Academics From India

"A standard view is that expressed by Justice S.B. Sinha in his (minority) judgment of the Andhra high court on the same issue in 2001, where non-tribal teachers are axiomatically assumed to be more efficient and meritorious (para 86); and “(f)or upliftment of the educationally backward people, it is necessary to impart education through teachers who are more informed and more meritorious regardless of their caste”(para 126). For the Supreme Court to say, “They are not supposed to be seen as a human zoo and source of enjoyment of primitive culture and for dance performances” (para 107 of Chebrolu) betrays a mentality that thinks of Scheduled Tribes precisely in those terms rather than as people with the right to define their own educational future. For far too long, education in India has been seen by the establishment as a ‘civilising’ mission designed to make adivasis and dalits into mental clones of the upper castes, even if they continue in their subordinate jobs. Merit is defined merely as efficiency in achieving this goal, rather than in terms of success in tapping indigenous ecological knowledge, preserving adivasi languages and culture and giving confidence to adivasi students by acting as s. Even though many adivasi teachers have also internalised this idea of non-tribal superiority, having hundred per cent adivasi teachers in Scheduled areas is a small step towards reversing this condescension."

"The Supreme Court judgment came in response to an appeal by non-tribals against the majority 2001 high court judgment, which upheld the G.O. of 2000. The Supreme Court verdict essentially replicates the minority view in the high court in favour of non-tribals. The court framed four questions for itself: • the first deals with the power of the governor in 5th Schedule areas to make laws, and whether this can override Part III of the constitution or fundamental rights; • the second, whether 100% reservation is constitutionally permissible; • the third, whether the GO involves a classification under Article 16 (1) dealing with equal access to state employment, rather than under 16 (4) which provides for reservation; • the fourth, to do with the reasonableness of the eligibility requirement for reservation, i.e. continuous residence in the area since 1950. In answering each of the questions, sadly, the court shows itself unmindful of the realities of the country and the history of the constitution it has inherited."

"[I]t is important to remember that when the law-making power of the governor under the 5th Schedule was discussed in the constituent assembly’s Sub-Committee on Excluded and Partially Excluded Areas, the concern raised was not whether s/he could or should make fresh law, but that this power should not be used undemocratically, exercised over and above the elected legislature. It is for this reason that a Tribes Advisory Council was created and the governor was required to refer matters to it. (Para 11b of the sub-committee report). In this case, the Tribes Advisory Council had concurred with the 100% rule. On the question it posed to itself – of whether the legislative powers of the governor under Section 5 of the 5th Schedule could override fundamental rights – the Supreme Court answered in the negative."

"Judging by the continued over-representation of Hindu upper castes in gainful employment in this country, one might well say that the same has come to be fixed in a "highly unreasonable and arbitrary manner" and there is no rhyme or reason to the upper caste Hindu conviction that it is only they who have the natural right to rule over, provide justice to, or teach in this country, and that children of all other castes and religions must be grateful for the education and justice they get."

"“Although the overall socioeconomic organization changed, continuities in technology, subsistence practices, settlement organization, and some regional symbols show that the indigenous population was not displaced by invading hordes of Indo-Aryan speaking people. For many years, the ‘invasions’ or ‘migrations’ of these Indo-Aryan-speaking Vedic/Aryan tribes explained the decline of the Indus civilization and the sudden rise of urbanization in the Ganga-Yamuna valley. This was based on simplistic models of culture change and an uncritical reading of Vedic texts. Current evidence does not support a pre- or proto-historic Indo-Aryan invasion of southern Asia. Instead, there was an overlap between Late Harappan and post-Harappan communities, with no biological evidence for major new populations.”"

