Should I not speak about Anirban, Umar, Geelani because I am a Muslim?
In the 1990s one of my uncles, Zulfi khalu, was working in Bombay at one of India's largest companies. There is no point taking its name, but it builds everything from our nuclear reactors to ships and submarines; last year its revenue was more than Rs 94,000 crore. It is a giant, but during the riots of 1992-93 the company showed that it could be a pygmy in other ways.
Zulfi khalu received a phone call from the administration to tell him not to come to work. The company said it could not keep him safe. There is little surprise in this, as the Srikrishna Commission Report documented that, instead of keeping the citizens safe, parts of the government, especially the police, were responsible for the violence. But the company was not warning Zulfi khalu about the violence in the streets, he was being warned that if he came to work, the company could not guarantee Zulfi khalu's safety from its own employees!
Soon thereafter Zulfi khalu applied for, and got, a job in Saudi Arabia.
There was another uncle of mine working for the same firm, commander Nilendra Nigam. Nilu mamu is more family than friend. His father, Dujendra Nigam, and my grandfather, Shiekh Anwaruzzaman of Banda, were the closest of friends growing up. They studied law together, fought some cases together, and used to play cards in the evening together. There are few families that I am closer to. Although they knew each other, Zulfi khalu did not tell Nilu mamu about the phone call, or why he was leaving. "What could I say to him?" he told me, years later. How does one convey the fact that you have been told that the very people you work with may harm, even kill, you based on nothing except your identity? How do you convey that shame? Nilu mamu also mentioned it to me, once. He has a (very justified) dislike of Saudi Arabia's government. "Why did he leave?" Nilu mamu asked in puzzlement, "he was doing so well, and to work in that country?"
I said nothing. It was not my story to tell. I can understand that Zulfi khalu did not want to embarrass Nilu mamu by revealing how the company they both worked for could show such cowardice. While Zulfi khalu was hurt, Nilu mamu would have been furious - and it would likely not have changed a thing.
Over the years, though, I have come to believe that Zulfi khalu was wrong, and in not telling Nilu mamu the full story, he took away the chance for Nilu mamu for fight for values worth battling for. Sometimes when we stay silent in the face of discrimination, we steal from our friends the chance to stand for us.
I say this now, in particular, because of the amount of space being devoted to Kanhaiya Kumar, and the lack of space given to Anirban Bhattacharya, Umar Khalid, and especially SAR Geelani. Does the fact that Kumar comes from a poor background, that he is Hindu, a Bhumiyar, and from Bihar have something to do with this, I wonder?
Just because Bhattacharya comes from a, comparatively, privileged background, make him an easy target? Should not our sympathy be immediately evoked for Geelani, who was falsely charged with a terrorism case, was shot during the time it was being tried, and has now disappeared without a trace from our newspaper spaces? How long will we - wrongly - persecute one man, until he is dead? Is his crime to be Kashmiri? To be a Muslim? Is that the crime that Umar Khalid has committed that his name, too, has been erased from our sympathies?
Because one thing is clear. There is no crime here, not accordingly to the laws of Indian state. The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that clause 124A, for sedition, can only apply for incitement to violence or public disorder.
There was no violence or public disorder in JNU. The only violence or public disorder was at the court, when thuggish lawyers and the BJP MLA, OP Sharma, attacked students, teachers and activists, while the useless Mr Bassi stood by.
As for objectionable sloganeering, if shouting "Hinduan nun Punjab chon kadh ke chhadange, hun mauka aya hai raj kayam karan da (We will drive Hindus out of Punjab; now is the chance to establish our rule) in 1984 after the assassination of Indira Gandhi was not considered sedition by the Supreme Court, then none of the slogans chanted in JNU - no matter how offensive - qualify.
And I wonder about my own silence even more. I received yesterday the copy of a project I commissioned two years ago on the status of temples in Kashmir done by the Kashmiri Pandit Sangarsh Samiti - an NGO of Kashmiri Pandits who have remained in the Valley. It makes me wonder why I can speak out for one group, and hesitate while speaking out about another. I wonder whether I am scared of speaking out about Anirban Bhattacharya, Umar Khalid and SAR Geelani because people will see only my name, and see me as another Muslim speaking about other Muslims (even if Anirban is part of my concerns)?
If so, that is too bad. If my being a Muslim makes you look at my demand for justice differently, then the problem is your bias, not mine.
If people wish to attack me based on my identity, they are welcome to do so. These are rights I am willing to fight for. I will not limit my concerns based on identity, you should not either. Rights are rights only if equally applied, otherwise they are only a group of privileges backed by prejudices and nothing much else.