muslim ministers and Chief ministers in the Hindu dominated states. They can enjoy all type of political and bureaucratic powers. In the selections, they are helped in many ways.

Muslims and Muslim countries should learn something from India and the Hindus. America and India have defeated Islamophobia. Now it is the duty of the Muslims and Muslim countries to give same treatment to the non-Muslims.

Yet America, India, Christians, and Hindus provide an unexpected message in how political and social inclusion can grow even while other parties have prejudices. Pakistan, Bangladesh, Afghanistan and even Kashmir and Islamic countries give a warning how political and social inclusion can be wiped out even in this world.

World is waiting with awe when will the people of Kashmir elect a Hindu their chief minister or Pakistan, Bangladesh and Afghanistan, their first non-Muslim prime minister.     

 

 

Shrivastava Ji’s Doctorate

 Prof. Kavi Shrivastava was a teacher—and a very good one. He taught Mathematics. In fact, he was such a devoted teacher of Mathematics that he began applying mathematical formulas not only to his classroom teaching but also to his personal life, family affairs and college administration.

Prof. Shrivastava was also a strict administrator. His approach to administration was so uncompromising that many of his fellow teachers found his working style irritating. Yet, when it came to students, he was an entirely different person. He was kind, approachable and always willing to go out of his way to help them. A student in difficulty could count on him.

He was equally devoted to his family. A caring, hardworking and somewhat over-possessive family man, he took upon himself almost every responsibility concerning his brothers, sisters and their families. He worried about their health, education, careers and marriages as if all these responsibilities were his personal assignments. He organized parties, receptions and family functions and often managed almost everything himself.

His excessive concern, however, sometimes irritated his relatives. Some of them became angry with him and even behaved aggressively. Shrivastava Ji, nevertheless, rarely took offence. He simply continued doing what he believed was his duty.

In short, Prof. Shrivastava was a complete gentleman: a good teacher, a strict administrator, a devoted family man, a caring husband and a loving father. He seemed to possess an inexhaustible supply of energy. He was rarely seen tired.

His wife was also a teacher. Whenever she felt stressed because of work pressure, Shrivastava Ji stood firmly beside her. Even during election duties, he would accompany her to remote villages and, when necessary, sleep in the car outside polling booths while she performed her duty.

After serving the institution for several decades, Prof. Kavi Shrivastava finally decided that it was time to add one more achievement to his long career—a doctorate. There were practical reasons too: a Ph.D. could help him in matters of promotion and bring certain financial benefits.

So began his search for a research supervisor.

Eventually, he found one.

Dr. Nasiruddin had a Ph.D. to his credit and had completed his research at a minority institution. He was an eccentric and rather colourful character. He cultivated a long beard without moustache, wore his hair long and, whenever Shrivastava Ji visited him for research discussions, could usually be found in a lungi, vest and skullcap. His dress was seldom distinguished by anything resembling neatness. The womenfolk of his house were always covered from head to toe in long black burqa although Dr. Nasiruddin was a great feminist.

Dr. Nasiruddin also possessed a curious dual personality. At seminars and conferences, particularly those organized by his left wing ideological friends, he was a passionate speaker on women's equality and empowerment. He was a bitter and bold critic of the patriarchy of the Hindus and the Manusmiriti. But when the formal speeches were over and dinner was served, his attention seemed to shift rather quickly toward the lavish spread waiting outside.

He was, above all, a formidable eater.

Whenever Shrivastava Ji visited him, he soon discovered that a research meeting was incomplete without a generous supply of non-vegetarian food. Dr. Nasiruddin's appetite appeared to have no mathematical limit. His mouth was almost permanently occupied with betel leaf, and his conversation was frequently accompanied by streaks of red betel juice. His enormous belly gave the impression that it had been inflated with considerable enthusiasm.

Dr. Nasiruddin lived in a densely populated locality where sanitation and civic infrastructure had long surrendered to neglect. The roads were muddy and narrow, with open drains, stagnant sewage and foul-smelling water. Pigs wallowed in the mud, while encroachments had reduced many roads to little more than twisting lanes.

For Shrivastava Ji, reaching his supervisor's house was itself a research project. He had to negotiate potholes, puddles and drains of various sizes before finally arriving at the destination.

And so, slowly—very slowly—the great research work progressed.

Shrivastava Ji struggled to find time for his thesis amid his innumerable family responsibilities. At his age, research was certainly not his first priority. He already had a respectable job and a comfortable salary. Nevertheless, he persevered.

He collected books, research material, data, charts and graphs. He wrote papers and even managed to get a few articles published in journals where publication fees were part of the unwritten academic arrangement. After considerable effort, he assembled all the material required for his thesis.