"Both of them (Witzel and Rajaram), probably very surprised to find each other in the same bed, assert that the Aryan debate is over and has been definitively decided. Both think that this debate only shows signs of life once in a while because of its political interest and in spite of its scholarly resolution. Only, Witzel thinks that the AIT has won the debate and its denial only survives because it is politically useful to the Hindutva forces, while Rajaram thinks the AIT has been refuted and only survives because it is politically useful to anti-Hindu forces as well as to various other political movements, including racism. It is this motive that he also discovers in Witzel... Rajaram presents Witzel as “more activist than scholar”, and lists as proofs his interventions to thwart Hindu proposals to eliminate the Aryan invasion theory from the chapter on Hindu history in California schoolbooks, and to ban Dr. Subramanian Swamy, after the latter’s anti-Muslim utterances, from teaching economics at Harvard. ... His scholarly contributions confine themselves to refuting the Aryan Invasion Theory, without proposing an alternative explanation for a linguistic kinship that he rejects. In this respect, his discovery of the relevance of the Seidenberg findings about the anteriority of Baudhayana’s mathematics to Babylonian mathematics (which dates Baudhayana’s late-Vedic writings dramatically earlier than hitherto assumed) remains pivotal in the Aryan debate. But for a presentation of the whole Aryan problem, he simply and willfully lacks the knowledge."

"For all its monopoly of the Indian history establishment, this influential group calling itself Marxists has made no contribution to history. The central theme of their work is that Hindus have contributed nothing to Indian civilisation: Everything from the Vedas and Sanskrit to science and mathematics is a foreign import."

"Ironically, many of those expressing these anti-migrational views are emigrants themselves, engineers or technocrats like N. S. Rajaram... who ship their ideas to India from U.S. shores."

"This observation is puzzling, to say the least, and it is not at all clear what any of it has to do with ancient history. The first part about class and caste is standard Marxist fare. But Thapar's foray into futurology, the prediction that an "Aryan nation" could emerge from the discovery that the "Aryans" are native to India, is irrelevant to the history of India. It is relevant, however, to modern politics. The dreaded "Aryan nation" . . . was a European invention. Are we to discard evidence and cling to the Aryan-invasion theory because of a perceived political threat . . . ? (Rajaram and Frawley 1995, 15)"

"“fabricating astronomical data going back thousands of years calls for knowledge of Newton’s Law of Gravitation and the ability to solve differential equations.”"

"Thapar's comments are portrayed as "vintage Marxist rhetoric," which has "gratuitously drag[ed] in the bogey of the 'Aryan nation' . . . [as] a blatant attempt aimed at divert- ing attention away from the real issue" (Rajaram 1993, 33)."

"“Indian Marxists in particular are singularly touchy about the whole thing and hate to be reminded that their pet dogma of the non-indigenous origin of the Vedic Aryan civilization is an offshoot of the same race theories that gave rise to Nazism.”"

"“what the history establishment has done through the models it has proposed for both the ancient and the medieval periods is to exactly reverse the historical picture”."

""English translations of the Rigveda . . . represent a massive misinterpretation built on the preconception that the Vedas are the primitive poetry of nomadic barbarians. Nothing could be further from the truth" (Rajaram 1995, xvi)."

"Eminent Historians makes for depressing reading. It leaves one wondering as to what must be stirring in the minds and souls of these ‘eminent historians’, to make them sink to such depths of intellectual and moral degradation as would place them in the company of Lysenko and Goebbels... their disloyalty to the nation and the culture that has sustained and nourished them, and without which they would be nothing. Unlike Indian scientists and technologists who are recognized everywhere, in the world of humanities, these ‘eminent historians’ are utter nonentities, little more than crooked reflections of colonial stereotypes."

"“This is not true, but it doesn’t matter. The great mathematician Ramanujan was a clerk in the Madras port, while Einstein himself was serving as a clerk in the Swiss patent office when he discovered Relativity. (…) The idea of objectivity is beyond such minds; status means everything.”"

"Clearly, the disparity between the prospects of win-alls and lose-alls maps perfectly with their respective general socio-economic conditions as determined by class, caste and . The current pandemic can significantly worsen the existing and expanding inequalities in Indian economy and society. Inequalities of health, income and employment even within the informal workforce can expand, with some informal workers at lower risk and others at higher on the three counts. This is as much a inequality issue as much as a public health dilemma. After the dust settles and restrictions are relaxed, the win-alls as well as others lying towards the more privileged end of the means spectrum should be able to hop straight back to their routines with their health, wealth and job security intact. The lose-alls and those proximate to that extreme will be more susceptible to illnesses, loss of income and job insecurity – and quite likely all three together. The latter group is trapped in an adverse equilibrium with the unjust choices of risking their health if they go to work, risking their income if they don’t go to work, and risking their employment if the COVID-19 continues."

