Sometimes it takes what seems like the wrong punch to get the right effect by an expected person - like the recent backlash by many Muslim countries about Nupur Sharma's statements on Prophet Mohammed. Just a disclaimer though: their response is not a complete defense of what many Indian Muslims go through in a stated secular country like India - whether it is by the 1976 assertion of "secular" in the Preamble or the claim that Hinduism is anyway secular making the former unnecessary. The international response is on an equal level to how many Muslims are made to face struggles at home in India. The mirror just flipped. It's all show and no substance, just with a different name.
The countries, which registered their opposition, practice a somewhat equal intolerance of beliefs other than theirs, as does the Hindutva brigade that has been on the rise in the past few months, whose words these very countries have raised an issue with. They, both, have the same cultural and/or religious motivation to do but are just on opposite ends of the same spectrum of religious intolerance.
The fact that it took this particular outrage from lands far away when there was enough noise being raised back home speaks for the true heart of the majority rulers of this country. As some tweets went, oil is indeed thicker than water. The Government couldn't care any less for their own but will do anything for their economic lifelines. It's another matter that they've brought the country to a point that it needs so much dependence on lifelines. It's also a separate matter that Governments usually don't care unless you are a pawn they can use.
Of course, all is not well back at home even with the Government's own supporters up in arms about them bowing down to greater powers. Many supporters are angry that they caved but perhaps they should understand that their loyalty was never seen as loyalty but just convenient steps up towards the Government's goal. It's tragic that they are surprised.
What best describes this is the poem by Martin Niemöller which describes this phenomenon that people should not be surprised by anymore - but they still choose to be.
First they came for the Communists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Communist
Then they came for the Socialists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Socialist
Then they came for the trade unionists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a trade unionist
Then they came for the Jews
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Jew
Then they came for me
And there was no one left
To speak out for me
The last stanza is for the Hindutva loyal gang that is angry with the Government appeasing, which also supports, or ignores, the strong anti-Muslim sentiment prevalent in many places. They didn't realize that like, any other political movement, their 'loyalty' only makes them pawns in the game - like everyone under a government today. They are not any leadership's first priority and all leaderships are usually as selfish as the previous one. They were happy at Muslims being pawns that had no more use because they weren't pawns (yet) but now their time has come and it's a revelation they can't handle.
The lesson to learn here is that if you want someone to speak out for you when they come for you, you should also speak out for them, when they come for them. A simpler way to say that is to speak up for everyone when and how you can - whether it's on social media or what you silently believe and never say but becomes your vote. Also, ideological loyalty to people and individuals will always sting you in the back. You protect your own and you help other people protect their own while we all strive for a world in which everyone doesn't have to protect their own.
Comments
Post a Comment