Its only because I am a Muslim

"Its only because I am a Muslim…"

I remember a very perceptive essay by Qurratulain Haider in the Times of India's Sunday supplement in the early nineties with an interesting headline that neatly caught the urban ambivalence of the Hindu-Muslim divide, and the tinge of shame in accepting it …"But of course, some of my best friends are Muslims…"

The essay was a meditation on the Hindu Muslim divide in the drawing rooms across India. Haider should know, as a member of the privileged classes as well as a person who has probably tracked the phenomenon since partition. Her book on the partition Aag Ka Dariya remains a great literary masterpiece of form and content.

The reason for remembering Haider's piece was the latest news of former Indian cricket captain Mohammed Azharuddin claiming that he was victimised in the Indian media and by extension the Indian crowds for being a Muslim. The statement got my synapses tingling. Just last evening, when news came in of Hansie Cronje indicting Azza at the King's commission hearings, I had predicted to a bunch of friends that the embattled Hyderabadi batsman will be advised by some fancy lawyer to take this line.

What was a shock was Azza mouthing the same thing without even a lawyer's aid. In an interview to the Deccan Chronicle, more an outburst than a cool headed response to charges emanating from South Africa, he said that he was victimised here for being a Muslim. That team members had ganged up against him. Sunil Gavaskar, Ravi Shastri, and Manoj Prabhakar had conspired to remove him from the team. All because they could not digest a Muslim being in the team for 16 years and leading it for a lot of that term.

It is sad that Azza should have dropped that lethal line. Somehow, it poisons an atmosphere of strife and tribulation, into an arena of ruthless bloody-minded politics. Neatly cleaving one people into two enemies. It is sad from Azza. One man I loved to defend at every meeting of cricket fanatics. Azza and Kambli are two of my favourite underdogs.

Azza's response may be just a defensive flourish that unintentionally scythed through an old wound of the subcontinent, which optimists hype whenever it shows deceptive signs of healing. If Azza's batting, in full flow is Dhaka Muslin, his articulation in victory and defeat has remained coarse coir. As the winning captain or as the losing one, both states elicit two variants of the same phrase. "We won because we played positive cricket.' We lost though we played "positive cricket."

There is warmth that I have felt for some of the most inarticulate master athletes, and hate those who berate them for their lack of articulation. Kapil, Azza and PT Usha remain my favourites to watch being interviewed on television. There is a feeling of their vulnerability that comes through despite their natty dresses. Their lack of guile makes some smart-ass interviewers look foolish, and they appeal to the viewer as one of us.

So, there are enough grounds to hope that Azza might have just tripped. But, he has taken forward a pet flogging horse of a lot of celebrity, or at least powerful men in the country with Muslim names, hitting out at the establishment. The country is Hindu, the government is after me because I am a Muslim. There are at least two other cases where defendants who were accused of criminal charges made similar moves.

The first one, I remember involved me. In 1994-95, as a reporter of the Indian Express, I had written a story that accused the chairman of a private airline in the country receiving slush money from the Dawood Ibrahim crime syndicate. A gang member who was arrested in Delhi allegedly delivered the money at the chairman's office. He confessed, and because he was charged under a particular act, his confession was considered evidence. I had quoted from that confession.

When I called up the company, one of the family members, who were a director, told me that the charges were all trumped and wrong. The government was trying to fix them because they were Muslims. The rival private airlines were framing them because they were Muslims.

Eventually, the story had far reaching ramifications. The chairman himself was shot dead by the underworld. The airline, already in financial trouble because the private airlines as an industry in the country was just about taking off on the Narsimha Rao government's newly laid liberalised tarmac, was left flailing to ward off financial disaster on one hand and fighting for its reputation on the other.

That’s when I first heard of religion being the cause of victimization by an enforcement agency. Later, a newspaper too ran a campaign against an enforcement agency for investigating its owner, who was accused of money laundering. The campaign started quoting statements of support from religious organisations.

More recently, music director Nadeem of the Nadeem-Shravan duo has been screaming about how he fears that the Indian government will not give him justice because it discriminates against him for being a Muslim. Nadeem has been holed up in London, and resisting deportation to India to face trial on this ground. He is accused of nothing less than murder of a music industry tycoon.

Interestingly, after all the screaming is over, and the law takes its own course as it invariably does in many cases, these very people will have a stock quote. "I have all faith in the fairness of the Judiciary." This touching faith packed in that trite statement would have carried more weight had it not been spouted after you have been handcuffed.

Being a music director, Nadeem has already modified his tune after he started getting work from producers in Bollywood. He works from London, and beats the customs and the police through his modem. Newspaper reports suggest he is a sort of major minor celebrity in the Asian circles in London. When work comes flooding, it's of course "I love my India."

The question here is of the queer situation that is being standardised. The law enforcement agencies in any country can accuse any citizen or foreigner of breaking the law of the country. They have to and do gather evidence to prove those charges. The man or woman accused is not charged of being a traitor, therefore proclamations of patriotism and love for the country is not a defense.

He is not charged with following a wrong religion. Therefore, his religious identity cannot be again a motive for prosecution.

What he is charged with, in the media, maybe he has betrayed the trust of the people etc. That’s still not treason. Remember, the infamous ISRO spy case. The whole episode was a shame on the law enforcement officers who handled it. It left the reputations of several top-notch scientists tarnished for good. The whole case was unspooled by the arrest of a Maldivian woman, Mariam Rashida. A name as Muslim as it gets.

I do not remember her feeling persecuted for being a Muslim. Had she felt that, her charges would have carried weight because her story was proved to be a sham. The case was torn apart in the courts of this same country. Maybe messers Azza and Nadeem need to learn from her example. The truth is such statements by celebrities who seek legal immunity through the political equivalent of crying wolf have not ever got them what they sought.

Post Script: This piece was written on the Friday when Azza first raised the issue of victimisation. On the following Wednesday, Azza took back his communal discrimination charge. Indian Express' Mumbai edition front page carries his apology. The same Indian Express in the third page carries a report quoting Bal Thackeray saying Azza's charge was unfortunate. I quote " "Look, how these people behave! No one knows when they will reverse their stand."