"In a sector where there is systemic failure and worker-management relations are turbulent, putting the onus of worker safety and security in the hands of the management alone can be risky. Moreover, it is well-known that in supply chains the brands call the shots. Involving them in discussions on worker dignity and equality is important. Omitting workers and trade unions from discussions about the amendment is also seen by the workers as a short-sighted measure. Women garment workers are concerned that while the amendment has stipulated many ‘new’ guidelines amidst the plethora of unaddressed concerns, allowing night shifts would only extend daytime exploitation."

"Today, a pandemic. Tomorrow, a natural disaster, a chemical spill or some . There’s always some disruption around the corner. So for as long as informal jobs are the norm in our economy and as long as we cannot practically lockdown the entire country, the way ahead is to install measures to improve social security. State and society cannot throw up their hands in helplessness or stay blind to variations in vulnerability among informal workers. It must facilitate s through dialogues in policy, academia and other spheres. There is no single solution, especially not just direct monetary transfers. [...] The government’s advisories about restricting social contact are indeed important but such measures are economically risky for so many who face a choice between the devil and the deep-sea. Social distancing is impractical for the tens of millions without social security."

"Trade unions do not consider workers from smaller units as workers in the formal sense, or they often cannot access workers inside special industrial zones, behind walls of security. Workers too sometimes do not accept the unions even as they find themselves vulnerable. But if they find their existence is under threat, they will come out and protest. [...] Workers' issues get space if things turn violent. Here, for instance, if the women workers had simply come out of the factories and sat on a , they would not have got so much television coverage."

"Optimism with regard to labour as an agency of has been replaced by pessimism that sees little prospect of workers acting on their own behalf."

"On November 20, the issued a notification allowing women to work night shifts (7 p.m. to 6 a.m.) in all factories registered under the Factories Act, 1948. [...] In principle, this is a welcome move. However, several concerns have been voiced by women garment workers who are estimated to constitute over 90% of the five garment workers in Karnataka (according to data by Asia Floor Wage Alliance, a global coalition of trade unions). The amendment suggests that night shifts for women will only be allowed if the employer ensures adequate safeguards concerning occupational safety and health, protection of dignity and honour, and transportation from the factory premises to points nearest to the worker’s residence. The amendment stipulates 24 points related to occupational rules and regulations, most of which have been in existence for years. Yet, women workers fear that when there is no safety or dignity in the workplace even during daytime, how will employers ensure all this during night shifts?"

"Questioning global stereotypes on economic responses to globalisation, I argue that labour becomes actively involved in the very process of globalisation and the expansion of capital. [...] Although it would seem a simple proposition to suggest that working class people and their organisations affect the ways in which the landscapes of capitalism are made, until recently, there has been little work, even within economic geography, addressing this issue."

"Low labour cost, along with flexibility in labour use, has become a key source of competitive advantage for firms. As external competition intensifies, the domestic industry has come under great pressure to restructure itself, to become more competitive and to adopt flexible policies with regard to production and labour. With a view to increasing global competitiveness, investors are moving more towards countries that either have low labour costs, or are shifting to informal employment arrangements. These changes create an entirely different political-economic environment for workers around the world. Greater international mobility of capital relative to labour puts workers from a given location at an immediate disadvantage, both in terms of bargaining power with the owners of capital (whose threat to move gains greater credibility) and with respect to the State. Thus the removal of domestic entry barriers and movement of capital to areas of cheap labour have caused intensification of domestic competition in many developing countries— especially those with surplus labour supply and those where labour is a major factor of production. This has been accentuated by potential investors citing the lack of flexibility in hiring and laying off workers as a concern, while targeting a developing country in which to invest."