At last, the university fixed a date for his pre-submission seminar.

Shrivastava Ji arrived fully prepared.

He defended his research brilliantly and with remarkable confidence. The thesis was accepted, subject to a few minor changes.

For Shrivastava Ji, it was almost a moment of triumph.

After the successful seminar, he and Dr. Nasiruddin decided to celebrate. They stopped at a liquor shop and bought wine. Then came the food: kebabs, korma, Murgh Makhani, Mutton Rogan Josh and enough delicacies to feed the entire family.

It was, after all, a big day.

And Dr. Nasiruddin's family was naturally expected to share in the celebration.

With their provisions safely packed, the two began their journey back to Dr. Nasiruddin's house. In the gathering darkness and drizzle, they looked like an unlikely pair of Don Quixote and Sancho Panza on an ill-fated adventure.

Then the rain intensified.

The small drains became torrents. The larger ones looked positively dangerous.

The two men reached a particularly wide drain. They looked at it, calculated the distance and apparently concluded that it was manageable.

Dr. Nasiruddin went first.

He jumped.

He miscalculated.

Instead of landing safely on the other side, he plunged straight into the muddy drain.

Instinctively, he stretched out his hand and grabbed Shrivastava Ji.

Shrivastava Ji tried to save him.

He failed.

And in the confusion, both men tumbled into the muddy water.

The carefully purchased food followed them.

Kebabs, korma, chicken and mutton—all the fruits of their celebration—were scattered into the mud.

For a moment, everything was still.

Then came the pigs.

A herd of pigs, apparently attracted by the unmistakable aroma of the feast, charged toward the fallen food.

In the ensuing chaos, Dr. Nasiruddin collided with one of the pigs. Covered in mud, he suddenly cried out:

“Haram ho gaya! Napaak ho gaya!”

The feast was ruined.

The celebration was over.

And somewhere beneath the mud, along with the kebabs and korma, lay the carefully constructed dreams of Prof. Kavi Shrivastava.

His doctorate seemed to have fallen into the drain too and swept away with the current of mud and water. His dream to be get doctorate was also smashed.

N.B. This short story, “Shrivastava Ji’s Doctorate,” is purely a work of satire and is intended solely for humorous and literary purposes. It has no connection whatsoever with any real person, living or deceased. Any resemblance to any person, character, institution, or incident is purely coincidental and unintended. The writer shall not be held responsible for any such resemblance or interpretation.

Why Women Leave the Workplace?

 The debate over women’s empowerment in India often focuses on increasing the representation of women in Parliament, state legislatures and government institutions. The Women’s Reservation Bill, enacted as the Constitution (106th Amendment) Act, 2023, also known as the Nari Shakti Vandan Adhiniyam, provides for 33% reservation for women in the Lok Sabha and State Legislative Assemblies.

Greater political representation is certainly important. But empowerment cannot be measured merely by the number of women occupying seats in legislatures. If hundreds of additional women enter Parliament and state assemblies while lakhs of women continue to leave or avoid the workforce because of difficult service conditions, the larger question of women’s empowerment remains unanswered.

The Hidden Problem: Transfer and Posting

Women join government departments, banks, hospitals, schools, universities, public-sector organisations and other institutions in large numbers. Yet their personal safety, family responsibilities and social circumstances are often inadequately considered while deciding their postings and transfers.

The problem is particularly serious in the banking sector and other organisations where transfers are frequent and employees may be posted hundreds or even thousands of kilometres away from their homes.

A woman employee from Delhi may be transferred to Ahmedabad, Chennai or another distant city where she may not even know the local language. Such a transfer does not affect her alone. It affects her children, spouse, elderly parents and the entire family.

A mother may have to choose between her career and the education and well-being of her children. A spouse may be forced to maintain a separate household. Elderly parents may be left without support. In many cases, women eventually have no option but to decline promotions, seek voluntary retirement or leave their jobs altogether.

This is not a minor administrative inconvenience. It is an issue of employee welfare, gender equality and family well-being.

Transfer Can Become a Form of Workplace Harassment

Workplace harassment is generally discussed in terms of inappropriate behaviour, discrimination, intimidation or sexual harassment. However, the repeated and arbitrary transfer of women employees away from their families can also become a serious form of professional, emotional and social hardship.

Women working in banks, government offices, educational institutions, hospitals, the IT sector, security services and other organisations may be required to live alone for prolonged periods because of their postings.

The consequences can be severe: loneliness, anxiety, disruption of children’s education, separation from spouses, difficulties in caring for elderly parents and considerable financial and emotional pressure caused by maintaining two households.

Yet such hardship often remains invisible because it is treated simply as an administrative decision.

