First it was Shah Rukh Khan. Now it is Aamir Khan. Bollywood has always preserved us from the poison of Hindutva. No wonder the Hindutva trolls take to 140 characters of character assassination, particularly of any Bollywood star, and above all, Muslim screen heroes, who speak their mind about public affairs.
In Aamir, we have a showpiece of humanity, as demonstrated in his TV masterpiece Satyamev Jayate. At his public interaction at an awards function with Anant Goenka of the Indian Express, he underlined that "acts of terror are not connected to any religion" and added, "no religion teaches killing of innocents". His critics, not content with this, insisted on linking terror specifically to Islam. To this, Aamir responded, that acts of terror are "not Islamic acts". And went on to poignantly explain:
"A person holding a Quran and killing people, he may feel is doing an Islamic act, but as a Muslim I don't feel he is doing an Islamic act....I am very clear that a person who is killing innocents is not a Muslim. He may claim to be a Muslim, but we should not recognize him as that. He is a terrorist and we should recognize him as a terrorist".
What could be clearer than that?
Yet, Aamir continues to be hounded, especially by the likes of Tavleen Singh, his most persistent questioner at the function. And only because he will not accept the proposition that all terrorists are Muslims. For he also said "Somebody who's a Hindu who is engaging in an act of violence is not following Hinduism." Would anyone outside the Hindutva brigade deny that the assassin of Mahatma Gandhi, despite asserting that he did so to defend Hindus and Hinduism, was "not following Hinduism"? Or that the non-Muslims responsible for the Samjhauta blasts are not being brought to justice - perhaps because they are not Muslims?
Aamir also asserted that "Islam just does not condone or allow the killing of innocents". His critics, like the aforementioned T. Singh, assert that it does, that the Wahhabis and the IS kill in the name of Islam and in justification cite the Quran. Leading Indian Muslim theologians have expressed their abhorrenceof such extremist fatwas, and through numerous thundering declarations and public meetings have highlighted Islam as a religion of peace and brotherhood. In saying what he did, Aamir highlighted the overwhelming Indian Muslim view. Explicitly, he said, "My problem is not with just ISIS, but it is with that kind of thinking. Today it is ISIS, tomorrow it can be some other organization.'' What concerned Aamir was the larger question of "extreme thinking". It is, he said, "this extreme thinking, no matter where it comes from, is very, very destructive and very, very negative." (emphasis added)
What stuck in the throats of his critics is the suggestion that "extreme thinking" could come from outside Islamic or Quranic sources. Given terrorism's origins in the 20th century among Southern Slavs that sparked the First World War; its deployment by various revolutionary groups in Europe, North America, the Caribbean and Latin America; its widespread use in Africa, particularly in Rwanda and the Congo; its invocation as a legitimate tool by Zionists fighting for Israel in the Palestine mandated territory (and its continuing use by Israeli commandos against Palestinians); and numerous other examples including our own Malegaon and Mecca Masjid blasts, it is obvious, as Aamir says, that "terrorists have no religion", that "extremist thinking" is not the preserve of any one religious group. Moreover, most co-religionists of whatever religion condemn terrorism whether conducted by Muslims, Hindus, Christians or adherents of any other religion or, indeed of no religion at all. It is this refusal of Aamir and most other Muslims to accept any unique equivalence between Islam and terrors that riles the Hindutvists and their clapper-boys and -girls.
When, in this perspective, Aamir also refers to "the growing atmosphere of intolerance" in our country, the Hindutvawadis explode. He says "There is a sense of fear more than there was earlier" and pleads that he is both "ashamed" and "alarmed" by the "number of such incidences", that there is "growing disquiet", a "growing sense of despondency". If that is the condition of one of India's most loved, admired, respected and celebrated Muslims, true patriotism demands that one consider the plight of less exalted Indians, members of the Indian Muslim community - and others. This indeed is an issue that goes beyond members of a particular community to those who Aamir has in mind when he talks on their behalf, the "common man". It is, says Aamir, the Common Man who should be given a "sense of security", a "sense of justice". In these circumstances, said Aamir, we look up to the elected representatives of the Common Man "to take a strong stance, make strong statements and speed up the legal process to prosecute cases." But "when we don't see that happening, there is a sense of insecurity".