"‘Equating the Muslim personal law, in its present local state, to the Quran and Hadith, describing it as a wholly revealed or inspired law, and declaring that not an iota of the existing principles can be changed, only exposes the ignorance of Islamic values, Islamic religion and Islamic jurisprudence. Attempting to distort facts about the recent reform of personal law in the Muslim countries cannot do any good. Throwing mud on those who have progressive tendencies and talk of reform of the Muslim personal law, or making contemptuous remarks about their sincerity and wisdom, cannot help either. Instead of trying to conceal the realities, the Muslims must face them. If after having been practised in India in an uncontrolled way for tens of centuries, the Muslim personal law is found being misused and misapplied and consequently lagging behind the social progress in the country, there is nothing in it to be ashamed of. Instead of being stubborn or obstinate about it, the situation has to be duly appreciated, and made good... It is no sensible argument that any reform of the Muslim personal law would amount to interference in religious freedom and affect the cultural identity of Muslims. If the Muslim personal law is codified and reformed—men are restrained from pronouncing a divorce arbitrarily, women’s rights in family life are enlarged, and orphaned grandchildren of a deceased Muslim are allowed to share the latter’s heritage along with other heirs—how is the religious freedom or cultural identity of Muslims going to be affected?... It is irrelevant for cultural identity whether a Muslim can torture his first wife by contracting a bigamous marriage against her wishes and without necessity, or a wife can tease her husband throughout his life by exploiting his inability to pay dower. These and the other drawbacks in the existing personal law cannot be considered essential ingredients of the Muslim culture...’"

"‘It is claimed that Islam was the emancipator of women,’.... ‘It liberated Eve from man’s oppression and gave her a legal status which was denied by most of the pre-Islamic civilizations. The personal law of Islam conferred on women right to hold and dispose of property, right to inheritance, right to make free marital choice and right to seek divorce. By virtue of these unprecedented features, the religion of Muslims claimed to be the pioneer of feminism. Now, after Islam has completed a life of over thirteen centuries, further progress in the fields of women’s rights and equality of sexes has been made in all parts of the globe. And this course of progress has been joined, to varying extent, also by what represents a major portion of the Muslim world. Why are, then, the Muslims of India lagging behind?’"

"‘To insist that the Muslim personal law prevailing in India should be preserved as it is amounts to insisting on the retention of certain legal rigidities, social inequalities, uncalled for discrepancies and undesirable hardships,’... ‘Do these features, one may ask, behove the followers of that great religion that was Islam?’"

"The Holy Quran – the same Quran in which ignorant critics find a verse which according to their understanding asks Muslims to kill kafirs – after declaring that "Mankind is one single community" [II:213, X:19] pronounces in no uncertain terms: "If anyone kills one person it is like he has slain the whole mankind; and if anyone saves one life it is like he has saved the whole mankind" [V: 32]. And, as regards the much-talked about and misunderstood term "kafir", it is the same Quran proclaiming unequivocally that "For every community God has appointed religious rituals, they must not quarrel in respect of these rituals. [XII: 67]."

"Religious polemics are bitter relics of the past. We cannot afford to revive them in the 21st century India rightly proud of its scientific advancement and technological excellence. If we go on searching each other’s religious texts to find isolated passages which may not appear prima facie palatable to us, it is not going to lead us anywhere. Such passages are things of the past. No one is acting on these now; no one indeed needs to. There is a lot more in all religious texts which can bring us together. We have to concentrate on those refreshingly humane texts and try to come closer – bring all our people closer."

"What is indeed more reassuring and thought-provoking in respect of inter-religious harmony is the fact that numerous injunctions in the Holy Quran and the Sacred Vedas are more or less identical in their meaning and message – all teaching their respective followers the same lessons in devotion to the Creator of Universe and mutual love and respect among mankind. "All mankind belongs to God, He rewards all those who are virtuous and punishes all evil-doers" proclaim both the Rigveda [I: 80.11] and the Quran [LIII:31]. Rigveda’s injunction "Pray to God as you wish but with humility and quietness; He does not like those who cross limits" [VI: 16.46 ] finds its exact parallel in the Quran [VII 54-55]. The ancient Indian philosophy of "vasudhev kutumbukam" compares with Islam’s injunction al-khalqu ‘ayalillah [mankind is God’s family]. It is these common teachings of the Hindu and Islamic scriptures, as also the other countless pearls of wisdom found in each of these, that need the attention of members of both the communities – not those which may even be remotely interpreted to be annoying for one community or the other."

"‘The existence of so many schools of Muslim law in India and, more than that, the insistence by the followers of each of these schools to stick exclusively to the doctrines of their own school, lead to the conclusion that what is applicable in India under the banner of “Muslim personal law” cannot be equated with the revealed or inspired tenets of the Islamic religion. Its major portions are rather based on the verdicts and opinions of particular Muslim jurists, who lived in different periods of history and in different social conditions.’"