An employee may technically have a right to appeal against a transfer, but the practical difficulties of challenging an official decision can be enormous. Employees may fear victimisation, humiliation, adverse career consequences or being labelled as “difficult” or “non-cooperative”. As a result, many simply accept harassment silently.

A Family-Friendly Workplace Is a Better Workplace

Women are not asking for special treatment. They are asking for fair, humane and family-friendly service conditions.

The same principle should apply to all employees with genuine family responsibilities, irrespective of gender. A humane transfer policy should take into account the care of young children, elderly or dependent parents, spouses with employment commitments, serious family circumstances and the safety of employees posted to unfamiliar locations.

Where organisational requirements make transfers unavoidable, authorities should make every reasonable effort to provide a posting near the employee’s family, or at least within a manageable distance.

Technology has also made it possible to create transparent transfer systems based on clearly defined criteria. Vacancies, employee preferences, tenure, family circumstances and organisational requirements can be incorporated into a fair and accountable transfer policy.

Internal Complaints Committees Are Not Enough

Organisations have Internal Complaints Committees (ICCs) to address certain forms of workplace harassment, particularly sexual harassment. But the wider problem of family-disruptive transfers often falls outside the conventional understanding of workplace harassment.

There is therefore a need for a broader institutional mechanism through which employees can raise grievances relating to arbitrary, discriminatory or unduly burdensome transfer and posting decisions.

Such a mechanism should examine whether a transfer is genuinely required by administrative necessity or whether alternative arrangements are possible. It should also provide a transparent appeal process and protection against retaliation.

Women’s organisations, employee representatives, senior women officers and appropriate civil-society organisations can also play an important role in studying the impact of transfer policies on women employees.

Conduct Surveys and Give Employees a Voice

Government departments and public-sector organisations should conduct periodic surveys to understand how transfer and posting policies affect their employees, particularly women with family responsibilities.

Employees should be given an opportunity to indicate their preferred places of posting. While organisational requirements must naturally remain important, employee preferences should not be dismissed automatically.

A transparent system of choice-based postings, spouse accommodation, compassionate transfers and family-friendly transfer policies can significantly reduce hardship without compromising administrative efficiency.

Such measures would also help organisations retain experienced women employees and reduce unnecessary attrition.

Empowerment Means the Freedom to Continue Working

Women’s empowerment does not end when a woman receives a job. True empowerment means creating conditions in which she can enter the workforce, remain in employment, progress in her career and perform her responsibilities without being forced to choose between her profession and her family.

If a woman is compelled to sacrifice her career because an inflexible transfer policy separates her from her family, the system has failed to provide genuine equality of opportunity.

The government and employers therefore need to look beyond numerical representation. The real test of women’s empowerment is whether women can participate in public life and the workforce with dignity, security and reasonable family support.

A transfer that separates an employee from her family affects far more than one individual. It can disrupt an entire household.

We must therefore create a workplace system that supports families rather than divides them. The objective should not merely be to bring more women into the workplace, but to ensure that they can stay, grow and succeed there.

That is what employee-friendly governance—and genuine women’s empowerment—should mean.

 

Manusmriti: A Target Without Context

When you have no issue to raise,
blame the Manusmriti.

When you want to appear modern,
blame the Manusmriti.

When you want to project yourself as an intellectual,
blame the Manusmriti.

When you want to look secular and liberal,
blame the Manusmriti.

When you want to appear “woke,”
blame the Manusmriti.

When you want to portray yourself as a champion of Dalit rights,
blame the Manusmriti.

When the privileged castes get minus or zero marks,                                        

blame the Manusmriti.

When you want to indulge in minority appeasement,
blame the Manusmriti.

When security personnel control the rioters and outlaws,         

blame the Manusmriti.

It hardly matters whether you have any knowledge of Sanskrit
or have ever actually read the Manusmriti.

And yet, there is often little courage to critically examine
the problematic or objectionable passages of the scriptures of other religions.

Perhaps the real issue is not the Manusmriti at all,
but the convenience of turning it into a ready-made target—

Given by the colonial Raj,
without knowledge, without context,
and without the courage to apply the same standard of scrutiny to everyone.