Of course, there would be. The Hindutvists are right when they say that several such incidents can be cited from the beginning of our Independence. But at no time till now has there been any sense that those resorting to vicious intolerance and even violence have the blessings of the Establishment. The continued failure of the top honchos of the BJP, in particular the Prime Minister, to "make statements that are reassuring to the citizens", as Aamir pleads, combined with the lack of clear-cut action to cut to size those responsible for such intolerance and violence, that has led to the widespread concern that intolerance is raising its ugly head with the tacit approval of those in power. This is the new disquieting factor that has led to so much protest, including especially by a legion of creative artistes. Aamir confesses, "I can't deny that I am alarmed." So am I. So are many millions in this country. So have the voters of Bihar shown.
Aamir said, he "would actually endorse any protest which is non-violent." What could be more non-violent than award wapsi? "As long as you don't start beating up people, as long as you don't resort to violence," said Aamir, "individuals have a right to protest and they can protest in any manner they feel is right as long as they are not physically harming people or taking the law into their own hands". That is called defending the right to freedom of expression - not "shouting obscenities at me for speaking my heart out" as he was to later observe.
There is a debate on intolerance coming up in Parliament. The Prime Minister has chosen this moment to once again flee abroad. Yet he could authorize his Home Minister to reassure the country (and, incidentally, retrieve his fading reputation) by distancing himself from all manner of intolerant statements emanating from his own kind, the Sangh Parivar and its BJP MPs and Ministers. But can he? After all, he is himself is a lifelong prachark of Hindutava, "an ideology," as Times of India columnist Aakar Patel, has described as "unappealing, unintellectual, even unaesthetic" and, above all, as "also dangerous."
Let us leave the last word to Mahatma Gandhi:
"For me, there is no politics without religion, not the religion of superstitions that hates and fights, but the universal religion of tolerance" (Young India, 1937)
Modi, Will You Ignore Aamir Khan Too?
In Aamir, we have a showpiece of humanity, as demonstrated in his TV masterpiece Satyamev Jayate. At his public interaction at an awards function with Anant Goenka of the Indian Express, he underlined that "acts of terror are not connected to any religion" and added, "no religion teaches killing of innocents". His critics, not content with this, insisted on linking terror specifically to Islam. To this, Aamir responded, that acts of terror are "not Islamic acts". And went on to poignantly explain:
"A person holding a Quran and killing people, he may feel is doing an Islamic act, but as a Muslim I don't feel he is doing an Islamic act....I am very clear that a person who is killing innocents is not a Muslim. He may claim to be a Muslim, but we should not recognize him as that. He is a terrorist and we should recognize him as a terrorist".
What could be clearer than that?
Yet, Aamir continues to be hounded, especially by the likes of Tavleen Singh, his most persistent questioner at the function. And only because he will not accept the proposition that all terrorists are Muslims. For he also said "Somebody who's a Hindu who is engaging in an act of violence is not following Hinduism." Would anyone outside the Hindutva brigade deny that the assassin of Mahatma Gandhi, despite asserting that he did so to defend Hindus and Hinduism, was "not following Hinduism"? Or that the non-Muslims responsible for the Samjhauta blasts are not being brought to justice - perhaps because they are not Muslims?