"The way certain chosen passages arbitrarily picked up from the Holy Quran are being used to demonise the Muslim religion is bound to create feelings of ill-will in the society against the second largest section of citizens and thereby disturb social tranquility in the country. What is being overlooked is the fact that the message and spirit of some religious texts can be appreciated only by those who have a certain degree of respect, if not reverence, for them -- those reading such texts with irreverence or hostility can never be at ease with their teachings. And it is indeed true of all religions. Well known is the fact that some of the ancient religious texts of the great Hindu religion are replete with apparently very cruel words and harsh injunctions for the “lower castes”."

"‘It is palpably inconceivable that none of these traditional legal principles has lost even an iota of its original rationale and utility, even after the expiry of tens of centuries. Also the possibility of some of these principles having unconsciously deviated from their revealed base, if any, cannot itself be ruled out. The fact is that certain aspects of the presently prevailing Muslim personal law in India have outlived their utility and do need a reconsideration.’ Giving several examples, he asked, ‘Which of the following features of the Muslim personal law can be claimed to be based on the intention of the Almighty Law-giver or considered superb in the context of the present social conditions?’"

"‘It is unwise for the Muslims of India,’... ‘to shut their eyes to the tremendous progress in the fields of personal law and succession made in a major part of the world of Islam. A unified, codified and modernized law of personal status is now the order of the day in a large number of countries where Muslims constitute overwhelming majorities. In India, the Muslims have to live in the company of a dominant non-Muslim majority and other co-minorities, all of whom are now governed by largely modernized and codified personal laws. How can they afford to insist on an absolutely undisturbed continuance of their classical and uncodified personal law? And if they do so it would be to their own sheer detriment.’"

"Mufti Kifayatullah was the mufti of Delhi, he was in fact often addressed as the Mufti-i-Azam, the Grand Mufti. His mastery of the Hadis literature was said to be unequalled. Born in 1875, he lived till 1952. He was devoted to Tabligh work. He founded the Jamiat-ul-Ulama-i-Hind, and remained its president from 1919 to 1942. He participated vigorously in the Khilafat and Civil Disobedience movements, and was twice imprisoned during the latter. He became a member of the Congress Working Committee in 1930. As the demand for Pakistan gathered momentum, he was one of its principal opponents among the Muslim ulema. In a word, a nationalist among the ulema. Quite apart from that, he was an astute, one is tempted to say a judicious man. Often his formulations are a pleasure to read—he doesn’t give a black or white answer; often he clears a path in between the contending positions. Often his advice is sagacious."

"They never listen to people like me or Asifa Khan the way they listen to Teesta Setalvad even though unlike her, we have no personal agenda. The media prefers talking to those who have made commerce out of other people’s problems. I call such people merchants of misery. Our country would be far more peaceful, and inter-community relations would return to being amicable, if their shops would shut down."

"We know what we want—shut down the Ministry for Minority Affairs; just give us our constitutional rights as ordinary citizens. The problem is that they do not give me my rights as an ordinary citizen and then they create the Ministry for Minority Affairs and give us a 15-point programme, which they have no intention of implementing. My message to the Congress Party is: Just give me my basic rights, as is being done by the Gujarat government; we want no special treatment."

"An important aspect of this riot was that it was not as simple as BJP vs. Muslims or just VHP vs. Muslims. Many Congress workers were equally involved. Some of these workers have also been convicted. I personally know of many Congress workers who took an active part in the riots. ...The Congress knows it was complicit in riots. This is the reason why the Congress does not want to mention 2002 in Gujarat but they scream about it only on national television"

"Gujarat relief camps were far better run and the government was very cooperative. This is not to say that refugee camps can ever be a pleasant or comfortable place to live in. But, the government made arrangements for food, medical care, and all the rest better than most governments in India do. ... Neither Teesta nor Shabnam Hashmi has much time for them. Hundreds of thousands are still in those camps but do you hear any discussion in the media about those camps? They are already forgotten, but these same people keep ranting about the plight of Muslims in Gujarat relief camps even though those folded by mid-2002, within four months of the riots. .... But, the Gujarat government gave prompt compensation to families who suffered losses, including to those whose business establishments were destroyed. This may not mean much to wealthy Muslims but Rs. 1 or 2 lakh means a lot to the poor. The system put in place by Gujarat government was neither chaotic nor fitful."