 

मनुस्मृति: सुविधाजनक निशाना

 

जब मुद्दाविहीन हो जाओ—
मनुस्मृति को गाली दो।

जब आधुनिक कहलाना हो—
मनुस्मृति को गाली दो।

जब बुद्धिजीवी बनना हो—
मनुस्मृति को गाली दो।

जब सेकुलर चेहरा दिखाना हो—
मनुस्मृति को गाली दो।

जब ‘लिबरल’ कहलाना हो—
मनुस्मृति को गाली दो।

जब ‘वोक’ होने का प्रमाण हो—
मनुस्मृति को गाली दो।

जब प्रगतिशीलता का तमगा पाना हो—
मनुस्मृति को गाली दो।

जब दलितों का हितैषी बनना हो—
मनुस्मृति को गाली दो।

जब जाति-विरोध का सुमो पहलवान बनना हो—
मनुस्मृति को गाली दो।

जब परीक्षा में शून्य अंक आएँ,
या अंक माइनस में जाएँ—
अपनी कमजोरी न मानो,
मनुस्मृति को गाली दो।

जब अपनी राजनीति चमकानी हो—
मनुस्मृति को गाली दो।

जब तुष्टिकरण का गाज़ी बनना हो—
मनुस्मृति को गाली दो।

जब कानून-व्यवस्था का प्रश्न उठे,
जब सुरक्षा बल अपराध रोकें—
तथ्य न देखो, संदर्भ न खोजो,
मनुस्मृति को गाली दो।

न संस्कृत का ज्ञान जरूरी,
न ग्रंथ को पढ़ना जरूरी;
न इतिहास की समझ जरूरी,
न संदर्भों की खोज जरूरी।

बस इतना भर काम करो—
एक आसान निशाना चुन लो,
एक पुराना नाम उछाल दो,
और हर सवाल का एक ही जवाब दो—
मनुस्मृति को गाली दो।

यह भी मत पूछो
कि जिस ग्रंथ पर प्रहार हो रहा है,
उसका काल क्या था,
संदर्भ क्या था,
समाज की संरचना कैसी थी,
और उसमें कही बातों की
व्याख्या का आधार क्या था।

न अध्ययन चाहिए,
न प्रमाण चाहिए,
न तर्क-वितर्क का विस्तार—
बस चाहिए एक तैयार हथियार,

जिसे कोलोनियल राज दे गया,
एक सुविधाजनक विचार—
मनुस्मृति को गाली दो,
और बन जाओ प्रगतिशील विचार।

विडंबना देखिए—
कुछ अन्य धर्मग्रंथों की
आपत्तिजनक बातों पर
वही निर्भीकता भय में बदल जाती है;
जहाँ प्रश्न कठिन हो जाता है,
वहाँ आवाज़ गायब हो जाती है।

फिर मनुस्मृति ही क्यों?
क्यों वही बार-बार कटघरे में?
क्या सचमुच मुद्दा वही है,
या कोई और खेल है पर्दे के पीछे?

शायद मनुस्मृति
असली मुद्दा है ही नहीं—
असली मुद्दा है
सुविधाजनक निशाना चुनना।

ऐसा निशाना
जिस पर प्रहार आसान हो,
जिसके बचाव में कोई शोर न हो,
जिसे पढ़े बिना भी कोसा जा सके,
जिसे समझे बिना भी दोष दिया जा सके।

पर आलोचना से डरना भी नहीं—
आलोचना हो हर विचार की,
हर परंपरा और व्यवहार की;
हर धर्मग्रंथ, हर सामाजिक व्यवस्था की,
हर उस रूढ़ि और विचारधारा की—
जहाँ अन्याय, भेदभाव या अमानवीयता हो,
जहाँ मनुष्य की गरिमा आहत होती हो।

पर आलोचना का पैमाना
सबके लिए समान होना चाहिए;
तर्क यदि एक है,
तो साहस भी समान होना चाहिए।

जिस कसौटी पर
एक ग्रंथ को परखा जाए,
उसी कसौटी पर
दूसरे को भी कसा जाए।

जिस प्रश्न पर
एक परंपरा को कठघरे में खड़ा किया जाए,
वही प्रश्न
हर परंपरा से पूछा जाए।

क्योंकि किसी एक ग्रंथ को गाली देना
न ज्ञान का प्रमाण है,
न आधुनिकता का सम्मान है,
न बुद्धिजीविता की पहचान है,
न प्रगतिशीलता का बयान है।

सच्चा साहस तो तब है—
जब अपना भी आईना देखा जाए,
हर विचार को एक ही तराजू में तौला जाए,
और सत्य के आगे
हर पूर्वाग्रह को झुका दिया जाए।

क्योंकि समस्या आलोचना में नहीं,
समस्या चयनात्मक आलोचना में है।

समस्या किसी एक ग्रंथ पर प्रश्न उठाने में नहीं,
समस्या प्रश्नों के दोहरे मापदंड में है।

और याद रखिए—
जिस आलोचना में समानता नहीं,
वह आलोचना नहीं, सुविधा है;
जिस तर्क में निष्पक्षता नहीं,
वह तर्क नहीं, घृणा है।