Aamir also asserted that "Islam just does not condone or allow the killing of innocents". His critics, like the aforementioned T. Singh, assert that it does, that the Wahhabis and the IS kill in the name of Islam and in justification cite the Quran. Leading Indian Muslim theologians have expressed their abhorrenceof such extremist fatwas, and through numerous thundering declarations and public meetings have highlighted Islam as a religion of peace and brotherhood. In saying what he did, Aamir highlighted the overwhelming Indian Muslim view. Explicitly, he said, "My problem is not with just ISIS, but it is with that kind of thinking. Today it is ISIS, tomorrow it can be some other organization.'' What concerned Aamir was the larger question of "extreme thinking". It is, he said, "this extreme thinking, no matter where it comes from, is very, very destructive and very, very negative." (emphasis added)
What stuck in the throats of his critics is the suggestion that "extreme thinking" could come from outside Islamic or Quranic sources. Given terrorism's origins in the 20th century among Southern Slavs that sparked the First World War; its deployment by various revolutionary groups in Europe, North America, the Caribbean and Latin America; its widespread use in Africa, particularly in Rwanda and the Congo; its invocation as a legitimate tool by Zionists fighting for Israel in the Palestine mandated territory (and its continuing use by Israeli commandos against Palestinians); and numerous other examples including our own Malegaon and Mecca Masjid blasts, it is obvious, as Aamir says, that "terrorists have no religion", that "extremist thinking" is not the preserve of any one religious group. Moreover, most co-religionists of whatever religion condemn terrorism whether conducted by Muslims, Hindus, Christians or adherents of any other religion or, indeed of no religion at all. It is this refusal of Aamir and most other Muslims to accept any unique equivalence between Islam and terrors that riles the Hindutvists and their clapper-boys and -girls.
When, in this perspective, Aamir also refers to "the growing atmosphere of intolerance" in our country, the Hindutvawadis explode. He says "There is a sense of fear more than there was earlier" and pleads that he is both "ashamed" and "alarmed" by the "number of such incidences", that there is "growing disquiet", a "growing sense of despondency". If that is the condition of one of India's most loved, admired, respected and celebrated Muslims, true patriotism demands that one consider the plight of less exalted Indians, members of the Indian Muslim community - and others. This indeed is an issue that goes beyond members of a particular community to those who Aamir has in mind when he talks on their behalf, the "common man". It is, says Aamir, the Common Man who should be given a "sense of security", a "sense of justice". In these circumstances, said Aamir, we look up to the elected representatives of the Common Man "to take a strong stance, make strong statements and speed up the legal process to prosecute cases." But "when we don't see that happening, there is a sense of insecurity".
Of course, there would be. The Hindutvists are right when they say that several such incidents can be cited from the beginning of our Independence. But at no time till now has there been any sense that those resorting to vicious intolerance and even violence have the blessings of the Establishment. The continued failure of the top honchos of the BJP, in particular the Prime Minister, to "make statements that are reassuring to the citizens", as Aamir pleads, combined with the lack of clear-cut action to cut to size those responsible for such intolerance and violence, that has led to the widespread concern that intolerance is raising its ugly head with the tacit approval of those in power. This is the new disquieting factor that has led to so much protest, including especially by a legion of creative artistes. Aamir confesses, "I can't deny that I am alarmed." So am I. So are many millions in this country. So have the voters of Bihar shown.
Aamir said, he "would actually endorse any protest which is non-violent." What could be more non-violent than award wapsi? "As long as you don't start beating up people, as long as you don't resort to violence," said Aamir, "individuals have a right to protest and they can protest in any manner they feel is right as long as they are not physically harming people or taking the law into their own hands". That is called defending the right to freedom of expression - not "shouting obscenities at me for speaking my heart out" as he was to later observe.
There is a debate on intolerance coming up in Parliament. The Prime Minister has chosen this moment to once again flee abroad. Yet he could authorize his Home Minister to reassure the country (and, incidentally, retrieve his fading reputation) by distancing himself from all manner of intolerant statements emanating from his own kind, the Sangh Parivar and its BJP MPs and Ministers. But can he? After all, he is himself is a lifelong prachark of Hindutava, "an ideology," as Times of India columnist Aakar Patel, has described as "unappealing, unintellectual, even unaesthetic" and, above all, as "also dangerous."
Let us leave the last word to Mahatma Gandhi:
"For me, there is no politics without religion, not the religion of superstitions that hates and fights, but the universal religion of tolerance" (Young India, 1937)
Modi, Will You Ignore Aamir Khan Too?