"Please note that when we asked for a meeting with Modi he was not yet a hero but one of the most hated figures; he was called Milosevic, Hitler, and so on. Now, there is a long line of people waiting to meet Modi sahib and competing with each other to praise him to the skies, but at that time no Muslim was willing to approach him openly.... Here we were praying in anxiety about our first meeting with Modi, when bang came the first headline against me: “Zafar Sareshwala takes a U-turn on Modi.” The very same people who treated me as a hero earlier, now attacked me furiously. .... All hell broke loose when I issued a statement saying, “We welcome the visit of Narendra Modi, who is the democratically elected chief minister of Gujarat.” Suddenly, from a hero, I became a villain... Because I am a businessman, I could absorb the attacks on me by the anti-Modi lobby. But the poor Maulana, oh my God, he was branded as kaafir. Bahut zaleel kiya unko. He was humiliated no end!"

"As soon as he came to know that I had arrived, he got his secretary to call me and find out when I intended to see him. When I went to meet him, he said, “Tell me about specific problems of the Muslim community. Muslims don’t have to vote for us but they should at least get their work done from the government.”"

"Anti-Modi sentiment continues to be orchestrated by the media as the definitive truth, irrespective of what the people of Gujarat or courts say. Positive developments about Gujarat are never covered by the media. All that I am telling you, I have narrated the same things to numerous journalists, including those of the prime time T.V channels, like Rajdeep Sardesai and Sagarika Ghosh. But no one pays heed. You know how it is with TV channels; they trap you in their own questions. They only want to project those who abuse Modi. In 2007, in the heat of the very bitter elections-those were the “maut ka saudagar” days-NDTV called us for a special show against the backdrop of the Reliance refinery. When I went there, I was zapped. They had divided the participants into two distinct groups–one was supposed to be pro-Modi and the other anti-Modi. The cameras were going to roll in few minutes and there I was put in the pro-Modi group."

"Then we began talking of all the riots and asked him: what were you doing on the morning of 27 February 2002? Why did you not call your police and the army? Why did you not go to Juhapura? Why did you not visit refugee camps? The questions that the [Supreme Court of India-appointed Special Investigation Team (SIT)] asked of Modi much later, we asked him all those questions that day."

"Maulana literally made Modi stand in the dock. It is Modi's maturity that even after winning the election with a thumping majority, he listened to all of that."

"Because at that time Modiji used to talk of Gujarati asmita [identity], I said to Mr[.] Modi you are a slightly diluted Gujarati than me. He said: How come? I replied: You know that I am an Ahemadabadi and Ahmedabadis by all accounts are the purest of all Gujaratis while you are from Vadnagar. You are a very impure Gujrati. He said: "Yes, you have a point.""

"It is not just Modi, but the entire Gujarati society has moved on, and is reconstructing a new equation with Muslims. After 2002, we took it upon ourselves to ensure that no Muslim child would be deprived of education simply because his or her family can not afford the fees or buy books. Many Hindus gave us money for it. For example, at the start when we sponsored a Muslim girl’s education in a medical college, one of my Hindu friends said that he will pay for that semester’s fee for the girl. That really boosted my morale and convinced me that humanitarian spirit is alive even in Gujarat. Those who say that there is a lot of Hindu-Muslim hatred in Gujarat are perpetuating a myth. That hostility stayed alive for some time after the riots. Even after 2002, once things settled down and the ice was broken, it is Hindus who extended help to Muslims to rebuild their lives. How much can the Muslims do alone?... Hundreds of Hindu families came for our daughter’s wedding. As the state is experiencing genuine social peace and security, inter-community relations have become far more relaxed. I tell my fellow Muslims, we also must take the initiative to promote social interaction. Muslims cannot continue to live in an alienated, insulated manner. We have not made much effort to familiarise our Hindu brothers about our culture....But today such social interaction has begun to take place all over Gujarat because the ruling party is not acting as a divisive force. It is providing a sense of security by upholding the rule of law. People don’t view each other with as much suspicion as they did when riots were engineered routinely."

"So I sent an email. I was not apologetic about anything. I wrote plainly, "Yes we had fought Modi. But now we feel that we have exhausted all the battle options and realize nothing will come out of it. I will become a hero in the process but I don’t want to become a hero. Therefore, I want to meet Modi and ask him, what is your problem with Muslims?" He forwarded my email to Modi sahib. I am told at first Modi got very agitated saying 'Zafar Sareshwala has created so much gadar against me, led so many demonstrations against me.' But I think he must have also looked into my family background and found that we are good people. I had stated very clearly that we have no agenda. We just want to meet and talk about 2002."

"See how Modi met us! He kept track of what time we arrived in the building and came to the elevator to receive us. I was really nervous about the outcome of this meeting. He shook my hand and broke the ice saying in Hindi: “Aayo yaar!” Inside, there was a jhoola (swing). He made me sit next to him on the jhoola. .... After hearing us out with patience, Modi said some of your points are valid but many are exaggerations. ... We saw the point because in contrast to the 2002 riots which lasted 3 days, the riots during Congress regimes used to go on for months on end with some of these earlier riots producing a far higher death toll. The police as well as the administration were thoroughly communalized. It was widely known that the BJP/VHP etc patronized Hindu dons while the Congress party patronized Muslim dons. ... We were touched by the fact that he listened very carefully and gave us proper answers. He had all the facts on his fingertips. We had thus far experienced that Muslims don’t get a proper hearing from any one. We experienced the riots of 1969, of 1985, 1987 and 1992. No chief minister had listened to us. All those were Congress Party chief ministers. They never talked to us. ..."

"People who go on and on about the 2002 riots, choose to forget that it was the culmination of an endless series of riots. The worst riots in post-partition India happened in 1969 in Ahmedabad; more than 5,000 Muslims were killed in that massacre. But because there was no 24x7 media, riots in those days went largely undocumented, so no one outside got to know of the 1969 riots. It was a small incident involving a cow but it led to a shocking outburst. At that time, Congress Party’s Hitendrabhai Desai was the chief minister while Indira Gandhi was in power at the Centre. During the 1969 riots, our office, factory, everything was burnt down.... Forget about punishment, not even a single charge sheet was filed after that massacre. The Jagmohan Commission report is there for everyone to see. Entire communities were wiped out, without a trace. Why are people not talking about those victims? Has anyone documented what happened to those 5,000 families? Another major riot took place in 1985 preceded by several smaller ones. It went on for months on end. Again, our factory and our house were set on fire. In 1985, Madhavji Solanki of Congress Party was in power in Gujarat and Rajiv Gandhi at the Centre. Between 1985 and 2002, people came to expect that after every 2-3 months there would inevitably be a riot. At one time, the curfew lasted 200 days. During the 1987 riots also, Amar Singh Chaudhury of the Congress Party was the CM. This was followed by riots in 1990. At that time too, Congress Party’s Chimanbhai Patel was the chief minister. Again, our factory was burnt down. In 1992 also, it was set on fire. Chimanbhai Patel was the chief minister even at that time.... The truth is that while the earlier governments remained indifferent; after each riot, the Hindus themselves helped the rehabilitation of Muslims. I always say that if the Gujarati Hindus were 100 per cent communal, the Muslims would have been destroyed long ago. It is because Hindus are not communal that Muslims continue to prosper in Gujarat. All those riots were politically engineered and the Congress Party was the prime culprit."

"In addition to economic and military , wartime measures typically encourage a high degree of political, social and intellectual conformity. The general idea is that, in the face of an existential challenge from a vicious enemy, ought to cease. The media tends to become more patriotic, as do former . Such was the case in the United States during the early stages of its wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, when most journalists and even Democratic politicians rallied around the Republican George W. Bush administration. The trouble is that the "war" against Covid-19 is actually not a war at all. And no one should feel obliged to sign up for it. The loss of, and separation from, loved ones, and the fear and anxiety that is devastating many lives is not an opportunity to fantasize about heroism in battle. The pandemic is, primarily, a global public health emergency; it is made potentially lethal as much by long neglected and underfunded social welfare systems as by a highly contagious virus. A plain description like this is not as stirring as a call to arms — and doesn't justify the more extreme actions governments have taken against critics during the crisis. It does, however, open up a line of inquiry that journalists ought to pursue, now as well as in the future."